I'd much rather wait for them to add a new kit than bastardize the army.
how is it bastardizing them?
If you just put TS into CSM you'd get stuff like Ahriman, Scarabs, Mutants, and Talons.
I loved my Black Legion in 4th with a LoC. I love pure TS even more. If it happens then fine, but the core of TS is that psychic dominance. That said I have absolutely no idea how psychic abilities will feel this edition and it's probably the part I'm most concerned about.
How do you know that? Black Templars are a supplement for the Marine 'Dex. 1KSons aren't part of the CSM Codex. They're their own Codex.
Because Ksons is still a subfaction of CSM, and the whole point is to simplify and reduce the number of books needed. So it follows that they would fold them back into the CSM book rather then giving them a whole separate codex. Because they can just make it a detachment in The CSM army which is the whole point of this system change.
Zarathustra Spake wrote: Ksons are going to be a detachment of CSM and will have an enormous list of things they can't bring. All thier psychic options will disappear and will probably be left with 1 spell which is rather crap that they can spam Ala Smite, and they will be left with mediocre choices on HQs assuming you get a choice. All the unique systems like Cabal points are more then likely gone, replaced with a static decision which were "the best".
I don't imagine that is the case at all.
TS will be it's own separate listing as will all other similarly spun off armies. The design of this system isn't exclusionary as in they're not going to make a detachment and say you can't take X/Y/Z. They're going to say if you want this detachment then your Warlord needs to be this and 'Battleline units are as follows'.
Each unit will have their own set of spells. Rubrics will have Smite and something else. Scarabs Smite and something different from Rubrics. These may very well replace the 'reaction' type rules. The real rub is how they handle characters and their spells. You might be forced to take a shaman if say that is the only unit that can cast Weaver. This is less of a problem since there are no slots to restrict selection so you're just pulling in tools where it seems appropriate. In that way you can have Sorcerers be compelling against Exalted without Exalted just being a better Sorcerer.
How do you know that? Black Templars are a supplement for the Marine 'Dex. 1KSons aren't part of the CSM Codex. They're their own Codex.
Because Ksons is still a subfaction of CSM, and the whole point is to simplify and reduce the number of books needed. So it follows that they would fold them back into the CSM book rather then giving them a whole separate codex. Because they can just make it a detachment in The CSM army which is the whole point of this system change.
You took that language too far, I think.
If you wanted to play Warp Meld you needed the TS book and the campaign book. Other armies had it way worse. Too many books in that sense.
Also, too many rules. The goal is to give you a double-sided page for your army that doesn't require any other book to use. Not to consolidate factions.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: I'm sorry (not sorry) to the space marine players but I tend to look at the various Chapters and think that they're just like Imp Guard. The only difference for a majority of their units is the aesthetics. By that I mean a Space Wolf Tac marine is functionally the same as a Salamander Tac marine. The difference is in how they look. It's just like the guard a Tallaran plasma gunner is the same as a Steel Legion plasma gunner except for the uniform. So why shouldn't GW just fold all of the chapters back into 1 Codex? The units that are unique to a specific chapter could be found in 1 or 2 of the new army sheets. The same could be done for CSM. This would allow GW to put out Codices at a much faster rate and allow people to use their Codex for a longer period of time until 11th Ed.
I mean, the SW grey hunter kits literally come with wargear that tac marines dont come with (and can't take), the grey hunters have a different unit composition and a different set of abilities. I can't tank my tac marines on an objective because they don't have a terminator with a storm shield in the unit and my tac marines are also not jumping into melee the same way because they arnt holding chainswords. RegularTac Marines have rules that grey hunters don't as well (used to be more significant and I wish it still was)
But I see your point. Everything is just a different coloured marine.... you know what, eldar gaurdians are just a different shaped troop choice ... oh and these this ork wagon is just a weird looking transport.
You know what would make the game way way way way easier to balance and promote quick release of data sheets. if there were 6 data sheets. One for troops, one for bikers/cavalry, one for transports, one for walkers, one for HQs and one for tanks. Every single unit that has the same function could use exactly the same rules. Then GW could fold every faction into one codex and each unit that has similar functioning role would just work exactly like every single other unit that serves the same functon. That would be a fun game full of flavour. I mean, if we are just talking about asthetics and things being "functionally the same" why not boil it all down to a single two pages of datasheets that represent each battle field role. I mean, that would fix everything right XD ?
This argument of "oh it's functionally the same, it's just aesthetics" has always been ridiculous to me you can just take that logic layer by layer up until the game has not customization at all. They are only functionally the same if GW makes them that way (and there have been era's where they really wern't). The fact that they are aesthetically different, come with different gear and have always had rules that have them play on the table different is what makes them a different unit, you know, just like every other troop choice in the game, aesthetically different, comes with different gear, and have rules that have them play different on the table.
Some of us are in this hobby for the flavour, if I wanted to play a game where everyone had exactly the same units but different colours I would play chess.
H.B.M.C. wrote: That's a point: They could keep the Cults in a Thousand Sons Codex as that's not really a 'paint job' driven thing. They're already Thousand Sons, not just "blue and gold Chaos Marines".
But the non-Cult Legions? Those have to go! Can't have those around anymore. Too restrictive. Better to make everything 'Counts As'.
By the nature of abstract game mechanics, everything is already counts as.
The idea that a particular colour of sub army needs a set of special rules with their name in the title to legitimise their gameplay seems to be a unique tunnel vision only found amongst Warhammer players.
It's a weird transactional approach where if you don't get something mechanical for a faction then it has no worth.
People with homebrew factions don't seem to have an issue not getting special unique named rules.
What tabletop war games are you playing lol ? Warmahordes, every single warlord/caster effectively acts as a subfaction (and there are more for each faction then I can count), they give you at least one unique ability for the game and changes your entire playstyle... just as one example ... don't get me start on battletech... lets just go slightly adjacent to wargames and talk about DnD ,,, you gonna tell that death domain cleric they can't use eyes of the grave lol. Mtg gives a player 60/100 cards of variables to customize their gameplay and theme with... I mean, people like the army / characters to have the flavour they asked for. People like options. This isn't some weird unique tunnel vision for Warhammer.
How do you know that? Black Templars are a supplement for the Marine 'Dex. 1KSons aren't part of the CSM Codex. They're their own Codex.
Hellebore wrote: By the nature of abstract game mechanics, everything is already counts as.
Only if you take 'Counts As' completely out of context and try to apply it to everything in the game. Don't do that.
To put it another way: You know exactly what's meant by 'Counts As'. Don't intentionally muddy the waters by talking about abstractions. It's a red herring at best.
The difference is semantic. Having a detachment called 'fighty doods' that get +1 to wound and having a detachment called 'blood angels' that get +1 to wound has no effect on the game
so why is it suddenly a problem when you now take fighty doods instead of 'blood angels'? The outcome is identical. You're saying that because GW didn't hold your hand in conceptually connecting the mechanic to the faction it means less?
This is no different to the anti USR arguments put forward on here over the last few years. There is no difference between 'deep strike' and 'warp summons' except in the flavour text. I find it a poor argument to use the flavour text as a component of a rule's value.
Hellebore wrote: so why is it suddenly a problem when you now take fighty doods instead of 'blood angels'? The outcome is identical. You're saying that because GW didn't hold your hand in conceptually connecting the mechanic to the faction it means less?
This is no different to the anti USR arguments put forward on here over the last few years. There is no difference between 'deep strike' and 'warp summons' except in the flavour text. I find it a poor argument to use the flavour text as a component of a rule's value.
I don't think it's about holding your hand, but rather being the only one to possess that unique combination...if that makes any sense.
Something I enjoy about Thousand Sons is their psychic dominance. If that was instead conveyed by a detachment ( I know it won't be, but I'm just trying to make an example ) then I would feel less inclined to play Thousand Sons as they are no longer unique in that domain.
I won't have a strong opinion on the situation until we see actual codexes though.
It's not. People tend to like and have attachments to their chosen faction/s. Simply saying "Yeah none of that matters, just play 'Fighty Dudez' if you played Blood Angels, and now Ravenwing and White Scars are just 'Speedy Dudez', 'cause the difference between them is just semantic, right?" trivialises people's armies.
To repeat something I've been saying since at least 2007: 'Counts As' is never the answer.
IMO your position trivialises the agency of the player.
Unless GW explicitly puts the name of their chosen faction in the rule, the player is incapable of doing it themselves or deriving satisfaction from it unless it's given to them.
I mean that's definitely one way to go, but I find it pretty pointless.
GW could literally release fighty doodz and blood angels detachment rules that are identical, making it entirely redundant.
but you're saying that's superior to having just one rule that players get to use?
Your argument is also anti USR in general, as they lack the uniqueness of an army truly reflecting its method of doing that thing.
you're saying that having deep strike and warp summons, sneaky guys, teleport jump, parachute, catapult or whatever is intrinsically better than having one deep strike rule that covers them all because it trivialises the individual prowess of those units?
Let's be real here for a second: Sub-factions aren't going to disappear.
Even assuming that GW does away with specific Chapter / Legion / whatever bonuses, they're going to re-introduce it via detachments. So while it's true that the SM Codex might have the "Fighty Dudez" detachment, the Space Wolf codex will have the "Wolfy like Fightin' Wolves" detachment, which will probably be somethin' akin to "Fight Dudez with +1 to Bark tests. The only way we wouldn't see this is if they made the decision to suddenly re-combine various chapter and legion codex' under one banner. Which they won't do, because GW milks every dollar they can from their shoddy rules.
Everyone can rest assured that their given sub-faction, at least the ones that currently have codex', will get get another codex which has at least one unique detachment to flanderize the hell out of them.
Hellebore wrote: IMO your position trivialises the agency of the player.
Unless GW explicitly puts the name of their chosen faction in the rule, the player is incapable of doing it themselves or deriving satisfaction from it unless it's given to them.
I mean that's definitely one way to go, but I find it pretty pointless.
GW could literally release fighty doodz and blood angels detachment rules that are identical, making it entirely redundant.
but you're saying that's superior to having just one rule that players get to use?
Your argument is also anti USR in general, as they lack the uniqueness of an army truly reflecting its method of doing that thing.
you're saying that having deep strike and warp summons, sneaky guys, teleport jump, parachute, catapult or whatever is intrinsically better than having one deep strike rule that covers them all because it trivialises the individual prowess of those units?
I think it's more nuanced than that, but I currently lack the words to express it properly.
Still I am of two minds and I see the benefits of both.
Hellebore wrote: IMO your position trivialises the agency of the player.
Your position renders the background/fluff of the game nothing but window dressing. I want a game where the two are linked intrinsically: The more fluffy your army, the more its rules reflect that.
Hellebore wrote: GW could literally release fighty doodz and blood angels detachment rules that are identical, making it entirely redundant. but you're saying that's superior to having just one rule that players get to use?
I'm saying that nothing was stopping people from doing that before. I chose White Scars for my Primaris army, but they're not White Scars. They're the Iron Paladins, a chapter I created the entire fluff and organisation for. They're White Scars because the rules were simple to remember. I run my own custom force of Chaos Marines, and that means usually running them as Red Corsairs because - wait for it - their rules are easy to remember.
I run Ultramarines however because I like Ultramarines, and if the new rules are basically "Nah. Ultras aren't really a thing now, just play the Gladius Strike Force or the Stormfight Blaster Company or the Rocksmash Assault Unit!" and all these other utterly arbitrary and meaningless distinctions that have been pulled out thin air, I think it robs the game and the factions of some of their flavour, and especially of their meaning.
Or, worse, Ultras remain a thing, but only in armies that contain special characters. That's the nightmare scenario. Ultramarines only exist if Guilliman or Calgar or Tigurious or Cassius are present on the battlefield. World Eaters are only ever 'World Eaters' if Kharn or Angron are there. Ulthwe is only ever Ulthwe if Eldrad is there, and so on. No. We can't do that... that's just awful...
Hellebore wrote: Your argument is also anti USR in general, as they lack the uniqueness of an army truly reflecting its method of doing that thing.
you're saying that having deep strike and warp summons, sneaky guys, teleport jump, parachute, catapult or whatever is intrinsically better than having one deep strike rule that covers them all because it trivialises the individual prowess of those units?
I never said anything about USRs. And what I'm arguing has nothing to do with USRs. And if you know anything about me you'll know I've been a champion of codified and scalable USRs for years. I'm in favour of writing as few unique special unit rules as humanly possible.
It will be interesting to see how GW decides to handle the Big 4 (5? 6?) Space Marine Chapters even in the Index stage. They all have units that are not shared with the other Chapters, so how do they appear in the rules and what restrictions will there be on using them?
That being said, this Counts As talk is pure . There is absolutely no reason none of the Space Marine chapters (we are ignoring you, Grey Knights) would not field a Gladius Strike Force. It is the Codex Astartes organizational standard for operations. Do we really need 11 variations of the same detachment so that we can slap a Founding Chapter (plus Black Templars and Deathwatch) name on it for each one? It doesn't appear we will have chapter specific traits, except maybe on chapter specific units, so why not have all the chapters jump in one the same pool?
Zarathustra Spake wrote: Ksons are going to be a detachment of CSM and will have an enormous list of things they can't bring. All thier psychic options will disappear and will probably be left with 1 spell which is rather crap that they can spam Ala Smite, and they will be left with mediocre choices on HQs assuming you get a choice. All the unique systems like Cabal points are more then likely gone, replaced with a static decision which were "the best".
I don't imagine that is the case at all.
TS will be it's own separate listing as will all other similarly spun off armies. The design of this system isn't exclusionary as in they're not going to make a detachment and say you can't take X/Y/Z. They're going to say if you want this detachment then your Warlord needs to be this and 'Battleline units are as follows'.
Each unit will have their own set of spells. Rubrics will have Smite and something else. Scarabs Smite and something different from Rubrics. These may very well replace the 'reaction' type rules. The real rub is how they handle characters and their spells. You might be forced to take a shaman if say that is the only unit that can cast Weaver. This is less of a problem since there are no slots to restrict selection so you're just pulling in tools where it seems appropriate. In that way you can have Sorcerers be compelling against Exalted without Exalted just being a better Sorcerer.
"Instead of choosing a subfaction or constructing your own, you now choose a single set of Detachment rules for your whole army. These include special abilities, Enhancements, Stratagems, and unit restrictions."
This is the whole related paragraph Ksons don't need a whole codex unless they expand the model line quite a bit. They need maybe 3 detachments. That's it. Now IF they expand the line and add in other things they might do that. But, expect it to be quite a wait.
How do you know that? Black Templars are a supplement for the Marine 'Dex. 1KSons aren't part of the CSM Codex. They're their own Codex.
Because Ksons is still a subfaction of CSM, and the whole point is to simplify and reduce the number of books needed. So it follows that they would fold them back into the CSM book rather then giving them a whole separate codex. Because they can just make it a detachment in The CSM army which is the whole point of this system change.
You took that language too far, I think.
If you wanted to play Warp Meld you needed the TS book and the campaign book. Other armies had it way worse. Too many books in that sense.
Also, too many rules. The goal is to give you a double-sided page for your army that doesn't require any other book to use. Not to consolidate factions.
54 stratagems, 54 Warlord traits, 54 relics, seems like a bit much for a single army that focuses on psychic powers. Maybe just roll it into the CSM Codex with one or two detachments which will cover most of what they need.
alextroy wrote: That being said, this Counts As talk is pure .
No it's not. Making the fluff pointless isn't a good thing. Fluff and rules should work hand in hand. They should be inseparable. 'Counts As' runs counter to that. Hell, it's almost in the name.
alextroy wrote: There is absolutely no reason none of the Space Marine chapters (we are ignoring you, Grey Knights) would not field a Gladius Strike Force.
I never made the argument that they shouldn't, and I don't recall anyone else making that argument either.
What I did say was that a "Gladius Strike Force" is a meaningless title pulled out of no where. It doesn't mean anything. What relation does it have to the fluff? Why would one Chapter favour it over another, or not favour it, or always field it, or never field it. Would a "Gladius Strike Force" in a White Scar army be different to one in a Space Wolf force? Well, if "White Scars" and "Space Wolves" don't exist in the new rules, and are just replaced with these meaningless formation names, then I guess that won't matter. And the game will be worse for it.
Now compare that to Ultramarines, Imperial Fists, White Scars, Dark Angels, and so on. We know those armies stand for. We know what their doctrines and proclivities are. I'd rather use this 2 page spread thing to better represent these factions, rather than trivialise them and essentially turn everything into Generic Marine Chapter.
So give us a White Scar 2 page spread, and a White Scar Superfast Bikey Bikeness Bike Assault formation that shows them using more bikes. And have a separate one for Ravenwing, as they're not the same as White Scar Bikers. Have a 1st Company 2 page spread, but damn well make sure that the Deathwing have their own.
Zarathustra Spake wrote: Ksons are going to be a detachment of CSM and will have an enormous list of things they can't bring. All thier psychic options will disappear and will probably be left with 1 spell which is rather crap that they can spam Ala Smite, and they will be left with mediocre choices on HQs assuming you get a choice. All the unique systems like Cabal points are more then likely gone, replaced with a static decision which were "the best".
I don't imagine that is the case at all.
TS will be it's own separate listing as will all other similarly spun off armies. The design of this system isn't exclusionary as in they're not going to make a detachment and say you can't take X/Y/Z. They're going to say if you want this detachment then your Warlord needs to be this and 'Battleline units are as follows'.
Each unit will have their own set of spells. Rubrics will have Smite and something else. Scarabs Smite and something different from Rubrics. These may very well replace the 'reaction' type rules. The real rub is how they handle characters and their spells. You might be forced to take a shaman if say that is the only unit that can cast Weaver. This is less of a problem since there are no slots to restrict selection so you're just pulling in tools where it seems appropriate. In that way you can have Sorcerers be compelling against Exalted without Exalted just being a better Sorcerer.
"Instead of choosing a subfaction or constructing your own, you now choose a single set of Detachment rules for your whole army. These include special abilities, Enhancements, Stratagems, and unit restrictions."
This is the whole related paragraph Ksons don't need a whole codex unless they expand the model line quite a bit. They need maybe 3 detachments. That's it. Now IF they expand the line and add in other things they might do that. But, expect it to be quite a wait.
How do you know that? Black Templars are a supplement for the Marine 'Dex. 1KSons aren't part of the CSM Codex. They're their own Codex.
Because Ksons is still a subfaction of CSM, and the whole point is to simplify and reduce the number of books needed. So it follows that they would fold them back into the CSM book rather then giving them a whole separate codex. Because they can just make it a detachment in The CSM army which is the whole point of this system change.
You took that language too far, I think.
If you wanted to play Warp Meld you needed the TS book and the campaign book. Other armies had it way worse. Too many books in that sense.
Also, too many rules. The goal is to give you a double-sided page for your army that doesn't require any other book to use. Not to consolidate factions.
54 stratagems, 54 Warlord traits, 54 relics, seems like a bit much for a single army that focuses on psychic powers. Maybe just roll it into the CSM Codex with one or two detachments which will cover most of what they need.
...TS don't have 54 traits and relics. They have 17 relics and 15 traits. If they have Cults in 10th they still won't have 54.
TS have 24 datasheets when I ignore all of Forgeworld and duplicated things like Predators.
People have been making entire TS lists for like...6 years now. So it absolutely has enough volume to exist.
9 of those datasheets are unique to the army with 2 named characters. Blood Angels have 17 unique of which 10 are characters and 8 of those are named.
Take the named characters out of both and you have 7 vs 9. Hardly a huge gap there.
Is it such a horrible thing that you define your chapter by the units you take instead of the special rules you get?
All Astartes use the Gladius Strike Force, which is just a fancy way of saying half a Tactical Company (a demi-Company of a Captain or Chaplin, 3 Tactical Squads, a fast attack squad (Assault Marine, Bikes, land speeders), and a Devastator Squad, plus support elements. Depending upon your Chapter, how you deploy and support that force will change.
White Scars love the tactical flexibility created by speed. All the Gladius Strike Force squads are in transports or are inherently mobile. They are most likely to use a Bike Squad as their fast attack element. They will supplement with more Bikes and vehicle mounted squads. They are less likely to bring Assault Marines with Jump Packs and slow elements like Dreadnoughts and non-vehicle artillery. Not having a you are fast rule doesn't make such a force less White Scars.
Conversely, Imperial Fist are famous for their acumen in siege warfare. They are more likely to concentrate on firepower by using tanks and artillery as support elements. They will also bring elements great for breaking sieges like Gravis and Centurion units. Are they somehow not Imperial Fist for lack of hits better with bolters rule?
I could go on, but the main point is does GW need to provide special bonuses with a chapter name slapped on them for you to have flavor in your army? Or can you do the work yourself by fielding an army that matches your vision of the chapter?
Ultramarines were originally the literal default, vanilla chapter, and the only thing making them stand out was the characters. They were the example of a codex chapter, and every other codex chapter was essentially Ultramarines with a different paint scheme.
4th ed, as always, did it best. The chapter traits allowed you to make your own chapter with a touch of flavor, and the codex prescribed which traits were assigned to which named chapter. That was a great system.
So give us a White Scar 2 page spread, and a White Scar Superfast Bikey Bikeness Bike Assault formation that shows them using more bikes. And have a separate one for Ravenwing, as they're not the same as White Scar Bikers. Have a 1st Company 2 page spread, but damn well make sure that the Deathwing have their own.
And you're part of the problem here with bloat. Deathwing don't need their own special snowflake rules.
That's not bloat. You know what the bloat of 9th is - 40+ Strats, half as many psychic powers divided up between a bunch of factions, all with specific warlord traits and relics on top of the standard ones for the Codex. Plus rules for those factions, and rules for taking only that faction and so on. And then having rules on top of that that allow you to mix different abilities without counting against your "purity bonus" and everything else that makes players go cross-eyed.
