Arachnofiend wrote: Commissioning one guy to make one book is a lot less investment than doing an Orks v Nids starter box. Though GW has famously undershot the true sales potential of their non-marine model lines (lol sisters).
Yeah I'm not talking about an all non-"good guy" starter/booster/value box. I'm talking about the Summer Campaign- type stuff. Fluff out the Xenos/Heretic/etc codexes so each Subfaction has something of a peer to Abby/Guilliman/Eldrad. Rotate more of the Subfactions in more often. Write the scenario so this one planet is not a matter of life and death for the subfaction. For that matter, set it up so it's not one planet. Having "The Eldar, sensing the threat to their own worlds should this bastion world of the Imperium fall, send a strike force to Somewhere in order to manipulate the strands of fate in their favor during the Heretic Astartes invasion that has also drawn the attention of the warlike Orks who will travel anywhere for a good scrap at the same time a small force of Tau are trying to sneak onto the planet to recover an ancient device promoting The Greater Good just as the Genestealer Cult that was trying to prosper under the nose of the Astra Militarum, Adepta Sororitas, and Adeptus Arbites prepares to summon the Tyranid Hive Fleet they serve, even as an emergency reinforcement crusade of Adeptus Astartes hurtles toward the planet at breakneck speed." I get that every faction needs a hook for being there, but that's also why it shouldn't just be the One Planet, make it a sector with multiple planets and multiple environments so the UM vs Nids on an old Macragge board would also fit in with the Tyranid swarm hitting the outer edge of the Hoth System.
How so? I'm actually a bit worried that spreading out the vehicles like this potentially makes weapon selection *less* interesting because you're compelled to grab as many high strength anti-tank guns as possible while the midling-strength guns are viewed as less desirable due to the potential for a bad matchup.
For instance, in 9th, I can take a blaster on my kabalites and be confident that said blaster will be a threat to whatever my opponent brings to the table. Even if he brings out a land raider, I'll be wounding it at least half the time. In 10th, the previews have me wondering if I should even bother with blasters. Sure, they'll work fine against T7 or less, but they'll be less valuable than before against T8, and they might be straight up bad against T9+ (single shot, only wounds 1/3rd of the time). So in this, admittedly very specific, example, we're going from having multiple worthwhile weapon choices to blasters maybe possibly not being worth it. (Depending on what we don't know, points costs, etc.)
No one wants to spend a bunch of points on S8 plasma only to find out their opponent's list is full of T9.
Sure. That's what happens when you reduce lethality. 9e had problem that everything was deleted too easily.
Unless reduced lethality should affect only opponent
Wyldhunt wrote: Mechanically, it can be awkward when you face daemons or tyranids and your splinters are suddenly good against both the enemy's big stuff and their little stuff.
This may be why the Screamer Killer was T9 and not T10. Not for this poison specifically, but the limited amount of anti-tank that is also anti-monster.
It's also interesting to see the Venom at T6. They're creating a broader range of vehicles, which should make weapon selection more interesting.
T6/7 - Light
T8/9 - Medium
T10/11 - Heavy
T12/13 - Superheavy
T14 - Titans
How so? I'm actually a bit worried that spreading out the vehicles like this potentially makes weapon selection *less* interesting because you're compelled to grab as many high strength anti-tank guns as possible while the midling-strength guns are viewed as less desirable due to the potential for a bad matchup.
For instance, in 9th, I can take a blaster on my kabalites and be confident that said blaster will be a threat to whatever my opponent brings to the table. Even if he brings out a land raider, I'll be wounding it at least half the time. In 10th, the previews have me wondering if I should even bother with blasters. Sure, they'll work fine against T7 or less, but they'll be less valuable than before against T8, and they might be straight up bad against T9+ (single shot, only wounds 1/3rd of the time). So in this, admittedly very specific, example, we're going from having multiple worthwhile weapon choices to blasters maybe possibly not being worth it. (Depending on what we don't know, points costs, etc.)
No one wants to spend a bunch of points on S8 plasma only to find out their opponent's list is full of T9.
I'd argue that Plasma isn't an anti-tank weapon or at least should not be considered one, but what made it so good in 8th and 9th was that it was extremely good at killing elite infantry AND delivering damage to vehicles thanks to high S and AP. I'd actually prefer weapons like the Lascannon, melta and xenos equivalents be the go to for anti-vehicle, with plasma being great for evaporating infantry while having some utility against vehicles. Currently it looks like 10th is leaning that way with Plasma still being good, but no longer a swiss army knife useful against 99% of targets.
Blasters still look very effective against light vehicles / skimmers. But the haywire blaster looks ridiculous
I wouldn't put much focus on rules balance. From how GW handles stuff, to them if one has "bad" or unfun rules they should either play an army with good rules or switch to a GW rules with an army that has updated and "good" rules.
I mean GW is at the level, where they think that str 10 anti tank weapons should do d6 wounds and str 14 d6+1. In a world they want people to use tanks and those almost don't degrade and have 10+ wounds.
It is classic GW over reaction. They write the rules to make tanks bad in 9th, now they try to make everyone buy more tanks
Lord Clinto wrote: I'm happy with the Martial Ka'Tah and the Strat, but a little disappointed that I'm going to have to change all of my axes over to spears now.
And Sisters of Silence are even now, some how, more irrelevant than they were previously.
If you feel need to have to change keep in mind you will "have" to change them back to axes in future. Quite possibly in few month
Not to mention maybe spears are overpriced.
Personally I don’t mind that people who just want to play math-hammer are inconvenienced in this way.
Lord Clinto wrote: Anybody else a little underwhelmed at the GSC Patriarch? It seems a little meh for being the "big-bad" of the Cults.
Don't get me wrong, devastating wounds spreading to a Genestealer squad will be nice but comparing to other Codex "warlords"...
Yeah they cut his offensive capabilities a lot. Because what isn't immediately notable in the drop in efficiency is his offensive psychic abilities as well. I get it, they're lowering the amount of killing power of the edition, but it helped him handle multiple targets. He had Psychic Onslaught, which was WC5, 24", roll 4d6, on a 5+ do a mortal wound, which mathammer-wise outpreformed smite on most things on w1 with more than 4 models. It also had Psionic Blast, WC5, pick an enemy unit in 18", deal d3 mortals which becomes flat 3 mortals if your casting roll was better than their leadership, which also outperformed smite on anything LD9 or lower,
now the Patriarch doesn't even have a smite replacement.
Wyldhunt wrote: Mechanically, it can be awkward when you face daemons or tyranids and your splinters are suddenly good against both the enemy's big stuff and their little stuff.
This may be why the Screamer Killer was T9 and not T10. Not for this poison specifically, but the limited amount of anti-tank that is also anti-monster.
It's also interesting to see the Venom at T6. They're creating a broader range of vehicles, which should make weapon selection more interesting.
T6/7 - Light
T8/9 - Medium
T10/11 - Heavy
T12/13 - Superheavy
T14 - Titans
How so? I'm actually a bit worried that spreading out the vehicles like this potentially makes weapon selection *less* interesting because you're compelled to grab as many high strength anti-tank guns as possible while the midling-strength guns are viewed as less desirable due to the potential for a bad matchup.
For instance, in 9th, I can take a blaster on my kabalites and be confident that said blaster will be a threat to whatever my opponent brings to the table. Even if he brings out a land raider, I'll be wounding it at least half the time. In 10th, the previews have me wondering if I should even bother with blasters. Sure, they'll work fine against T7 or less, but they'll be less valuable than before against T8, and they might be straight up bad against T9+ (single shot, only wounds 1/3rd of the time). So in this, admittedly very specific, example, we're going from having multiple worthwhile weapon choices to blasters maybe possibly not being worth it. (Depending on what we don't know, points costs, etc.)
No one wants to spend a bunch of points on S8 plasma only to find out their opponent's list is full of T9.
When we have all the datasheets I'll run scenarios.
Also...waa wee woo Greyfax is a scary scary beast ( to my poor psykers ). I know what unit I'm killing first...
Lord Clinto wrote: Anybody else a little underwhelmed at the GSC Patriarch? It seems a little meh for being the "big-bad" of the Cults.
Don't get me wrong, devastating wounds spreading to a Genestealer squad will be nice but comparing to other Codex "warlords"...
Yeah they cut his offensive capabilities a lot. Because what isn't immediately notable in the drop in efficiency is his offensive psychic abilities as well. I get it, they're lowering the amount of killing power of the edition, but it helped him handle multiple targets. He had Psychic Onslaught, which was WC5, 24", roll 4d6, on a 5+ do a mortal wound, which mathammer-wise outpreformed smite on most things on w1 with more than 4 models. It also had Psionic Blast, WC5, pick an enemy unit in 18", deal d3 mortals which becomes flat 3 mortals if your casting roll was better than their leadership, which also outperformed smite on anything LD9 or lower,
now the Patriarch doesn't even have a smite replacement.
I still hope for a cynical cashgrab in them 'recognizing their errors and listening' and releasing a Storm of Magic™-like box in the middle of the edition, with psychic powers for everyone and some wargear, enhancements etc.... call it Darker Millenium* or whatever.
*
Spoiler:
or 2 Dark 2 Millenium, 10*100 Dark, Dark Millenium 2: Psychic Boogaloo
tneva82 wrote:
Sure. That's what happens when you reduce lethality. 9e had problem that everything was deleted too easily.
Unless reduced lethality should affect only opponent
I'm fine with a reduction in lethality in general. I'm a little worried about whether or not blasters will still be viable choices and if they'll still work against enough common targets to remain decent anti-tank. Because if not, that probably means I have to start building my lists around haywire spam or something to avoid bad matchups against vehicle-heavy lists.
IIRC, blasters used to have the lance rule that basically meant they could still hurt especially heavily armored targets on a 4+. I could see them getting Anti-Vehicle (4+) or something so that they're *better* against lighter vehicles but don't have to fish for 5s against heavier vehicles.
Also, while I'm actively looking forward to the game being less lethal, I do think it's worth pointing out that drukhari are one of the most extreme glass cannon armies. While I do want their lethality reduced, I also don't want it reduced so much that they struggle or that players are forced to spam certain options in every list. Also also, it seems weird that our venoms are getting easier to kill the reduced lethality edition.
The Red Hobbit wrote:
I'd argue that Plasma isn't an anti-tank weapon or at least should not be considered one, but what made it so good in 8th and 9th was that it was extremely good at killing elite infantry AND delivering damage to vehicles thanks to high S and AP. I'd actually prefer weapons like the Lascannon, melta and xenos equivalents be the go to for anti-vehicle, with plasma being great for evaporating infantry while having some utility against vehicles. Currently it looks like 10th is leaning that way with Plasma still being good, but no longer a swiss army knife useful against 99% of targets.
I agree with all of that.
Blasters still look very effective against light vehicles / skimmers. But the haywire blaster looks ridiculous
Agreed that blasters will be fine against squishier vehicles. My concern is what the Toughness and Wounds of something like a rhino will be. Where plasma can fall back on being a good marine killer/general anti-infantry, blasters only having a single shot makes them a bit less flexible. But maybe it will be fine. Just depends on stats and point costs and so forth.
Haywire blasters do look strong, although I'm not sure they're *that* strong. Assuming a squad of scourges with 4 haywire blasters for 8 shots. I'm going to give them a bonus shot for a total of 9 so I can do lazier math. 9 shots at BS 3+ = 6 hits. 6 hits becomes 3 wounds vs a vehicle including a single 6. Assuming that vehicle has a 3+ save, it will make 1 save, fail 1 save, and won't get any saves against the to-wound roll of 6 because Devastating Wounds. So you're looking at a total of 6 Damage from a specialized unit that currently costs ~150 points. Seems solid, but I'm not sure how good it is exactly.
Lord Clinto wrote: Anybody else a little underwhelmed at the GSC Patriarch? It seems a little meh for being the "big-bad" of the Cults.
Don't get me wrong, devastating wounds spreading to a Genestealer squad will be nice but comparing to other Codex "warlords"...
Yeah they cut his offensive capabilities a lot. Because what isn't immediately notable in the drop in efficiency is his offensive psychic abilities as well. I get it, they're lowering the amount of killing power of the edition, but it helped him handle multiple targets. He had Psychic Onslaught, which was WC5, 24", roll 4d6, on a 5+ do a mortal wound, which mathammer-wise outpreformed smite on most things on w1 with more than 4 models. It also had Psionic Blast, WC5, pick an enemy unit in 18", deal d3 mortals which becomes flat 3 mortals if your casting roll was better than their leadership, which also outperformed smite on anything LD9 or lower,
now the Patriarch doesn't even have a smite replacement.
I still hope for a cynical cashgrab in them 'recognizing their errors and listening' and releasing a Storm of Magic™-like box in the middle of the edition, with psychic powers for everyone and some wargear, enhancements etc.... call it Darker Millenium* or whatever.
*
Spoiler:
or 2 Dark 2 Millenium, 10*100 Dark, Dark Millenium 2: Psychic Boogaloo
Well, they are having the Imperium jet back to the Pariah Nexus which as I recall had ordinary humans manifesting saint-like powers and apparitions. Maybe that's where the Storm of Magic™ will come in.
Wyldhunt wrote: Haywire blasters do look strong, although I'm not sure they're *that* strong. Assuming a squad of scourges with 4 haywire blasters for 8 shots. I'm going to give them a bonus shot for a total of 9 so I can do lazier math. 9 shots at BS 3+ = 6 hits. 6 hits becomes 3 wounds vs a vehicle including a single 6. Assuming that vehicle has a 3+ save, it will make 1 save, fail 1 save, and won't get any saves against the to-wound roll of 6 because Devastating Wounds. So you're looking at a total of 6 Damage from a specialized unit that currently costs ~150 points. Seems solid, but I'm not sure how good it is exactly.
I think you've forgotten that the previewed T/L Haywire Blaster has Anti-Vehicle 4+, so any 4+ to wound triggers Devastating Wounds.
Wyldhunt wrote: Haywire blasters do look strong, although I'm not sure they're *that* strong. Assuming a squad of scourges with 4 haywire blasters for 8 shots. I'm going to give them a bonus shot for a total of 9 so I can do lazier math. 9 shots at BS 3+ = 6 hits. 6 hits becomes 3 wounds vs a vehicle including a single 6. Assuming that vehicle has a 3+ save, it will make 1 save, fail 1 save, and won't get any saves against the to-wound roll of 6 because Devastating Wounds. So you're looking at a total of 6 Damage from a specialized unit that currently costs ~150 points. Seems solid, but I'm not sure how good it is exactly.
I think you've forgotten that the previewed T/L Haywire Blaster has Anti-Vehicle 4+, so any 4+ to wound triggers Devastating Wounds.
Ah. I didn't realize that Anti-Vehicle triggered Devastating on a 4+. I thought it was still only on a 6+. That would bring the total damage up to 9. Pretty gnarly.
@Wyldhunt A Rhino is T9 and W10. I think a flock of scourges with 4x Blasters has a reasonable chance of destroying one with a single volley. But, unless something delightfully unpleasant happens to the folks inside, they could well shoot the Scourges to death next turn.
Which fits the idea of Blaster Scouges in the role of suicide troops, I guess.
And bluntly…that’s just a smegging Rhino…not anywhere near the thoughest transport we’ve seen, and definitely not the most fragile.
I’ve tended to see Blasters more and things embedded in Kabalite squads to help against heavy infantry. There were editions where even 16+ model Warrior squads did very little against even Tac Marines, and I think that’s kind of cemented my view of the Blaster’s role. ?
I can see the concern over Drukhari anti-tank though. At one point Dark Lances and Blasters had special rules that really meant they weren’t much better than a Las Cannon a lot of the time. Then we had the fad for spamming Disintegrators I’ve Dark Lances because apparently they worked better.
Unlike Craftworld and Harlequins (and Coven heavy builds) Drukhari have relied on being actual glass cannons. We’ve seen only a fraction of Datasheets at this point, not played any games, etc but things have changed a lot. Someone like me, a die-hard casual player could be forgiven for scratching their head right now because they don’t quite see how it all fits together yet.
tneva82 wrote:
Sure. That's what happens when you reduce lethality. 9e had problem that everything was deleted too easily.
Unless reduced lethality should affect only opponent
I'm fine with a reduction in lethality in general. I'm a little worried about whether or not blasters will still be viable choices and if they'll still work against enough common targets to remain decent anti-tank. Because if not, that probably means I have to start building my lists around haywire spam or something to avoid bad matchups against vehicle-heavy lists.
IIRC, blasters used to have the lance rule that basically meant they could still hurt especially heavily armored targets on a 4+. I could see them getting Anti-Vehicle (4+) or something so that they're *better* against lighter vehicles but don't have to fish for 5s against heavier vehicles.
Also, while I'm actively looking forward to the game being less lethal, I do think it's worth pointing out that drukhari are one of the most extreme glass cannon armies. While I do want their lethality reduced, I also don't want it reduced so much that they struggle or that players are forced to spam certain options in every list. Also also, it seems weird that our venoms are getting easier to kill the reduced lethality edition.
I think blasters might become anti-TEQ as much as anti-tank tbh.
Oddly they’ve a better AP value than dark lances, despite the much lower S.
Vs something with good saves but mid T and W they might be quite efficient.
Invuns aside, you’re turning a 2+ into a 6+, or ignoring it entirely if you’ve got plunging fire active (easy to achieve from a raider).
Souleater wrote: @Wyldhunt A Rhino is T9 and W10. I think a flock of scourges with 4x Blasters has a reasonable chance of destroying one with a single volley. But, unless something delightfully unpleasant happens to the folks inside, they could well shoot the Scourges to death next turn.
Which fits the idea of Blaster Scouges in the role of suicide troops, I guess.
And bluntly…that’s just a smegging Rhino…not anywhere near the thoughest transport we’ve seen, and definitely not the most fragile.
I’ve tended to see Blasters more and things embedded in Kabalite squads to help against heavy infantry. There were editions where even 16+ model Warrior squads did very little against even Tac Marines, and I think that’s kind of cemented my view of the Blaster’s role. ?
I can see the concern over Drukhari anti-tank though. At one point Dark Lances and Blasters had special rules that really meant they weren’t much better than a Las Cannon a lot of the time. Then we had the fad for spamming Disintegrators I’ve Dark Lances because apparently they worked better.
Unlike Craftworld and Harlequins (and Coven heavy builds) Drukhari have relied on being actual glass cannons. We’ve seen only a fraction of Datasheets at this point, not played any games, etc but things have changed a lot. Someone like me, a die-hard casual player could be forgiven for scratching their head right now because they don’t quite see how it all fits together yet.
At S8 AP-4, a Blaster performs only slightly worse against a Land Raider than a Rhino.
And exactly the same against a 3+ armor Repulsor.
But the Rhino has fewer wounds, if I remember rightly? My point is that the Sample Scourges could *generally* one shot a Rhino, likely kill anything more fragile but be unlikely to kill anything tougher.
Souleater wrote: @Wyldhunt A Rhino is T9 and W10. I think a flock of scourges with 4x Blasters has a reasonable chance of destroying one with a single volley.
A flock of 5 Scourges inflicts an average of 4 wounds on a Rhino.
So it actually takes 2-3 units of Scourges to kill a single Marine Transport.
The Red Hobbit wrote:
I'd argue that Plasma isn't an anti-tank weapon or at least should not be considered one, but what made it so good in 8th and 9th was that it was extremely good at killing elite infantry AND delivering damage to vehicles thanks to high S and AP. I'd actually prefer weapons like the Lascannon, melta and xenos equivalents be the go to for anti-vehicle, with plasma being great for evaporating infantry while having some utility against vehicles. Currently it looks like 10th is leaning that way with Plasma still being good, but no longer a swiss army knife useful against 99% of targets.
I agree with all of that.
Blasters still look very effective against light vehicles / skimmers. But the haywire blaster looks ridiculous
Agreed that blasters will be fine against squishier vehicles. My concern is what the Toughness and Wounds of something like a rhino will be. Where plasma can fall back on being a good marine killer/general anti-infantry, blasters only having a single shot makes them a bit less flexible. But maybe it will be fine. Just depends on stats and point costs and so forth.
Haywire blasters do look strong, although I'm not sure they're *that* strong. Assuming a squad of scourges with 4 haywire blasters for 8 shots. I'm going to give them a bonus shot for a total of 9 so I can do lazier math. 9 shots at BS 3+ = 6 hits. 6 hits becomes 3 wounds vs a vehicle including a single 6. Assuming that vehicle has a 3+ save, it will make 1 save, fail 1 save, and won't get any saves against the to-wound roll of 6 because Devastating Wounds. So you're looking at a total of 6 Damage from a specialized unit that currently costs ~150 points. Seems solid, but I'm not sure how good it is exactly.
Haywire is going to be insane, I'm not looking forward to the next time I play my friend's DEldar army haha.
For Blasters it seems to me from the design space they are treating them similarly to Sister's Melta. A strong high Strength weapon with good AP and damage, great against tough targets but no longer annihilating vehicles. I'm not familiar with DEldar army rules but from the number of times I've had my Custodes and Orks shot by blasters I assume they're fairly easy to take on your units, like meltas are with Sisters.
I think we're using to seeing Rhino's pop constantly but design wise I think they're going to try and buck that trend this edition and make transports last more than a single turn.
Souleater wrote: @Wyldhunt A Rhino is T9 and W10. I think a flock of scourges with 4x Blasters has a reasonable chance of destroying one with a single volley.
A flock of 5 Scourges inflicts an average of 4 wounds on a Rhino.
So it actually takes 2-3 units of Scourges to kill a single Marine Transport.
Ah, I shouldn’t try to do mathematics with a migraine.
So assuming a PT to get for hits, even with Haywire that’s pushing it to kill one?
Souleater wrote: @Wyldhunt A Rhino is T9 and W10. I think a flock of scourges with 4x Blasters has a reasonable chance of destroying one with a single volley.
A flock of 5 Scourges inflicts an average of 4 wounds on a Rhino.
So it actually takes 2-3 units of Scourges to kill a single Marine Transport.
Ah, I shouldn’t try to do mathematics with a migraine.
So assuming a PT to get for hits, even with Haywire that’s pushing it to kill one?
I'm not sure what you mean - Blasters and haywire are two different weapons. Blasters don't get any sort of Haywire effect, unfortunately.
If you're willing to spend Pain Tokens, then a Scourge unit with Blasters inflicts 5.3 units on a Rhino.
So that brings it to 2 Scourge flocks and 2 Pain Tokens to kill a Rhino.
