The magic of the internet means that anyone at any time can check to see if their opponent is cheating using the downloadable index rules.

Ah I see thanks, today's article wasn't loading for me (I think people in some countries had a similar issue with Chaos yesterday) so I had to take a direct link to see the latest indexes.

Two Marbos engaging in an infinite running pistol duel until one dies makes me think of a certain meme.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/06/14/free-imperium-index-cards-reclaim-the-galaxy-with-humanitys-finest/

Wtf is this:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/riFjIh9OeKg6AbLZ.pdf

That's not a glass canon army but a fething glass army who needs to jump through several hoops for just a bit of canon, and they were anyways already slower than Eldar(actual glass canon army that also pretty much has MD) but now most of the few units with some speed are just bad on top, either Sisters just got turned into a Horde army and became dirt cheap, or Matt Ward must be back for real this time.

xerxeskingofking wrote:

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.

Looks like it may change based on the data sheets. I noticed that a Chaos Knight has a rule that loses half it's OC if it has between 1-8 wounds left, think it started with 24.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

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.

Well in real world we have this thing caljed "terrarn".

I recommend putting some up.

tneva82 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

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.

Well in real world we have this thing caljed "terrarn".

I recommend putting some up.

I'm having some trouble finding terrain suited to hiding such a model on the gw site, which kit would you recommend?

shortymcnostrill wrote:

I'm having some trouble finding terrain suited to hiding such a model on the gw site, which kit would you recommend?

you don't need to hide it completely, just a little bit to give it cover.

I'm actually a little excited to see that the walls between Scions and the rest of the AM codex are mostly coming down. Looks like Scions can ride in Chimeras and Valkyries now, and you can freely mix Regiment and Tempestus units without issue. The only restriction I see is that only Tempestus stuff can ride in Taurox Primes.

With the aircraft restriction seemingly gone, I'm thinking a naval QRF might be back on the table- VBSS teams using Scion rules, transported by Valkyries, Chimeras, and Taurox Primes. Maybe back them up with some press-ganged naval ratings (Infantry), labor Ogryns (Bullgryns), and a Techpriest with some servitors.

shortymcnostrill wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

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.

Well in real world we have this thing caljed "terrarn".

I recommend putting some up.

I'm having some trouble finding terrain suited to hiding such a model on the gw site, which kit would you recommend?

Any ruin blocks los completelv. Even Magnus.

However to get save you don't need complete hidden. I'm going to give you real cheap terrain to put to get save boost.

Rocks.

Literally. Just go outside, pick some decent rocks. Put on board. As long as you are even partially hidden(including base) +1 to armour save.

And if you insist on gw terrain anythrng that is bigger than 0mm
x 0mm x 0mm between you and enemy is enough.

tneva82 wrote:
Well in real world we have this thing caljed "terrarn".

Didn't really read what I said, did you?

 catbarf wrote:
I'm actually a little excited to see that the walls between Scions and the rest of the AM codex are mostly coming down. Looks like Scions can ride in Chimeras and Valkyries now, and you can freely mix Regiment and Tempestus units without issue. The only restriction I see is that only Tempestus stuff can ride in Taurox Primes.

With the aircraft restriction seemingly gone, I'm thinking a naval QRF might be back on the table- VBSS teams using Scion rules, transported by Valkyries, Chimeras, and Taurox Primes. Maybe back them up with some press-ganged naval ratings (Infantry), labor Ogryns (Bullgryns), and a Techpriest with some servitors.

I think it's mostly an unintended result of their release model: to roll out substantial sub-factions of existing lines, these get their own 'minidex' (e.g. the halves of the Mechanicus army, Scions, Harlequins, Vanguard Primaris and so on), to be later rolled back into the main codex and made to integrate into the faction more seamlessly. I guess with the next codexes to come that can be avoided, as everything new will also come at the same time as the 10th 'main' codex.

 Gert wrote:
The magic of the internet means that anyone at any time can check to see if their opponent is cheating using the downloadable index rules.

And then one person, whose school teaches german points out his tyranid rules in german, and the other person who has the english version calls him a cheater. lol

Personally (other than losing access to NFDHammers) I'm really pleased with how the Grey Knights Index fared.

Custodes came out fine too, assuming you disregard the previously mentioned Axe nerf. Though why can't the Custodes Land Raider have a Multi-melta?

Karol wrote:

 Gert wrote:
The magic of the internet means that anyone at any time can check to see if their opponent is cheating using the downloadable index rules.

And then one person, whose school teaches german points out his tyranid rules in german, and the other person who has the english version calls him a cheater. lol

Our group still makes fun of that one guy for trying to use the rules from a Spanish White Dwarf 25 years ago.
Just as a fun fact - the German version of 4th edition's ork codex had a total of 46 translation errors with impact on how rules.
Misprints are usually obvious and anyone who played past editions should know not to trust any GW translations.

 Jidmah wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Gert wrote:
The magic of the internet means that anyone at any time can check to see if their opponent is cheating using the downloadable index rules.

And then one person, whose school teaches german points out his tyranid rules in german, and the other person who has the english version calls him a cheater. lol

Our group still makes fun of that one guy for trying to use the rules from a Spanish White Dwarf 25 years ago.
Just as a fun fact - the German version of 4th edition's ork codex had a total of 46 translation errors with impact on how rules.
Misprints are usually obvious and anyone who played past editions should know not to trust any GW translations.

have here somewhere two copies of the last Bretonnia army book, both in English, one printed in the UK, one printed in China, idential covers etc, only the small print on the back where they differ

oh yes and the text of a few rules...

Karol wrote:

 Gert wrote:
The magic of the internet means that anyone at any time can check to see if their opponent is cheating using the downloadable index rules.

And then one person, whose school teaches german points out his tyranid rules in german, and the other person who has the english version calls him a cheater. lol

just default to english being the official version, it's not rocket science -.-

The more I see of 10th, i wonder if I should make a 9th-10th hybrid. 10th core rules, Psychic phase rolled into command phase or otherwise consolidated, morale is the first half of 9ths test, but with the 10th battleshock. A "hand
of stratagems to cut down on mental load. Just rough ideas but these indexes have all been very off-putting. The only one i've liked is the GSC because the only random, pointless negative change is the leader pistol thing. I'd rather deal with the killiness of 9th and all it's shenanigans than what 10th is shaping up to be. There's good ideas here, buried underneath heaps of strange, pointless, or badly-implemented changes.

Xenos indexes are up.
https://www.warhammer-community.com/en-us/warhammer-40000/

Its worse than I thought for drukhari. Jesus I thought theres no way they couldn't feth them up this bad even if they tried. Wrong. Thats the last of my armies revealed. I'll be sitting this edition out. L8r

dominuschao wrote:
Xenos indexes are up.
https://www.warhammer-community.com/en-us/warhammer-40000/

Its worse than I thought for drukhari. Jesus I thought theres no way they couldn't feth them up this bad even if they tried. Wrong. Thats the last of my armies revealed. I'll be sitting this edition out. L8r

Enjoy the break, it might be refreshing and save you a lot of anger, it can be a wise choice sometimes even if it sucks.

Dudeface wrote:
Enjoy the break.

You don't have to be so flippant when people see their armies going through the ringer.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Enjoy the break.

You don't have to be so flippant when people see their armies going through the ringer.

Why? It's actually a very grounded and mature post where they've realised they dislike it so choose not to participate in something they won't enjoy. They can continue to play older versions if they wish and their friends agree.

You can't please everyone with everything a nd if you're going to be made upset/angry by it, getting out is a valid choice.

Dudeface wrote:
Why?

Because it comes across as being kinda gakky.

If you respected his decision to walk away, then you perhaps should have said that. Instead, your post come across as being one step away from a gleeful "Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out!".

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Why?

Because it comes across as being kinda gakky.

If you respected his decision to walk away, then you perhaps should have said that. Instead, your post come across as being one step away from a gleeful "Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out!".

Meh maybe, for once it was someone taking a calming proactive way forwards, instead of loitering around being angry for years on end, it was quite refreshing and thought a cheerier tone would be appreciated. No snark intended.

Edit: padded it out for clarity.

Dudeface wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Enjoy the break.

You don't have to be so flippant when people see their armies going through the ringer.

You can't please everyone with everything

You'd have a point if we didn't have people defending objectively bad choices. Yes, there's objectively bad rules.

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:
The more I see of 10th, i wonder if I should make a 9th-10th hybrid. 10th core rules, Psychic phase rolled into command phase or otherwise consolidated, morale is the first half of 9ths test, but with the 10th battleshock. A "hand
of stratagems to cut down on mental load. Just rough ideas but these indexes have all been very off-putting. The only one i've liked is the GSC because the only random, pointless negative change is the leader pistol thing. I'd rather deal with the killiness of 9th and all it's shenanigans than what 10th is shaping up to be. There's good ideas here, buried underneath heaps of strange, pointless, or badly-implemented changes.

Making a Morale house rule for 9th would be really easy, any more than that and I'd be afraid of messing up more than you are fixing, cutting Stratagems down to 6 probably wouldn't change too much either, the niche once in a blue moon gotchas and noob traps would just get removed from the game. I thought all the faction and sub-faction rules in 9th were too much, but if you're in a group that doesn't change what armies are played too much that wouldn't be a problem. The command phase is more useless than the psychic phase was, I don't get the incentive of doing away with it unless you hate psychic tests. I don't really care too much myself since I barely play anything other than Necrons, I really hope Wyldhunt is happy though, he's been annoyed with psychic tests for fluff reasons for a while and I suppose fairness/randomness concerns are fair-ish, although I think randomness is most at home in a system representing interactions with the warp. Sadly I saw a few others not being happy with the psychic changes. 10th was never going to make everyone happy, I personally hate the core rules and love my Necrons index, the opposite issue of 9th. 10th took a major step back with index layouts though, welp this is the same company that designed the 7th edition codex layouts with the Decurion -> Datacards -> Formations that go in Decurion.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Enjoy the break.

You don't have to be so flippant when people see their armies going through the ringer.

You can't please everyone with everything

You'd have a point if we didn't have people defending objectively bad choices. Yes, there's objectively bad rules.

Well, that's subjective, the rules are also subjectively bad to you in isolation, others may disagree, others may not like some rules but tolerate or not be bothered by them as part of the greater whole. Some dud rules doesn't mean there's nothing there for people to enjoy and have a positive time.

You exist purely in absolutes, often confined to your own definitions on things that you apply to others. It might not seem obvious, but you're part of the example of "can't please everyone with everything". Even then you do keep coming back so you obviously enjoy something in this game.

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Enjoy the break.

You don't have to be so flippant when people see their armies going through the ringer.

You can't please everyone with everything

You'd have a point if we didn't have people defending objectively bad choices. Yes, there's objectively bad rules.

Well, that's subjective, the rules are also subjectively bad to you in isolation, others may disagree, others may not like some rules but tolerate or not be bothered by them as part of the greater whole. Some dud rules doesn't mean there's nothing there for people to enjoy and have a positive time.

You exist purely in absolutes, often confined to your own definitions on things that you apply to others. It might not seem obvious, but you're part of the example of "can't please everyone with everything". Even then you do keep coming back so you obviously enjoy something in this game.

I sadly have to agree, the very same choices that cratered my expectations for 10th only made other players happier because playing the game is too hard, they think it better the game plays itself. I personally think they should play idle games and let 40k have as much player agency as possible, only leaving things up to dice when there is a conflict between your desire and your opponent's desire (your opponent wants his Rhino to survive and you want it to die so you have to roll to see whether it survives or dies), rolling to see whether you get your VP for completing a mission and not getting to decide whether you move into base contact is silly.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Enjoy the break.

You don't have to be so flippant when people see their armies going through the ringer.

i honestly wanted to feel spitefull because some of these now complaining were just fine when R&H got legended, and yet i don't because 40k seems to just shrink and become sanitised as a game system...basically it doesn't feel nor look like 40k anymore.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Gert wrote:
The magic of the internet means that anyone at any time can check to see if their opponent is cheating using the downloadable index rules.

