Kriswall wrote: If you want your Tau to be Farsight Enclaves flavored, buy another book.
We do not know that will be the case.
How do you imagine that something like the Farsight Enclaves material is going to be released? For free? I'm curious? Rolled into Codex: Tau Empire? Are they just going to squat the sub faction? Will Codex: Space Marines have the Sentinels of Terra, Clan Raukaan, etc. material included? The book would be huge.
My assumption is that they'll do what they've always done and create/sell supplemental information. I think it's a reasonable assumption given that they've already said new Codexes with army specific rules will be coming once 8th Edition is in place.
I just noticed the Psyker keyword on the datasheet. If the Tzaangor battle icon manages to port its way over from AoS, I will never, ever stop laughing.
davethepak wrote: I suspect some melee weapons will be combined - I mean, is a chain sword and chain axe really that different? If they were the same cost and effect, would it matter?
yes chain axes are ap4 and so far ap4 has transformed into a -1 armour save in 8th, plus my khorne berzerkers have loads of them so no no combine these XD
In 30K they're also +1S. Would be nice if that ported over to 40K in 8th also. S+1 and Sv -1 would be formidable.
Cephalobeard wrote: I really hope they show a matched play sheet. I understand others may care about narrative and "for fun" games, but I could not care less about them existing.
Just hoping for a bit more information.
They will. Info is just being drip-fed to fuel the hype train.
I like this summary sheet effect, but it still appears here's a USR on there without the rules text, unless they clipped it for mystery?
Cephalobeard wrote: I really hope they show a matched play sheet. I understand others may care about narrative and "for fun" games, but I could not care less about them existing.
Just hoping for a bit more information.
They will. Info is just being drip-fed to fuel the hype train.
I like this summary sheet effect, but it still appears here's a USR on there without the rules text, unless they clipped it for mystery?
Next we have Abilities. Universal special rules are out, so any time a unit acts differently to what its stats might indicate, the rules for how will be in here. The bulk of these rules will be written in full, but there might occasionally be an army-wide or very common rule for a given faction that isn’t (like the Death to the False Emperor rule you can see above). These will always be in that same publication, though, to make finding it easy.
They also said something similar for units with many options, giving out the specific example of a Tactical Squad. The "most common" options would be on the datasheet.
They also confirmed, if I'm reading that correctly, that squads like Tactical squads (with tons of options) will only have the more common options listed.
Good to know. I suspect something similar will happen with Crisis Suits and Wolf Guard.
Unusual Suspect wrote: Buying books for point costs. Truly, how horrendous of them. How could they. What callous, greedy behavior. Who could have thought. Paying money. Shocking. I am shocked. Shocked, I tell you. Shocked.
Sarcasm detected. It's shaping up that from a Matched Play perspective, which is the only perspective many people care about, the only rules that are going to be free are the core rules. If you want to play Space Marines with army specific rules, buy a book. If you want to ally in some Tau models with army specific rules, buy another book. If you want your Tau to be Farsight Enclaves flavored, buy another book. Oh, you like that recently released model? Buy this campaign book to get the points costs. New terrain! Buy a book for the points.
How is this not just like 7th Edition? Even if the books are cheaper per book, it still sounds like I'm going to need a stack of them to use the models I currently own. It sounds like the transition from 7th Edition to 8th Edition will involve throwing all of my rule books in the garbage and then buying new ones.
Am I missing something? I know GW is going to be releasing 5 books on day 1 with point costs for all of the currently available models. It sounds like they'll then be releasing Codexes with army specific rules in much the same way AoS has the General's Handbook for basic costs and Battletomes to really jazz up an army. To play my Skitarii, Tau and Iron Warrior armies, I'll need the Imperium, Chaos AND Xenos books PLUS whatever the General's Handbook equivalent is PLUS the inevitable Skitarii, Tau and Chaos Marines Codexes. That's 7 rule books for a "free" rule set. I hope I'm missing something.
They never claimed it would be a free rule set. They claimed the base rules would be free.
Y'know how the current basic rule book costs $165?
That's money you're not going to have to shell out. THAT's how its different from 7th.
But no, continue to complain that they aren't providing something for free that they've never stated would be free.
...You are aware this is a business that they run, right?
The current basic rule book is widely available for about $30. I'm not sure where you're getting $165 from. Even the hardback for sale on GW's site is "only" $85. Everyone I know uses a small softbound they got in one of several different starter sets.
Cephalobeard wrote: I really hope they show a matched play sheet. I understand others may care about narrative and "for fun" games, but I could not care less about them existing.
Just hoping for a bit more information.
They will. Info is just being drip-fed to fuel the hype train.
I like this summary sheet effect, but it still appears here's a USR on there without the rules text, unless they clipped it for mystery?
Next we have Abilities. Universal special rules are out, so any time a unit acts differently to what its stats might indicate, the rules for how will be in here. The bulk of these rules will be written in full, but there might occasionally be an army-wide or very common rule for a given faction that isn’t (like the Death to the False Emperor rule you can see above). These will always be in that same publication, though, to make finding it easy.