4 Haywire Scourges with PT rerolls should kill a Rhino on average. The same is true for Dark Lance Scourges but they also have to be stationary.
Blasters are simply not an anti-tank weapon anymore and are clearly outperformed by Dark Lances and Haywire at that role, but they are better on T7 or less targets and assault means they are more mobile.
Not too happy with this latest preview. I fundamentally dislike the agents of the imperium for the same reason I dislike layered "free rules", they just make it difficult for the game designer to properly balance their own game.
If the game is 25% Marines, 25% Imperium, 25% Chaos and 25% Xenos and you have a set of special tool kit units that only Marines and Imperium can use, they can't be too good, they need to instead be 'just bad enough to not matter'. They were in 9th and this was in my opinion good for the game. Chaos Daemon allies in 9th were another example of this but Chaos is usually slightly better because at least there are a bunch of hoops to jump through to get your units, with matching god keywords, losing out on your cabal points, etc, so that basically the only problematic combination in 9th was just Tzeentch spells and Flamers in TSons, and that really just boiled down to the Tzeentch spells being power crept versions of TSons spells and Flamers being way too cheap. No one was having issues with Khorne/Nurgle/Slaanesh daemons in CSM/DG/WE as they tended to be sidegrades at best on what those armies already had, which was ideal.
The issue with agents of the imperium in 8th and 9th and seemingly 10th was/is there are no hoops, no downsides, it is just slot in a few units, which if good just elevate 50% of the armies in the game. And that means those armies are too good or you need to nerf the pure armies to account for the agent filled armies.
I'm also seeing lethality and possible rules layering that feel very 9th edition rather than 10th edition in the preview.
First the Vindicare. An attack sequence with a one shot weapon is a d6 to hit, a d6 to wound, a d6 to save and a d6 for damage. That gives 1,296 possible results.
A Vindicare shooting a Malignant Plaguecaster in a squad of Plague Marines has a 48.6% chance to get a kill (630 of the results). For those recreating this I got 216 misses, 360 failures to wound, 180 devastating wound procs, 90 saves, 450 not saved.
A Vindicare shooting Ahriman in a squad of Rubrics has a 25.5% chance to get a kill or a 40.7% chance if he uses Shieldbreaker.
A Vindicare shooting a Farseer in a squad of Guardian Defenders has 41.7% chance to get a kill or a 69.4% chance if he uses Shieldbreaker.
There is absolutely no sane player who will risk Ahriman or lower survivability characters being visible to the Vindicare. So yet again some factions will be playing an edition where our models stare at walls before bursting out into the open to briefly do something before being killed. I thought we were trying to stop doing that?
Second, Inquisitors who we are told can lead any IMPERIUM BATTLELINE INFANTRY so will be able to join:
Skitarii Rangers
Skitarii Vanguard
Cadian Shock Troops
Custodian Guard
Prosecutor Squad
Battle Sisters
Novitiaties
Intercessors
Heavy Intercessors
Assault Intercessors
Infiltrators
Incursors
Tactical Squad
(I also suspect they will by default also be able to lead a few agents of the imperium units like the Breachers.)
The base Inquisitor hands out FNP5+ vs mortals, so we now need to check 13+ datasheets to make sure this doesn't make them too survivable. And also check the army rule, detachment rules (there will be many once the codexes start dropping) and all the strategems that can be played on these 13+ datasheets to check the FNP5+ doesn't make them too survivable.
Then worse Greyfax hands out ANTI PSYKER 4+ to all guns which means checking the 13+ datasheets, the army rules, the detachments and all the strategems now to make sure they aren't too lethal. The obvious interation here is DEVASTATING WOUNDS availability to take advantage of critical wounds on 4s, but also you need to keep an eye out for things like re-rolling wounds to juice Greyfax's own DEVASTATING WOUNDS guns.
I'm also now concerned that the other named Inquisitors are going to hand out similar keyword buffs to represent the other Ordos, ANTI CHAOS 4+ or ANTI XENOS 4+ anyone?
I was hopeful for 10th that because each Leader unit would probably have 3~6 bodyguard units listed on their datasheet that GW would have a slim chance of testing their own rules and not building in silly stacking/compounding buff ladders, but this Inquisitor design seems to lead straight to it.
EightFoldPath wrote: Not too happy with this latest preview. I fundamentally dislike the agents of the imperium for the same reason I dislike layered "free rules", they just make it difficult for the game designer to properly balance their own game.
If the game is 25% Marines, 25% Imperium, 25% Chaos and 25% Xenos and you have a set of special tool kit units that only Marines and Imperium can use, they can't be too good, they need to instead be 'just bad enough to not matter'. They were in 9th and this was in my opinion good for the game. Chaos Daemon allies in 9th were another example of this but Chaos is usually slightly better because at least there are a bunch of hoops to jump through to get your units, with matching god keywords, losing out on your cabal points, etc, so that basically the only problematic combination in 9th was just Tzeentch spells and Flamers in TSons, and that really just boiled down to the Tzeentch spells being power crept versions of TSons spells and Flamers being way too cheap. No one was having issues with Khorne/Nurgle/Slaanesh daemons in CSM/DG/WE as they tended to be sidegrades at best on what those armies already had, which was ideal.
The issue with agents of the imperium in 8th and 9th and seemingly 10th was/is there are no hoops, no downsides, it is just slot in a few units, which if good just elevate 50% of the armies in the game. And that means those armies are too good or you need to nerf the pure armies to account for the agent filled armies.
I'm also seeing lethality and possible rules layering that feel very 9th edition rather than 10th edition in the preview.
First the Vindicare. An attack sequence with a one shot weapon is a d6 to hit, a d6 to wound, a d6 to save and a d6 for damage. That gives 1,296 possible results.
A Vindicare shooting a Malignant Plaguecaster in a squad of Plague Marines has a 48.6% chance to get a kill (630 of the results). For those recreating this I got 216 misses, 360 failures to wound, 180 devastating wound procs, 90 saves, 450 not saved.
A Vindicare shooting Ahriman in a squad of Rubrics has a 25.5% chance to get a kill or a 40.7% chance if he uses Shieldbreaker.
A Vindicare shooting a Farseer in a squad of Guardian Defenders has 41.7% chance to get a kill or a 69.4% chance if he uses Shieldbreaker.
There is absolutely no sane player who will risk Ahriman or lower survivability characters being visible to the Vindicare. So yet again some factions will be playing an edition where our models stare at walls before bursting out into the open to briefly do something before being killed. I thought we were trying to stop doing that?
Second, Inquisitors who we are told can lead any IMPERIUM BATTLELINE INFANTRY so will be able to join:
Skitarii Rangers
Skitarii Vanguard
Cadian Shock Troops
Custodian Guard
Prosecutor Squad
Battle Sisters
Novitiaties
Intercessors
Heavy Intercessors
Assault Intercessors
Infiltrators
Incursors
Tactical Squad
(I also suspect they will by default also be able to lead a few agents of the imperium units like the Breachers.)
The base Inquisitor hands out FNP5+ vs mortals, so we now need to check 13+ datasheets to make sure this doesn't make them too survivable. And also check the army rule, detachment rules (there will be many once the codexes start dropping) and all the strategems that can be played on these 13+ datasheets to check the FNP5+ doesn't make them too survivable.
Then worse Greyfax hands out ANTI PSYKER 4+ to all guns which means checking the 13+ datasheets, the army rules, the detachments and all the strategems now to make sure they aren't too lethal. The obvious interation here is DEVASTATING WOUNDS availability to take advantage of critical wounds on 4s, but also you need to keep an eye out for things like re-rolling wounds to juice Greyfax's own DEVASTATING WOUNDS guns.
I'm also now concerned that the other named Inquisitors are going to hand out similar keyword buffs to represent the other Ordos, ANTI CHAOS 4+ or ANTI XENOS 4+ anyone?
I was hopeful for 10th that because each Leader unit would probably have 3~6 bodyguard units listed on their datasheet that GW would have a slim chance of testing their own rules and not building in silly stacking/compounding buff ladders, but this Inquisitor design seems to lead straight to it.
This sums up my feeling on imperal agents almost exactly. I was really hoping they just had a detachment rule and army rule and we're a playable faction. Nothing previewed would be too powerfull in its own faction but when it can be tossed into half the armys In the game somthing is likely to break.
Not too happy with this latest preview. I fundamentally dislike the agents of the imperium for the same reason I dislike layered "free rules", they just make it difficult for the game designer to properly balance their own game.
If the game is 25% Marines, 25% Imperium, 25% Chaos and 25% Xenos and you have a set of special tool kit units that only Marines and Imperium can use, they can't be too good, they need to instead be 'just bad enough to not matter'. They were in 9th and this was in my opinion good for the game. Chaos Daemon allies in 9th were another example of this but Chaos is usually slightly better because at least there are a bunch of hoops to jump through to get your units, with matching god keywords, losing out on your cabal points, etc, so that basically the only problematic combination in 9th was just Tzeentch spells and Flamers in TSons, and that really just boiled down to the Tzeentch spells being power crept versions of TSons spells and Flamers being way too cheap. No one was having issues with Khorne/Nurgle/Slaanesh daemons in CSM/DG/WE as they tended to be sidegrades at best on what those armies already had, which was ideal.
The issue with agents of the imperium in 8th and 9th and seemingly 10th was/is there are no hoops, no downsides, it is just slot in a few units, which if good just elevate 50% of the armies in the game. And that means those armies are too good or you need to nerf the pure armies to account for the agent filled armies.
I'm also seeing lethality and possible rules layering that feel very 9th edition rather than 10th edition in the preview.
First the Vindicare. An attack sequence with a one shot weapon is a d6 to hit, a d6 to wound, a d6 to save and a d6 for damage. That gives 1,296 possible results.
A Vindicare shooting a Malignant Plaguecaster in a squad of Plague Marines has a 48.6% chance to get a kill (630 of the results). For those recreating this I got 216 misses, 360 failures to wound, 180 devastating wound procs, 90 saves, 450 not saved.
A Vindicare shooting Ahriman in a squad of Rubrics has a 25.5% chance to get a kill or a 40.7% chance if he uses Shieldbreaker.
A Vindicare shooting a Farseer in a squad of Guardian Defenders has 41.7% chance to get a kill or a 69.4% chance if he uses Shieldbreaker.
There is absolutely no sane player who will risk Ahriman or lower survivability characters being visible to the Vindicare. So yet again some factions will be playing an edition where our models stare at walls before bursting out into the open to briefly do something before being killed. I thought we were trying to stop doing that?
Second, Inquisitors who we are told can lead any IMPERIUM BATTLELINE INFANTRY so will be able to join:
Skitarii Rangers
Skitarii Vanguard
Cadian Shock Troops
Custodian Guard
Prosecutor Squad
Battle Sisters
Novitiaties
Intercessors
Heavy Intercessors
Assault Intercessors
Infiltrators
Incursors
Tactical Squad
(I also suspect they will by default also be able to lead a few agents of the imperium units like the Breachers.)
The base Inquisitor hands out FNP5+ vs mortals, so we now need to check 13+ datasheets to make sure this doesn't make them too survivable. And also check the army rule, detachment rules (there will be many once the codexes start dropping) and all the strategems that can be played on these 13+ datasheets to check the FNP5+ doesn't make them too survivable.
Then worse Greyfax hands out ANTI PSYKER 4+ to all guns which means checking the 13+ datasheets, the army rules, the detachments and all the strategems now to make sure they aren't too lethal. The obvious interation here is DEVASTATING WOUNDS availability to take advantage of critical wounds on 4s, but also you need to keep an eye out for things like re-rolling wounds to juice Greyfax's own DEVASTATING WOUNDS guns.
I'm also now concerned that the other named Inquisitors are going to hand out similar keyword buffs to represent the other Ordos, ANTI CHAOS 4+ or ANTI XENOS 4+ anyone?
I was hopeful for 10th that because each Leader unit would probably have 3~6 bodyguard units listed on their datasheet that GW would have a slim chance of testing their own rules and not building in silly stacking/compounding buff ladders, but this Inquisitor design seems to lead straight to it.
I don't disagree with any of this. I would have preferred a system that emphasized Agent detachments designed for small-game Crusade, rather than this method. It's amazing how easy to make serviceable army lists for each of the Agent subfactions without adding new models to the range- you just have to give the appropriate models the appropriate keywords, and unit split all Agent Kill Teams the same way a Corsair KT builds two units or an Arbites box builds 3. Navis Imperialis Becomes a real faction of you make the Master of the Fleet a Navis HQ, unit split the Breachers and add the Valkyrie, Vulture, Thunderbolt and Avenger. For the Coup de Gras, add the Navigator and Astropath for psychic support. If you aren't aiming for 2k, that's a damn decent army list. And not a single new model is required to do it (though the Astropath and Master of the Fleet models are very much in need of an update if GW intends to keep them in the game- scale creep hit them HARD).
It's even easier to do that with the Inquisition... PA: Pariah was so damn close to making them right... They just needed a troops choice, a Lord profile upgrade that could be attached to the Generic Inquisitor to get around the "One inquisitor" rule (you could take a Lord upgrade and a regular generic Inquisitor to represent a Master/ Apprentice team) and vehicles. Again, no new models required.
Arbites require an HQ and vehicles. The HQ should get a model (though just the datacard would be fine), and I'd do cartwheels for a Repressor upgrade sprue that worked with the Sisters Rhino- the datacard could be added to both Sisters and Arbites lists. If GW is too lazy to do that despite the RoI, then even adding a generic rhino would work.
The most important thing is bespoke Crusade content for all of them, because again, these army lists fit best in small army Crusade, and most of the people who want these lists want them so we can use them that way. Viable army rules are necessary to make this happen- the plug-and-play drop in Agent army needs to still be possible- even if it's limited to <Ordos> into their Chambers, Hereticus to Arbites, Navy and Rogue Traders to Guard, but it shouldn't be the sole focus of Agents or the only way to use them.
Agreed. Agents are a bit too easy to slot in as wild cards.
So I was thinking about weapon profiles such as melta and blasters and the added granularity of toughness now. I believe this will have the opposite desired effect on weapon choices. Instead compressing weapon choices.
For example S5 profiles are even better now with the devaluing of staple weapons such as melta, plasma, blasters and similar S7 and S8 weapons. Or i.e. the lowest strength weapon with high rof that can still wound T9 on 5s benefits more. Shuriken cannons and such also qualify.
I don't think so. The stormbolters on my dudes are better anti tank, then a 3 shot psycanon, just because I am rolling dice for 9 dudes. Also any form of +1 to wound or re-roll to wound is going to have a huge impact on multi shot weapons.
Tyran wrote: IMHO Melta should have been (significant) additional Strength in half range rather than additional damage.
That way it could have been a proper AT but only when at half range.
Increasing Toughness was a mistake, it was Sv that should have been improved. Multi-meltas and D6+2 Damage weapons were too lethal, but instead of fixing the few problematic weapons, they're ruining tonnes of fair weapons. Reduce plasma to S7 and then melta gets a little better vs T7 and a lot better vs T8 relative to plasma. Auto cannons haven't been a problem for the entirety of 9th, why are vehicles being made less susceptible to them again?
There is absolutely no sane player who will risk Ahriman or lower survivability characters being visible to the Vindicare. So yet again some factions will be playing an edition where our models stare at walls before bursting out into the open to briefly do something before being killed. I thought we were trying to stop doing that?
Or maybe GW wants this to be the tank and transport edition, and we end up playing 2500 or even 3000pts basic games. In HH they already do that and I am sure GW loves the idea of armies running multiple land raiders, dreadnoughts and rhinos in armies.
I don't think so. The stormbolters on my dudes are better anti tank, then a 3 shot psycanon, just because I am rolling dice for 9 dudes. Also any form of +1 to wound or re-roll to wound is going to have a huge impact on multi shot weapons.
Potentially yes but that's basically what I'm saying. You just carried it forward even more. I believe they inadvertently devalued much of the former dedicated AT to the point where anti infantry supercedes in that role.
There is absolutely no sane player who will risk Ahriman or lower survivability characters being visible to the Vindicare. So yet again some factions will be playing an edition where our models stare at walls before bursting out into the open to briefly do something before being killed. I thought we were trying to stop doing that?
Or maybe GW wants this to be the tank and transport edition, and we end up playing 2500 or even 3000pts basic games. In HH they already do that and I am sure GW loves the idea of armies running multiple land raiders, dreadnoughts and rhinos in armies.
Agreed and I'm a tread head so it does have a certain appeal. But I prefer to run treads when it's not so mainstream.
This is also why I think the optimism for drukhari poison is going to wear off quickly.
vict0988 wrote: Increasing Toughness was a mistake, it was Sv that should have been improved. Multi-meltas and D6+2 Damage weapons were too lethal, but instead of fixing the few problematic weapons, they're ruining tonnes of fair weapons. Reduce plasma to S7 and then melta gets a little better vs T7 and a lot better vs T8 relative to plasma. Auto cannons haven't been a problem for the entirety of 9th, why are vehicles being made less susceptible to them again?
The way GW used (or didn't use) their Toughness bracket, leaving most 'tough' things at 8 and Warlord Titans reaching the heights of 9 (wow...) was the mistake. The lack of high toughness and the multitude of sources of higher AP value (or even just basic -1 on so many weapons) was a real issue.
The problem is that they've left Meltaguns behind.
That is a bit of a problem though, because some armies are armed with just MM as their only source of anti tank. MM contemptors are or at least were crucial to playing custodes. SoB are Melta The Faction. GK don't have many sources of anti tank either, and I liked using Aimed MM dreadnoughts in my army.
Now to make melta valid again it would either have to have twice as many shots, but then it just becomes a better plasma for same points. Or it has to have an option to get +1 or +2 to wound easily or double it strenght somehow. Otherwise we are a looking at a 9th ed marine lascanon case of a weapon, only with shorter range and worse stats, comperativly to what it is being used against.
But who knows maybe there will be some powerful faction, that just makes vehicles non valid to run, and we will be back to running infantry armies and the melta problem won't bother most people.
Ya marines could go full grav and and las spam probably be okay with full rerolls but many others won't have an answer. Basically I think this is the vehicle edition similar to what we've seen before from around 5th.. only without melta and plasma.
I remember playing against wave serpent spam with assault cannon only deathwing and thinking this is the most miserable experience I've had in awhile. It could be like that.
GW had 4 editions of expiriance on top of 5th ed, and there were ton of other table top games of various kind entering the market. I guess that the design studio should avoid a mass problem of unkillable vehicles, because of that. But an army can always slip past. All it takes is for it to not be popular in the studio, and we end up with 9th ed pre codex knights. Rules can create problems, and they often break the game. Wonder how the game is going to be looking point wise. Is the 10th army going to be the same size as a 9th army. Will it be bigger or smaller. The points number doesn't matter as much as the actual model count needed to play the basic game.
But I guess I have a bit of a shock from seeing how big HH games are last weekend.
Tyran wrote: 4 Haywire Scourges with PT rerolls should kill a Rhino on average. The same is true for Dark Lance Scourges but they also have to be stationary.
Well. If they cost 3x they should delete in one go.
The problem is that they've left Meltaguns behind.
It's the good old pendulum swing, they were a boogeyman in 9th and I think they recognised the buff to them and the introduction of some melta units had pushd it too far, so now it's on the apology tour. Personally I'd have given it Anti-vehicle/monster 3+ in melta range
Dudeface wrote: It's the good old pendulum swing, they were a boogeyman in 9th and I think they recognised the buff to them and the introduction of some melta units had pushd it too far, so now it's on the apology tour. Personally I'd have given it Anti-vehicle/monster 3+ in melta range
It might be a pendulum swing too far - but this idea of "vehicles & monsters are too fragile"/"but meltas (and so on) should hit on 3s, wound on 3s and allow no save for loads of damage" doesn't make sense.
You can't "reduce lethality" and then do nothing about the weapons that were the cause of that lethality.
Dudeface wrote: It's the good old pendulum swing, they were a boogeyman in 9th and I think they recognised the buff to them and the introduction of some melta units had pushd it too far, so now it's on the apology tour. Personally I'd have given it Anti-vehicle/monster 3+ in melta range
It might be a pendulum swing too far - but this idea of "vehicles & monsters are too fragile"/"but meltas (and so on) should hit on 3s, wound on 3s and allow no save for loads of damage" doesn't make sense.
You can't "reduce lethality" and then do nothing about the weapons that were the cause of that lethality.
i don't think "Lethality" in general is an issue. The problem is and was that there are weapons that are technically designed for a specific task but are too cheap and readily available that they spill out of their niche.
F.e. Longtime that was plasma, then melta based weaponry to top it off, doubled with the fact that you could splitfire and concentrate far more heavy weaponry then in the past.
Couple that with the removal of mechanics like AV and a bad to wound table , e voila, recipie for desaster.
I’ll be quite happy deleting Marines with Blasters, so Silver Lining and all that. ?
"Dark Eldar really don't have many reliable anti-vehicle weapons in 10th."
"No, you're wrong, Blasters are still fantastic anti-vehicle weapons."
"That's demonstrably untrue." Shows that it takes your entire allotment of Scourges to kill a single Rhino.
"Well it's okay because I love using anti-vehicle weapons to kill single Marines!"
Perhaps you've forgotten the original concern?
Tyran wrote: 4 Haywire Scourges with PT rerolls should kill a Rhino on average. The same is true for Dark Lance Scourges but they also have to be stationary.
Okay.
What about all the DE units that can't take Haywire and are now stuck with piss-poor Blasters (or, God help us, Blast Pistols) as their only anti-tank?
Also, I love how the "amazing" Pain Token army rule is already proving to be a massive a crutch that is apparently needed for every single DE weapon to be functional. Good job we have an unlimited quantity of them or I might start feeling concerned.
vict0988 wrote: Increasing Toughness was a mistake, it was Sv that should have been improved. Multi-meltas and D6+2 Damage weapons were too lethal, but instead of fixing the few problematic weapons, they're ruining tonnes of fair weapons. Reduce plasma to S7 and then melta gets a little better vs T7 and a lot better vs T8 relative to plasma. Auto cannons haven't been a problem for the entirety of 9th, why are vehicles being made less susceptible to them again?
Hey don't worry about Dark Elder we are soon going to see how many important key words are lavished on the flandersised Marine Chapters...after all they need to Marines +1
Tyran wrote: IMHO Melta should have been (significant) additional Strength in half range rather than additional damage.
That way it could have been a proper AT but only when at half range.
Honestly, if the X in Melta simply added to both Strength and Damage the Melta would be looking more like the weapon it used to be, but as is Meltas have unfortunately become rather underwhelming in 10th compared to all other previous editions.