And then one person, whose school teaches german points out his tyranid rules in german, and the other person who has the english version calls him a cheater. lol

just default to english being the official version, it's not rocket science -.-

it's also not rocket science to have rules of a game translated into multiple languages. And yet here we are with GW failing even internally producing multiple english rules variants in 30 k ...

 vict0988 wrote:
they think it better the game plays itself

You think 10th plays itself? That's a hot take...

Necrons: imo generally positive; though I think my CCB will be shelved. No "Leader" or Lone Operative rule will see them dead too quickly. C'tan with T:11, W:12, 4++ and halving damage are nice and tanky.

GSC: imo generally positive, too. I like the fact that only the Patriarch is an "Epic Hero" now; I'm definitely fielding 3 Kelermorphs if they're not seriously over-costed.

 vict0988 wrote:
I personally think they should play idle games and let 40k have as much player agency as possible, only leaving things up to dice when there is a conflict between your desire and your opponent's desire (your opponent wants his Rhino to survive and you want it to die so you have to roll to see whether it survives or dies), rolling to see whether you get your VP for completing a mission and not getting to decide whether you move into base contact is silly.

Hell yeah! Exalted!

Not Online!!! wrote:


it's also not rocket science to have rules of a game translated into multiple languages. And yet here we are with GW failing even internally producing multiple english rules variants in 30 k ...

yeah i know, but since the reality is that GW sucks at producing properly translated stuff, we have the workaround of "English is the official version".

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:


it's also not rocket science to have rules of a game translated into multiple languages. And yet here we are with GW failing even internally producing multiple english rules variants in 30 k ...

yeah i know, but since the reality is that GW sucks at producing properly translated stuff, we have the workaround of "English is the official version".

Which english version? Again there's multiple in 30k f.e.

So no, english is not capable of being the general standard. NONE is, thanks to gw sucking that hard.

Dudeface wrote:

dominuschao wrote:
Xenos indexes are up.
https://www.warhammer-community.com/en-us/warhammer-40000/

Its worse than I thought for drukhari. Jesus I thought theres no way they couldn't feth them up this bad even if they tried. Wrong. Thats the last of my armies revealed. I'll be sitting this edition out. L8r

Enjoy the break, it might be refreshing and save you a lot of anger, it can be a wise choice sometimes even if it sucks.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Enjoy the break.

You don't have to be so flippant when people see their armies going through the ringer.

Thanks fellas and honestly I take no offense. Had this impression early on but wanted to wait for the rest of my armies reveals before making a decision.
Now I know for certain I'm not gonna participate in this edition. Other editions are just much more inspiring to me and I have bros who agree so I don't have to. Theres plenty of amazing rules in previous editions for most factions that make this whole release look like a joke. Or likely a preview before the $$$ grab comes.

Either way I see no reason to give GW any time or credit for this lackluster product. There was a time I felt compelled to stay current but those days are done. I'll play the better rules and check back in down the road. GL with this thing.

The Twin Smart Missile Systems on Devilfish have 2 shots, whereas the Twin Smart Missile Systems on Skyrays, Hammerheads, Broadsides, and Riptide have 3 shots.

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Enjoy the break.

You don't have to be so flippant when people see their armies going through the ringer.

You can't please everyone with everything

You'd have a point if we didn't have people defending objectively bad choices. Yes, there's objectively bad rules.

Well, that's subjective, the rules are also subjectively bad to you in isolation, others may disagree, others may not like some rules but tolerate or not be bothered by them as part of the greater whole. Some dud rules doesn't mean there's nothing there for people to enjoy and have a positive time.

You exist purely in absolutes, often confined to your own definitions on things that you apply to others. It might not seem obvious, but you're part of the example of "can't please everyone with everything". Even then you do keep coming back so you obviously enjoy something in this game.

I like the setting, but I hate gak rules even more than that. If you remove the setting, you'd not play the game because of how bad the rules are, and that IS a fact.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
The Twin Smart Missile Systems on Devilfish have 2 shots, whereas the Twin Smart Missile Systems on Skyrays, Hammerheads, Broadsides, and Riptide have 3 shots.

With how things are designed it could be intentional or a mistake. We won't have anyway to know, but I've bugged them already for versioning and a statement for when they can confirm the datasheets are "correct".

Breton wrote:

I suspect most "chaff" level "troops" - cultists, poxwalkers, Guard squads, little bugs, etc will be OC1

Guard squads are OC2, that was already known from the Astra Militarum previews a couple weeks ago.

 catbarf wrote:
I'm actually a little excited to see that the walls between Scions and the rest of the AM codex are mostly coming down. Looks like Scions can ride in Chimeras and Valkyries now, and you can freely mix Regiment and Tempestus units without issue. The only restriction I see is that only Tempestus stuff can ride in Taurox Primes.

With the aircraft restriction seemingly gone, I'm thinking a naval QRF might be back on the table- VBSS teams using Scion rules, transported by Valkyries, Chimeras, and Taurox Primes. Maybe back them up with some press-ganged naval ratings (Infantry), labor Ogryns (Bullgryns), and a Techpriest with some servitors.

You and I have slightly different interpretations of the treatment that Scions received. Conditional Battleline with the inclusion of a command squad only, only characters that can attach to them are Tempestus Command Squads, Preachers, Commisars, and Psykers, they only get OC2 if you attach a command squad w/ a regimental standard (whereas actual battleline units have OC2 natively and go up to OC3 with a command squad + standard), etc. etc. etc. Theres basically no benefit to play a pure Militarum Tempestus list now, they've completely diluted any identity that the subfaction might have had before and now you basically need to take non MT units if you want to have any hope of not being blown off the table (taking Scions down to a cap of 6 units really really hurts).

In a similar vein it kinda looks like Harlequins got royally screwed, any identity that they had separate from the rest of the book is gone, any benefits they may have had to offset the lack of access to non-Harlequin units is likewise gone. Playing pure Harlequins is going to be playing on hard more, if its even possible at all - I don't think they'll be able to make points with the new unit caps in place. Starweavers don't have the same "split squad" rule that Drukhari Venoms do, which means you're limited to either 6 squads of 5-6 Harlequins in transports (or 6 squads of up to 12 on foot - unless of course you want to play mix and match and bring them in wave serpents and break Harlequin purity) - Harlequins are OC1 and I don't see any way of changing that (which means you probably don't want to bring 6 squads in Starweavers, you'll lack the mass to cap or hold anything), and nothing with the harlequins tag has a OC higher than 2 - units of 4 skyweavers might be the Harlies best objective cappers, and they aren't necessarily suited for the role or that good at it. Voidweavers are limited to 3 in the entire army, which might not be a bad thing in terms of balance but that makes it a bit harder to fill out your lists. At max, a Harlequins list will consist of:

1 Death Jester
3 Troupe Mastes
3 Death Jesters
3 Shadow Seers
6 Troupes of 5-6 models + 6 Starweavers OR 6 Troupes of up to 12 models
12 Skyweavers
3 Voidweavers

Obvs we don't know what points are going to look like, but based on current points I think that totals out to ~2100 pts sans additional upgrades. I anticipate most Harlie lists are probably going to end up looking identical just based on lack of options to use up points.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
The Twin Smart Missile Systems on Devilfish have 2 shots, whereas the Twin Smart Missile Systems on Skyrays, Hammerheads, Broadsides, and Riptide have 3 shots.

With how things are designed it could be intentional or a mistake. We won't have anyway to know, but I've bugged them already for versioning and a statement for when they can confirm the datasheets are "correct".

I would be incredibly surprised if they intended the devilfish to work differently. If that was the case they could have just given it the name they gave to the Fire Warrior support turret weapon (which is also a 2 shot smart missile system, but is called "Support turret missile system" to differentiate it).

Also, the Fire Warrior pulse carbine does not have the Assault keyword, whereas every Twin Pulse Carbine does. Also, no battlesuit weapons are Assault, so the mobile gun platforms are actually incapable of shooting on the move when advancing, whereas the Fire Warrior with a Pulse Blaster is.

Yea, unfortunately they did a terrible job making sure the rules were actually ready before we get to use them.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Yea, unfortunately they did a terrible job making sure the rules were actually ready before we get to use them.

Oh 10th is early access?

Pretty much to be honest.

At least it is free.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Enjoy the break.

You don't have to be so flippant when people see their armies going through the ringer.

You can't please everyone with everything

You'd have a point if we didn't have people defending objectively bad choices. Yes, there's objectively bad rules.

Well, that's subjective, the rules are also subjectively bad to you in isolation, others may disagree, others may not like some rules but tolerate or not be bothered by them as part of the greater whole. Some dud rules doesn't mean there's nothing there for people to enjoy and have a positive time.

You exist purely in absolutes, often confined to your own definitions on things that you apply to others. It might not seem obvious, but you're part of the example of "can't please everyone with everything". Even then you do keep coming back so you obviously enjoy something in this game.

I like the setting, but I hate gak rules even more than that. If you remove the setting, you'd not play the game because of how bad the rules are, and that IS a fact.

That's an unquantifiable statement to be honest, even without they have the nicest minis imo so I'd be buying them, I'd likely play killteam rather than 40k for the sakes of using whatever I had. As I get more inevitably try it. The rules alone aren't a showstopper for sure, but I've enjoyed my time playing it mostly, so it's good enough for me one way or the other.

If your negative is outweighing your positive consistently, why not go do something that brings you more joy? It must be horrible sinking free time into something you dislike. This isn't a "harder stop fething moaning and get out", but a genuine why do something that doesn't bring joy?

I'm just happy I'm not as picky as you guys. At least I didn't have to pay for any of this stuff this time around. I'm not convinced previous few editions were any better, 40K has never had rules which were considered great by the vast majority of experienced players. Perhaps you just forgot you felt the same way when last edition dropped? And the one before that?

 Lord Clinto wrote:
Necrons: imo generally positive; though I think my CCB will be shelved. No "Leader" or Lone Operative rule will see them dead too quickly. C'tan with T:11, W:12, 4++ and halving damage are nice and tanky.

The command barge should be pretty hard to shift if you give it the sempiternal weave. I don't think you can justify taking one without that enhancement though.

I think most would agree it isn't the most polished edition we have ever seen. Feels very much like a beta release in some ways. Definite "live service" vibes. I'm usually one of the more forgiving types to GW, and even I'm annoyed at all the errors in the indexes.

Off the top of my head, the only worse release I have seen is the 2017 IA Index, which was a real mess.

 Tyran wrote:
Pretty much to be honest.

At least it is free.

GW would probably get some free goodwill if they were up front about this being an "early access" or "beta test" of the game. People might be more forgiving of all the obvious typos and headscratchers for a billion dollar company.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
they think it better the game plays itself

You think 10th plays itself? That's a hot take...

Do you think it'll be more rewarding of skill compared to previous editions? I'd be interested to hear why you think that is the case. I'd probably say 8th>9th>5th>6th>10th>7th going from the edition that played itself the least to the one that plays itself the most. 10th of course just being an estimation because I haven't played it yet. Seeing the Necrons codex was really nice though, I'm trying to get hyped again. I'll play a couple of games this weekend and then get proper stuck in next Wednesday and play a couple dozen games before passing a true verdict. GW can look forward to another edition of not getting a penny if balance isn't okay, one really nice thing to see is how much GW seems to have listened to feedback in terms of what players want for their factions. I know the Drukhari index is getting a lot of gak, I know that re-rolls are all over the place, but at least they seem to have been aware it was a problem and tried to solve it, going back to an old habit of just adding re-rolls when something needs a buff is understandable, but this is just indexes, they can still fix this for the codexes.

 Lord Clinto wrote:
Necrons: imo generally positive; though I think my CCB will be shelved. No "Leader" or Lone Operative rule will see them dead too quickly. C'tan with T:11, W:12, 4++ and halving damage are nice and tanky.

CCB has a great datasheet, whether it is competitive will come down to points. The CCB res orb is going to be amazing combined with Canoptek Reanimators, it's also the only way to benefit from a res orb in units with Imotekh/Anrakyr/Zahndrekh, of course whether heroes will be viable also comes down to points. A 4+++ relic seems really good, unless it's not allowed or costs an outrageous amount of points, you're doubling durability.