They also said something similar for units with many options, giving out the specific example of a Tactical Squad. The "most common" options would be on the datasheet.
If there is room - and tehre seems to be here - I dont see whay they would not put the faction abilities on as well - its annoying its not. Also why not have the Invuln saves on the profile line
Kriswall wrote: If you want your Tau to be Farsight Enclaves flavored, buy another book.
We do not know that will be the case.
How do you imagine that something like the Farsight Enclaves material is going to be released? For free? I'm curious? Rolled into Codex: Tau Empire? Are they just going to squat the sub faction? Will Codex: Space Marines have the Sentinels of Terra, Clan Raukaan, etc. material included? The book would be huge.
It's not as huge as you would think, honestly.
Not really fair to bring up Sentinels of Terra or Raukaan, if I'm going to be honest. Those two were considered valid at the end of the day but essentially got superseded by "Angels of Death". Most of what was present in there was fluff. It's entirely possible(as shown in the new Stormcast Eternals and Kharadron Overlords books) to showcase the different options in one page spreads.
My assumption is that they'll do what they've always done and create/sell supplemental information. I think it's a reasonable assumption given that they've already said new Codexes with army specific rules will be coming once 8th Edition is in place.
For the time being, I don't think Farsight Enclaves should really be too concerned with anything. They'll probably get special rules for doing a detachment of Farsight Enclaves and maybe some relics or something, but they don't really have any signature units beyond The Eight.
Unusual Suspect wrote: Buying books for point costs. Truly, how horrendous of them. How could they. What callous, greedy behavior. Who could have thought. Paying money. Shocking. I am shocked. Shocked, I tell you. Shocked.
Sarcasm detected. It's shaping up that from a Matched Play perspective, which is the only perspective many people care about, the only rules that are going to be free are the core rules. If you want to play Space Marines with army specific rules, buy a book. If you want to ally in some Tau models with army specific rules, buy another book. If you want your Tau to be Farsight Enclaves flavored, buy another book. Oh, you like that recently released model? Buy this campaign book to get the points costs. New terrain! Buy a book for the points.
How is this not just like 7th Edition? Even if the books are cheaper per book, it still sounds like I'm going to need a stack of them to use the models I currently own. It sounds like the transition from 7th Edition to 8th Edition will involve throwing all of my rule books in the garbage and then buying new ones.
Am I missing something? I know GW is going to be releasing 5 books on day 1 with point costs for all of the currently available models. It sounds like they'll then be releasing Codexes with army specific rules in much the same way AoS has the General's Handbook for basic costs and Battletomes to really jazz up an army. To play my Skitarii, Tau and Iron Warrior armies, I'll need the Imperium, Chaos AND Xenos books PLUS whatever the General's Handbook equivalent is PLUS the inevitable Skitarii, Tau and Chaos Marines Codexes. That's 7 rule books for a "free" rule set. I hope I'm missing something.
They never claimed it would be a free rule set. They claimed the base rules would be free.
Y'know how the current basic rule book costs $165?
That's money you're not going to have to shell out. THAT's how its different from 7th.
But no, continue to complain that they aren't providing something for free that they've never stated would be free.
...You are aware this is a business that they run, right?
You need to shop somewhere else! Whoever sold you your last rulebook took you to the cleaners!
In AoS, the Warscrolls include the rules for Icons/Banners/Musicians but apparently not here. Might be an army wide rule (does makes sense as most CSM units can take the various Icons of the gods) I suppose.
So it seems like leadership is going to be dropping a little bit from the current edition. Makes sense if you want battle shock to actually be a thing instead of the current "Who cares, I am 10 or fearless"
They specifically say that tomorrow they are going to discuss power and points.
Cover why his movement is different in the article.
Also the thing they are making clear is that all of the special rules, unit entries, etc you need will be in one book so you are not lugging it all around. Then one faction specific book(similar to a codex I am guessing). The key I think is that you only need to BRING one or two books to play the game.
Having points in a separate book makes sense if you figure that they are planning on updating points as needed year to year(ala generals handbook). Power most likely wont change much. Also this gives you access to every armies point costs in one book, rather than having to buy them all.
nintura wrote: Interesting that you dont seem to have to pay anything for upgrades. Even power level points. So Soul Reaper is free. you should always take it.
Again in Narrative play they did confirm that power levels would just cover the cost of the unit, not any wargear options. Matched Play is meant to have a full points cost for all options.
nintura wrote: Interesting that you dont seem to have to pay anything for upgrades. Even power level points. So Soul Reaper is free. you should always take it.
Cephalobeard wrote: I really hope they show a matched play sheet. I understand others may care about narrative and "for fun" games, but I could not care less about them existing.
Just hoping for a bit more information.
They will. Info is just being drip-fed to fuel the hype train.
I like this summary sheet effect, but it still appears here's a USR on there without the rules text, unless they clipped it for mystery?
