Combi weapons as we know it are extinct. Good riddance.
They were only ever taken to spam Special weapons cheaply. I'm sure one of the main reasons they were dropped was the fact that Plasma was the only option ever used, and that left grav, and flamer wasting sprue space, and Melta was only used on Suicide deepstrike units. I have sooo many combi weapon bitz from kits over the years, and I don't even play Space Marine Firstborn.
It's no longer a Special Weapon with free bolter attached!! Now it's a bolter with a digital weapon attached.
Daedalus81 wrote: So far it seems many army stratagems have been very strongly defensive focused. These are what have been in battle reports for nids:
Stratagems:
Adrenal Surge: Either one unit, or two units within Synapse deal critical hits on a 5+ rather than a 6.
Death Frenzy: Fight on death 4+.
Endless Swarm 1CP: Restore D3+3 models to a swarm unit, or two swarm units within synapse range.
Rapid Regeneration 1CP: A unit gains a 6+ Feel No Pain, or a 5+ Feel No Pain if within Synapse.
Overun: A unit can consolidate 6” instead of 3”.
Synaptic Insight 1CP: Select a unit or two units within Synapse and select a Hyper Adaptation. That Hyper Adaptation is active for those units.
Enhancements:
5+ Feel no Pain, or a 4+ Feel no Pain if they’ve taken a wound.
Probably because we've seen them strip native defensive abilities on almost everything, and didn't want that on a bunch of units on top of the already crunched weapon stats and abundance of cover. It could also be that the detachment rule for Nids is purely offensive, so they had a suite of defensive buffs? We saw a mix with IG.
Which is quite interesting when you think about it. Generally if you're designing to have defensive abilities require an abstracted situational cost (Command Points) it's because you don't want them as a permanent defensive boost because you are worried about a unit being too strong or unkillable.
And I can't really think of too many units in 9th that were unkillable. Instead I remember all the units getting the Wound cap per phase because they were dying too fast. Granted 10th aims to be a different game with reduced lethality but I have found it puzzling the defensive shift to stratagems over unit profiles. I suspect that Daemon Primarchs, C'Tan, and even Phoenix Lord (with their T3 bodyguards) will die just as quickly without their "Can take only X Wounds per phase" ability. I'm not the biggest fan of that rule from a game immersion perspective but it did feel like a necessary band-aid in 9th.
But that's not what it is, and now it's significantly worse compared to just the basic Bolter in many ways. Keep convincing yourself this was a good thing though LOL
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.
They were only ever taken to spam Special weapons cheaply. I'm sure one of the main reasons they were dropped was the fact that Plasma was the only option ever used, and that left grav, and flamer wasting sprue space, and Melta was only used on Suicide deepstrike units. I have sooo many combi weapon bitz from kits over the years, and I don't even play Space Marine Firstborn.
It's no longer a Special Weapon with free bolter attached!! Now it's a bolter with a digital weapon attached.
Combi weapons are the biggest travesty to be shown on a datasheet so far. The consolidation is anything but well implemented.
But that's not what it is, and now it's significantly worse compared to just the basic Bolter in many ways. Keep convincing yourself this was a good thing though LOL
It's not a good thing.
But it's definitely not significantly worse than just a basic bolter....
vict0988 wrote: Why does it get re-rolls to hit and to wound?
It gets to reroll one hit and one wound from the Eldar detachment ability (Unparalleled Foresight) and reroll one hit and wound roll from its datasheet ability (Crystal Matrix).
They were only ever taken to spam Special weapons cheaply. I'm sure one of the main reasons they were dropped was the fact that Plasma was the only option ever used, and that left grav, and flamer wasting sprue space, and Melta was only used on Suicide deepstrike units. I have sooo many combi weapon bitz from kits over the years, and I don't even play Space Marine Firstborn.
It's no longer a Special Weapon with free bolter attached!! Now it's a bolter with a digital weapon attached.
Combi weapons are the biggest travesty to be shown on a datasheet so far. The consolidation is anything but well implemented.
Consolidating power weapons back to one profile I get. They all do the same thing “make you stab better” with slight specialities. Swords math better into MEQ, axes vs. higher armor, mauls v. higher T. But fundamentally do the same job. Same with all the bolters. Massed small arms, with situational pros/cons.
Combi weapons don’t. They swing from adding AV firepower to horde clearing. What flavor of combi weapon you were packing drastically changed what you could threaten. I come from the old school of thought were you matched the sarge’s combi to the tactical squad’s special. And from an era where you needed to scrounge to find the right one. I’ve got all types in my company, and have used them well over the years. With this new consolidated profile, I might drop them from the squads. They don’t help them do what they need to do particuarly well most of the time, and are an extra profile that needs to be rolled, taking up game time for minimal gains.
We’ll see how things end up. Mixed feelings about what was cut. They went too far in some spots, maybe not far enough in others.
"X models can take a boltgun and a weapon from the special weapons list"
And that's the thing that kills me- how easy it would have been to get right.
When a problem is complex, you can cut the devs some slack for not getting it right. But when the solution to a problem is as simple as this solution was, it's hard to figure out how the mistake was made.
EviscerationPlague wrote: But that's not what it is, and now it's significantly worse compared to just the basic Bolter in many ways. Keep convincing yourself this was a good thing though LOL
The Sternguard Bolt Rifle is super dope though. I think it represents the 'Bolter Specialist' really well. I did see an extreme hopium post on reddit that thought Combi-Bolters still have access to upgrades with stats on that 'armory sheet' and that this is just a dumbed down datasheet.
"X models can take a boltgun and a weapon from the special weapons list"
And that's the thing that kills me- how easy it would have been to get right.
When a problem is complex, you can cut the devs some slack for not getting it right. But when the solution to a problem is as simple as this solution was, it's hard to figure out how the mistake was made.
Cut a step out, just allow squad leaders/certain units to endlessly take special weapons, people aren't interested in the bolter half anyway.
Yeah, I've played a number of games. It's decent, fun, and an interesting/refreshing way of doing things. But it's also lacking in some areas, making it not quite what I'm looking for.
But I support it wholeheartedly. It's great to see alternatives pop up.
Storm of Fire 1CP: In the shooting phase, a unit gains ignores cover, or ignores cover and an extra AP if in Devastator Doctrine
Squad Tactics: At the end of the opponent’s move phase, if any enemy units are within 9” of a friendly unit, that unit can move D6 inches and not in engagement range, or 6” and not in engagement range in Tactical Doctrine.
Honour the Chapter 1CP: In the fight phase, a unit gains Lance (+1 to wound if unit charged), or Lance and an extra AP in the assault doctrine.
Armour of Contempt 1CP: When a unit is targeted for an attack, worsen attacks by 1 AP until the end of the phase.
Only in Death Does Duty End 2CP: When a unit is targeted in the fight phase, activate this stratagem. If a model would be destroyed, don’t remove them. At the end of the opponent’s attacks, you may fight with your destroyed models before removing them.
Adaptive Strategy: In your command phase select a unit, and select a doctrine. This doctrine is active for this unit until your next command phase
No CP, sorry. As for Enhancements;
Honour of Vehement: One of the model’s melee weapons gains +1 strength and attacks or +2 strength and attacks if in assault doctrine.
Artificer armour: Model gains 2+ save and 5+ Feel No Pain.
Bolter Discipline: Bearer’s unit gains Sustained hits. Not sure of value, probably Sustained Hits 1.
Adept of the Codex: Either bearer’s unit counts as in Tactical Doctrine, or you can select the doctrine at the beginning of the game. Not sure if this overrides the actual doctrine.
Daedalus81 wrote: Squad Tactics: At the end of the opponent’s move phase, if any enemy units are within 9” of a friendly unit, that unit can move D6 inches and not in engagement range, or 6” and not in engagement range in Tactical Doctrine.
I liked this ability in 30k too so I welcome its appearance in 40k.
KingGarland wrote: Before they said that enhancements were free but now they are saying they cost points.
Classic GW.
Where did they say that they were free? I know we had the "3 only, no doubling up" sort of rules in the reveal, but I don't remember them explicitly stating that they were free.
KingGarland wrote: Before they said that enhancements were free but now they are saying they cost points.
Classic GW.
Where did they say that they were free? I know we had the "3 only, no doubling up" sort of rules in the reveal, but I don't remember them explicitly stating that they were free.
If they're not free why bother with an arbitrary restriction on how many you can take?
Dudeface wrote: If they're not free why bother with an arbitrary restriction on how many you can take?
I guess because otherwise people would spam the best ones? At which point they would have to be increased in cost significantly. By making them single takes, the price can be low enough to not be prohibitive.
Dudeface wrote: If they're not free why bother with an arbitrary restriction on how many you can take?
I guess because otherwise people would spam the best ones? At which point they would have to be increased in cost significantly. By making them single takes, the price can be low enough to not be prohibitive.
Sorry I mean the max of 3, I understand the no duplicates, but even then there shouldn't be a "best one" if costed correctly.
Trickstick wrote: First thought is to stop people not thinking and just taking all 4? I don't know.
Being able to take 3 out of 4 is sort of a no-man's-land - There's little difference between 3 and 4 at 2K - But if you can take four everybody usually would. I'd say that's really the issue: 3 of 4. 3 of 6 starts sounding different. If you can only take 3 of 6, then you're starting to make choices and plans. At 3 of 4 sounds like you're just going to skip the stupid one anyway.
I scrimp points heavily to get more bodies and hulls in my lists. I'm going to have to see the points to decide if I think taking three of the Guard enhancements is worth it. The +1cp cost seems like a must take. The +1 order could be useful, and the 5+ lethal also. Not sure about the oc buff one.
"Do they cost points?"
"They cost points, that's how you do enhancements. Enhancements are just points, they are a native part of army building."
That makes no sense? Tell me that isn’t what they really said.
I mean you can click on the timestamped link to hear it yourself.
"Do they cost points?"
"They cost points, that's how you do enhancements. [color=red]Enhancements are just points, they are a native part of army building. There isn't a sperate resource pool to manage them. They're intentionally costed and balanced so that they work very nicely with the enhancements to army building and points costing you guys will see when points release."
They say the can provide cool rules, room for odd things and use up spare points. Mention they work well in the new app.
I explored building an app and I feel really bad for the folks who jumped in late in 9th to try. The logic was really difficult to code out in a clean manner and still keep it extensible for future changes. I imagine GW had the same problems.
10th should make it way easier to accomplish. Whether it works or not...*shrug*
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface wrote: Sorry I mean the max of 3, I understand the no duplicates, but even then there shouldn't be a "best one" if costed correctly.
Yea I think the limit is because it's cheap enough that you can easily take all four and so to give some semblance of choice they restrict it.
I explored building an app and I feel really bad for the folks who jumped in late in 9th to try. The logic was really difficult to code out in a clean manner and still keep it extensible for future changes. I imagine GW had the same problems.
10th should make it way easier to accomplish. Whether it works or not...*shrug*
In addition, 9th edition's app was build by a supplier with no domain knowledge communicating with people at GW who had little to no experience in managing the development of an app. GW has been hiring devs ever since then, most likely in order to build a new app in-house with people that know the topic they are coding an app for. Usually for niche topics, this is a much more fruitful approach.
I explored building an app and I feel really bad for the folks who jumped in late in 9th to try. The logic was really difficult to code out in a clean manner and still keep it extensible for future changes. I imagine GW had the same problems.
10th should make it way easier to accomplish. Whether it works or not...*shrug*
In addition, 9th edition's app was build by a supplier with no domain knowledge communicating with people at GW who had little to no experience in managing the development of an app.
GW has been hiring devs ever since then, most likely in order to build a new app in-house with people that know the topic they are coding an app for. Usually for niche topics, this is a much more fruitful approach.
Otoh, the general available IT infrastructure of GW is lackluster, an often unresponsive site, the FW site is even worse somehow. And let's not forget the warehouse mucking up this bad that it somehow still affected them the whole year more or less?
Not Online!!! wrote: Otoh, the general available IT infrastructure of GW is lackluster, an often unresponsive site, the FW site is even worse somehow. And let's not forget the warehouse mucking up this bad that it somehow still affected them the whole year more or less?
ERP is a different beast. It's such an obnoxious deployment that it almost never goes well.
Generally my advice as a high level IT manager is that you never expect things to go to plan. How you react and recover from issues is what separates the good from the bad.
Not Online!!! wrote: Otoh, the general available IT infrastructure of GW is lackluster, an often unresponsive site, the FW site is even worse somehow. And let's not forget the warehouse mucking up this bad that it somehow still affected them the whole year more or less?
None of those things were built in-house. For the web-stores we specifically know it was build by a company owned by the former CEO's wife, so chances are that the company wasn't picked for it's high quality software.
And to be frank, neither web stores nor warehouse management systems are a niche applications. With today's shortage of professional personal, it makes little sense to insource that.
Not Online!!! wrote: Otoh, the general available IT infrastructure of GW is lackluster, an often unresponsive site, the FW site is even worse somehow. And let's not forget the warehouse mucking up this bad that it somehow still affected them the whole year more or less?
ERP is a different beast. It's such an obnoxious deployment that it almost never goes well.
Generally my advice as a high level IT manager is that you never expect things to go to plan. How you react and recover from issues is what separates the good from the bad.
Not Online!!! wrote: Otoh, the general available IT infrastructure of GW is lackluster, an often unresponsive site, the FW site is even worse somehow. And let's not forget the warehouse mucking up this bad that it somehow still affected them the whole year more or less?
None of those things were built in-house. For the web-stores we specifically know it was build by a company owned by the former CEO's wife, so chances are that the company wasn't picked for it's high quality software.
And to be frank, neither web stores nor warehouse management systems are a niche applications. With today's shortage of professional personal, it makes little sense to insource that.
Not Online!!! wrote: Otoh, the general available IT infrastructure of GW is lackluster, an often unresponsive site, the FW site is even worse somehow. And let's not forget the warehouse mucking up this bad that it somehow still affected them the whole year more or less?
ERP is a different beast. It's such an obnoxious deployment that it almost never goes well.
Generally my advice as a high level IT manager is that you never expect things to go to plan. How you react and recover from issues is what separates the good from the bad.
Agree 100%
All i get from this is, that gw is nepotistic and unable or unwilling to find or pay decent personell.
What makes you then confident, that they hire competent people for the inhouse developped app?
Not Online!!! wrote: All i get from this is, that gw is nepotistic and unable or unwilling to find or pay decent personell.
What makes you then confident, that they hire competent people for the inhouse developped app?
The nepotism was the prior CEO. I don't make any claims to how successful they could be - just that the reduced complexity can help to make it more successful.
Not Online!!! wrote: All i get from this is, that gw is nepotistic and unable or unwilling to find or pay decent personell.
If that's all what you got from this, I don't think there is a point in continuing a discussion on how software project management works, sorry.
GW had a bunch of job offers for open positions in the area of app and cloud development which have little by little disappeared over the last few years, and I doubt that a company creating one of the biggest nerd hobbies there is has any trouble finding motivated developers.
I'd rather use a significantly out of date Battlescribe over whatever GW craps out
The BS authors have publicly stated that they're not intending to enter any 10e data until they have an editor that isn't buggy, so BS might not be an option for 10e at all.
We're seeing headway with getting 10e into Rosterizer, though. (edit: yeah yeah, I know non-characters can't be warlords; we're trimming out some of the cruft from re-using our 9e manifest. heh)
I'd rather use a significantly out of date Battlescribe over whatever GW craps out
The BS authors have publicly stated that they're not intending to enter any 10e data until they have an editor that isn't buggy, so BS might not be an option for 10e at all.
We're seeing headway with getting 10e into Rosterizer, though.
Ain't ever heard of Rosterizer, but I guess I'll have to check it out.
40k Bugeater GT Update!
With the upcoming release of 10th we wanted to send out a quick announcement as we are getting a lot of questions about which edition we are using.
If the points and datasheets are available for digital download on or before June 16th we will use 10th Edition Rules. If that happens we will make another announcement shortly after in regards to list due dates/missions etc. Also, following the precedent from the community and other events in the past, we will not be allowing Aeldari at our event until GW releases a FAQ/Errata for them.
If they release one we will revisit this and update if needed. If all of the points and datasheets are not out by June 16th, we will be using 9th edition with the current GT pack that is in place.
Hope to see everyone on the 24th and 25th of June!
Here's the full text from their facebook.
I surmise there is a lot of heartburn about how easy it is for Support D-Cannon to dump 8 MW via indirect fire thanks to Strands of Fate + a backfield Farseer.