Being able to take a Deathwing army and have the rules represent that and show that it's different from a Codex Chapter's 1st Company isn't anywhere near as "bloat" as the above. Stop trying to redefine bloat as having a few different options. Next you'll be saying Tactical Squads are bloated because they have 4 different special weapons to chose from.
alextroy wrote: Is it such a horrible thing that you define your chapter by the units you take instead of the special rules you get?
If it makes everything "Generic Marine" and "Generic Eldar" or "Generic Ork"... then yes!
Different armies should behave differently, and not just because of the specific makeup of units they take.
alextroy wrote: I could go on, but the main point is does GW need to provide special bonuses with a chapter name slapped on them for you to have flavor in your army? Or can you do the work yourself by fielding an army that matches your vision of the chapter?
And what if these arbitrary formations leave something out? For instance, the current set up (max 6 transports) kills Mechanised Guard armies dead in their tracks. What if the book doesn't have a Mechanised Guard 2 page spread?
How do you know that? Black Templars are a supplement for the Marine 'Dex. 1KSons aren't part of the CSM Codex. They're their own Codex.
Because Ksons is still a subfaction of CSM, and the whole point is to simplify and reduce the number of books needed. So it follows that they would fold them back into the CSM book rather then giving them a whole separate codex. Because they can just make it a detachment in The CSM army which is the whole point of this system change.
Have they said flat out they will reduce # of books?
Players might WISH for less books but GW wants to sell more books.
Can you point GW saying flat out they will sell less books for players? Or is this just your conjure?
GW's goal is always to sell more. Not less. Doesn't matter if it's one page they want to sell they want to sell you that one page more as a whole codex. The whole point of GW is sell sell sell sell sell sell sell sell sell sell sell sell.
Just in case you haven't figured it out yet. They want you to buy as many books as they feasibly can. More books to sell, more profits for GW. As long as GW makes up more profit by selling more books they will sell more books.
Zarathustra Spake wrote: Ksons are going to be a detachment of CSM and will have an enormous list of things they can't bring. All thier psychic options will disappear and will probably be left with 1 spell which is rather crap that they can spam Ala Smite, and they will be left with mediocre choices on HQs assuming you get a choice. All the unique systems like Cabal points are more then likely gone, replaced with a static decision which were "the best".
I don't imagine that is the case at all.
TS will be it's own separate listing as will all other similarly spun off armies. The design of this system isn't exclusionary as in they're not going to make a detachment and say you can't take X/Y/Z. They're going to say if you want this detachment then your Warlord needs to be this and 'Battleline units are as follows'.
Each unit will have their own set of spells. Rubrics will have Smite and something else. Scarabs Smite and something different from Rubrics. These may very well replace the 'reaction' type rules. The real rub is how they handle characters and their spells. You might be forced to take a shaman if say that is the only unit that can cast Weaver. This is less of a problem since there are no slots to restrict selection so you're just pulling in tools where it seems appropriate. In that way you can have Sorcerers be compelling against Exalted without Exalted just being a better Sorcerer.
"Instead of choosing a subfaction or constructing your own, you now choose a single set of Detachment rules for your whole army. These include special abilities, Enhancements, Stratagems, and unit restrictions."
This is the whole related paragraph Ksons don't need a whole codex unless they expand the model line quite a bit. They need maybe 3 detachments. That's it. Now IF they expand the line and add in other things they might do that. But, expect it to be quite a wait.
How do you know that? Black Templars are a supplement for the Marine 'Dex. 1KSons aren't part of the CSM Codex. They're their own Codex.
Because Ksons is still a subfaction of CSM, and the whole point is to simplify and reduce the number of books needed. So it follows that they would fold them back into the CSM book rather then giving them a whole separate codex. Because they can just make it a detachment in The CSM army which is the whole point of this system change.
You took that language too far, I think.
If you wanted to play Warp Meld you needed the TS book and the campaign book. Other armies had it way worse. Too many books in that sense.
Also, too many rules. The goal is to give you a double-sided page for your army that doesn't require any other book to use. Not to consolidate factions.
54 stratagems, 54 Warlord traits, 54 relics, seems like a bit much for a single army that focuses on psychic powers. Maybe just roll it into the CSM Codex with one or two detachments which will cover most of what they need.
...TS don't have 54 traits and relics. They have 17 relics and 15 traits. If they have Cults in 10th they still won't have 54.
TS have 24 datasheets when I ignore all of Forgeworld and duplicated things like Predators.
People have been making entire TS lists for like...6 years now. So it absolutely has enough volume to exist.
9 of those datasheets are unique to the army with 2 named characters. Blood Angels have 17 unique of which 10 are characters and 8 of those are named.
Take the named characters out of both and you have 7 vs 9. Hardly a huge gap there.
Yes, which could all be fit in 3 to 4 detachments. There could be more of a reason if they expanded the models. But as of right now I don't see why they would make a codes for 3 detachments.
How do you know that? Black Templars are a supplement for the Marine 'Dex. 1KSons aren't part of the CSM Codex. They're their own Codex.
Because Ksons is still a subfaction of CSM, and the whole point is to simplify and reduce the number of books needed. So it follows that they would fold them back into the CSM book rather then giving them a whole separate codex. Because they can just make it a detachment in The CSM army which is the whole point of this system change.
Have they said flat out they will reduce # of books?
Players might WISH for less books but GW wants to sell more books.
Can you point GW saying flat out they will sell less books for players? Or is this just your conjure?
GW's goal is always to sell more. Not less. Doesn't matter if it's one page they want to sell they want to sell you that one page more as a whole codex. The whole point of GW is sell sell sell sell sell sell sell sell sell sell sell sell.
Just in case you haven't figured it out yet. They want you to buy as many books as they feasibly can. More books to sell, more profits for GW. As long as GW makes up more profit by selling more books they will sell more books.
The whole premise of 10th is reduce the number of books people need. Most chaos players have more then 1 chaos armies, so rather then having a deamons book, a CSM Book, and a TS book. Instead you can have a CSM Book and a Deamons book and have most of what you need for any chaos army.
H.B.M.C. wrote: That's not bloat. You know what the bloat of 9th is - 40+ Strats, half as many psychic powers divided up between a bunch of factions, all with specific warlord traits and relics on top of the standard ones for the Codex. Plus rules for those factions, and rules for taking only that faction and so on. And then having rules on top of that that allow you to mix different abilities without counting against your "purity bonus" and everything else that makes players go cross-eyed.
Being able to take a Deathwing army and have the rules represent that and show that it's different from a Codex Chapter's 1st Company isn't anywhere near as "bloat" as the above. Stop trying to redefine bloat as having a few different options. Next you'll be saying Tactical Squads are bloated because they have 4 different special weapons to chose from.
It absolutely is, and it's part of why we 5 different Terminator entries, and they didn'tneed rules on top of rules on top of rules. Condense it all. Dark Angels aren't special.
Also regarding Tacticals I'm for removing Grav as a weapon entry so that should answer that question.
I think its extremely unlikely Thousand Sons are incorporated back into CSM. I think its much more likely they get just one Detachment with the indexes.
The idea of superbooks seems unrealistic to me given the amount of lore and datasheets you would have. (Assuming they'll have datasheets and this isnt all online.)
Insectum7 wrote: Adopting a "wait and see" attitude. Will not commit to purchasing anything, and won't change my current painting priorities.
That's the wise course of action - On the one hand, they sure sound like they're turning Chess into Checkers at the behest of the common man - on the other its not unheard of for salesmen to urinate on your back and tell you it's raining.
If they really are turning Chess into Checkers it's going to backfire. If they're taking marching orders from the players, its going to backfire even harder. Losing all the distinctness from the subfactions as people realizing no special snowflakes means THEIR special snowflake will also go away is just going to be the opening salvo.
Tyel wrote: I think its extremely unlikely Thousand Sons are incorporated back into CSM. I think its much more likely they get just one Detachment with the indexes.
The idea of superbooks seems unrealistic to me given the amount of lore and datasheets you would have. (Assuming they'll have datasheets and this isnt all online.)
I'm waiting for the Loyalists to go ape-feces over getting condensed into a single "faction" while the Chaos Legions are being more and more split out into their own factions with their own special units and rules tailored to their flavor etc.
Tyel wrote: I think its extremely unlikely Thousand Sons are incorporated back into CSM. I think its much more likely they get just one Detachment with the indexes.
The idea of superbooks seems unrealistic to me given the amount of lore and datasheets you would have. (Assuming they'll have datasheets and this isnt all online.)
I'm waiting for the Loyalists to go ape-feces over getting condensed into a single "faction" while the Chaos Legions are being more and more split out into their own factions with their own special units and rules tailored to their flavor etc.
Image how wild they'll get when Tau and their allied races get that kinda treatment. Kroot actually being back!
Tyel wrote: I think its extremely unlikely Thousand Sons are incorporated back into CSM. I think its much more likely they get just one Detachment with the indexes.
The idea of superbooks seems unrealistic to me given the amount of lore and datasheets you would have. (Assuming they'll have datasheets and this isnt all online.)
I'm waiting for the Loyalists to go ape-feces over getting condensed into a single "faction" while the Chaos Legions are being more and more split out into their own factions with their own special units and rules tailored to their flavor etc.
Image how wild they'll get when Tau and their allied races get that kinda treatment. Kroot actually being back!
Let alone Orks, Necrons, or Tyranids.
That would be an interesting and schadenfreude filled version of "Be Careful What You Wish For", but I doubt it. I don't imagine Tau would miss their Vespids much, but the Kroot would likely be missed. Lootas going Deathskull only, but carrying over the main Orky Doctrine thing that won't synergize with them at all because they spun off after it was already established. Ask yourself - given how often GW does the bare minimum instead of actively investigating if the next step is required - How much will be left behind in the main rules, or the two pager faction sheet that no longer makes any sense? If all the subfactions now play the same, why will we still have subfaction keywords?
Except they very clearly are and have been treated as such for literal decades. Just because you don't think they should be doesn't mean they are.
If the deathwing rules are on the unique deathwing unit entry, then what are they at the next level up? A company of terminators? Much like a 1st company?
EviscerationPlague wrote: Also regarding Tacticals I'm for removing Grav as a weapon entry so that should answer that question.
You're a consolidationist. You want to remove flavour and options from the game. You are anti-fun.
And now you're telling people they have fun wrong.
Dudeface wrote: And now you're telling people they have fun wrong.
That's not even slightly what I'm doing. He's the one who wants to remove weapons and options, remember? How the hell can you say I'm telling people they have fun wrong when I'm advocating to leave everything in so anyone can pick and choose what they want? You realise how little sense your accusation makes?
If he doesn't want to take things because he doesn't like them, that's his prerogative. He, on the other hand, wants to actively remove things that others enjoy.
That's telling people that they're having fun the wrong way.
I mean SWs, lore, don't follow the codex astartes or the standard formations of the other legions... used to be represented that way in the rules too.
but this entire conversation is moot. The overwhelming sentiment is: "Nothing is special except my special thing. Remove any flavour or special rules from anything that isn't my special thing." The whole argument of, they are exactly the same they just look different, they have the same 'tactical function, is ridiculous. If you really thought that logic through, that's literally the entire game. Your eldar, orks, marine, necrons and w/e else troops field the same tactical function but "just look different"
Honestly, I hope you guys get what you want one day and see how nice it will be to play with 6 or 7 datasheets to represent the entire game.
Dudeface wrote: And now you're telling people they have fun wrong.
That's not even slightly what I'm doing. He's the one who wants to remove weapons and options, remember? How the hell can you say I'm telling people they have fun wrong when I'm advocating to leave everything in so anyone can pick and choose what they want? You realise how little sense your accusation makes?
If he doesn't want to take things because he doesn't like them, that's his prerogative. He, on the other hand, wants to actively remove things that others enjoy.
That's telling people that they're having fun the wrong way.
Fething hell, how do you not understand that?
You seemed pretty happy power level was removed, just saying. It is possible that the problems with the game are too many options, too much utter gak to try and juggle and balance and too many levels of padding. To fix those, you have to reduce stuff.
You cannot maintain the sheer volume of crap this game has and reduce bloat.
The big problem could be stackable rules and an overwhelming amount of them... not necessarily faction diversity. Again, give my SWs limitations, take regular marine abilities away from them, instead of just plopping bonuses on top of the vanilla marines. I want diversity not bonuses. If they stop doing this whole, "C is new/different so you get A+B+C" and instead just give me A, B or C . At least that would make me happy.
EviscerationPlague wrote: Also regarding Tacticals I'm for removing Grav as a weapon entry so that should answer that question.
You're a consolidationist. You want to remove flavour and options from the game. You are anti-fun.
I would say there is a lot more to unpack here. Gravs are not necessarily an actual extra option and thus removing them is not necessarily a consolidation. The word 'Bloat' rears its ugly head here, followed by its dark brother 'Meaningless'. HÖWEVER, the other side of the coin is that removing Special Snowflakes with physical representation (like weapons) is a surefire way to piss off a lot of people who obviously (and understandably) have strong connections to their bought, assembled, and painted models regardless of their potentially superfluous rule representation. So the anti-fun doesn't come from not having the option but flipping up everyone who already bought into it (in a quite literal sense).
It's not. People tend to like and have attachments to their chosen faction/s. Simply saying "Yeah none of that matters, just play 'Fighty Dudez' if you played Blood Angels, and now Ravenwing and White Scars are just 'Speedy Dudez', 'cause the difference between them is just semantic, right?" trivialises people's armies.
To repeat something I've been saying since at least 2007: 'Counts As' is never the answer.
Ultimately the difference between Ravenwing and White Scars is that Ravenwing has a much better selection of bikes than White Scars. So counts as is something I don't foresee happening.
I expect GW will have something like "First Company Veterans Detachment" as a choice for all SM flavours which gives perks for taking mainly Terminators, Bladeguard Veterans etc - and then a "Deathwing Detachment" for DA which will be broadly similar but have a slightly different set of bonuses/stratagems.
I don't think not doing this would trivalise people's collections exactly - but it just seems easy to do.
just look at AoS, Stormcast have 8 different Subfactions rules, Flesh Eaters have 4
so expect something similar with 40k, with Codex Marines get 10, Dark Angels and Blood Angels 8, Space Wolves maybe 13 and everyone else being down to 4
Dudeface wrote: And now you're telling people they have fun wrong.
That's not even slightly what I'm doing. He's the one who wants to remove weapons and options, remember? How the hell can you say I'm telling people they have fun wrong when I'm advocating to leave everything in so anyone can pick and choose what they want? You realise how little sense your accusation makes?
If he doesn't want to take things because he doesn't like them, that's his prerogative. He, on the other hand, wants to actively remove things that others enjoy.
That's telling people that they're having fun the wrong way.
Fething hell, how do you not understand that?
We agree on something.
We're sticking with 8th&9th, PL and all for our house. Done with the churn and burn.
alextroy wrote: Is it such a horrible thing that you define your chapter by the units you take instead of the special rules you get?
All Astartes use the Gladius Strike Force, which is just a fancy way of saying half a Tactical Company (a demi-Company of a Captain or Chaplin, 3 Tactical Squads, a fast attack squad (Assault Marine, Bikes, land speeders), and a Devastator Squad, plus support elements. Depending upon your Chapter, how you deploy and support that force will change.
White Scars love the tactical flexibility created by speed. All the Gladius Strike Force squads are in transports or are inherently mobile. They are most likely to use a Bike Squad as their fast attack element. They will supplement with more Bikes and vehicle mounted squads. They are less likely to bring Assault Marines with Jump Packs and slow elements like Dreadnoughts and non-vehicle artillery. Not having a you are fast rule doesn't make such a force less White Scars.
Conversely, Imperial Fist are famous for their acumen in siege warfare. They are more likely to concentrate on firepower by using tanks and artillery as support elements. They will also bring elements great for breaking sieges like Gravis and Centurion units. Are they somehow not Imperial Fist for lack of hits better with bolters rule?
I could go on, but the main point is does GW need to provide special bonuses with a chapter name slapped on them for you to have flavor in your army? Or can you do the work yourself by fielding an army that matches your vision of the chapter?
You know, honestly, 9th probably spoiled us, because through most of history it really was only characters wasn't it?
How do you know that? Black Templars are a supplement for the Marine 'Dex. 1KSons aren't part of the CSM Codex. They're their own Codex.
Because Ksons is still a subfaction of CSM, and the whole point is to simplify and reduce the number of books needed. So it follows that they would fold them back into the CSM book rather then giving them a whole separate codex. Because they can just make it a detachment in The CSM army which is the whole point of this system change.
The fact that Thousand Sons don't get access to the Strats and abilities from the CSM Codex is a big indicator they're NOT a Subfaction and are their own thing.
How do you know that? Black Templars are a supplement for the Marine 'Dex. 1KSons aren't part of the CSM Codex. They're their own Codex.
Because Ksons is still a subfaction of CSM, and the whole point is to simplify and reduce the number of books needed. So it follows that they would fold them back into the CSM book rather then giving them a whole separate codex. Because they can just make it a detachment in The CSM army which is the whole point of this system change.
The fact that Thousand Sons don't get access to the Strats and abilities from the CSM Codex is a big indicator they're NOT a Subfaction and are their own thing.
It's irrelevant, they need 3 books now, they'd need 3 books as part of csm if you want tsons, daemons and knights.
Dudeface wrote: It's irrelevant, they need 3 books now, they'd need 3 books as part of csm if you want tsons, daemons and knights.
"Need" is not the right word there. Including Daemons and Knights is a choice. You've chosen to include Daemons and/or Knights in your 1KSons force. They, however, are not part of a 1KSons force, they are added to it.
The only book a 1KSons player needs to play 1KSons is the 1KSons book.
Dudeface wrote: It's irrelevant, they need 3 books now, they'd need 3 books as part of csm if you want tsons, daemons and knights.
"Need" is not the right word there. Including Daemons and Knights is a choice. You've chosen to include Daemons and/or Knights in your 1KSons force. They, however, are not part of a 1KSons force, they are added to it.
The only book a 1KSons player needs to play 1KSons is the 1KSons book.
Very true indeed, I suppose I have a hard time divorcing playing a mono god legion from having the daemonic support bundled in. Too many editions of flip flopping over how it/they work and what Daemons are supposed to be at this point.
I'd much prefer the AoS approach to Chaos, folding the Daemons back into the main Codices rather than treating them as an entirely separate faction. Not that I'd want Daemon armies to go away - any Codex should be flexible enough to allow for mixed armies, all CSM armies, and all Daemon armies - we just don't need an extra Daemon book to achieve that.
Doubly so for factions that don't have a lot of options to begin with - World Eaters spring to mind - where the influx of Daemonic options would be a boon.
Grotsnik started a thread not long ago about whether 40k needs more Daemons, and it's an interesting question because I think that, for the purposes of mono-god Daemon armies, yes, we need more. I look at how Total War Warhammer III handles Daemons - it really stretches out what counts as a unit, inventing "Exalted" Bloodletters/Daemonettes/etc. as a higher tier unit of infantry, and taking the squad leaders out of squads to make them fully fledged characters, and even including mortal units just for some extra variety. All because there aren't many Daemons.
Bringing that back to 40k, I think introducing new daemons is fine, but I think it'd be easier to fold them back into the core Chaos books.
I wish demons were naturally part of their CSM equivalents with no restrictions; maybe there will be Gods-themed detachments that allow this, at least i hope so.
Dudeface wrote: And now you're telling people they have fun wrong.
That's not even slightly what I'm doing. He's the one who wants to remove weapons and options, remember? How the hell can you say I'm telling people they have fun wrong when I'm advocating to leave everything in so anyone can pick and choose what they want? You realise how little sense your accusation makes?
If he doesn't want to take things because he doesn't like them, that's his prerogative. He, on the other hand, wants to actively remove things that others enjoy.
That's telling people that they're having fun the wrong way.
Fething hell, how do you not understand that?
You'd have a point if Grav was an actual niche to fill (it isn't), there was a reason to have 5 different Terminator entries (there isn't) and there was a good reason to not let Dark Angels take Sternguard and Vanguard (there isn't).
Except they very clearly are and have been treated as such for literal decades. Just because you don't think they should be doesn't mean they are.
If the deathwing rules are on the unique deathwing unit entry, then what are they at the next level up? A company of terminators? Much like a 1st company?
Point of order - most 1st companies don't have enough suits of Terminator armour for everyone to wear one - that's why we ave Sternguard, Vanguard, and other veteran units.
The Deathwing are meant to be distinctive by being able to field an entire company of Terminators.
EviscerationPlague wrote: Also regarding Tacticals I'm for removing Grav as a weapon entry so that should answer that question.
You're a consolidationist. You want to remove flavour and options from the game. You are anti-fun.
And now you're telling people they have fun wrong.
Consolidationists don't have to use the options they don't want to - but if they get their way and the options are removed, those who do want to use them can't.
So, yes they are anti-fun, as they're actively pushing for others to have less fun, by aiming for them to have less options.
*EDIT* - I seem to have missed a page when I posted here, but I think the points still stand.
Except they very clearly are and have been treated as such for literal decades. Just because you don't think they should be doesn't mean they are.
If the deathwing rules are on the unique deathwing unit entry, then what are they at the next level up? A company of terminators? Much like a 1st company?
Point of order - most 1st companies don't have enough suits of Terminator armour for everyone to wear one - that's why we ave Sternguard, Vanguard, and other veteran units.
The Deathwing are meant to be distinctive by being able to field an entire company of Terminators.