This wasn't the most playtested edition ever...

 Lord Damocles wrote:
This wasn't the most playtested edition ever...

well or the slightly more concerning though is maybe it was

meaning the other stuff that worked was a mix of good luck and smaller design teams who knew what they were doing and left to get on with it

some of the "day minus one" issues do seem to be the stuff that a competent proof reading team would have found, and yes for this its a team - of people who know enough about the game to spot logical mistakes not just spelling etc. At a guess GW does what some software houses do and try to make everyone part of the proof reading/testing team and the result shines through in a lovely warm brownish colour

ahh well, it is what it is, lets see where it goes, as I've noted before, this is the 10th edition, by now it should be damned near perfect, the fact it isn't shows GW don't care that it isn't, it isn't meant to be and doesn't need to be for GWs purposes

Hmm, I haven't reviewed all the armies yet, but I've looked at the armies I generally play and overall not bad!

One thing I've noticed is some of the armies is that unit sizes have generally gone down, and some units now have fixed sizes....I was afraid unit choices and list building were gonna take a hit...looks like it happened.

The core rules still look good. I am excited to play some games in the coming weeks and test everything out.

Less than a dozen errors among that many data sheets is acceptable. Most TTRPGs have worse second printing errata than that and GW has shown a willingness to hot fix things that need it.

I'm excited for Necrons, actually. They seem solid for the most part. My other army, Slaanesh, not so much... Slaanesh aren't terrible (in comparison to other armies), but they didn't excite me the way Necrons did.

Definitely playing Necrons in my first game of 10th!

 vict0988 wrote:

Do you think it'll be more rewarding of skill compared to previous editions?

It will take me a bit to write up why

I feel like 10th edition 40k will be pretty skill-based as the tight CP limits will force hard choices about strats and the missions force an understanding of the game beyond just killing stuff. There are also a number of units with once-per-game abilities and timing those for their best effect will also take skill.

Besides the loss of tri-pointing which was always pretty lame and felt unintentional what has 10th lost that 9th had?

There have to be some errors in the harlequin list.

The troupe leader special weapon is an upgrade but objectively worse than the default.

The shadowseer and death jester have 4 wounds but the solitaire has 3? And the solitaire is still an epic hero so you can only have one. It won't survive to do anything.

the only faction that got stat improvements is, surprise surprise the marines. increased wounds and toughness on units and characters. Better attacks profiles than even special characters in other armies.


They have literally stripped non marine armies of stats and power and increased marines. If that doesn't show the embedded bias towards marines in the game.

 Hellebore wrote:

They have literally stripped non marine armies of stats and power and increased marines. If that doesn't show the embedded bias towards marines in the game.

It's pretty incredible how bad it's gotten, yeah.

"Marines uber alles" :/

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:

They have literally stripped non marine armies of stats and power and increased marines. If that doesn't show the embedded bias towards marines in the game.

It's pretty incredible how bad it's gotten, yeah.

"Marines uber alles" :/

I wouldn't go that far. I mean, look at Vanguard and Sternguard for example. My Plasma/Grav Cannon Sternguard are illegal, as are all my dual pistol Vanguard.

My Genestealers are W2 so I'm not sure I can accept 'only Marines got better stats' at face value.

 catbarf wrote:
My Genestealers are W2 so I'm not sure I can accept 'only Marines got better stats' at face value.

Calgar gained 1T, lost 2W (and his ability to halve incoming damage), picked up a 4+++ that'll be nearly impossible to use on your own terms, and lost some conditional attacks

Tiggy lost a wound, gained an attack, and lost the conditionals.

Cassius lost 1T, gained 2A, and lost the conditionals.

Telion the sniper did the same only with Wounds and attacks.

Your generic Indomitus Storm (Relic) Shield cap: Evened out of T and W (only because he's got a Relic Shield) gained an attack, lost a 4+++ vs mortals and his situational attacks and gained some use once REALLY conditionals...

The Generic Gravis Cap: Gained +1MV, +1T, lost 1W, and their chainsword ginsu build which was of dubious popularity.

The Primaris Chap: lost 1W, gained 1A,

The Firstborn Tech Marine? Lost 1W, gained 1A.

I'm not sure I'd accept Marines got better stats at all. They seem to have traded a point here for a point there usually but not always/necessarily of equivalent value. The sniper Telion probably would rather have the wounds than a bunch of basic combat blade attacks. But its not unheard of for some folks to hate one faction more than they like being honest, whether its anti-Marine, or anti-Eldar, or what have you.

Terminators went to T5.
Gravis to T6.

Dudeface wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Enjoy the break.

You don't have to be so flippant when people see their armies going through the ringer.

Why? It's actually a very grounded and mature post where they've realised they dislike it so choose not to participate in something they won't enjoy.

As opposed to complaining that the minis they paid good money for are now less useful? I'm guessing you're one of those people who think customers are such rotten entities that they have no right to complain to the glorious corporate overlords?

 JNAProductions wrote:
Terminators went to T5.
Gravis to T6.

Yeah, that's why I also tried to include non-Gravis/Terminator stuff who appear to have done some wounds for attacks shuffle.

 catbarf wrote:
My Genestealers are W2 so I'm not sure I can accept 'only Marines got better stats' at face value.

To be fair, a lot of stats have been shuffled around, but the seemingly inexorable crawl of Marines into higher comparative stats continues its slow march. What usually seems to happen is that adjustments will be made from edition to edition (sometimes small, but sometimes large like adding an extra wound to Marines), but whatever formerly comparable xenos unit, even if they get an upgrade, it won't be commensurate to whatever the Marines get. (Marines getting 2W while Orks get T5 a little later is an example there), or the game will change and xenos units will be left behind, (the classic example is Shuriken Catapults vs. Bolters from 3rd through the present). Little adjustments over the years that eventually result in net-benefits for Marines.

It's not "only Marines get better stats". It's more like, over time the net result of all changes favors Marines in terms of represented general power level.

I don't mind if Marines get stronger over time, provided their points reflect that in comparison to the weaker armies. I don't have enough data to verify that's what happens, though, as I don't play Marines myself, and have only played 2nd/3rd and 9th.

Hecate wrote:
I don't mind if Marines get stronger over time, provided their points reflect that in comparison to the weaker armies. I don't have enough data to verify that's what happens, though, as I don't play Marines myself, and have only played 2nd/3rd and 9th.

^And this is an all-too-common response.

It changes the dynamic of the setting. It's not about balance and points, but about the relationships between power level representation of the lore. It robs Marine-opposition of some of it's cool factor when Pheonix Lords, who are millenia-old immortal champions of the Eldar are only T3 compared to the Gravis Captains T6, or when Mariens are fielding battle-line troops that are nearly the size of Tyranid Warriors and starting to rock comparable stats.

I mean, I get what you're saying. Lore is being modified in-game, and it's no longer what a lot of players started with. Other armies being less awesome in-game than their fluff says they should be, in comparison to Marines who shouldn't be so powerful. I do understand that viewpoint.

But I understand the "is the game balanced enough to still be fun?" viewpoint too. I like the lore of 40k. I like a fun game more. So if stats/lore changes over the years, I'm okay with it if it's still a fun game. Just personal opinion. I understand the alternative viewpoint. I still value gameplay more than lore-appropriateness, though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ideally it'd be both, which I think was your view too. But I still prefer gameplay over lore.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Hecate wrote:
I don't mind if Marines get stronger over time, provided their points reflect that in comparison to the weaker armies. I don't have enough data to verify that's what happens, though, as I don't play Marines myself, and have only played 2nd/3rd and 9th.

^And this is an all-too-common response.

It changes the dynamic of the setting. It's not about balance and points, but about the relationships between power level representation of the lore. It robs Marine-opposition of some of it's cool factor when Pheonix Lords, who are millenia-old immortal champions of the Eldar are only T3 compared to the Gravis Captains T6, or when Mariens are fielding battle-line troops that are nearly the size of Tyranid Warriors and starting to rock comparable stats.

So should Marines go back to being T3 then? Sure, most players never played back when they had that toughness but if you're going to argue for reverting stat changes we should go back to the start.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Hecate wrote:
I don't mind if Marines get stronger over time, provided their points reflect that in comparison to the weaker armies. I don't have enough data to verify that's what happens, though, as I don't play Marines myself, and have only played 2nd/3rd and 9th.

^And this is an all-too-common response.

It changes the dynamic of the setting. It's not about balance and points, but about the relationships between power level representation of the lore. It robs Marine-opposition of some of it's cool factor when Pheonix Lords, who are millenia-old immortal champions of the Eldar are only T3 compared to the Gravis Captains T6, or when Mariens are fielding battle-line troops that are nearly the size of Tyranid Warriors and starting to rock comparable stats.

So should Marines go back to being T3 then? Sure, most players never played back when they had that toughness but if you're going to argue for reverting stat changes we should go back to the start.

I found marines worked well enough at T3 with a 4+ save, they were what they were then meant to be, humans with better training and equipment and some cybernetic enhancements of various sorts but not supermen

the move to make them both supermen and at the same time be the 'baseline' is screwing a lot of things up. when 40k started the baseline was a normal human, most stats at 3, psych stats at 7, 1w and 1 attack, 5 points with everything else scaled from them.

didn't always work but you knew the baseline

now they need to scrap the d6 system, I'd go d12 as they roll nicely, maybe put a normal human at "4", stick a marine at "5" and have space to go down in a meaningful way while still having the top end for better stuff

think also the SvT relationship needs adjusting, currently S8 is basically twice as good as S4, when actually all S8 should mean is "better than S7 by enough to matter and worse than S9 by enough to matter"

leopard wrote:
I found marines worked well enough at T3 with a 4+ save, they were what they were then meant to be, humans with better training and equipment and some cybernetic enhancements of various sorts but not supermen

the move to make them both supermen and at the same time be the 'baseline' is screwing a lot of things up. when 40k started the baseline was a normal human, most stats at 3, psych stats at 7, 1w and 1 attack, 5 points with everything else scaled from them.

didn't always work but you knew the baseline

now they need to scrap the d6 system, I'd go d12 as they roll nicely, maybe put a normal human at "4", stick a marine at "5" and have space to go down in a meaningful way while still having the top end for better stuff

think also the SvT relationship needs adjusting, currently S8 is basically twice as good as S4, when actually all S8 should mean is "better than S7 by enough to matter and worse than S9 by enough to matter"

90% or more of the player base has never played a game where the baseline Marine was T4 with a 3+ save, I don't think many people would support going back to being guardsmen.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Hecate wrote:
I don't mind if Marines get stronger over time, provided their points reflect that in comparison to the weaker armies. I don't have enough data to verify that's what happens, though, as I don't play Marines myself, and have only played 2nd/3rd and 9th.

^And this is an all-too-common response.

It changes the dynamic of the setting. It's not about balance and points, but about the relationships between power level representation of the lore. It robs Marine-opposition of some of it's cool factor when Pheonix Lords, who are millenia-old immortal champions of the Eldar are only T3 compared to the Gravis Captains T6, or when Mariens are fielding battle-line troops that are nearly the size of Tyranid Warriors and starting to rock comparable stats.

So should Marines go back to being T3 then? Sure, most players never played back when they had that toughness but if you're going to argue for reverting stat changes we should go back to the start.

^Good one. your logic is strong. . .

not.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Hecate wrote:
I don't mind if Marines get stronger over time, provided their points reflect that in comparison to the weaker armies. I don't have enough data to verify that's what happens, though, as I don't play Marines myself, and have only played 2nd/3rd and 9th.

^And this is an all-too-common response.

It changes the dynamic of the setting. It's not about balance and points, but about the relationships between power level representation of the lore. It robs Marine-opposition of some of it's cool factor when Pheonix Lords, who are millenia-old immortal champions of the Eldar are only T3 compared to the Gravis Captains T6, or when Mariens are fielding battle-line troops that are nearly the size of Tyranid Warriors and starting to rock comparable stats.

So should Marines go back to being T3 then? Sure, most players never played back when they had that toughness but if you're going to argue for reverting stat changes we should go back to the start.