Next we have Abilities. Universal special rules are out, so any time a unit acts differently to what its stats might indicate, the rules for how will be in here. The bulk of these rules will be written in full, but there might occasionally be an army-wide or very common rule for a given faction that isn’t (like the Death to the False Emperor rule you can see above). These will always be in that same publication, though, to make finding it easy.
They also said something similar for units with many options, giving out the specific example of a Tactical Squad. The "most common" options would be on the datasheet.
If there is room - and tehre seems to be here - I dont see whay they would not put the faction abilities on as well - its annoying its not. Also why not have the Invuln saves on the profile line
If they include everything on the Datasheet, then you won't have to buy a Codex for the extra several pages of rules. In AoS, the only reason to buy a $50 Battletome is generally for the 3-4 page of army specific rules and maybe 1 or 2 Battalion (Formation) pages. I assume it'll be the same for 40k.
Cephalobeard wrote: I really hope they show a matched play sheet. I understand others may care about narrative and "for fun" games, but I could not care less about them existing.
Just hoping for a bit more information.
They will. Info is just being drip-fed to fuel the hype train.
I like this summary sheet effect, but it still appears here's a USR on there without the rules text, unless they clipped it for mystery?
Next we have Abilities. Universal special rules are out, so any time a unit acts differently to what its stats might indicate, the rules for how will be in here. The bulk of these rules will be written in full, but there might occasionally be an army-wide or very common rule for a given faction that isn’t (like the Death to the False Emperor rule you can see above). These will always be in that same publication, though, to make finding it easy.
They also said something similar for units with many options, giving out the specific example of a Tactical Squad. The "most common" options would be on the datasheet.
If there is room - and tehre seems to be here - I dont see whay they would not put the faction abilities on as well - its annoying its not. Also why not have the Invuln saves on the profile line
If they include everything on the Datasheet, then you won't have to buy a Codex for the extra several pages of rules. In AoS, the only reason to buy a $50 Battletome is generally for the 3-4 page of army specific rules and maybe 1 or 2 Battalion (Formation) pages. I assume it'll be the same for 40k.
Go look at the Age of Sigmar books/warscolls page on the GW website.
Sigmarines got a whole new Battletome to cover Sigmarines who ride mounts. So... yeah, I did look and it sure looks like AoS supplemental materials are a thing. Also, I have Orruks who don't wear armor in one Battletome and Orruks who do in another. I don't have Battletome: Orruks. I don't know why you'd think that Codex: Tau Empire would include Tau groups who aren't part of the Tau Empire. Codex: Tau Empire and Codex: Farsight Enclaves would more accurately represent what we see in AoS.
Cephalobeard wrote: I really hope they show a matched play sheet. I understand others may care about narrative and "for fun" games, but I could not care less about them existing.
Just hoping for a bit more information.
They will. Info is just being drip-fed to fuel the hype train.
I like this summary sheet effect, but it still appears here's a USR on there without the rules text, unless they clipped it for mystery?
Next we have Abilities. Universal special rules are out, so any time a unit acts differently to what its stats might indicate, the rules for how will be in here. The bulk of these rules will be written in full, but there might occasionally be an army-wide or very common rule for a given faction that isn’t (like the Death to the False Emperor rule you can see above). These will always be in that same publication, though, to make finding it easy.
They also said something similar for units with many options, giving out the specific example of a Tactical Squad. The "most common" options would be on the datasheet.
If there is room - and tehre seems to be here - I dont see whay they would not put the faction abilities on as well - its annoying its not. Also why not have the Invuln saves on the profile line
I feel like it's a bit important to bold something in the Community posting.
So, that "Death to the False Emperor" rule looks like it will be something common to Chaos Space Marines units so it'll be in the Chaos compendium at launch, probably at the start of each section or something.
Go look at the Age of Sigmar books/warscolls page on the GW website.
Sigmarines got a whole new Battletome to cover Sigmarines who ride mounts. So... yeah, I did look and it sure looks like AoS supplemental materials are a thing. Also, I have Orruks who don't wear armor in one Battletome and Orruks who do in another. I don't have Battletome: Orruks. I don't know why you'd think that Codex: Tau Empire would include Tau groups who aren't part of the Tau Empire. Codex: Tau Empire and Codex: Farsight Enclaves would more accurately represent what we see in AoS.
The Rubric 'All is Dust' rule that increases your save roll by 1... is that for invulnerable saves too? So Rubrics are actually 4++ like they are currently?
I couldn't find a profile for smite, is it ranged? And it does mortal wounds instead of normal so no invulnerable save?
Of course 8th edition will have a ton of supplements and books. GW makes A LOT Of money off their players buying silly things like Limited Edition codexes for 100$, I seriously doubt they're going to cut off that gravy train.
It's interesting that the force sword is now the go-to option for defeating armor saves. If power weapons follow this same pattern, power swords may be back in play.
Nvs wrote: Couple questions that I didn't see answered...
The Rubric 'All is Dust' rule that increases your save roll by 1... is that for invulnerable saves too? So Rubrics are actually 4++ like they are currently?
I couldn't find a profile for smite, is it ranged? And it does mortal wounds instead of normal so no invulnerable save?