EviscerationPlague wrote: Also regarding Tacticals I'm for removing Grav as a weapon entry so that should answer that question.
You're a consolidationist. You want to remove flavour and options from the game. You are anti-fun.
And now you're telling people they have fun wrong.
Consolidationists don't have to use the options they don't want to - but if they get their way and the options are removed, those who do want to use them can't.
So, yes they are anti-fun, as they're actively pushing for others to have less fun, by aiming for them to have less options.
So what's the "options and fun" with Terminators and Assault Terminators and Relic Terminators being separate entries instead of just one Terminator profile?
Except they very clearly are and have been treated as such for literal decades. Just because you don't think they should be doesn't mean they are.
If the deathwing rules are on the unique deathwing unit entry, then what are they at the next level up? A company of terminators? Much like a 1st company?
Point of order - most 1st companies don't have enough suits of Terminator armour for everyone to wear one - that's why we ave Sternguard, Vanguard, and other veteran units.
The Deathwing are meant to be distinctive by being able to field an entire company of Terminators.
Maybe it's because the vision in my head isn't the same as others, let me try to reiterate a little.
If there is a "veterans" or 1st company detachment, that happens to have perks for all dreads/vets/terminator keywords, then deathwing already have extra deathwing-ness on their profile, then arguably what more do you need to field the deathwing? I understand that they almost certainly will get their own stuff, but there isn't a *need* to me, as the DA player can use their terminator units in a detachment that benefits terminators and will have their DA extra stuff on the datasheet. It's down to the player to want to use the right units for the fluff at that point and they still get the benefit for doing so.
So give us a White Scar 2 page spread, and a White Scar Superfast Bikey Bikeness Bike Assault formation that shows them using more bikes. And have a separate one for Ravenwing, as they're not the same as White Scar Bikers. Have a 1st Company 2 page spread, but damn well make sure that the Deathwing have their own.
And you're part of the problem here with bloat. Deathwing don't need their own special snowflake rules.
That's not bloat.
Spoiler:
You know what the bloat of 9th is - 40+ Strats, half as many psychic powers divided up between a bunch of factions, all with specific warlord traits and relics on top of the standard ones for the Codex. Plus rules for those factions, and rules for taking only that faction and so on. And then having rules on top of that that allow you to mix different abilities without counting against your "purity bonus" and everything else that makes players go cross-eyed.
Being able to take a Deathwing army and have the rules represent that and show that it's different from a Codex Chapter's 1st Company isn't anywhere near as "bloat" as the above. Stop trying to redefine bloat as having a few different options. Next you'll be saying Tactical Squads are bloated because they have 4 different special weapons to chose from.
A bit late to respond to this but: Nah mate, that's absolutely bloat.
Someone else said it best, but 4th edition did it best. SM chapters largely had the same rules with a few special customization things they could take (you could take more bikers but not take any dreads, bolters counted as a pistol for CQC purposes, ect) which took up a grand total of 2-4 pages in the main codex. Then the high-profile chapters got their own mini codex which tacked on a bit more; IIRC it was just Dark Angels and Wolves for that edition?
The current system of marine roles is the text book example of bloat. A massive unwieldly codex packed to the gills with special rules for space marines, special rules for being space marines in specific phases, and space marines being painted special colors. Then with a few more rules for being space marines painted special colors in specific phases.
That's without even tackling the chapter-specific supplements and successor chapters.
Marine chapters can be differentiated almost entirely by how you choose to build and paint your army; ergo merely the ability to take a full armies of terminators represents the Deathwing, where as an army of all bikes + speeders represents the Ravenwing / White Scars. You do not need four (or more) layers of army-wide special rules, numerous unique units with their own special rules, and additional specific detachment and organization to represent each chapter. It's utterly insane. Using that method has been the singlest-largest contributing factor to bloat in the game.
Dudeface wrote: If there is a "veterans" or 1st company detachment, that happens to have perks for all dreads/vets/terminator keywords, then deathwing already have extra deathwing-ness on their profile, then arguably what more do you need to field the deathwing? I understand that they almost certainly will get their own stuff, but there isn't a *need* to me, as the DA player can use their terminator units in a detachment that benefits terminators and will have their DA extra stuff on the datasheet. It's down to the player to want to use the right units for the fluff at that point and they still get the benefit for doing so.
I don't think there's a strict "need" - but fairly confident GW will do it anyway. If Detachments are just two pages, its not like they are going to be short on space.
They'll get some different stratagems etc that are more tailored to DA fluff.
Admittedly I'd assume DA fluff is going to experience a significant step forward with the Lion being back. But presumably it will still be "Sons of the Lion this", "Unforgiven that" and "omg the location of the Cypher might be inside this Hive Tyrant" etc.
Siegfriedfr wrote: I wish demons were naturally part of their CSM equivalents with no restrictions; maybe there will be Gods-themed detachments that allow this, at least i hope so.
Summoning is returning. Not the same thing, of course, but it's there.
Except they very clearly are and have been treated as such for literal decades. Just because you don't think they should be doesn't mean they are.
If the deathwing rules are on the unique deathwing unit entry, then what are they at the next level up? A company of terminators? Much like a 1st company?
Point of order - most 1st companies don't have enough suits of Terminator armour for everyone to wear one - that's why we ave Sternguard, Vanguard, and other veteran units.
The Deathwing are meant to be distinctive by being able to field an entire company of Terminators.
EviscerationPlague wrote: Also regarding Tacticals I'm for removing Grav as a weapon entry so that should answer that question.
You're a consolidationist. You want to remove flavour and options from the game. You are anti-fun.
And now you're telling people they have fun wrong.
Consolidationists don't have to use the options they don't want to - but if they get their way and the options are removed, those who do want to use them can't.
So, yes they are anti-fun, as they're actively pushing for others to have less fun, by aiming for them to have less options.
So what's the "options and fun" with Terminators and Assault Terminators and Relic Terminators being separate entries instead of just one Terminator profile?
Having 3 different sheets gets you around the Rule of 3.
So (pts etc permitting) I can have 3 termies, 3 assault termies, 3 relic termies, 3 DW Knights. Etc etc
If all termies were 1 sheet with a long list of options?
Then I could only have 3 total termie units.
Having access to 9+ termie units is certainly more fun than being limited to 3.
And that'll still be true when 10th arrives.
So give us a White Scar 2 page spread, and a White Scar Superfast Bikey Bikeness Bike Assault formation that shows them using more bikes. And have a separate one for Ravenwing, as they're not the same as White Scar Bikers. Have a 1st Company 2 page spread, but damn well make sure that the Deathwing have their own.
And you're part of the problem here with bloat. Deathwing don't need their own special snowflake rules.
That's not bloat.
Spoiler:
You know what the bloat of 9th is - 40+ Strats, half as many psychic powers divided up between a bunch of factions, all with specific warlord traits and relics on top of the standard ones for the Codex. Plus rules for those factions, and rules for taking only that faction and so on. And then having rules on top of that that allow you to mix different abilities without counting against your "purity bonus" and everything else that makes players go cross-eyed.
Being able to take a Deathwing army and have the rules represent that and show that it's different from a Codex Chapter's 1st Company isn't anywhere near as "bloat" as the above. Stop trying to redefine bloat as having a few different options. Next you'll be saying Tactical Squads are bloated because they have 4 different special weapons to chose from.
A bit late to respond to this but: Nah mate, that's absolutely bloat.
Someone else said it best, but 4th edition did it best. SM chapters largely had the same rules with a few special customization things they could take (you could take more bikers but not take any dreads, bolters counted as a pistol for CQC purposes, ect) which took up a grand total of 2-4 pages in the main codex. Then the high-profile chapters got their own mini codex which tacked on a bit more; IIRC it was just Dark Angels and Wolves for that edition?
The current system of marine roles is the text book example of bloat. A massive unwieldly codex packed to the gills with special rules for space marines, special rules for being space marines in specific phases, and space marines being painted special colors. Then with a few more rules for being space marines painted special colors in specific phases.
That's without even tackling the chapter-specific supplements and successor chapters.
Marine chapters can be differentiated almost entirely by how you choose to build and paint your army; ergo merely the ability to take a full armies of terminators represents the Deathwing, where as an army of all bikes + speeders represents the Ravenwing / White Scars. You do not need four (or more) layers of army-wide special rules, numerous unique units with their own special rules, and additional specific detachment and organization to represent each chapter. It's utterly insane. Using that method has been the singlest-largest contributing factor to bloat in the game.
Following this discussion, I think a this is the closest thing anyone gets to acknowledging the fundamental truth of 40k:
Space Marines ARE the bloat.
Everything people get up in arms about causing bloat boils down to something GW implements for the sake of marines, that they are then forced to copy onto the NPC factions because the smaller money sacks get uppity about not getting anything for months at a time. 200 hundred different stratagems? Marines. Formations? Marines. Needing 30 supplement books to build a competitive list? Marines. Constantly needing new special snowflake BS to represent incredibly small unit variations for fluff reasons? Marines.
Obviously, the only TRUE long term answer to bloat is to remove marines entirely. Failling that, consolidate the army down to 5 datasheets(1 for 'character' 1 for 'trooper' one for 'elite trooper' 1 for 'small vehicle' 1 for 'large' vehicle. Use whatever models get vaguely close.), and then change subfaction rules to 'if the model is painted red, +1 to charge, blue +1 to leadership, green +1" to melta range, black +1 to movement, etc.
Except they very clearly are and have been treated as such for literal decades. Just because you don't think they should be doesn't mean they are.
If the deathwing rules are on the unique deathwing unit entry, then what are they at the next level up? A company of terminators? Much like a 1st company?
Point of order - most 1st companies don't have enough suits of Terminator armour for everyone to wear one - that's why we ave Sternguard, Vanguard, and other veteran units.
The Deathwing are meant to be distinctive by being able to field an entire company of Terminators.
EviscerationPlague wrote: Also regarding Tacticals I'm for removing Grav as a weapon entry so that should answer that question.
You're a consolidationist. You want to remove flavour and options from the game. You are anti-fun.
And now you're telling people they have fun wrong.
Consolidationists don't have to use the options they don't want to - but if they get their way and the options are removed, those who do want to use them can't.
So, yes they are anti-fun, as they're actively pushing for others to have less fun, by aiming for them to have less options.
So what's the "options and fun" with Terminators and Assault Terminators and Relic Terminators being separate entries instead of just one Terminator profile?
Having 3 different sheets gets you around the Rule of 3.
So (pts etc permitting) I can have 3 termies, 3 assault termies, 3 relic termies, 3 DW Knights. Etc etc
If all termies were 1 sheet with a long list of options?
Then I could only have 3 total termie units.
Having access to 9+ termie units is certainly more fun than being limited to 3.
And that'll still be true when 10th arrives.
Isn't that a problem with Rule Of 3 to begin with due to how it scales poorly? Did other Marine Chapters just run out of Power Armor so they HAVE to use Terminators instead of an extra squad of Sternguard and Vanguard?
Except they very clearly are and have been treated as such for literal decades. Just because you don't think they should be doesn't mean they are.
If the deathwing rules are on the unique deathwing unit entry, then what are they at the next level up? A company of terminators? Much like a 1st company?
Point of order - most 1st companies don't have enough suits of Terminator armour for everyone to wear one - that's why we ave Sternguard, Vanguard, and other veteran units.
The Deathwing are meant to be distinctive by being able to field an entire company of Terminators.
EviscerationPlague wrote: Also regarding Tacticals I'm for removing Grav as a weapon entry so that should answer that question.
You're a consolidationist. You want to remove flavour and options from the game. You are anti-fun.
And now you're telling people they have fun wrong.
Consolidationists don't have to use the options they don't want to - but if they get their way and the options are removed, those who do want to use them can't.
So, yes they are anti-fun, as they're actively pushing for others to have less fun, by aiming for them to have less options.
So what's the "options and fun" with Terminators and Assault Terminators and Relic Terminators being separate entries instead of just one Terminator profile?
Having 3 different sheets gets you around the Rule of 3.
So (pts etc permitting) I can have 3 termies, 3 assault termies, 3 relic termies, 3 DW Knights. Etc etc
If all termies were 1 sheet with a long list of options?
Then I could only have 3 total termie units.
Having access to 9+ termie units is certainly more fun than being limited to 3.
And that'll still be true when 10th arrives.
Isn't that a problem with Rule Of 3 to begin with due to how it scales poorly? Did other Marine Chapters just run out of Power Armor so they HAVE to use Terminators instead of an extra squad of Sternguard and Vanguard?
All Marines have termies, assault termies, & relic termies. So potential access to 9 squads. DA just have an extra type, so +3 more units.
Not really a problem with the Ro3.
Unless you make all termies 1 giant data sheet....
Except they very clearly are and have been treated as such for literal decades. Just because you don't think they should be doesn't mean they are.
If the deathwing rules are on the unique deathwing unit entry, then what are they at the next level up? A company of terminators? Much like a 1st company?
Point of order - most 1st companies don't have enough suits of Terminator armour for everyone to wear one - that's why we ave Sternguard, Vanguard, and other veteran units.
The Deathwing are meant to be distinctive by being able to field an entire company of Terminators.
EviscerationPlague wrote: Also regarding Tacticals I'm for removing Grav as a weapon entry so that should answer that question.
You're a consolidationist. You want to remove flavour and options from the game. You are anti-fun.
And now you're telling people they have fun wrong.
Consolidationists don't have to use the options they don't want to - but if they get their way and the options are removed, those who do want to use them can't.
So, yes they are anti-fun, as they're actively pushing for others to have less fun, by aiming for them to have less options.
So what's the "options and fun" with Terminators and Assault Terminators and Relic Terminators being separate entries instead of just one Terminator profile?
Having 3 different sheets gets you around the Rule of 3.
So (pts etc permitting) I can have 3 termies, 3 assault termies, 3 relic termies, 3 DW Knights. Etc etc
If all termies were 1 sheet with a long list of options?
Then I could only have 3 total termie units.
Having access to 9+ termie units is certainly more fun than being limited to 3.
And that'll still be true when 10th arrives.
Isn't that a problem with Rule Of 3 to begin with due to how it scales poorly? Did other Marine Chapters just run out of Power Armor so they HAVE to use Terminators instead of an extra squad of Sternguard and Vanguard?
All Marines have termies, assault termies, & relic termies. So potential access to 9 squads. DA just have an extra type, so +3 more units.
Not really a problem with the Ro3.
Unless you make all termies 1 giant data sheet....
GW has said, itself, that there is no difference between various SM Chapter Tactical Marines, or Devastator Marines. You know how they said it? By only providing one box for each of those units and saying paint it whatever color you like. It doesn't matter which Chapter you play you can all use the same models. That is the very definition of the units are the same but the aesthetics makes them different. I'm not saying that there aren't units that are unique to certain chapters but those units should be found on certain detachments (or whatever they're being called). So, if you want to use those units you're going to be limited to those few detachments. But, in essence, most Chapter armies can be represented by generic detachments.
You don't think pushing characters to dropping 9 s8 ap-4 d4 attacks via 0 point upgrades is an issue?
So make them cost points. This was how artefacts used to work anyway.
Moreover, I notice the example we're using is the faction that probably has more (non-artefact/WLT) wargear and character options than most of the other factions combined.
How about instead trying to make a fun Haemonculus built without using warlord traits and artefacts? Alternatively, give him a warlord trait and an artefact and see if you can make him overpowered.
You don't think pushing characters to dropping 9 s8 ap-4 d4 attacks via 0 point upgrades is an issue?
Stacking rules isn't an issue, spreading the rules to make a custom chapter master over a codex and a supplement and having a multi page spread each for custom chapter tactics, relics, chapter command upgrade, combat doctrine, chapter special doctrine, and two separate warlord traits tables is a bit much though. In 10th there will still be strong melee characters (always has been) - and everyone will still stack every rule they can. Hopefully said rules are a little more concise thats all.
Maybe turning a basic character into something that can solo Knights (without any WYSIWYG representation of that change) isn't something you should be able to do, regardless of the CP cost.
EviscerationPlague wrote: So what's the "options and fun" with Terminators and Assault Terminators and Relic Terminators being separate entries instead of just one Terminator profile?
The problem with that is that it's 3 types rather than 4. They consolidated the Tartarus and Cataphractii Terminators - which had different rules - into a single unit.
Terminator and Assault Terminators exist because the designers use the games rules to show doctrinal differences between formations of units. This is why Deathwing (and Wolf Guard) are special, as they don't stick to the norms that other Chapters do.
That's the problem with consolidation. It ruins flavour, options and fun.
Now if you want to have a discussion about whether 40k is a game with the appropriate scale to represent different types of Terminator armour, then that's a valid conversation. For instance, 40k doesn't have rules for different marks of standard Power Armour* (ie. there are no special rules for Mk.VI vs Mk.VIII), and I certainly wouldn't want it to, but should Terminators be treated the same way?
*Unlike, say, the Deathwatch RPG, which has rules for all 8 marks, which is appropriate given the scale of the game.
eh - Late to the party and my points may have already passed.
The way I am understanding the GW statements so far is that factions as they are - SM chapters, Tau Spets, Eldar Craftworlds, CSM - will end up getting a Detachment and detachment cards
Ultramarines Detachment:. Special cards for Bobby G and the boys and detachment rules for whatever thier buffs are
BA: Special cards for the characters, golden boys, death company and detachment rules for extra choppy
White scars:Special cards for the characters, speedy boys, and detachment rules for extra speedy
fists: Leaders, extra shooty unit, and detachment rules
Tau: Cards for Characters and detachment rules for the septs
etc..
So I am expecting that there will be a fair amount of "flavor" but the practical application to be streamlined. Using Data cards and detachment rules means that there can still be unique deathwing termis, BA assualt termis, Whte scar bikes, Custodes bikes, et. al. Is it going to be an issue if Custodes have better Bolters that UM? White scare with better bikes, Wolves with better chain swords? Easy for 2 players to play and understand...
I dont think they have stated that they are getting rid of the special factions - and if they did I missed it
EviscerationPlague wrote: So what's the "options and fun" with Terminators and Assault Terminators and Relic Terminators being separate entries instead of just one Terminator profile?
The problem with that is that it's 3 types rather than 4. They consolidated the Tartarus and Cataphractii Terminators - which had different rules - into a single unit.
Terminator and Assault Terminators exist because the designers use the games rules to show doctrinal differences between formations of units. This is why Deathwing are (and Wolf Guard), as they don't stick to the norms that other Chapters do.
That's the problem with consolidation. It ruins flavour, options and fun.
Now if you want to have a discussion about whether 40k is a game with the appropriate scale to represent different types of Terminator armour, then that's a valid conversation. For instance, 40k doesn't have rules for different marks of standard Power Armour* (ie. there are no special rules for Mk.VI vs Mk.VIII), and I certainly wouldn't want it to, but should Terminators be treated the same way?
*Unlike, say, the Deathwatch RPG, which has rules for all 8 marks, which is appropriate given the scale of the game.
The template to go with is 4th edition again. You buy a Terminator Squad, and then you choose side-grades and upgrades, and pay appropriate costs. That's options without bloat. Bloat is excessive datasheets taking up page space, each with their own bespoke rules, weapons and legaleese options.
Tome_Keeper wrote: eh - Late to the party and my points may have already passed.
The way I am understanding the GW statements so far is that factions as they are - SM chapters, Tau Spets, Eldar Craftworlds, CSM - will end up getting a Detachment and detachment cards
Ultramarines Detachment:. Special cards for Bobby G and the boys and detachment rules for whatever thier buffs are
BA: Special cards for the characters, golden boys, death company and detachment rules for extra choppy
White scars:Special cards for the characters, speedy boys, and detachment rules for extra speedy
fists: Leaders, extra shooty unit, and detachment rules
Tau: Cards for Characters and detachment rules for the septs
etc..
So I am expecting that there will be a fair amount of "flavor" but the practical application to be streamlined. Using Data cards and detachment rules means that there can still be unique deathwing termis, BA assualt termis, Whte scar bikes, Custodes bikes, et. al. Is it going to be an issue if Custodes have better Bolters that UM? White scare with better bikes, Wolves with better chain swords? Easy for 2 players to play and understand...
I dont think they have stated that they are getting rid of the special factions - and if they did I missed it
Based on the information we have direct from GW, the index will have a Faction Adeptus Astartes detachment called the Gladius Strike Force. This will cover all Space Marines regardless of color.
It is unclear exactly what other detachment will be.
You don't think pushing characters to dropping 9 s8 ap-4 d4 attacks via 0 point upgrades is an issue?
That's a lot, but if you're willing to give a Bloodthirster a couple more attacks with a WL trait, then I don't see an issue with giving a Captain with a relic a couple more attacks. Combos are dangerous, but when the combo ends at 2 things combining instead of 4 or 5 I don't think it's a problem. I don't think 6 attacks at S8 AP-3 D4 attacks via 0 point upgrades is an issue assuming there are other cool things you can get from your relics and traits, like maybe your WL isn't going to smash things but he can quickly lead his army through difficult terrain or he can slow down the enemy with a unique psychic power. I think that combo pales in comparison between the divide between a useful and useless chapter tactic, like the 8th Alpha Legion vs 8th Word Bearers.
catbarf wrote: Maybe turning a basic character into something that can solo Knights (without any WYSIWYG representation of that change) isn't something you should be able to do, regardless of the CP cost.
A lot of the relic weapons replace something that they have to have first, so, Teeth of Terra replaces a Chainsword, and the model would have to have a Chainsword first, yes?
EviscerationPlague wrote: So what's the "options and fun" with Terminators and Assault Terminators and Relic Terminators being separate entries instead of just one Terminator profile?
The problem with that is that it's 3 types rather than 4. They consolidated the Tartarus and Cataphractii Terminators - which had different rules - into a single unit.