Yea, he's scary, but Lone Operative isn't all that and it's likely why Aircraft can't come on turn 1. The vindicare is going to need body blockers to keep flyers getting to within 12". He's incredibly fragile otherwise.
The design of the Agents being slightly strong evens off the fact that they'll get no OoM or any other army ability for the trouble of showing up. I can't say if they'll be overwhelming since we don't have points.
Christ those Deathwatch Rules. You get three doctrines, one per turn once each, and that wargear is disgusting. They combined the: Shotgun, stalker Bolter, all 4 combi-weapons, all 4 special weapons, storm bolter, and all 5 pistols into one statline, they combined all 4 power weapons, lightning claw, chainsword, and either the regular or heavy thunder hammer into one weapon as well. No more heavy weapons besides the frag cannon and Infurnus bolter, no blackshields, and no combat shield. Christ alive.
Want to give Dark Angels a rule called Red Thirst? Easy enough to do- just field a Dark Angels Sons of Sanguinus detachments. Yes, no kidding... It's an actual thing that you can do- you might not be able to bring named characters, and perhaps a few other units may not be able to show up, but other than that, the Dark Angels are more than happy to exhibit the fighting style of their Primarch Sanguinus lol.
So yep, any Loyalist marine army can use the Gladius or any of the five previewed today for a total of 6 detachment choices. Despite this spoiling for choice at Launch, Loyalist dex comes first.
Every other faction in the game? One detachment choice. And months long, or even years long waits until alternatives arrive.
Want to give Dark Angels a rule called Red Thirst? Easy enough to do- just field a Dark Angels Sons of Sanguinus detachments. Yes, no kidding... It's an actual thing that you can do- you might not be able to bring named characters, and perhaps a few other units may not be able to show up, but other than that, the Dark Angels are more than happy to exhibit the fighting style of their Primarch Sanguinus lol.
There are restrictions, though. You can't use any faction-locked units like DW Command Squads or Black Knights, at which point you're effectively just playing a generic SM army anyway, not DA. This one just happens to be a bit more close combat focused. If you put together a "Dark Angels" army that is just Tactical Marines, Intercessors, Rhinos and other generic SM units is it a problem that you can choose to play like regular SM instead of DA? Is it a problem you get to poorly take advantage of the Sons of Sanguinius detachment? Would it still be a problem if that detachment was called the "Ferocious Assault" detachment instead?
Want to give Dark Angels a rule called Red Thirst? Easy enough to do- just field a Dark Angels Sons of Sanguinus detachments. Yes, no kidding... It's an actual thing that you can do- you might not be able to bring named characters, and perhaps a few other units may not be able to show up, but other than that, the Dark Angels are more than happy to exhibit the fighting style of their Primarch Sanguinus lol.
I feel like this is a pretty silly argument. Dark Angels aren't Dark Angels without their units. They're just marines.
Daedalus81 wrote: It isn't underwhelming. You guys should really try to get over this mental barrier.
To a Rhino...
...a Blaster does ( 3+ to hit ) - 1
...Haywire Blaster does ( 4+ ) - 1.5 ( 2.25 for the twin )
...MM does ( 4+ ) - 1.75 ( long range )
Just because the window shifted doesn't make it bad.
I figure once we get points and datasheets it will be easier to get a handle on what the "new average" looks like. (I.E. 8th edition Indexes about 25%, late 8th about 40%, 9th edition over 50% before stratagems, in a lot of cases 100% etc).
I think its reasonable to be concerned though about some weapons like the Blaster going from "okay into everything" to "bad into everything".
And the thing is how this interacts in game. Because say a blaster going from wounding on 3s to wounding on 5s doesn't just do "half damage". It just has a significantly greater chance of doing zero. You'll still have games (and this applies to Sisters etc) where you roll a lot of fives and those vehicles melt.
Whether players enjoy there being more luck in the outcomes remains to be seen.
To a degree this whole edition seems to be "can you roll a 6?"
Lord Clinto wrote: Wow, most HH stuff will not be allowed in GW Tourneys now.
And stuff that isn'tHH. Like multiple daemon engines, and Dreadclaws, which have been available (with models, that existed long before HH) since 3rd edition. No more drop pods for CSM. "Can't balance them". Yeah, right. If they can balance the other daemon engines and Loyalist Scum drop pods, then they can balance these just fine.
Want to give Dark Angels a rule called Red Thirst? Easy enough to do- just field a Dark Angels Sons of Sanguinus detachments. Yes, no kidding... It's an actual thing that you can do- you might not be able to bring named characters, and perhaps a few other units may not be able to show up, but other than that, the Dark Angels are more than happy to exhibit the fighting style of their Primarch Sanguinus lol.
That's just the status quo. As long as you don't use any Dark Angels rules, no one* cares if you use your Dark Green Marines as Blood Angels.
* Outside of Warhammer World, so if you live in Nottingham and play there regularly, I guess this could conceivably have some effect.
What about all the DE units that can't take Haywire and are now stuck with piss-poor Blasters (or, God help us, Blast Pistols) as their only anti-tank?
Not every unit can kill tanks, that's like complaining that Intercessors or Termagants don't have access to anti-tank weapons.
Moreover, I don't think there is a single unit that relied on blasters for anti-tank. Maybe blast pistols in the case of Witches and characters, but everyone that has access to blasters also has access to either dark lances or heat lances.
Admittedly there are some armies I am worried about when it comes to their lack of anti-tank (mostly sisters). But DE? They have ravagers and they can put dark lances in kabalites, raiders and in a few other units. They are going to be fine.
Also, I love how the "amazing" Pain Token army rule is already proving to be a massive a crutch that is apparently needed for every single DE weapon to be functional. Good job we have an unlimited quantity of them or I might start feeling concerned.
That's usually an issue with army rules, they are either a crutch or they are simply overpowered. Specially when it comes to kill more army rules.
Daedalus81 wrote: Just because the window shifted doesn't make it bad.
But they really have left the meltagun behind. It's like lots of other traditionally AT weapons got a bump, but the meltagun was forgotten about.
ProfSrlojohn wrote: Christ those Deathwatch Rules. You get three doctrines, one per turn once each, and that wargear is disgusting. They combined the: Shotgun, stalker Bolter, all 4 combi-weapons, all 4 special weapons, storm bolter, and all 5 pistols into one statline, they combined all 4 power weapons, lightning claw, chainsword, and either the regular or heavy thunder hammer into one weapon as well. No more heavy weapons besides the frag cannon and Infurnus bolter, no blackshields, and no combat shield. Christ alive.
Don't you know that having weapon options is just bloat?
And because every army had 50 stratagems and so many pre- and during-battle special rules and purity bonuses and sub-factions that we can't possibly have Shotguns and Bolters be two distinct weapons.
Daedalus81 wrote: Just because the window shifted doesn't make it bad.
But they really have left the meltagun behind. It's like lots of other traditionally AT weapons got a bump, but the meltagun was forgotten about.
Except it was deliberately changed (S9 and melta rule reworked), so forgotten doesn't seem at all accurate.
They made a decision that they didn't want it melting heavier vehicles. Its probably an over-reaction to 9th, but its a very clear design choice.
Lord Clinto wrote: Wow, most HH stuff will not be allowed in GW Tourneys now.
And stuff that isn'tHH. Like multiple daemon engines, and Dreadclaws, which have been available (with models, that existed long before HH) since 3rd edition. No more drop pods for CSM. "Can't balance them". Yeah, right. If they can balance the other daemon engines and Loyalist Scum drop pods, then they can balance these just fine.
Contemptors getting removed is a little bit of an eye-popper for me. There's a fairly significant number of models out there used regularly and so this feels like it goes too far.
I agree with them that it does make it harder to balance, but it still sucks.
To everyone who is quoting me, I'm more upset that every marine player has six detachments to choose from at launch, while every other faction gets one.
I find it funny that Dark Angels can field a Sons of Sanguinus detachment, and so yeah... that was mentioned in my OP. And yes, it would be less comical if the detachment was called Furious Assault and the rule was called Wrathful Charge... But the having six detachment choices at launch when everyone else has one would not go away with name changes.
Lord Clinto wrote: Wow, most HH stuff will not be allowed in GW Tourneys now.
And stuff that isn'tHH. Like multiple daemon engines, and Dreadclaws, which have been available (with models, that existed long before HH) since 3rd edition. No more drop pods for CSM. "Can't balance them". Yeah, right. If they can balance the other daemon engines and Loyalist Scum drop pods, then they can balance these just fine.
Contemptors getting removed is a little bit of an eye-popper for me. There's a fairly significant number of models out there used regularly and so this feels like it goes too far.
I agree with them that it does make it harder to balance, but it still sucks.
Removed for Traitors only, Loyalists will probably still have access to the monopose one
PenitentJake wrote: To everyone who is quoting me, I'm more upset that every marine player has six detachments to choose from at launch, while every other faction gets one.
No we don't. Most people don't just pretend their army is a different Chapter. I'm not about to say that my Ultramarines are actually Space Wolves or Black Templars. My Deathwatch army isn't going to suddenly decide "On Wednesdays we wear dark green!". That's not how it works.
Why they decided to take the lazy route and make armies into detachments despite the fact that these Chapters are getting full books is anyone's guess, but don't act like Marine players suddenly have any more choice than they've had before or would have had if these had been faction rules rather than detachment rules.
PenitentJake wrote: To everyone who is quoting me, I'm more upset that every marine player has six detachments to choose from at launch, while every other faction gets one.
I find it funny that Dark Angels can field a Sons of Sanguinus detachment, and so yeah... that was mentioned in my OP. And yes, it would be less comical if the detachment was called Furious Assault and the rule was called Wrathful Charge... But the having six detachment choices at launch when everyone else has one would not go away with name changes.
I got your point. This has been my concern from the start and it was predictable. Maybe its imperiums turn to shine Idk.. but this imbalance is still going to make other armies miserable waiting around for a year to get up to speed.
PenitentJake wrote: To everyone who is quoting me, I'm more upset that every marine player has six detachments to choose from at launch, while every other faction gets one.
I find it funny that Dark Angels can field a Sons of Sanguinus detachment, and so yeah... that was mentioned in my OP. And yes, it would be less comical if the detachment was called Furious Assault and the rule was called Wrathful Charge... But the having six detachment choices at launch when everyone else has one would not go away with name changes.
Could be worse, could have 40k Units supposedly be counted torwards 30k.. f.e. the Decimator which has on it's introduction paragraph written M 35. Or the Greater brass scorpions: "First encountered during the later black crusades." Or the Greater Blight drone which has been first encountered at the late stages of the siege of Vraks. M41... Or the blood slaughterer which is tied to the legend of the killing star ...
But he. Those are clearly darkmech creations. That said there may be a prototype Brass scorpion around in HH because one of the Dark mech heads is supposedly the creator of it. but still
Lord Clinto wrote: Wow, most HH stuff will not be allowed in GW Tourneys now.
And stuff that isn'tHH. Like multiple daemon engines, and Dreadclaws, which have been available (with models, that existed long before HH) since 3rd edition. No more drop pods for CSM. "Can't balance them". Yeah, right. If they can balance the other daemon engines and Loyalist Scum drop pods, then they can balance these just fine.
Contemptors getting removed is a little bit of an eye-popper for me. There's a fairly significant number of models out there used regularly and so this feels like it goes too far.
I agree with them that it does make it harder to balance, but it still sucks.
Removed for Traitors only, Loyalists will probably still have access to the monopose one
Nothing even suggests that. Contemptor (and Kratos which got singled out for having a loyalist only sheet) are both exiled regardless of faction.
Why they decided to take the lazy route and make armies into detachments despite the fact that these Chapters are getting full books is anyone's guess, but don't act like Marine players suddenly have any more choice than they've had before or would have had if these had been faction rules rather than detachment rules.
This isn't the lazy route. This is GW actually sticking to the system they described in the first place.
It has some balance flaws between detachments, but its a lot better than needing to balance faction and detachment rules for them all.
Lord Clinto wrote: Wow, most HH stuff will not be allowed in GW Tourneys now.
And stuff that isn'tHH. Like multiple daemon engines, and Dreadclaws, which have been available (with models, that existed long before HH) since 3rd edition. No more drop pods for CSM. "Can't balance them". Yeah, right. If they can balance the other daemon engines and Loyalist Scum drop pods, then they can balance these just fine.
Contemptors getting removed is a little bit of an eye-popper for me. There's a fairly significant number of models out there used regularly and so this feels like it goes too far.
I agree with them that it does make it harder to balance, but it still sucks.
But they do actually have the "Well, this was originally a HH unit" excuse for Contemptors. All of those daemon engines? They've always been 40k. And the Dreadclaw? Originally introduced in Imperial Armour: Update, published 2002. That's a looonngggg time before HH was a thing.
This is just another slap in the face for CSM players. And another reason for them to move to the greener pastures of HH (daemon engine and cultists rules for HH coming "this summer", according to gw, my fellow Heretics.)
Voss wrote: This isn't the lazy route. This is GW actually sticking to the system they described in the first place.
Then why aren't DG/WE/TS just detachment rules linked to CSMs?
Because they've been turned into distinct model lines, like it or not.
Like I said, these armies are getting full Codices, and thus should be treated as such. They're not listed as supplements anymore.
I don't think this is a distinction that matters. The 'full codex' is a matter of organization, background and snowflake datacards, it doesn't hinge on having a completely faction rule on maybe 1/4 of one page.
Dark Angels would be a faction, and within that would be their detachments (DW, RW, etc.).
That would be the real lazy way to do detachments, just lean into the flanderization. Is that really what you want?
Voss wrote: Because they've been turned into distinct model lines, like it or not.
So... the Loyalist Chapters have tons of their own models. What???
Voss wrote: I don't think this is a distinction that matters. The 'full codex' is a matter of organization, background and snowflake datacards, it doesn't hinge on having a completely faction rule on maybe 1/4 of one page.
Yet that's what they're doing. They're making the Loyalist Chapters into separate Codices like the Legions.
Voss wrote: That would be the real lazy way to do detachments, just lean into the flanderization. Is that really what you want?
How is the Dark Angels having their own Codex "flanderisation"? What the hell are you talking about?
Voss wrote: That would be the real lazy way to do detachments, just lean into the flanderization. Is that really what you want?
How is the Dark Angels having their own Codex "flanderisation"? What the hell are you talking about?
Pay some attention to the context.
You listed DW & RW as detachments (and then ran out of ideas). That would be flanderization.
Looking at the examples of actual detachments in the article, that isn't the direction they're going. Nor should they.
What about all the DE units that can't take Haywire and are now stuck with piss-poor Blasters (or, God help us, Blast Pistols) as their only anti-tank?
Not every unit can kill tanks, that's like complaining that Intercessors or Termagants don't have access to anti-tank weapons.
Moreover, I don't think there is a single unit that relied on blasters for anti-tank. Maybe blast pistols in the case of Witches and characters, but everyone that has access to blasters also has access to either dark lances or heat lances.
Admittedly there are some armies I am worried about when it comes to their lack of anti-tank (mostly sisters). But DE? They have ravagers and they can put dark lances in kabalites, raiders and in a few other units. They are going to be fine.
Also, I love how the "amazing" Pain Token army rule is already proving to be a massive a crutch that is apparently needed for every single DE weapon to be functional. Good job we have an unlimited quantity of them or I might start feeling concerned.
That's usually an issue with army rules, they are either a crutch or they are simply overpowered. Specially when it comes to kill more army rules.
DE do have issues with AT and blasters has always been a primary AT weapon due to access and concentration.
Before this latest assault version of DE, dark light spam from ravagers and 4 man squads of trueborn covered it well, but at the expense of almost all assault (bar hwg wyches). That was when S8 profiles were king plus always wound on 4+ . Even then dark light was not ideal on fragile platforms so redundancy was a must.
Part of why is that there isn't much middle ground unlike say marines where every weapon has at least s4 profile.
Flash forward to 8-9th those trueborn and grenades are gone replaced by assault as a primary anti tank. Not just because it works as the current 'strength' of DE in those editions, but because of reduction of ranged AT access. Now move forward to 10th.
The most common tank profile is now t9, 3+, 10+ wounds (meq, IG etc).
Against that DEAT is 1 single shot weapon wounding on 3+, and 1 weapon wounding on 4+ but with ap 1. heat lance is still unknown.
Using the highest possible concentration of dark lances 4 scourges standing still vs t9 3+ is 4*4*4*5/216 = 1.48 wounds or average 7.18 wounds on a rhino without invuln/fnp. 5.88 if moving. And this is trading down in points.
Ravager assuming BS 3+ is 5.88 or identical to mobile scourges.
4 old blasters is 6.22 wounds. 4 new blasters is 3.59 wounds. so maxed out 3x5 scourge can't kill 1 transport. This is not considering access to 5++/fnp.
6 current HWBs average 5 wounds + 2 mortals (highest concentration is 3 taloi). 6 new HWB (IF they get BS 3+) average 9 mortal wounds, 6.75 if BS 4+. Thats the best concentration of AT available we know of atm.
Ironically if the disi cannon remains unchanged its damage output is now exactly triple that of a blaster per weapon against a rhino.
As mentioned earlier the entire book seems to be based on the premise of unlimited pain tokens. However with these numbers its pretty easy to see how tokens will run dry by T2. Thats going to be a bad wake up call to those who are bullish on DE rules. With the changes to toughness and weapon profiles it would be better if pain tokens allowed reroll wounds instead of hits.
All that said its not really peachy for many other factions either. Those with full reroll wounds (sm) or broader access to quality weaponry will obviously be better off.
Tldr; it may take awhile for metas to adapt as players try sticking to what they know, own or just like, but from what we know now mechanized is the way in 10th. If lighter mech (<t8) is not incredibly cheap they won't be able to trade profitably. IMO of course. >
Voss wrote: You listed DW & RW as detachments (and then ran out of ideas).
I didn't run out of ideas. FFS... I was giving examples.
Dark Angels are getting their own Codex. In this book will be detachments, I'd bet all the money I have that some of these detachments will be Deathwing and Ravenwing, with their own 6 unit Strats, 4 bloat-killing "Enhancements", and hopefully some level of restrictions and reorganisation for what is battleline and what can/cannot be taken.
Voss wrote: You listed DW & RW as detachments (and then ran out of ideas).
I didn't run out of ideas. FFS... I was giving examples.
Dark Angels are getting their own Codex. In this book will be detachments, I'd bet all the money I have that some of these detachments will be Deathwing and Ravenwing, with their own 6 unit Strats, 4 bloat-killing "Enhancements", and hopefully some level of restrictions and reorganisation for what is battleline and what can/cannot be taken.
That'd be terrible. There's no reason to do it that way. If you want a deathwing army, just take deathwing units. The end. You don't need special rules to allow you to do so, and none of the detachments we've been shown lean that way.
If they do go that way with the actual codex, it'd be a disappointing waste of space, because you can self restrict a deathwing or ravenwing army with zero issues.
Voss wrote: This isn't the lazy route. This is GW actually sticking to the system they described in the first place.
Then why aren't DG/WE/TS just detachment rules linked to CSMs?
Because they've been turned into distinct model lines, like it or not.
I don't think this is a distinction that matters. The 'full codex' is a matter of organization, background and snowflake datacards, it doesn't hinge on having a completely faction rule on maybe 1/4 of one page.
I'm fairly sure the DA/BA/SW/(BT) distinct model lines and codex content are much more extensive than the DG/TS/WE stuff.
And it is getting confusing in other ways too: the official army building rules very clearly specify that I should choose ONE Army Faction Keyword... but then these chapters have two! And to pick a unit into my army, I must only fit one Faction Keyword (the one I've chosen), not two. This means that if I take the Dark Angels Faction Keyword to unlock their Detachment then I can't take any non-DA-specific unit (the normal ones in the SM 'dex) because they don't have the Dark Angels Keyword! But if I take Adeptus Astartes as my Faction Keyword then I can include any of the chapter-specific units in any combination (as they all have that keyword) for no loss whatsoever! Is this supposed to be intentional? I'm so confused...
You can just say "No, the article did not say they were full Codexes".
Isn't that exactly what I just did?
Voss wrote: If you want a deathwing army, just take deathwing units. The end. You don't need special rules to allow you to do so, and none of the detachments we've been shown lean that way.
You don't think that a Deathwing army would have its own strats and relics?
Your arguments are based on these armies having full Codexes but there's no evidence to suggest that. You're just flat-out making stuff up to suit your point.
Yeah I saw that too. Someone clearly forgot that was a Narthecium.
Gert wrote: Your arguments are based on these armies having full Codexes but there's no evidence to suggest that. You're just flat-out making stuff up to suit your point.
The Dark Angel Codex is literally listed among the first releases. Did you not see that?
No, hence my use of the phrase 'Every cloud has a silver lining.'
If all I can do with Blasters is kill Marines (which was generally what I was doing with them back in 3rd Edition because of lousy Splinter Rifles) then at least I will take some grim satisfaction in blowing straight through their silly Marine armour. /shrug.
Yeah I saw that too. Someone clearly forgot that was a Narthecium.
Gert wrote: Your arguments are based on these armies having full Codexes but there's no evidence to suggest that. You're just flat-out making stuff up to suit your point.
The Dark Angel Codex is literally listed among the first releases. Did you not see that?
Always great to have subfactions have codexes before entire races.....
Yeah I saw that too. Someone clearly forgot that was a Narthecium.
Gert wrote: Your arguments are based on these armies having full Codexes but there's no evidence to suggest that. You're just flat-out making stuff up to suit your point.
The Dark Angel Codex is literally listed among the first releases. Did you not see that?
Always great to have subfactions have codexes before entire races.....
Probably better to spread them out over the edition, rather than have a six month block where people bleat about "Nothing but Marines!11!2!"
Yeah I saw that too. Someone clearly forgot that was a Narthecium.
Gert wrote: Your arguments are based on these armies having full Codexes but there's no evidence to suggest that. You're just flat-out making stuff up to suit your point.
The Dark Angel Codex is literally listed among the first releases. Did you not see that?
Always great to have subfactions have codexes before entire races.....
Probably better to spread them out over the edition, rather than have a six month block where people bleat about "Nothing but Marines!11!2!"
IF they were actually doing what they say and just adding lore and a few detachments in the "Codex" then you could just have a book highlighting the non-Codex Chapters but we all know they will need new rules for the flanderised units and even more new [[Insert - Wolf/Blood/Dark]] units.