Hopefully, if army building is easier, the updated/new app to build an army will work a bit better. I didn't have issues building a DA army, but had multiple issues building an Aeldari army on the GW app.
They think premptively banning Eldar is the same as the premptive Votann ban that happened last year.
Except we have seen like 5% of the whole game for Eldar, and Votann were fully leaked a month before their release, in an edition that we knew everything about
Lord Clinto wrote: Acknowledging the Aeldari problem: Would changing the wording so that "Fate" dice used as a "6" do not count as an unmodified 6 help at all?
we litterally don't even know IF its gonna be a problem yet.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: I don't think it's even a problem, though I say that without knowing the full picture.
I mean, they took Miracle Dice, already a very good mechanic, and then made it massively better. It's basically like if they gave Space Marine Oath of Moment and then gave Tau Oaths of Moments where it's the same rule except they get to choose 3 units and also get extra attacks.
Like, yeah, it COULD be totally fine, but that's a scary place to start the conversation.
Same. Motivated > Skilled. A motivated developer will eventually become skilled more often than not.
Yeah, but potentialy in 4-5 projects down the line, by which time your company can be dead by then. If people get paid, they work. There is a milion and one projects that were started by enthusiastic people, but never got finished. The thing with GW, or any other publisher doing hobby related stuff, is that they would like to pay people as if they were a small indy developer in the 80s. Even if they are WoTC or GW right now.
Same. Motivated > Skilled. A motivated developer will eventually become skilled more often than not.
Yeah, but potentialy in 4-5 projects down the line, by which time your company can be dead by then. If people get paid, they work. There is a milion and one projects that were started by enthusiastic people, but never got finished. The thing with GW, or any other publisher doing hobby related stuff, is that they would like to pay people as if they were a small indy developer in the 80s. Even if they are WoTC or GW right now.
Money is just one type of motivation. Companies like WotC or GW (or any gaming company, really) get away with paying less (and driving people to work more) because people are willing to work for their hobby despite that, because being able work on a cool product you enjoy is much more fulfilling than working on things you don't care about just to get money. Both EA games and Ubisoft have offices in my general area and both pay significantly less money and offer significantly less benefits than my employers did, yet they never seem to have trouble to fill their openings while pretty much everyone else is.
Of course, you can't do completely without skill, but a single skilled and motivated dev is usually sufficient to turn a team of five or six motivated people into a great and productive team. Six skilled and unmotivated people will deliver something like 9th edition's app. It works exactly as written in the specification, with no thought wasted on whether those specs made sense.
In general, you earn much more money if you create software for industry appliances, insurance companies, power plants or large discounters, but you are a lot less likely to go the extra mile for a system that monitors a blast furnace than you would if you were building the army builder for the very game you are going to play twice a week.
However, I feel like this is going waaaay off topic now, we should create a separate thread for this if people are really interested in discussing this.
Hellebore wrote: Assuming they haven't borked it, I expect them to cost a lot more.
Fragile profiles with marine points costs, offset by them being very good at doing their jobs.
This. It would be interesting, different, and very fluff-appropriate to have Eldar be a faction that on paper looks weak but can punch way above its weight via shenanigans.
Maybe they will be broken, but it's silly to already treat it like a sure thing.
Niiai wrote: I looked at the Tyranid data cards. Is the neurothrope gone?
There's a lot of people sad about this but I honestly don't get why? The neurothrope to me seemed like a made up unnecessary extra HQ for no reason, the neurotyrant better fills the role than a zoanthrope with a doodad on its head.
It looks like you can overwatch to place mines with Biovores? Also seems like fun to plunk mines out of sight via Rapid Ingress, but they'll need a decent advance roll to make an impact.
Daedalus81 wrote: It looks like you can overwatch to place mines with Biovores? Also seems like fun to plunk mines out of sight via Rapid Ingress, but they'll need a decent advance roll to make an impact.
They will probably errata Biovore overwatching away. It happened in 8th too, I don't think GW likes the idea of that.
Hellebore wrote: Assuming they haven't borked it, I expect them to cost a lot more.
Fragile profiles with marine points costs, offset by them being very good at doing their jobs.
This. It would be interesting, different, and very fluff-appropriate to have Eldar be a faction that on paper looks weak but can punch way above its weight via shenanigans.
Maybe they will be broken, but it's silly to already treat it like a sure thing.
Yes, because Eldar were totally not broken in most editions of the game and there's no pattern whatsoever.
I'll take motivated over skilled. I've had programmers that were incredibly skilled, but couldn't take direction at all.
Same. Motivated > Skilled. A motivated developer will eventually become skilled more often than not.
Y'all say that until you're behind on several projects. No amount of "passion" and "willing to go beyond expectations" matters when you can't really meet expectations to begin with.
Source: worked in tech for a period of time
That's what a good manager is for -- weekly code reviews, collabs, scheduling personal development time, etc.
Getting that all to come together takes a ton of effort.
Amazon has tons of skilled workers and they get productivity by paying people a gak ton of money, but the environment is so toxic that programmers are incentivized to cut each other down.
Hellebore wrote: Assuming they haven't borked it, I expect them to cost a lot more.
Fragile profiles with marine points costs, offset by them being very good at doing their jobs.
This. It would be interesting, different, and very fluff-appropriate to have Eldar be a faction that on paper looks weak but can punch way above its weight via shenanigans.
Maybe they will be broken, but it's silly to already treat it like a sure thing.
Yes, because Eldar were totally not broken in most editions of the game and there's no pattern whatsoever.
Do to them what we did to the Votaan, I say.
What have a self entitled organised moan online and ban rules that aren't publicly available? If so, mission accomplished
It still seems a bit weird to cry before some dice are properly rolled in anger - but I do think Eldar are going to be busted. Fate Dice plus a guaranteed reroll to hit and wound is a crazy level of reliability compared to everything else in the game.
I think people are sort of... exaggerating the D-Cannon combo. It probably is broken - but points could limit it. There are also likely going to be plenty of "good" armies which can go "oh you have some D-Cannons, okay I'll just go kill them".
Its kind of like how Votann generated a lot of heat over the railgun combo. Which I agree was obviously broken and not remotely thought though. But that wasn't the "core problem" - which was that almost every Votann unit was 25%-50% undercosted vs the meta that existed. We knew what a 22 point unit looks like - and it looked nothing like a Cthonian Beserk (now up to 33 points). Hekatons for 230 (now 310) etc.
Eldar are certainly riding the line. A simple one fate die per phase per unit would probably suffice.
Even still the Eldar player should only have two sixes on average. To turn an additional 6 they need a Farseer. And that Farseer needs a bodyguard. Eldrad being a completely separate entity who ALSO needs a bodyguard. So 600+ points to fuel a unit with 24" range and 3" movement.
I imagine we'll see 6s reserved for the proc and then lower die results used for the damage.
Carnifexes were dropped to 1-2 models so we could easily see the same thing with Support Weapons. Two D-Cannons average 12 damage to a knight. With this setup if you have four shots then you get 3.5 hits. You two turn of those into MW and spend 5s on the damage roll ( turn one with the Farseer and use a 6 from the pool ). The other 1.5 hits turns into 5 damage. So that's 19 damage to a knight - probably enough to reliably kill for 450 to 500 extra points.
EDIT: Sorry 2 D-Cannons do more than 12 to a knight on average since I didn't bother to math the possible DW proc without Fate dice. Assume 6 shots that all hit -- 5.5 MW + 16.3 so 2/3 of that would be ~14 to 15.
Hellebore wrote: Assuming they haven't borked it, I expect them to cost a lot more.
Fragile profiles with marine points costs, offset by them being very good at doing their jobs.
This. It would be interesting, different, and very fluff-appropriate to have Eldar be a faction that on paper looks weak but can punch way above its weight via shenanigans.
Maybe they will be broken, but it's silly to already treat it like a sure thing.
Yes, because Eldar were totally not broken in most editions of the game and there's no pattern whatsoever.
Hellebore wrote: Assuming they haven't borked it, I expect them to cost a lot more.
Fragile profiles with marine points costs, offset by them being very good at doing their jobs.
This. It would be interesting, different, and very fluff-appropriate to have Eldar be a faction that on paper looks weak but can punch way above its weight via shenanigans.
Maybe they will be broken, but it's silly to already treat it like a sure thing.
Yes, because Eldar were totally not broken in most editions of the game and there's no pattern whatsoever.
Do to them what we did to the Votaan, I say.
GW should (politely) tell you types to STFU.
Honestly, I think the more appropriate thing is to ask 'We?'
Hellebore wrote: Assuming they haven't borked it, I expect them to cost a lot more.
Fragile profiles with marine points costs, offset by them being very good at doing their jobs.
This. It would be interesting, different, and very fluff-appropriate to have Eldar be a faction that on paper looks weak but can punch way above its weight via shenanigans.
Maybe they will be broken, but it's silly to already treat it like a sure thing.
Yes, because Eldar were totally not broken in most editions of the game and there's no pattern whatsoever.
Do to them what we did to the Votaan, I say.
GW should (politely) tell you types to STFU.
Honestly, I think the more appropriate thing is to ask 'We?'
Yeah it's a "we" because it wasn't just one person getting them banned at tournaments. Y'all can try your virtue signaling of casualism, but what we the consumers did to GW instead of laying back and accepted that crap release for Votaan was a good thing.
But no, please feel free to keep consooming because you're afraid negativity = no new models to buy.
Hellebore wrote: Assuming they haven't borked it, I expect them to cost a lot more.
Fragile profiles with marine points costs, offset by them being very good at doing their jobs.
This. It would be interesting, different, and very fluff-appropriate to have Eldar be a faction that on paper looks weak but can punch way above its weight via shenanigans.
Maybe they will be broken, but it's silly to already treat it like a sure thing.
Yes, because Eldar were totally not broken in most editions of the game and there's no pattern whatsoever.
Do to them what we did to the Votaan, I say.
What have a self entitled organised moan online and ban rules that aren't publicly available? If so, mission accomplished
Did you need the codex to be physically released to declare a problem when we had all the info to begin with?
Honestly, I think the more appropriate thing is to ask 'We?'
Yeah it's a "we" because it wasn't just one person getting them banned at tournaments. Y'all can try your virtue signaling of casualism, but what we the consumers did to GW instead of laying back and accepted that crap release for Votaan was a good thing.
But no, please feel free to keep consooming because you're afraid negativity = no new models to buy.
English, please. And coherent if you can manage it.
I'm not particularly afraid of anything in this context. Certainly not of a lack of models because someone on the internet is inexplicably aiming for personal credit for GW's rules decisions.
Daedalus81 wrote: Eldar are certainly riding the line. A simple one fate die per phase per unit would probably suffice.
Even still the Eldar player should only have two sixes on average. To turn an additional 6 they need a Farseer. And that Farseer needs a bodyguard. Eldrad being a completely separate entity who ALSO needs a bodyguard. So 600+ points to fuel a unit with 24" range and 3" movement.
I'm seeing this argument, but why do you "need" all this stuff? I mean I can understand why (points depending) you'd want Eldrad and a Farseer in the list. But that would probably be for the wider game benefit than just babysitting some D-Cannons all game. So the argument of "its 600 points" doesn't really wash.
I feel the functionality of guaranteed mortal wounds is less cracking knights and more deleting elite infantry. You can always fish for 6s anyway (with the detachment reroll) - but if you need it, you have it.
The whole issue is Eldar are going to be fast and reliable. This means you can gamble - and usually win.
Why DG are being considered bottom tier is the view (mainly driven by Terminators+Plague Marines) is that they'll be slow and not especially reliable. So you can't gamble as hard. If stuff gets stuck out of position, you are likely hoping on very long range charges and that's it. A DG list which is PBCs, MBHs, FBDs and maybe Mortarion might get around this. But if those units are inefficient for the points, the whole roster won't have legs.
Lord Damocles wrote: Ha ha! All you chumps who didn't build the optional Neurothrope or Prime have to go out and buy more models now. That'll learn ya.
...that's my Tyranids screwed them
Why? Paint a bonesword a different color, boom, Prime.
Ton of the missions require to switch places. I would like to see the DG player try to do the burn objectives mission or try to counter respawn points of GSC.
I mean it could be demons, a lot of tanks and stuff like Mort or DPs. But this will probably end up with a DG army without actual DG in them.
Something like tyranids on the other hand is not just good rules. The tyranid player may actualy want to play with his army, and not just few specific monsters. Guants, stealers etc all have their place. The only odd thing out seems to be the new flying warrior. But I assume it is because in the tyranid codex, GW is going to be adding new units, and there is going to be some sort of flying tyranid warriors unit, and he won't feel like a lone operative without lone operative.
The good thing is that there are a lot of index list that feel like that. At least to me. The DE, the ad mecha, the IG. Even the more narrative ones at least follow or try to follow the "faction fantasy". Sometimes it is not good like BAs trying to do melee in a non melee marine friendly edition, but eldar are just stupid. It is like someone sat down and decide to write rules that are a tier above everything else someone else could play, and then a second person came and added more stuff.
Lord Damocles wrote: Ha ha! All you chumps who didn't build the optional Neurothrope or Prime have to go out and buy more models now. That'll learn ya.
...that's my Tyranids screwed them
Why? Paint a bonesword a different color, boom, Prime.
No non-Tyranid player will ever be able to tell.
Unless I'm missing something, the Prime has the exact same stats and equipment, so there's no need to even differentiate it.
Did you need the codex to be physically released to declare a problem when we had all the info to begin with?
Do you have all of the 10th info?
I think points are perhaps the only real remaining piece for the 'D-Cannon problem'. We should have all the necessary rules details.
To understand how far off the "normal" power curve they are, we need to see all factions surely, as well as points? Never the less, this stupid knee-jerk banning still looks... stupid and knee-jerky.
Daedalus81 wrote: Eldar are certainly riding the line. A simple one fate die per phase per unit would probably suffice.
Even still the Eldar player should only have two sixes on average. To turn an additional 6 they need a Farseer. And that Farseer needs a bodyguard. Eldrad being a completely separate entity who ALSO needs a bodyguard. So 600+ points to fuel a unit with 24" range and 3" movement.
I imagine we'll see 6s reserved for the proc and then lower die results used for the damage.
Carnifexes were dropped to 1-2 models so we could easily see the same thing with Support Weapons. Two D-Cannons average 12 damage to a knight. With this setup if you have four shots then you get 3.5 hits. You two turn of those into MW and spend 5s on the damage roll ( turn one with the Farseer and use a 6 from the pool ). The other 1.5 hits turns into 5 damage. So that's 19 damage to a knight - probably enough to reliably kill for 450 to 500 extra points.
EDIT: Sorry 2 D-Cannons do more than 12 to a knight on average since I didn't bother to math the possible DW proc without Fate dice. Assume 6 shots that all hit -- 5.5 MW + 16.3 so 2/3 of that would be ~14 to 15.
The thing about Strands of Fate is the fact that you get all 12 up front is pretty nuts. Also, you're only going to AVERAGE 2 6s per game before farseer, but you could absolutely spike 4-6 a couple games in a row and take an event because of it. With Sisters it's balanced out by them 1. Not starting the game with any and 2. Not knowing what the ones they DO get are until they see them. Sisters could have D weapons and MD just fine.
Whether it's too powerful or not is still up in the air, but giving an army Better Miracle Dice+High Damage+Devastating wounds all at once is certainly not FUN.
Those units, and the army as a whole, have to be balanced around the idea that you can just wipe any 12ish wound model off the board for free turn 1. That's doable, but why SHOULD you? Just...don't do that? Don't give a Infinte damage weapon with devastating wound the ability to guarantee sixes.
Even if the rest of the army is fair, that interaction certainly isn't.
Tyel wrote: I'm seeing this argument, but why do you "need" all this stuff? I mean I can understand why (points depending) you'd want Eldrad and a Farseer in the list. But that would probably be for the wider game benefit than just babysitting some D-Cannons all game. So the argument of "its 600 points" doesn't really wash.
I feel the functionality of guaranteed mortal wounds is less cracking knights and more deleting elite infantry. You can always fish for 6s anyway (with the detachment reroll) - but if you need it, you have it.
The whole issue is Eldar are going to be fast and reliable. This means you can gamble - and usually win.
I pretty much agree with this. I just think some people just aren't considering some of the logistics of making this problem tick, which may or may not be blowing it out of proportion.