Terminator and Assault Terminators exist because the designers use the games rules to show doctrinal differences between formations of units. This is why Deathwing (and Wolf Guard) are special, as they don't stick to the norms that other Chapters do.
That's the problem with consolidation. It ruins flavour, options and fun.
Now if you want to have a discussion about whether 40k is a game with the appropriate scale to represent different types of Terminator armour, then that's a valid conversation. For instance, 40k doesn't have rules for different marks of standard Power Armour* (ie. there are no special rules for Mk.VI vs Mk.VIII), and I certainly wouldn't want it to, but should Terminators be treated the same way?
*Unlike, say, the Deathwatch RPG, which has rules for all 8 marks, which is appropriate given the scale of the game.
Then don't mix if you don't want to. It doesn't mean they shouldn't just be a single datasheet.
You don't think pushing characters to dropping 9 s8 ap-4 d4 attacks via 0 point upgrades is an issue?
That's a lot, but if you're willing to give a Bloodthirster a couple more attacks with a WL trait, then I don't see an issue with giving a Captain with a relic a couple more attacks. Combos are dangerous, but when the combo ends at 2 things combining instead of 4 or 5 I don't think it's a problem. I don't think 6 attacks at S8 AP-3 D4 attacks via 0 point upgrades is an issue assuming there are other cool things you can get from your relics and traits, like maybe your WL isn't going to smash things but he can quickly lead his army through difficult terrain or he can slow down the enemy with a unique psychic power. I think that combo pales in comparison between the divide between a useful and useless chapter tactic, like the 8th Alpha Legion vs 8th Word Bearers.
catbarf wrote: Maybe turning a basic character into something that can solo Knights (without any WYSIWYG representation of that change) isn't something you should be able to do, regardless of the CP cost.
Why not?
Why not?
Because some of us aren't keen on the Space Marine heroes turning into these super-champions. Back in the day, a Space Marine captain had almost no hope of defeating some of these things, like Bloodthirsters, Avatars, Hive Tyrants etc. You needed to join the hero to a squad or throw them in as a last ditch attempt to defeat such things. When I hear about these Captains that can straight up solo a Knight or whatever, it bugs me.
I remember a time when Carnifexes were T8 and 10 wounds, and a SM Captain was T5 with 3w. These days a Carnifex has T7 9 wounds, and a Captain in Gravis has T5 and 7w. Marines just keep swelling.
But marine heroes are super champions. They kill avatars, GD, demon princes, blow up tanks etc
And the idea that you have to pay extra points for chaff wounds from a unit to be untargetable was tried in 8th. Non marine players didn't like Charcter dreadnoughts and wound allocation combos, so much that GW nerfed marine doctrines for almost the entire 9th ed.
Marines have to upscale on what they can kill with their units, because they aren't hyper efficient like some armies, and don't have access to spamable chaff that can pad an army with a lot of monsters or powerful vehicles.
GW could make the regular marine a powerful and wanted option in a space marine army, but , at least for loyalist, this has been met with a cry of game killing from non marine players.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
EviscerationPlague 809431 11512665 wrote:
Then don't mix if you don't want to. It doesn't mean they shouldn't just be a single datasheet.
But it encrouches on the special some armies have. DW special thing was that they could have both melee and shoting terminators in one squads, had special gear for their terminators and could even do stuff like put a cyclon on a TH/SS terminator. If in order to have combi weapon on terminators, which was the WG termis special thing, now everyone can do it then then it removes the special thing about WG terminators.
vict0988 wrote: @Insectum should Tyrannofexes have the same number of wounds as a Carnifex?
I'm not sure why it's relevant? The point was that marine hqs stats are now closer to a carnifex than they used to be. Either the carnifex has been devalued from dreadnought equivalent to a "just a biggish guy", Marine captains are now considered closer in resilience to dreadnoughts, or a combination of the two.
To answer the obvious irrelevant question: no a tyrannofex should have more wounds via being bigger.
Tome_Keeper wrote: eh - Late to the party and my points may have already passed.
The way I am understanding the GW statements so far is that factions as they are - SM chapters, Tau Spets, Eldar Craftworlds, CSM - will end up getting a Detachment and detachment cards
Ultramarines Detachment:. Special cards for Bobby G and the boys and detachment rules for whatever thier buffs are
BA: Special cards for the characters, golden boys, death company and detachment rules for extra choppy
White scars:Special cards for the characters, speedy boys, and detachment rules for extra speedy
fists: Leaders, extra shooty unit, and detachment rules
Tau: Cards for Characters and detachment rules for the septs
etc..
So I am expecting that there will be a fair amount of "flavor" but the practical application to be streamlined. Using Data cards and detachment rules means that there can still be unique deathwing termis, BA assualt termis, Whte scar bikes, Custodes bikes, et. al. Is it going to be an issue if Custodes have better Bolters that UM? White scare with better bikes, Wolves with better chain swords? Easy for 2 players to play and understand...
I dont think they have stated that they are getting rid of the special factions - and if they did I missed it
Based on the information we have direct from GW, the index will have a Faction Adeptus Astartes detachment called the Gladius Strike Force. This will cover all Space Marines regardless of color.
It is unclear exactly what other detachment will be.
I know lore isn't a great answer for game design but, the space wolves don't form gladius strike forces in the lore, they follow none-codex compliant formations ... I don't know about any other SM factions, but the wolves at least had as many differences as DG does to CSM once upon a time. That's why it was so important for them to throw as much "they don't do it the same way" into the lore as possible, to justify the wolves being a unique and separate faction since second edition XD .
Because Ksons is still a subfaction of CSM, and the whole point is to simplify and reduce the number of books needed. So it follows that they would fold them back into the CSM book rather then giving them a whole separate codex. Because they can just make it a detachment in The CSM army which is the whole point of this system change.
The fact that Thousand Sons don't get access to the Strats and abilities from the CSM Codex is a big indicator they're NOT a Subfaction and are their own thing.
Planning on that sticking around? If Loyalists aren't their own standalone, how long will Chaos Legions? Treating them seperately instead of the mirror images they used to be is going to create quite a feces storm.
Lore is a great place from which to derive fluff. But at the same time, you shouldn't create a new name for an identical rule, so if the rules of the Gladius Strike Force is appropriate for Space Wolves fluff then they shouldn't get a Wolfice Howl Force with the same rules.
vict0988 wrote: @Insectum should Tyrannofexes have the same number of wounds as a Carnifex?
Dudeface wrote: no a tyrannofex should have more wounds via being bigger.
Alright, so bigger things should have more wounds, gravis Captains are bigger than Captains and should therefore have more wounds. Comparing gravis Captains with Carnifexes in one edition while comparing regular Captains with Carnifexes from I don't know what edition had 10W Carnifexes does not make sense. Captains and Carnifexes both doubled their number of wounds, Carnifexes also got a -1D ability and +1T, while Captains are about twice as survivable against anti-tank weapons like lascannons and power fists. It seems to me like Carnifexes shouldn't have the -1D ability or +1T because that makes them too tough relative to what they used to be and puts them outside the role they should have as inexpensive battering rams that form a beachhead into enemy strongholds. Not liking relics and traits is fair, I like me some hero hammer though, probably because I come from WHFB. I've always proxied a lot, that and WHFB's hidden items means I don't really buy relics and traits not having physical representations is a problem. Having flamers count as plasma one game and melta the next in a tournament is too much for me, I think higher standards need to exist for tournaments and we're talking about a lot more items if you want units to be able to change wargear between tournament games as someone suggested in another thread.
So will cross faction units that are the same unit, but named differentlly, still count as separate?
I know I'm assuming 10th will be soupy, but still. If a Faction of 1lk sons and a faction of DG get together in a single list, can they still take ro3 squads of their respective Terminators?
This is where I think keywords can save us. If it has the "x" keyword, you can have 3 of those per list. So no more 9 dreadnaught lists, etc.
I get this will piss off a fair many of the group, but it resolves the ever nagging issue of "Am I allowed to break the obvious rule with this specific unit?"
IF it wears terminator armor, it's a terminator, what it's armed with has no bearing. If it's a Dreadnaught, it's a dreadnaught. Doesn't matter if it was DOAT tech, or a Custodes Super Walker, you get three key word dreadnaught units. And done.
Consolidation is a good thing, Consolidation also can improve balance. There i said it.
HOWEVER: there is a right way for consolidation, like R&H IA13 list. Which could cover from mutant cults to bloodpact to darkmech to PMC to cults.
and there is bad consolidation, like the 9th edition CSM dex consolidating equipment for no apparant reason. Or cutting factions in a way that they are forever lost, like legends R&H f.e.
There is nothing wrong with curbing some SM subfactions, IF the SM codex allows for the specific sm subfactions to be actually representable. But before GW should do that, gw should stop mono equipment primaris obsolete units that share the same and similar roles.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So will cross faction units that are the same unit, but named differentlly, still count as separate?
I know I'm assuming 10th will be soupy, but still. If a Faction of 1lk sons and a faction of DG get together in a single list, can they still take ro3 squads of their respective Terminators?
This is where I think keywords can save us. If it has the "x" keyword, you can have 3 of those per list. So no more 9 dreadnaught lists, etc.
I get this will piss off a fair many of the group, but it resolves the ever nagging issue of "Am I allowed to break the obvious rule with this specific unit?"
IF it wears terminator armor, it's a terminator, what it's armed with has no bearing. If it's a Dreadnaught, it's a dreadnaught. Doesn't matter if it was DOAT tech, or a Custodes Super Walker, you get three key word dreadnaught units. And done.
Obviously troops escape this.
There is no souping, they've been very clear about this so far with only GSC, Knights and summoned daemons as exceptions listed.
Because some of us aren't keen on the Space Marine heroes turning into these super-champions. Back in the day, a Space Marine captain had almost no hope of defeating some of these things, like Bloodthirsters, Avatars, Hive Tyrants etc. You needed to join the hero to a squad or throw them in as a last ditch attempt to defeat such things. When I hear about these Captains that can straight up solo a Knight or whatever, it bugs me.
I remember a time when Carnifexes were T8 and 10 wounds, and a SM Captain was T5 with 3w. These days a Carnifex has T7 9 wounds, and a Captain in Gravis has T5 and 7w. Marines just keep swelling.
Agreed.
I think part of the issue is that there used to be severe downsides to taking the strongest weapons (Power Fists and Thunder Hammers), in that it basically guaranteed you would be striking last. So even if you charged an enemy carnifex, it would get to strike you first. Now, though, there is virtually no penalty for using weapons that can one-round imperial knights, and basically no possibility of them getting to strike first when you charge.
Though even apart from that, I think there is a tendency towards Marines becoming Movie Marines (which once existed as a parody) and a general air of one-upmanship ("The basic captain is killy but this is a super captain so he needs to be super-killy but then he's also a melee chapter so he needs to be super-duper-killy but then this other chapter is even more melee and even more elite, so obviously their super-captain needs to be super-duper-hyper-killy . . .").
vict0988 wrote: Carnifexes also got a -1D ability and +1T, while Captains are about twice as survivable against anti-tank weapons like lascannons and power fists. It seems to me like Carnifexes shouldn't have the -1D ability or +1T because that makes them too tough relative to what they used to be and puts them outside the role they should have as inexpensive battering rams that form a beachhead into enemy strongholds.
Except that the only reason Carnifexes (and various other units) got -1D was because GW decided to give Marines a huge boost to their wounds... which then required a lot of anti-infantry weapons to get +1D so as to not be utter trash against the most common infantry profile in the game... which then made those weapons punch above their weight against vehicles and monsters (which hadn't seen their wounds double)... which then required a slapdash fix of -1D abilities on many such units.
This could easily have been solved by not giving Marines a massive boost to their wounds. Or by markedly increasing their cost afterwards, so that anti-infantry weapons didn't have to be completely rebalanced against them.
Siegfriedfr wrote: Lore and fluff have nothing to do in matched/competitive play if they make it harder to balance the game, and bloat the rules/datasheets.
This is something that has plagued the 40k game for decades.
Lore and fluff certainly belong in narrative/crusade/campaign settings.
I'd wager lore and fluff are the biggest reasons why most people play this game to begin with. Take both away and you have a mediocre ruleset at best.
There's a fine line between removing bloat and doing increased consolidation and then just gimping the flavour of the game entirely.
It's really difficult right now to tell where 10th will land on that scale. The cynic in me feels that GW might definitely overreact and hit everything with the same hammer because of the sins of a few factions (Marines...) and how massively unwieldy they became to design and balance around. Like, if they decide to hit the amount of psychic powers in-game across the board because a chapter could have 3 different disciplines to choose from, that's just unfairly screwing over an Aeldari player who actually gets to use a large variety of spells in their army and who was probably drawn to the army in the first place because of the detailed psychic mechanics.
But still we're running off of very little info currently.
They will do the same thing they did in 8th. Remove all or most cool rules, especialy for the mass popular armies. And then in order to get them back, the players will have to wait and buy the codex. At the same time some dudes in 10th are going to waiting for their non index rules till 6-9 months before 11th starts. Assuming no large scale wars, pandemics etc.
alextroy wrote: There were no Chapter Tactics in the 8th Edition Indexes. Blood Angels were red Marines with a few extra units.
They weren't called Chapter Tactics, but there were additional rules.
The Blood Angels had Black Rage in addition to their own Psychic discipline on top of unit units and wargear. The Dark Angels had Unforgiven and Jink and their own Psychic discipline to go along with chapter units and wargear. So the framework was there.
I certainly hope we do not go back to the dreary days of 3rd and 4th edition. Since all the decisions have been made by the developers I suppose we just have to wait and see. I could be happy with 8th Ed era Index levels of differentiation.
No doubt they've scaled things back. Aaaaaand then they will bring it back.
I forgot about the special Psychic Disciplines, but the other rules were for chapter specific units. They were not extended to normal Space Marine units.
Black Rage was on Death Company units only, not as an additional rule for Tactical Squads. Jink was on Ravenwing units like Sammael, but not Bike Squads. Unforgiven was on Deathwing and most characters and was an exception at being added to select normal units.
So for the most part, the Chapter Tactics were mostly ignored in the 8th Edition Indexes. Do need to make a special call out to Space Wolves, who shared almost no non-Primaris Infantry units with the rest of the Space Marine. Space Wolves gotta howl.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So will cross faction units that are the same unit, but named differentlly, still count as separate?
I know I'm assuming 10th will be soupy, but still. If a Faction of 1lk sons and a faction of DG get together in a single list, can they still take ro3 squads of their respective Terminators?
This is where I think keywords can save us. If it has the "x" keyword, you can have 3 of those per list. So no more 9 dreadnaught lists, etc.
I get this will piss off a fair many of the group, but it resolves the ever nagging issue of "Am I allowed to break the obvious rule with this specific unit?"
IF it wears terminator armor, it's a terminator, what it's armed with has no bearing. If it's a Dreadnaught, it's a dreadnaught. Doesn't matter if it was DOAT tech, or a Custodes Super Walker, you get three key word dreadnaught units. And done.
Obviously troops escape this.
There is no souping, they've been very clear about this so far with only GSC, Knights and summoned daemons as exceptions listed.
While I admit that you are correct, I would add an addendum: Currently. As in GW has been very clear that CURRENTLY only X factions can soup. Nothing is permanent with rules in 40k. You know that. All it takes is for them to change their minds.
Karol wrote: They will do the same thing they did in 8th. Remove all or most cool rules, especialy for the mass popular armies. And then in order to get them back, the players will have to wait and buy the codex. At the same time some dudes in 10th are going to waiting for their non index rules till 6-9 months before 11th starts. Assuming no large scale wars, pandemics etc.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So will cross faction units that are the same unit, but named differentlly, still count as separate?
I know I'm assuming 10th will be soupy, but still. If a Faction of 1lk sons and a faction of DG get together in a single list, can they still take ro3 squads of their respective Terminators?
This is where I think keywords can save us. If it has the "x" keyword, you can have 3 of those per list. So no more 9 dreadnaught lists, etc.
I get this will piss off a fair many of the group, but it resolves the ever nagging issue of "Am I allowed to break the obvious rule with this specific unit?"
IF it wears terminator armor, it's a terminator, what it's armed with has no bearing. If it's a Dreadnaught, it's a dreadnaught. Doesn't matter if it was DOAT tech, or a Custodes Super Walker, you get three key word dreadnaught units. And done.
Obviously troops escape this.
There is no souping, they've been very clear about this so far with only GSC, Knights and summoned daemons as exceptions listed.
While I admit that you are correct, I would add an addendum: Currently. As in GW has been very clear that CURRENTLY only X factions can soup. Nothing is permanent with rules in 40k. You know that. All it takes is for them to change their minds.
This is the weirdest stance to take, have you just not been reading any of the new edition material and had to try and justify yourself, or are you genuinely concerned about unit profile ambiguity across factions that can't interact on a "what if"?
Karol wrote: They will do the same thing they did in 8th. Remove all or most cool rules, especialy for the mass popular armies. And then in order to get them back, the players will have to wait and buy the codex. At the same time some dudes in 10th are going to waiting for their non index rules till 6-9 months before 11th starts. Assuming no large scale wars, pandemics etc.
Insectum7 wrote: Back in the day, a Space Marine captain had almost no hope of defeating some of these things, like Bloodthirsters, Avatars, Hive Tyrants etc.
Back in the day, Space Marine Captains had a base Weapon Skill 7, Strength 5, Toughness 5 without special armor to access it and had access to wargear that let them easily go toe to toe with a Greater Daemon.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I wish GW would just show us a detachment sheet or two. Would give us a much clearer idea of what we’re playing with.
Yeah, their slow-burn approach feels like a drag already, and it will probably go on like this for four additional weeks...
Probably? Were you not here for the last two edition updates
I expect we will get 0-4 pieced of solid information daily throughout April and May. The amount of rehashed information even solid article (like the 3/30 one on army construction) will boggle the mind. If you don't want to watch the drip feed coffee brew, come back in June.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I wish GW would just show us a detachment sheet or two. Would give us a much clearer idea of what we’re playing with.
Yeah, their slow-burn approach feels like a drag already, and it will probably go on like this for four additional weeks...
Probably? Were you not here for the last two edition updates
I expect we will get 0-4 pieced of solid information daily throughout April and May. The amount of rehashed information even solid article (like the 3/30 one on army construction) will boggle the mind. If you don't want to watch the drip feed coffee brew, come back in June.
'Probably' because Warhammer Fest starts on April 29th, which is more or less exactly four weeks away, and it's not completely unthinkable that they offer a flip-through of the book or even trial games of 10th then. It's the optimistic case, at worst it will be months of this slow slog. But i'm an optimist at heart
Not Online!!! wrote: Consolidation is a good thing,
Consolidation also can improve balance. There i said it.
Here's hoping they at least consolidate the marine datasheets. Otherwise we might see the 'Oops! All Captains' army running around.
You say that like it’s a bad thing.
I think it was in 8th, but with a little filler and the right detachments I put together and played a seven samurai style marine captain list. Obviously very choppy, but lousy at shooting/objectives. Fun for a lark, but not competitive.
Now I wasn’t trying to break the game, just try a fun concept with my assorted minis. The all smash-hammer list might be able to brute force it’s way to victory.
But I 100% agree that marines need a LOT of consolidation in datasheets. No excuse for the amount of bloat on those. OK, the excuse is actually one sheet per kit, NMNR. Still, no reason to have 2 separate gravis captain sheets as an example.
Consolidating Primaris into a data sheet with options would be interesting- we've already had a trial with the Deathwatch, where after the first five "Base" troops, Fortis teams can take any model in intercessor armour, Indomitor teams can take anyone in Gravis armour and Spectrus teams can take anyone in Phobos.
Obviously the construction requirements would be different, but it is cool to build mixed units. It takes away some of the staleness of monoloadout Primaris.
PenitentJake wrote: Consolidating Primaris into a data sheet with options would be interesting- we've already had a trial with the Deathwatch, where after the first five "Base" troops, Fortis teams can take any model in intercessor armour, Indomitor teams can take anyone in Gravis armour and Spectrus teams can take anyone in Phobos.
Obviously the construction requirements would be different, but it is cool to build mixed units. It takes away some of the staleness of monoloadout Primaris.
primaris as a mono concept shouldn't ever have been a thing period.
Insectum7 wrote: Back in the day, a Space Marine captain had almost no hope of defeating some of these things, like Bloodthirsters, Avatars, Hive Tyrants etc.
Back in the day, Space Marine Captains had a base Weapon Skill 7, Strength 5, Toughness 5 without special armor to access it and had access to wargear that let them easily go toe to toe with a Greater Daemon.
Lolwut?
The last edition (pre 8th) that I bought a SM codex for was 4th, but I absolutely assure you they had none of that. You could deck a marine captain out to tear through chaff and have a reasonably shot at smooshing most MEQ characters, but they were still likely to get bodied by big bads like hive tyrants / carnifex / greater demon. Not we’re they the equal of serious duelists such as Hesperix, Drazahar, or a brood lord.
Insectum7 wrote: Back in the day, a Space Marine captain had almost no hope of defeating some of these things, like Bloodthirsters, Avatars, Hive Tyrants etc.
Back in the day, Space Marine Captains had a base Weapon Skill 7, Strength 5, Toughness 5 without special armor to access it and had access to wargear that let them easily go toe to toe with a Greater Daemon.
SM Captains with WS7 and S and T5 were last seen in 2nd ed, I believe:
Honestly, I'm all for all character lists as long as they're fun and not oppressive. So, not lists of just flying hive tyrants, commander battlesuits of custodes jetbike captains or the like. Just a bunch of captains can make for an interesting scenario and I've fought such battles between a small group of heroes and the faceless masses of goons (my guardsmen). It was fun to see how many they managed to take down for instance.