^Good one. your logic is strong. . .

not.

So you're only opposed to some types of stat inflation (likely based on the state of the game and its lore when you first started playing).

He's referring to the changes that Phoenix Lords have suffered. Those occurred between the change from 9th to 10th, and have nothing to do with the distant history of 1st Edition T3 Marines, so his points are are both recent and relevant.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

leopard wrote:
I found marines worked well enough at T3 with a 4+ save, they were what they were then meant to be, humans with better training and equipment and some cybernetic enhancements of various sorts but not supermen

the move to make them both supermen and at the same time be the 'baseline' is screwing a lot of things up. when 40k started the baseline was a normal human, most stats at 3, psych stats at 7, 1w and 1 attack, 5 points with everything else scaled from them.

didn't always work but you knew the baseline

now they need to scrap the d6 system, I'd go d12 as they roll nicely, maybe put a normal human at "4", stick a marine at "5" and have space to go down in a meaningful way while still having the top end for better stuff

think also the SvT relationship needs adjusting, currently S8 is basically twice as good as S4, when actually all S8 should mean is "better than S7 by enough to matter and worse than S9 by enough to matter"

90% or more of the player base has never played a game where the baseline Marine was T4 with a 3+ save, I don't think many people would support going back to being guardsmen.

To be fair, a good number of people raging about numbers now being different numbers also haven't played any of the last editions either - according to their own posts in other threads.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
He's referring to the changes that Phoenix Lords have suffered. Those occurred between the change from 9th to 10th, and have nothing to do with the distant history of 1st Edition T3 Marines, so his points are are both recent and relevant.

Eldar and Pheonix Lords both seem like they're going to do fine in 10th edition. I don't see any reason for the complaints.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

leopard wrote:
I found marines worked well enough at T3 with a 4+ save, they were what they were then meant to be, humans with better training and equipment and some cybernetic enhancements of various sorts but not supermen

the move to make them both supermen and at the same time be the 'baseline' is screwing a lot of things up. when 40k started the baseline was a normal human, most stats at 3, psych stats at 7, 1w and 1 attack, 5 points with everything else scaled from them.

didn't always work but you knew the baseline

now they need to scrap the d6 system, I'd go d12 as they roll nicely, maybe put a normal human at "4", stick a marine at "5" and have space to go down in a meaningful way while still having the top end for better stuff

think also the SvT relationship needs adjusting, currently S8 is basically twice as good as S4, when actually all S8 should mean is "better than S7 by enough to matter and worse than S9 by enough to matter"

90% or more of the player base has never played a game where the baseline Marine was T4 with a 3+ save, I don't think many people would support going back to being guardsmen.

To be fair, a good number of people raging about numbers now being different numbers also haven't played any of the last editions either - according to their own posts in other threads.

I think being angry about stuff is it's own hobby at this point. I get we can't play the game until today, but what a lot of wasted energy all round.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

leopard wrote:
I found marines worked well enough at T3 with a 4+ save, they were what they were then meant to be, humans with better training and equipment and some cybernetic enhancements of various sorts but not supermen

the move to make them both supermen and at the same time be the 'baseline' is screwing a lot of things up. when 40k started the baseline was a normal human, most stats at 3, psych stats at 7, 1w and 1 attack, 5 points with everything else scaled from them.

didn't always work but you knew the baseline

now they need to scrap the d6 system, I'd go d12 as they roll nicely, maybe put a normal human at "4", stick a marine at "5" and have space to go down in a meaningful way while still having the top end for better stuff

think also the SvT relationship needs adjusting, currently S8 is basically twice as good as S4, when actually all S8 should mean is "better than S7 by enough to matter and worse than S9 by enough to matter"

90% or more of the player base has never played a game where the baseline Marine was T4 with a 3+ save, I don't think many people would support going back to being guardsmen.

don't have a problem with it, my point is that marines cannot really be both the 'baseline' against which all the rest are scaled, and also considered to be "elite", it needs a rethink that GW see no commercial reason to do as people will keep buying crap rules to use nice models, as noted before this is 10th edition, it should be damned near perfet, that it isn't is a clear sign it never will be

leopard wrote:
I don't have a problem with it, my point is that marines cannot really be both the 'baseline' against which all the rest are scaled, and also considered to be "elite", it needs a rethink that GW see no commercial reason to do as people will keep buying crap rules to use nice models, as noted before this is 10th edition, it should be damned near perfet, that it isn't is a clear sign it never will be

Why should we care what the baseline is? As long as it doesn't hurt the gameplay nobody should care if a marine is T4 2W 3+ or T6 5W 2+.

leopard wrote:
...my point is that marines cannot really be both the 'baseline' against which all the rest are scaled, and also considered to be "elite"

Why not? You can totally set the baseline as an elite profile, with things being stronger or weaker than that.

 Trickstick wrote:

leopard wrote:
...my point is that marines cannot really be both the 'baseline' against which all the rest are scaled, and also considered to be "elite"

Why not? You can totally set the baseline as an elite profile, with things being stronger or weaker than that.

The whole point of being elite is that you are not baseline. If you are baseline then you are not elite. Things better (and supposedly rarer) than you are elite. Tho I guess you can just fluff it however you want and if enough people believe it then it becomes the truth or something along those lines. Crazier things have happened.

Baseline is just a point you define that you measure other things from. You can have an elite profile as your baseline, if you want to tailor the experience around how things interact with elite units.

The issue with Marines isn't really their "eliteness" - the problem is that they are meant to be a relatively tough, easy to play army.

The problem is that if a unit isn't good into "Marines" its probably just a bad unit - because MEQ make up about half the playerbase so you'll constantly be running into that stat line.

So this creates this cycle where Marines get tougher. But then the rest of the game has to grow more lethal to catch up. So Marines get tougher still. Until the game catches up again etc. Enter 9th and just about every unit in the game is a glass cannon that expects to kill and be killed by everything else.

But we can see that now. If mass Gravis for instance becomes meta, everyone will have to bring units that can crack T6. The units that can't will be discarded. Until GW buffs them so they can cope. But then Gravis will appear too fragile so will need T8 and round and round we go.

 Trickstick wrote:
Baseline is just a point you define that you measure other things from. You can have an elite profile as your baseline, if you want to tailor the experience around how things interact with elite units.

Whelp, sure, we can also handwave it with corpospeak like "we want to tailor the experience around how things interact with elite units".

Tyel wrote:
The issue with Marines isn't really their "eliteness" - the problem is that they are meant to be a relatively tough, easy to play army.

The problem is that if a unit isn't good into "Marines" its probably just a bad unit - because MEQ make up about half the playerbase so you'll constantly be running into that stat line.

So this creates this cycle where Marines get tougher. But then the rest of the game has to grow more lethal to catch up. So Marines get tougher still. Until the game catches up again etc. Enter 9th and just about every unit in the game is a glass cannon that expects to kill and be killed by everything else.

But we can see that now. If mass Gravis for instance becomes meta, everyone will have to bring units that can crack T6. The units that can't will be discarded. Until GW buffs them so they can cope. But then Gravis will appear too fragile so will need T8 and round and round we go.

I'm looking forward to T matching the MK of the armor

The baseline in this case isn't being used in the sense of "arbitrary point against which one measures"; I think Insectum means 'baseline' as in 'baseline assumption'.

The designers and players both assume that Marines are the most popular and most played army. This leads to an awkward situation where the designers try to make them appeal to many people, and the players tend to either tailor specifically against them or simply play them outright.

This baseline assumption (that Marines are the most common army) is incongruous with Marines being elite in the lore, and causes weird disjunctions like the whole "plasma is rare and arcane, one of the few weapons able to deal with the single space marine a human will see in their lifetime" vs. "plasma on every tank and squad for the hordes of Space Marines this army has to chew through in two of every three games"

Tyel wrote:
The issue with Marines isn't really their "eliteness" - the problem is that they are meant to be a relatively tough, easy to play army.

The problem is that if a unit isn't good into "Marines" its probably just a bad unit - because MEQ make up about half the playerbase so you'll constantly be running into that stat line.

So this creates this cycle where Marines get tougher. But then the rest of the game has to grow more lethal to catch up. So Marines get tougher still. Until the game catches up again etc. Enter 9th and just about every unit in the game is a glass cannon that expects to kill and be killed by everything else.

But we can see that now. If mass Gravis for instance becomes meta, everyone will have to bring units that can crack T6. The units that can't will be discarded. Until GW buffs them so they can cope. But then Gravis will appear too fragile so will need T8 and round and round we go.

I think the toughness spread keeps that from being a problem. Cracking T6 / T7 models requires some relatively strong and low shot weapons, which means more room for hordes.

Eldar may not have seen stat increases, but they look to be the army with the most options to have reactive movement.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Tyel wrote:
The issue with Marines isn't really their "eliteness" - the problem is that they are meant to be a relatively tough, easy to play army.

The problem is that if a unit isn't good into "Marines" its probably just a bad unit - because MEQ make up about half the playerbase so you'll constantly be running into that stat line.

So this creates this cycle where Marines get tougher. But then the rest of the game has to grow more lethal to catch up. So Marines get tougher still. Until the game catches up again etc. Enter 9th and just about every unit in the game is a glass cannon that expects to kill and be killed by everything else.

But we can see that now. If mass Gravis for instance becomes meta, everyone will have to bring units that can crack T6. The units that can't will be discarded. Until GW buffs them so they can cope. But then Gravis will appear too fragile so will need T8 and round and round we go.

I think the toughness spread keeps that from being a problem. Cracking T6 / T7 models requires some relatively strong and low shot weapons, which means more room for hordes.

So, as someone who plans to face a crapton of this shiny new Gravis in 10th edition, I'm really looking into options to counter them nowadays. As it turns out, stuff that counters Gravis well also happen to be Blast arty and other high-STR horde removers (Manticore, LRBT). Go figure.

T6/7 is exactly the same as T5 for many armies.

Shooting your basic S4 gun, you won't even notice. A lot of special/heavy weapons won't notice in the other direction- they'll still wound on 3s either way.

There's a very specific list of guns where it matters, and for a lot of armies it begins and ends with heavy bolters (or equivalents). With a few special exceptions (like assault cans/onslaught gats for marines), the rest are niche weapons you probably won't be using anyway.

 AtoMaki wrote:
So, as someone who plans to face a crapton of this shiny new Gravis in 10th edition, I'm really looking into options to counter them nowadays. As it turns out, stuff that counters Gravis well also happen to be Blast arty and other high-STR horde removers (Manticore, LRBT). Go figure.

A Manticore kills 2 Gravis, 1 Termies, and 4 to 5 IS in cover. A BC is 0.8, 0.4, and 3 respectively.

Gravis are 110, Termies are 200, and 20 IS are 130. Manticore is 105. It will take it almost all game for a Manticore to clear a single IS squad and less into Gravis. Termies lock them out - not enough AP.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:
So, as someone who plans to face a crapton of this shiny new Gravis in 10th edition, I'm really looking into options to counter them nowadays. As it turns out, stuff that counters Gravis well also happen to be Blast arty and other high-STR horde removers (Manticore, LRBT). Go figure.

A Manticore kills 2 Gravis, 1 Termies, and 4 to 5 IS in cover. A BC is 0.8, 0.4, and 3 respectively.

Gravis are 110, Termies are 200, and 20 IS are 130. Manticore is 105. It will take it almost all game for a Manticore to clear a single IS squad and less into Gravis. Termies lock them out - not enough AP.

I obviously don't plan to have just 1 unsupported Manticore go at it and wipe all ~20 Heavy Intercessors I'll likely face in the first turn. I fully embrace the Stack & Spam mentality this edition seemingly encourages tho I'm not yet certain how I will squeeze all those stacking buffs I plan to use in 2000 points.

Insectum7 wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
My Genestealers are W2 so I'm not sure I can accept 'only Marines got better stats' at face value.