Why DG are being considered bottom tier is the view (mainly driven by Terminators+Plague Marines) is that they'll be slow and not especially reliable. So you can't gamble as hard. If stuff gets stuck out of position, you are likely hoping on very long range charges and that's it. A DG list which is PBCs, MBHs, FBDs and maybe Mortarion might get around this. But if those units are inefficient for the points, the whole roster won't have legs.
One thing DG benefits from in 10th that they don't have now is dumping out PM from a rhino after it moves, which is a considerable increase in mobility. Will it matter? I'm unsure as we haven't seen a lot of synergy in theirs supporting units that help DG units themselves - ( other than the very nice fights first ).
Money is just one type of motivation. Companies like WotC or GW (or any gaming company, really) get away with paying less (and driving people to work more) because people are willing to work for their hobby despite that, because being able work on a cool product you enjoy is much more fulfilling than working on things you don't care about just to get money. Both EA games and Ubisoft have offices in my general area and both pay significantly less money and offer significantly less benefits than my employers did, yet they never seem to have trouble to fill their openings while pretty much everyone else is.
Of course, you can't do completely without skill, but a single skilled and motivated dev is usually sufficient to turn a team of five or six motivated people into a great and productive team.
Six skilled and unmotivated people will deliver something like 9th edition's app. It works exactly as written in the specification, with no thought wasted on whether those specs made sense.
In general, you earn much more money if you create software for industry appliances, insurance companies, power plants or large discounters, but you are a lot less likely to go the extra mile for a system that monitors a blast furnace than you would if you were building the army builder for the very game you are going to play twice a week.
However, I feel like this is going waaaay off topic now, we should create a separate thread for this if people are really interested in discussing this.
Everything is money. Benefits, the ability to show at the next job that you worked for X on the Y project and you made money. There is a reason why in sports some people are willing to join federations and club and warm a bench for a seson. The 1 skilled and 5 non skilled people sounds like a bad reality. We even have a proverb about it. Still it is better to have 6 skilled people working on a project, then 1 being tortured by the inability of 5 other people who can't keep up, or worse who unload, especialy during crunch time, all the work load on the person who knows what they are doing.
For me GW is not going to make an army builder, that is good, because they don't have to. Their products sell anyway. Other companies established or new, if they try or would try to what we call "pulling a GW" they would go down hard.
Karol wrote: The good thing is that there are a lot of index list that feel like that. At least to me. The DE, the ad mecha, the IG.
From what I can tell from looking at Guard, there are some very spicy combos in there. Like 2+ rerollable indirect fire, or regenerating 4++ kreigers. They really feel like an army that can pound you into oblivion if given half a chance.
tneva82 wrote: Well i would like to know what stuff other armies can do.
And points are big. Is eldrad so appeling if it costs same as knight
I don't think it matter much what else others will do, because the effect is pretty measurable as it stands right now. I can't see anything in Nids that rises to that level even if they have some very interesting things like spore mines.
And obviously Eldrad won't be crazy points. I do expect Eldar points to go up. It's entirely possible they don't. Nothing about what they're doing means there won't be a messy launch. And that's fine as long as they address it with some relative speed.
And the nice thing about that is everything they put out right now is digital so they don't have any big excuse to not deal with stuff that is clearly out of whack.
Well i would like to know what stuff other armies can do.
And points are big. Is eldrad so appeling if it costs same as knight
Well they can't put 3x12 wounds, thanks to full re-rolls, in to three different targets while having only one tank in LoS. Phantasm more or less makes it impossible for a single unit moving less then 8" to reach a single unit of eldar in melee. In any enviroment where 6's enhance rolls, being able to just get them is a super powerful rule. Their relics are annoying especialy the phoenix thingy, because with how hard it is to kill them, a farseer standing up on a +2 is not something one wants to see. Blade storm on a fully unit of jetbikes with scatter lasers is killing medium and elite infantry and even has chance to damage lighter tanks. All the dreads for other factions lost the -1D rule. For eldar their war walker,dreads etc actualy gained rules. A warwalker has more rules then a GM NDK, better stats, better guns, better BS and is harder to kill. while being just a regular vehicle.
Among the index armies there are good and bad armies, but Eldar are like early 9th harlequins or pre nerf DE codex in 9th level of powerful. Stuff like the D-canons is just one of many things they have. They practicaly have no handicaps, and the one they do have, which is being caught in melee with some units, is made hard to impossible to achive by a combination of eldar speed and stratagems. And this is just the index. When the codex come out they will have more detachment, more stratagems for them and who knows maybe even a new unit.
Did you need the codex to be physically released to declare a problem when we had all the info to begin with?
Do you have all of the 10th info?
We have enough, and it wasn't hard with even minimal info to figure out the power combos. People do it here, in Reddit, various Facebook groups.
GW gives no reason for "wait and see" to be a response that you feel so intent on giving, and look at the power we had to not "wait and see" with Votaan.
Did you need the codex to be physically released to declare a problem when we had all the info to begin with?
Do you have all of the 10th info?
We have enough, and it wasn't hard with even minimal info to figure out the power combos. People do it here, in Reddit, various Facebook groups.
GW gives no reason for "wait and see" to be a response that you feel so intent on giving, and look at the power we had to not "wait and see" with Votaan.
You don't even have points yet. You're broadcasting it's good and fair for an event hosting a 10th ed tournament with a cut off before the launch box release date, to ban eldar players who have produced a grand total of 0 data to support the banning, to not turn up after buying tickets to a 9th ed event. It's bs and shouldn't stand. Even if the concern is correct over the d-cannons, banning a full army is too strong of a response when you can simply ban a unit or houserule strands.
Did you need the codex to be physically released to declare a problem when we had all the info to begin with?
Do you have all of the 10th info?
We have enough, and it wasn't hard with even minimal info to figure out the power combos. People do it here, in Reddit, various Facebook groups.
GW gives no reason for "wait and see" to be a response that you feel so intent on giving, and look at the power we had to not "wait and see" with Votaan.
You don't even have points yet. You're broadcasting it's good and fair for an event hosting a 10th ed tournament with a cut off before the launch box release date, to ban eldar players who have produced a grand total of 0 data to support the banning, to not turn up after buying tickets to a 9th ed event. It's bs and shouldn't stand. Even if the concern is correct over the d-cannons, banning a full army is too strong of a response when you can simply ban a unit or houserule strands.
Nah, that doesn't send a message to GW's writing team.
And yes, as long as we get correct info via leaks or GW, I believe tournaments and stores banning entire armies is good for the long term health of the game. If GW doesn't want to try to get it right the first time with obvious issues, we shouldn't try to accommodate their rules as such.
All you're doing is showing why banning Votaan worked out in the end.
Gert wrote: Every day I am vindicated in my disdain for competitive events.
some games are suited to competitive environments, had a lot of fun with Flames of War's 3rd edition for example, heck warhammer was fun if you were careful to pick events where even seriously players knew to lighten up a bit with slightly silly scenarios designed to break up the meta a bit
I've done two 40k "events", on an actual tournament which scored firmly as "never again", and the second an interclub challenge where fortunately they had a player with the same rough ability as me.. that was gun because while competitive it wasn't too serious
40k can be a lot of fun, if both players approach it with the mindset of "how do I make this game fun for my opponent?" (this doesn't mean not trying to win btw), but its not and likely never will be tightly written enough for an actual competitive event - if you want that give the background over to the guys who wrote Star Fleet Battles, you will get a very tightly written game.. but it won't be 40k
some people love the min/max "I won in the list building phase", and fair play to them, when they find like minded players, I just want to spend a few hours killing time with friends and maybe chucking a few dice, letting legends be born, and legends be killed.
Karol wrote: The good thing is that there are a lot of index list that feel like that. At least to me. The DE, the ad mecha, the IG.
From what I can tell from looking at Guard, there are some very spicy combos in there. Like 2+ rerollable indirect fire, or regenerating 4++ kreigers. They really feel like an army that can pound you into oblivion if given half a chance.
Point of order - kreigers can't regenerate at all.
Their dataslate includes the rules for a medi-pack but they have no way to actually obtain one. So GW might as well have written instructions for playing the banjo on their dataslate for all the difference it makes.
vipoid wrote: Point of order - kreigers can't regenerate at all.
Their dataslate includes the rules for a medi-pack but they have no way to actually obtain one. So GW might as well have written instructions for playing the banjo on their dataslate for all the difference it makes.
Oh sure, I pointed that out to people myself. However, I think it is pretty safe to assume that will be fixed in the first faq, if GW has any claim to competence at all.
Another fun rule people may not have seen: you can use plasmaguns to divert psyker hazardous wounds onto the lesser models then regenerate the dkok plasmagunner (pending medipack fix).
tneva82 wrote: Well i would like to know what stuff other armies can do.
And points are big. Is eldrad so appeling if it costs same as knight
I don't think it matter much what else others will do, because the effect is pretty measurable as it stands right now. I can't see anything in Nids that rises to that level even if they have some very interesting things like spore mines.
And obviously Eldrad won't be crazy points. I do expect Eldar points to go up. It's entirely possible they don't. Nothing about what they're doing means there won't be a messy launch. And that's fine as long as they address it with some relative speed.
And the nice thing about that is everything they put out right now is digital so they don't have any big excuse to not deal with stuff that is clearly out of whack.
A lot of the problem could be solved by just pulling devastating wounds off of units that look like they're perfectly fine already without need to barf out a bunch of mortals.
That said, until we get all the sheets and points, who knows if it's even necessary? Maybe guardians are their only battleline have the stats of Grots but cost 35pts per model so THAT'S why everything else is so good.
Same. Motivated > Skilled. A motivated developer will eventually become skilled more often than not.
Yeah, but potentialy in 4-5 projects down the line, by which time your company can be dead by then. If people get paid, they work. There is a milion and one projects that were started by enthusiastic people, but never got finished. The thing with GW, or any other publisher doing hobby related stuff, is that they would like to pay people as if they were a small indy developer in the 80s. Even if they are WoTC or GW right now.
Money is just one type of motivation. Companies like WotC or GW (or any gaming company, really) get away with paying less (and driving people to work more) because people are willing to work for their hobby despite that, because being able work on a cool product you enjoy is much more fulfilling than working on things you don't care about just to get money. Both EA games and Ubisoft have offices in my general area and both pay significantly less money and offer significantly less benefits than my employers did, yet they never seem to have trouble to fill their openings while pretty much everyone else is.
How many of their openings stay filled? And how many are open again because by the time their dev is more proficient and not a recent college grad looking for their first job they've figured out they can go somewhere else for more money and just buy more toys?
Daedalus81 wrote: It looks like you can overwatch to place mines with Biovores? Also seems like fun to plunk mines out of sight via Rapid Ingress, but they'll need a decent advance roll to make an impact.
They will probably errata Biovore overwatching away. It happened in 8th too, I don't think GW likes the idea of that.
When something keeps coming back but goes away again its usually the opposite - GW REALLY likes the idea, but can't figure out how to do it right.
There's no reason to nest you Tyrannocyte inside a Tyrannocyte inside a Tyrannocyte.
It's just a silly unintended thing because they have (once again) failed to factor that into writing the rule.
[EDIT]: I checked. 8th had a specific note that a Tyrannocyte could not transport another Tyrannocyte. 9th and 10th do not have this note.
I'd say Jidmah was right, the RAW does prevent it - because if one Tyrannocyte is embarked it is not set up "high in the sky". The rule could/should have been clearer.
There's no reason to nest you Tyrannocyte inside a Tyrannocyte inside a Tyrannocyte.
It's just a silly unintended thing because they have (once again) failed to factor that into writing the rule.
[EDIT]: I checked. 8th had a specific note that a Tyrannocyte could not transport another Tyrannocyte. 9th and 10th do not have this note.
I'd say Jidmah was right, the RAW does prevent it - because if one Tyrannocyte is embarked it is not set up "high in the sky". The rule could/should have been clearer.
JNAProductions wrote: I won't-I think GW just forgot to make matryoshka Tyrranocytes impossible.
For, as I said, the third Codex in a row, IIRC.
We laugh, because it's easier than crying.
Remember, this is the management and coordination that we deal with. Management that can't make ruleswriters adhere to a design ethos for a full 3 year period or the far shorter 1-2 year codex release period. I.o.w. QA is once again... not existent, allready,
There's no reason to nest you Tyrannocyte inside a Tyrannocyte inside a Tyrannocyte.
It's just a silly unintended thing because they have (once again) failed to factor that into writing the rule.
[EDIT]: I checked. 8th had a specific note that a Tyrannocyte could not transport another Tyrannocyte. 9th and 10th do not have this note.
I'd say Jidmah was right, the RAW does prevent it - because if one Tyrannocyte is embarked it is not set up "high in the sky". The rule could/should have been clearer.
Looks like the Tyranids have quite a variety of interesting units in their datacards, the Toxicrene looks a bit better than before as well and Old One Eye as a leader looks pretty good. I am looking forward to playing against them and I'm glad they are getting some updated models.
Lord Clinto wrote: Personally, I'm disappointed that GW made it so that "Primaris" leaders can only lead "Primaris" units...
"Sorry Brother, I'm a Primaris Captain. I can't lead your Tactical Squad...for reasons."
It's Big Brain GW preventing potential broken interactions. I mean, could you imagine the unintended consequences of a Primaris Techmarine leading an Infernus Squad?
Also big brained of GW to fix the Vanguard unit entry to be less useful than the basic Assault Marine one.
"I'm sorry sir, but you cannot join our unit." "Brother-Sergeant Hephastor! We have known each other for nearly 20 years. I remember when we first joined the Chapter, and had our grey armour painted glorious Ultramarine blue! You have risen to lead a squad of hardened veterans - true guardians of the Emperor's Galaxy - and I have risen to the rank of Company Captain. Surely you would not begrudge me to fight along side an old friend? "I'm afraid not sir, I cannot allow it." "Whatever for, Brother-Sergeant?" "You... you don't have a Plasma Pistol sir. I'm sorry, but we Hellblasters are a unique breed. Sometimes our guns explode and kill us, so we come back to life briefly to fire our exploded guns before dying again, and the thought of having someone join us who doesn't have a Plasma Pistol just... it's just unconscionable, sir!" "Uhh... go back a bit. Did you say come back to life?" "Again, I apologise Brother-Captain, but we cannot speak until you have a Plasma Pistol. Which means you'll have to give up the shield and sword you've been using for years as well, because can only have a Power Fist if you have a Plasma Pistol."
H.B.M.C. wrote: "I'm sorry sir, but you cannot join our unit."
"Brother-Sergeant Hephastor! We have known each other for nearly 20 years. I remember when we first joined the Chapter, and had our grey armour painted glorious Ultramarine blue! You have risen to lead a squad of hardened veterans - true guardians of the Emperor's Galaxy - and I have risen to the rank of Company Captain. Surely you would not begrudge me to fight along side an old friend?
"I'm afraid not sir, I cannot allow it."
"Whatever for, Brother-Sergeant?"
"You... you don't have a Plasma Pistol sir. I'm sorry, but we Hellblasters are a unique breed. Sometimes our guns explode and kill us, so we come back to life briefly to fire our exploded guns before dying again, and the thought of having someone join us who doesn't have a Plasma Pistol just... it's just unconscionable, sir!"
"Uhh... go back a bit. Did you come back to life?"
"Again, I apologise Brother-Captain, but we cannot speak until you have a Plasma Pistol. Which means you'll have to give up the shield and sword you've been using for years as well, because can only have a Power Fist if you have a Plasma Pistol."
That'll show him for taking the promotion from Lieutenant!
The Red Hobbit wrote: Looks like the Tyranids have quite a variety of interesting units in their datacards, the Toxicrene looks a bit better than before as well and Old One Eye as a leader looks pretty good. I am looking forward to playing against them and I'm glad they are getting some updated models.
What confuses me is why they've bothered calling out unit leaders for a few things- Neurogaunts, Zoanthropes, Warriors- if the leader doesn't get different stats, different wargear, or otherwise have any gameplay significance. It might as well just be another of the same trooper.
H.B.M.C. wrote: "I'm sorry sir, but you cannot join our unit."
"Brother-Sergeant Hephastor! We have known each other for nearly 20 years. I remember when we first joined the Chapter, and had our grey armour painted glorious Ultramarine blue! You have risen to lead a squad of hardened veterans - true guardians of the Emperor's Galaxy - and I have risen to the rank of Company Captain. Surely you would not begrudge me to fight along side an old friend?
"I'm afraid not sir, I cannot allow it."