Insectum7 wrote: Back in the day, a Space Marine captain had almost no hope of defeating some of these things, like Bloodthirsters, Avatars, Hive Tyrants etc.
Back in the day, Space Marine Captains had a base Weapon Skill 7, Strength 5, Toughness 5 without special armor to access it and had access to wargear that let them easily go toe to toe with a Greater Daemon.
SM Captains with WS7 and S and T5 were last seen in 2nd ed, I believe:
Insectum7 wrote: Back in the day, a Space Marine captain had almost no hope of defeating some of these things, like Bloodthirsters, Avatars, Hive Tyrants etc.
Back in the day, Space Marine Captains had a base Weapon Skill 7, Strength 5, Toughness 5 without special armor to access it and had access to wargear that let them easily go toe to toe with a Greater Daemon.
"Easily". . .
You had to beef them up quite a bit to manage a chance.
And that SM character could still be one-shotted with a Heavy Bolter. Right now we've got SM Characters that can take a max-damage, unsaved Lascannon to the face.
But straight up, if you asked me if a Captain should be close to as tough as a Carnifex, you'd get a big "NO" from me.
Combat Drugs, Terminator Armour with Powerfist, Conversion or Refractor Field, and a Vortex Grenade. Advantage Space Marine Captain
Basically just lob your Vortex Grenade and hope for the best.
Always the Vortex grenade, sure. . . But that Powerfist only did a single point of damage. That takes a while to get through 10w. For CC you'd really want Lightning Claws for the Parrys anyways. Otherwise the 'Thirster is just more likely to win each round of CC and kill him.
Unit1126PLL wrote: It's ok guys, it's about to be 10th. Just pick your favorite Datasheet:
SM Captain with Power Fist
3+/2+ -3 3
SM Captain with Thunder Hammer
2+/3+ -3 3
SM Captain with Thunder Fist
2+/3+ -3 1, but on a successful wound roll add 2 damage
SM Captain with Power Hammer
3+/2+ -1 3 but on a successful wound roll add 2 AP.
As much as you're trying to take the piss and totally ignoring strength still exists, that's the sort of thing you can do to balance things out via moving the various stats about, so if you gain +1 to hit, +1 to wound, +1 attack etc. certain profiles get a chance to shine. Even if by base profile you'd assume they all have the same total output. Given damage doesn't spill over in 40k (yet), it open scope for lots of accurate weak attacks balancing out against fewer heavier hitting ones.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I honestly cannot remember if the Captain could take a Thunder Hammer. But if he could, that’s the badger for the job.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Just checked. And he could.
Definitely the right tool for the job, and came with Storm Shield for that important extra save.
Just needed to win a combat, which is far, far from a given! But if you did, the Bloodthirster’s kneecaps would be the first to know.
Yeah. Actually winning the combat is the thing. When the Bloodthirster bests the Captains WS by 3, and has got a higher Initiative, it means the Captain has to beat the 'Thirster by 4 points on the dice results . . . And there are only 6 pips on a D6. You're mostly praying for Fumbles.
The Bloodthirsters axe did D3 wounds too. Just one hit could kill that Captain.
Edit: For yuks I rolled out Captain with LCs against a 'Thirster, just looking at winning the initial Combat roll-off, including Parrys. Out of 10 rolls, the Captain won 1. I don't know how representative that is mathematically, but even with the Parrys the Captain looks ****ed.
Trick was to use psychic powers and that to buff the Captain.
I’d need to dig me cards out, but Quickening and Iron Arm seem to present themselves as possible answers, but that might’ve been only cast on the Librarian.
I’d need to dig me cards out, but Quickening and Iron Arm seem to present themselves as possible answers, but that might’ve been only cast on the Librarian.
Totally, but it's well beyond the original point now, which is SM hero inflation over the years. Or just Space Marine inflation in general, while other things have deflated.
You get kind of weird effects in reality though from the multiple combats rule though don't you?
So say the Captain charges in with 5 Tactical Marines. Barring an incredibly run of 1s the Tactical Marines all get mulched. But now that SM Captain gets to fight with +5 to their attacks and +5 to their combat resolution.
Tyel wrote: You get kind of weird effects in reality though from the multiple combats rule though don't you?
So say the Captain charges in with 5 Tactical Marines. Barring an incredibly run of 1s the Tactical Marines all get mulched. But now that SM Captain gets to fight with +5 to their attacks and +5 to their combat resolution.
Tyel wrote: You get kind of weird effects in reality though from the multiple combats rule though don't you?
So say the Captain charges in with 5 Tactical Marines. Barring an incredibly run of 1s the Tactical Marines all get mulched. But now that SM Captain gets to fight with +5 to their attacks and +5 to their combat resolution.
So SM Captain could now win big and away you go.
That works too. But it's not a duel then
Yes exactly, the original quote was that 2nd ed marine character stats were capable of going toe to toe with a bloodthirster or avatar.
That's clearly not true.
Moving the goal posts is pointless. You might as well say' marine captains can defeat bloodthirsters because their battleship shot it'...
This is one of my pet peeves about people dumping on 2nd ed. 40k has become more herohammer than 2nd ed. 2nd ed was nowhere near the herohammer people seem to think it was.
A captain would kill more marines in melee in 3rd+ than he did in 2nd ed. He had the potential to kill more in 2nd due to the individual fights, but after the 3rd tactical marine he's unlikely to win the combat as each subsequent marine would be WS7+ and roll 7+ attacks. While a terminator honours captain in 3rd ed with two weapons and charging got 6 attacks that could easily kill 3+ marines in one turn.
And modern 9th ed is far more herohammer than 3rd or 2nd...
Not Online!!! wrote: Consolidation is a good thing,
Consolidation also can improve balance. There i said it.
Here's hoping they at least consolidate the marine datasheets. Otherwise we might see the 'Oops! All Captains' army running around.
But how else are we supposed to differentiate a Gravis Captain with a Bolt Rifle + Sword vs a Gravis Captain with a sword and Boltstorm Gauntlet?
If we are unlucky, GW will continue to provide datasheets by the Sales Box rather than the unit.
If we are slightly lucky, they will consolidate by the armor so that we get Captain, Captain in Terminator Armor, Primaris Captain, Captain in Gravis Armor, Captain in Phobos Armor.
Lucky will mean Primaris Captain & Captain will be consolidated.
Extra lucky will be a rule stating, "all units with the Captain keyword count as one datasheet for the purposes of the number of times you may add a datasheet to your army list".
2nd Ed was the days when a Genestealer could challenge a Marine Captain in combat, and two Genestealers were almost assured to win. 3? Captain is toast!
The old Genestealer Cult list for Necromunda had Genestealers, and they could get advances. You could have WS10 Genestealers running around.
Kanluwen wrote: So what if there's a lot of datasheets if you can't take more than one captain?
"Bloat is okay because your actual army will have less rules than actually exist" was never an argument I thought I would read.
90% of your arguments on this forum boil down to 'bloat is okay as long as it makes me personally feel like the game is more of a milsim, even if what's actually happening is landraiders immobilizing themselves on small shrubs.
Kanluwen wrote: So what if there's a lot of datasheets if you can't take more than one captain?
"Bloat is okay because your actual army will have less rules than actually exist" was never an argument I thought I would read.
90% of your arguments on this forum boil down to 'bloat is okay as long as it makes me personally feel like the game is more of a milsim, even if what's actually happening is landraiders immobilizing themselves on small shrubs.
I don't think you know what bloat means.
And I see fewer posts from Unit pining for old mechanics than I see from you making confident assertions about why old mechanics were universally terrible because you personally didn't like them, so watch out throwing those stones in your glass house.
Kanluwen wrote: So what if there's a lot of datasheets if you can't take more than one captain?
"Bloat is okay because your actual army will have less rules than actually exist" was never an argument I thought I would read.
90% of your arguments on this forum boil down to 'bloat is okay as long as it makes me personally feel like the game is more of a milsim, even if what's actually happening is landraiders immobilizing themselves on small shrubs.
If you marked "small shrubs" as Difficult Terrain, then that's on you. And I seriously doubt that you ever did that. Please stop being disingenuous, ERJAK.
Insectum7 wrote: Back in the day, a Space Marine captain had almost no hope of defeating some of these things, like Bloodthirsters, Avatars, Hive Tyrants etc.
Back in the day, Space Marine Captains had a base Weapon Skill 7, Strength 5, Toughness 5 without special armor to access it and had access to wargear that let them easily go toe to toe with a Greater Daemon.
I'm still curious why the Marine centerpiece model shouldn't be able to go toe-to-toe with the Daemon centerpiece model. Because its Marines and they're icky?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: 2nd Ed was the days when a Genestealer could challenge a Marine Captain in combat, and two Genestealers were almost assured to win. 3? Captain is toast!
The old Genestealer Cult list for Necromunda had Genestealers, and they could get advances. You could have WS10 Genestealers running around.
That was where Calgar came in with his anti-swarm rules.
Also I'd like to suggest we quit using "bloat" unironically. "Bloat" has turned into a catchall for "What I don't like" and nobody is taking it seriously anymore.
Insectum7 wrote: Back in the day, a Space Marine captain had almost no hope of defeating some of these things, like Bloodthirsters, Avatars, Hive Tyrants etc.
Back in the day, Space Marine Captains had a base Weapon Skill 7, Strength 5, Toughness 5 without special armor to access it and had access to wargear that let them easily go toe to toe with a Greater Daemon.
I'm still curious why the Marine centerpiece model shouldn't be able to go toe-to-toe with the Daemon centerpiece model. Because its Marines and they're icky?
No, it's because a marine is still just a marine, despite rank. And a Greater Daemon is something significantly beyond that. Please, let your bolter porn narrative be. If the antagonist isn't sufficiently frightening, then the protagonist is just a Mary Sue.
No, it's because a marine is still just a marine, despite rank. And a Greater Daemon is something significantly beyond that. Please, let your bolter porn narrative be. If the antagonist isn't sufficiently frightening, then the protagonist is just a Mary Sue.
So you're saying because in the fluff the big hulking scary powerful Greater Daemon is something significant in combat, but the marine is just a marine regardless of the fluffed rank, age, and experience that doesn't matter. Glad you cleared that up.
No, it's because a marine is still just a marine, despite rank. And a Greater Daemon is something significantly beyond that. Please, let your bolter porn narrative be. If the antagonist isn't sufficiently frightening, then the protagonist is just a Mary Sue.
So you're saying because in the fluff the big hulking scary powerful Greater Daemon is something significant in combat, but the marine is just a marine regardless of the fluffed rank, age, and experience that doesn't matter. Glad you cleared that up.
Eyuup. Loyalist. Traitor. It doesn't matter. A marine should need help from other Marines in dealing with something like a Greater Daemon. Marines should work as squads. Not as Armies of One.
No, it's because a marine is still just a marine, despite rank. And a Greater Daemon is something significantly beyond that. Please, let your bolter porn narrative be. If the antagonist isn't sufficiently frightening, then the protagonist is just a Mary Sue.
So you're saying because in the fluff the big hulking scary powerful Greater Daemon is something significant in combat, but the marine is just a marine regardless of the fluffed rank, age, and experience that doesn't matter. Glad you cleared that up.
Eyuup. Loyalist. Traitor. It doesn't matter. A marine should need help from other Marines in dealing with something like a Greater Daemon. Marines should work as squads. Not as Armies of One.
A Bloodthirster can easily kill a Captain, a Captain has a really hard time killing a Bloodthirster. Sooo, mission accomplished? We're talking Bloodthirster killing the Captain in one turn on average and the Captain killing the Bloodthirster in 4.
No, it's because a marine is still just a marine, despite rank. And a Greater Daemon is something significantly beyond that. Please, let your bolter porn narrative be. If the antagonist isn't sufficiently frightening, then the protagonist is just a Mary Sue.
So you're saying because in the fluff the big hulking scary powerful Greater Daemon is something significant in combat, but the marine is just a marine regardless of the fluffed rank, age, and experience that doesn't matter. Glad you cleared that up.
A Marine is, at most, maybe 9’ tall.
A Marine is, at most, S5 base-on par with a Bloodletter, the lesser daemon of Khorne.
A Marine is physical-with physical limits.
A Bloodthirster is about the size of a Questoris Knight.
A Bloodthirster is ordinarily base S8.
A Bloodthirster is not bound by material rules, being a Daemon.
I won’t say “A captain can NEVER beat a Bloodthirster,” because sometimes you get really lucky, and the other side gets the opposite.
But are you honestly saying that a Captain should be able to expect to go toe-to-toe with a Bloodthirster and come out on top?
Insectum7 wrote: Back in the day, a Space Marine captain had almost no hope of defeating some of these things, like Bloodthirsters, Avatars, Hive Tyrants etc.
Back in the day, Space Marine Captains had a base Weapon Skill 7, Strength 5, Toughness 5 without special armor to access it and had access to wargear that let them easily go toe to toe with a Greater Daemon.
I'm still curious why the Marine centerpiece model shouldn't be able to go toe-to-toe with the Daemon centerpiece model. Because its Marines and they're icky?
Because different factions can have different things?
Oh no, sorry, I mean of course Marines should just have everything other factions have. /sarcasm
No, it's because a marine is still just a marine, despite rank. And a Greater Daemon is something significantly beyond that. Please, let your bolter porn narrative be. If the antagonist isn't sufficiently frightening, then the protagonist is just a Mary Sue.
So you're saying because in the fluff the big hulking scary powerful Greater Daemon is something significant in combat, but the marine is just a marine regardless of the fluffed rank, age, and experience that doesn't matter. Glad you cleared that up.
Eyuup. Loyalist. Traitor. It doesn't matter. A marine should need help from other Marines in dealing with something like a Greater Daemon. Marines should work as squads. Not as Armies of One.
Good thing the armies aren't all Captains and Lords then, huh?
No, it's because a marine is still just a marine, despite rank. And a Greater Daemon is something significantly beyond that. Please, let your bolter porn narrative be. If the antagonist isn't sufficiently frightening, then the protagonist is just a Mary Sue.
So you're saying because in the fluff the big hulking scary powerful Greater Daemon is something significant in combat, but the marine is just a marine regardless of the fluffed rank, age, and experience that doesn't matter. Glad you cleared that up.
There's only so far those take...
Beside. Greater daemon hundreds of thousand years old has marine covered. So YOU are claiming age and experience doesn'' matter.
H.B.M.C. wrote: 2nd Ed was the days when a Genestealer could challenge a Marine Captain in combat, and two Genestealers were almost assured to win. 3? Captain is toast!
The old Genestealer Cult list for Necromunda had Genestealers, and they could get advances. You could have WS10 Genestealers running around.
It was a very silly, very glorious time to be involved for sure.
I kind of feel like Emil Blonski in that regard. If I took what I had now models and budget wise, and put it in the body of rules GW had thirty years ago, that would be someone I wouldn't want to fight.
Because it would be Off The Charts Awesome! Liked random sick and rad Guitar riffs every time I did anything. Like in a 90’s commercial, but not sucky.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Speaking of silly, this thread has somewhat become it.
Certain things aren’t as scary as they were in 2nd Ed, no. A chunk of that was the wholesale ditching of proper psychology rules, where the sight of a Carnifex devouring colleagues is met with a polite round of applause and an orderly queue, rather than pants filling terror. Where suddenly nobody is at all bothered about being set on fire.
Sod it. I’m gonna finish off my vintage rules collections and see if I can’t get a Sad Old Git Society going in Folkestone. 2nd Ed 40K and Epic would be my preference. Only three Codexes and Titan Legions to go!
Insectum7 wrote: Back in the day, a Space Marine captain had almost no hope of defeating some of these things, like Bloodthirsters, Avatars, Hive Tyrants etc.
Back in the day, Space Marine Captains had a base Weapon Skill 7, Strength 5, Toughness 5 without special armor to access it and had access to wargear that let them easily go toe to toe with a Greater Daemon.
I'm still curious why the Marine centerpiece model shouldn't be able to go toe-to-toe with the Daemon centerpiece model. Because its Marines and they're icky?
No, it's because a marine is still just a marine, despite rank. And a Greater Daemon is something significantly beyond that. Please, let your bolter porn narrative be. If the antagonist isn't sufficiently frightening, then the protagonist is just a Mary Sue.
This isn't necessarily true. Especially in a grimdark setting there are other (and supposedly more prevalent) tools to make a fight super-dramatic despite matching power levels. In fact, I would say grimdark works the best when the power levels are sufficiently blurry, so you can't bet on a random Greater Daemon stopping the Space Marine Captain from dooming the galaxy with an unthinkable calamity.
I think the real concern is that the game is designed so assault units - be they SM Captains, Bloodthirsters, Howling Banshees or Abberants etc act like missiles. They charge, they hopefully kill what they hit (and given the issues of getting across the table they need to or else won't see play), they then get shot/charged and die themselves. So the only thing really to do is put more and more explosive power into that missile - so yeah that boosted SM Captain can take out a Knight. Otherwise you just run into the Knight's kneecap, bounce, and die achieving nothing.
A more widespread adoption of rules that cap wounds lost per phase/turn could perhaps facilitate longer duels. But I feel this is generally a major divergence from how 40k is designed and played today.
Insectum7 wrote: Back in the day, a Space Marine captain had almost no hope of defeating some of these things, like Bloodthirsters, Avatars, Hive Tyrants etc.
Back in the day, Space Marine Captains had a base Weapon Skill 7, Strength 5, Toughness 5 without special armor to access it and had access to wargear that let them easily go toe to toe with a Greater Daemon.
I'm still curious why the Marine centerpiece model shouldn't be able to go toe-to-toe with the Daemon centerpiece model. Because its Marines and they're icky?
No, it's because a marine is still just a marine, despite rank. And a Greater Daemon is something significantly beyond that. Please, let your bolter porn narrative be. If the antagonist isn't sufficiently frightening, then the protagonist is just a Mary Sue.
This isn't necessarily true. Especially in a grimdark setting there are other (and supposedly more prevalent) tools to make a fight super-dramatic despite matching power levels. In fact, I would say grimdark works the best when the power levels are sufficiently blurry, so you can't bet on a random Greater Daemon stopping the Space Marine Captain from dooming the galaxy with an unthinkable calamity.
That's a bit of a wild take. I think most people who are pro- *or* anti- grimdark as a genre would agree that it usually wallows in themes such as hopeless striving, fatalism, inevitable outcomes, material conditions that overwhelm individual desires/objectives, brute realism that extinguishes idealism/ambition, etc.
You're simply describing what has to happen in a grimdark setting that is perpetually ongoing, not an actual artfully constructed narrative, and thus can never conclude in ultimate disaster. But an endless series of shroedinger's duels is absolutely not a marker of grimdark, or a desirable quality in any genre (except, perhaps, anime)
Insectum7 wrote: Back in the day, a Space Marine captain had almost no hope of defeating some of these things, like Bloodthirsters, Avatars, Hive Tyrants etc.
Back in the day, Space Marine Captains had a base Weapon Skill 7, Strength 5, Toughness 5 without special armor to access it and had access to wargear that let them easily go toe to toe with a Greater Daemon.
I'm still curious why the Marine centerpiece model shouldn't be able to go toe-to-toe with the Daemon centerpiece model. Because its Marines and they're icky?
No, it's because a marine is still just a marine, despite rank. And a Greater Daemon is something significantly beyond that. Please, let your bolter porn narrative be. If the antagonist isn't sufficiently frightening, then the protagonist is just a Mary Sue.
This isn't necessarily true. Especially in a grimdark setting there are other (and supposedly more prevalent) tools to make a fight super-dramatic despite matching power levels. In fact, I would say grimdark works the best when the power levels are sufficiently blurry, so you can't bet on a random Greater Daemon stopping the Space Marine Captain from dooming the galaxy with an unthinkable calamity.
You're simply describing what has to happen in a grimdark setting that is perpetually ongoing, not an actual artfully constructed narrative, and thus can never conclude in ultimate disaster.
It obviously shouldn't conclude in anything, because the whole point of grimdark is that the ultimate disaster is the ongoing present that will never end. And any attempt to end it fails because all sides are equally matched, so it is only hopeless striving, inevitable failures, as well as overwhelming conditions and brutal realism that extinguishes idealism/ambition. Be it for a Space Marine Captain or a Greater Daemon, tho these are poor examples because they are supposed to be the devils of the inescapable hell and not its victims, so their (indecisive and thus unending) fighting is what makes the world terrible and not have the capacity to actually change it regardless of the (improbable) victor. In this thought experiment, it would be more accurate to say that a Feral World warrior who becomes the hero of his tribe by defeating some evil raiders shouldn't be able to take on a Space Marine Captain or a Greater Daemon. Or a Guardsman, for that matter.
Insectum7 wrote: Back in the day, a Space Marine captain had almost no hope of defeating some of these things, like Bloodthirsters, Avatars, Hive Tyrants etc.
Back in the day, Space Marine Captains had a base Weapon Skill 7, Strength 5, Toughness 5 without special armor to access it and had access to wargear that let them easily go toe to toe with a Greater Daemon.
I'm still curious why the Marine centerpiece model shouldn't be able to go toe-to-toe with the Daemon centerpiece model. Because its Marines and they're icky?
Centrepiece or no, the SM Captain's equivalent in a Chaos Marine army is the Chaos Lord. And Chaos Lords are almost* as likely to die underfoot fighting a Greater Daemon.
* But they can be friends, instead, and do each other's hair.
Sod it. I’m gonna finish off my vintage rules collections and see if I can’t get a Sad Old Git Society going in Folkestone. 2nd Ed 40K and Epic would be my preference. Only three Codexes and Titan Legions to go!