Using the highest possible concentration of dark lances 4 scourges standing still vs t9 3+ is 4*4*4*5/216 = 1.48 wounds or average 7.18 wounds on a rhino without invuln/fnp. 5.88 if moving. And this is trading down in points.
A few errors there. Sv3+ vs ap-3 saves on 6s, and the average of D6+2 is 5.5. So it would actually be 4*4*5*5.5/216 = 2.037 wounds per Dark Lance
And this is trading down in points.
Assuming current points, it is 120 points stripping away 81.48% of an 80pts model, so 65.18 points in damage.
That's 54.32% return in a single shooting (61.111% if using PT). To be honest I don't see what is weak about that, units shouldn't be making their own points back in damage in one single round of shooting.
Voss wrote: Because they've been turned into distinct model lines, like it or not.
So... the Loyalist Chapters have tons of their own models. What???
TS/DG/WE don't get
Discolord
Dark commune
Dark apostle
Warpsmith
Legionnaires
Accursed cultists
Chosen
Possessed/Master of executions (depending on the book)
Bikers
Raptors
Warp talons
Venomcrawlers
DA/SW get all the generic marine units
BT too but with no psyker
DW are just their own entity and i fully believe they would work better if they were as detached from the loyalist codex as grey knights are
Fingers crossed for my AM medics getting chainfists too!
Not sure if you're trying to be clever or not, but I'm pretty sure a medi-pack isn't the same as a powerfist with a bunch of stuff attached.
Not sure if you're trying to be clever or not, but a narthecium isn't even a powerfist with stuff attached.
yeah but
The chainblades and drills fitted into Nartheciums allow the Apothecary to crack open even Terminator Armour to reach a fallen brother's progenoid glands.
if it can crack terminator armor, it can crack tank armor
I assumed you needed something like a chain fist to carve off a section of armor and get to them with the narthecium, no? So maybe the narthecium is just a special rule and the chain fist is the fluffy weapon someone operating on terminators would need to use the narthecium?
Disorganized thoughts:
* While I don't love all of these detachment abilities, I think they're about the right level of complexity. Neat gimmicks that change up how your army feels.
* The more context we have, the more I think I'm going to hate Oaths of Moment. Army-wide Guide/Doom for marines each turn (against one target) seems way stronger than pretty much any of the other army-wide rules?
* Grim Resolve seems pretty bad? It's a neat, fluffy rule, but you're giving up the flexibility of falling back and charging, advancing and charging, or advancing and shooting for it.
* Feels like Deathwing Terminators could just be generic terminators. Does anyone see anything here that demands its own datasheet?
* El'Johnson. I've already forgotten Roboute's stats, but I guess primarchs will only be hurt by bolters on a 6+ and blasters on a 5+. And I guess blasters become a 6+ thanks to his shield. Feels weird. True to fluff, but weird. Not a fan of his more betterer rules. Feels weird that he can inspire people to hit better, but only in melee. His pistol makes the combi-weapon changes feel even weirder.
* I think I like the Sagas. Gives you a reason to lean into characters pulling off impressive deeds, then gives your army a significant-but-not-absurd bonus afterwards.
* Hounds of Morkai could have been an optional squad ability that you pay points for available to all Reivers rather than its own datasheet. I like that attaching an appropriate character improves the ability.
* Red Thirst being +1S is a little quirky. It will help against T4, T5, T8, and T9, but it doesn't help against against T3 or T6/T7. So like, it makes you better at punching other space marines, and sufficiently durable vehicles, but it doesn't help you punch guardsmen or venoms/sentinels. (Sentinels are T6 or 7, right?) I feel like they wanted this to be +1 to-wound but didn't want it to work against land raiders. Which is fair, but this is a weird way to accomplish that.
* I like the black rage special rules quite a bit. It's a kill better rule, but it comes at the cost of tactical flexibility and prevents you from playing the objectives game as well. If we're going to do kill better rules, they're way more interesting when they have downsides like this.
* Seth's Whirlwind of Gore mechanic is an interesting take on the "more enemies = more attacks" thing. The expanded range means you don't get screwed by base sizes as easily, but it also means that some enemies standing in the generaly vicinity but not in melee can buff you against units that *are* in melee.
* Templar Vows: Apparently vows are a thing you have to decide before a fight starts, but oaths are a thing you can make time for mid-battle. :p This one feels relatively boring to me. It's basically just choosing a chapter tactic at the start of the game so you can tailor your rules to your opponent a little. This feels like the safer, less fluffy, more boring version of Sagas. I'm wondering if Abhor the Witch is meant to let tac marines wound Great Unclean Ones and Hive Tyrants on a 4+ like that. Seems like an oversight, but maybe not.
* Don't like sword brethren. They seem like a very generic marine melee unit with two special rule options for killing more betterer. Isn't the whole gimmick of these guys supposed to be that they mix non-sneaky scouts with more experienced power armor guys? What are they going for here? Do BT players like this?
* DW Mission Tactics: These could probably be improved, but I think I like this version better than what we have now.
* Anti-xenos kill more betterer rule makes sense given that they're the anti-xenos faction, but it's still sort of bland.
Overall, if this is what we can expect from detachments for other factions, I think we're going to have some winners and losers, but I like the general shape of what GW seems to be going for.
* Feels like Deathwing Terminators could just be generic terminators. Does anyone see anything here that demands its own datasheet?
Lots, but this is the command squad, not the terminator squad. Hence the apothecary and the champion with halberd.
Traditionally, though, Deathwing terminators can mix and match the ranged and melee roles of the terminator squad and the assault terminator squad. And, of course, plasma cannons.
* Feels like Deathwing Terminators could just be generic terminators. Does anyone see anything here that demands its own datasheet?
Lots, but this is the command squad, not the terminator squad.
Traditionally, though, Deathwing terminators can mix and match the ranged and melee roles of the terminator squad and the assault terminator squad.
See, I feel like that should just be true of all terminators. We see enough other chapters do this in codices, and it seems like it's probably a pretty common deviation in the lore. I say let players have more flexibility and get rid of an extra datasheet.
* Feels like Deathwing Terminators could just be generic terminators. Does anyone see anything here that demands its own datasheet?
Lots, but this is the command squad, not the terminator squad.
Traditionally, though, Deathwing terminators can mix and match the ranged and melee roles of the terminator squad and the assault terminator squad.
See, I feel like that should just be true of all terminators. We see enough other chapters do this in codices, and it seems like it's probably a pretty common deviation in the lore. I say let players have more flexibility and get rid of an extra datasheet.
Sure...? But you were asking for differences between this and the generic terminators, not 'how it should be'
* Feels like Deathwing Terminators could just be generic terminators. Does anyone see anything here that demands its own datasheet?
Lots, but this is the command squad, not the terminator squad.
Traditionally, though, Deathwing terminators can mix and match the ranged and melee roles of the terminator squad and the assault terminator squad.
See, I feel like that should just be true of all terminators. We see enough other chapters do this in codices, and it seems like it's probably a pretty common deviation in the lore. I say let players have more flexibility and get rid of an extra datasheet.
Sure...? But you were asking for differences between this and the generic terminators, not 'how it should be'
Using the highest possible concentration of dark lances 4 scourges standing still vs t9 3+ is 4*4*4*5/216 = 1.48 wounds or average 7.18 wounds on a rhino without invuln/fnp. 5.88 if moving. And this is trading down in points.
A few errors there. Sv3+ vs ap-3 saves on 6s, and the average of D6+2 is 5.5. So it would actually be 4*4*5*5.5/216 = 2.037 wounds per Dark Lance
And this is trading down in points.
Assuming current points, it is 120 points stripping away 81.48% of an 80pts model, so 65.18 points in damage.
That's 54.32% return in a single shooting (61.111% if using PT). To be honest I don't see what is weak about that, units shouldn't be making their own points back in damage in one single round of shooting.
Ah yes I just added the +2 instead of multiplying. So 8.14 wounds.
Agreed on making points back. But that is an optimal situation for scourges camped without getting smoked first against one transport.
I feel it is bad because of the commitment required. In 9th mech is considered middling and still shows up in decent quantity. And DE do struggle against it. In a mech edition the need for AT will completely dictate list design. Plus DE units are not equally durable so exchanges are not equal. Removing 5 t3 scourge wounds is trivial for most weapons in the game including the rhino + firing deck contents.
I personally enjoyed the old playstyle but since the games evolution I do not believe what they are trying to do will turn out well for DE.
For example 5 storm bolters does comparable damage to a venom vs 4 blasters to a rhino. That is just bizarre. Blasters as a staple becoming worse without another choice to fill the gap is something very easy for DE players to measure the loss of and restricts list design.
Changes to poison becoming only anti infantry is also really poor timing with what we know of mech in 10th.
Another better known example is units such as tau big suits or NDK changing to vehicle status. This one keyword change really put the crimp on DE builds to handle those things outside of combat particularly with invuln drones.
dominuschao wrote: For example 5 storm bolters does comparable damage to a venom vs 4 blasters to a rhino. That is just bizarre. Blasters as a staple becoming worse without another choice to fill the gap is something very easy for DE players to measure the loss of and restricts list design.
??
5 SB at short do 0.7 to a Rhino and 2.2 to a Venom
PenitentJake wrote: To everyone who is quoting me, I'm more upset that every marine player has six detachments to choose from at launch, while every other faction gets one.
No we don't. Most people don't just pretend their army is a different Chapter. I'm not about to say that my Ultramarines are actually Space Wolves or Black Templars. My Deathwatch army isn't going to suddenly decide "On Wednesdays we wear dark green!". That's not how it works.
Why they decided to take the lazy route and make armies into detachments despite the fact that these Chapters are getting full books is anyone's guess, but don't act like Marine players suddenly have any more choice than they've had before or would have had if these had been faction rules rather than detachment rules.
Look HBMC, I respect you, and I've always done my best to polite with you. We also actually tend to agree more often than we disagree on.
But the last two times you replied directly to me, you've done it with this heavy handed "Don't pretend...", "Don't act like..." attitude, and I don't think I've been rude enough to you to deserve it.
If you had said "While marine players CAN choose from six different detachments, the vast majority of players will probably choose to use only the detachment that best suits their subfaction because it will suit their preferred play style," that's something we could have agreed on, because you are right, there are likely very few people who want to field Blood Angels in a Sons of Sanguinus detachment.
The point of my OP is this:
At launch, if you play Loyalist Marines, there are six detachments you could choose from. If you play any other faction, there is one.
This is objectively and observably true. No one is pretending anything, or acting like anything. This is objective reality.
Whether or not anyone will actually do it is another issue. I don't care how many people do or do not. My point is that Loyalist Players, and Loyalist Players alone have the option.
So to turn it back on you, don't pretend that SM players don't have this option, because they do, and there is no way for you to "win" that argument.
Christ those Deathwatch Rules. You get three doctrines, one per turn once each, and that wargear is disgusting. They combined the: Shotgun, stalker Bolter, all 4 combi-weapons, all 4 special weapons, storm bolter, and all 5 pistols into one statline, they combined all 4 power weapons, lightning claw, chainsword, and either the regular or heavy thunder hammer into one weapon as well. No more heavy weapons besides the frag cannon and Infurnus bolter, no blackshields, and no combat shield. Christ alive.
We have not seen the back of the datasheet, so we do not know what was consolidated and what might be on a war gear index card that we know exists.
Still, doesn’t look positive. I see that the dreaded Combi-Weapon is not Terminators only.
PenitentJake wrote: So to turn it back on you, don't pretend that SM players don't have this option, because they do
As per the rules we have seen so far, they don't. Detachments are locked to a Faction Keyword and so are the units you can take in your army. So if you go with the Dark Angels Detachment then you can't take any of the basic SM stuff (like Intercessors) because they don't have the Dark Angels Faction Keyword (only Adeptus Asterates). But you must take Dark Angels as your Faction Keyword to be able to take the Dark Angels Detachment. GW will probably fix this with some kind of additional rule but... y'know, personally, I wouldn't bet money on it.
Yeah, how are we feeling about all these weapon consolidations in general? You've got combi-weapon weirdness, "inquisitorial melee weapons", "sybarite weapons", and probably a lot of other examples I've been too inattentive to notice.
Do we think this is an index thing? An attempt to reduce the focus on minutia for the sake of supporting a larger game?
Edit: Or is it just that they've tied the specifics of the weapons to individual datasheets, and they don't want to have to list a bunch of different options for my sybarites?
PenitentJake wrote: So to turn it back on you, don't pretend that SM players don't have this option, because they do
As per the rules we have seen so far, they don't. Detachments are locked to a Faction Keyword and so are the units you can take in your army. So if you go with the Dark Angels Detachment then you can't take any of the basic SM stuff (like Intercessors) because they don't have the Dark Angels Faction Keyword (only Adeptus Asterates). But you must take Dark Angels as your Faction Keyword to be able to take the Dark Angels Detachment. GW will probably fix this with some kind of additional rule but... y'know, personally, I wouldn't bet money on it.
Here's the fething quote from today's FF article:
This means that any Space Marine army can choose to use these Detachments should they see fit, provided they abide by their restrictions – no matter how much you love Librarians, you won’t be taking Space Marine psykers in a Righteous Crusaders Detachment. The main one you’ll need to worry about is that you can’t mix in units with a different Chapter’s keywords, so no non-Space Wolves named characters or Deathwing Terminators in the Champions of Russ Detachment, for example.
Go ahead and try to tell me the bold text doesn't mean what it says.
As I heard it was done to kill WYSIWYG so you can put your model together into anything and the rules will still fit. That sounds sensible, so I doubt it is an Index thing.
PenitentJake wrote: Go ahead and try to tell me the bold text doesn't mean what it says.
Precision can't snipe Apothecaries either, so while it likely does mean what it says it might be also wrong.
Yeah, it sounds like it's pretty similar to what we have now. You can say your red guys are space wolves if you like the SW rules better than the BA rules; you just won't be able to take Dante in that detachment because his chapter is locked.
As I heard it was done to kill WYSIWYG so you can put your model together into anything and the rules will still fit. That sounds sensible, so I doubt it is an Index thing.
*Builds a blasters akimbo sybarite*
Behold: a melee weapon.
Wyldhunt wrote: Yeah, how are we feeling about all these weapon consolidations in general? You've got combi-weapon weirdness, "inquisitorial melee weapons", "sybarite weapons", and probably a lot of other examples I've been too inattentive to notice.
Do we think this is an index thing? An attempt to reduce the focus on minutia for the sake of supporting a larger game?
Edit: Or is it just that they've tied the specifics of the weapons to individual datasheets, and they don't want to have to list a bunch of different options for my sybarites?
No, this is permanent thing for the edition. Stu (the 40k lead) mentioned in an interview that went up today on Tabletop Tactics that there are over 2000 datasheets: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCbq4vnyno4 They're aren't doing this again any time soon.
Datasheets for later books (and datacard sets as they get reprinted) may get some revisions and spot fixes for obvious errors, but this is what the game is now. (personally, I like most of it).
Kill team and necromunda are better scaled for different options.
PenitentJake wrote: So to turn it back on you, don't pretend that SM players don't have this option, because they do
As per the rules we have seen so far, they don't. Detachments are locked to a Faction Keyword and so are the units you can take in your army. So if you go with the Dark Angels Detachment then you can't take any of the basic SM stuff (like Intercessors) because they don't have the Dark Angels Faction Keyword (only Adeptus Asterates). But you must take Dark Angels as your Faction Keyword to be able to take the Dark Angels Detachment. GW will probably fix this with some kind of additional rule but... y'know, personally, I wouldn't bet money on it.
You're entirely wrong. Especially after the article today.
The chapter keywords can't be mixed, but the Faction for all Chapters is Adeptus Astartes.
ALL of these detachments are explicitly open to all chapters. (And from the Tabletop Tactics interview above, the focus on detachments is archetypes, not subfactions. He even mentioned that a 'bike host' detachment is about bikes, not White Scars or Ravenwing)
The reason you can't take Librarians in the righteous crusade detachment is because the detachment says so, not because the librarian doesn't have the Black Templar keyword.
As I heard it was done to kill WYSIWYG so you can put your model together into anything and the rules will still fit. That sounds sensible, so I doubt it is an Index thing.
*Builds a blasters akimbo sybarite*
Behold: a melee weapon.
Ah, yes, it should be: "you can put your model together into anything the unit box allows without any kind of personal modification".
Voss wrote: ALL of these detachments are explicitly open to all chapters.
Dunno, but those Detachments are all tied to a Chapter-specific Faction Keyword rather than the Adeptus Astarted Faction Keyword like the Gladius Task Force. Unless, of course, you don't need a Faction Keyword to unlock a Detachment (truth to be told, there is no sign of that in the core rules) in which case I'm going to run the Rad-Bombardment Detachment with my AM for sure.
Voss wrote: ALL of these detachments are explicitly open to all chapters.
Dunno, but those Detachments are all tied to a Chapter-specific Faction Keyword rather than the Adeptus Astarted Faction Keyword like the Gladius Task Force. Unless, of course, you don't need a Faction Keyword to unlock a Detachment (truth to be told, there is no sign of that in the core rules) in which case I'm going to run the Rad-Bombardment Detachment with my AM for sure.
We do know, even if you don't (or don't admit it).
For previews, its really clear how this works, and since this is the '10th edition gameplay and rules news and discussion' and not the '10th edition conspiracy theories' thread, it seems worthwhile focusing on what's real rather than fantasies.
As I heard it was done to kill WYSIWYG so you can put your model together into anything and the rules will still fit. That sounds sensible, so I doubt it is an Index thing.
*Builds a blasters akimbo sybarite*
Behold: a melee weapon.
Ah, yes, it should be: "you can put your model together into anything the unit box allows without any kind of personal modification".
Voss wrote: ALL of these detachments are explicitly open to all chapters.
Dunno, but those Detachments are all tied to a Chapter-specific Faction Keyword rather than the Adeptus Astarted Faction Keyword like the Gladius Task Force. Unless, of course, you don't need a Faction Keyword to unlock a Detachment (truth to be told, there is no sign of that in the core rules) in which case I'm going to run the Rad-Bombardment Detachment with my AM for sure.
In case it wasn't clear, I was just being silly about blasters akimbo. Still, it seems weird to kill WYSIWYG by killing options. I guess the idea is that they don't see the difference between a power sword/agonizer as big enough to warrant coming up with custom points costs/statlines for, so they're just lumping such options into a single melee profile? So rather than worrying about whether your sybarite has a power weapon or a powered-but-also-poison weapon in a 2k game, you just have to know whether he's shooty or stabby or stabby with a blast pistol?
But then, combi-weapons don't seem like they fall in line with that philosophy. People weren't generally mixing combi types left and right in a squad; they were basically taking an extra flamer or melta or plasma gun and also happen to retain their bolter shots when doing so. And the job performed by a combi-melta vs a combi-flamer is way more different than a power sword vs an agonizer. So it doesn't feel like a case of, "these options are similar enough that it isn't worth distinguishing them."
Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Black Templars, and Deathwatch are also Factions. They are listed in all relevant entries in addition to the Adeptus Astartes Faction Keyword. However, during army creation, you choose only ONE Faction Keyword so it is either one of those Chapter Keywords OR Adeptus Astartes.
Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Black Templars, and Deathwatch are also Factions. They are listed in all relevant entries in addition to the Adeptus Astartes Faction Keyword. However, during army creation, you choose only ONE Faction Keyword so it is either one of those Chapter Keywords OR Adeptus Astartes.
So, i choose ADEPTUS ASTARTES as my faction keyword, then in the next step, select a SONS OF SANGUINIUS detachment.
so long as i meet the requirements of that detachment (requirements, which i might add, that we dont know yet. it could just be "no unit can have faction keywords other than ADEPTUS ASTARTES and/or BLOOD ANGEL."), then i would get THE RED THRIST detachment bonus. hell they may even have a detachment rule that says "all ADEPTUS ASTARTES units gain the BLOOD ANGEL keyword", to solve any potential rules lawyering.
Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Black Templars, and Deathwatch are also Factions. They are listed in all relevant entries in addition to the Adeptus Astartes Faction Keyword. However, during army creation, you choose only ONE Faction Keyword so it is either one of those Chapter Keywords OR Adeptus Astartes.
So, i choose ADEPTUS ASTARTES as my faction keyword, then in the next step, select a SONS OF SANGUINIUS detachment.
so long as i meet the requirements of that detachment (requirements, which i might add, that we dont know yet. it could just be "no unit can have faction keywords other than ADEPTUS ASTARTES and/or BLOOD ANGEL."), then i would get THE RED THRIST detachment bonus. hell they may even have a detachment rule that says "all ADEPTUS ASTARTES units gain the BLOOD ANGEL keyword", to solve any potential rules lawyering.
The Sons of Sanguinius Detachment is tied to the Blood Angels Faction tho while, say, the Gladius Task Force is specifically Adeptus Astartes. It definitely has some kind of relevance because otherwise, they wouldn't include Adeptus Astartes on Chapter-specific datasheets like how Thousand Sons don't have Chaos on their datasheets. Say, if they had a rule that says "all ADEPTUS ASTARTES units gain the BLOOD ANGEL keyword" then stuff like Deathwind Terminators would also become Blood Angels (because they have the Adeptus Astartes Keyword) so having the Blood Angels Keyword wouldn't matter at all... so why is it there then?
I also think they will have some kind of rule for it (or maybe not) but I'm not really willing to take it for granted just because some dudes who have already made a mistake in the same preview said so.
Wow. Didn't expect them to drop HH support for 40k. That's unfortunate since I know a lot of people who ran Contemptors. It's only for tournament play, but several of those people enjoyed going to official tournaments.
Voss wrote: Because they've been turned into distinct model lines, like it or not.
So... the Loyalist Chapters have tons of their own models. What???
TS/DG/WE don't get
Discolord
Dark commune
Dark apostle
Warpsmith
Legionnaires
Accursed cultists
Chosen
Possessed/Master of executions (depending on the book)
Bikers
Raptors
Warp talons
Venomcrawlers
DA/SW get all the generic marine units
BT too but with no psyker
DW are just their own entity and i fully believe they would work better if they were as detached from the loyalist codex as grey knights are
Was there ever a coherent reason given for why WE lost access to Warp Talons? Surely, their lightning claws are no worse than a terminators when it comes to skulls and blood.
PenitentJake wrote: So to turn it back on you, don't pretend that SM players don't have this option, because they do
As per the rules we have seen so far, they don't. Detachments are locked to a Faction Keyword and so are the units you can take in your army. So if you go with the Dark Angels Detachment then you can't take any of the basic SM stuff (like Intercessors) because they don't have the Dark Angels Faction Keyword (only Adeptus Asterates). But you must take Dark Angels as your Faction Keyword to be able to take the Dark Angels Detachment. GW will probably fix this with some kind of additional rule but... y'know, personally, I wouldn't bet money on it.