Unless they differentiate between armor and invulnerable. Smite was shown earlier, it's the nearest unit/model within 12" or 18" or something like that. Does d3 Mortal Wounds or d6 if you roll above 10
nintura wrote: Interesting that you dont seem to have to pay anything for upgrades. Even power level points. So Soul Reaper is free. you should always take it.
Repeat after me, Power levels aren't points
It constantly surprises me how often people only get 1/2 the facts
Nvs wrote: Couple questions that I didn't see answered...
The Rubric 'All is Dust' rule that increases your save roll by 1... is that for invulnerable saves too? So Rubrics are actually 4++ like they are currently?
I couldn't find a profile for smite, is it ranged? And it does mortal wounds instead of normal so no invulnerable save?
Dunno, probably we won't find out till the core rules are actually released is whether a "Saving throw" covers both normal and invulnerable saves. If so, then yes (probably yes IMO). But you don't get the +1 to save vs multi wound weapons like Lascannons (or Battlecannons!!!!!)
Go look at the Age of Sigmar books/warscolls page on the GW website.
Sigmarines got a whole new Battletome to cover Sigmarines who ride mounts. So... yeah, I did look and it sure looks like AoS supplemental materials are a thing. Also, I have Orruks who don't wear armor in one Battletome and Orruks who do in another. I don't have Battletome: Orruks. I don't know why you'd think that Codex: Tau Empire would include Tau groups who aren't part of the Tau Empire. Codex: Tau Empire and Codex: Farsight Enclaves would more accurately represent what we see in AoS.
I guess we'll see then.
They also got a whole book released afterwards that combined that book & its predecessor along with new content.
Really AoS's battletomes are a mess in many ways. We just need to hope GW learnt from the mistakes they made pre-Sylvaneth and apply the lessons learnt to 40k.
i.e. don't go changing your design intentions after the first few books so that they need to be replaced within a year.
Interestingly enough, the article says there will be different cathegories of cover that will determinate who does and doesn't benefit from them. Good to know.
Nvs wrote: Couple questions that I didn't see answered...
The Rubric 'All is Dust' rule that increases your save roll by 1... is that for invulnerable saves too? So Rubrics are actually 4++ like they are currently?
I couldn't find a profile for smite, is it ranged? And it does mortal wounds instead of normal so no invulnerable save?
Dunno, probably we won't find out till the core rules are actually released is whether a "Saving throw" covers both normal and invulnerable saves. If so, then yes (probably yes IMO). But you don't get the +1 to save vs multi wound weapons like Lascannons (or Battlecannons!!!!!)
Kirasu wrote: Of course 8th edition will have a ton of supplements and books. GW makes A LOT Of money off their players buying silly things like Limited Edition codexes for 100$, I seriously doubt they're going to cut off that gravy train.
I mean really, if they sell as well as they do, would you (If you were in their position?)
Lord Kragan wrote: Interestingly enough, the article says there will be different cathegories of cover that will determinate who does and doesn't benefit from them. Good to know.
That was mentioned in an earlier article, with the example of only infantry getting cover from craters.
So on the Smite rule, it says it does 1 Mortal wound instead of a D3, or D3 Mortal wounds instead of a D6 if blah blah 10 Blah blah.
That means 1 Mortal Wound instead of D3 regular wounds, right? Mortal Wounds is the new fancy term for Instant Death maybe? No armor saves instead of -3?
Kirasu wrote: Of course 8th edition will have a ton of supplements and books. GW makes A LOT Of money off their players buying silly things like Limited Edition codexes for 100$, I seriously doubt they're going to cut off that gravy train.
I mean really, if they sell as well as they do, would you (If you were in their position?)
The important thing is the GW are baselining the game with free core rules, and a cheap set of base books to cover every existing model. That doesn't mean every possible rules option (like Relics, and certainly formations) that was in every 7th book will be present, but every army can play and make an army with every unit that's out there. After that we'll get Codex equivalents with more rules and such. And that's fine IMO.
kronk wrote: So on the Smite rule, it says it does 1 Mortal wound instead of a D3, or D3 Mortal wounds instead of a D6 if blah blah 10 Blah blah.
That means 1 Mortal Wound instead of D3 regular wounds, right? Mortal Wounds is the new fancy term for Instant Death maybe? No armor saves instead of -3?
We've seen mortal wounds in the psychic phase one. They're wounds with no saves (armour or invuln).
kronk wrote: So on the Smite rule, it says it does 1 Mortal wound instead of a D3, or D3 Mortal wounds instead of a D6 if blah blah 10 Blah blah.
That means 1 Mortal Wound instead of D3 regular wounds, right? Mortal Wounds is the new fancy term for Instant Death maybe? No armor saves instead of -3?
Check the Psychic Phase leak. It explains Mortal Wounds.
Basically no saves of any kind - neither armor nor invulnerable.
kronk wrote: So on the Smite rule, it says it does 1 Mortal wound instead of a D3, or D3 Mortal wounds instead of a D6 if blah blah 10 Blah blah.