Right, I'm moving to Folkestone. Finally a place for one more Sad Old Git to call home!
Breton wrote: I'm still curious why the Marine centerpiece model shouldn't be able to go toe-to-toe with the Daemon centerpiece model. Because its Marines and they're icky?
Being the top characters in their respective armies doesn't mean anything. I don't expect Company Commanders to go toe-to-toe with Hive Tyrants, or Crisis Suit Commanders on even footing with Avatars, and an Archon is a pretty capable fighter but his odds against a Warboss aren't great. While a SM Captain is significantly better than any human character (and should be able to take on a Chaos Lord, his actual direct equivalent) he's far from top dog in a universe full of eldritch horrors.
It's less 'because its Marines and they're icky' and more because a Captain, for all his experience and physical prowess, is not a thirty-foot-tall ancient supernatural embodiment of violence. Why would they be equals to begin with?
Objective Control – or OC – is a measure of how well a unit can secure critical locations. each model has an OC characteristic, and to determine who controls an objective, you simply count up the total OC of all models within range. This small but impactful change breathes new life into basic troops – taking and holding ground is a newfound specialty and a clear key to victory.
Warriors that were previously categorised as Troops will generally have a higher OC than elite units – whose job is not to hold ground, but to strike and move on. Vehicles and Monsters also earn a more substantial OC, so Knights and the like can muscle smaller units off objectives.
How does Leadership work?
Leadership is much more impactful in the new edition. Your units’ morale is now gauged with a Battle-shock test. Many factors can force a unit to test for Battle-shock, including being below Half-strength during the Command Phase. Fail and they struggle to capture objectives, use Stratagems, or Fall Back from combat.
You’ll also notice that Leadership now counts upwards. Our Intercessor has LD 6+ – which is equivalent to his old value of 8.
What’s happened to WS, BS, S, and A?
Offensive characteristics are still very much in the game – but they now live on weapon profiles, to help keep datasheets clear and easy to read.
Weapon profiles explained
Everything you need to take a shot or a swing at your enemies is now contained in an individual weapon profile – everything from Attacks to Weapon Skill to Damage is all in one place. This means that weapons like power fists, which used to need text to explain that they made things harder to hit, now have their own hit roll statistic.
Moreover, weapon profiles are tied to individual units – so a chainsword in the hands of a Space Marine is deadlier and easier to hit with than one held by a snivelling cultist.
The fundamental interactions haven’t changed – equal Strength and Toughness still means you wound on a roll of 4+, and so forth. It’s just that all of a weapon’s quirks are contained in its Core Abilities.
Many different effects are covered by Core Abilities, from classic weapon types like Assault and Rapid Fire to auto-hits from flame weapons.
A lot of this is just taking things that existed in 9th as multiple paragraphs of special rules for whatever factions needed it into a single box on the datasheet. This is a good thing, obviously.
I play with a relatively newbie, playing garage hammer, and I can already see an improvement having everything on one card, and listed out, rather than cycling through Str- user, Str +2, and having my partner fumble through the book to find the unit profiles.
so, supposition here, but i infer form the statment that a unit that fails its battleshock test will "struggle to capture objectives" to mean that failing the test imposes some modifer to the units OC stats, either indevidually or as a group. So, it could be a flat -1 to OC, or maybe the effective OC is halved when determining objective control, etc.
logically, i would assume their might also be abilities that grant extra OC to units, such as some WLTs, auras, or relics (especially ones links with granting ObSec in the current rules)
xerxeskingofking wrote: so, supposition here, but i infer form the statment that a unit that fails its battleshock test will "struggle to capture objectives" to mean that failing the test imposes some modifer to the units OC stats, either indevidually or as a group. So, it could be a flat -1 to OC, or maybe the effective OC is halved when determining objective control, etc.
logically, i would assume their might also be abilities that grant extra OC to units, such as some WLTs, auras, or relics (especially ones links with granting ObSec in the current rules)
Sounds like a good guess. Depending how it counts will determine if it’s unit or model based. If your average mini has 1 OC per model, are we going to deal with fractions?
On the second point, I’d like to see battle standards give an OC bonus. Hold the objective to the last (by letting the guys count as many) seems more in flavor than fight on death.
On the second point, I’d like to see battle standards give an OC bonus. Hold the objective to the last (by letting the guys count as many) seems more in flavor than fight on death.
Oh I really like that idea. Planting your flag on the objective and fighting off all comers seems very 40k.
xerxeskingofking wrote: so, supposition here, but i infer form the statment that a unit that fails its battleshock test will "struggle to capture objectives" to mean that failing the test imposes some modifer to the units OC stats, either indevidually or as a group. So, it could be a flat -1 to OC, or maybe the effective OC is halved when determining objective control, etc.
logically, i would assume their might also be abilities that grant extra OC to units, such as some WLTs, auras, or relics (especially ones links with granting ObSec in the current rules)
Sounds like a good guess. Depending how it counts will determine if it’s unit or model based. If your average mini has 1 OC per model, are we going to deal with fractions?
On the second point, I’d like to see battle standards give an OC bonus. Hold the objective to the last (by letting the guys count as many) seems more in flavor than fight on death.
What if instead of making the squad double count, the banner carrier counted as a whole squad unto himself? Sure paints an image of the sole survivor hoisting his flag on the bodies of the comrades who perished to ensure he'd stay standing...
I immediately realized that this might make bannermen too good, though probably a good sign that the mechanical concept got me overexcited
A unit which fails battle shock will probably get a -1 OC. This means that non-troops cannot control objectives, while troops even in disarray can still do it.
It is interesting that this happens at the start of the command phase. Objective counting is (right now) at the end of the command phase. So it may really mess up your plans.
I'm curious if OC 2 will be the baseline for all troops and OC 1 will be the baseline for all non-troops. Presumably ultra elites like Custodes might be OC 3-4 and Knights higher.
It confirms what we deduced about Leadership: it's roll 2D6, score higher than the printed value.
That sounds like an improvement, really. It was kind of odd in the earlier systems how you want to roll high for everything except for morale. This change makes it a little more consistent.
Also, apparently morale doesn't kill models now, and instead applies debuffs? I like that, I never liked the 8th ed morale mechanic where individual soldiers just "ran away" and was effectively just another way to killing units. I preferred it when units actually broke and ran away.
Hopefully broken squads are pinned this time instead of having stress-induced heart attacks.
How is 6+ LD equivalent to LD8? If my calculations are right,
LD8 had about a 66% chance of success. 6+ LD has about a 58% chance of success, That would mean that marines are easier to break now. 6+ LD would actually be comparable to LD7.
But Marines of course shall Know No Fear and be immune anyways... Unless you want a subfaction identity, in which case you'll pick a detachment, which will replace Know No Fear.
PenitentJake wrote: But Marines of course shall Know No Fear and be immune anyways... Unless you want a subfaction identity, in which case you'll pick a detachment, which will replace Know No Fear.
That's jumping the gun, I think. ATSKNF will likely be on datasheet and I highly doubt they'll be immune.
It confirms what we deduced about Leadership: it's roll 2D6, score higher than the printed value.
That sounds like an improvement, really.
It was kind of odd in the earlier systems how you want to roll high for everything except for morale. This change makes it a little more consistent.
Also, apparently morale doesn't kill models now, and instead applies debuffs? I like that, I never liked the 8th ed morale mechanic where individual soldiers just "ran away" and was effectively just another way to killing units.
I preferred it when units actually broke and ran away.
Hopefully broken squads are pinned this time instead of having stress-induced heart attacks.
How is 6+ LD equivalent to LD8?
If my calculations are right,
LD8 had about a 66% chance of success.
6+ LD has about a 58% chance of success,
That would mean that marines are easier to break now.
6+ LD would actually be comparable to LD7.
They could be refering to old editions were LD test was roll 2d6 and if you rolled lower than 8 you passed. rolling 6+ with 2d6 is the same chance as rolling 8 oder lower.
PenitentJake wrote: But Marines of course shall Know No Fear and be immune anyways... Unless you want a subfaction identity, in which case you'll pick a detachment, which will replace Know No Fear.
That's jumping the gun, I think. ATSKNF will likely be on datasheet and I highly doubt they'll be immune.
ATSKNF could be a reroll like in the older editions.
Have they said if all POSSIBLE weapon options for a unit will be on the unit's data sheet? The Termie data sheet gives me hope that's the case. It's so annoying to have to randomly cycle to the weapons reference section for a random weapon or two because not everything is listed under the data sheet right now...
Had a feeling going with just "power weapon" and "force weapon" was one of the ways they were going to go about consolidating weapon options in 10th, looks like that turns out to be right based on the Termie sheet (still don't know for sure about Force but figure if they consolidated power then that is likely too)
ikeulhu wrote: Had a feeling going with just "power weapon" and "force weapon" was one of the ways they were going to go about consolidating weapon options in 10th, looks like that turns out to be right based on the Termie sheet (still don't know for sure about Force but figure if they consolidated power then that is likely too)
Err these terminators only ever had a sword. What is there to consolidate?
Automatically Appended Next Post: I LOVE this design. A strat that moves you on their turn.
ikeulhu wrote: Had a feeling going with just "power weapon" and "force weapon" was one of the ways they were going to go about consolidating weapon options in 10th, looks like that turns out to be right based on the Termie sheet (still don't know for sure about Force but figure if they consolidated power then that is likely too)
Err these terminators only ever had a sword. What is there to consolidate?
And the sheet still always said power sword, not power weapon. This is a likely (not definite, but more probable they would have just put power sword instead of weapon if they were not consolidating) sign that the power sword, axe, and maul that can be used by other units (like DW termies or Wolf Guard for example) will just become "power weapon"
What does GW have against printing Invulnerable Saves on the statline?
"We put the model's toughness, saves and wounds on the top-left of the page, so that they're all together and easy to see at a glance . . . except for the Invulnerable Save which we instead put on the bottom-right of the page, as far from the other stats as possible."
vipoid wrote: What does GW have against printing Invulnerable Saves on the statline?
"We put the model's toughness, saves and wounds on the top-left of the page, so that they're all together and easy to see at a glance . . . except for the Invulnerable Save which we instead put on the bottom-right of the page, as far from the other stats as possible."
I would say because it isn't a common item shared among all cards and prevents confusion, I guess.
vipoid wrote: What does GW have against printing Invulnerable Saves on the statline?
"We put the model's toughness, saves and wounds on the top-left of the page, so that they're all together and easy to see at a glance . . . except for the Invulnerable Save which we instead put on the bottom-right of the page, as far from the other stats as possible."
I would say because it isn't a common item shared among all cards and prevents confusion, I guess.
If i'd had to guess i'd say it is because the invulnerable save is an additional ability rather than an intrinsic part of an units stats, and probably more easily modified by other stuff. I still think we'll see stuff like cards/chits/whatever that you put on or over certain parts of the unit card to denote special wargear and such, and that the position in that column of the profile has something to do with it. We do already know that there are 'Enhancements', maybe that's their name for that.
Additional ability or not, giving it the exact same style as header text (the Ranged Weapons, Melee Weapons, and Abilities blocks) is poor visual design.
nordsturmking wrote: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/04/just-how-tough-are-terminators-in-the-new-edition-of-warhammer-40000/
so termis have T5 now... i really hope custodes will have T6 other wise this is a fething joke
I think GW wants to increase the overall range of Toughness values for the game (capping everything at T8 for a while was a terrible decision IMO) but they are going to do it very gingerly given the backlack after Orks went to T5. That said I predict we'll see a handful of units get +1 T across the factions. I'm guessing Custodes will be T5 but Custodes Termies will be T6. Meganobs and similar may also get bumped up to T6 as well.
vipoid wrote: What does GW have against printing Invulnerable Saves on the statline?
"We put the model's toughness, saves and wounds on the top-left of the page, so that they're all together and easy to see at a glance . . . except for the Invulnerable Save which we instead put on the bottom-right of the page, as far from the other stats as possible."
Yeah that's an easy slam dunk they missed. Putting 4++ as the next column would have saved them a ton of space instead of printing Invul on every data card.
Blast
Anti-vehicle
Ignores Cover
Torrent
Devastating Wounds
... and the Rapid Ingress strat
... oh, and of course Deepstrike and Oath of Moment
Oh, and there are no indications of how many of each weapon you're allowed to take- so I guess that's a Cyclone, an Assault Cannon and a Power Fist for everyone?
Now of course, I'm being a bit facetious here- obviously a lot of the missing rules will be USRs... But will they be on the two page spread, or will they be in the dex, or will they be in the BRB... or some combination of the above?
Also, as noted by others, this profile doesn't include Assault Terminator weapons like Claws and Hammers, so consolidationist weep- there will continue to be at least two datacards for Terminators and likely another for Relic termies.
Regardless of where the USRs go, if a quick-reference sheet isn't provided they'll be on a fan-made one within about two hours of the game releasing.
Defining out every single keyword rule was never going to happen in the first place. They're just extending the system already established by keywords like Rapid Fire and Blast. If there's a more complete datasheet in the codex then that might contain full text for USRs, but the unit reference card should not. That's what your USR quick-reference sheet is for (see above).
Same deal with unit construction. Not relevant ingame, shouldn't be on the unit card. How many weapons the unit can pick and what they cost goes in the codex. Once you hit the table that's no longer relevant.
Really so far the only thing that gives me pause is that poor presentation of invulnerable saves. Everything else seems fine. I especially like the separation between Core, Faction, and unit-specific rules.
Blast
Anti-vehicle
Ignores Cover
Torrent
Devastating Wounds
... and the Rapid Ingress strat
... oh, and of course Deepstrike and Oath of Moment
Oh, and there are no indications of how many of each weapon you're allowed to take- so I guess that's a Cyclone, an Assault Cannon and a Power Fist for everyone?
Now of course, I'm being a bit facetious here- obviously a lot of the missing rules will be USRs... But will they be on the two page spread, or will they be in the dex, or will they be in the BRB... or some combination of the above?
Also, as noted by others, this profile doesn't include Assault Terminator weapons like Claws and Hammers, so consolidationist weep- there will continue to be at least two datacards for Terminators and likely another for Relic termies.
We also know that stuff like doctrines you can pick&choose from also exists and is linked to detachments, so there are already rules that are not on the card, but on your detachment sheet or whatever it is called.
No. Critical wounds just means an auto-success on a predefined roll, and 'Devastating Wounds' is supposedly something like the different varieties of 'Rending' in past editions.
If I had to guess a Critical Wound is a 6, so the usual rolling a 6 wounds the target regardless of your puny strength. Some abilities like Anti change that to a 3+ for instance.
Devastating Wounds is a keyword, perhaps it is exploding 6s when wounding which would make sense for an assault cannon.
No. Critical wounds just means an auto-success on a predefined roll, and 'Devastating Wounds' is supposedly something like the different varieties of 'Rending' in past editions.
No?
Wounds (normal S vs. T)
Critical wounds (auto-wound <Keyword> on X+)
Devastating wounds (?)
Mortal wounds (ignores Sv. and Invulnerable Sv.)
No. Critical wounds just means an auto-success on a predefined roll, and 'Devastating Wounds' is supposedly something like the different varieties of 'Rending' in past editions.
No?
Wounds (normal S vs. T)
Critical wounds (auto-wound <Keyword> on X+)
Devastating wounds (?)
Mortal wounds (ignores Sv. and Invulnerable Sv.)
Looks like 4 to me.
It's not 'Types of Wounds', it's 'Abilities that have Wound somewhere in the name'.
I guess this is a system so you can have things proc off "critical wounds". But it does feel like adding complexity when as written it seems to be trying for "this anti-X weapon (3+) will always wound X on at least a 3+".
Tyel wrote: I guess this is a system so you can have things proc off "critical wounds". But it does feel like adding complexity when as written it seems to be trying for "this anti-X weapon (3+) will always wound X on at least a 3+".
Yeah, it feels more complex when you see it for the first time, but all it really does is codify stuff that we have already, albeit under many different names. 'Poison' abilities, the Vindicares manifold anti-character abilities etc. all work more or less off this system, so it makes sense to give it a more structured base and hammer everything into this mould
No. Critical wounds just means an auto-success on a predefined roll, and 'Devastating Wounds' is supposedly something like the different varieties of 'Rending' in past editions.
No?
Wounds (normal S vs. T)
Critical wounds (auto-wound <Keyword> on X+)
Devastating wounds (?)
Mortal wounds (ignores Sv. and Invulnerable Sv.)
Looks like 4 to me.
It's not 'Types of Wounds', it's 'Abilities that have Wound somewhere in the name'.
So, in the current edition you make no distinction between 'wounds' and 'mortal wounds'? Effectively meaning that wounds with stipulations don't count as their own thing? Seems to me that you're getting the 'cause' twisted with the 'result'.
Blast
Anti-vehicle
Ignores Cover
Torrent
Devastating Wounds
... and the Rapid Ingress strat
... oh, and of course Deepstrike and Oath of Moment
Oh, and there are no indications of how many of each weapon you're allowed to take- so I guess that's a Cyclone, an Assault Cannon and a Power Fist for everyone?
Now of course, I'm being a bit facetious here- obviously a lot of the missing rules will be USRs... But will they be on the two page spread, or will they be in the dex, or will they be in the BRB... or some combination of the above?
Also, as noted by others, this profile doesn't include Assault Terminator weapons like Claws and Hammers, so consolidationist weep- there will continue to be at least two datacards for Terminators and likely another for Relic termies.
There's a none-zero chance this is the card for the unit in the launch box and that the multi-part kit covers assault variant weapons as well.
So, in the current edition you make no distinction between 'wounds' and 'mortal wounds'? Effectively meaning that wounds with stipulations don't count as their own thing? Seems to me that you're getting the 'cause' twisted with the 'result'.
The main rules make a distinction between "Wounds" and "Mortal Wounds". "Critical Wounds" and "Devastating Wounds" are special rules that still depend on the standard "Wounds" mechanic, they're not a new type of wound. Do you think every modifier or auto-wound ability in 9th is a different type of wound, too?
So, in the current edition you make no distinction between 'wounds' and 'mortal wounds'? Effectively meaning that wounds with stipulations don't count as their own thing? Seems to me that you're getting the 'cause' twisted with the 'result'.
The main rules make a distinction between "Wounds" and "Mortal Wounds". "Critical Wounds" and "Devastating Wounds" are special rules that still depend on the standard "Wounds" mechanic, they're not a new type of wound. Do you think every modifier or auto-wound ability in 9th is a different type of wound, too?
nordsturmking wrote: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/04/just-how-tough-are-terminators-in-the-new-edition-of-warhammer-40000/
so termis have T5 now... i really hope custodes will have T6 other wise this is a fething joke
I think GW wants to increase the overall range of Toughness values for the game (capping everything at T8 for a while was a terrible decision IMO) but they are going to do it very gingerly given the backlack after Orks went to T5. That said I predict we'll see a handful of units get +1 T across the factions. I'm guessing Custodes will be T5 but Custodes Termies will be T6. Meganobs and similar may also get bumped up to T6 as well.
If they don't bump them to T6 or do something to make them tougher, a SM termi will be no different from a custodes which would suck. The termi will even hin on 2+ with the ability.
The Red Hobbit wrote: If I had to guess a Critical Wound is a 6, so the usual rolling a 6 wounds the target regardless of your puny strength. Some abilities like Anti change that to a 3+ for instance.
So, in the current edition you make no distinction between 'wounds' and 'mortal wounds'? Effectively meaning that wounds with stipulations don't count as their own thing? Seems to me that you're getting the 'cause' twisted with the 'result'.
Mortal wound ignores save & inv. Critical wound doesn't.
Better if instead of anti-vehicle 3+ it reads automatically wounds vehicles on 3+?
Another thing to note: there’s no separate entries or modifiers for a sergeant model. Right now a Termie sarge has +1 to attack and leadership.
It’s possible this is a terminator and/or veteran unit only thing.
It’s also seems likely that sergeant and equivalent models won’t exist rules wise. They’ll likely be called out as “a single model can be armed with…” if that guess is true.
TreeStewges wrote: Another thing to note: there’s no separate entries or modifiers for a sergeant model. Right now a Termie sarge has +1 to attack and leadership.
It’s possible this is a terminator and/or veteran unit only thing.
It’s also seems likely that sergeant and equivalent models won’t exist rules wise. They’ll likely be called out as “a single model can be armed with…” if that guess is true.
Good catch - I didn't even think of that. Weird.
Termies are pretty non-descript with loadouts, so it will be interesting to see a unit with a more official sergeant.
TreeStewges wrote: Another thing to note: there’s no separate entries or modifiers for a sergeant model. Right now a Termie sarge has +1 to attack and leadership.
Note that the Power Sword has 4 Attacks vs the 3 Attacks of the other weapons. The LD is probably baked in. The Sergeant is probably mentioned in the section where you pay for the squad size and loadout.
TreeStewges wrote: Another thing to note: there’s no separate entries or modifiers for a sergeant model. Right now a Termie sarge has +1 to attack and leadership.
Note that the Power Sword has 4 Attacks vs the 3 Attacks of the other weapons. The LD is probably baked in. The Sergeant is probably mentioned in the section where you pay for the squad size and loadout.
Ack. I always thought that power sword was replaceable, but I guess it isn't. I'm too used to assault termies. So I wonder how they'll handle those datasheets.
So, after a little work in Photoshop, the max. number of weapon profiles that will fit onto a card is 15. Only 14 will fit if the note tag is needed (i.e. choose a profile tag).
TreeStewges wrote: Another thing to note: there’s no separate entries or modifiers for a sergeant model. Right now a Termie sarge has +1 to attack and leadership.