Here's the fething quote from today's FF article:
This means that any Space Marine army can choose to use these Detachments should they see fit, provided they abide by their restrictions – no matter how much you love Librarians, you won’t be taking Space Marine psykers in a Righteous Crusaders Detachment. The main one you’ll need to worry about is that you can’t mix in units with a different Chapter’s keywords, so no non-Space Wolves named characters or Deathwing Terminators in the Champions of Russ Detachment, for example.
Go ahead and try to tell me the bold text doesn't mean what it says.
Yep. As long as you follow restrictions. So marines need to have relevant keyword. Blood angel needed for red fury.
Works well as long as you don't field deathwing terminators etc.
Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Black Templars, and Deathwatch are also Factions. They are listed in all relevant entries in addition to the Adeptus Astartes Faction Keyword. However, during army creation, you choose only ONE Faction Keyword so it is either one of those Chapter Keywords OR Adeptus Astartes.
So, i choose ADEPTUS ASTARTES as my faction keyword, then in the next step, select a SONS OF SANGUINIUS detachment.
so long as i meet the requirements of that detachment (requirements, which i might add, that we dont know yet. it could just be "no unit can have faction keywords other than ADEPTUS ASTARTES and/or BLOOD ANGEL."), then i would get THE RED THRIST detachment bonus. hell they may even have a detachment rule that says "all ADEPTUS ASTARTES units gain the BLOOD ANGEL keyword", to solve any potential rules lawyering.
No?
You have to be faction adeptus astartes.
You explicitly do not have to have blood angel. No one gains blood angel keywords.
However, you can't have non-blood angel chapter keywords (space wolf, black templar, dark angel, etc...)
The article is clear about this. The detachments are open to all space marines (though some units can't be taken, like libriarians in righteous crusade detachments), but you can't mix chapter keywords.
Its a preview, so it doesn't include all the rules text, but this is really unambiguous:
This means that any Space Marine army can choose to use these Detachments should they see fit, provided they abide by their restrictions – no matter how much you love Librarians, you won’t be taking Space Marine psykers in a Righteous Crusaders Detachment. The main one you’ll need to worry about is that you can’t mix in units with a different Chapter’s keywords, so no non-Space Wolves named characters or Deathwing Terminators in the Champions of Russ Detachment, for example
The Sons of Sanguinius Detachment is tied to the Blood Angels Faction tho while, say, the Gladius Task Force is specifically Adeptus Astartes. It definitely has some kind of relevance because otherwise, they wouldn't include Adeptus Astartes on Chapter-specific datasheets like how Thousand Sons don't have Chaos on their datasheets. Say, if they had a rule that says "all ADEPTUS ASTARTES units gain the BLOOD ANGEL keyword" then stuff like Deathwind Terminators would also become Blood Angels (because they have the Adeptus Astartes Keyword) so having the Blood Angels Keyword wouldn't matter at all... so why is it there then?
I also think they will have some kind of rule for it (or maybe not) but I'm not really willing to take it for granted just because some dudes who have already made a mistake in the same preview said so.
well, based on what little we know:
This means that any Space Marine army can choose to use these Detachments should they see fit, provided they abide by their restrictions – no matter how much you love Librarians, you won’t be taking Space Marine psykers in a Righteous Crusaders Detachment. The main one you’ll need to worry about is that you can’t mix in units with a different Chapter’s keywords, so no non-Space Wolves named characters or Deathwing Terminators in the Champions of Russ Detachment, for example
this does rather strongly imply that you can add in chapter agnostic units like Intercessors, and are not limited to just whatever has blood angels keyword.
also, Tsons do have the CHAOS keyword on their datasheets.
Nope, they don't. They have Chaos in the 'Other Keywords' section not as a Faction Keyword.
....because CHAOS isnt a faction keyword in this edition. its not a valid faction keyword in 9th ed either, your point?
also, if your going to start playing rules games like this, you need to play with precision. you never specified that you meant they didnt have CHAOS as a faction keyword, just they didnt have the CHAOS keyword.....which they clearly do.
Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Black Templars, and Deathwatch are also Factions. They are listed in all relevant entries in addition to the Adeptus Astartes Faction Keyword. However, during army creation, you choose only ONE Faction Keyword so it is either one of those Chapter Keywords OR Adeptus Astartes.
So, i choose ADEPTUS ASTARTES as my faction keyword, then in the next step, select a SONS OF SANGUINIUS detachment.
so long as i meet the requirements of that detachment (requirements, which i might add, that we dont know yet. it could just be "no unit can have faction keywords other than ADEPTUS ASTARTES and/or BLOOD ANGEL."), then i would get THE RED THRIST detachment bonus. hell they may even have a detachment rule that says "all ADEPTUS ASTARTES units gain the BLOOD ANGEL keyword", to solve any potential rules lawyering.
The Sons of Sanguinius Detachment is tied to the Blood Angels Faction tho while, say, the Gladius Task Force is specifically Adeptus Astartes. It definitely has some kind of relevance because otherwise, they wouldn't include Adeptus Astartes on Chapter-specific datasheets like how Thousand Sons don't have Chaos on their datasheets. Say, if they had a rule that says "all ADEPTUS ASTARTES units gain the BLOOD ANGEL keyword" then stuff like Deathwind Terminators would also become Blood Angels (because they have the Adeptus Astartes Keyword) so having the Blood Angels Keyword wouldn't matter at all... so why is it there then?
I also think they will have some kind of rule for it (or maybe not) but I'm not really willing to take it for granted just because some dudes who have already made a mistake in the same preview said so.
All the detachments are tied to the ADEPTUS ASTARTES faction. We know that’s the faction you have to pick as they all get the Oath of Moment faction rule which is tied to ADEPTUS ASTARTES
Presumably the chapter detachment rules just have a restriction that bans any units with another chapter’s keyword, like the Crusader one apparently has a restriction that bans Psykers.
So if you picked the Sons of Sanguinius detachments you couldn’t take any units with any faction keywords other than ADEPTUS ASTARTES or BLOOD ANGELS, but ADEPTUS ASTARTES is still your overall army faction keyword.
It would've been one thing for GW to do the Intercessor treatment to them. After all, different Marines might have different preferences for Bolter, so you could just stockpile those Stalkers, Storm Bolters, and other variants to one cool profile.
However, it's literally the same as the CSM one. Nothing says "Special Ammo", which has been a core component of making Deathwatch actually different to a regular Marine Chapter. That's the fault of GW not giving them a proper codex like Grey Knights though.
It's another thing to just eliminate the Shotgun entirely LOL
I am starting to see where the confusion comes from- the subfaction most suited to the detachment is listed in the title bar of the detachment ability.
And it is also true that Warcom has made mistakes in the past.
And a third cause of confusion is that we are pretty sure dexes are on the way for those five subfactions, at which point they MIGHT become factions rather than subfactions.
Based on what we have though, it's more reasonable to conclude that at launch, any marine subfaction can choose to use any of these detachments as long as they don't include subfaction specific models which don't match the detachment they've chosen. Blood Angel models can use the Sons of Russ Detachment, and even benefit from the rule... But you can't bring Dante or Sanguinary guard or a death company unit.
For most people, playing a Matched game, very few people will choose to do this. If you're playing Blood Angels, you probably have at least one BA chapter locked unit you want to bring, and the only detachments that will let you bring that unit are Sons of Sanguinus or Gladius... Which even then is one more choice than everyone else gets. If you DO choose to leave that unit at home, then the other four detachments previewed today are available.
BUT consider roster-based campaign play (Crusade or otherwise). You have many units in your roster, but you don't bring all of them to all battles. So you could have Dante or Death Company on your roster- solidifying your identity as Blood Angels, but if those units choose not to come to a given fight, the fact that they're on the roster doesn't prevent you from using any of the detachments.
Once again, the issue is just SM having choices that other factions don't have. Even if Warcom got it wrong and only Blood Angels keyworded units can be included in the Sons of Sanguinus detachment, those same BA are allowed to choose the Gladius. Still more choice (at launch) than anyone else.
Once again, the issue is just SM having choices that other factions don't have.
Which wouldn't be an issue if there was a singular comprehensive Marine codex instead of splitting them for the sake of splitting them and expecting someone to pay more.
Yeah, but like, I keep finding myself comparing rules-per-page from a 40k codex to something like a D&D or Pathfinder rulebook. For about the same price as a codex, you just get waaaaay more rules. So it's hard for me to *not* see the way marines are split up as a cash grab.
PenitentJake wrote: At launch, if you play Loyalist Marines, there are six detachments you could choose from. If you play any other faction, there is one.
And I think this statement is looking at it completely backwards. That's the problem. Let me explain...
Marine players don't have 6 detachments to choose from.
Ultramarine, Imperial Fist, Iron Hands, Salamander, White Scar, Crimson Fists, Raven Guard and every other "Codex" and homebrew Marine Chapters players have 1 detachment to choose from.
Space Wolf players have 1 detachment to choose from. Blood Angel players have 1 detachment to choose from. Dark Angel players have 1 detachment to choose from. Black Templar players have 1 detachment to choose from. Deathwatch players have 1 detachment to choose from.
My point is that these are not 1 army with 6 options. They are distinct armies. They are all separate. The game treats them as such, especially given the unique units that each faction has (Deathwing, Blood Claws, Sanguinary Guard, etc.). And the overwhelming majority of Space Wolf players aren't going to look at these rules and decide that today his Woofs are actually Blood Angels, and that tomorrow they're Deathwatch Marines.
Now, they may be structured as detachments within a single faction (for reasons I simply cannot begin to fathom...), but I cannot get behind the idea that Marine players have 6 options when everyone else has 1 (by this line of thinking Chaos players would have 4 options, no? And we know that isn't the case!).
Now, the game probably should do everything as a single army and these Chapters as supplements, as it does now, because it means we won't have book after book after book of repeated datasheets, but from what limited information we have so far it appears that the Chapters are getting proper Codex releases and not supplements. I don't know why they're doing that, if they're doing that, but then again there are so many choices in 10th that make me scratch my head to the point of breaking the skin that I'm not surprised at the nonsense they're pulling.
Long and short of it is that it is unfair to lambaste them for giving Marine players 6 options because in reality they don't. All the currently previewed rules do is allow Space Wolf players to keep playing Space Wolves, and Dark Angel players to keep playing Dark Angels, unlike Imp Fist and Raven Guard players, who are stuck playing 'Counts As' with armies that match Iron Hands and Ultramarines until the Marine 'Dex hits and we get detachments that are more in line with those Chapters' styles of warfare.
Look at the curious case of Tactical Terminators, Assault Terminators, Relic Terminators, Deathwing Terminators, and Wolf Guard Terminators.
Is there actually a good reason we would need five entries? Isn't it just more reasonable that Terminators start Storm Bolter + Power Weapon standard, then upgrades, and we come to the realization that Rule of 3 is stupid as implemented due to scaling issues?
PenitentJake wrote: At launch, if you play Loyalist Marines, there are six detachments you could choose from. If you play any other faction, there is one.
And I think this statement is looking at it completely backwards. That's the problem.
Marine players don't have 6 detachments to choose from.
Ultramarine, Imperial Fist, Iron Hands, Salamander, White Scar, Crimson Fists, Raven Guard and every other "Codex" and homebrew Marine Chapters players have 1 detachment to choose from.
Space Wolf players have 1 detachment to choose from.
Blood Angel players have 1 detachment to choose from.
Dark Angel players have 1 detachment to choose from.
Black Templar players have 1 detachment to choose from.
Deathwatch players have 1 detachment to choose from.
My point is that these are not 1 army with 6 options. They are distinct armies. They are all separate. The game treats them as such.
Now, they may be structured as detachments within a single faction (for reasons I simply cannot begin to fathom...), but I cannot get behind the idea that Marine players have 6 options when everyone else has 1 (by this line of thinking Chaos players would have 4 options, no? And know that isn't the case!).
Now, the game probably should do everything as a single army and these Chapters are supplements, as it does not, because it means we won't have book after book after book of repeated datasheets, but from what limited information we have so far it appears that the Chapters are getting proper Codex releases and not supplements. I don't know why they're doing that, if they're doing that, but then again there are so many choices in 10th that make me scratch my head to the point of breaking the skin that I'm not surprised at the nonsense they're pulling.
Long and short of it is that it is unfair to lambaste them for giving Marine players 6 options because in reality they don't. All the currently previewed rules is allow Space Wolf players to keep playing Space Wolves, and Dark Angel players to keep playing Dark Angels, unlike Imp Fist and Raven Guard players, who are stuck playing 'Counts As' with armies that match Iron Hands and Ultramarines until the Marine 'Dex hits and we get detachments that a more in line with those Chapters' styles of warfare.
If I have a squad of Tactical Marines, two Intercessor Squads, a Terminator Captain and an Assault Terminator Squad to go with him, and a Land Raider, which of the Marine Detachments can I not take?
Now, what if I have a squad of Poxwalkers, two squads of Plague Marines, a Lord of Contagion and a Blightlord Terminator squad to go with him, and a Land Raider, which Chaos Detachments can I not take?
JNAProductions wrote: If I have a squad of Tactical Marines, two Intercessor Squads, a Terminator Captain and an Assault Terminator Squad to go with him, and a Land Raider, which of the Marine Detachments can I not take?
Now, what if I have a squad of Poxwalkers, two squads of Plague Marines, a Lord of Contagion and a Blightlord Terminator squad to go with him, and a Land Raider, which Chaos Detachments can I not take?
I don't know if you're just wilfully misinterpreting what I'm saying or genuinely don't understand the point I'm making.
JNAProductions wrote: If I have a squad of Tactical Marines, two Intercessor Squads, a Terminator Captain and an Assault Terminator Squad to go with him, and a Land Raider, which of the Marine Detachments can I not take?
Now, what if I have a squad of Poxwalkers, two squads of Plague Marines, a Lord of Contagion and a Blightlord Terminator squad to go with him, and a Land Raider, which Chaos Detachments can I not take?
I don't know if you're just wilfully misinterpreting what I'm saying or genuinely don't understand the point I'm making.
A dedicated Space Wolfs player likely won't be playing them as Blood Angels, though they might play them as regular Codex Marines.
But a generic Marine list can play as most all the different detachments. No other army has that available to them, to my knowledge.
JNAProductions wrote: If I have a squad of Tactical Marines, two Intercessor Squads, a Terminator Captain and an Assault Terminator Squad to go with him, and a Land Raider, which of the Marine Detachments can I not take?
Now, what if I have a squad of Poxwalkers, two squads of Plague Marines, a Lord of Contagion and a Blightlord Terminator squad to go with him, and a Land Raider, which Chaos Detachments can I not take?
I don't know if you're just wilfully misinterpreting what I'm saying or genuinely don't understand the point I'm making.
The point you’re making is just factually incorrect. You choosing not to take an option doesn’t mean it’s not there to take.
An ADEPTUS ASTARTES army without any chapter-specific units can factually choose from 5 different detachments (6 if it lacks psykers).
An ADEPTUS ASARTES army with a chapter specific units can factually pick from 2 different detachments.
The fact you might only want to use one of them for lore reasons is bye the bye, you still have that choice open to you when all other armies are restricted to a single option until they get a codex (and marines are getting one of the first codicies and will get even more then).
All Space Marines sub-factions also share the vast majority of units.
Chaos Space Marine sub-factions by contrast share only a few units and have zero choice of detachment beyond the one.
Also, the ‘grey legion’ phenomenon of people switching between the space marine faction du jour has been a thing for decades, so people do absolutely move between the options, even if you don’t.
Trying to catch up, but why does blast even exist in it's current form? IT's just 9ths version with a different font. No one ever bothered with it because no one ever used anything but MSUs. Large Model Count units are often less productive or outright inferior than smaller elite teams.
Why does blast even still exist? Just make it "ignores cover". Done.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Trying to catch up, but why does blast even exist in it's current form? IT's just 9ths version with a different font.
It's not though. It works in whole units of 5, rather than instantly causing more hits the second you go above 5. It also doesn't have a ceiling, meaning it scales with bigger units. Also means you can take a 6-man unit without blast weapons suddenly becoming much more effective against you. If anything, it means that taking things other than MSU isn't as big a liability as it was under the 9th blast rules.
It's a much better rule.
Lord Zarkov wrote: An ADEPTUS ASTARTES army without any chapter-specific units can factually choose from 5 different detachments (6 if it lacks psykers). An ADEPTUS ASARTES army with a chapter specific units can factually pick from 2 different detachments.
Yeah but at the same time, how many are actually going to do that? If we presume that Chapter Specific units are only available to a specific detachment, how many Blood Angel or Dark Angel players are going to give those up to play the "regular" Marine deatchment?
Lord Zarkov wrote: The fact you might only want to use one of them for lore reasons is bye the bye, you still have that choice open to you when all other armies are restricted to a single option until they get a codex (and marines are getting one of the first codicies and will get even more then).
And I'm saying it's a false choice, or the illusion of choice. Yes, you can technically take your Dark Angels and play them using the Space Wolf detachment, but how many people are actually going to do that?
Lord Zarkov wrote: Also, the ‘grey legion’ phenomenon of people switching between the space marine faction du jour has been a thing for decades, so people do absolutely move between the options, even if you don’t.
Fair enough - I even know someone who played Deathwatch who then jumped to Space Wolves when they became powerful, but still used all Deathwatch models - so I'm not saying that doesn't happen, but I still think most people are more likely to stick to their rather than flip flop between vastly different armies with all sorts of different units.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Fair enough - I even know someone who played Deathwatch who then jumped to Space Wolves when they became powerful, but still used all Deathwatch models - so I'm not saying that doesn't happen, but I still think most people are more likely to stick to their rather than flip flop between vastly different armies with all sorts of different units.
But the core of all Loyalist Marine armies are the same.
Currently, discounting FW and Legends, Marines without supplements have in common 21 HQs, 6 Troops, 5 DTs, 29 Elites, 14 Fast Attacks, 3 Fliers, 22 Heavy Support, and 1 Fortification.
That's literally 101 datasheets shared. Now, given what we saw with the Deathwing Command Squad, I'd imagine the Elites will shrink a bit as datasheets get bunched together, but even with some pretty significant merging, that's 80 or more datacards that can be shared between five different detachments, and a sixth if you don't take Psykers.
If you file the names off, some of them work well for other chapters.
Deathwatch is like combat doctrines, just different effects. You could probably replace the flavor text with a by-the-book Ultramarine quoting the Codex for tactical advice, instead of assault/tactical/dev doctrine.
Iron Hands could go with the BT detachment, and just always roll with the 6+++ FNP and leadership oath.
Space Wolves might want less talk around the fire with beers, and more blood soaked red rage with the BA one.
Crimson Fists might want to stand fast with the Grim Resolve.
But other days you might not want to lean in to the special roles. But they are there. I don’t see myself personally going for the BA/SW ones as an Ultramarine, but could see myself making lists that would fit well with the others, and still be true to my colors.
Nevelon wrote: If you file the names off, some of them work well for other chapters.
That's really the problem with some of the people on this forum that always miss my point: they're so focused on names. Blood Angels are absolutely not the only Marine Chapter with a Death Company equivalent after all. You just need a "Marines that done gone nuts" entry. Nothing stops Death Company from existing as is and none of their fluff was lost, but some are too obsessed with legacy and tradition of too many Marine codices.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Trying to catch up, but why does blast even exist in it's current form? IT's just 9ths version with a different font. No one ever bothered with it because no one ever used anything but MSUs. Large Model Count units are often less productive or outright inferior than smaller elite teams.
I wasn't aware that I could take less than 10 grots in a squad.
I still hope for a cynical cashgrab in them 'recognizing their errors and listening' and releasing a Storm of Magic™-like box in the middle of the edition, with psychic powers for everyone and some wargear, enhancements etc.... call it Darker Millenium* or whatever.
*
Spoiler:
or 2 Dark 2 Millenium, 10*100 Dark, Dark Millenium 2: Psychic Boogaloo
That was one of my favorite implementations of Psychic phases.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dominuschao wrote: Ya marines could go full grav and and las spam probably be okay with full rerolls but many others won't have an answer. Basically I think this is the vehicle edition similar to what we've seen before from around 5th.. only without melta and plasma.
I remember playing against wave serpent spam with assault cannon only deathwing and thinking this is the most miserable experience I've had in awhile. It could be like that.
Grav is (likely) worse off than Melta. If Grav stays S5, while Land Raiders etc go T12, Impulsors go T10 etc - you're looking at wounding on 6's.
Lord Clinto wrote: Wow, most HH stuff will not be allowed in GW Tourneys now.
And stuff that isn'tHH. Like multiple daemon engines, and Dreadclaws, which have been available (with models, that existed long before HH) since 3rd edition. No more drop pods for CSM. "Can't balance them". Yeah, right. If they can balance the other daemon engines and Loyalist Scum drop pods, then they can balance these just fine.
Wonder if we'll be seeing some GWHH Tournaments and they're trying to feed a Sunk Cost participation rate
You can just say "No, the article did not say they were full Codexes".
I suspect they were, I thought I saw a one-liner in one of the Faction Focus that said the Divergent Chapters were going to go back to their own Codex. You'd have to do some clicking and CTRL+F'ing to be sure though.
PenitentJake wrote: So to turn it back on you, don't pretend that SM players don't have this option, because they do
As per the rules we have seen so far, they don't. Detachments are locked to a Faction Keyword and so are the units you can take in your army. So if you go with the Dark Angels Detachment then you can't take any of the basic SM stuff (like Intercessors) because they don't have the Dark Angels Faction Keyword (only Adeptus Asterates). But you must take Dark Angels as your Faction Keyword to be able to take the Dark Angels Detachment. GW will probably fix this with some kind of additional rule but... y'know, personally, I wouldn't bet money on it.
Here's the fething quote from today's FF article:
This means that any Space Marine army can choose to use these Detachments should they see fit, provided they abide by their restrictions – no matter how much you love Librarians, you won’t be taking Space Marine psykers in a Righteous Crusaders Detachment. The main one you’ll need to worry about is that you can’t mix in units with a different Chapter’s keywords, so no non-Space Wolves named characters or Deathwing Terminators in the Champions of Russ Detachment, for example.
Go ahead and try to tell me the bold text doesn't mean what it says.