"Whatever for, Brother-Sergeant?"
"You... you don't have a Plasma Pistol sir. I'm sorry, but we Hellblasters are a unique breed. Sometimes our guns explode and kill us, so we come back to life briefly to fire our exploded guns before dying again, and the thought of having someone join us who doesn't have a Plasma Pistol just... it's just unconscionable, sir!"
"Uhh... go back a bit. Did you say come back to life?"
"Again, I apologise Brother-Captain, but we cannot speak until you have a Plasma Pistol. Which means you'll have to give up the shield and sword you've been using for years as well, because can only have a Power Fist if you have a Plasma Pistol."
This is a silly game.
Yup, fething weird beyond a doubt given the Lieutenant escapes the same fate.
H.B.M.C. wrote: "I'm sorry sir, but you cannot join our unit."
"Brother-Sergeant Hephastor! We have known each other for nearly 20 years. I remember when we first joined the Chapter, and had our grey armour painted glorious Ultramarine blue! You have risen to lead a squad of hardened veterans - true guardians of the Emperor's Galaxy - and I have risen to the rank of Company Captain. Surely you would not begrudge me to fight along side an old friend?
"I'm afraid not sir, I cannot allow it."
"Whatever for, Brother-Sergeant?"
"You... you don't have a Plasma Pistol sir. I'm sorry, but we Hellblasters are a unique breed. Sometimes our guns explode and kill us, so we come back to life briefly to fire our exploded guns before dying again, and the thought of having someone join us who doesn't have a Plasma Pistol just... it's just unconscionable, sir!"
"Uhh... go back a bit. Did you come back to life?"
"Again, I apologise Brother-Captain, but we cannot speak until you have a Plasma Pistol. Which means you'll have to give up the shield and sword you've been using for years as well, because can only have a Power Fist if you have a Plasma Pistol."
That'll show him for taking the promotion from Lieutenant!
Just don't tell GW because they'll make sure to correct the PDF so that only Lts with a Plasma Pistol can join Hellblasters.
Lord Clinto wrote: Personally, I'm disappointed that GW made it so that "Primaris" leaders can only lead "Primaris" units...
"Sorry Brother, I'm a Primaris Captain. I can't lead your Tactical Squad...for reasons."
There's still some transport nonsense, too.
Its mostly gone from the big tanks and drop pods, but rhinos, razorbacks and impulsors still have an 'armor check'
Trickstick wrote: So do you think tournaments will ban Space Marines now? If we just ban all factions, the game will be balanced.
If it gets GW to fix the options, absolutely. We need to consumers, not consoomers. We need to tell GW every PDF with the same quality as Marines and Tyranids will not be played.
Trickstick wrote: So do you think tournaments will ban Space Marines now? If we just ban all factions, the game will be balanced.
If it gets GW to fix the options, absolutely. We need to consumers, not consoomers. We need to tell GW every PDF with the same quality as Marines and Tyranids will not be played.
It's impossible until we get points though, because I can reply to almost every argument you make with "wait for points" and be correct. Not that I am saying the points are going to make things perfect, just that a proper analysis can hardly be made without them.
Trickstick wrote: So do you think tournaments will ban Space Marines now? If we just ban all factions, the game will be balanced.
If it gets GW to fix the options, absolutely. We need to consumers, not consoomers. We need to tell GW every PDF with the same quality as Marines and Tyranids will not be played.
Trickstick wrote: So do you think tournaments will ban Space Marines now? If we just ban all factions, the game will be balanced.
If it gets GW to fix the options, absolutely. We need to consumers, not consoomers. We need to tell GW every PDF with the same quality as Marines and Tyranids will not be played.
It's impossible until we get points though, because I can reply to almost every argument you make with "wait for points" and be correct. Not that I am saying the points are going to make things perfect, just that a proper analysis can hardly be made without them.
A list of points isn't going to fix the Tyranid Warrior or Vanguard Vet situation.
Trickstick wrote: So do you think tournaments will ban Space Marines now? If we just ban all factions, the game will be balanced.
If it gets GW to fix the options, absolutely. We need to consumers, not consoomers. We need to tell GW every PDF with the same quality as Marines and Tyranids will not be played.
It's impossible until we get points though, because I can reply to almost every argument you make with "wait for points" and be correct. Not that I am saying the points are going to make things perfect, just that a proper analysis can hardly be made without them.
A list of points isn't going to fix the Tyranid Warrior or Vanguard Vet situation.
They're not broken, you just don't like them. Unlike the warriors though, vanguard vets are able to have an illegal loadout atm which maybe needs an errata in the event either player has 0 imagination. Given there isn't a picture of a vanguard vet on the card they're also either going to get legends or primaris'd like the sternguard in a couple of months likely.
Trickstick wrote: So do you think tournaments will ban Space Marines now? If we just ban all factions, the game will be balanced.
If it gets GW to fix the options, absolutely. We need to consumers, not consoomers. We need to tell GW every PDF with the same quality as Marines and Tyranids will not be played.
Hammer of Wrath on Assault Marines needs to be clearer, it's easy to interpret it as "roll for each model in the enemy unit".
Imagine a 5 man Assault Squad hitting a 20 strong unit of Termagants and rolling 20 dice, each killing a Gant on a 4+ with Mortal Wounds, before they even swing attacks.
Trickstick wrote: So do you think tournaments will ban Space Marines now? If we just ban all factions, the game will be balanced.
If it gets GW to fix the options, absolutely. We need to consumers, not consoomers. We need to tell GW every PDF with the same quality as Marines and Tyranids will not be played.
I suspect they'll all be like this.
And we should NOT accept it.
Maybe you should not be telling people whether they are allowed to think reduced options is acceptable?
Trickstick wrote: So do you think tournaments will ban Space Marines now? If we just ban all factions, the game will be balanced.
If it gets GW to fix the options, absolutely. We need to consumers, not consoomers. We need to tell GW every PDF with the same quality as Marines and Tyranids will not be played.
It's impossible until we get points though, because I can reply to almost every argument you make with "wait for points" and be correct. Not that I am saying the points are going to make things perfect, just that a proper analysis can hardly be made without them.
A list of points isn't going to fix the Tyranid Warrior or Vanguard Vet situation.
They're not broken, you just don't like them. Unlike the warriors though, vanguard vets are able to have an illegal loadout atm which maybe needs an errata in the event either player has 0 imagination. Given there isn't a picture of a vanguard vet on the card they're also either going to get legends or primaris'd like the sternguard in a couple of months likely.
I'm sure you would've used the same post to defend what happened to Chosen as well.
Trickstick wrote: So do you think tournaments will ban Space Marines now? If we just ban all factions, the game will be balanced.
If it gets GW to fix the options, absolutely. We need to consumers, not consoomers. We need to tell GW every PDF with the same quality as Marines and Tyranids will not be played.
I suspect they'll all be like this.
And we should NOT accept it.
Maybe you should not be telling people whether they are allowed to think reduced options is acceptable?
Bruh, Vanguard literally lost any heavy power weapon and dual pistol options. They got Chosenfied
The Red Hobbit wrote: Looks like the Tyranids have quite a variety of interesting units in their datacards, the Toxicrene looks a bit better than before as well and Old One Eye as a leader looks pretty good. I am looking forward to playing against them and I'm glad they are getting some updated models.
What confuses me is why they've bothered calling out unit leaders for a few things- Neurogaunts, Zoanthropes, Warriors- if the leader doesn't get different stats, different wargear, or otherwise have any gameplay significance. It might as well just be another of the same trooper.
I thought that was pretty odd as well, my thought is that may be future proofing. Those units may get distinguished with an ability in the codex or perhaps a White Dwarf. Could also be that the unit card will remain plain but certain detachments will boost leaders with certain keywords.
Insectum7 wrote: Hammer of Wrath on Assault Marines needs to be clearer, it's easy to interpret it as "roll for each model in the enemy unit".
Imagine a 5 man Assault Squad hitting a 20 strong unit of Termagants and rolling 20 dice, each killing a Gant on a 4+.
This=own, that=enemy. For once gw been consistent on terms for long long time.
That's fair, but it still looks to be easily misinterpretable.
Eh.
'When this unit charges, roll dice for each model in this unit' seems hard to misinterpret.
Actual wording makes it clearer:
"Hammer of Wrath: Each time this unit ends a Charge move, select one enemy unit within Engagement Range of it and roll one D6 for each model in this unit: for each 4+, that enemy unit suffers 1 mortal wound."
So I can see easy confusion over the wording around "select one enemy unit... each model in this unit"
Insectum7 wrote: Hammer of Wrath on Assault Marines needs to be clearer, it's easy to interpret it as "roll for each model in the enemy unit".
Imagine a 5 man Assault Squad hitting a 20 strong unit of Termagants and rolling 20 dice, each killing a Gant on a 4+.
This=own, that=enemy. For once gw been consistent on terms for long long time.
That's fair, but it still looks to be easily misinterpretable.
Eh.
'When this unit charges, roll dice for each model in this unit' seems hard to misinterpret.
Sure. But I had to read it twice and give it a think. Maybe I'm dumb. But I won't be alone in that
I see it like video game testing (which I'm more proffessionally familiar with than proofreading), where you witness players do mind boggling things. I just wonder if there were a non-legalese way to be clearer.
I know it's just an editing issue but the LS Typhoon is shown with a Typhoon Launcher, Multimelta & Assault Cannon.
And I noticed that Tac Squads are mandatory 10-men now. Fluffy...yes, tactically sound...no, I don't think so. At least they can be armed with 2 of the same special weapons if they want.
Edit: Additionally, something that's been grinding my gears for years now: WHY DOES AN ELIMINATOR SERGEANT NEED TO HAVE A SPECIFIC WEAPON TO USE THE REDPLOY ABILITY? WTF???
Insectum7 wrote: Hammer of Wrath on Assault Marines needs to be clearer, it's easy to interpret it as "roll for each model in the enemy unit".
Imagine a 5 man Assault Squad hitting a 20 strong unit of Termagants and rolling 20 dice, each killing a Gant on a 4+.
This=own, that=enemy. For once gw been consistent on terms for long long time.
That's fair, but it still looks to be easily misinterpretable.
Eh.
'When this unit charges, roll dice for each model in this unit' seems hard to misinterpret.
Sure. But I had to read it twice and give it a think. Maybe I'm dumb. But I won't be alone in that
I see it like video game testing (which I'm more proffessionally familiar with than proofreading), where you witness players do mind boggling things. I just wonder if there were a non-legalese way to be clearer.
Ah. I come from the other direction, and the only form of protection from dumb misreadings is the route of library and museum signage, and write everything at the 5th grade reading level (~10 years old, for non-US folks). And even that doesn't stop people.
What works is basically peer pressuring folks who read it wrong (and especially the ones who want to willfully misinterpret things) with the collective understanding of everyone else.
EightFoldPath wrote: I still want to see the Blast rule written down just to make sure we aren't missing something, if it is:
1~5 models (which includes lone models like vehicles): +1 attack
6~10: +2
11~15: +3
It feels off.
It gets wonky as soon as you give every model in a 5 man or 10 man unit a blast weapon. Examples from 9th - Einhyr Hearthguard, Warp Spiders. 10 Warp Spiders as written in 9th but with 10th Blast rule would get 10d6 + 40 shots (75 average) into a 20 man unit of Guard and possibly + 10 if you attach a Leader model to push the unit from 16~20 to 21~25.
It gets really wild if you can dual wield blast weapons (and have them not be twin linked). Examples from 9th - Desolation Squad, Crisis Suits with AFB. 10 Desolation Squad as written in 9th but with 10th Blast rule and Super Frag as their main weapon would get 10d3 + 30 + 40 + 10d3 + 40 (150 average) into a 20 man unit of Guard and possibly + 20 if you attach a Leader model.
Of course, we've not seen those units yet. I'm mainly interested to see if they spotted the problem and found a fix. I think if Blast works as we think, you could even have a compelling 1 shot weapon with Blast on a 10 man squad.
CSM, Necrons and IG have all looked a bit undercooked to me. My (conspiracy) theory is:
- That Space Marines and Tyranids are getting their codex rules previewed.
- Everyone else will have their index rules previewed.
- This leaves room for GW to add another 20% to the later codexes to sell them.
You're jumping the gun on this when the grenade launcher went from D6 to D3. They're aware of the potential. Inceptors abused the hell out of the old rule and now will likely be twin linked instead.
Super Frag Desolation Squads are in fact 10d6 + 10 + 40 + 10d3 + 40 = 145 shots on average into a 20 man unit of Guard.
Citizen, it turns out in fact GW were not aware of the potential of their own rules.
Insectum7 wrote: Hammer of Wrath on Assault Marines needs to be clearer, it's easy to interpret it as "roll for each model in the enemy unit".
Imagine a 5 man Assault Squad hitting a 20 strong unit of Termagants and rolling 20 dice, each killing a Gant on a 4+.
This=own, that=enemy. For once gw been consistent on terms for long long time.
That's fair, but it still looks to be easily misinterpretable.
Eh.
'When this unit charges, roll dice for each model in this unit' seems hard to misinterpret.
Sure. But I had to read it twice and give it a think. Maybe I'm dumb. But I won't be alone in that
I see it like video game testing (which I'm more proffessionally familiar with than proofreading), where you witness players do mind boggling things. I just wonder if there were a non-legalese way to be clearer.
Ah. I come from the other direction, and the only form of protection from dumb misreadings is the route of library and museum signage, and write everything at the 5th grade reading level (~10 years old, for non-US folks). And even that doesn't stop people.
What works is basically peer pressuring folks who read it wrong (and especially the ones who want to willfully misinterpret things) with the collective understanding of everyone else.
All well and good, but I bet there's a clearer way write it. Like "roll a dice for each model in the charging unit, on a 4+ yada yada yada"
Lord Clinto wrote: I know it's just an editing issue but the LS Typhoon is shown with a Typhoon Launcher, Multimelta & Assault Cannon.
And I noticed that Tac Squads are mandatory 10-men now. Fluffy...yes, tactically sound...no, I don't think so. At least they can be armed with 2 of the same special weapons if they want.
Edit: Additionally, something that's been grinding my gears for years now: WHY DOES AN ELIMITAOR SERGEANT NEED TO HAVE A SPECIFIC WEAPON TO USE THE REDPLOY ABILITY? WTF???
because they designed a model with a cool carbine like weapon and needed to create a reason for anyone to actaully use it as oppose to bringing another sniper rifle.
for a less cynical answer, they wanted to create a sidegrade option where you reduce your primary damage, but gain a defensive ability as a result.
Interestingly, the Las Fusils got better, their now str 9, damage D6 (was str 8, Damage 3). They seem a lot better at the "anti-material rifle", light vehicle counter role they were intended to be used in (although 2 or 3 shots is still a bit iffy in terms of reliability to wound), but have lost a lot of utility against harder targets
speaking of eliminators, I wonder if deathwatch can still run squads of 5 of them via kill team shenanigans?
Its mostly gone from the big tanks and drop pods, but rhinos, razorbacks and impulsors still have an 'armor check'
If you mean Terminators can't embark on a Rhino etc, I expected that.
Some of the things I noticed - GW should be buying Vanguard Vets dinner. Not only did they get hit harder than the Sternguard without even a Mortal Wounds mechanic but they're also susceptible to everybody and their sister having an Anti-Fly 2+
The Bikes took a step back (Their Twin bolt-X's are not heavy or assault) but the Bike Captain makes them (and everything else including the attached ATV) assault borrowing from the Ravenguard Detachment special rules.
Again, just about everything and it's sister has Anti-Fly 2+.
Grav and Dreads are likely to be King.
The "Escort" abilities are a neat twist. Go ahead, shoot the Phobos troops camping on the objective right next to the Warsuits.
Incursors shooting first with Oath of Moment feels little mean. I get +1 to hit, and reroll everything?
The Primaris Company Champion came back from Legends.
The Primaris Company Command being Seperate and Super Attached SuperMan compared to the firstborn being normal dudes is a bit of a head scratcher.
The BGV squad from Indomitus has a pretty hefty once per game Alpha Strike - and the Reroll 1's on your 4+ Invulns is interesting.
Primaris/Firstborn Libbies giving Power Armored non-SS dudes a 4++ is nice.
Termie Squads led by a Termie Chaplain for 2+, 4++, 4+++ feels pretty tanky.
Techmarine + Servitors can join a Tac Squad which is kinda wonky, though four hidden 1A Power Fists or 2 extra HB/MM/PC has potential.