That means 1 Mortal Wound instead of D3 regular wounds, right? Mortal Wounds is the new fancy term for Instant Death maybe? No armor saves instead of -3?
"Mortal Wounds are a new mechanic too – these cannot be saved by any means and punch straight through thick armour and even invulnerable saves! Ouch."
There's almost certainly no instant death as a general rule anymore.
kronk wrote: So on the Smite rule, it says it does 1 Mortal wound instead of a D3, or D3 Mortal wounds instead of a D6 if blah blah 10 Blah blah.
That means 1 Mortal Wound instead of D3 regular wounds, right? Mortal Wounds is the new fancy term for Instant Death maybe? No armor saves instead of -3?
No. Smite normally does d3 mortal wounds. Aspiring Sorcerers only do 1 mortal wound because they are "lesser sorcerers".
Going to morale: The mechanics are simple – any units that suffered casualties in a turn must take a Morale test at the end of it. You just roll a D6, add the number of models from the unit that have been slain, and if the number is bigger than the unit’s Leadership, the unit loses the difference in additional models.
So, if you only lose 2 dudes in a turn, you're fine. Assuming the Asp Sorcerer is still alive. If he eats it, you can only lose 1 guy and still auto-pass morale. If you lose 3, you only fail on a 6.
I am liking what I am seeing. We can infer the regular Power Weapon profiles from what is listed, which makes me want to remove some of the weapons on my Honour Guard now that swords are better than Axes against T7 or above. Makes me wonder what Relic Blades will be like.
The Flamer profile stating that it hits automatically is good. I was worried how they were going to differentiate Flamers from Blasts. Looks like blasts are similar, but you still roll to hit.
It also looks like bigger units will be cheaper than larger units. Makes me less worried about my two 10-man Sternguard Squads.
casvalremdeikun wrote: I am liking what I am seeing. We can infer the regular Power Weapon profiles from what is listed, which makes me want to remove some of the weapons on my Honour Guard now that swords are better than Axes against T7 or above. Makes me wonder what Relic Blades will be like.
The Flamer profile stating that it hits automatically is good. I was worried how they were going to differentiate Flamers from Blasts. Looks like blasts are similar, but you still roll to hit.
It also looks like bigger units will be cheaper than larger units. Makes me less worried about my two 10-man Sternguard Squads.
We knew flamer profile before.
And as for points note base cost has mandatory psyker that will be throwing reliably mortal wounds. Obviously you need to pay for him' sternguard has mandatory powerfull leader?
Latro_ wrote: The one thing i am getting from that dataslate is they'v thought about that unit.
They'v gone fluffly.. a TS sorcerer would be faster hes still alive the normal TS's move like terminators now do, slower.
they'v put a simple mechanic for the +1 save if dam1 to represent them only getting hurt badly if blown apart
etc etc
Now if they have put this level of attention into one unit from one faction consider if they have done this for everything mind-explode
I'll guarantee it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nintura wrote: Interesting that you dont seem to have to pay anything for upgrades. Even power level points. So Soul Reaper is free. you should always take it.
kestral wrote: Power = Points? Why would they have two systems?
Come on people, we were already informed on this over a week ago. 40k will have narrative/open play and matched/competitive play, with
a) narrative/open only having rough "power levels" to roughly eveluate the worth of a unit, with equipment not factoring into that (which was specifically mentioned by GW, they even called it 'units will have relative power levels/ratings' back then).
b) competitive/matched play will have point costs like before, INCLUDING equipment and all upgrades/items (also confirmed by GW).
It's pretty obvious this warscroll belongs to a) because the unit size upgrades even outright state that they cause an increase in POWER RATINGS.
You guys are literally turning the assumption of one poster (same with matched play point costs and warscolls not being free) into a fact and panicking over nothing.
If you don't believe me and don't want to dig up statements by Pete Foley (I think it was originally stated in their live stream Q&A) just wait for the Facebook responses the inevitable questions regarding that by panicking players that are not keeping themselves up to date with information. Or just wait for tomorrow's article.
EDIT: Beaten to the punch but I think it was still worth stating again.
casvalremdeikun wrote: I am liking what I am seeing. We can infer the regular Power Weapon profiles from what is listed, which makes me want to remove some of the weapons on my Honour Guard now that swords are better than Axes against T7 or above. Makes me wonder what Relic Blades will be like.
The Flamer profile stating that it hits automatically is good. I was worried how they were going to differentiate Flamers from Blasts. Looks like blasts are similar, but you still roll to hit.
It also looks like bigger units will be cheaper than larger units. Makes me less worried about my two 10-man Sternguard Squads.
A Str4 model with an axe is better than a str4 model with a sword against T8, T9 but not T10. -3AP over -2AP doesn't cancel out the sword wounding on 6's and the axe wounding on 5's.
A Str4 model with a sword is always better than the same with an axe against T6, T7 and T3.