To be fair, a lot of stats have been shuffled around, but the seemingly inexorable crawl of Marines into higher comparative stats continues its slow march. What usually seems to happen is that adjustments will be made from edition to edition (sometimes small, but sometimes large like adding an extra wound to Marines), but whatever formerly comparable xenos unit, even if they get an upgrade, it won't be commensurate to whatever the Marines get. (Marines getting 2W while Orks get T5 a little later is an example there), or the game will change and xenos units will be left behind, (the classic example is Shuriken Catapults vs. Bolters from 3rd through the present). Little adjustments over the years that eventually result in net-benefits for Marines.

It's not "only Marines get better stats". It's more like, over time the net result of all changes favors Marines in terms of represented general power level.

I totally get where you're coming from, and it does seem like Marines get the paradigm shift before anyone else. But we are also looking at an edition where GW has finally realized that being limited to T1-T9 makes no sense for how they've reworked the core mechanics, so there's some logical expansion occurring with defensive stats. I'm not really bothered by existing units getting bumped up in W or T, because that's actually a reasonable way to increase durability without resorting to obnoxious invuln spam like GW has in the past.

Some of the abusable fancy tricks that Marines historically got have also been nerfed- Stormshields giving you +1W instead of a invuln? Yeah sure, W4 dudes will die to D2 heavy bolters just the same.

I mean, I guess I agree with your overall point, I'm just not sure that this transition in particular is more proof positive of it. I feel the real advances tend to come with the Marine codices, which come more frequently than for anyone else, and kick them to the forefront of the power creep every time.

Trickstick wrote:

leopard wrote:
...my point is that marines cannot really be both the 'baseline' against which all the rest are scaled, and also considered to be "elite"

Why not? You can totally set the baseline as an elite profile, with things being stronger or weaker than that.

Then it isn't elite, it's normal. Your baseline is the yardstick against everything else is judged; it's going to feel ordinary and mundane, and everything weaker will feel like garbage. Nobody plays Horus Heresy and walks away thinking 'man, those Tactical Marines sure are elite'.

More importantly, you start running into design issues if your 'baseline' is actually an atypical or mechanically niche profile. You can design a game around T4/W2/3+, but as we've seen that means any take-all-comers army is going to be loaded to the gills with AP and D2, so you shouldn't be surprised that that profile feels squishy and vulnerable when hard-countering it is the default option.

 AtoMaki wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:
So, as someone who plans to face a crapton of this shiny new Gravis in 10th edition, I'm really looking into options to counter them nowadays. As it turns out, stuff that counters Gravis well also happen to be Blast arty and other high-STR horde removers (Manticore, LRBT). Go figure.

A Manticore kills 2 Gravis, 1 Termies, and 4 to 5 IS in cover. A BC is 0.8, 0.4, and 3 respectively.

Gravis are 110, Termies are 200, and 20 IS are 130. Manticore is 105. It will take it almost all game for a Manticore to clear a single IS squad and less into Gravis. Termies lock them out - not enough AP.

I obviously don't plan to have just 1 unsupported Manticore go at it and wipe all ~20 Heavy Intercessors I'll likely face in the first turn. I fully embrace the Stack & Spam mentality this edition seemingly encourages tho I'm not yet certain how I will squeeze all those stacking buffs I plan to use in 2000 points.

Scout Sentinel to allow RR1s and ignore the IDF penalty is cheap, as is the Exploding Sixes Master of Ordnance. Manticore Missiles are Heavy, meaning you hit on 3s standing still without the IDF buff. Combined with RR1s and explodey sixes, I'm curious to see where it goes - add in the Fields of Fire Stratagem for +1 AP and you've got an interesting gunline. Those are the immediate standouts for me, if you want a Guard artillery line.

I'm sort of eager to see how absurd the Firing Deck rule can get. A Stormlord has a firing deck of 24, meaning 24 extra weapons can be fired by the transport, applying any buffs the Transport has (or debuffs, for that matter).

Will the people that said the SM and IG unit costs were a stopgap measure please step up to the pillory? GW game designers are lazy hacks, boo! I hope the community develops a new set of points and accepts those in favour of this trash.

 catbarf wrote:

Some of the abusable fancy tricks that Marines historically got have also been nerfed- Stormshields giving you +1W instead of a invuln? Yeah sure, W4 dudes will die to D2 heavy bolters just the same.

Agreed, I'd rather see increased Toughness rather than a proliferation of Invuls (although there's been an increase in those in 10e so far, Ramshackle on Buggys has been swapped to a 6++, tomato tomato I guess). I think the Stormshield is still giving a 4++ though just looking at the Crusader on the Sisters sheet. If you already have an Invul I believe they're giving +1W instead of the previous +1 Armor Save (1+ for Custodes).

 Insectum7 wrote:

Hecate wrote:
I don't mind if Marines get stronger over time, provided their points reflect that in comparison to the weaker armies. I don't have enough data to verify that's what happens, though, as I don't play Marines myself, and have only played 2nd/3rd and 9th.

^And this is an all-too-common response.

It changes the dynamic of the setting. It's not about balance and points, but about the relationships between power level representation of the lore. It robs Marine-opposition of some of it's cool factor when Pheonix Lords, who are millenia-old immortal champions of the Eldar are only T3 compared to the Gravis Captains T6, or when Mariens are fielding battle-line troops that are nearly the size of Tyranid Warriors and starting to rock comparable stats.

Phoenix Lords die and get resurrected with ease. They're really not that powerful if they have to have built into their lore.

Tyranid Warriors are a shame though, agreed.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

leopard wrote:
I found marines worked well enough at T3 with a 4+ save, they were what they were then meant to be, humans with better training and equipment and some cybernetic enhancements of various sorts but not supermen

the move to make them both supermen and at the same time be the 'baseline' is screwing a lot of things up. when 40k started the baseline was a normal human, most stats at 3, psych stats at 7, 1w and 1 attack, 5 points with everything else scaled from them.

didn't always work but you knew the baseline

now they need to scrap the d6 system, I'd go d12 as they roll nicely, maybe put a normal human at "4", stick a marine at "5" and have space to go down in a meaningful way while still having the top end for better stuff

think also the SvT relationship needs adjusting, currently S8 is basically twice as good as S4, when actually all S8 should mean is "better than S7 by enough to matter and worse than S9 by enough to matter"

90% or more of the player base has never played a game where the baseline Marine was T4 with a 3+ save, I don't think many people would support going back to being guardsmen.

To be fair, a good number of people raging about numbers now being different numbers also haven't played any of the last editions either - according to their own posts in other threads.

I played a s*** ton of 8th. Played some 9th and will definitely have at least a few games of 10th to get a feel for it.

I just don't think I'll be spending any money on it.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Hecate wrote:
I don't mind if Marines get stronger over time, provided their points reflect that in comparison to the weaker armies. I don't have enough data to verify that's what happens, though, as I don't play Marines myself, and have only played 2nd/3rd and 9th.

^And this is an all-too-common response.

It changes the dynamic of the setting. It's not about balance and points, but about the relationships between power level representation of the lore. It robs Marine-opposition of some of it's cool factor when Pheonix Lords, who are millenia-old immortal champions of the Eldar are only T3 compared to the Gravis Captains T6, or when Mariens are fielding battle-line troops that are nearly the size of Tyranid Warriors and starting to rock comparable stats.

Phoenix Lords die and get resurrected with ease. They're really not that powerful if they have to have built into their lore.

Tyranid Warriors are a shame though, agreed.

Phoenix Lords die and get resurrected with ease against what? Also the Avatar dies and gets resurrected, seemingly at times with relative ease. It's got much bigger stats that a Phoenix Lord now, doesn't it?

The fact of the matter is that many years ago, and for quite a long time, Phoenix Lords were easily comparable to Space Marine Captains in terms of statline (and sometimes better). That they are only T3 compared to the Captains now capable of rocking T5 and T6 is rather conspicuous.

Dudeface wrote:

I think being angry about stuff is it's own hobby at this point. I get we can't play the game until today, but what a lot of wasted energy all round.

Critique is "wasted energy" eh?

I'm not complaining. I'm an advocate for the non-Marine, minority factions and spreading the word for better representation.

leopard wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Hecate wrote:
I don't mind if Marines get stronger over time, provided their points reflect that in comparison to the weaker armies. I don't have enough data to verify that's what happens, though, as I don't play Marines myself, and have only played 2nd/3rd and 9th.

^And this is an all-too-common response.

It changes the dynamic of the setting. It's not about balance and points, but about the relationships between power level representation of the lore. It robs Marine-opposition of some of it's cool factor when Pheonix Lords, who are millenia-old immortal champions of the Eldar are only T3 compared to the Gravis Captains T6, or when Mariens are fielding battle-line troops that are nearly the size of Tyranid Warriors and starting to rock comparable stats.

So should Marines go back to being T3 then? Sure, most players never played back when they had that toughness but if you're going to argue for reverting stat changes we should go back to the start.

I found marines worked well enough at T3 with a 4+ save, they were what they were then meant to be, humans with better training and equipment and some cybernetic enhancements of various sorts but not supermen

That's not a Space Marine. That's a Tempestus Scion. Oh the times, they have a changed.

What the heck is going on with points and unit construction?!?! They are ruined!

What a boring, bland, and low effort way to balance everything.

Everything is free. No adding a dude to or a unit or two, or adding in a couple more weapons to fill out points and make a list.

The made 40k unit construction the same as AoS- which is the worst part of that game!

Omg this was my worst fear based on their initial previews a few months back! At first glance everyone I play with absolutely hates these changes- this is a group of like 10 people.

Way to kill a huge part of the fun of the hobby- spending time thinking of lists and constructing your army and individualizing it as every choice came with a cost (ya know...points!). You couldn't take everything and that was the damn point. It was a challenge!

Suffice it to say I, and the group I play with, are very upset by army construction.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of the lack of agency in points. When the datacard said "10-20 Necron Warriors", I assumed I could take 15 if I wanted. Nope. 10 or 20, nothing else. Like, Skorpekhs are 3 for 110 or 6 for 220. That makes them 36.666 points each. So no. It's either 3 or 6, nothing else. Very disappointing.

And wargear... Wargear and number of models in big squads were the 2 best things about list building. Fine-tuning things and so on.

*sigh*

This is the first 10th ed rules thing that disappoints me. Sure, I was already a little miffed by certain units' datacards, but this is a game-wide annoyance.

I'll get over it, but damn...

I think I'm more annoyed with it from a game design perspective than actual play impact (well, except for the stuff that looks blatantly wrong)

Its like watching a student who could do B+/A- quality work skate by with a C-.
And worse, they're probably putting in just as much work trying to be average as they would to do it properly.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:
So, as someone who plans to face a crapton of this shiny new Gravis in 10th edition, I'm really looking into options to counter them nowadays. As it turns out, stuff that counters Gravis well also happen to be Blast arty and other high-STR horde removers (Manticore, LRBT). Go figure.

A Manticore kills 2 Gravis, 1 Termies, and 4 to 5 IS in cover. A BC is 0.8, 0.4, and 3 respectively.

Gravis are 110, Termies are 200, and 20 IS are 130. Manticore is 105. It will take it almost all game for a Manticore to clear a single IS squad and less into Gravis. Termies lock them out - not enough AP.

Chem Cannon or Melta Hellhounds, Heavy Weapon Teams, Maybe the Artillery teams, most of the Leman Russes Basilisks, most of the Super Heavies will chip away at them pretty good.

Heafstaag wrote:
What a boring, bland, and low effort way to balance everything.

thinking it is now balanced

But people will play it, give GW money and confirm that no matter what 40k is a success so GW does not need to change anything

People could now just go for a different ruleset to play with their collection
But most are already asking what to buy to adjust to 10th or demand that people do GWs work

And no there will never be a community set all people agree on
We had that with AoS when people complained that the points are too balanced and made different versions that favoured certain aspects
Same with ITC, ETC and 3 other set of houserules for 40k during 7th


If you don't like 10th, now is the best time to switch to a different game (Grimdark Future for an easy swap) or a past Edition

 kodos wrote:
We had that with AoS when people complained that the points are too balanced

Prove that 2 people complained points were too balanced in the same AoS points system.