The Firstborn/Old School Command Squad is stuck at 5 (Deathwing Command Squad could go to 10) and can't join another unit it would appear, making a strange choice between 10 man squad for max Character buffing and ablative wounds, or 2 ablative models and the specialists.
Regular Intercessors have Sticky Capping, which is nice, they kind of needing something with Heavy Intercessors around.
Scout Squad Guerilla Tactics feels like something sneaky, probably some sort of Outflank potential.
The stealthy snipers with the 12" change to Camo Cloaks looks nice.
Reivers appear to stack. For now - Terror Troops is triggered by "this unit" not "a unit of Reivers" so each "this unit" gives you a -1. For now.
Terminator Assault Squads - in addition to the Reivers - can trigger a Battle Shock Test before the fighting starts - with a different rule which could mean 2 tests at -3 before fighting.
The Contemptor Dread is absolutely hilarious. Better Assault Cannon, 5++, comes back to life on a 2+.
The Brutalis is a monster - even before the Brutalis Charge.
And yes, the Hellblasters being able to kill themselves by overcharging, and then shoot again overcharged is... epic.
Erads aren't going away.
The Desolation Squad ignoring the downsides of Indirect fire on their Castellans is nice.
The TFC got it's Fun (Tremor Shells) back, but the gunner lots the Blessing of the Omnissiah.
Servo Turrets Overwatching on a 4+ could get irritating fast - but I see issues with getting it on them reliably and cheaply enough to make them worth it.
The Predators have a nice bespoke rule - the Destructor especially.
The Gladiators aren't bad, but the Predators definitely closed the distance on them.
The Vindicator looks nice too.
The Repulsor Defensive Array is very funny.
Drop Pod Assault rules survived, and are on the Drop Pod itself.
The Storm Raven is one of the few flyers that might have a shot - with -1D per attack, and the restriction on Dreadnaught embarkation removed now able to drop some nasty infantry, and a Brutalis right on top of someone.
The Bunker got even better, even though you still may not be able to place it - I haven't looked to see how the rules changed - it could make for a GREAT way to save your Sticky Caps but shooting the unit trying to cap it since it needs to be under opponent control at the start or end of the turn.
Cassius may be one of the few ways to make Vanguard Vets pay off.
Calgar's Victrix are no longer optional, and can't be taken for other Heros anymore. And lost their Super Duper Ultramar 3++ Stormshields (but that was expected - I kind of hoped they'd get a Heavy Bolt Pistol as a couple fancy pants BGV guards but oh well) Calgar's Gravis armor is fast.
Chronus still can't pilot Primaris tanks, but almost all the firstborn got better enough its not as painful of a loss.
Telion giving Sniper Scouts Sustained Hits is ok, Precision on the close combat ones would be entertaining.
The Tyrannic War Vets are extremely disappointing bringing back the Preferred Enemy stuff.
Uriel Ventris and his Master Of The Fleet is very interesting. Any one INFANTRY unit - like Gravis - can deep strike without a Drop Pod or Terminator Armor.
Lysander making S6-9 wound his Terminators on 4's and 10+ on 3's isn't too shabby.
Tor Garadon is pretty beefy but very short ranged for Gravis Speed. If he ever does get to actually punch a hefty vehicle - like say a knight - have a camera on the oponent for their reaction to 5 S14 -4 D4 hits that follow the 2 Anti-vehicle 2+ -3 D4 shots.
Pedro is fairly lackluster.
Shrike flies.
Both Salamanders SC's have some potential.
Khan is pretty meh. Maybe the force multiplication is more than it looks like but I don't know... I can see some benefit to Lance on Assault intercessors or Assault on Sternguard - but regular intercessors already have assault and don't really have CCWs worthy of lance. As for Trophy Taker, how many characters will there be on the table?
Interestingly, the Las Fusils got better, their now str 9, damage D6 (was str 8, Damage 3). They seem a lot better at the "anti-material rifle", light vehicle counter role they were intended to be used in (although 2 or 3 shots is still a bit iffy in terms of reliability to wound), but have lost a lot of utility against harder targets
They got better, but not as better as the Lascannon they were shorter range versions of which went to S12 D6+1 or whatever.
If you mean Terminators can't embark on a Rhino etc, I expected that.
No. No one was even considering terminators, gravis or jump packs in rhinos- that was expected by everyone.
I'm saying the primaris restrictions on vehicles still exist for rhinos, razorbacks and impulsors:
Phobos and Tacticus keywords (so Intercessors, Sternguard, Reivers, Incursors and that other I-word) can't board rhinos or razorbacks.
And impulsors are limited to only phobos and tacticus, so old marines still can't board them.
Its particularly annoying for Sternguard, because they created a situation where you can use old marine models for them, but they can't be joined by old marine characters or ride in old marine transports.
EightFoldPath wrote: Super Frag Desolation Squads are in fact 10d6 + 10 + 40 + 10d3 + 40 = 145 shots on average into a 20 man unit of Guard.
Citizen, it turns out in fact GW were not aware of the potential of their own rules.
Yeah, its kind of crazy.
I'm also a bit mystified by the rise of "this unit can shoot through walls!" ("the penalty for indirect fire is -1 to hit and the target gains cover.")
But uh... these guys are actually really good at shooting through walls so, uh, give them +1 to hit and ignores cover. As a treat.
If you mean Terminators can't embark on a Rhino etc, I expected that.
No. No one was even considering terminators, gravis or jump packs in rhinos- that was expected by everyone.
I'm saying the primaris restrictions on vehicles still exist for rhinos, razorbacks and impulsors:
Phobos and Tacticus keywords (so Intercessors, Sternguard, Reivers, Incursors and that other I-word) can't board rhinos or razorbacks.
And impulsors are limited to only phobos and tacticus, so old marines still can't board them.
Wow.
Minus a couple of exceptions,* Space Marine transports no longer care whether a Primaris unit is riding in the back or not.
* The Rhino, Razorback, and Impulsor are still specialised for certain squad types, and many larger models like Terminators and Gravis-armoured Space Marines still have their own restrictions.
EightFoldPath wrote: Super Frag Desolation Squads are in fact 10d6 + 10 + 40 + 10d3 + 40 = 145 shots on average into a 20 man unit of Guard.
Citizen, it turns out in fact GW were not aware of the potential of their own rules.
Yeah, its kind of crazy.
I'm also a bit mystified by the rise of "this unit can shoot through walls!" ("the penalty for indirect fire is -1 to hit and the target gains cover.")
But uh... these guys are actually really good at shooting through walls so, uh, give them +1 to hit and ignores cover. As a treat.
They've learnt nothing and forgotten nothing.
To be fair to GW, the complete ignoring of the indirect "penalty" only applies to 10d3 + 40 + d6 + 4 shots (67.5) on the unit, which is a very reasonable amount of indirect shooting.
And the condition to gain this rule is very challenging, by requiring your ignore line of sight shooting unit to stand still it really forces a tough decision on to the player.
Insectum7 wrote: Geez, if I were going to start trolling I'd paint up the rest of my 30 metal Sniper Scouts.
Stormraven can't be damaged by D1 weapons. I wonder if that will last.
Yeah, I believe that came up with a Death Guard stratagem as well. There doesn't seem to be a 'minimum of 1 clause' anywhere, and there needs to be.
Redemptor Dreadnought has the same rule.
If you mean Terminators can't embark on a Rhino etc, I expected that.
No. No one was even considering terminators, gravis or jump packs in rhinos- that was expected by everyone.
I'm saying the primaris restrictions on vehicles still exist for rhinos, razorbacks and impulsors:
Phobos and Tacticus keywords (so Intercessors, Sternguard, Reivers, Incursors and that other I-word) can't board rhinos or razorbacks.
And impulsors are limited to only phobos and tacticus, so old marines still can't board them.
Wow.
Minus a couple of exceptions,* Space Marine transports no longer care whether a Primaris unit is riding in the back or not.
* The Rhino, Razorback, and Impulsor are still specialised for certain squad types, and many larger models like Terminators and Gravis-armoured Space Marines still have their own restrictions.
Was this there before?
Yes, this footnote was in the original article at its release date.
EightFoldPath wrote: I still want to see the Blast rule written down just to make sure we aren't missing something, if it is:
1~5 models (which includes lone models like vehicles): +1 attack
6~10: +2
11~15: +3
It feels off.
It gets wonky as soon as you give every model in a 5 man or 10 man unit a blast weapon. Examples from 9th - Einhyr Hearthguard, Warp Spiders. 10 Warp Spiders as written in 9th but with 10th Blast rule would get 10d6 + 40 shots (75 average) into a 20 man unit of Guard and possibly + 10 if you attach a Leader model to push the unit from 16~20 to 21~25.
It gets really wild if you can dual wield blast weapons (and have them not be twin linked). Examples from 9th - Desolation Squad, Crisis Suits with AFB. 10 Desolation Squad as written in 9th but with 10th Blast rule and Super Frag as their main weapon would get 10d3 + 30 + 40 + 10d3 + 40 (150 average) into a 20 man unit of Guard and possibly + 20 if you attach a Leader model.
Of course, we've not seen those units yet. I'm mainly interested to see if they spotted the problem and found a fix. I think if Blast works as we think, you could even have a compelling 1 shot weapon with Blast on a 10 man squad.
CSM, Necrons and IG have all looked a bit undercooked to me. My (conspiracy) theory is:
- That Space Marines and Tyranids are getting their codex rules previewed.
- Everyone else will have their index rules previewed.
- This leaves room for GW to add another 20% to the later codexes to sell them.
You're jumping the gun on this when the grenade launcher went from D6 to D3. They're aware of the potential. Inceptors abused the hell out of the old rule and now will likely be twin linked instead.
Super Frag Desolation Squads are in fact 10d6 + 10 + 40 + 10d3 + 40 = 145 shots on average into a 20 man unit of Guard.
Citizen, it turns out in fact GW were not aware of the potential of their own rules.
Insectum7 wrote: Hammer of Wrath on Assault Marines needs to be clearer, it's easy to interpret it as "roll for each model in the enemy unit".
Imagine a 5 man Assault Squad hitting a 20 strong unit of Termagants and rolling 20 dice, each killing a Gant on a 4+.
This=own, that=enemy. For once gw been consistent on terms for long long time.
That's fair, but it still looks to be easily misinterpretable.
Eh.
'When this unit charges, roll dice for each model in this unit' seems hard to misinterpret.
Sure. But I had to read it twice and give it a think. Maybe I'm dumb. But I won't be alone in that
I see it like video game testing (which I'm more proffessionally familiar with than proofreading), where you witness players do mind boggling things. I just wonder if there were a non-legalese way to be clearer.
Ah. I come from the other direction, and the only form of protection from dumb misreadings is the route of library and museum signage, and write everything at the 5th grade reading level (~10 years old, for non-US folks). And even that doesn't stop people.
What works is basically peer pressuring folks who read it wrong (and especially the ones who want to willfully misinterpret things) with the collective understanding of everyone else.
All well and good, but I bet there's a clearer way write it. Like "roll a dice for each model in the charging unit, on a 4+ yada yada yada"
And then do something similar but slightly different wording for every rule that deals with own or enemy unit.
Insectum7 wrote: Hammer of Wrath on Assault Marines needs to be clearer, it's easy to interpret it as "roll for each model in the enemy unit".
Imagine a 5 man Assault Squad hitting a 20 strong unit of Termagants and rolling 20 dice, each killing a Gant on a 4+.
This=own, that=enemy. For once gw been consistent on terms for long long time.
That's fair, but it still looks to be easily misinterpretable.
Eh.
'When this unit charges, roll dice for each model in this unit' seems hard to misinterpret.
Sure. But I had to read it twice and give it a think. Maybe I'm dumb. But I won't be alone in that
I see it like video game testing (which I'm more proffessionally familiar with than proofreading), where you witness players do mind boggling things. I just wonder if there were a non-legalese way to be clearer.
Ah. I come from the other direction, and the only form of protection from dumb misreadings is the route of library and museum signage, and write everything at the 5th grade reading level (~10 years old, for non-US folks). And even that doesn't stop people.
What works is basically peer pressuring folks who read it wrong (and especially the ones who want to willfully misinterpret things) with the collective understanding of everyone else.
All well and good, but I bet there's a clearer way write it. Like "roll a dice for each model in the charging unit, on a 4+ yada yada yada"
And then do something similar but slightly different wording for every rule that deals with own or enemy unit.
If the argument is "GW couldn't have possibly made it clearer", well I'm just not going to agree.
If you mean Terminators can't embark on a Rhino etc, I expected that.
No. No one was even considering terminators, gravis or jump packs in rhinos- that was expected by everyone.
I'm saying the primaris restrictions on vehicles still exist for rhinos, razorbacks and impulsors:
Phobos and Tacticus keywords (so Intercessors, Sternguard, Reivers, Incursors and that other I-word) can't board rhinos or razorbacks.
And impulsors are limited to only phobos and tacticus, so old marines still can't board them.
Wow.
Minus a couple of exceptions,* Space Marine transports no longer care whether a Primaris unit is riding in the back or not.
* The Rhino, Razorback, and Impulsor are still specialised for certain squad types, and many larger models like Terminators and Gravis-armoured Space Marines still have their own restrictions.
Insectum7 wrote: Hammer of Wrath on Assault Marines needs to be clearer, it's easy to interpret it as "roll for each model in the enemy unit".
Imagine a 5 man Assault Squad hitting a 20 strong unit of Termagants and rolling 20 dice, each killing a Gant on a 4+.
This=own, that=enemy. For once gw been consistent on terms for long long time.
That's fair, but it still looks to be easily misinterpretable.
Eh.
'When this unit charges, roll dice for each model in this unit' seems hard to misinterpret.
Sure. But I had to read it twice and give it a think. Maybe I'm dumb. But I won't be alone in that
I see it like video game testing (which I'm more proffessionally familiar with than proofreading), where you witness players do mind boggling things. I just wonder if there were a non-legalese way to be clearer.
Ah. I come from the other direction, and the only form of protection from dumb misreadings is the route of library and museum signage, and write everything at the 5th grade reading level (~10 years old, for non-US folks). And even that doesn't stop people.
What works is basically peer pressuring folks who read it wrong (and especially the ones who want to willfully misinterpret things) with the collective understanding of everyone else.
All well and good, but I bet there's a clearer way write it. Like "roll a dice for each model in the charging unit, on a 4+ yada yada yada"
And then do something similar but slightly different wording for every rule that deals with own or enemy unit.
If the argument is "GW couldn't have possibly made it clearer", well I'm just not going to agree.
Well question is do we want consistent terminology in rules for unit doing effect and target or unique bespoke almost same but still different rule for practically every rule?
Why after years it's problem now to have consistent terms?
Insectum7 wrote: Hammer of Wrath on Assault Marines needs to be clearer, it's easy to interpret it as "roll for each model in the enemy unit".
Imagine a 5 man Assault Squad hitting a 20 strong unit of Termagants and rolling 20 dice, each killing a Gant on a 4+.
This=own, that=enemy. For once gw been consistent on terms for long long time.
That's fair, but it still looks to be easily misinterpretable.
Eh.
'When this unit charges, roll dice for each model in this unit' seems hard to misinterpret.
Sure. But I had to read it twice and give it a think. Maybe I'm dumb. But I won't be alone in that
I see it like video game testing (which I'm more proffessionally familiar with than proofreading), where you witness players do mind boggling things. I just wonder if there were a non-legalese way to be clearer.
I read it twice as well, so you're not alone. If they wanted to make it foolproof I suppose they could have changed "each model in this unit" to "each model in the attacking unit". I would have said go with "each terminator in this unit" since it's not a USR you don't have to generalize it as "unit" instead of using their name, but in that scenario then it may exclude the leader as well. Plus it'll make it hard to copy paste this non-USR later
Some of it was. I don't think they called out the rhino, razorback and impulsor when first posted.
Terminators & Gravis were, but no one was particularly surprised or concerned by that.
By the same token I wonder how often its going to come up:
Phobos Captains can lead Scout Squads - and can't get in the Land Speeder Storm
Sicarius can lead Sternguard.
As can Cassius.
Any guesses on upcoming special characters about to cross the Rubicon?
Those are the only cross over Leader/Units I see on a first pass. Most Primaris Characters also don't have an armor keyword.
Oof. Most Primaris Characters don't have an armor keyword. Or at least the special ones.
Uriel is not Tacticus.
Tiggy.
Khan
Adrax
Shrike is Jump Pack so Phobos doesn't matter here but he doesn't have it.