Note that the Power Sword has 4 Attacks vs the 3 Attacks of the other weapons. The LD is probably baked in. The Sergeant is probably mentioned in the section where you pay for the squad size and loadout.
Ack. I always thought that power sword was replaceable, but I guess it isn't.
That sword has never been replaceable, it's absolutely obnoxious.
You’re both assuming the extra attack on the power weapon is because it’s for the ‘sergeant’ model and not possibly because it’s a way to make the power weapon seem attractive compared to the fist.
I mean, the power fist, chainfist and thunder hammer traditionally, AFAIK, had an accuracy penalty for using them.
By that sheet, only the chainfist has less accuracy.
Blast Anti-vehicle Ignores Cover Torrent Devastating Wounds ... and the Rapid Ingress strat ... oh, and of course Deepstrike and Oath of Moment
Oh, and there are no indications of how many of each weapon you're allowed to take- so I guess that's a Cyclone, an Assault Cannon and a Power Fist for everyone?
Now of course, I'm being a bit facetious here- obviously a lot of the missing rules will be USRs... But will they be on the two page spread, or will they be in the dex, or will they be in the BRB... or some combination of the above?
Also, as noted by others, this profile doesn't include Assault Terminator weapons like Claws and Hammers, so consolidationist weep- there will continue to be at least two datacards for Terminators and likely another for Relic termies.
Pg.1 Basic stat profiles Pg.2 Weapon profiles,
GW never said anything about ALL the rules being the pages. MAYBE they'll have USRs and page reference if you're lucky.
EDIT: I take that back, they did literally say ALL the rules.
TreeStewges wrote: You’re both assuming the extra attack on the power weapon is because it’s for the ‘sergeant’ model and not possibly because it’s a way to make the power weapon seem attractive compared to the fist.
I mean, the power fist, chainfist and thunder hammer traditionally, AFAIK, had an accuracy penalty for using them.
By that sheet, only the chainfist has less accuracy.
Well we know power sword is only used by sergeant. We also know power swora stats between cards don't have to match.
Also, as noted by others, this profile doesn't include Assault Terminator weapons like Claws and Hammers, so consolidationist weep- there will continue to be at least two datacards for Terminators and likely another for Relic termies.
Wouldnt these just fall under "power weapon" on the data card? so both hammers and claws could just be used under the generic "power weapon" profile
TreeStewges wrote: Another thing to note: there’s no separate entries or modifiers for a sergeant model. Right now a Termie sarge has +1 to attack and leadership.
It’s possible this is a terminator and/or veteran unit only thing.
It’s also seems likely that sergeant and equivalent models won’t exist rules wise. They’ll likely be called out as “a single model can be armed with…” if that guess is true.
Good catch - I didn't even think of that. Weird.
Termies are pretty non-descript with loadouts, so it will be interesting to see a unit with a more official sergeant.
Stuff like the Aspiring Sorcerer would probably have to be its own card, right? It is already a bit awkward sharing space with the rubrics with the way things are formatted now and I doubt they'd even have room on the new datacards.
Also, as noted by others, this profile doesn't include Assault Terminator weapons like Claws and Hammers, so consolidationist weep- there will continue to be at least two datacards for Terminators and likely another for Relic termies.
Wouldnt these just fall under "power weapon" on the data card? so both hammers and claws could just be used under the generic "power weapon" profile
Or this being tactical terminators don't show weapons unit can't have?
GW never said anything about ALL the rules being the pages. MAYBE they'll have USRs and page reference if you're lucky.
EDIT: I take that back, they did literally say ALL the rules.
All the rules are on the card in that example. You would only have to reference the universal special rules page if you didn't know what the keywords meant. The rule is literally on the card. An explanation of every rule isn't printed on each card. In GWs defense i think it would be very annoying to have something like "feel no pain" written out in long-form text on each card
Also, as noted by others, this profile doesn't include Assault Terminator weapons like Claws and Hammers, so consolidationist weep- there will continue to be at least two datacards for Terminators and likely another for Relic termies.
Wouldnt these just fall under "power weapon" on the data card? so both hammers and claws could just be used under the generic "power weapon" profile
Or this being tactical terminators don't show weapons unit can't have?
Yes that's true, i was just saying this new keyword technically allows you to hobby on any power weapon for hobby purposes and allows you to run it under this generic profile
Except that the power weapon is just called power weapon. This would mean that sergeants, lieutenants and captains no longer have extra attacks compared to each other.
Further again, while the power weapon is only, presumably, for the sergeant, it having an extra attack doesn’t mean it’s the only weapon a sarge can take.
Like the chainsword and lightning claw traditionally, the generic power weapon having an extra attack is likely just a reason to even take it over a power fist or chainfist.
We have three scenarios here:
1.) Leader models no longer exist.
2.) Weapon options are homogenized such that leader units, like a captain, are no longer better at using weapons chainsword, power sword, etc. in any way over a generic battle brother. Since captains are often a bit more accurate, it’s also likely this will remain true for ranger as well.
3.) The homogenization is only for certain units like Terminators.
The first two are really sucky to me, the third also sucks but is more livable.
Arachnofiend wrote: Stuff like the Aspiring Sorcerer would probably have to be its own card, right? It is already a bit awkward sharing space with the rubrics with the way things are formatted now and I doubt they'd even have room on the new datacards.
I imagine Rubrics/Scarabs will have All is Dust and then the rest of the sheet will be the sorcerer's spells. All is Dust doesn't have to cover heavy penalties any longer since that is covered by baked in BS. Double tap at 24" went away for termies so unless they give us the old 'Slow and Purposeful' the stuff like Malicious Volleys will be gone.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoletta wrote: Invul saves were a concern when AP was high.
Now we are seeing former -4 weapons (sometimes -5) being scaled back to -2.
At this point plasma is -2 for sure.
I wouldn't be surprised if even melta is -2 with anti tank 4+ which becomes 3+ in short range.
So, against which weapon will that invul save be actually relevant?
3++ saves were a concern when they were common. A few here and there isn't bad. A 4++ isn't uncommon at all.
I doubt melta or plasma will go down that far, but I do look forward to how it might change mechanically.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoiler:
TreeStewges wrote: Except that the power weapon is just called power weapon. This would mean that sergeants, lieutenants and captains no longer have extra attacks compared to each other.
Further again, while the power weapon is only, presumably, for the sergeant, it having an extra attack doesn’t mean it’s the only weapon a sarge can take.
Like the chainsword and lightning claw traditionally, the generic power weapon having an extra attack is likely just a reason to even take it over a power fist or chainfist.
We have three scenarios here:
1.) Leader models no longer exist.
2.) Weapon options are homogenized such that leader units, like a captain, are no longer better at using weapons chainsword, power sword, etc. in any way over a generic battle brother. Since captains are often a bit more accurate, it’s also likely this will remain true for ranger as well.
3.) The homogenization is only for certain units like Terminators.
The first two are really sucky to me, the third also sucks but is more livable.
The rules are following the kit. The sarge in that unit can't switch his weapon at all. I will go with none of the above.
TreeStewges wrote: Except that the power weapon is just called power weapon. This would mean that sergeants, lieutenants and captains no longer have extra attacks compared to each other.
GW has already said that the name of the weapon has no bearing on what stats it will have on different cards. Not all Power Weapons will be 4 Attacks. It has 4 Attacks on this card because that's how many attacks the model using it(The Sergeant as very clearly indicated by the models) has.
All calling it "Power Weapons" does is that we're not tied to modelling it a certain way.
Yes that's true, i was just saying this new keyword technically allows you to hobby on any power weapon for hobby purposes and allows you to run it under this generic profile
Well you are assuming that power weapon covers thunderhammer(fist would be more appropriate...) based on..what? Datasheet not having weapon unit can't even use?
Are stormbolters and lasguns combined because sheet doesn't show lasgun? Cyclone and multl melta? Assault cannon and punisher cannon?
Daedalus81 wrote: I would say because it isn't a common item shared among all cards and prevents confusion, I guess.
I would argue that it adds to confusion because it's so easy to overlook.
Unrelated, I see GW's concerns over invulnerable save creep didn't last long, given that terminators now have a 4++ as standard.
Invul saves were a concern when AP was high.
Now we are seeing former -4 weapons (sometimes -5) being scaled back to -2.
At this point plasma is -2 for sure.
I wouldn't be surprised if even melta is -2 with anti tank 4+ which becomes 3+ in short range.
So, against which weapon will that invul save be actually relevant?
I'd wager that e.g. monstrous creatures will have not only high-strength attacks, but also pretty hefty AP values on their non-sweep CC attacks, from the video trailer i'd guess that the Screamer-Killer and the Shrike/Tyranid Prime will be in a range that makes the invulnerable save relevant, the latter ripped a Terminator in half in the trailer...
Note that the auto-wound is also a Critical... Thing.
That might tie into other rules. Say, a Melta Crit does 2 extra damage. So targeting a Rhino (if it stays T7) at max range means that a 3 to-wound does d6 damage, while a 4+ to-wound does d6+2.
That might tie into other rules. Say, a Melta Crit does 2 extra damage. So targeting a Rhino (if it stays T7) at max range means that a 3 to-wound does d6 damage, while a 4+ to-wound does d6+2.
Yes, by using defined terms, they can chain stuff together. Melta having Anti-Armour(3+) and a 'The Meltinizer' rule that says 'Every time this weapon causes a critical hit, it causes an additional mortal wound / damage for this hit is doubled / no armour saves are allowed against that hit' would make their special rule more deadly against tanks, but not remove it completely against other targets.
I'd strongly adivse people to look at the Vindicare profile in the PDF that got released some time ago, IMHO some of its skills are practically 10th edition rules avant la lettre
I wonder how / if they will represent things like wolf gaurd terminator squad leaders, rubric socrcers and boss nob squad leaders. Will they need their own card or will it all be tied together. Also, will there be room on a datacard for all the weapon options that currently come in some kits, like, will they bring out all the combi options on each card or will combi weapons become a single weapon or w/e ... I am especially currious about sergeant/ you can take 0-1 stuff that has very different wargear from the rest of the unit
Type40 wrote: I wonder how / if they will represent things like wolf gaurd terminator squad leaders, rubric socrcers and boss nob squad leaders. Will they need their own card or will it all be tied together. Also, will there be room on a datacard for all the weapon options that currently come in some kits, like, will they bring out all the combi options on each card or will combi weapons become a single weapon or w/e ... I am especially currious about sergeant/ you can take 0-1 stuff that has very different wargear from the rest of the unit
The cyclone on termies is no different from combi. All that stuff will be on the sheet -- there definitely won't be a separate sheet for sergeants. They're just going to have to be a little creative with some.
1) have a "sgts sword" weapon profile if hes armed with the same weapon as his men with the extra attack. they've already indicated that weapon profiles can vary between users, so a captain with a chainsword will have more attacks with a higher WS than a cultist with a chainsword, and possible better damage or AP if they wanted.
2) have a "sgt" ability in the unit abilites box that grants the unit 1 extra attack with that weapon profile. i think this is the least likely option, personally, but i cant rule it out.
3) sgts no longer automatically get an extra attack for having a few stripes. we've seen they grant no extra LD bonus (it appears to be embodied in the main statline), so its possible they just dont give him an extra punch.
Daedalus81 wrote: Yea honestly who ever pulled their sarge first and took a LD hit? The LD differential was almost pointless for the way the rules worked.
Terminators, all the time, better to keep Powerfists/Chainfists/Heavy Weapons. The Sarge in a Terminator Squad is the fella with the worst wargear.
Daedalus81 wrote: Yea honestly who ever pulled their sarge first and took a LD hit? The LD differential was almost pointless for the way the rules worked.
Terminators, all the time, better to keep Powerfists/Chainfists/Heavy Weapons. The Sarge in a Terminator Squad is the fella with the worst wargear.
And it looks like that hasn't changed with this datasheet either.
This Terminator Datasheet Preview is just chock full of information and possible design cues. I'll not retread that already discussed but I did notice a few interesting ones.
The Terminator Sergeant: There are no differences between this model and the rest of the squad we can see other that it presumedly being the model armed with the power weapon. Is this a design element of most units in 10th Edition or just a callback to pre-8th Edition where all Space Marine Veteran models had the same Attack and Leadership characteristics?
Leadership: Isn't odd that Intercessors and Terminators have the same Leadership scores? That only happened in pre-8th Edition when the Troops squads had a Veteran Sergeant model in them. Remember the good old days when you didn't have to pay for a Veteran Sergeant if you didn't want to?
Stratagem Card: I hope all the Stratagems are actually written out like Rapid Ingress. When, Target, Effect, and Restrictions on every stratagem? Yes, please.
Abilities: I like how they marked out the Core and Faction Abilities to tell you where to go looking for them. No rifling through the wrong book. Now we just need to hope they don't tell you to look at other units for an ability like the have done far to often in the past.
1) have a "sgts sword" weapon profile if hes armed with the same weapon as his men with the extra attack. they've already indicated that weapon profiles can vary between users, so a captain with a chainsword will have more attacks with a higher WS than a cultist with a chainsword, and possible better damage or AP if they wanted.
2) have a "sgt" ability in the unit abilites box that grants the unit 1 extra attack with that weapon profile. i think this is the least likely option, personally, but i cant rule it out.
3) sgts no longer automatically get an extra attack for having a few stripes. we've seen they grant no extra LD bonus (it appears to be embodied in the main statline), so its possible they just dont give him an extra punch.
This all makes a lot of sense, but I guess the bigger question for me is when a model has more wounds or a different save/invul then the rest of the squad, like a wolf gaurd termie or a boss nob. I guess both those things can also be abilities... Or maybe units with those kinds of options get cut out completely? I dunno, I hope not ...
Hellebore wrote: They've doubled down on their toughness fetish.
I will be interested to see how 'speed defence' is represented in this version, because there are no basic mechanics capable of representing it.
Are all eldar going to get a 4+ reflexes save or something?
Because they aren't tough and tough is all gw seems to care about...
That was said on the reveal stream that they've gone past the artificial ceiling of T8
Theyve done that while not upping the strength of weapons, which means your elves now get to be tankier too (i assume anything wraith will be t8+, vypers will probably go up to T6-7, etc.)
Hellebore wrote: They've doubled down on their toughness fetish.
I will be interested to see how 'speed defence' is represented in this version, because there are no basic mechanics capable of representing it.
Are all eldar going to get a 4+ reflexes save or something?
Because they aren't tough and tough is all gw seems to care about...
That was said on the reveal stream that they've gone past the artificial ceiling of T8
Theyve done that while not upping the strength of weapons, which means your elves now get to be tankier too (i assume anything wraith will be t8+, vypers will probably go up to T6-7, etc.)
I can't see them giving eldar infantry T4 though, not the same as a space marine GASP!
So they're still T3 W1 Sv3/4+ which makes them fragile regardless.
Well, they are introducing reactions as a major mechanic of the edition. Could be plenty of "Fire and Fade" type stuff for speedy fragile factions like Eldar.
Arachnofiend wrote: Well, they are introducing reactions as a major mechanic of the edition. Could be plenty of "Fire and Fade" type stuff for speedy fragile factions like Eldar.
Oooh, that makes sense. Eldar might be really slippery until you get close enough. Should be interesting to see how it all comes out.
Arachnofiend wrote: Well, they are introducing reactions as a major mechanic of the edition. Could be plenty of "Fire and Fade" type stuff for speedy fragile factions like Eldar.
Yes that's a potential. I might be mistaken but I thought that reactions weren't going to be super common. HH has a very restrictive use of reactions for example.
I mean I'd love to see the eldar make dodge reactions against incoming fire, but I'm skeptical that it will be anything but one unit a round getting it.
Arachnofiend wrote: Well, they are introducing reactions as a major mechanic of the edition. Could be plenty of "Fire and Fade" type stuff for speedy fragile factions like Eldar.
Yes that's a potential. I might be mistaken but I thought that reactions weren't going to be super common. HH has a very restrictive use of reactions for example.
I mean I'd love to see the eldar make dodge reactions against incoming fire, but I'm skeptical that it will be anything but one unit a round getting it.
So far we've seen no indications that only one unit per phase can react as in HH, and the verbiage on the Termagant ability makes it sound like every unit with a reaction ability will be able to use it once per turn.
Arachnofiend wrote: Well, they are introducing reactions as a major mechanic of the edition. Could be plenty of "Fire and Fade" type stuff for speedy fragile factions like Eldar.
Yes that's a potential. I might be mistaken but I thought that reactions weren't going to be super common. HH has a very restrictive use of reactions for example.
I mean I'd love to see the eldar make dodge reactions against incoming fire, but I'm skeptical that it will be anything but one unit a round getting it.
So far we've seen no indications that only one unit per phase can react as in HH, and the verbiage on the Termagant ability makes it sound like every unit with a reaction ability will be able to use it once per turn.
Your opponent makes all their moves and you can go for an ambush dumping the terminators behind cover, but possibly within a move and charge distance on your turn instead of the usual dump them and only get to shoot and gamble a charge. The opponent has the ability to get close and shut the beacon down essentially so either it becomes a no-go zone or they chance an advance roll.
The placement of this thing is going to be difficult to get right. Also, it looks like you can't trade beacons. The wording makes it so that they can't use a beacon placed by a second termie unit -- if I'm reading it correctly.
I think Rapid Fire is a missed opportunity to simplify things. Something like this would be better:
Storm bolter [Rapid Fire] 12"/24" 4/2 3+ 4 0 1
You could even remove [Rapid Fire] from the line. Even if its a universal rule people may need to flip to find the rapid fire blurb when they could have explicitly put more on the card.
Daedalus81 wrote: Yea honestly who ever pulled their sarge first and took a LD hit? The LD differential was almost pointless for the way the rules worked.
Well its attached to the Assault Cannon so I'm guess Devastating will either be Exploding 6s or or something that has an easier time wounding against targets with poor Armor Saves.
Given 6s to wound are called critical wounds and auto succeed, there's some logic to that
I guess it's a variant of exploding dice, since the wording 'Devastating Wounds' implies there are other 'Devastating' things, or it could just be called 'Devastating'. My guess is that there are some 'Devastating Hits' on other weapons.
So just to clarify, anti-vehicle 3+ just means it always wounds vehicles on a 3+ at minimum, right?
Maybe they'll give Gauss some anti-vehicle rule. They seem to be porting / adapting a lot of rules that were present in earlier editions, so maybe gauss will get some of it's flavour back after it's 8th ed better penetration gimmick was poached by bolt rifles.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: So just to clarify, anti-vehicle 3+ just means it always wounds vehicles on a 3+ at minimum, right?
Yes. Which is particularly interesting, because the S8 of Chainfists will probably be normally wounding Rhinos on 4s and Vindicators on 5s. That makes the Chainfist AV3+ a standout tool to deal with those profiles.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: So just to clarify, anti-vehicle 3+ just means it always wounds vehicles on a 3+ at minimum, right?
Yes. Which is particularly interesting, because the S8 of Chainfists will probably be normally wounding Rhinos on 4s and Vindicators on 5s. That makes the Chainfist AV3+ a standout tool to deal with those profiles.
If they are increasing toughness values across the board, the anti-x rule may indeed be pretty useful.
I wouldn't be surprised if Dark Eldar poison get both the anti-infantry and anti-monster rules.
it should, but the preview is written in a strange way (at least for me a non native speaker), as:
"produce a critical wound (guaranteed success, normally achieved by rolling an unmodified 6) on any wound roll that matches or beats the specific score regardless of toughness"
this just reads much more complicated than needed as a simple, "always wounds Keyword units on X regardless of toughness" would be the same (unless there is something else and that text is needed to keep things different)
kodos wrote: it should, but the preview is written in a strange way (at least for me a non native speaker), as:
"produce a critical wound (guaranteed success, normally achieved by rolling an unmodified 6) on any wound roll that matches or beats the specific score regardless of toughness"
this just reads much more complicated than needed as a simple, "always wounds Keyword units on X regardless of toughness" would be the same (unless there is something else and that text is needed to keep things different)
If it's "always wounds on x regardless of toughness", then some smart-arse can just say "it says always wound on a 4+ regardless of toughness, therefore this S6 weapon that would normally wound a T3 target on a 2+ wounds it on a 4+ instead".
Hence the requirement for a "at minimum" or "at worse" clause rather than "always".
What they wrote does seem awkward, but it does make sense if you break it down;
There's a mechanic called critical wounds (apparently).
Critical wounds are guaranteed successes.
This rule guarantees a success (referred to as a critical wound) if you roll equal to or above the listed value.
If it's "always wounds on x regardless of toughness", then some smart-arse can just say "it says always wound on a 4+ regardless of toughness, therefore this S6 weapon that would normally wound a T3 target on a 2+ wounds it on a 4+ instead".
Hence the requirement for a "at minimum" or "at worse" clause rather than "always"..
but this is also what they wrote, a Chainfist will wound on 3+, if there is a rare case that a vehicle would be wounded by normal attack with 2+, the Chainfist will still produce a critical hit on 3+
so as written, there must be more to the "critical wound" otherwise it is just a complicated sentence for nothing
(as: "Anti <Keyword> X+: Critical Wound on a wound roll of X+ against <Keyword> units" is enough)
Spoletta wrote: I believe that there is more to the critical wounds.
Some of the leaks did talk about this, just in a different way.
According to those, critical wounds normally have no additional effects, but there are rules tied to them.
Devastating wounds could be one of such rules.
Nah, that's nonsense, the 50pager did a whole convoluted system where some rolls were 'glances' that counted as half-wounds and could be added up and 'criticals' were double-wounds, without even getting into that stuff about evade traits and defense traits and weapon traits and whatnot. So far, we've not seen any of this, and all signs point to it not existing at all.