Change to fly vs 9e is going to alter things. Big guys like magnus and greater daemons can hide behind ruins but doing so will slow them a lot. Especially as you need room to fit above and can't stop mid-wall.

Going to be weird play fly units that are barely if any more manouverable than non-fly.

tneva82 wrote:
Change to fly vs 9e is going to alter things. Big guys like magnus and greater daemons can hide behind ruins but doing so will slow them a lot. Especially as you need room to fit above and can't stop mid-wall.

Going to be weird play fly units that are barely if any more manouverable than non-fly.

I'm just looking at 95 point hydras with reroll hits vs fly, and antifly 2+ twin linked. Quite a few armies have big beefy tanks/monsters with fly.

 Trickstick wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Change to fly vs 9e is going to alter things. Big guys like magnus and greater daemons can hide behind ruins but doing so will slow them a lot. Especially as you need room to fit above and can't stop mid-wall.

Going to be weird play fly units that are barely if any more manouverable than non-fly.

I'm just looking at 95 point hydras with reroll hits vs fly, and antifly 2+ twin linked. Quite a few armies have big beefy tanks/monsters with fly.

Imagine overwatching in to an army of GK, where everything flies.

 Trickstick wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Change to fly vs 9e is going to alter things. Big guys like magnus and greater daemons can hide behind ruins but doing so will slow them a lot. Especially as you need room to fit above and can't stop mid-wall.

Going to be weird play fly units that are barely if any more manouverable than non-fly.

I'm just looking at 95 point hydras with reroll hits vs fly, and antifly 2+ twin linked. Quite a few armies have big beefy tanks/monsters with fly.

I was already looking at a dozen or so Marine units - NOT counting the Hunter/Stalker - that have an add-on anti-fly, like the Redemptors, Gladiators, Repulsors or what have you.

What the actual feth have they done?

Some units are complete points sinks unless you take every single best weapon. Lower tier weapons are useless when everything costs the same. Tank have to have sponsons or they’re wasting points?

I was ok with them dumbing down the core rules for Little Timmy, but when have the dumbed down list building for people that can’t manage basic addition…?


Also the arbitrary squad sizes are a joke. I buy a box of 5 Custodes Wardens but can only use them in groups of 3 or 6? What is wrong with 3-6? Yet Custodes Guard can’t be taken in 3s or 6s, but you can take them in 9s.

Genuinely moronic.

I just keep circling back to the Commissar with bolt pistol being objectively a dumb choice to take over the plasma pistol. It just seems so wrong, even if it is just a tiny thing.

Perhaps this is an echo of Power Level? Like, 10th doesn't have PL, but listbuilding works in a very similar way (set unit sizes, take any weapon you like)?

 Trickstick wrote:
I just keep circling back to the Commissar with bolt pistol being objectively a dumb choice to take over the plasma pistol. It just seems so wrong, even if it is just a tiny thing.

You make it seem like people were flocking over themselves to take Commissars with Bolt Pistols before.

Hecate wrote:
Perhaps this is an echo of Power Level? Like, 10th doesn't have PL, but listbuilding works in a very similar way (set unit sizes, take any weapon you like)?

It is deliberately power level, but x20 (more or less) so it feels like points at a glance. There isn't really any 'perhaps' about it.

They aren't shy about saying that they feel there is no such thing as a 'best weapon,' so there isn't any point in accounting for weapons.
And, really, its all about sparing us the agonizing worry and a bunch of arithmetic.
In fact, adding leaders and enhancements is just as fun and varied!

No, seriously, that's the stance they went with:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/06/16/get-all-of-your-points-for-free-with-the-first-munitorum-field-manual-of-new40k/

I wanted context for the point values for 10th, but what I got was two men patting themselves on the back for fixing 'the community's' terrible, endless war with two and three digit numbers.
Why they did that rather than another proof-reading pass to find all the instances of units that end up without melee weapons, I will never know.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
I just keep circling back to the Commissar with bolt pistol being objectively a dumb choice to take over the plasma pistol. It just seems so wrong, even if it is just a tiny thing.

You make it seem like people were flocking over themselves to take Commissars with Bolt Pistols before.

The latest commissar model carries a bolt pistol, and does not have the option for a plasma pistol.

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-NL/astra-militarum-commissar-2023

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
I just keep circling back to the Commissar with bolt pistol being objectively a dumb choice to take over the plasma pistol. It just seems so wrong, even if it is just a tiny thing.

You make it seem like people were flocking over themselves to take Commissars with Bolt Pistols before.

The latest commissar model carries a bolt pistol, and does not have the option for a plasma pistol.

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-NL/astra-militarum-commissar-2023

Heh, good point... what are they even keeping the legacy plasma pistol option around for but chaosistency? Is it due to Severina Raine or some other unique model who is still sold but doesn't have rules?

NB, the refund I got for cancelling my order of Leviathan today was the best GW has made me feel in awhile. I hope others here vote with their wallets, but I'm not convinced GW will learn regardless.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
I just keep circling back to the Commissar with bolt pistol being objectively a dumb choice to take over the plasma pistol. It just seems so wrong, even if it is just a tiny thing.

You make it seem like people were flocking over themselves to take Commissars with Bolt Pistols before.

The latest commissar model carries a bolt pistol, and does not have the option for a plasma pistol.

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-NL/astra-militarum-commissar-2023

If only there were another Commissar model, currently sold?

Also nothing stopping them from releasing another Commissar model down the road as part of an easy build "Command Squad+Friends" set, not unlike the Overkill GSC "brood".


As an aside, I genuinely do believe that there is an "Infantry Squad" and "Command Squad" set in the works. There's too many missing options from the Cadian Shock Troops and Command Squad set to make me think otherwise.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
I just keep circling back to the Commissar with bolt pistol being objectively a dumb choice to take over the plasma pistol. It just seems so wrong, even if it is just a tiny thing.

You make it seem like people were flocking over themselves to take Commissars with Bolt Pistols before.

The latest commissar model carries a bolt pistol, and does not have the option for a plasma pistol.

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-NL/astra-militarum-commissar-2023

If only there were another Commissar model, currently sold?

Also nothing stopping them from releasing another Commissar model down the road as part of an easy build "Command Squad+Friends" set, not unlike the Overkill GSC "brood".


As an aside, I genuinely do believe that there is an "Infantry Squad" and "Command Squad" set in the works. There's too many missing options from the Cadian Shock Troops and Command Squad set to make me think otherwise.

What's the likelihood that GW keeps that guy around once they wake up and realize that they sell another newer one and they can cut out a legacy SKU? I think it's pretty low, but who knows.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
I just keep circling back to the Commissar with bolt pistol being objectively a dumb choice to take over the plasma pistol. It just seems so wrong, even if it is just a tiny thing.

You make it seem like people were flocking over themselves to take Commissars with Bolt Pistols before.

The latest commissar model carries a bolt pistol, and does not have the option for a plasma pistol.

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-NL/astra-militarum-commissar-2023

If only there were another Commissar model, currently sold?

Also nothing stopping them from releasing another Commissar model down the road as part of an easy build "Command Squad+Friends" set, not unlike the Overkill GSC "brood".


As an aside, I genuinely do believe that there is an "Infantry Squad" and "Command Squad" set in the works. There's too many missing options from the Cadian Shock Troops and Command Squad set to make me think otherwise.

"But I bought the Bolt Pistol one, because I thought it looked cooler, and it was cheaper points-wise." And now it's just a straight-up disadvantage to use it.

It'S sO bAlAnCeD

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
I just keep circling back to the Commissar with bolt pistol being objectively a dumb choice to take over the plasma pistol. It just seems so wrong, even if it is just a tiny thing.

You make it seem like people were flocking over themselves to take Commissars with Bolt Pistols before.

Or that three plasma pistols instead of 3 bolt pistols is auto-win.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
I just keep circling back to the Commissar with bolt pistol being objectively a dumb choice to take over the plasma pistol. It just seems so wrong, even if it is just a tiny thing.

You make it seem like people were flocking over themselves to take Commissars with Bolt Pistols before.

Getting to choose between a bolt pistol or a plasma pistol is a decision that has an objectively right and wrong choice (and so, from a gameplay perspective, isn't a decision at all), feels bad if you have to either abandon WYSIWYG for a built model or be stuck with the strictly inferior option, and most importantly is a representative example of more substantial and impactful non-decisions that actually could affect the outcome of a game.

Pointing out that the Commissar's weapon isn't game-deciding is so blatantly missing the forest for the trees that it comes across as disingenuous.

 catbarf wrote:

Getting to choose between a bolt pistol or a plasma pistol is a decision that has an objectively right and wrong choice

I would posit that's a problem with the bolt pistol itself and not the models or upgrade costs. Improve the bolt pistol to (probably) more shots in a Heavy Bolter vs Lascannon situation and its no longer objectively better. A bolt pistol with A2, S4, AP0 D1 or even AP -1 vs a A1 S7 AP-2 D1 is starting to turn into a choice requiring thought.

Breton wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Getting to choose between a bolt pistol or a plasma pistol is a decision that has an objectively right and wrong choice

I would posit that's a problem with the bolt pistol itself and not the models or upgrade costs. Improve the bolt pistol to (probably) more shots in a Heavy Bolter vs Lascannon situation and its no longer objectively better. A bolt pistol with A2, S4, AP0 D1 or even AP -1 vs a A1 S7 AP-2 D1 is starting to turn into a choice requiring thought.

Why does your Bolt Pistol fire as fast as a regular Bolter in Rapid Fire range, with better AP?

 JNAProductions wrote:

Breton wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Getting to choose between a bolt pistol or a plasma pistol is a decision that has an objectively right and wrong choice

I would posit that's a problem with the bolt pistol itself and not the models or upgrade costs. Improve the bolt pistol to (probably) more shots in a Heavy Bolter vs Lascannon situation and its no longer objectively better. A bolt pistol with A2, S4, AP0 D1 or even AP -1 vs a A1 S7 AP-2 D1 is starting to turn into a choice requiring thought.

Why does your Bolt Pistol fire as fast as a regular Bolter in Rapid Fire range, with better AP?

Because the Commissar using the Bolt Pistol is really good with that weapon, less so with the Plasma Pistol. Just because a weapon has more attacks doesn't mean it has higher rate of fire. It means the user is able to take more meaningful shots with it. The game needs more instances where a weapon isn't exactly the same between two models because one user it just better with it than other users.

And before you say that is bunk, we already have instances of weapons were one model has slightly different rules than another. AS Dominions have Assault on 5 different weapons that are not Assault for Battle Sisters.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Breton wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Getting to choose between a bolt pistol or a plasma pistol is a decision that has an objectively right and wrong choice

I would posit that's a problem with the bolt pistol itself and not the models or upgrade costs. Improve the bolt pistol to (probably) more shots in a Heavy Bolter vs Lascannon situation and its no longer objectively better. A bolt pistol with A2, S4, AP0 D1 or even AP -1 vs a A1 S7 AP-2 D1 is starting to turn into a choice requiring thought.

Why does your Bolt Pistol fire as fast as a regular Bolter in Rapid Fire range, with better AP?

Funnily enough, in 3rd edition pistols got to shoot twice if you remained stationary. Also, rapid fire only got one shot within half range if they moved.

 alextroy wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Breton wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Getting to choose between a bolt pistol or a plasma pistol is a decision that has an objectively right and wrong choice

I would posit that's a problem with the bolt pistol itself and not the models or upgrade costs. Improve the bolt pistol to (probably) more shots in a Heavy Bolter vs Lascannon situation and its no longer objectively better. A bolt pistol with A2, S4, AP0 D1 or even AP -1 vs a A1 S7 AP-2 D1 is starting to turn into a choice requiring thought.

Why does your Bolt Pistol fire as fast as a regular Bolter in Rapid Fire range, with better AP?

Because the Commissar using the Bolt Pistol is really good with that weapon, less so with the Plasma Pistol. Just because a weapon has more attacks doesn't mean it has higher rate of fire. It means the user is able to take more meaningful shots with it. The game needs more instances where a weapon isn't exactly the same between two models because one user it just better with it than other users.