So we just went from New Recruit Pulpface telling Chapter Master Calgar he can't ride in the Land Raider to New Recruit Scorchcheek McStumpArm telling Chief Librarian Tigurius he can't get in the Impulsor, but the Rhino will take him and Captain Ventris somewhere.
So lets have a laugh at that one, and get back to How Often Will It Matter?
Cross Unit leaders appears to be pretty rare with one scout, and two sternguards plus any of the other SC's I forgot to finish checking, I just saw Vulkan can lead Infernus Squads.
Anybody have their plans upset by not taking Rhinos or Razorbacks?
Maybe some firstborn in an Impulsor for the Shield Dome? Captain + Command Squad? I could see that especially given how lackluster the Rhino and Razorback are.
10 Primaris in a Transport? Drop Pod for cheap, or ride em around in a Stormraven, Land Raider, or Repulsor. I'm not sure I'd put them in a Rhino even if I could, no matter how cheap.
Well question is do we want consistent terminology in rules for unit doing effect and target or unique bespoke almost same but still different rule for practically every rule?
Why after years it's problem now to have consistent terms?
That's not the question. The question is, can you write a genericized rule that's clearer? To which the answer, I'm going to say, is "yes".
This is the first time I really feel alienated from the game. I hate the layout and the weapon profile changes. Vanguard got the 'chosen' treatment. Tactical marines are now 10 which seems like the opposite of tactical. And yet my impression isn't one of greater balance as the payoff for all this.
It feels less balanced than 9th with less customization, more clunky layout, near equal bloat of complexity (far as memorization). Overall complete meh from me.
I don't even play marines anymore and I'm bummed for marine players.
Especially when you have a Razorback that only carries 6 models. You can't actually put a Tactical Squad in a Razorback. Well, until four of them have been killed, I guess. :/
Agreed on the bloat and complexity, the complexity is lower than 9th but still higher than I expected. Going through SM, the iconic starter faction, I wasn't expected a unique'ish special ability on every single unit.
I prefer the layout, but it definitely wastes space in a lot of cases.
Especially when you have a Razorback that only carries 6 models. You can't actually put a Tactical Squad in a Razorback. Well, until four of them have been killed, I guess. :/
They should have done with they did with the Venom and it's puzzling as to why they didn't.
Anybody have their plans upset by not taking Rhinos or Razorbacks?
Only a little. I was planning an entirely classic marine list (almost all HH models, to double dip both games), but was willing to take the new Sternguard and terminators (and dread).
Not being able to put them in a rhino is something of an inconvenience, since the plan was mostly mechanized. In actual play, it probably won't matter much (I won't want them in a vehicle most of the time), but it dings the theme in an unnecessary way.
On the plus side, I actually have more flexibility with tactical and devastator squads than I expected. I wasn't expecting the option to do rhino rush with heavy flamer devastators. Not sure I'd actually do it, but its a thing now, and definitely cool for Salamanders players.
Voss wrote: rhino rush with heavy flamer devastators.
Oh gak...what!
Damnit the Libby can't join Devs, but the Primaris Libby can join Desolators. Lame.
And no Gravis Libby for Heavy Intercessors.
Yeah the character interactions are... weird. Some you can see the logic they were going for even if you don't agree with it (its easy to spot the thought process behind terminators+terminators and gravis+gravis).
Others are just... special.
The fact that they just threw their hands up in the air for characters on bikes and said 'yeah, sure, whatever' (classic bikes or primaris outriders) is certainly strange.
Especially when you have a Razorback that only carries 6 models. You can't actually put a Tactical Squad in a Razorback. Well, until four of them have been killed, I guess. :/
Dedicated transports have very delicate machine spirits though. If there's not a squad inside to whisper soothing words to it, it'll blow itself up as soon as the fighting starts.
Sniper Scouts hit on 2s (3+ base, then Heavy), then plop a Boxnought nearby for rerolling 1s. 96% hit rate with their Precision weapons. Seems real nasty against numerous characters.
Each unit bringing it's own ability is fun to read, but it sure feels like, rather than a reduction in Strats, we got an increase in Strats which are just automatic.
The Red Hobbit wrote: Agreed on the bloat and complexity, the complexity is lower than 9th but still higher than I expected. Going through SM, the iconic starter faction, I wasn't expected a unique'ish special ability on every single unit.
I prefer the layout, but it definitely wastes space in a lot of cases.
I'm actually finding that this is a bit harder to choose how I would build a list. Not because any particular thing is complicated, but because so many of these interactions only happen on the table and the only way to really understand how effective they are will be to slap them down. Coupled with not having to start with Troops makes it even more open ended.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Insectum7 wrote: we got an increase in Strats which are just automatic.
Very much this - it's on the sheet, which is nice, but there's a ton of stuff going on.
True it opens up a lot of options, but typically for a starter faction they have good overall stats and less fiddly rules to worry about.
I will say I really like what they did with Tac marines, I haven't played Marines in ages but I'd be very happy running them now.
Also strange no one can join Devastators.
Scout Snipers + Vindicare can really wreck some character heavy lists. I'm really interested to see if we wind up with a low amount of characters being fielded during Index hammer.
The Red Hobbit wrote: True it opens up a lot of options, but typically for a starter faction they have good overall stats and less fiddly rules to worry about.
I will say I really like what they did with Tac marines, I haven't played Marines in ages but I'd be very happy running them now.
Also strange no one can join Devastators.
Scout Snipers + Vindicare can really wreck some character heavy lists. I'm really interested to see if we wind up with a low amount of characters being fielded during Index hammer.
Precision seems a little overdone to me, especially since it isn't one or two weapons, its entire units somehow doing precision volleys into characters (or potentially the entire tyranid army, though that requires crits).
Lesser characters (certainly the GEQ 'advisors') are simply going to die round one if someone wants to build for it.
The Red Hobbit wrote: Scout Snipers + Vindicare can really wreck some character heavy lists. I'm really interested to see if we wind up with a low amount of characters being fielded during Index hammer.
Yea I'm quite curious how effective this stuff will be. Seemingly you'd be better off taking all vehicles and not sweating characters, but there's stuff to punish doing that, too. Positioning is going to be key to keep snipers off their target.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Voss wrote: Precision seems a little overdone to me, especially since it isn't one or two weapons, its entire units somehow doing precision volleys into characters (or potentially the entire tyranid army, though that requires crits).
Lesser characters (certainly the GEQ 'advisors') are simply going to die round one if someone wants to build for it.
Feels very weird.
Unless you have elevation it should be pretty hard to see a platoon commander behind 25 other models. Theoretically anyway. Marine characters will be a lot easier to see, but more durable.
Daedalus81 wrote: Yea I'm quite curious how effective this stuff will be. Seemingly you'd be better off taking all vehicles and not sweating characters, but there's stuff to punish doing that, too. Positioning is going to be key to keep snipers off their target.
Guard live or die on their characters. It's not going to be too odd to have like 2 per unit, depending on cost. At least you can hide them out of los to avoid precision, but that is a large restriction.
I almost want to take deathstrikes just to pulverise those scout snipers.
Precision is an interesting beast, in general it should probably be only for weapons (i.e. Sniper Rifles) but I don't mind it so much on a character who is all about assassinating or perhaps challenging other characters.
Unless you have elevation it should be pretty hard to see a platoon commander behind 25 other models. Theoretically anyway. Marine characters will be a lot easier to see, but more durable.
With line from any part of model(base included) to any part of model(base includea) not so easy to stop from between legs etc.
Even walking behind rhino isn't much protection. Line from base to base under rhino...
Gw rules make blocking los with models really hard.
The Red Hobbit wrote: Scout Snipers + Vindicare can really wreck some character heavy lists. I'm really interested to see if we wind up with a low amount of characters being fielded during Index hammer.
Yea I'm quite curious how effective this stuff will be. Seemingly you'd be better off taking all vehicles and not sweating characters, but there's stuff to punish doing that, too. Positioning is going to be key to keep snipers off their target.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Voss wrote: Precision seems a little overdone to me, especially since it isn't one or two weapons, its entire units somehow doing precision volleys into characters (or potentially the entire tyranid army, though that requires crits).
Lesser characters (certainly the GEQ 'advisors') are simply going to die round one if someone wants to build for it.
Feels very weird.
Unless you have elevation it should be pretty hard to see a platoon commander behind 25 other models. Theoretically anyway. Marine characters will be a lot easier to see, but more durable.
well, if hes attached to the 20 man squad, hes targetable, because you just need to see one model in the squad, then precsion kicks in at wound allocation and your sniper rifles can now punch though whatever cover he was in.
Yea it's no guarantee, but with enough bodies staggered it could be possible. Not something to bank on.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
xerxeskingofking wrote: well, if hes attached to the 20 man squad, hes targetable, because you just need to see one model in the squad, then precsion kicks in at wound allocation and your sniper rifles can now punch though whatever cover he was in.
It has to be visible to the attacking model with precision :
Daedalus81 wrote: Yea it's no guarantee, but with enough bodies staggered it could be possible. Not something to bank on.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
xerxeskingofking wrote: well, if hes attached to the 20 man squad, hes targetable, because you just need to see one model in the squad, then precsion kicks in at wound allocation and your sniper rifles can now punch though whatever cover he was in.
It has to be visible to the attacking model with precision :
Ah, missed that part. my bad.
still, "visable" is defined as "any part of the model", so depending on terrian etc it might not be pratical or even possible to hide him, espically if the oppo leans into sniping with multiple units.
- My Tactical Marines don't combat squad anymore.
- I can't take my Tactical Squads as a reduced unit.
- I don't have any other units in my collection that can ride it except for 1 Space Marine Captain.
Eligius wrote: What am I supposed to do with my Razorbacks?
- My Tactical Marines don't combat squad anymore.
- I can't take my Tactical Squads as a reduced unit.
- I don't have any other units in my collection that can ride it except for 1 Space Marine Captain.
Seems bizarre they didn't get that rule previewed with the DE Venom.
So Relic Terminators lost the ability to have Combi-bolter and Lightning Claw loadout, but inexplicably gained the ability to take Combi-bolter and Power Weapon on every model, despite that not being possible from either of the kits.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eligius wrote: What am I supposed to do with my Razorbacks?
Looking at the Salamanders characters specifically, others have pointed out that Adrax has some weird anti-synergy and kind of struggles to have a place. His big buff of full wound rerolls sounds great, but the only unit he can join that has any real CC ability is Assault Intercessors...which already get wound rerolls when fighting over an objective. And Adrax wants to be fighting over an objective due to his other special rule.
Vulkan He'stan looks really good though - either with a full Infernus Squad for flamer goodness or just staking a claim on a center objective with a command squad, buffing whatever's useful, and daring the enemy to try and contest a unit with OC21 (10 from vulkan + 1 for the banner, 2 from each squad member with the banner) and Ld5+.
Eligius wrote: What am I supposed to do with my Razorbacks?
- My Tactical Marines don't combat squad anymore.
- I can't take my Tactical Squads as a reduced unit.
- I don't have any other units in my collection that can ride it except for 1 Space Marine Captain.
Only thing I can think of is either take some of your heavy weapons tac marines and make them Devastators, or get a command squad together with your captain.
Lord Damocles wrote: So Relic Terminators lost the ability to have Combi-bolter and Lightning Claw loadout, but inexplicably gained the ability to take Combi-bolter and Power Weapon on every model, despite that not being possible from either of the kits.
You're too focused on names.
Combi-Bolter + Claw = Power Weapon
Two Claws = Lightning Claws
Others mentioned this unit earlier in the thread. Below is a very workable combo.
-10 Desolation Marines
-1 Primaris Librarian attached to unit.
-Bolter Discipline enhancement given to Librarian.
-Devastator Doctrine
-Oath of the Moment on unit you want them to fire at.
The number of shots and hits really surprised me.
Vs a squad of 10 models and assume Desolation Marines moved.
Catellan Launcher 10d3 +20 shots hitting on 3+
Super Frag 10d6 + 30 shots hitting on 4+
Full rerolls to hit (and wound) with exploding hits on 5+. It also took me several minutes to count, roll, reroll, and add in additional hits with this unit.
Sarigar wrote: Others mentioned this unit earlier in the thread. Below is a very workable combo.
-10 Desolation Marines
-1 Primaris Librarian attached to unit.
-Bolter Discipline enhancement given to Librarian.
-Devastator Doctrine
-Oath of the Moment on unit you want them to fire at.
The number of shots and hits really surprised me.
Vs a squad of 10 models and assume Desolation Marines moved.
Catellan Launcher 10d3 +20 shots hitting on 3+
Super Frag 10d6 + 30 shots hitting on 4+
Full rerolls to hit (and wound) with exploding hits on 5+. It also took me several minutes to count, roll, reroll, and add in additional hits with this unit.
6 Inceptors drop in with bolters and they're all dead if oath is on.
Might want to take plasma to wipe Eldar support weapons though.
Sarigar wrote: Others mentioned this unit earlier in the thread. Below is a very workable combo.
-10 Desolation Marines
-1 Primaris Librarian attached to unit.
-Bolter Discipline enhancement given to Librarian.
-Devastator Doctrine
-Oath of the Moment on unit you want them to fire at.
The number of shots and hits really surprised me.
Vs a squad of 10 models and assume Desolation Marines moved.
Catellan Launcher 10d3 +20 shots hitting on 3+
Super Frag 10d6 + 30 shots hitting on 4+
Full rerolls to hit (and wound) with exploding hits on 5+. It also took me several minutes to count, roll, reroll, and add in additional hits with this unit.
6 Inceptors drop in with bolters and they're all dead if oath is on.
Might want to take plasma to wipe Eldar support weapons though.
Ok, I'll bite.
Inceptors drop in on turn 2 (pretty much confirmed no turn 1 deep strike, but irrelevant for this).
Desolation Marines Overwatch. Assuming I don't have other units with Torrent that can more efficiently Overwatch.
Castellan 10d3 + 10 shots, hitting on 6 with exploding 6 10 hits. 3 wounds. 1 failed save
Super Frag 10d6 + 20 shots, hitting on 6 with exploding 6. 16 hits. 4 wounds. 2 failed save
Not factoring the Librarian shooting Smite.
5 Inceptors shoot. 15 shots rerolls , 14 hit, 12 wounds. 6 failed saves. 6 Desolation Marines go down. Assumption Desolation Marines don't have a cover save. In cover, likely get one more save.
Lost 5-6 Desolation Marines. They likely destroyed one to two units on turn one which resulted in exposing a full squad of Inceptors. I'm reasonably ok with that trade.
Plasma would potentially be less efficient as the Librarian gives the unit a 4++.
I would caution players if they see Desolation Marines on the table. Their shooting profile appears massively higher than other Marine units. They are really good in 9th and I suspect they got better I 10th.
They can come down in Dev Doc and use Storm of Fire to ignore cover and pick up an AP if necessary. Desolators are probably stupidly broken. I doubt there will be a sensible point level for them and their rules will need to change. Castellan should lose blast at the very least.
^Drop Pods can enter play in the first turn. Their usual cargo of plasma-Sternguard are no longer plasma-Sternguard though.
I'm curious how expensive Whirlwinds will be.
Seems like they would be ideal for cutting down Desolators from further away and avoiding counter-battery fire.
Edit: LOL NO! What am I thinking?! Attack those Desolators with Storm Ravens, because SRs are apparently immune to D1.
Daedalus81 wrote: Yea I'm quite curious how effective this stuff will be. Seemingly you'd be better off taking all vehicles and not sweating characters, but there's stuff to punish doing that, too. Positioning is going to be key to keep snipers off their target.
Guard live or die on their characters. It's not going to be too odd to have like 2 per unit, depending on cost. At least you can hide them out of los to avoid precision, but that is a large restriction.
I almost want to take deathstrikes just to pulverise those scout snipers.
Does it have a hard counter for "not unless within 12"?
Daedalus81 wrote: Yea I'm quite curious how effective this stuff will be. Seemingly you'd be better off taking all vehicles and not sweating characters, but there's stuff to punish doing that, too. Positioning is going to be key to keep snipers off their target.
Guard live or die on their characters. It's not going to be too odd to have like 2 per unit, depending on cost. At least you can hide them out of los to avoid precision, but that is a large restriction.
I almost want to take deathstrikes just to pulverise those scout snipers.
Does it have a hard counter for "not unless within 12"?
yeah it doesn't target them, it targets the ground near them
Insectum7 wrote: ^Drop Pods can enter play in the first turn. Their usual cargo of plasma-Sternguard are no longer plasma-Sternguard though.