That's not what people are telling you - they're telling you this doesn't mean what you think it means. Blue Blood Angels are still blood Angels. People have been "fluffing" their blue/green/grey/red whatever Marines as Blood/Dark/Ultras/etc that are just pretending or borrowed equipment etc. for decades now. This is just the "rule" that makes that possible.
How anyone can not see the simple fact that Marines get six detachments at launch while every other race only gets one is beyond me. Claiming 'oh no one will actually do it' is irrelevent; firstly because you can't possibly know that to be true, but more importantly because Marines still get that choice while no one else does.
Marines, no matter what their colour, have the choice of six detachments limited only by any given players' attachment to Chapter-specific units, with the vast majority of choices being agnostic and thus free to take in any of them. Every other faction has the choice of one detachment only, and could be stuck with just that for a very long time. There's no debate about this without twisting oneself into an insane logic pretzel - it's what we've expressly been told.
Maybe the Codices will balance out those numbers; but some factions will be waiting *literal years* for their book so it's entirely irrelevant.
I think the point isn't "Blood Angels are still Blood Angels". I think the point is, "My random assortment of SM minis have 6 detachments to choose from, whatever the detachment is called, while nobody else has this luxury."
Like, my Slaanesh army is still a Slaanesh army, but Daemons don't have 4 detachments to choose from. It's plausible to have 4 Daemon detachments I could use my Slaanesh minis in. Oh, I may not be able to take the Masque of Slaanesh, being a named character, in all 4 detachments. But having 4 choices only adds to my enjoyment.
I don't want SMs to have fewer choices. But I also don't want them to be the only ones with extra choices.
Sure, some minis are restricted. Sure, some players will eschew options in order to be purists. But those are choices that should be available wherever it makes sense.
Yes, the codices may well solve this problem. They should. But the issue is that SM players have more options from day 1, AND will be the first codex.
Nevelon wrote: If you file the names off, some of them work well for other chapters.
That's really the problem with some of the people on this forum that always miss my point: they're so focused on names. Blood Angels are absolutely not the only Marine Chapter with a Death Company equivalent after all. You just need a "Marines that done gone nuts" entry. Nothing stops Death Company from existing as is and none of their fluff was lost, but some are too obsessed with legacy and tradition of too many Marine codices.
I think GW could have avoided all this ire if they had simply given the detachment a generic name then wrote "Recommended for Blood Angels / Death Watch, etc." at the bottom of the detachment. Now your SW can use the BA detachment or your UM can use the Combat Doctrines DW detachment.
But since some of the detachments are very flavorful, SW and BT for instance, I really think these should have been Faction bonuses rather detachment abilities.
MalusCalibur wrote: How anyone can not see the simple fact that Marines get six detachments at launch while every other race only gets one is beyond me. Claiming 'oh no one will actually do it' is irrelevent; firstly because you can't possibly know that to be true, but more importantly because Marines still get that choice while no one else does.
But how is that any different to what it is now then?
Marines are the most expansive faction in 40k. They have their own section to themselves, where as everyone else is lumped into Imperial, Chaos or Xenos.
Did people truly think that Blood Angels, Space Wolves, etc. wouldn't get their own get-you-by rules to start the new edition? That any and all Marines would be lumped into a single set of rules and that'd be it until the Codices arrived?
That only thing about this that surprised me is that the various Chapters are detachments for the overall Marine faction, rather than factions unto themselves (something I suspect Codex releases will fix, but whatever that's a different discussion and one that's not entirely clear based upon the information presented so far). But really, being annoyed that Blood Angels still exist at the start of 10th Ed strikes me as highly bizarre (and perhaps a tiny bit petty).
Hecate wrote: I think the point isn't "Blood Angels are still Blood Angels". I think the point is, "My random assortment of SM minis have 6 detachments to choose from, whatever the detachment is called, while nobody else has this luxury."
Like, my Slaanesh army is still a Slaanesh army, but Daemons don't have 4 detachments to choose from. It's plausible to have 4 Daemon detachments I could use my Slaanesh minis in. Oh, I may not be able to take the Masque of Slaanesh, being a named character, in all 4 detachments. But having 4 choices only adds to my enjoyment.
I don't want SMs to have fewer choices. But I also don't want them to be the only ones with extra choices.
Sure, some minis are restricted. Sure, some players will eschew options in order to be purists. But those are choices that should be available wherever it makes sense.
Yes, the codices may well solve this problem. They should. But the issue is that SM players have more options from day 1, AND will be the first codex.
This is a point, but not a very valid one in many cases because if we understand these detachments properly:
If you have any Blood Angels units, you can only use 2 of the 6 detachments.
If you have any Dark Angels units, you can only use 2 of the 6 detachments.
If you have any Deathwatch units, you can only use 2 of the 6 detachments.
If you have any Black Templar units, you can only use 2 of the 6 detachments.
If you have any Space Wolves units, you can only use 2 of the 6 detachments.
If you have any other Chapter specific units, you can only use 1 of the 6 detachments
So unless you are using a random grab bag of generic Space Marine models, you don't really have access to 6 detachments*. You have access to 1 or 2 of them because some unit will prevent you from using the rest of them.
So while Space Marine players will have options on detachments, it's not like most armies will actually have that many valid options to pick from.
* Historically, many First Born units could not be used in Space Wolves detachments. This could further restrict the number of detachment an army could use.
Hecate wrote: I think the point isn't "Blood Angels are still Blood Angels". I think the point is, "My random assortment of SM minis have 6 detachments to choose from, whatever the detachment is called, while nobody else has this luxury."
Like, my Slaanesh army is still a Slaanesh army, but Daemons don't have 4 detachments to choose from. It's plausible to have 4 Daemon detachments I could use my Slaanesh minis in. Oh, I may not be able to take the Masque of Slaanesh, being a named character, in all 4 detachments. But having 4 choices only adds to my enjoyment.
I don't want SMs to have fewer choices. But I also don't want them to be the only ones with extra choices.
Sure, some minis are restricted. Sure, some players will eschew options in order to be purists. But those are choices that should be available wherever it makes sense.
Yes, the codices may well solve this problem. They should. But the issue is that SM players have more options from day 1, AND will be the first codex.
This is a point, but not a very valid one in many cases because if we understand these detachments properly:
If you have any Blood Angels units, you can only use 2 of the 6 detachments.
If you have any Dark Angels units, you can only use 2 of the 6 detachments.
If you have any Deathwatch units, you can only use 2 of the 6 detachments.
If you have any Black Templar units, you can only use 2 of the 6 detachments.
If you have any Space Wolves units, you can only use 2 of the 6 detachments.
If you have any other Chapter specific units, you can only use 1 of the 6 detachments
So unless you are using a random grab bag of generic Space Marine models, you don't really have access to 6 detachments*. You have access to 1 or 2 of them because some unit will prevent you from using the rest of them.
So while Space Marine players will have options on detachments, it's not like most armies will actually have that many valid options to pick from.
* Historically, many First Born units could not be used in Space Wolves detachments. This could further restrict the number of detachment an army could use.
Marines (without any supplement, FW, or Legends units) have more units than Sisters, Custodes, and Ad Mech put together.
You can very, very easily have a complete army that has access to all of them.
I think that's a gross misrepresentation of what's going on.
But, to reiterate:
Did people truly think that Blood Angels, Space Wolves, etc. wouldn't get their own get-you-by rules to start the new edition? That any and all Marines would be lumped into a single set of rules and that'd be it until the Codices arrived?
H.B.M.C. wrote: I think that's a gross misrepresentation of what's going on.
But, to reiterate:
Did people truly think that Blood Angels, Space Wolves, etc. wouldn't get their own get-you-by rules to start the new edition? That any and all Marines would be lumped into a single set of rules and that'd be it until the Codices arrived?
Was it likely? Sure.
Is it gonna happen? Now we know for sure, yes.
Does that make it sit right, that Loyalist Marines are shown blatant favoritism over every other faction in the game? No.
H.B.M.C. wrote: And, again, this is different to now... how?
Special treatment for Marines isn't new, but it's a new axis on which Marines have favor. Oh look, they get it upon launch.
Marines uber alles and so forth. Blah blah blah.
And it genuinely could be a balance issue. As I read it my custom "agnostic marines" get more detatchment and related bonus options than everybody else. Spoiled for choice, as it were.
If every 9th Edition Codex & Supplement getting a detachment for 10th Edition launch gets you hot under the collar, that is your prerogative. GW decided that it would be prudent to give the people who purchased those books a detachment for their army. A parting gift for their hard spent money. Wail away if you must, it will change nothing.
"Blood Angels are defined by their special units. If you take these special units, you are restricted to the Blood Angels detachment. If you have none of these units, you cannot take a Blood Angels detachment."
Then every SM faction has 1, and only 1, available detachment. I would not have a problem with that. You could have as many SM factions as you'd like.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Better still - multiple detachments for every faction.
But that would mean fewer new releases later, so GW wouldn't make as much money. Never gonna happen.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Trying to catch up, but why does blast even exist in it's current form? IT's just 9ths version with a different font. No one ever bothered with it because no one ever used anything but MSUs. Large Model Count units are often less productive or outright inferior than smaller elite teams.
Why does blast even still exist? Just make it "ignores cover". Done.
Characters attach to squads. Buffs attach to characters. Bigger squads=bigger buffs. Less auras mean msu worse.
"Blood Angels are defined by their special units. If you take these special units, you are restricted to the Blood Angels detachment. If you have none of these units, you cannot take a Blood Angels detachment."
Then every SM faction has 1, and only 1, available detachment. I would not have a problem with that. You could have as many SM factions as you'd like.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Better still - multiple detachments for every faction.
But that would mean fewer new releases later, so GW wouldn't make as much money. Never gonna happen.
1 Detachment for all marines including chaos. No new detachments with codexes. All marine units reduced to generic 'leader, soldier, vehicle, large vehicle' profiles.
"Blood Angels are defined by their special units. If you take these special units, you are restricted to the Blood Angels detachment. If you have none of these units, you cannot take a Blood Angels detachment."
Then every SM faction has 1, and only 1, available detachment. I would not have a problem with that. You could have as many SM factions as you'd like.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Better still - multiple detachments for every faction.
But that would mean fewer new releases later, so GW wouldn't make as much money. Never gonna happen.
Ah yes, because heaven forbid that a fluffy Space wolves detachment without some flanderised unit like BauWolfRidingFangs can't be described by space wolves rules.
Makes perfect sense.
"Blood Angels are defined by their special units. If you take these special units, you are restricted to the Blood Angels detachment. If you have none of these units, you cannot take a Blood Angels detachment."
Then every SM faction has 1, and only 1, available detachment. I would not have a problem with that. You could have as many SM factions as you'd like.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Better still - multiple detachments for every faction.
But that would mean fewer new releases later, so GW wouldn't make as much money. Never gonna happen.
Ah yes, because heaven forbid that a fluffy Space wolves detachment without some flanderised unit like BauWolfRidingFangs can't be described by space wolves rules.
Makes perfect sense.
Space wolves are for the furries. If no bring furries, why even space wolves?
"Blood Angels are defined by their special units. If you take these special units, you are restricted to the Blood Angels detachment. If you have none of these units, you cannot take a Blood Angels detachment."
Then every SM faction has 1, and only 1, available detachment. I would not have a problem with that. You could have as many SM factions as you'd like.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Better still - multiple detachments for every faction.
But that would mean fewer new releases later, so GW wouldn't make as much money. Never gonna happen.
Ah yes, because heaven forbid that a fluffy Space wolves detachment without some flanderised unit like BauWolfRidingFangs can't be described by space wolves rules.
Makes perfect sense.
Space wolves are for the furries. If no bring furries, why even space wolves?
Some people just don't have interest in Wulfen or Thunderwolves, it isn't rocket science.
Insectum7 wrote: Special treatment for Marines isn't new, but it's a new axis on which Marines have favor. Oh look, they get it upon launch.
Is it special treatment though?
Again: Is anyone seriously entertaining the idea that at the start of 10th there wouldn't be rules for Space Wolves or Deathwatch?
Insectum7 wrote: And it genuinely could be a balance issue. As I read it my custom "agnostic marines" get more detatchment and related bonus options than everybody else. Spoiled for choice, as it were.
You might notice that I'm not railing against the loss of Legions or Craftworlds, two other things I really like in 40k.
Why? Because I have hope - perhaps a foolish hope - that come the Chaos Codex, or the Eldar Codex, there will be detachments that give approximations or archetypes for various current factions. So, for example, there might not be a "Iyanden" detachment, but there might be a "Spirit Host" detachment that mixes the Battle Line roles around to Wraithguard and Wraithlords, and we go from there.
Not Online!!! wrote: How is there still hope when gw started to Cut daemonengins because they got too many sheets for space marines in use? It's fairly clear from where the wind blows, especially when we contextualise this.
Because they have a real hard-on against FW units, and have for years. GW isn't just a silo'd company, the rivalries between departments are bitter.
Not Online!!! wrote: How is there still hope when gw started to Cut daemonengins because they got too many sheets for space marines in use? It's fairly clear from where the wind blows, especially when we contextualise this.
Because they have a real hard-on against FW units, and have for years. GW isn't just a silo'd company, the rivalries between departments are bitter.
It still doesn't excuse the special treatment. Arguably there's more diffrence between csm legions than there is between loyalist marines and yet the former got feth all and removed options whilest the later once again doesn't? It will even have contemptors when csm gets none anymore!
H.B.M.C. wrote: I think that's a gross misrepresentation of what's going on.
But, to reiterate:
Did people truly think that Blood Angels, Space Wolves, etc. wouldn't get their own get-you-by rules to start the new edition? That any and all Marines would be lumped into a single set of rules and that'd be it until the Codices arrived?
Well, the big problem here is that it is only Marines
You know, GW never misses an opportunity etc.
We had the same in the past, when people used the Codex SM to play BA/DA/SW because the other Codex was outdated and/or the rules in Codex SM fit the fluffy armies better than the original one (remember 5th Edition when Ravenwing was hidden behind Special Character with a model not liked by a lot and not allowed in most events so people used the Codex SM White Scars option to play it, or 4th Edition were Codex SM Terminator Command Squads would to Deathwing better than Codex DA)
Hence Marines can always chose from all options Marines get and even CSM players take that options because they don't get them (haven seen more people playing WE with Codex Space Wolves than using the CSM or Daemonkin rules)
I expected a little bit better from GW for the Index, at least for those armies not expecting a Codex in the first wave
But no need rage about it, things are going to change soon anyway
Something I'm currently worried about is that Death Guard might be losing Possessed. The reason that I am saying this is that for the DG Rhino datasheet, they aren't listed as one of the units that are excluded from being able to be in the transport. The reason why I find this worrying is that they have traditionally not been allowed to be in Rhinos, so this exclusion of them from this list has me worried.
ArcaneHorror wrote: Something I'm currently worried about is that Death Guard might be losing Possessed. The reason that I am saying this is that for the DG Rhino datasheet, they aren't listed as one of the units that are excluded from being able to be in the transport. The reason why I find this worrying is that they have traditionally not been allowed to be in Rhinos, so this exclusion of them from this list has me worried.
Well you know what they say: No mode, no rule.
No but seriously, that'd suck. And I think it's far more likely that they'd take Possessed away from the DG completely than make a non-huge Nurgle Possessed kit that you can put in a Rhino, sadly.
ArcaneHorror wrote: Something I'm currently worried about is that Death Guard might be losing Possessed. The reason that I am saying this is that for the DG Rhino datasheet, they aren't listed as one of the units that are excluded from being able to be in the transport. The reason why I find this worrying is that they have traditionally not been allowed to be in Rhinos, so this exclusion of them from this list has me worried.
Well you know what they say: No mode, no rule.
No but seriously, that'd suck. And I think it's far more likely that they'd take Possessed away from the DG completely than make a non-huge Nurgle Possessed kit that you can put in a Rhino, sadly.
The thing is, there are Possessed models, so it makes no sense for there to be no rules.
ArcaneHorror wrote: Something I'm currently worried about is that Death Guard might be losing Possessed. The reason that I am saying this is that for the DG Rhino datasheet, they aren't listed as one of the units that are excluded from being able to be in the transport. The reason why I find this worrying is that they have traditionally not been allowed to be in Rhinos, so this exclusion of them from this list has me worried.
Well you know what they say: No mode, no rule.
No but seriously, that'd suck. And I think it's far more likely that they'd take Possessed away from the DG completely than make a non-huge Nurgle Possessed kit that you can put in a Rhino, sadly.
The thing is, there are Possessed models, so it makes no sense for there to be no rules.
There aren't Death Guard PoxFester Plaguessessed models though...
Insectum7 wrote: Rules for SW or DW do not necessitate custom detatchments, especially detatchments that non SW or DW can use.
And if they'd been factions rather than detachments, what then?
I actually thought that's what they'd be doing at index level initially. They explained each army would have it's own faction rule and detachments, then showed a preview image of the chapters with a separate index.
They muddied the waters with "it won't matter what colour your marines are any more" statement, which is more true to what we got in the end.
So eventually we circle back to: the snowflake chapters exist as marines +1 due to getting extra stuff for nothing lost as per the last 3 years, or they return to individual factions when their codex comes and GW invalidate their own statement.
Irrespective anyone with purple space marines comprised of core units can arguably use them as any book they wish, much as it's always been.
Dudeface wrote: I actually thought that's what they'd be doing at index level initially. They explained each army would have it's own faction rule and detachments, then showed a preview image of the chapters with a separate index.
You and me both!
Dudeface wrote: They muddied the waters with "it won't matter what colour your marines are any more" statement, which is more true to what we got in the end.
Ha. That's a good point. Hadn't thought of it that way.
I'm surprised that anyone could be surprised at these Chapters getting their own rules.
tneva82 wrote: People expected chapter specific units not get rules?
Why people still think gw wants to burn money for fun?
I don't think anyone expected chapter specific units not to get rules, but they likely either expected that the relevant chapters would either be siloed rules wise or not have special detachments at all. We got neither and instead just have extra detachments for fun at this point.
Me personally, I did NOT expect special units to not get rules. Of course they will get rules. The reason I chimed in was because some people were arguing that more-than-one-detachment for SM in general wasn't unfair. I still think it's a bit unfair. However, I'd prefer if everyone got more than 1 detachment to start with.
I then offered an alternative that I thought had some merit, and got made fun of. So, y'know.
But it was never that I didn't expect BA, SW etc. to have their special *units*.
Of course Space Marines get more representation. This is 40k. Marines getting lots of stuff is one of the universal constants, such as them getting first Codex. That's just reality.
Hecate wrote: Me personally, I did NOT expect special units to not get rules. Of course they will get rules. The reason I chimed in was because some people were arguing that more-than-one-detachment for SM in general wasn't unfair. I still think it's a bit unfair. However, I'd prefer if everyone got more than 1 detachment to start with.
I then offered an alternative that I thought had some merit, and got made fun of. So, y'know.
But it was never that I didn't expect BA, SW etc. to have their special *units*.
So codex has more tools than index. And water is wet.
This is what happens in total resets. Tough. Then again those who had 9e codex had advantage vs those with still 8e codex.
It's gw game. You are always behind until codex for edition comes. It's so given you have better chance of seeing sun rise from west.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I think that's a gross misrepresentation of what's going on.
But, to reiterate:
Did people truly think that Blood Angels, Space Wolves, etc. wouldn't get their own get-you-by rules to start the new edition? That any and all Marines would be lumped into a single set of rules and that'd be it until the Codices arrived?
No.
What we thought was that BA would be told that Sons of Sanguinus was the ONE specicial snowflake detachment they were allowed to use until their dex dropped.
That DA would be told that the Unforgiven Task Force was the ONE snowflake detachment they could use until their dex dropped.
That SW would be told that Sons of Russ was the ONE detachment they could use until their dex drops.
etc.
Note: None of us would have been surprised that ANY of the snowflake factions had been told that in addition to the ONE snowflake detachment they were allowed to choose, they could ALSO opt for the Generic Gladius.
This still would have been unfair, because it would give them two choices instead of one, like everyone else... But at least it wouldn't be six choices to everyone else's one. There still would have been people doing "counts as" just as they do now... But this shift eliminates the need for "counts as" because now, if you're using your Blood Angels models with SW rules, they don't count as Space Wolves. They're still Blood Angels.
Here's why that might matter more to me than some of you:
Let's say you're playing Space Wolves in a Crusade campaign. You've spent a lot of your RP on raising your supply limit, so your roster has 2k points worth of units; 500 of those points are faction locked to Wolves, but the other 1500 points are units that all Marine chapters could use. Another player in the game has spent most of their RP on Requisition strats (whose affects are permanent in Crusade, hence the RP cost) or other unit upgrades. Their roster only has 1000 points.
These two players meet for a game on the snowy plains of Fenris. Their GM informs them that the battle will be fought during a 100 year storm, and as such, the Low Visibility Theatre of War rule is in effect, reducing visibility to 12" for shooting attacks.
The SW player, knowing he can't bring all 2k to the fight, decides to leave his bespoke Wolves back at the drinking hall for the battle and use the Sons of Sanguinus Detachment for this battle, since he knows close combat is going to play an even larger role than usual due to the blizzard conditions.
Now under the 9th rules, you couldn't "count as" here, because the bespoke Wolf units, despite not being at the battle ARE on your roster, and therefore your army is not a "Counts as" BA army. But under the 10th ed rules, you're not only ABLE to do this, you're encouraged to do it.
Unless crusade your faction gets chosen at the start of crusade. So you had space wolves as your faction? Changing to ba mid crusade no different to swapping tson to death guard
tneva82 wrote: Unless crusade your faction gets chosen at the start of crusade. So you had space wolves as your faction? Changing to ba mid crusade no different to swapping tson to death guard
According to a statement in the preview, you can actually switch SM factions, or, to better say, the SM sub-factions are irrelevant and basically only exist to trigger some Detachment restrictions. Whether this statement reflects the truth or not remains to be seen, but the official army creation rules in the core rulebook don't quite support it.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I think that's a gross misrepresentation of what's going on.
But, to reiterate:
Did people truly think that Blood Angels, Space Wolves, etc. wouldn't get their own get-you-by rules to start the new edition? That any and all Marines would be lumped into a single set of rules and that'd be it until the Codices arrived?
Was it likely? Sure.
Is it gonna happen? Now we know for sure, yes.
Does that make it sit right, that Loyalist Marines are shown blatant favoritism over every other faction in the game? No.
I suggest you get used to it.
It's been like this for 30 years & it'll be like this for the next 30 years.