And before you say that is bunk, we already have instances of weapons were one model has slightly different rules than another. AS Dominions have Assault on 5 different weapons that are not Assault for Battle Sisters.

That can explain Rate of Fire... But not so much the AP.

And I find it unlikely that a Commissar is better with a Bolt Pistol than a Marine is, despite them getting one shot with their's.

Could a Commissar have access to better ammunition than a standard trooper? Probably a stretch, but you can explain anything with enough stretching.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Breton wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Getting to choose between a bolt pistol or a plasma pistol is a decision that has an objectively right and wrong choice

I would posit that's a problem with the bolt pistol itself and not the models or upgrade costs. Improve the bolt pistol to (probably) more shots in a Heavy Bolter vs Lascannon situation and its no longer objectively better. A bolt pistol with A2, S4, AP0 D1 or even AP -1 vs a A1 S7 AP-2 D1 is starting to turn into a choice requiring thought.

Why does your Bolt Pistol fire as fast as a regular Bolter in Rapid Fire range, with better AP?

Because I don't agree with AP0 bolters even though I'm pretty sure AP0 Bolters and AP0 Bolt Pistols (my primary suggestion with the secondary "or even") are the same not more/less AP.
Because the difference between a rifle and a rifle cut down into a pistol is pretty much just max range

 JNAProductions wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Breton wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Getting to choose between a bolt pistol or a plasma pistol is a decision that has an objectively right and wrong choice

I would posit that's a problem with the bolt pistol itself and not the models or upgrade costs. Improve the bolt pistol to (probably) more shots in a Heavy Bolter vs Lascannon situation and its no longer objectively better. A bolt pistol with A2, S4, AP0 D1 or even AP -1 vs a A1 S7 AP-2 D1 is starting to turn into a choice requiring thought.

Why does your Bolt Pistol fire as fast as a regular Bolter in Rapid Fire range, with better AP?

Because the Commissar using the Bolt Pistol is really good with that weapon, less so with the Plasma Pistol. Just because a weapon has more attacks doesn't mean it has higher rate of fire. It means the user is able to take more meaningful shots with it. The game needs more instances where a weapon isn't exactly the same between two models because one user it just better with it than other users.

And before you say that is bunk, we already have instances of weapons were one model has slightly different rules than another. AS Dominions have Assault on 5 different weapons that are not Assault for Battle Sisters.

That can explain Rate of Fire... But not so much the AP.

And I find it unlikely that a Commissar is better with a Bolt Pistol than a Marine is, despite them getting one shot with their's.

Commissars are characters. Standard Marines use Bolt Pistols as a backup weapon, either to Bolters or to supplement their melee weapons. I totally buy the Commissar being better with his Bolt Pistol than a non-character Marine.

But that isn't the point. The point is finding a way to make the Pistol options of a model side-grades rather than free upgrades.

This is a no brainer choice:

Laspistol [Pistol] 12", A 1, BS 4+, S 3, AP 0, W 1

Bolt Pistol [Pistol] 12", A 1, BS 4+, S 4, AP 0, W1

Plasma Pistol (Choose between: Standard [Pistol] A 1, 12", BS 4+, S 7, AP -2, W 1; Supercharge [Hazardous, Pistol] 12", A 1, BS 4+, S 8, AP -3, W 2)

This would be less so:

Laspistol [Pistol] 18", A 2, BS 4+, S 3, AP 0, W 1

Bolt Pistol [Pistol] 12", A 2, BS 4+, S 4, AP 0, W1

Plasma Pistol [Hazardous, Pistol] 12", A 1, BS 4+, S 7, AP -2, W 2

 alextroy wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Breton wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Getting to choose between a bolt pistol or a plasma pistol is a decision that has an objectively right and wrong choice

I would posit that's a problem with the bolt pistol itself and not the models or upgrade costs. Improve the bolt pistol to (probably) more shots in a Heavy Bolter vs Lascannon situation and its no longer objectively better. A bolt pistol with A2, S4, AP0 D1 or even AP -1 vs a A1 S7 AP-2 D1 is starting to turn into a choice requiring thought.

Why does your Bolt Pistol fire as fast as a regular Bolter in Rapid Fire range, with better AP?

Because the Commissar using the Bolt Pistol is really good with that weapon, less so with the Plasma Pistol. Just because a weapon has more attacks doesn't mean it has higher rate of fire. It means the user is able to take more meaningful shots with it. The game needs more instances where a weapon isn't exactly the same between two models because one user it just better with it than other users.

And before you say that is bunk, we already have instances of weapons were one model has slightly different rules than another. AS Dominions have Assault on 5 different weapons that are not Assault for Battle Sisters.

The best (and traditional) way to represent that a particular model/unit is "better" at using a particular weapon is with a superior BS/WS.

Making weapons different "types" based on the particular model/unit using them is bizarre. A Garand doesn't suddenly become an SMG just because you give it to a SEAL instead of a basic infantrymen. It's still a rifle.

 Trickstick wrote:
Could a Commissar have access to better ammunition than a standard trooper? Probably a stretch, but you can explain anything with enough stretching.

Or. . .

Imagine . . .

The Plasma Pistol cost a couple more points.

*mind blown*

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
Could a Commissar have access to better ammunition than a standard trooper? Probably a stretch, but you can explain anything with enough stretching.

Or. . .

Imagine . . .

The Plasma Pistol cost a couple more points.

*mind blown*

Except that's not the way GW is going. They want sidegrades, sidegrades everywhere. So boost the bolt pistol.

Breton wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
Could a Commissar have access to better ammunition than a standard trooper? Probably a stretch, but you can explain anything with enough stretching.

Or. . .

Imagine . . .

The Plasma Pistol cost a couple more points.

*mind blown*

Except that's not the way GW is going. They want sidegrades, sidegrades everywhere. So boost the bolt pistol.

You mean go stupid? Sure they can if they want. But I'm going to call it stupid.

^^^^^Same here, Insectum7.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
Could a Commissar have access to better ammunition than a standard trooper? Probably a stretch, but you can explain anything with enough stretching.

Or. . .

Imagine . . .

The Plasma Pistol cost a couple more points.

*mind blown*

Except that's not the way GW is going. They want sidegrades, sidegrades everywhere. So boost the bolt pistol.

You mean go stupid? Sure they can if they want. But I'm going to call it stupid.

I'm not sure it comes under stupid, it's simply that you either need points or you need parity of rules. They've done neither, that is stupid. Implementing either option is better.

Dudeface wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
Could a Commissar have access to better ammunition than a standard trooper? Probably a stretch, but you can explain anything with enough stretching.

Or. . .

Imagine . . .

The Plasma Pistol cost a couple more points.

*mind blown*

Except that's not the way GW is going. They want sidegrades, sidegrades everywhere. So boost the bolt pistol.

You mean go stupid? Sure they can if they want. But I'm going to call it stupid.

I'm not sure it comes under stupid, it's simply that you either need points or you need parity of rules. They've done neither, that is stupid. Implementing either option is better.

How do you do "parity of rules" between heavy bolters and lascannons? Sure, you can with the math, but it will never "feel right". Some items of wargear should always be upgrades. This isn't complicated. Other gw games designers get it. Why not the 40k designers?

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

How do you do "parity of rules" between heavy bolters and lascannons? Sure, you can with the math, but it will never "feel right". Some items of wargear should always be upgrades. This isn't complicated. Other gw games designers get it. Why not the 40k designers?

By making it so you don't shoot them at the same things, which they've actually done pretty well.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
Could a Commissar have access to better ammunition than a standard trooper? Probably a stretch, but you can explain anything with enough stretching.

Or. . .

Imagine . . .

The Plasma Pistol cost a couple more points.

*mind blown*

Except that's not the way GW is going. They want sidegrades, sidegrades everywhere. So boost the bolt pistol.

You mean go stupid? Sure they can if they want. But I'm going to call it stupid.

I'm not sure it comes under stupid, it's simply that you either need points or you need parity of rules. They've done neither, that is stupid. Implementing either option is better.

How do you do "parity of rules" between heavy bolters and lascannons? Sure, you can with the math, but it will never "feel right". Some items of wargear should always be upgrades. This isn't complicated. Other gw games designers get it. Why not the 40k designers?

You answered it, you feth with the math, you make.it so a heavy bolter is as effective into infantry as a lascannon is into tanks. If you're telling me if doesn't "feel right" that a heavy bolter shouldn't be a valid anti-infantry weapon the same as a las cannon is anti-vehicle.

Dudeface wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
Could a Commissar have access to better ammunition than a standard trooper? Probably a stretch, but you can explain anything with enough stretching.

Or. . .

Imagine . . .

The Plasma Pistol cost a couple more points.

*mind blown*

Except that's not the way GW is going. They want sidegrades, sidegrades everywhere. So boost the bolt pistol.

You mean go stupid? Sure they can if they want. But I'm going to call it stupid.

I'm not sure it comes under stupid, it's simply that you either need points or you need parity of rules. They've done neither, that is stupid. Implementing either option is better.

How do you do "parity of rules" between heavy bolters and lascannons? Sure, you can with the math, but it will never "feel right". Some items of wargear should always be upgrades. This isn't complicated. Other gw games designers get it. Why not the 40k designers?

You answered it, you feth with the math, you make.it so a heavy bolter is as effective into infantry as a lascannon is into tanks. If you're telling me if doesn't "feel right" that a heavy bolter shouldn't be a valid anti-infantry weapon the same as a las cannon is anti-vehicle.

Still doesn't work right. Because "anti-infantry" includes: anti-light infantry, antii-medium infantry, and anti-heavy infantry. Hard to get al if those "right" while also making lascannons better at anit-tank. This "sidegrades" stuff just doesn't work in a game as expansive as 40k. We need points for these options.

Dudeface wrote:
I'm not sure it comes under stupid, it's simply that you either need points or you need parity of rules. They've done neither, that is stupid. Implementing either option is better.

There is no cost to points, the cost of parity of rules is an increase in conflict between the rules of the game and the narrative of the game. Points is the better option.

Voidblades + particle caster vs rod of covenant or gauss blasters vs tesla carbines, there is so little fluff for these weapons so GW can get away with trying to get rules parity and if they do that, great! 0 pts for either option. But if they fail then the better option should cost more pts. Both options being equally powerful is actually really nice because then if you're a Timmy and just want your Immortals or Triarch Praetorians to hit as hard as possible then either option will make you happy, great game design if GW has managed it. Bolt pistols and plasma pistols though? They are not on the same power level and should not be on the same power level.

An Overlord's voidblade using a warscythe profile? I'm actually okay with this, because we already had relic chainswords in 9th with insane profiles, my Overlord's voidblade being super enough to be equivalent to a warscythe, not that big a deal to me.

My first 10th edition went great, I had a lot of fun in a casual game, luckily my opponent decided to do random objectives same as me and didn't do a pachinko primary mission so we had a very reasonable game with both armies doing some cool things.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Breton wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Getting to choose between a bolt pistol or a plasma pistol is a decision that has an objectively right and wrong choice

I would posit that's a problem with the bolt pistol itself and not the models or upgrade costs. Improve the bolt pistol to (probably) more shots in a Heavy Bolter vs Lascannon situation and its no longer objectively better. A bolt pistol with A2, S4, AP0 D1 or even AP -1 vs a A1 S7 AP-2 D1 is starting to turn into a choice requiring thought.

Why does your Bolt Pistol fire as fast as a regular Bolter in Rapid Fire range, with better AP?

Because the Commissar using the Bolt Pistol is really good with that weapon, less so with the Plasma Pistol. Just because a weapon has more attacks doesn't mean it has higher rate of fire. It means the user is able to take more meaningful shots with it. The game needs more instances where a weapon isn't exactly the same between two models because one user it just better with it than other users.

And before you say that is bunk, we already have instances of weapons were one model has slightly different rules than another. AS Dominions have Assault on 5 different weapons that are not Assault for Battle Sisters.

The best (and traditional) way to represent that a particular model/unit is "better" at using a particular weapon is with a superior BS/WS.

Making weapons different "types" based on the particular model/unit using them is bizarre. A Garand doesn't suddenly become an SMG just because you give it to a SEAL instead of a basic infantrymen. It's still a rifle.