That's OK, Hellblasters can now ride in a Pod. And they even got a bespoke Suicide Squad rule. And a Designer's Note that stopped just short of explicitly telling us to put Hellblasters in a pod, pop out, shoot overcharged, fail the roll, and shoot overcharged again with the casualties before removing them. You can even do 5 Hellblasters, and 5 Devastators with 4 A3, Anti-Vehicle 2+, D3 Grav Cannon if you want some TAC Variety in your pod.
I'm curious how expensive Whirlwinds will be.
Seems like they would be ideal for cutting down Desolators from further away and avoiding counter-battery fire.
Edit: LOL NO! What am I thinking?! Attack those Desolators with Storm Ravens, because SRs are apparently immune to D1.
Whirlwinds plus Terror Troop Reivers could be a a theme for someone who really wants to work it.
Reiver gives -1 for Terror Troops (Doesn't stack, its on a blurb on a side panel in the Main Rules PDF.)
Shoot them with a whirlwind - first battle shock test at -1.
Charge them/Be In Engagement Range with the Reivers. Second Battle Shock Test at -1.
Charge Them with the Brutalis, third Battleshock Test at -1.
If I've got it figured right, a LD of 6+ now only succeeds on a 7+ which is a 50/50 roll and you just forced three of them as long as you can get your Reivers within 6/9" before the shooting phase. About 4 out of 5 times, that should Battleshock the unit even before the first casualty. Can't RELIABLY work on a Deep Strike Turn - Can't Deploy within 9" by rule, and I don't yet see a way to move after the Reinforcements step short of charging.
Daedalus81 wrote: Yea I'm quite curious how effective this stuff will be. Seemingly you'd be better off taking all vehicles and not sweating characters, but there's stuff to punish doing that, too. Positioning is going to be key to keep snipers off their target.
Guard live or die on their characters. It's not going to be too odd to have like 2 per unit, depending on cost. At least you can hide them out of los to avoid precision, but that is a large restriction.
I almost want to take deathstrikes just to pulverise those scout snipers.
Does it have a hard counter for "not unless within 12"?
yeah it doesn't target them, it targets the ground near them
Yeah that is correct. The deathstrike actually avoids a lot of defensive abilities, due to it never "targeting" a unit. Off the top of my head, you can't use the pop smoke strategem, or that defensive Eldar strat I forget the name of.
Of course, I'm not thinking deathstrikes are going to be good. Will probably have to use deepstrike or fast vehicles to deal with scout snipers.
Of course, I'm not thinking deathstrikes are going to be good. Will probably have to use deepstrike or fast vehicles to deal with scout snipers.
I wouldn't count on Deathstrikes remaining the same and yeah, Deep Strike Dakka is probably the obvious choice - even Storm Bolter Terminators probably wipe the squad with just the storm bolters - though that may be why you see Invictors getting an "overwatch" style ability for Phobos Infantry nearby. I snipe, you Deep strike, shoot a unit of 3 snipers, I shoot back with the Invictors, rinse and repeat for the rest of the up to two more Eliminator squads. Maybe Deep Striking a Hailstrike or something?
Breton wrote: I wouldn't count on Deathstrikes remaining the same...
Wdym? We've seen the deathstrikes, short of the points. I could see maybe using one if they are cheap, but that is unlikely. Tbh, 2 wound scouts mean a deathstrike wouldn't even be that good, with only d1.
Tbh I'm waiting on manticore stats, as I have two of those built already. No good against scouts though.
Daedalus81 wrote: They can come down in Dev Doc and use Storm of Fire to ignore cover and pick up an AP if necessary. Desolators are probably stupidly broken. I doubt there will be a sensible point level for them and their rules will need to change. Castellan should lose blast at the very least.
I think you missed that they have a 4++ via the Librarian.
I do agree they feel over the top right now and will be very curious to see how they fare in early tourney play as metrics are gathered.
Daedalus81 wrote: They can come down in Dev Doc and use Storm of Fire to ignore cover and pick up an AP if necessary. Desolators are probably stupidly broken. I doubt there will be a sensible point level for them and their rules will need to change. Castellan should lose blast at the very least.
I think you missed that they have a 4++ via the Librarian.
I do agree they feel over the top right now and will be very curious to see how they fare in early tourney play as metrics are gathered.
No, I'm aware. It's just a tool to deal with certain scenarios.
Also the prior math wasn't right. 6 guys are 18 shots. With Oath you can fish for 6s which become 3 hits.
Arachnofiend wrote: Lightning claws listed separately from other power weapons, by the way.
Unless you are a vanguard veteran. Then suddenly for some reason (too many were just buying VV instead of Assaults most likely) you have one claw that functions in melee and another that only can block as a shield or somehow be used as a pistol...
Breton wrote: I wouldn't count on Deathstrikes remaining the same...
Wdym? We've seen the deathstrikes, short of the points.
"The real datacards will be different" is already the variant of 'wait and see' for 10th edition.
I guess maybe a bit? Like I can imagine them fixing the dkok medipack. But I don't imagine there will be large balance changes at this point. Never say never I guess.
Breton wrote: I wouldn't count on Deathstrikes remaining the same...
Wdym? We've seen the deathstrikes, short of the points.
"The real datacards will be different" is already the variant of 'wait and see' for 10th edition.
I guess maybe a bit? Like I can imagine them fixing the dkok medipack. But I don't imagine there will be large balance changes at this point. Never say never I guess.
In my opinion, 'balance changes' will arise automatically by introducing new units, new models (with diverging options/box loadouts) for existing kits and by correcting the odd error. The only reason GW is downplaying how often they will touch and re-touch the actual cards is that they are currently selling printed cards, which no sane person would touch if they openly told you that these would be essentially useless in as little as three months. Just like they can never - in practice - stick to their simplifications and start to accrue cruft as soon as the first codexes get released, their claims of these cards remaining useful forever are marketing, pure and simple. At some point (looking at you, Dark Eldar) there will come the time when they tell you ''This range has got so much new stuff/so much change/ so many revisions that they're essentially a new thing, here's your new card pack, that one's gonna stay forever, honest *wink* *wink*'' Votann are another hot contender, since they'll probably get another half of an army next turn around.
So yeah, pretty much 'wait and see'. At least wait for the Tyranid and SM codexes before calling it.
Tsagualsa wrote: At some point (looking at you, Dark Eldar) there will come the time when they tell you ''This range has got so much new stuff/so much change/ so many revisions that they're essentially a new thing
I guess maybe a bit? Like I can imagine them fixing the dkok medipack. But I don't imagine there will be large balance changes at this point. Never say never I guess.
There will be an update soon after release, but not tomorrow or anything - they're going to take a beat to collect all the typos and versioning errors - stuff like missing keywords, and such I'd expect about a month to three after release.
Arachnofiend wrote: Lightning claws listed separately from other power weapons, by the way.
Unless you are a vanguard veteran. Then suddenly for some reason (too many were just buying VV instead of Assaults most likely) you have one claw that functions in melee and another that only can block as a shield or somehow be used as a pistol...
Yeah this was not a good edition to have the word Veteran in your name.
Sternguard lost a big chunk of their niche.
Vanguard got it even worse.
Tyrannic War Veterans wish they were Vanguard Vets.
Breton wrote: I wouldn't count on Deathstrikes remaining the same...
Wdym? We've seen the deathstrikes, short of the points.
"The real datacards will be different" is already the variant of 'wait and see' for 10th edition.
I guess maybe a bit? Like I can imagine them fixing the dkok medipack. But I don't imagine there will be large balance changes at this point. Never say never I guess.
In my opinion, 'balance changes' will arise automatically by introducing new units, new models (with diverging options/box loadouts) for existing kits and by correcting the odd error. The only reason GW is downplaying how often they will touch and re-touch the actual cards is that they are currently selling printed cards, which no sane person would touch if they openly told you that these would be essentially useless in as little as three months.
It'll come down to cost. Is it cheaper (with the discount I get from my FLGS) to buy the cards or to buy black ink cartridges for my printer?
Breton wrote: I wouldn't count on Deathstrikes remaining the same...
Wdym? We've seen the deathstrikes, short of the points.
"The real datacards will be different" is already the variant of 'wait and see' for 10th edition.
I guess maybe a bit? Like I can imagine them fixing the dkok medipack. But I don't imagine there will be large balance changes at this point. Never say never I guess.
In my opinion, 'balance changes' will arise automatically by introducing new units, new models (with diverging options/box loadouts) for existing kits and by correcting the odd error. The only reason GW is downplaying how often they will touch and re-touch the actual cards is that they are currently selling printed cards, which no sane person would touch if they openly told you that these would be essentially useless in as little as three months. Just like they can never - in practice - stick to their simplifications and start to accrue cruft as soon as the first codexes get released, their claims of these cards remaining useful forever are marketing, pure and simple. At some point (looking at you, Dark Eldar) there will come the time when they tell you ''This range has got so much new stuff/so much change/ so many revisions that they're essentially a new thing, here's your new card pack, that one's gonna stay forever, honest *wink* *wink*'' Votann are another hot contender, since they'll probably get another half of an army next turn around.
So yeah, pretty much 'wait and see'. At least wait for the Tyranid and SM codexes before calling it.
That isn't the context of the 'wait for the real cards', though. Of course there will be new models with new cards, and fixes for the oversights (though maybe only in pdf form for the roadmap codexes).
Its the people claiming that the CC warriors will get a completely different card with full options when the codex comes out. Or that 'rule X will be rewritten' on the merits that the poster just doesn't like it. That's the stuff I'm objecting to, because its completely baseless and is actively giving people the wrong idea. Consolidation is happening widely, its part of an ongoing trend. Its weird that it hit space marines in just the vanguard veterans, but it certainly isn't going away for Xenos or Chaos. Not now and not in three months.
Maybe in late 2024, the armies still limping along with just the index cards are in for a treat from the mid-edition paradigm shift, but for the most part, this is the system as designed and intended.
Its the people claiming that the CC warriors will get a completely different card with full options when the codex comes out. Or that 'rule X will be rewritten' on the merits that the poster just doesn't like it. That's the stuff I'm objecting to, because its completely baseless and is actively giving people the wrong idea. Consolidation is happening widely, its part of an ongoing trend. Its weird that it hit space marines in just the vanguard veterans, but it certainly isn't going away for Xenos or Chaos. Not now and not in three months.
Maybe in late 2024, the armies still limping along with just the index cards are in for a treat from the mid-edition paradigm shift, but for the most part, this is the system as designed and intended.
Nah, its not going to be completely rewritten cards, its going to small changes - like the way they rolled back the power curve on Cents. First they lost Bolter Drill, then they missed out on CORE. For example, after seeing Grav I'm even more inclined to believe Thunder Hammers are going to get a boost - potentially some sort of Anti-Vehicle but long before that we should get a clean-up update. Most of the special characters don't have an armor type keyword unless it's GRAVIS to make sure they take two spots, but that means they can't get in the Impulsor based on how the rule is written. A number of the Dreadnaughts are missing the DREADNAUGHT keyword. Stuff like that and any glaring issues like the Aeldari complaints should be up soon after.
Insectum7 wrote: ^Drop Pods can enter play in the first turn. Their usual cargo of plasma-Sternguard are no longer plasma-Sternguard though.
That's OK, Hellblasters can now ride in a Pod.
I'll never use Hellblasters because they are Primaris filth. *spits*
My biggest dissapointment in the release so far is that Sternguard are now technically Primaris. They have the Tacticus keyword and can't go in Rhinos or Razorbacks. However the Bolter Sternguard are essentially identical to OG Bolter Sternguard, and since they can Pod they work just as my Sternguard deployments in past years. They'll get a reluctant pass for now. But I hate it.
Insectum7 wrote: ^Drop Pods can enter play in the first turn. Their usual cargo of plasma-Sternguard are no longer plasma-Sternguard though.
That's OK, Hellblasters can now ride in a Pod.
I'll never use Hellblasters because they are Primaris filth. *spits*
My biggest dissapointment in the release so far is that Sternguard are now technically Primaris. They have the Tacticus keyword and can't go in Rhinos or Razorbacks. However the Bolter Sternguard are essentially identical to OG Bolter Sternguard, and since they can Pod they work just as my Sternguard deployments in past years. They'll get a reluctant pass for now. But I hate it.
Primaris have been out for 6-years now? How long do we have to wait before people like you stop mentioning how much you dislike them every time they're mentioned?
Insectum7 wrote: ^Drop Pods can enter play in the first turn. Their usual cargo of plasma-Sternguard are no longer plasma-Sternguard though.
That's OK, Hellblasters can now ride in a Pod.
I'll never use Hellblasters because they are Primaris filth. *spits*
My biggest dissapointment in the release so far is that Sternguard are now technically Primaris. They have the Tacticus keyword and can't go in Rhinos or Razorbacks. However the Bolter Sternguard are essentially identical to OG Bolter Sternguard, and since they can Pod they work just as my Sternguard deployments in past years. They'll get a reluctant pass for now. But I hate it.
Have you contacted GW about Sternguard? It looks like a misprint. I thought they talked about getting rid of the silly thing where Primaris and Firstborn are unable to share vehicles.
Insectum7 wrote: ^Drop Pods can enter play in the first turn. Their usual cargo of plasma-Sternguard are no longer plasma-Sternguard though.
That's OK, Hellblasters can now ride in a Pod.
I'll never use Hellblasters because they are Primaris filth. *spits*
My biggest dissapointment in the release so far is that Sternguard are now technically Primaris. They have the Tacticus keyword and can't go in Rhinos or Razorbacks. However the Bolter Sternguard are essentially identical to OG Bolter Sternguard, and since they can Pod they work just as my Sternguard deployments in past years. They'll get a reluctant pass for now. But I hate it.
Have you contacted GW about Sternguard? It looks like a misprint. I thought they talked about getting rid of the silly thing where Primaris and Firstborn are unable to share vehicles.
I think a couple dozen misprints/typos is to be expected when doing 2000+ datasheets at once, realistically the only option you have as a publisher is to release these into the wild and have the community spot them, that way you can do a day-zero-FAQ/Errata on the official release day, which seems to be what GW is aiming for. Not the dumbest strategy.
Apart from hiring competent people including proofreaders. But proofreaders cost money and hiring person who shouts waaagh with biggest enthusiasm is cheaper than quality developer. Remember gw hires by attitude over skill as their own admission.
His ability granting his squad [lethal hits], which is what all the other lieutenants grant. His special ability is more OC for his squad.
He's not a medic, he's a LT in white armour
His big medical box is just a metal drum full of rocks and old boxnaught models, with which he bonks people over the head. It all makes sense, that's why he doesn't have any healing skills
Yeah... I don't mind Primaris models, but the vehicle thing is a nightmare. I think today is the realease of fluff marine indices, so I'm waiting to see whether they got the Corvus Blackstar right.
If so, I've got one ready to build. My guess is they'll mess it up.
I assume colletively the various youtube channels have pumped out a ton of battle reports last weekend.
Has anyone seen a batrep where a gambit was taken and it made the game more interesting (as in they had a reasonable chance to pull it off and turn a loss into a win)?
Insectum7 wrote: ^Drop Pods can enter play in the first turn. Their usual cargo of plasma-Sternguard are no longer plasma-Sternguard though.
That's OK, Hellblasters can now ride in a Pod.
I'll never use Hellblasters because they are Primaris filth. *spits*
My biggest dissapointment in the release so far is that Sternguard are now technically Primaris. They have the Tacticus keyword and can't go in Rhinos or Razorbacks. However the Bolter Sternguard are essentially identical to OG Bolter Sternguard, and since they can Pod they work just as my Sternguard deployments in past years. They'll get a reluctant pass for now. But I hate it.
Have you contacted GW about Sternguard? It looks like a misprint. I thought they talked about getting rid of the silly thing where Primaris and Firstborn are unable to share vehicles.
They said 'most' on the vehicle sharing, even in the early previews. Apparently that always meant not-the-ones-that-matter.
Sternguard aren't a misprint. They have the keyword and the models have the armor. Its definitely unfortunate that they can't get in rhinos, but its obviously intentional.
EightFoldPath wrote: I assume colletively the various youtube channels have pumped out a ton of battle reports last weekend.
Has anyone seen a batrep where a gambit was taken and it made the game more interesting (as in they had a reasonable chance to pull it off and turn a loss into a win)?