Complaining about it is pointless because wether or not you like it, the fact is that SMs are what the whole 40k IP is anchored on. It's not going to change.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I think that's a gross misrepresentation of what's going on.
But, to reiterate:
Did people truly think that Blood Angels, Space Wolves, etc. wouldn't get their own get-you-by rules to start the new edition? That any and all Marines would be lumped into a single set of rules and that'd be it until the Codices arrived?
Was it likely? Sure.
Is it gonna happen? Now we know for sure, yes.
Does that make it sit right, that Loyalist Marines are shown blatant favoritism over every other faction in the game? No.
I suggest you get used to it.
It's been like this for 30 years & it'll be like this for the next 30 years.
Complaining about it is pointless because wether or not you like it, the fact is that SMs are what the whole 40k IP is anchored on. It's not going to change.
Yeah. Surprise surprise gw favours bigges cash maker that basically keeps light on.
If marine revenues drop every other army gets even worse resources as it's marine profits that keep gw up.
Here's why that might matter more to me than some of you:
[SPACE WOLF CRUSADE EXAMPLE]
Now under the 9th rules, you couldn't "count as" here, because the bespoke Wolf units, despite not being at the battle ARE on your roster, and therefore your army is not a "Counts as" BA army. But under the 10th ed rules, you're not only ABLE to do this, you're encouraged to do it.
I think this is a very well spelled out example. Setting aside for a minute the initial discussion regarding how many detachments people get in Index hammer, if we are to assume this game takes place some time into 10th ed and both players have several detachments available to them, would it still bother you if the SW player took the detachment if the detachment was called "Hammer of Wrath" instead of "Might I have a cup of blood tea sir?" or whatever the BA detachment is called?
Me personally I like the flexibility in changing detachments, and I assume Crusade will let you change detachments. I dislike that Faction flavor was oddly pushed into detachment rules, instead of faction rules. I'm still puzzled as to why they wouldn't give each of the flanderized chapters their own faction rules, and let them take any detachment Space marines can.
(I also think that SW in particular will get some sort of close combat furious charge type of detachment (or one based on the old counter-attack) in their own codex/supplement in the future.)
Personally, im not really concerned about marine players pivoting their detachments mid crusade or immediately pre-game in a casual environment, because that basically requires to be running a generic marines list that isnt really "leaning into" any of the options properly. I & the people i play with dont really show up to my gaming club with every marine model we own, then write a list out once we have secured a game with someone, we show up with a pre-perpared list and just those models, and trying to pull those sort of last minute detachment shenanigans seems like a lot of effort for only moderate return.
To me, the issue is likely to come form the ease of pivoting to a unbalanced detachment when one of them drops (I say when, no if, because with 6 different sub-faction codecii, each with at least 2 detachments, SOMEWHERE theirs going to be an unexpectedly strong combo that slipped through).
Say, when the Dark Angels codex drops, one of the detachments is actually a little OP. The ability of marine players to rapidly "slosh" into it with basically nothing more than a declaration and a small tweak or two to their existing lists could suddenly make a (relatively) small imbalance far more oppressive on the meta due to the sudden explosion of players exploiting it. Then, when that specific detachment is nerfed, the meta chasers can slosh over to the next OP detachment that's in the new deathwatch codex, or the Blood angels, or a balance dataslate adds a buff to the "not imperial fists" detachment and now everyone is a son of dorn, etc.
thats where i think this system might fall down. if most factions are limited to 4-5 detachments, but marines can easily shift between 20+ it becomes easier for what would be a tolerably strong gimmick in any other faction to be really oppressive if your facing it every other game.
Yes, horizontal options are a form of power. Usually not as strong as vertical options, but having a bigger 'hand' to choose from is very much an advantage.
---
I'm just surprised that people are surprised. Its how I thought things were going to work from the first article on detachments (back at the end of March):
Detachment choice will very rarely be tied to an army colour scheme. So while Ultramarines might be the theoretical and practical masters of the Gladius Task Force, other Chapters can use it too – and the same will be true of many other detachments as they are added into the game. This also means that you can try multiple Detachments with a single army. You are not going to be locked into a single Detachment just because you painted your army blue, or red, or yellow.
That seemed obviously aimed at SM chapters, and detachments not being 'color (chapter)-locked'. \shrug.
xerxeskingofking wrote: Personally, im not really concerned about marine players pivoting their detachments mid crusade or immediately pre-game in a casual environment, because that basically requires to be running a generic marines list that isnt really "leaning into" any of the options properly. I & the people i play with dont really show up to my gaming club with every marine model we own, then write a list out once we have secured a game with someone, we show up with a pre-perpared list and just those models, and trying to pull those sort of last minute detachment shenanigans seems like a lot of effort for only moderate return.
To me, the issue is likely to come form the ease of pivoting to a unbalanced detachment when one of them drops (I say when, no if, because with 6 different sub-faction codecii, each with at least 2 detachments, SOMEWHERE theirs going to be an unexpectedly strong combo that slipped through).
Say, when the Dark Angels codex drops, one of the detachments is actually a little OP. The ability of marine players to rapidly "slosh" into it with basically nothing more than a declaration and a small tweak or two to their existing lists could suddenly make a (relatively) small imbalance far more oppressive on the meta due to the sudden explosion of players exploiting it. Then, when that specific detachment is nerfed, the meta chasers can slosh over to the next OP detachment that's in the new deathwatch codex, or the Blood angels, or a balance dataslate adds a buff to the "not imperial fists" detachment and now everyone is a son of dorn, etc.
thats where i think this system might fall down. if most factions are limited to 4-5 detachments, but marines can easily shift between 20+ it becomes easier for what would be a tolerably strong gimmick in any other faction to be really oppressive if your facing it every other game.
I actually think that's a strength. You can ban that detachment without outright banning armies. That's an extreme step. On the other end of it GW knows exactly where the imbalance exists and can address it.
Hellebore wrote: They really have it in for the Phantom. What used to go toe to toe with warlords now disappears one round of shooting...
3 belicosa wounds reduce it to 1 wound, and it's failing half its invuln saves...
They really decided that the more you pay the better it is....
I'm not sure the defensive mathhammer is quite that bad for the Phantom (Volcano Cannon takes out about half the wounds on average), but it definitely doesn't hit the Warlord as hard as the Warlord hits it, so the complaint is still valid.
Hellebore wrote: They really have it in for the Phantom. What used to go toe to toe with warlords now disappears one round of shooting...
3 belicosa wounds reduce it to 1 wound, and it's failing half its invuln saves...
They really decided that the more you pay the better it is....
Sad to hear it suffers from the same degradation that the Heirophant did.
They suffer from 'not the imperium itis'.
But at the time it was released the heirophant had a larger cousin in epic called the hydraphant. So they at least intended to have a larger one and make this the warhound equivalent.
But if there was ever evidence that GW doesn't want anyone having cool characters except marines, asurmens stats are absolute gak. But unless you're a marine or primarch you don't get to have cool stats
Hellebore wrote: They really have it in for the Phantom. What used to go toe to toe with warlords now disappears one round of shooting...
3 belicosa wounds reduce it to 1 wound, and it's failing half its invuln saves...
They really decided that the more you pay the better it is....
Sad to hear it suffers from the same degradation that the Heirophant did.
They suffer from 'not the imperium itis'.
But at the time it was released the heirophant had a larger cousin in epic called the hydraphant. So they at least intended to have a larger one and make this the warhound equivalent.
But if there was ever evidence that GW doesn't want anyone having cool characters except marines, asurmens stats are absolute gak. But unless you're a marine or primarch you don't get to have cool stats
Hellebore wrote: But at the time it was released the heirophant had a larger cousin in epic called the hydraphant. So they at least intended to have a larger one and make this the warhound equivalent.
Kinda sorta. The name 'Hydraphant' came way later. Tyranids originally had Hierodules and Hierophants as two sizes of bio-titan in Epic, along with the Dominatrix. When Forge World made the 40K Hierodule it was (in-scale) considerably smaller than its Epic counterpart, and then the 40K Hierophant was the size of the old Epic Hierodule.
Tyranids didn't get any official rules in Epic: Armageddon, but Jervis Johnson wrote essentially a fan-list. In it he based the Hierodule and Hierophant stats on their newer, smaller Forge World incarnations, and created the Hydraphant- IIRC a name that had been coined by the E:A community- to represent what had previously been the Hierophant.
Throw in how the Exocrine and Trygon got shifted from superheavy tank equivalents down to just tank equivalents, and the Harridan is really the only Tyranid model from Epic to make it to 40K without being significantly downsized.
Sadly I didn't see the unit stats/points so their claim you can play a game now is a little premature.
Hmmm
It’s June, which means that Warhammer 40,000: Leviathan is out this month. To whet your appetite for this bumper new box of far-future delights, we are releasing the full core rules: online, for free, right now.
Stay tuned over the coming weeks as we begin to reveal more datasheets for each of the factions, so you can get playing!
One of the more recent game streams is showing Eldar & IG. Warp Spiders may take the cake for biggest nerf previewed so far. Guess they're not getting a plastic model this edition
For those of us hoping that Exarchs would be a leader for Aspects, unfortunately that does not appear to be the case. They are listed on the data cards as 2 Wounds.
Sadly I didn't see the unit stats/points so their claim you can play a game now is a little premature.
Hmmm
It’s June, which means that Warhammer 40,000: Leviathan is out this month. To whet your appetite for this bumper new box of far-future delights, we are releasing the full core rules: online, for free, right now.
Stay tuned over the coming weeks as we begin to reveal more datasheets for each of the factions, so you can get playing!
Whoops, you're right that says the rules are right now, not that you can play a game right now.
Edit: There it is. It was the Headline on the main page that says you can play right now.
Download the #New40k Core Rules for Free
You can start playing games right now
Automatically Appended Next Post: Doing a quick skim of the rules though -
Coherency changed, its got a second bubble for 7+ Model units.
Not within, at least as far as Reserves (Probably Deepstriking) is entirely horizontal. So a Unit 20 inches in the air on the fifth floor of those custom built ruins blocks a 9 ish inch radius cricle at ground level.
It SOUNDS like all Aircraft now have a Minimum Move of 20, and a max pivot of 90 degrees that happens AFTER the move, but now you only go to Reserves if the Base (not that wingtip) crosses the edge of the table.
Hellebore wrote: They really have it in for the Phantom. What used to go toe to toe with warlords now disappears one round of shooting...
3 belicosa wounds reduce it to 1 wound, and it's failing half its invuln saves...
They really decided that the more you pay the better it is....
I'm not sure the defensive mathhammer is quite that bad for the Phantom (Volcano Cannon takes out about half the wounds on average), but it definitely doesn't hit the Warlord as hard as the Warlord hits it, so the complaint is still valid.
Assuming they are priced same.
At least at times phantom was more of reaver equilavent with titan above that made warlord sweat.
The Red Hobbit wrote: One of the more recent game streams is showing Eldar & IG. Warp Spiders may take the cake for biggest nerf previewed so far. Guess they're not getting a plastic model this edition
For those of us hoping that Exarchs would be a leader for Aspects, unfortunately that does not appear to be the case. They are listed on the data cards as 2 Wounds.
It's something, just not much.
They could have made the exarch weapons hit on a 2+ at least. Given how pitiful their attacks profiles are, that would have a pretty minor effect.
I would have loved to see an exarch lieutenant model that has lone operative, stalking alongside their shrines.
Imo the Phoenix Lords should have been lone operatives, they spend most of their time wandering alone through the web way drawn by Destiny. They don't have shrines of their own.
They act much more like a solo aura throwing character than a squad leader.
Hellebore wrote: They really have it in for the Phantom. What used to go toe to toe with warlords now disappears one round of shooting...
3 belicosa wounds reduce it to 1 wound, and it's failing half its invuln saves...
They really decided that the more you pay the better it is....
I'm not sure the defensive mathhammer is quite that bad for the Phantom (Volcano Cannon takes out about half the wounds on average), but it definitely doesn't hit the Warlord as hard as the Warlord hits it, so the complaint is still valid.
Assuming they are priced same.
At least at times phantom was more of reaver equilavent with titan above that made warlord sweat.
Huh? I don't think so. The Phantom is as tall as a Warlord and there is no larger Eldar titan. It's the Revenant that was comparable to a Reaver.
In the core rules, it says stratagems can only be used once *per phase*. Does this mean you get a Command Reroll in command, move, shoot, charge, fight, both yours and your opponents? So, potentially 10 rerolls per turn, as opppsed to 1 in 9th ed?
Also, it's unclear whether this is 1 die or an entire roll. The text mentions "dice to determine the number of attacks". "Dice" plural. No use of the individual "die".
In the core rules, it says stratagems can only be used once *per phase*. Does this mean you get a Command Reroll in command, move, shoot, charge, fight, both yours and your opponents? So, potentially 10 rerolls per turn, as opppsed to 1 in 9th ed?
Also, it's unclear whether this is 1 die or an entire roll. The text mentions "dice to determine the number of attacks". "Dice" plural. No use of the individual "die".
What say you?
You can do that, right now, in 9th edition. But it costs a CP each time.
In the core rules, it says stratagems can only be used once *per phase*. Does this mean you get a Command Reroll in command, move, shoot, charge, fight, both yours and your opponents? So, potentially 10 rerolls per turn, as opppsed to 1 in 9th ed?
Also, it's unclear whether this is 1 die or an entire roll. The text mentions "dice to determine the number of attacks". "Dice" plural. No use of the individual "die".
What say you?
Very much yes on the command reroll. All strats are once per phase (unless otherwise stated, there are a couple previewed that are once per battle)
----
GW uses dice as singular and plural (they aren't explicit about it, but its used that way several times on page 9. 'If a dice does not lie flat...' in the sidebar, 'You can never re-roll a dice more than once...' in the second paragraph on rerolls.
But to answer your other question,
Page 9 wrote:RE-ROLLS
Some rules allow you to re-roll a dice roll, which means you get
to roll some or all of the dice again. If a rule allows you to re-roll
a dice roll that was made by adding several dice together (e.g.
2D6, 3D6, etc.) then, unless otherwise stated, you must re-roll
all of those dice again
In the core rules, it says stratagems can only be used once *per phase*. Does this mean you get a Command Reroll in command, move, shoot, charge, fight, both yours and your opponents? So, potentially 10 rerolls per turn, as opppsed to 1 in 9th ed?
Also, it's unclear whether this is 1 die or an entire roll. The text mentions "dice to determine the number of attacks". "Dice" plural. No use of the individual "die".
What say you?
Very much yes on the command reroll. All strats are once per phase (unless otherwise stated, there are a couple previewed that are once per battle)
----
GW uses dice as singular and plural (they aren't explicit about it, but its used that way several times on page 9. 'If a dice does not lie flat...' in the sidebar, 'You can never re-roll a dice more than once...' in the second paragraph on rerolls.
But to answer your other question,
Page 9 wrote:RE-ROLLS
Some rules allow you to re-roll a dice roll, which means you get
to roll some or all of the dice again. If a rule allows you to re-roll
a dice roll that was made by adding several dice together (e.g.
2D6, 3D6, etc.) then, unless otherwise stated, you must re-roll
all of those dice again
Also, to clarify, British English uses 'dice' as both singular and plural. Die is not generally used at all. It's not really just a GW thing.
alextroy wrote: That is correct. CP availability has been drastically downgraded in 10th.
At least until the first balance sheet, where it'll go to 3 at the start of the game, then 6, then back down to 0, then 1, then change depending on the size of the game, then 11th edition.
A few armies get very reliable bonus CP gain, which is capped at 1 extra CP per battle round.
GW being the geniuses they are have also given a small number of armies "use a strat for free" abilities, getting around the CP gain cap and in some cases also getting around the once per phase restriction too.
This is of course very easy to balance against the armies that don't have this ability and is not a hidden "free" source of power.
MasterAO wrote:
Exalted, and same here. I do not like werewolves in space. I stick to my vikings in space who hunts animals and uses their fur for trophies.
Mr Morden wrote:
Me too - I deeply dislike modern Wolfy Wolf Wolves and Dark Emo Angels....
Then we are in good company!
H.B.M.C. wrote:
alextroy wrote: That is correct. CP availability has been drastically downgraded in 10th.
At least until the first balance sheet, where it'll go to 3 at the start of the game, then 6, then back down to 0, then 1, then change depending on the size of the game, then 11th edition.
I hate how accurate this feels
EightFoldPath wrote:A few armies get very reliable bonus CP gain, which is capped at 1 extra CP per battle round.
GW being the geniuses they are have also given a small number of armies "use a strat for free" abilities, getting around the CP gain cap and in some cases also getting around the once per phase restriction too.
This is of course very easy to balance against the armies that don't have this ability and is not a hidden "free" source of power.
I admit I've only been following the armies I collect and haven't noticed a ton of of these, only Asurmen and Fleshhounds off the top of my head. Who else previewed has had a 0CP / more than once per Round ability?
Roboute (once per turn within 12) and Terminator Captain (once per battle round on their terminator unit) can let you do the same strat three times in a single phase (twice for free). Remains to be seen if other generic SM Captains also have it or just that one. Space Marines have 2 CP Fight on Death strat or the generic 2 CP interrupt combat strat.
Canis Rex, a 500ish point Knight once per turn.
Thousand Sons get it in their army rule. In theory they could get 4 free strats per battle round (their shoot phase, their fight phase, your shoot phase, your fight phase) but that is some serious jumping through hoops and they'll probably be too busy turning off your armour saves to do it. But I have mentally noted that as possibly being better than turning off armour saves depending on the TS strats.
Edit to add: I too hate Space Wolves, but maybe not in the same way.
Ah I see. I was hoping they would be fairly limited while using those abilities. Completely forgot 1k Sons doing free strats, I guess I was too focused on the turn off Armor Saves + Warp time cabal powers.
I admit I've only been following the armies I collect and haven't noticed a ton of of these, only Asurmen and Fleshhounds off the top of my head. Who else previewed has had a 0CP / more than once per Round ability?
most eldar stuff got build in always active stratagems for free. the prism always re-rolls a hit and to wound , on top of the regular detachment re-rolls. The platforms do d6+2 MW on a 6+, but eldar dont have to fish for a 6+ and the to hit has a re-roll from detachment.
Other armie like the GK master in NDK can be targeted with a stratagem for 1CP. Although it is not explain why someone would like to take him.
MasterAO wrote:
Exalted, and same here. I do not like werewolves in space. I stick to my vikings in space who hunts animals and uses their fur for trophies.
Mr Morden wrote:
Me too - I deeply dislike modern Wolfy Wolf Wolves and Dark Emo Angels....
Then we are in good company!
You say that now, but as space wolves players you're always just one impulse buy or well-intentioned birthday gift away from full-blown furrydom
Meh, Ive played space Wolves since 1993 when the only werewolf aspect was a single wargear card called the wulfen stone that forced break tests on units the bearer charged (on 3d6 instead of 2d6). No werewolf claws or furries in sight
The 13th black Crusade 13th great company list was fun and it didn't ham up the wolves too much. It was a tasteful addition of loyalist veterans of the long war and a wulfen squad like a death company squad. Minis were nice too.
It was 5th ed onwards that flanderised them into pure parody with thunder wolf cavalry, literal magic frost weapons (wtf) and those awful plastic wulfen. Not to mention grimnar claus...
Just like my Eldar have independent exarchs, my space Wolves aren't a traveling flandercircus. I find very little positive in modern changes to those armies.
EightFoldPath wrote: A few armies get very reliable bonus CP gain, which is capped at 1 extra CP per battle round.
GW being the geniuses they are have also given a small number of armies "use a strat for free" abilities, getting around the CP gain cap and in some cases also getting around the once per phase restriction too.
This is of course very easy to balance against the armies that don't have this ability and is not a hidden "free" source of power.
Hard to be hidden when it is the literal rule of that model.
I don't find any issue with those. Having leader characters granting bonus stratagems seems to be the best interpretation of a leader role on the field. Surely better than the "Wound better you dogs!" that we had until now.
Especially considering that the generic stratagems are really strong, so far mostly better than the faction ones... apart from the respawn stratagems, where your leader isn't going to help. This means that costing these rules isn't that hard.
The Red Hobbit wrote: I don't think a unit having a reroll is the same as being able to be targeted with a stratagem for 0 CP.
A full re-roll on 3 fire prisms which do 12 dmg per shot and can draw LoS through each other is like having Oath of the moment active for 3 targets. It blows ups 2-3 vehicles without inv saves per turn. In an edition that tries hard to make people run vehicles. And this is pre miracle dice etc. Only thing that could balance this would be an extrem points cost, but I have my doubts this will happen.
Ah and this is just one unit. How about spiders flying around the table 20" as normal move. Or weapon platforms doing MW on a good roll, but in reality not needing a good roll, because a near by farseer will give them the 6 they need.
War walkers have so many def buffs, that armies with mostly stormbolters are going to need 4-5 turns of focus fire to kill a single one, even heavy weapon heavy armies will need to really try hard to kill a fast moving, weapon platform that can grab objectives.
And the stratagems are good too. Blade storm on a large unit of scatter laser bikers is going to be great. Phantasm is great for an army which can move fast AND kill stuff.
A full re-roll on 3 fire prisms which do 12 dmg per shot and can draw LoS through each other is like having Oath of the moment active for 3 targets.
Not going to say this isn't OP- it may be. But this isn't what's actually allowed by the rules.
A Prism with linked fire doesn't do 12 damage; it has two shots which each do 6 damage. ONE of those hits can be rerolled. ONE of those wounds can be rerolled.
Then the next Prism gets to fire, and it gets ONE hit reroll and ONE wound roll. It also doesn't have to choose the same target as the first Prism. This can continue one more time if you brought a third Prism- again a single hit reroll and a single wound reroll, with the option of choosing a different target(s)
Oath of Moment, on the other hand, allows EVERY hit roll and EVERY wound roll a unit makes to be rerolled but doesn't allow target switching.
So in truth, a prism cannon's linked fire ability has little in common with Oath of Moment, other than the word "reroll" - though it may still be OP, which I think is your main point anyway.
Of course things change when detachments appear in codex but for now both shots reroll hit&wound.
I hadn't seen the data sheet for the unit, only the Prism Cannon in the Warcom article. If the Prism tank's datasheet also has a reroll, that's worse for sure- the player probably wouldn't even need the detachment reroll at that point.
Yea it will still struggle against invulnerable saves and smoke cuts it's efficiency in half. It has no Heavy or DW to pull it through and Guide is quite hard to put on a distant target.
There is also an actual counter to the triple fireprism maneuver. If he keeps 2 prisms hidden and exposes one... you overwatch and try to kill that one, making him waste the attacks on the other 2.