A Str4 model with an axe will always be better than the same with a sword against certain T4/T5 save combinations.
casvalremdeikun wrote: I am liking what I am seeing. We can infer the regular Power Weapon profiles from what is listed, which makes me want to remove some of the weapons on my Honour Guard now that swords are better than Axes against T7 or above. Makes me wonder what Relic Blades will be like.
The Flamer profile stating that it hits automatically is good. I was worried how they were going to differentiate Flamers from Blasts. Looks like blasts are similar, but you still roll to hit.
It also looks like bigger units will be cheaper than larger units. Makes me less worried about my two 10-man Sternguard Squads.
We knew flamer profile before.
And as for points note base cost has mandatory psyker that will be throwing reliably mortal wounds. Obviously you need to pay for him' sternguard has mandatory powerfull leader?
I don't know why I forgot that the Flamer was already listed and had the auto-correct rule on it. You are right with the Sorcerer messing up how to calculate points. Oh well. I hope combat Squads are still a thing so I can split the two ten man Squads in half.
So no grenades? And I'm assuming that means charging through cover doesn't mean anything?
Also rubrics w heavy and rapid fire might not be able to shoot and charge the same turn.
gungo wrote: So no grenades? And I'm assuming that means charging through cover doesn't mean anything?
Also rubrics w heavy and rapid fire might not be able to shoot and charge the same turn.
POWER = GENERAL SYSTEM FOR NARATIVE
POINTS = NORMAL POINTS, NOT DISCUSSED YET BY GW
thought i'd make it clear since no one is readying the multiple replies to these posts
MY POINT STILL STANDS. YOU CAN TYPE IN GIANT LETTERS TOO I SEE. MY POINT WAS YOU STILL DIDN'T PAY FOR UPGRADES EVEN IN NARATIVE PLAY. ONE PERSON ASKS A QUESTION AND GETS SMARTASS RESPONSES FROM 4 OR 5 PEOPLE WHO ALL ACT LIKE THIS PERSON READ THE RESPONSES AND THEN REPLIED WHEN IN REALITY THEY MAY HAVE BEEN TYPING THEIR QUESTION WHILE YOU ALREADY RESPONDED AND NEVER HAD A CHANCE TO ACTUALLY READ IT. TIMING IS EVERYTHING, BACK OFF. NOT EVERYONE HAS PLAYED AOS AND UNDERSTANDS WHAT GW SAYS IN THEIR ARTICLES. ANYTHING ELSE?
I am a bit worried that this datasheet doesn't have matched play points, It would be really annoying if you'd have check them from some other source. It is already mildly annoying for AoS* but it would be super annoying with a detailed point system with costs for every item etc.
(* Though there mainly because the min unit size in the warscroll and the min unit size you can actually buy with points are often not the same.)
POWER = GENERAL SYSTEM FOR NARATIVE
POINTS = NORMAL POINTS, NOT DISCUSSED YET BY GW
thought i'd make it clear since no one is readying the multiple replies to these posts
MY POINT STILL STANDS. YOU CAN TYPE IN GIANT LETTERS TOO I SEE. MY POINT WAS YOU STILL DIDN'T PAY FOR UPGRADES EVEN IN NARATIVE PLAY. ONE PERSON ASKS A QUESTION AND GETS SMARTASS RESPONSES FROM 4 OR 5 PEOPLE WHO ALL ACT LIKE THIS PERSON READ THE RESPONSES AND THEN REPLIED WHEN IN REALITY THEY MAY HAVE BEEN TYPING THEIR QUESTION WHILE YOU ALREADY RESPONDED AND NEVER HAD A CHANCE TO ACTUALLY READ IT. TIMING IS EVERYTHING, BACK OFF. NOT EVERYONE HAS PLAYED AOS AND UNDERSTANDS WHAT GW SAYS IN THEIR ARTICLES. ANYTHING ELSE?
To stop this back and forth rant, I have one question for you. Why did you ask a question about a new article without first reading the article? You read the forum thought on the article (which posted a screenshot) but didn't have time to actually read the article? If true, you got what you deserved.
Crimson wrote: I am a bit worried that this datasheet doesn't have matched play points, It would be really annoying if you'd have check them from some other source. It is already mildly Annoying for AoS* but it would be super annoying with a detailed point system with costs for every item etc.
(* Though there mainly because the min unit size in the warscroll and the min unit size you can actually buy with points are often not the same.)
They could all be on a single quick reference sheet in the back of your factions book. Or as someone said earlier, it could be GW expects you to download a free app or something.
POWER = GENERAL SYSTEM FOR NARATIVE
POINTS = NORMAL POINTS, NOT DISCUSSED YET BY GW
thought i'd make it clear since no one is readying the multiple replies to these posts
MY POINT STILL STANDS. YOU CAN TYPE IN GIANT LETTERS TOO I SEE. MY POINT WAS YOU STILL DIDN'T PAY FOR UPGRADES EVEN IN NARATIVE PLAY. ONE PERSON ASKS A QUESTION AND GETS SMARTASS RESPONSES FROM 4 OR 5 PEOPLE WHO ALL ACT LIKE THIS PERSON READ THE RESPONSES AND THEN REPLIED WHEN IN REALITY THEY MAY HAVE BEEN TYPING THEIR QUESTION WHILE YOU ALREADY RESPONDED AND NEVER HAD A CHANCE TO ACTUALLY READ IT. TIMING IS EVERYTHING, BACK OFF. NOT EVERYONE HAS PLAYED AOS AND UNDERSTANDS WHAT GW SAYS IN THEIR ARTICLES. ANYTHING ELSE?
how did you get the text that big? it wouldn't do it for me.