The gambits in general are longshots anyway so I'm not sure you'll see many attempted, and even fewer paying off, very often. I think it'll be a while before we see one used successfully.
why do you think that? you give up two attacks for a 4+ invulnerable.
At the same profile as Wulfen Claws and Melee Weapons though?
apologies if im not following you correctly. you think its odd because they have the same profile except two less attacks on the hammer? seems like a decision making trade off you have to make.
Index Woofs wrote:For every 5 models in this unit, one Wolf Guard Terminator can replace its power fist and storm bolter
with one of the following:
◦ 1 assault cannon
◦ 1 heavy flamer
◦ 1 storm bolter and 1 cyclone missile launcher
So... if a model gets an Assault Cannon it loses its power fist?
Heh. So, there is the Deathwatch stratagem Hellfire Rounds that gives all ranged weapons in a unit Anti-Infantry 2+. Then there are the Eliminators with their Las-Fusils that have D6 Damage. These Eliminators can also give their Las-Fusils Devastating Wounds if they stand still. Up to 3D6 Mortal Wounds versus Infantry for 2+(hit)/2+(wound)... Attach Phobos Captains for some extra fun and spam. Noice. Too bad I'm gonna be on the wrong end of these shenanigans .
Insectum7 wrote: ^Drop Pods can enter play in the first turn. Their usual cargo of plasma-Sternguard are no longer plasma-Sternguard though.
That's OK, Hellblasters can now ride in a Pod.
I'll never use Hellblasters because they are Primaris filth. *spits*
My biggest dissapointment in the release so far is that Sternguard are now technically Primaris. They have the Tacticus keyword and can't go in Rhinos or Razorbacks. However the Bolter Sternguard are essentially identical to OG Bolter Sternguard, and since they can Pod they work just as my Sternguard deployments in past years. They'll get a reluctant pass for now. But I hate it.
Have you contacted GW about Sternguard? It looks like a misprint. I thought they talked about getting rid of the silly thing where Primaris and Firstborn are unable to share vehicles.
It's not a misprint, given that the charachter options that can lead Sternguard are all Primaris, and the first/true/realMarine characters cannot.
AtoMaki wrote: Heh. So, there is the Deathwatch stratagem Hellfire Rounds that gives all ranged weapons in a unit Anti-Infantry 2+. Then there are the Eliminators with their Las-Fusils that have D6 Damage. These Eliminators can also give their Las-Fusils Devastating Wounds if they stand still. Up to 3D6 Mortal Wounds versus Infantry for 2+(hit)/2+(wound)... Attach Phobos Captains for some extra fun and spam. Noice. Too bad I'm gonna be on the wrong end of these shenanigans .
It's not a problem. Although the Las Fusil is listed as a weapon on the Spectrus datacard there's no option to actually take it. I'm sure this is all exactly as planned /s
AtoMaki wrote: Heh. So, there is the Deathwatch stratagem Hellfire Rounds that gives all ranged weapons in a unit Anti-Infantry 2+. Then there are the Eliminators with their Las-Fusils that have D6 Damage. These Eliminators can also give their Las-Fusils Devastating Wounds if they stand still. Up to 3D6 Mortal Wounds versus Infantry for 2+(hit)/2+(wound)... Attach Phobos Captains for some extra fun and spam. Noice. Too bad I'm gonna be on the wrong end of these shenanigans .
It's not a problem. Although the Las Fusil is listed as a weapon on the Spectrus datacard there's no option to actually take it. I'm sure this is all exactly as planned /s
I'm talking about the base Eliminators Squad not the Spectrus Kill Team.
AtoMaki wrote: Heh. So, there is the Deathwatch stratagem Hellfire Rounds that gives all ranged weapons in a unit Anti-Infantry 2+. Then there are the Eliminators with their Las-Fusils that have D6 Damage. These Eliminators can also give their Las-Fusils Devastating Wounds if they stand still. Up to 3D6 Mortal Wounds versus Infantry for 2+(hit)/2+(wound)... Attach Phobos Captains for some extra fun and spam. Noice. Too bad I'm gonna be on the wrong end of these shenanigans .
The one small saving grace here is that it will be an Adeptus Astartes unit and not a Spectrus Kill Team since they are locked to the sniper rifle.
Throw in the Phobos Libby and they can stand still most of the game and do that. Ugg.
AtoMaki wrote: Heh. So, there is the Deathwatch stratagem Hellfire Rounds that gives all ranged weapons in a unit Anti-Infantry 2+. Then there are the Eliminators with their Las-Fusils that have D6 Damage. These Eliminators can also give their Las-Fusils Devastating Wounds if they stand still. Up to 3D6 Mortal Wounds versus Infantry for 2+(hit)/2+(wound)... Attach Phobos Captains for some extra fun and spam. Noice. Too bad I'm gonna be on the wrong end of these shenanigans .
Well spam isn't that good if it depends on stratagem.
Edit: whoops right captain. Thankfully still just 2 units.
AtoMaki wrote: Heh. So, there is the Deathwatch stratagem Hellfire Rounds that gives all ranged weapons in a unit Anti-Infantry 2+. Then there are the Eliminators with their Las-Fusils that have D6 Damage. These Eliminators can also give their Las-Fusils Devastating Wounds if they stand still. Up to 3D6 Mortal Wounds versus Infantry for 2+(hit)/2+(wound)... Attach Phobos Captains for some extra fun and spam. Noice. Too bad I'm gonna be on the wrong end of these shenanigans .
OR you use it on a squad of sternguard with bolt rifles and dump 16.6 mortals on one infantry unit, kill it then do it again
AtoMaki wrote: Heh. So, there is the Deathwatch stratagem Hellfire Rounds that gives all ranged weapons in a unit Anti-Infantry 2+. Then there are the Eliminators with their Las-Fusils that have D6 Damage. These Eliminators can also give their Las-Fusils Devastating Wounds if they stand still. Up to 3D6 Mortal Wounds versus Infantry for 2+(hit)/2+(wound)... Attach Phobos Captains for some extra fun and spam. Noice. Too bad I'm gonna be on the wrong end of these shenanigans .
OR you use it on a squad of sternguard with bolt rifles and dump 16.6 mortals on one infantry unit, kill it then do it again
Oh boyo... Fortunately for me, the local SM player only uses Gravis and Phobos infantry. I also hope he won't check out the Deathwatch index and just sticks to being Ultramarines. Otherwise, I'll have to find my Basilisks in the attic .
Index Woofs wrote:For every 5 models in this unit, one Wolf Guard Terminator can replace its power fist and storm bolter
with one of the following:
◦ 1 assault cannon
◦ 1 heavy flamer
◦ 1 storm bolter and 1 cyclone missile launcher
So... if a model gets an Assault Cannon it loses its power fist?
I'm guessing the "and power fist" is a versioning error - and they're meant to keep the fist.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Oh I know what they meant, but it's not what they've said.
Yeah, but this sort of thing happens a fair bit every time. Someone else made the point that releasing these datasheets to us early lets us do the error checking for the first FAQ/Update for them as a money saver.
Many Special Characters don't have armor keywords.
Several Swaps can result in no close combat attacks because there isn't a S Attribute on the model, or a generic close combat weapon - do we really think a Space Marine Lieutenant in Terminator armor with a Storm bolter and a storm shield can't find a way to beat on somebody with the gun butt, the shield, or their fists?
So... I noticed Chaos Rhinos and Thousand Sons Rhinos do not have firing points. Do you think that's a mistake, or intentional? Seems really stupid to me to give something that basic to Imperium units but not Chaos.
99% odds that it's a mistake given that the Death Guard one does have ports. It's not the only error in these cards (KSons defiler twin las for example).
Arachnofiend wrote: 99% odds that it's a mistake given that the Death Guard one does have ports. It's not the only error in these cards (KSons defiler twin las for example).
Didn't notice that on my first pass, good call! Str9 instead of Str12 is a HUGE loss.
Edit *Also, World Eater Rhino doesn't have the ports either... I sure hope it's not a DG only thing. That would be bad.
Hopefully it's a typo on Firing Ports. Would also be nice if the Defiler's Reaper Autocannon was a typo and its meant to be a regular autocannon as well but that may be an impossible dream
crazysaneman wrote: So... I noticed Chaos Rhinos and Thousand Sons Rhinos do not have firing points. Do you think that's a mistake, or intentional? Seems really stupid to me to give something that basic to Imperium units but not Chaos.
Probably intentional because they're terrified of CSM being more fun to play than Astartes.
I have taken a look through the Death Guard Index and I have opinions:
Mostly it is pretty weak sauce to okish. A few standouts but mostly meh.
The army rule is ok but with the greater toughness of models it is of less value now
The detachment rule feels really bad as I am likely to leave models on the objectives I want to control. It could be useful in the late game but I will need some games to really get the feel for it.
Ferric Blight is ok but to get the upgrade you need to be in aura range of an objective marker and get a crit when most upgraded strats just need one condition which lessens it.
Disgustingly resilient costs two CP that only works in the fight phase now and will likely get nerfed later.
For the enhancements - Living Plague is mid but Deadly Pathogens feels like the best
The Daemon Princes can only take the spewer and has no pic which makes me think it may be getting a new model in the future. The on foot one is better defensively and the winged one offensively so it looks like the winged one is better but points will decide.
Typhus is nice but for some reason he can move 5" instead of the 4 the other terms get.
The Lord of V is nice but I don't like him having half the shots now. Master of destruction is good for his unit but useless on him and blight bombard is ok but limited as their really isn't a lot of blast, it is mostly for the crawler.
The Lord of C is also good in melee and looks better in the Blightlord Terms. My problem is that they removed the wargear option for the manreaper and big grenade and there isn't a separate unit for that model anymore meaning it can't be played.
The sorcerer in term armor has all the abilities I want for the Malignant Plaguecaster.
The plague marines got hosed. What do you do for the model with two knifes or the champion with fist and blade or the sigil of decay?
Cultists should be OC2
Poxwalkers also got screwed. lost WS can be broken in morale, OC1, though a better FNP now.
The Foul Blightspawn is really good but points will make or break it.
The Biologus Putrifier has the grenades plague marines should also have (though stronger), its pistol doesn't have lethal hits for some reason, but it's Foul Infusion ability make lethal hits actually worth it...
The Tallyman and surgeon are both good but can only jion plague marines making them limited in utility.
The blightlords make me sad. Slow and fairly weak both in range and melee.
The Deathshroud lost their chimes but their weapons and abilities are good.
I like the abilities of the helbrute.
The Myphitic Blight-hulers feel like the big winners of the index. good shooting, fast and tough.
The Foetid Bloat-drone is also good, the Heavy blight launcher is better, it keeps the two spitters and the fleshmower is still great and it has a great ability. Another big winner.
The Plagueburst Crawler feels weaker now. The Entropy cannons lost range and are weaker then Lascannons now.
I love how they are trying to act like the Icon bearer is now a character model now and not just another plague marine.
KingGarland wrote: I have taken a look through the Death Guard Index and I have opinions:
Also they lost the possessed for some reason.
There isn't a death guard possessed kit. It might suggest one is coming, or more likely Stinky Foetid Seven-Bound.
There was the regular possessed kit that they could use until now but you are right that they will likely be coming out with a army unique version in the future.
Dai wrote: Know I could easily google this but when will all the free rules be available to try a basic game with?
We have all but scenarios and points which comes out in friday.
You could do fairly close by using the basic scenario in free rules and 9e points. While there's no doubt small changes here and there the overall size of army doesn't seem to alter much so roughly 1950 pts or so varied force plus say 2 enchantments(since we don't know points for those yet) could get you reasonably close to try it if you are really, really, REALLY impatient
Typhus is nice but for some reason he can move 5" instead of the 4 the other terms get.
This is fairly common - Belial, Strikemaster, Generic Captain in Terminator Armor, Lysander, strangely Gravis chracters appear to have gone back to 6", but Tor PunchFace is still 5"
Cultists should be OC2
I suspect most "chaff" level "troops" - cultists, poxwalkers, Guard squads, little bugs, etc will be OC1
I love how they are trying to act like the Icon bearer is now a character model now and not just another plague marine.
That comes and goes from edition to edition. Figure the icon bearer is the "company ancient" and its been Regular Dude to Almost-HQ character over the years.
Random question: Does OC lower if you're below half wounds?
Like, a model with 8 wounds and 4 OC. If it drops to 4 wounds, does it drop to 2 OC?
I looked in the basic rules, and it doesn't say anything about this that I could find. So I'm guessing it'd still have 4 OC even on 1 wound in that example.
Hecate wrote: Random question: Does OC lower if you're below half wounds?
Like, a model with 8 wounds and 4 OC. If it drops to 4 wounds, does it drop to 2 OC?
I looked in the basic rules, and it doesn't say anything about this that I could find. So I'm guessing it'd still have 4 OC even on 1 wound in that example.
Hecate wrote: Random question: Does OC lower if you're below half wounds?
Like, a model with 8 wounds and 4 OC. If it drops to 4 wounds, does it drop to 2 OC?
I looked in the basic rules, and it doesn't say anything about this that I could find. So I'm guessing it'd still have 4 OC even on 1 wound in that example.
Sound right?
I haven't seen anything that suggests OC lowers based on wounds lost. I'm curious why you'd think this would be a thing that happens.
Hecate wrote: Random question: Does OC lower if you're below half wounds?
Like, a model with 8 wounds and 4 OC. If it drops to 4 wounds, does it drop to 2 OC?
I looked in the basic rules, and it doesn't say anything about this that I could find. So I'm guessing it'd still have 4 OC even on 1 wound in that example.
Sound right?
Yes, my understanding is its calculated on a per model basis, regardless of how many wounds it has left.
crazysaneman wrote: So... I noticed Chaos Rhinos and Thousand Sons Rhinos do not have firing points. Do you think that's a mistake, or intentional? Seems really stupid to me to give something that basic to Imperium units but not Chaos.
I'm pretty sure it's an oversight. Most reasonable players would let you use the firing points.
Hecate wrote: Random question: Does OC lower if you're below half wounds?
Like, a model with 8 wounds and 4 OC. If it drops to 4 wounds, does it drop to 2 OC?
I looked in the basic rules, and it doesn't say anything about this that I could find. So I'm guessing it'd still have 4 OC even on 1 wound in that example.
Sound right?
I haven't seen anything that suggests OC lowers based on wounds lost. I'm curious why you'd think this would be a thing that happens.
Just because certain things were triggered by half wounds/starting strength. Like battleshock. Or in 9th where big models' profiles degraded at half wounds.
It wasn't that I thought OC *would* be halved. It was just a random thought that occurred to me, and I wasn't 100% on the answer. Figured it's better to ask now, rather than during my first game.
Presumably the Toughness difference is deliberate to make the footprice a tanky boy and the wingprince a fightyboy.
It's one of the few things which I don't detest about the index, given that the default has always been to take wings since forever because they've always been so good.
tneva82 wrote: Hide out of los and then 1+/4++ keeps decent enough save unless opponent uses silly resouces.
1+?
And who said anything about snapping fingers? It's a model that cannot hide, and will be wounded on 3's by most anti-tank things. Plus things like Lethal Hits and Devastating Wounds exist. The poor DP's toast second he shows his ugly little mug.
And it's going to be hard to hide this out of LOS, when all you need to do is see one micron of the tip of a claw on his wing to be able to shoot him.
tneva82 wrote: Hide out of los and then 1+/4++ keeps decent enough save unless opponent uses silly resouces.
1+?
And who said anything about snapping fingers? It's a model that cannot hide, and will be wounded on 3's by most anti-tank things. Plus things like Lethal Hits and Devastating Wounds exist. The poor DP's toast second he shows his ugly little mug.
And it's going to be hard to hide this out of LOS, when all you need to do is see one micron of the tip of a claw on his wing to be able to shoot him.
effective 1+ against weapons that can easily threaten him (aka : weapons that have AP)
The Red Hobbit wrote: Oh, did they edit the Deathwatch PDF and not make an announcement?
It was mentioned in today's article: "Note: There’s also a very slight update to the Deathwatch datasheets posted earlier this week. After field tests, our resident tech-magos deemed Hellfire Rounds to be a little too dangerous on certain units, so that Stratagem has been tweaked. It now does not affect weapons with the Devastating Wounds rule. You can download the updated Index here."
It does show a minor issue with the datasheets - they don't seem to have a date or version number indicated anywhere, so it's not obvious when someone is using the current version.
I would have said go with "each terminator in this unit" since it's not a 