Spoletta wrote: There is also an actual counter to the triple fireprism maneuver. If he keeps 2 prisms hidden and exposes one... you overwatch and try to kill that one, making him waste the attacks on the other 2.
Given the timing on overwatch in their movement phase that wouldn't work, you just kill the Prism that moved.
EightFoldPath wrote: A few armies get very reliable bonus CP gain, which is capped at 1 extra CP per battle round.
GW being the geniuses they are have also given a small number of armies "use a strat for free" abilities, getting around the CP gain cap and in some cases also getting around the once per phase restriction too.
This is of course very easy to balance against the armies that don't have this ability and is not a hidden "free" source of power.
Hard to be hidden when it is the literal rule of that model.
This means that costing these rules isn't that hard.
9th edition: Iron Hands Relic Contemptor Dreadnought - Death Guard Contemptor Dreadnought - Thousand Sons Contemptor Dreadnought
They all cost the same points and CP to field. They had the same basic datasheet. They had different hidden rules.
Did you know those three Contemptor Dreadnoughts cost the same in 9th and were wildly different in power when you said the items in bold? Or did you not know that but still come out with your comments?
Spoletta wrote: There is also an actual counter to the triple fireprism maneuver. If he keeps 2 prisms hidden and exposes one... you overwatch and try to kill that one, making him waste the attacks on the other 2.
Given the timing on overwatch in their movement phase that wouldn't work, you just kill the Prism that moved.
Well if opponent moves first the prisms that stay out of los you could take out 3rd denying los to the other 2. The 2 are alive but can't shoot due to lack of los.
Lesson learned.move the one that aim's to see target first.
You'd need a lot of luck and a fairly hefty overwatching unit to bring down a fire prism. It's still a tank and it's not likely to be hanging about close to anything in its own movement phase which has a good chance of killing it, because it'll be there in the following turn and the Eldar player probably doesn't want it getting blown up then either.
So you'll need to force some really awkward choices on the Eldar player to get them to give up their fire prism's position so that you can kill it with overwatch. Frankly I'm not saying its impossible, but it's not going to happen often
EightFoldPath wrote: A few armies get very reliable bonus CP gain, which is capped at 1 extra CP per battle round.
GW being the geniuses they are have also given a small number of armies "use a strat for free" abilities, getting around the CP gain cap and in some cases also getting around the once per phase restriction too.
This is of course very easy to balance against the armies that don't have this ability and is not a hidden "free" source of power.
Hard to be hidden when it is the literal rule of that model.
This means that costing these rules isn't that hard.
9th edition: Iron Hands Relic Contemptor Dreadnought - Death Guard Contemptor Dreadnought - Thousand Sons Contemptor Dreadnought
They all cost the same points and CP to field. They had the same basic datasheet. They had different hidden rules.
Did you know those three Contemptor Dreadnoughts cost the same in 9th and were wildly different in power when you said the items in bold? Or did you not know that but still come out with your comments?
Sorry I can't follow.
In what way your answer is related to the previous points being made? I fail to see a connection.
Who else is majorly jealous of YouTubers getting the Leviathan box early and probably for free to advertise? I don't understand, the people who should be advertising are the scalpers.
NorthernXY wrote: Who else is majorly jealous of YouTubers getting the Leviathan box early and probably for free to advertise? I don't understand, the people who should be advertising are the scalpers.
NorthernXY wrote: Who else is majorly jealous of YouTubers getting the Leviathan box early and probably for free to advertise? I don't understand, the people who should be advertising are the scalpers.
I don't get the scalpers connection.
Buying advertising with a box of plastic, a few books or early access to a computer game is really cheap for the business. Its merely sensible.
That most youtubers come with a free horde of sycophants is a huge benefit.
NorthernXY wrote: Who else is majorly jealous of YouTubers getting the Leviathan box early and probably for free to advertise? I don't understand, the people who should be advertising are the scalpers.
I don't get the scalpers connection.
Buying advertising with a box of plastic, a few books or early access to a computer game is really cheap for the business. Its merely sensible.
That most youtubers come with a free horde of sycophants is a huge benefit.
Even if they send it out to scores upon scores of youtubers, that's less than a pallet of product that is, by most estimations, produced in the 100.000s - it's an amount that just doesn't matter.
they will send out likely less than will be written off due to damaged packaging, and they will write the full cost off against tax as an expense anyway
NorthernXY wrote: Who else is majorly jealous of YouTubers getting the Leviathan box early and probably for free to advertise? I don't understand, the people who should be advertising are the scalpers.
I have no idea what scalpers have to do with this?
Sending advance copies to prominent social media channels is standard marketing practice nowadays, so I'm not sure what it is you don't understand about it.
NorthernXY wrote: Who else is majorly jealous of YouTubers getting the Leviathan box early and probably for free to advertise? I don't understand, the people who should be advertising are the scalpers.
I have no idea what scalpers have to do with this?
Sending advance copies to prominent social media channels is standard marketing practice nowadays, so I'm not sure what it is you don't understand about it.
It was also a staple advertising tactic in the last century, only in the form of 'review copies' etc. sent to magazines, which were the prominent venue for product reviews at that time. The modern influencer is just the contemporary face of that.
NorthernXY wrote: Who else is majorly jealous of YouTubers getting the Leviathan box early and probably for free to advertise? I don't understand, the people who should be advertising are the scalpers.
I don't get the scalpers connection.
Buying advertising with a box of plastic, a few books or early access to a computer game is really cheap for the business. Its merely sensible.
That most youtubers come with a free horde of sycophants is a huge benefit.
The connection to the scalpers I was making is that the scalpers will buy all the boxes, so GW knows it will sell all the boxes and doesn't have to worry about getting people to buy the box. The people we will have to buy from are the scalpers, therefore advertising to people who will not be able to purchase directly from GW is wasted money. The scalpers now have to compete against each other so they're the ones who need advertising so that people will buy the boxset from them and not other scalpers.
A full re-roll on 3 fire prisms which do 12 dmg per shot and can draw LoS through each other is like having Oath of the moment active for 3 targets.
Not going to say this isn't OP- it may be. But this isn't what's actually allowed by the rules.
A Prism with linked fire doesn't do 12 damage; it has two shots which each do 6 damage. ONE of those hits can be rerolled. ONE of those wounds can be rerolled. Then the next Prism gets to fire, and it gets ONE hit reroll and ONE wound roll. It also doesn't have to choose the same target as the first Prism. This can continue one more time if you brought a third Prism- again a single hit reroll and a single wound reroll, with the option of choosing a different target(s)
Oath of Moment, on the other hand, allows EVERY hit roll and EVERY wound roll a unit makes to be rerolled but doesn't allow target switching.
So in truth, a prism cannon's linked fire ability has little in common with Oath of Moment, other than the word "reroll" - though it may still be OP, which I think is your main point anyway.
Why would they need to reroll? You can just force every dice result to be a 6.
NorthernXY wrote: Who else is majorly jealous of YouTubers getting the Leviathan box early and probably for free to advertise? I don't understand, the people who should be advertising are the scalpers.
I don't get the scalpers connection.
Buying advertising with a box of plastic, a few books or early access to a computer game is really cheap for the business. Its merely sensible. That most youtubers come with a free horde of sycophants is a huge benefit.
The connection to the scalpers I was making is that the scalpers will buy all the boxes, so GW knows it will sell all the boxes and doesn't have to worry about getting people to buy the box. The people we will have to buy from are the scalpers, therefore advertising to people who will not be able to purchase directly from GW is wasted money. The scalpers now have to compete against each other so they're the ones who need advertising so that people will buy the boxset from them and not other scalpers.
Do you guys all live in like...the coldest parts of Siberia? Or do you just not realize that you don't HAVE to buy from GW's website?
Every time a new boxset comes out, people whine about scalpers, and every time I go to one of the half dozen places that sell GW near me and could build a decent size condo out of the number of boxes sitting around. Hell, I got TWO Indomitus boxes a week after launch with no problem at all. Can't GIVE those models away, these days.
The ONLY exception was Cursed City and that had just about everything going against it you could possibly have.
NorthernXY wrote: Who else is majorly jealous of YouTubers getting the Leviathan box early and probably for free to advertise? I don't understand, the people who should be advertising are the scalpers.
I don't get the scalpers connection.
Buying advertising with a box of plastic, a few books or early access to a computer game is really cheap for the business. Its merely sensible.
That most youtubers come with a free horde of sycophants is a huge benefit.
The connection to the scalpers I was making is that the scalpers will buy all the boxes, so GW knows it will sell all the boxes and doesn't have to worry about getting people to buy the box. The people we will have to buy from are the scalpers, therefore advertising to people who will not be able to purchase directly from GW is wasted money. The scalpers now have to compete against each other so they're the ones who need advertising so that people will buy the boxset from them and not other scalpers.
So you're saying that my 3 local FLGS are scalpers?
Do you guys all live in like...the coldest parts of Siberia? Or do you just not realize that you don't HAVE to buy from GW's website?
Every time a new boxset comes out, people whine about scalpers, and every time I go to one of the half dozen places that sell GW near me and could build a decent size condo out of the number of boxes sitting around. Hell, I got TWO Indomitus boxes a week after launch with no problem at all. Can't GIVE those models away, these days.
The ONLY exception was Cursed City and that had just about everything going against it you could possibly have.
You don't have to live in siberia for that. You would be suprise how bad places like south america, eastern europ or australia are treated by companies like GW or WotC. And I don't know enough people to speak for the entire continent, but in SA the hobby merch isn't as easy to get as in UK or US. And yes when people here couldn't get their hands on Indomitus, seeing people from some countries post stores full of it and not bought was not making people happy.
A full re-roll on 3 fire prisms which do 12 dmg per shot and can draw LoS through each other is like having Oath of the moment active for 3 targets.
Not going to say this isn't OP- it may be. But this isn't what's actually allowed by the rules.
A Prism with linked fire doesn't do 12 damage; it has two shots which each do 6 damage. ONE of those hits can be rerolled. ONE of those wounds can be rerolled.
Then the next Prism gets to fire, and it gets ONE hit reroll and ONE wound roll. It also doesn't have to choose the same target as the first Prism. This can continue one more time if you brought a third Prism- again a single hit reroll and a single wound reroll, with the option of choosing a different target(s)
Oath of Moment, on the other hand, allows EVERY hit roll and EVERY wound roll a unit makes to be rerolled but doesn't allow target switching.
So in truth, a prism cannon's linked fire ability has little in common with Oath of Moment, other than the word "reroll" - though it may still be OP, which I think is your main point anyway.
Both can be re-rolled. you re-roll one to hit dice and to wound dice from the detachment rule, and you re-roll one die for hit and wound from the prisms own rule. So you are re-rolls 2 dice to hit and 2 to wound. the main gun happens to be shoting twice.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Daedalus81 wrote: Yea it will still struggle against invulnerable saves and smoke cuts it's efficiency in half. It has no Heavy or DW to pull it through and Guide is quite hard to put on a distant target.
which is great if the vehicle in case has an inv save. But Land raiders or rhinos do not. Neither do dreadnoughts. So is prism has like a what 80% chance to kill a vehicle per turn? And that is just one tank, I have to shot a war walker over 100 times to kill one and that is assuming the vehicle not returning fire and not getting healed. All the eldar index rules are classic eldar type of rules. My dudes get their smite removed and get str 6 thunder hammers, meanwhile eldar get to spam MW with weapon platforms just by virtue of standing next to a farseer.
Both can be re-rolled. you re-roll one to hit dice and to wound dice from the detachment rule, and you re-roll one die for hit and wound from the prisms own rule. So you are re-rolls 2 dice to hit and 2 to wound. the main gun happens to be shoting twice.
Yeah, that's my mistake- at the time I wrote the response to your post, I hadn't seen the Fire Prism data sheet- just the Prism Cannon entry in the Warcom article. Someone else corrected me on that already.
Presumably your opponent has brought a Vindicare and several hundred points of halfling snipers to deal with your Eldar-wizards. Redundancy is a necessity!
Aren't eldar supposed to see future? Dodge bullets!
But yeah wish there was bit less exaggeration on # of 6s claims. If one believes dakkadakka eldar can literally use 6 for everything as every datasheet too strong as "6 from strands". Umm..yea you can use 1 reliably per turn. Not for 4-5 datasheets.
Karol wrote: which is great if the vehicle in case has an inv save. But Land raiders or rhinos do not. Neither do dreadnoughts. So is prism has like a what 80% chance to kill a vehicle per turn? And that is just one tank, I have to shot a war walker over 100 times to kill one and that is assuming the vehicle not returning fire and not getting healed. All the eldar index rules are classic eldar type of rules. My dudes get their smite removed and get str 6 thunder hammers, meanwhile eldar get to spam MW with weapon platforms just by virtue of standing next to a farseer.
A Landraider has W16 and 2+. Both the Ballistus and the Screamer Killer have a 2+, which will leave them on 5+ in cover. That takes it from 70 to 80% down to 10%.
EDIT Sorry typo. Not 10%. Don't have the screen in front of me atm though.
The Red Hobbit wrote: Presumably your opponent has brought a Vindicare and several hundred points of halfling snipers to deal with your Eldar-wizards. Redundancy is a necessity!
But marines can't take halfline snipers. and if we are talking about IG then why would they invest points in to those instead of something like Lemman Russes or Karskin. A lot more untily and fire power. And even with a vindicar, he still can't ignore LoS or the phoenix thing. So at worse he has to be killed twice.
A Landraider has W16 and 2+. Both the Ballistus and the Screamer Killer have a 2+, which will leave them on 5+ in cover. That takes it from 70 to 80% down to 10%.
Yes. In a single turn they can criple an entire army that takes two land raiders with 3 units that cost less points, even prior puting stuff in to land raiders.
By the way, because I don't remember the rules on it, are we allowed to talk about army point costs here, are is it a ban, like on some other forums. I mean the unpublished index ones?
Karol wrote: But marines can't take halfline snipers. and if we are talking about IG then why would they invest points in to those instead of something like Lemman Russes or Karskin. A lot more untily and fire power. And even with a vindicar, he still can't ignore LoS or the phoenix thing. So at worse he has to be killed twice.
Depends on points. I can see 5-10 ratlings JSJing up and down ruins for +1ap being viable at certain costs. With the right terrain they are immune to non-overwatch, non-indirect return fire.
tneva82 wrote: Aren't eldar supposed to see future? Dodge bullets!
But yeah wish there was bit less exaggeration on # of 6s claims. If one believes dakkadakka eldar can literally use 6 for everything as every datasheet too strong as "6 from strands". Umm..yea you can use 1 reliably per turn. Not for 4-5 datasheets.
How much is it worth to get a 100% MW spamer, just because you get a 6, even if you don't roll any on 12 dice? No other army has a similar rules, power wise. And in eldar case it is also joined to an incredibly fast moving army, which ignores terrain to move and is extremly hard to charge thanks to phantasm. Stuff like Warp spiders can do missions objectives and are super good, even if they don't fire a single shot. And they cost less then a terminator. Only a terminator doesn't fly half the table each turn.
Yes. In a single turn they can criple an entire army that takes two land raiders with 3 units that cost less points, even prior puting stuff in to land raiders.
Yes. In a single turn they can criple an entire army that takes two land raiders with 3 units that cost less points, even prior puting stuff in to land raiders.
By the way, because I don't remember the rules on it, are we allowed to talk about army point costs here, are is it a ban, like on some other forums. I mean the unpublished index ones?
Cripple an entire army? Maybe don't take all vehicles and use reserves...
Do you HAVE points? Or like stuff that someone might have made up?
I think its a reasonable observation that in an edition that's meant to be less lethal, the Fire Prism looks bonkers.
I mean someone can check my maths - but 8/9*8/9*35/36*35/36 means you have around a 74.68% chance of one-shotting a rival Fire Prism. And doing more damage if we assume the underslung gun contributes anything. Or put another way - around 3 "goes" out of 4, it works 100% of the time.
I don't know what a Fire Prism's points are - but if you are "expecting" a 75%~ return - which "most of the time" is a 100% return, that's 9th edition level lethality.
"Its fine, just go MSU" is a reasonable response - and typically how I play. But it doesn't change the above.
Tyel wrote: I think its a reasonable observation that in an edition that's meant to be less lethal, the Fire Prism looks bonkers.
I mean someone can check my maths - but 8/9*8/9*35/36*35/36 means you have around a 74.68% chance of one-shotting a rival Fire Prism. And doing more damage if we assume the underslung gun contributes anything. Or put another way - around 3 "goes" out of 4, it works 100% of the time.
I don't know what a Fire Prism's points are - but if you are "expecting" a 75%~ return - which "most of the time" is a 100% return, that's 9th edition level lethality.
"Its fine, just go MSU" is a reasonable response - and typically how I play. But it doesn't change the above.
I wouldn't bother, the Eldar players will show up and explain to you why you're wrong and how Eldar are actually the hardest army to play in every edition LOL
I wouldn't bother, the Eldar players will show up and explain to you why you're wrong and how Eldar are actually the hardest army to play in every edition LOL
Bad experience against Eldar, maybe?
Eldar fans have many very legitimate complaints. From progressive nerfing, to wildly different army strongpoints through the editions, to the fact that they're often still playing with sculpts from 1991 available only in resin.
Though, to be fair, some of those 1991 sculpts are still better than some current releases.
Insectum7 wrote: Sternguard limited to only Heavy Bolters for Heavy Weapons. . . May the asinine culling of options continue.
Not to “wait and see” you, as precedent goes both ways from the indominus box, but let’s keep a spark of hope alive that once we get the full codex a/o full kits, we might have more a/o legacy options. Assault intercessors and BGVs got more then just the ETB kits and get started rules allowed.
Insectum7 wrote: Sternguard limited to only Heavy Bolters for Heavy Weapons. . . May the asinine culling of options continue.
Not to “wait and see” you, as precedent goes both ways from the indominus box, but let’s keep a spark of hope alive that once we get the full codex a/o full kits, we might have more a/o legacy options. Assault intercessors and BGVs got more then just the ETB kits and get started rules allowed.
There are no sparks of hope for GW.
My spark of hope is that someone else makes a good game that gains popularity where we can use our 40k armies in the ways that we want to.
Insectum7 wrote: Sternguard limited to only Heavy Bolters for Heavy Weapons. . . May the asinine culling of options continue.
I'm fairly sure it's just the Levi datasheet. Hopefully they're not restricted in that manner.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyel wrote: I think its a reasonable observation that in an edition that's meant to be less lethal, the Fire Prism looks bonkers.
I mean someone can check my maths - but 8/9*8/9*35/36*35/36 means you have around a 74.68% chance of one-shotting a rival Fire Prism. And doing more damage if we assume the underslung gun contributes anything. Or put another way - around 3 "goes" out of 4, it works 100% of the time.
I don't know what a Fire Prism's points are - but if you are "expecting" a 75%~ return - which "most of the time" is a 100% return, that's 9th edition level lethality.
"Its fine, just go MSU" is a reasonable response - and typically how I play. But it doesn't change the above.
I think it fits the 'glass cannon' nature of elves, but I would expect it to be back to at least 200 points if not 250+. We'll find out real quick if it's busted.
At the same time a Ballistus with Oath on a Prism takes it down most of the way and just the Lascannons on a Landraider takes it out.
I wouldn't bother, the Eldar players will show up and explain to you why you're wrong and how Eldar are actually the hardest army to play in every edition LOL
Bad experience against Eldar, maybe?
Eldar fans have many very legitimate complaints. From progressive nerfing, to wildly different army strongpoints through the editions, to the fact that they're often still playing with sculpts from 1991 available only in resin.
Though, to be fair, some of those 1991 sculpts are still better than some current releases.
Sculpts aren't a legitimate complaint since 3rd party options exist.
The army specific rules have been so incredibly uneven thus far. It's not giving me the greatest confidence in the rollout of 10th but...the devil is in the details. I expect the first few months to be nuts until adjustments are made. It seems to be their new method...which is better than back in the dark days when you could be stuck with a bad codex for literally years
Not a fan of what they did to combi weapons personally. There a a spectrum of bare-bones to bloat, and we all have our line of what should be culled for simplicity and game play, or what is vital to the game and should be kept.
Did we need 3 different versions of bolter for each individual marine unit, with no overlap? Not in my humble opinion.
Is it worth the space on the datasheet and effort to get the right bits for combis? Yes.
YMMV.
Although if the keep the legacy options from the old SG kit, that would allow special weapons (and the HF) on the squad. With combis their own unified thing, there would be a reason to take plain specials again.
But one thing we need to make sure we keep is the prohibition of SG sarges taking thunderhammers. /sarcasm
Daedalus81 wrote: I think it fits the 'glass cannon' nature of elves, but I would expect it to be back to at least 200 points if not 250+. We'll find out real quick if it's busted.
At the same time a Ballistus with Oath on a Prism takes it down most of the way and just the Lascannons on a Landraider takes it out.
Sure they can make Eldar stuff expensive - but that's just emphasising "everyone's a glasscannon".
I think the reroll detachment ability is an obvious target for a rapid nerf. It seems head and shoulders above other options (and yes, you can say this is apples and oranges, but I feel it never really is).
Do we know what happens to a unit with no melee options is stuck in CC? Is there a default punch?
For example, looking at the datasheet of the TDA captain. He starts with a SB and a relic blade. He can swap the blade for a shield. SB/shield. Looks to be a valid build. But locked in combat, does he just get to sit there and use harsh language?
Daedalus81 wrote: I think it fits the 'glass cannon' nature of elves, but I would expect it to be back to at least 200 points if not 250+. We'll find out real quick if it's busted.
At the same time a Ballistus with Oath on a Prism takes it down most of the way and just the Lascannons on a Landraider takes it out.
Sure they can make Eldar stuff expensive - but that's just emphasising "everyone's a glasscannon".
I think the reroll detachment ability is an obvious target for a rapid nerf. It seems head and shoulders above other options (and yes, you can say this is apples and oranges, but I feel it never really is).
Yea Eldar will absolutely be an exceedingly consistent army with the rerolls and fate dice.
I'm still processing the missions so I'm unsure if those will help, but there does seem to be a few things. In general fixed secondaries seem really tough.
Does the 1cp that Leontus gains at the start of the command phase bypass the 1cp per battleround gain limit? The limit says it doesnt count cp gained at the start of the command phase. I'm undecided.
Haywire is going to be insane, I'm not looking forward to the next time I play my friend's DEldar army haha.
Pay some attention to the context.