Crimson wrote: I am a bit worried that this datasheet doesn't have matched play points, It would be really annoying if you'd have check them from some other source. It is already mildly Annoying for AoS* but it would be super annoying with a detailed point system with costs for every item etc.
(* Though there mainly because the min unit size in the warscroll and the min unit size you can actually buy with points are often not the same.)
The advantage, of course, is that they can print yearly points updates in one book and not force a reprint of every army book that gets affected.
POWER = GENERAL SYSTEM FOR NARATIVE
POINTS = NORMAL POINTS, NOT DISCUSSED YET BY GW
thought i'd make it clear since no one is readying the multiple replies to these posts
MY POINT STILL STANDS. YOU CAN TYPE IN GIANT LETTERS TOO I SEE. MY POINT WAS YOU STILL DIDN'T PAY FOR UPGRADES EVEN IN NARATIVE PLAY. ONE PERSON ASKS A QUESTION AND GETS SMARTASS RESPONSES FROM 4 OR 5 PEOPLE WHO ALL ACT LIKE THIS PERSON READ THE RESPONSES AND THEN REPLIED WHEN IN REALITY THEY MAY HAVE BEEN TYPING THEIR QUESTION WHILE YOU ALREADY RESPONDED AND NEVER HAD A CHANCE TO ACTUALLY READ IT. TIMING IS EVERYTHING, BACK OFF. NOT EVERYONE HAS PLAYED AOS AND UNDERSTANDS WHAT GW SAYS IN THEIR ARTICLES. ANYTHING ELSE?
To stop this back and forth rant, I have one question for you. Why did you ask a question about a new article without first reading the article? You read the forum thought on the article (which posted a screenshot) but didn't have time to actually read the article? If true, you got what you deserved.
Except that I read the article. I mentioned that it looked like you get the upgrades for free with no cost to power points. Probably because A: I mentioned power points, not point cost. And B, I've never played AOS so I have no clue how those actually work or that in AOS all upgrades can be taken for free.
Crimson wrote: I am a bit worried that this datasheet doesn't have matched play points, It would be really annoying if you'd have check them from some other source. It is already mildly Annoying for AoS* but it would be super annoying with a detailed point system with costs for every item etc.
(* Though there mainly because the min unit size in the warscroll and the min unit size you can actually buy with points are often not the same.)
Since you have to pay for matched points no surprise. Now MAYBE paid book has datasheet with those but that's big if
They could all be on a single quick reference sheet in the back of your factions book. Or as someone said earlier, it could be GW expects you to download a free app or something.
They could, but then it kinda defeats the point of having all the weapons and rules on the datasheet in the first place, if you still have to flip back and fort anyway.
A Str4 model with an axe is better than a str4 model with a sword against T8, T9 but not T10. -3AP over -2AP doesn't cancel out the sword wounding on 6's and the axe wounding on 5's.
A Str4 model with a sword is always better than the same with an axe against T6, T7 and T3.
A Str4 model with an axe will always be better than the same with a sword against certain T4/T5 save combinations.
Crimson wrote: I am a bit worried that this datasheet doesn't have matched play points, It would be really annoying if you'd have check them from some other source. It is already mildly Annoying for AoS* but it would be super annoying with a detailed point system with costs for every item etc.
(* Though there mainly because the min unit size in the warscroll and the min unit size you can actually buy with points are often not the same.)
If you read the article they said they'd discuss points tomorrow, they most likely left the points off of this one on purpose to not take focus away from the unit/weapon/rules on the sheet itself
Guys, they're discussing points tomorrow, i wouldn't assume anything about free upgrades or not based off of this sheet, the sheet is to just show a sheet in general so you're familiar with the layout.
Crimson wrote: I am a bit worried that this datasheet doesn't have matched play points, It would be really annoying if you'd have check them from some other source. It is already mildly Annoying for AoS* but it would be super annoying with a detailed point system with costs for every item etc.
(* Though there mainly because the min unit size in the warscroll and the min unit size you can actually buy with points are often not the same.)
The advantage, of course, is that they can print yearly points updates in one book and not force a reprint of every army book that gets affected.
That's a good point. They are wanting to make everything modular. And reprinting one book every year beats every codex every year. Hell, it could be a free download for all we know down the road. Or they could be updated more often.
Crimson wrote: I am a bit worried that this datasheet doesn't have matched play points, It would be really annoying if you'd have check them from some other source. It is already mildly Annoying for AoS* but it would be super annoying with a detailed point system with costs for every item etc.