The term 'critical' in itself is a staple of the genre that exists in practically all RPGs and a lot of wargames, vaguely alluding to it being a thing in a new ruleset is just a semi-informed guess and should not get you any points. It being on natural 6s also is sort of a no-brainer in a D6-based system that had 'natural 6s always succeed' before.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: So just to clarify, anti-vehicle 3+ just means it always wounds vehicles on a 3+ at minimum, right?
Yes. Which is particularly interesting, because the S8 of Chainfists will probably be normally wounding Rhinos on 4s and Vindicators on 5s. That makes the Chainfist AV3+ a standout tool to deal with those profiles.
If they are increasing toughness values across the board, the anti-x rule may indeed be pretty useful.
I wouldn't be surprised if Dark Eldar poison get both the anti-infantry and anti-monster rules.
Well the current rules are pigswill so I agree they'll probably stay that way.
Spoletta wrote: I believe that there is more to the critical wounds.
Some of the leaks did talk about this, just in a different way.
According to those, critical wounds normally have no additional effects, but there are rules tied to them.
Devastating wounds could be one of such rules.
Nah, that's nonsense, the 50pager did a whole convoluted system where some rolls were 'glances' that counted as half-wounds and could be added up and 'criticals' were double-wounds, without even getting into that stuff about evade traits and defense traits and weapon traits and whatnot. So far, we've not seen any of this, and all signs point to it not existing at all.
The term 'critical' in itself is a staple of the genre that exists in practically all RPGs and a lot of wargames, vaguely alluding to it being a thing in a new ruleset is just a semi-informed guess and should not get you any points. It being on natural 6s also is sort of a no-brainer in a D6-based system that had 'natural 6s always succeed' before.
That 50pager definitely isn't going to strike many hits, but he was right on the new datasheet format and on the concept of No factions, Only detachments.
Spoletta wrote: I believe that there is more to the critical wounds.
Some of the leaks did talk about this, just in a different way.
According to those, critical wounds normally have no additional effects, but there are rules tied to them.
Devastating wounds could be one of such rules.
Nah, that's nonsense, the 50pager did a whole convoluted system where some rolls were 'glances' that counted as half-wounds and could be added up and 'criticals' were double-wounds, without even getting into that stuff about evade traits and defense traits and weapon traits and whatnot. So far, we've not seen any of this, and all signs point to it not existing at all.
The term 'critical' in itself is a staple of the genre that exists in practically all RPGs and a lot of wargames, vaguely alluding to it being a thing in a new ruleset is just a semi-informed guess and should not get you any points. It being on natural 6s also is sort of a no-brainer in a D6-based system that had 'natural 6s always succeed' before.
That 50pager definitely isn't going to strike many hits, but he was right on the new datasheet format and on the concept of No factions, Only detachments.
He was 'right' on the datasheet thing in as far as that the design changed, which is an unimpressive guess, and wrong in many, many specific things about it, like Initiative returning, no mention of OC, Invulnerable saves listed in the profile on top, again that stuff with traits etc., the datasheet being organized by phases, troop datasheets etc. having 'enhancement slots' and many more.
He got the detachment stuff right-ish though, have to give him that.
Arachnofiend wrote: Well, they are introducing reactions as a major mechanic of the edition. Could be plenty of "Fire and Fade" type stuff for speedy fragile factions like Eldar.
Oooh, that makes sense. Eldar might be really slippery until you get close enough. Should be interesting to see how it all comes out.
Doesn't help Sisters much, we're more known for the 'fire' part than the 'fade' part.
Not that I don't think they'll have some sort of compensation for our low toughness, just that it won't be speed.
Arachnofiend wrote: Well, they are introducing reactions as a major mechanic of the edition. Could be plenty of "Fire and Fade" type stuff for speedy fragile factions like Eldar.
Oooh, that makes sense. Eldar might be really slippery until you get close enough. Should be interesting to see how it all comes out.
Doesn't help Sisters much, we're more known for the 'fire' part than the 'fade' part.
Not that I don't think they'll have some sort of compensation for our low toughness, just that it won't be speed.
Given that miracle dice are probably not a thing I imagine Sisters will have some sort of 'miracle' reaction.
At the same time regular marines are the same durability so as long as the points parity is good it should be ok. Termies might need a slight bump.
The big puzzle piece might be terrain, because that notoriously skews unit profiles in different directions depending on the edition. Will they implement a system that is armor and weapon agnostic?
Given that miracle dice are probably not a thing I imagine Sisters will have some sort of 'miracle' reaction.
My absolute least favourite version of AoF, was when each unit had one and only one specific miracle that it could perform. I think it was 6th? Maybe 5th? It was the dex that made me quit 40k until 8th.
And the gakky thing is, not only is that what they're doing with psychic powers (though a powerful psychic might have up to three individual psychic abilities on the datacard), it's almost guaranteed to be what they do with AoF.
I hadn't even thought about that until now, and it's actually the biggest potential blight on the edition. feth up my AoF badly enough and literally nothing else matters- I'm out. But again, the good news is I'll be able to see how bad it is for free on day one and make an informed decision.
Given that miracle dice are probably not a thing I imagine Sisters will have some sort of 'miracle' reaction.
My absolute least favourite version of AoF, was when each unit had one and only one specific miracle that it could perform. I think it was 6th? Maybe 5th? It was the dex that made me quit 40k until 8th.
And the gakky thing is, not only is that what they're doing with psychic powers (though a powerful psychic might have up to three individual psychic abilities on the datacard), it's almost guaranteed to be what they do with AoF.
I hadn't even thought about that until now, and it's actually the biggest potential blight on the edition. feth up my AoF badly enough and literally nothing else matters- I'm out. But again, the good news is I'll be able to see how bad it is for free on day one and make an informed decision.
I will join you in praying to the Emperor that Acts of Faith are the Faction Ability of Adepta Sororitas. It can't be too hard to trim that rule down to fit on the two page spread with the rest of the detachment rules.
My absolute least favourite version of AoF, was when each unit had one and only one specific miracle that it could perform. I think it was 6th? Maybe 5th? It was the dex that made me quit 40k until 8th.
It was 6th and it wasn't even a Codex, it was an army list spread across 3 White Dwarfs. Woe betide anyone who couldn't get one of the issues.
My absolute least favourite version of AoF, was when each unit had one and only one specific miracle that it could perform. I think it was 6th? Maybe 5th? It was the dex that made me quit 40k until 8th.
It was 6th and it wasn't even a Codex, it was an army list spread across 3 White Dwarfs. Woe betide anyone who couldn't get one of the issues.
Technically, it was 2 issues. The First Issue didn't have any real rules in it
That being said Miracle Dice are the best AOF rules since the Witch Hunter codex.
I think it’s going to be a bad edition for Sisters of Battle.
They haven’t got rid of AP. So that armour save is still not worth it. Damage output still seems crazy so you’re Guard with bolters. It’s a problem with a game built around killing 2 wound T4 space marines and where the armour save can easily be modified down. You can’t often reduce wounds and toughness but you can reduce armour. What kills two tactical marines should kill half a squad of Sisters. This is a problem because they aren’t priced like a horde army.
So they’re staying a glass hammer. But, they’re removing the faction and special rules. Sisters really rely on this to work. This would mean they wouldn’t be able to punch hard enough to deliver the kind of knock out punches they need.
Also I could see them screwing around with acts of faith and trying to make them strategems. Which is bad because there was something very thematic about intervening and altering fate to represent a miracle on the Battlefield.
As a side note. I didn’t see anything simpler about that profile. Iam still rolling as many dice. Still got strats complicating damage output, still got damage profiles for models, so modifiers on armour; all really needless bloat that actually complicates everything. Remembering Bloody Rose get an extra attack on the charge. Like you couod quite easily take that data-sheet and use it in ninth.
Totalwar1402 wrote: They haven’t got rid of AP.
Damage output still seems crazy...
Of what we've seen, what gives you these two impressions?
They were never going to get rid of AP, but they did say they were going to reduce it. And, from what we've seen, they have. Far more AP0 things, and things that were very high AP are now around half of what they were. As for damage output, again, the listed amounts on the sheets we've seen so far don't strike me as being particularly damaging.
Totalwar1402 wrote: I think it’s going to be a bad edition for Sisters of Battle.
They haven’t got rid of AP. So that armour save is still not worth it. Damage output still seems crazy so you’re Guard with bolters. It’s a problem with a game built around killing 2 wound T4 space marines and where the armour save can easily be modified down. You can’t often reduce wounds and toughness but you can reduce armour. What kills two tactical marines should kill half a squad of Sisters. This is a problem because they aren’t priced like a horde army.
So they’re staying a glass hammer. But, they’re removing the faction and special rules. Sisters really rely on this to work. This would mean they wouldn’t be able to punch hard enough to deliver the kind of knock out punches they need.
Also I could see them screwing around with acts of faith and trying to make them strategems. Which is bad because there was something very thematic about intervening and altering fate to represent a miracle on the Battlefield.
As a side note. I didn’t see anything simpler about that profile. Iam still rolling as many dice. Still got strats complicating damage output, still got damage profiles for models, so modifiers on armour; all really needless bloat that actually complicates everything. Remembering Bloody Rose get an extra attack on the charge. Like you couod quite easily take that data-sheet and use it in ninth.
Lol. We already know AP is being reduced across the board and AP1(the most valuable one) is already getting lot more rare.
We also have zero idea of sister rules and points. Put in space marine at 30 pts and sister at 8 pts. You think sister is going to be in so much trouble? Really?
But hey when it's you no surprise you are already panicking over Nothing less to be expected.
No, it's because a marine is still just a marine, despite rank. And a Greater Daemon is something significantly beyond that. Please, let your bolter porn narrative be. If the antagonist isn't sufficiently frightening, then the protagonist is just a Mary Sue.
So you're saying because in the fluff the big hulking scary powerful Greater Daemon is something significant in combat, but the marine is just a marine regardless of the fluffed rank, age, and experience that doesn't matter. Glad you cleared that up.
Eyuup. Loyalist. Traitor. It doesn't matter. A marine should need help from other Marines in dealing with something like a Greater Daemon. Marines should work as squads. Not as Armies of One.
Greater Daemon, Lesser Daemon, it doesn't matter. A Daemon should need help from other Daemons in dealing with something like a Gretchin. Only my army should have a centerpiece beatstick model.
No, it's because a marine is still just a marine, despite rank. And a Greater Daemon is something significantly beyond that. Please, let your bolter porn narrative be. If the antagonist isn't sufficiently frightening, then the protagonist is just a Mary Sue.
So you're saying because in the fluff the big hulking scary powerful Greater Daemon is something significant in combat, but the marine is just a marine regardless of the fluffed rank, age, and experience that doesn't matter. Glad you cleared that up.
A Marine is, at most, maybe 9’ tall.
A Marine is, at most, S5 base-on par with a Bloodletter, the lesser daemon of Khorne.
A Marine is physical-with physical limits.
A Bloodthirster is about the size of a Questoris Knight.
A Bloodthirster is ordinarily base S8.
A Bloodthirster is not bound by material rules, being a Daemon.
I won’t say “A captain can NEVER beat a Bloodthirster,” because sometimes you get really lucky, and the other side gets the opposite.
But are you honestly saying that a Captain should be able to expect to go toe-to-toe with a Bloodthirster and come out on top?
I'm saying the "top dog" of each army should (usually) be able to go toe to toe in some form with the "top dog" of any other army.
Objective Control – or OC – is a measure of how well a unit can secure critical locations. each model has an OC characteristic, and to determine who controls an objective, you simply count up the total OC of all models within range. This small but impactful change breathes new life into basic troops – taking and holding ground is a newfound specialty and a clear key to victory.
Warriors that were previously categorised as Troops will generally have a higher OC than elite units – whose job is not to hold ground, but to strike and move on. Vehicles and Monsters also earn a more substantial OC, so Knights and the like can muscle smaller units off objectives.
How does Leadership work?
Leadership is much more impactful in the new edition. Your units’ morale is now gauged with a Battle-shock test. Many factors can force a unit to test for Battle-shock, including being below Half-strength during the Command Phase. Fail and they struggle to capture objectives, use Stratagems, or Fall Back from combat.
You’ll also notice that Leadership now counts upwards. Our Intercessor has LD 6+ – which is equivalent to his old value of 8.
What’s happened to WS, BS, S, and A?
Offensive characteristics are still very much in the game – but they now live on weapon profiles, to help keep datasheets clear and easy to read.
Weapon profiles explained
Everything you need to take a shot or a swing at your enemies is now contained in an individual weapon profile – everything from Attacks to Weapon Skill to Damage is all in one place. This means that weapons like power fists, which used to need text to explain that they made things harder to hit, now have their own hit roll statistic.
Moreover, weapon profiles are tied to individual units – so a chainsword in the hands of a Space Marine is deadlier and easier to hit with than one held by a snivelling cultist.
The fundamental interactions haven’t changed – equal Strength and Toughness still means you wound on a roll of 4+, and so forth. It’s just that all of a weapon’s quirks are contained in its Core Abilities.
Many different effects are covered by Core Abilities, from classic weapon types like Assault and Rapid Fire to auto-hits from flame weapons.
I'm saying the "top dog" of each army should (usually) be able to go toe to toe in some form with the "top dog" of any other army.
So like, my IG or Tau commander should be able to go toe to toe with a Custodes Captain?
Yeah, no. F that.
A Daemon Prince should best a Marine Captain, a Greater Daemon should best a Daemon Prince, an Avatar should be roughly on par with a Greater Daemon. The Nightbringer should be up there too, and that tier should be chopping Chapter Masters in half.
Factions should be different. Part of that means not being equal in the "beatstick" category.
Everything sucks for him can't have preview without him saying it sucks.
Unless he likes to spam troops. Who of course should be able to go toe to toe with best elites 1=1. 1 grot should be able to fight terminator of course.
As oc helps elite troops over troops compared to now no wonder he complains. Can't just spam cheap troops to win(cheap yet be just as good in fight as elite)
Totalwar1402 wrote: They haven’t got rid of AP.
Damage output still seems crazy...
Of what we've seen, what gives you these two impressions?
They were never going to get rid of AP, but they did say they were going to reduce it. And, from what we've seen, they have. Far more AP0 things, and things that were very high AP are now around half of what they were. As for damage output, again, the listed amounts on the sheets we've seen so far don't strike me as being particularly damaging.
The damage profiles seem fairly similar. This means they haven’t really changed the way damage works. That they still want to make the game exciting and your decisions impactful. Which means one action means shovelling enemy units off the table to speed up the game.
Sisters are disproportionally impacted because the armour save is a degrading profile whilst toughness and wounds aren’t. Plus the game is scaled to kill marines. If somebody thinks it’s reasonable for an assault cannon to kill two marines well that’s half a Sisters squad. Points has never been balanced because there’s a refusal to make marines too high in points and an assumption Sisters are better than Guardsmen applying 3rd edition logic. It doesn’t account for bolters not being able to punch through low armour saves or that armour can be degraded or that most units damage output can remove a T3 squad.
Plus it’s an army built around special rules and they’re cutting a lot of them. They’re reliant on them because they can’t alter the profile since they’re humans. Can’t change the weapons as they’re standard Imperial guns and that means the only way to get more damage is to throw various army and special rules at them. A system focused on the basic unit profile, especially if things like Orks being T5 stay or they up Tyranids to compensate that’s going to put them in a bad place.
The Red Hobbit wrote: Which is great, people have been hoping for less AP for a while to curb lethality instead of Invul proliferation (and later Armor of Contempt)
Invulnerable proliferation like giving basic Terminators a 4++ as standard?
I'm saying the "top dog" of each army should (usually) be able to go toe to toe in some form with the "top dog" of any other army.
So like, my IG or Tau commander should be able to go toe to toe with a Custodes Captain?
Yeah, no. F that.
A Daemon Prince should best a Marine Captain, a Greater Daemon should best a Daemon Prince, an Avatar should be roughly on par with a Greater Daemon. The Nightbringer should be up there too, and that tier should be chopping Chapter Masters in half.
Factions should be different. Part of that means not being equal in the "beatstick" category.
100% agreed. The fluff needs to be at least broadly represented in the game, otherwise we don't need factions at all. You can't 100% do it for gameplays sake, but saying marine captain should be able to go toe to toe with a bloodthirster is just beyond idiotic.
a_typical_hero wrote: "A Grot should be able to go against Mortarion in some form because the Grot is the leader of the Grot army" is such a weird take on the game.
And on the flipside of that, it's such a weird take on the game to feel that something should be entirely unable to do something because of a bad match-up.
That's where we used to be. Nobody's asking for Mabari to be able to one-shot Mortarion or whatever goofy argument you're putting forward here to strawman against.
I'm saying the "top dog" of each army should (usually) be able to go toe to toe in some form with the "top dog" of any other army.
So like, my IG or Tau commander should be able to go toe to toe with a Custodes Captain?
Yeah, no. F that.
A Daemon Prince should best a Marine Captain, a Greater Daemon should best a Daemon Prince, an Avatar should be roughly on par with a Greater Daemon. The Nightbringer should be up there too, and that tier should be chopping Chapter Masters in half.
Factions should be different. Part of that means not being equal in the "beatstick" category.
Then we need more categories for characters to fulfill and more diverse loadouts.
It's daft that people think Guard Commanders should just explode when engaged in combat, especially considering they insist on giving them "beatstick" loadouts or piddly peashooters like a boltgun on a T3 platform. Tau at least get the ability to load up on more specialized weapons on their Battlesuited Commanders.
Then we need more categories for characters to fulfill and more diverse loadouts.
It's daft that people think Guard Commanders should just explode when engaged in combat, especially considering they insist on giving them "beatstick" loadouts or piddly peashooters like a boltgun on a T3 platform. Tau at least get the ability to load up on more specialized weapons on their Battlesuited Commanders.
The "Battlesuit" equivalent for your commander is being in a Russ.
Then we need more categories for characters to fulfill and more diverse loadouts.
It's daft that people think Guard Commanders should just explode when engaged in combat, especially considering they insist on giving them "beatstick" loadouts or piddly peashooters like a boltgun on a T3 platform. Tau at least get the ability to load up on more specialized weapons on their Battlesuited Commanders.
It seems a lot of HQs currently suffer from only being able to pick very lacklustre ranged weapons. I guess we'll see if GW uses their bespoke weapon stats system to correct this (somehow I doubt it). As it stands, the most my Dark Eldar can get in that department is a 12" Poison 4+ AP- D1 pistol. And I think the only way to get a decent ranged weapon on an IGHQ is to equip him with a tank!
That said, I would put it forward that Guard Commanders already have solid support mechanics in the form of providing Orders. I'm sure many other HQs would drool over the versatility of Orders, compared with the reroll 1s aura they're usually stuck with.
Then we need more categories for characters to fulfill and more diverse loadouts.
It's daft that people think Guard Commanders should just explode when engaged in combat, especially considering they insist on giving them "beatstick" loadouts or piddly peashooters like a boltgun on a T3 platform. Tau at least get the ability to load up on more specialized weapons on their Battlesuited Commanders.
The "Battlesuit" equivalent for your commander is being in a Russ.
That's a bit of a false equivalency, as the Tau solution to e.g. Bloodthirsters is not to rush them with battlesuits, even if that is theoretically possible, but to stuff them full of high-precision and high-lethality shooting, preferably from half a board away.
Viewed through this lense, the guard equivalent is an earthshaker squadron, or some vanquishers.
Then we need more categories for characters to fulfill and more diverse loadouts.
It's daft that people think Guard Commanders should just explode when engaged in combat, especially considering they insist on giving them "beatstick" loadouts or piddly peashooters like a boltgun on a T3 platform. Tau at least get the ability to load up on more specialized weapons on their Battlesuited Commanders.
The "Battlesuit" equivalent for your commander is being in a Russ.
Uh no, that would be a Sentinel.
Longshot being a singular character doesn't change the existence of a Devilfish mounted commander.
That's a bit of a false equivalency, as the Tau solution to e.g. Bloodthirsters is not to rush them with battlesuits, even if that is theoretically possible, but to stuff them full of high-precision and high-lethality shooting, preferably from half a board away.
Viewed through this lense, the guard equivalent is an earthshaker squadron, or some vanquishers.
I'm not talking about the dumb Commander vs Greater Demon comparison, i'm talking about Kan's battlesuit comment
It seems a lot of HQs currently suffer from only being able to pick very lacklustre ranged weapons. I guess we'll see if GW uses their bespoke weapon stats system to correct this (somehow I doubt it). As it stands, the most my Dark Eldar can get in that department is a 12" Poison 4+ AP- D1 pistol.
Sure, but that Dark Eldar isn't locked into carrying around 4 backpacks to fulfill a slot. Worth mentioning as well that in a Cadian Command Squad? Two of those slots are immediately locked into Medic and Vox.
And I think the only way to get a decent ranged weapon on an IGHQ is to equip him with a tank!
Dawn of War 2 did it best, with the Commander being able to take a special weapon choice and then loading the squad out to accompany them.
That said, I would put it forward that Guard Commanders already have solid support mechanics in the form of providing Orders. I'm sure many other HQs would drool over the versatility of Orders, compared with the reroll 1s aura they're usually stuck with.
Yeah yeah yeah Orders are good, but the issue is balancing around simply a dude shouting.
. There is absolutely no reason none of the Space Marine chapters (we are ignoring you, Grey Knights) would not field a Gladius Strike Force. It is the Codex Astartes organizational standard for operations. Do we really need 11 variations of the same detachment so that we can slap a Founding Chapter (plus Black Templars and Deathwatch) name on it for each one? It doesn't appear we will have chapter specific traits, except maybe on chapter specific units, so why not have all the chapters jump in one the same pool?