Well the better stats can show the superior skill - in your example a highly skilled operator is going to be more effective than a raw recruit - you can show this with base stats and /or the profile of the weapon they are using - I donlt see that it matters which?

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
Could a Commissar have access to better ammunition than a standard trooper? Probably a stretch, but you can explain anything with enough stretching.

Or. . .

Imagine . . .

The Plasma Pistol cost a couple more points.

*mind blown*

Except that's not the way GW is going. They want sidegrades, sidegrades everywhere. So boost the bolt pistol.

You mean go stupid? Sure they can if they want. But I'm going to call it stupid.

I'm not sure it comes under stupid, it's simply that you either need points or you need parity of rules. They've done neither, that is stupid. Implementing either option is better.

How do you do "parity of rules" between heavy bolters and lascannons? Sure, you can with the math, but it will never "feel right". Some items of wargear should always be upgrades. This isn't complicated. Other gw games designers get it. Why not the 40k designers?

You answered it, you feth with the math, you make.it so a heavy bolter is as effective into infantry as a lascannon is into tanks. If you're telling me if doesn't "feel right" that a heavy bolter shouldn't be a valid anti-infantry weapon the same as a las cannon is anti-vehicle.

Still doesn't work right. Because "anti-infantry" includes: anti-light infantry, antii-medium infantry, and anti-heavy infantry. Hard to get al if those "right" while also making lascannons better at anit-tank. This "sidegrades" stuff just doesn't work in a game as expansive as 40k. We need points for these options.

But they took clear steps towards it, when a heavy bolter can reasonably pop off light infantry with more shots, lower S which with higher T on vehicles and better saves on Elites means it doesn't gank them. Then have a Plasma cannon for heavy infantry but fewer shots with limited damage to stop it taking out vehicles outside eof the lightest and mulching small infantry due to lower shots. Then lascannon with single shot, higher strength, ap and damage so its going to be notably more likely to do more damage to a vehicle and be utterly wasted against smaller targets.

The concept is simple enough, it's as about as complicated as pricing the obviously better options to a place that any option is viable.

Dudeface wrote:
But they took clear steps towards it, when a heavy bolter can reasonably pop off light infantry with more shots, lower S which with higher T on vehicles and better saves on Elites means it doesn't gank them. Then have a Plasma cannon for heavy infantry but fewer shots with limited damage to stop it taking out vehicles outside eof the lightest and mulching small infantry due to lower shots.

well, the Plasma Cannon has Blast so it likely gets more shots vs hordes than the Heavy Bolter. HÖWEVER, the Heavy Bolter has D2 so it might be a better idea to turn it against heavy infantry and trust on (a somewhat meager) weight of fire to much through saves and such because if it goes through it pops (unlike the Plasma Cannon that needs to go Hazardous or stay D1).

 AtoMaki wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
But they took clear steps towards it, when a heavy bolter can reasonably pop off light infantry with more shots, lower S which with higher T on vehicles and better saves on Elites means it doesn't gank them. Then have a Plasma cannon for heavy infantry but fewer shots with limited damage to stop it taking out vehicles outside eof the lightest and mulching small infantry due to lower shots.

well, the Plasma Cannon has Blast so it likely gets more shots vs hordes than the Heavy Bolter. HÖWEVER, the Heavy Bolter has D2 so it might be a better idea to turn it against heavy infantry and trust on (a somewhat meager) weight of fire to much through saves and such because if it goes through it pops (unlike the Plasma Cannon that needs to go Hazardous or stay D1).

That's in itself a good example of balancing out profiles and purposes though. Just because a lascannon is higher strength/ap/damage it doesn't have to be "the best" and therefore cost more.

Dudeface wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
But they took clear steps towards it, when a heavy bolter can reasonably pop off light infantry with more shots, lower S which with higher T on vehicles and better saves on Elites means it doesn't gank them. Then have a Plasma cannon for heavy infantry but fewer shots with limited damage to stop it taking out vehicles outside eof the lightest and mulching small infantry due to lower shots.

well, the Plasma Cannon has Blast so it likely gets more shots vs hordes than the Heavy Bolter. HÖWEVER, the Heavy Bolter has D2 so it might be a better idea to turn it against heavy infantry and trust on (a somewhat meager) weight of fire to much through saves and such because if it goes through it pops (unlike the Plasma Cannon that needs to go Hazardous or stay D1).

That's in itself a good example of balancing out profiles and purposes though.

It would be if the HB had an actual purpose.

Dudeface wrote:
That's in itself a good example of balancing out profiles and purposes though. Just because a lascannon is higher strength/ap/damage it doesn't have to be "the best" and therefore cost more.

You're forgetting the choice not to take one. You shouldn't have to pay for options you aren't using, only the ones you are.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
That's in itself a good example of balancing out profiles and purposes though. Just because a lascannon is higher strength/ap/damage it doesn't have to be "the best" and therefore cost more.

You're forgetting the choice not to take one. You shouldn't have to pay for options you aren't using, only the ones you are.

That is valid, but I'd expect a game wide side-grade-o-rama to change marines to 5 +1heavy/special as a mandatory for example.

Which again reinforces the sheer confusing poophole they made by not seeing any one option through.

Just had my first 10th edition game last night - Custodes vs Demons. Greater Demon spam is going to be a real problem for many armies. I was completely wiped out by the end of the 3rd turn and only managed to kill 1 nurgling base...

People keep on saying Lascannons are better than Heavy Bolters. I've run the numbers for an IG Heavy Weapon Squad against a variety of Targets and the one thing that GW actually got right was parity between a Lascannon and a Heavy Bolter:

3 Lascannons (Stationary) vs:

Leman Russ: Damage 3.00 with variance of 3.53

Rhino: Damage 3.75 with variance of 3.82

Space Marine: Damage 2.08 with variance of 1.65

Guardsman: Damage 1.25 with variance of 0.85

3 Heavy Bolters (Stationary) vs:

Leman Russ: Damage 0.67 with variance of 1.15

Rhino: Damage 2.00 with variance of 1.97

Space Marine: Damage 4.00 with variance of 2.75

Guardsman: Damage 3.33 with variance of 1.74

And there you have it. Even into medium Infantry like a Space Marine (T4, S 3+, W 2), a Heavy Bolter is better into Infantry while a Lascannon is better into Tanks/Monsters. The math will get different once you move up to Heavy Infantry like Terminators or Gravis Marines, but those are little tanks anyway

 alextroy wrote:

And there you have it. Even into medium Infantry like a Space Marine (T4, S 3+, W 2), a Heavy Bolter is better into Infantry while a Lascannon is better into Tanks/Monsters.

I'm not really feeling it. 1 extra marine or guardsman biting the dust is not exactly something I would unironically consider a benefit over being able to slap around a tank or other big meanie.

That's 1 Space Marine or 2 Guardsmen

But it is the effect beyond the average that is very important.

The Lascannons have a 72% chance of killing 1 Space Marine and a 28% chance of killing 2.
The Heavy Bolters Have a 86% chance of killing 1 Space Marine, a 60% chance of killing 2, and 32% chance of killing three.

The Lascannons have a 80% chance of killing 1 Guardsmen and a 38% chance of killing 2.
The Heavy Bolters have a 97% chance of killing 1 Guardsmen, a 86% of killing 2, a 66% chance of killing 3, a 43% of killing 4, and a 24% chance of killing 5.

Discounting the variance in favor of the average is a great way of getting caught out during game. I know the high-level 40K players make their decision based on the lower side of the variance rather than the average.

So the question is are you fighting tanks or fighting hordes? The Lascannon is great against tanks and crap into hordes. The Heavy Bolter is great into hordes but crap against tanks. Bring the right tool.

 alextroy wrote:
That's 1 Space Marine or 2 Guardsmen

It is 1 guardsman because they "soak up" an extra damage from being W1 vs D2.

 alextroy wrote:
So the question is are you fighting tanks or fighting hordes?

The problem is that it is not just tanks but also monsters and heavy infantry (like Gravis). While the HB is not really that great vs hordes either (43% chance to kill a fifth of a 20-strong AM unit? So you might kill 'em all by the end of the battle?) it is mostly a nu-MEQ killer (due to its D2) but do you really need to spec into nu-MEQ killing with Heavy Bolters?

You also need to factor in points cost of the target unit, because 3 wounds of guardsmen aren't equal to 3 wounds of leman russ.

Based on the index killing 3 guardsmen is worth (3/10)*65= ~20 points, doing 3 wounds to a russ is worth (3/13)*195 = ~45 points*. Based on that the lascannon is getting more than twice the return on investment vs a russ than what a heavy bolter gets vs guardsmen.

Agreed on the importance of variance, nice touch.


* the wounds dealt to a russ only pay off once you bracket and/or kill it. I'd guess that makes them less valuable than wounds with a direct payoff (whittling down an infantry squad). But I don't think instant payoff wounds are 2.25 times more valuable than delayed payoff wounds.

Edit: Basically repeating the post above, which I didn't see when replying.

---

When approached on the rawest basis, you'd need to indicate some "points per damage" if you are going to count that.

So for example a regular Leman Russ is paying 15 points per wound. An Intercessor just 9.5.

So the HBs are doing 9.5*4=38 points worth of damage into the Intercessors. Whereas Lascannons doing 3 Leman Russ points would be 45.

The HB is then just doing 15*0.67=10 points of damage into the Leman Russ, while the Lascannon is doing 2.08*9.5=19.76 into the Intercessors.

Clearly this will vary from unit to unit - but it sort of indicates why the Lascannon is better. Sure, the HB is about twice as good into Marines - but the Lascannon is 4.5 times as good into the tank. The Lascannon is doing better at the task you want it to do - and you are less "badly off" if you are using it to do something else. (Okay you could I guess say you want to swap Guardsmen and it will be worse - but when there are so many things that can kill Guardsmen, this isn't something that matters.)

This is before we get into the reasonable point that lascannons will sometimes spike high into tanks - whereas HBs killing a few extra marines than you might expect will rarely matter.

If lascannon is so much better try facing infantry horde without vehicles with them

you mean regular weapons can be ignored as only the heavy weapons do anything?

 kodos wrote:
you mean regular weapons can be ignored as only the heavy weapons do anything?

In the context of talking about balancing the heavies against each other to being points neutral, yes.

well, saying you need anti infantry heavy weapons to fight hordes and cannot do that if you only have anti-tank heavy weapons, ignoring the regular weapons is a problem

simply because you can fight hordes with regular weapons but you cannot fight tanks with them

so a unit with Bolter + 1 Laser cannon is a valid choice as it can fight Hordes and Tanks
a unit with Bolter + 1 heavy Bolter still can fight Hordes but not tanks any more

so the statement that "try fight Hordes with only Laser Cannons" does not work well as argument as you still have other weapons for that job
while "try fight tanks with only Bolters" is the one you are looking for

Yeah, this is a silly argument. Has there ever been a faction that can't generate enough anti-infantry weaponry if they spec into it? I can't think of an example. But there's certainly been factions with the issue of not being able to bring enough anti-tank.

The two categories are not equivalent; it makes zero sense to measure an anti-tank weapon by its efficacy against MEQ or GEQ.

Maybe I'm just grouchy, but this edition has me feel like I've taken crazy pills. GW may have created a new game but there are still common sense, obvious rules of thumb to it (like this one).

Remember that Heavy Bolter has been given Sustained hits 1. This gives it quite a bit more power.

3 heavy bolters don't inflict 2 damage on a Rhino, they inflict 2.5, so compared to a lascannon you are inflict one third less damage to have a good anti MEQ weapon. It is a valid treadoff. Where you lose is against very heavy targets (T10+ 2), but you gain if you plan to move, since sustained hits offsets partially the lower accuracy (lascannon loses 25% accuracy, the heavy bolter loses 20%).

To this you have to consider the faction. Do you plan to have reroll wounds on that squad? Have you access to +1 wound? The heavy bolter is a weapon which reacts a lot better to bonuses compared to a lascannon.

I know that with sisters I'm seriously considering them as an option.