(* Though there mainly because the min unit size in the warscroll and the min unit size you can actually buy with points are often not the same.)
That'll absolutely happen, it's a feature of the system they're going for. Points all together in a single book for all factions in the game, so they can be updated yearly without impacting the codex's or datasheets that already exist. The other option is to reprint EVERY book every year, which is a non starter.
So yeah, you'll have to deal with points in a different place to the datasheets. But with army builder software galore out there, i think the benefits (yearly updates to points for balance purposes) far outweigh the disadvantages.
They could all be on a single quick reference sheet in the back of your factions book. Or as someone said earlier, it could be GW expects you to download a free app or something.
They could, but then it kinda defeats the point of having all the weapons and rules on the datasheet in the first place, if you still have to flip back and fort anyway.
Only if you dont know the rules for your weargear. Personally I'd rather have it all on "cards". An army wide quick ref sheet, then cards for each unit with their rules. Basically a mini-dex that I can keep with me.
POWER = GENERAL SYSTEM FOR NARATIVE
POINTS = NORMAL POINTS, NOT DISCUSSED YET BY GW
thought i'd make it clear since no one is readying the multiple replies to these posts
MY POINT STILL STANDS. YOU CAN TYPE IN GIANT LETTERS TOO I SEE. MY POINT WAS YOU STILL DIDN'T PAY FOR UPGRADES EVEN IN NARATIVE PLAY. ONE PERSON ASKS A QUESTION AND GETS SMARTASS RESPONSES FROM 4 OR 5 PEOPLE WHO ALL ACT LIKE THIS PERSON READ THE RESPONSES AND THEN REPLIED WHEN IN REALITY THEY MAY HAVE BEEN TYPING THEIR QUESTION WHILE YOU ALREADY RESPONDED AND NEVER HAD A CHANCE TO ACTUALLY READ IT. TIMING IS EVERYTHING, BACK OFF. NOT EVERYONE HAS PLAYED AOS AND UNDERSTANDS WHAT GW SAYS IN THEIR ARTICLES. ANYTHING ELSE?
how did you get the text that big? it wouldn't do it for me.
I spent 12 years in the army. I'm really, really good at yelling
As expected, it looks like for the majority of situations, you'll want a force axe over the stave, and the sword just seems surprisingly poor. Interesting.
Eyjio wrote: As expected, it looks like for the majority of situations, you'll want a force axe over the stave, and the sword just seems surprisingly poor. Interesting.
Check the individual charts. The sword maintains a higher average through T7.
POWER = GENERAL SYSTEM FOR NARATIVE POINTS = NORMAL POINTS, NOT DISCUSSED YET BY GW
thought i'd make it clear since no one is readying the multiple replies to these posts
MY POINT STILL STANDS. YOU CAN TYPE IN GIANT LETTERS TOO I SEE. MY POINT WAS YOU STILL DIDN'T PAY FOR UPGRADES EVEN IN NARATIVE PLAY. ONE PERSON ASKS A QUESTION AND GETS SMARTASS RESPONSES FROM 4 OR 5 PEOPLE WHO ALL ACT LIKE THIS PERSON READ THE RESPONSES AND THEN REPLIED WHEN IN REALITY THEY MAY HAVE BEEN TYPING THEIR QUESTION WHILE YOU ALREADY RESPONDED AND NEVER HAD A CHANCE TO ACTUALLY READ IT. TIMING IS EVERYTHING, BACK OFF. NOT EVERYONE HAS PLAYED AOS AND UNDERSTANDS WHAT GW SAYS IN THEIR ARTICLES. ANYTHING ELSE?
To stop this back and forth rant, I have one question for you. Why did you ask a question about a new article without first reading the article? You read the forum thought on the article (which posted a screenshot) but didn't have time to actually read the article? If true, you got what you deserved.
Except that I read the article. I mentioned that it looked like you get the upgrades for free with no cost to power points. Probably because A: I mentioned power points, not point cost. And B, I've never played AOS so I have no clue how those actually work or that in AOS all upgrades can be taken for free.
Pages 148 to 152 of this thread cover it very well.
Power is for Narrative and Open play Points will be for matched play, and will be similar to what your used to from 40k. A tac squad costs 75 points, with 13 points per additional dude and 10 points for a missile launcher, and so forth.
A Str4 model with an axe is better than a str4 model with a sword against T8, T9 but not T10. -3AP over -2AP doesn't cancel out the sword wounding on 6's and the axe wounding on 5's.
A Str4 model with a sword is always better than the same with an axe against T6, T7 and T3.
A Str4 model with an axe will always be better than the same with a sword against certain T4/T5 save combinations.
What's the Y axis?
My brain isn't working well at the moment.
Invulnerable saves are gonna mix things up in T4/T5 too, there's no point in taking a sword over an axe against 2+/4++ or 3+/5++ or straight 5+
Eyjio wrote: As expected, it looks like for the majority of situations, you'll want a force axe over the stave, and the sword just seems surprisingly poor. Interesting.
Check the individual charts. The sword maintains a higher average through T7.
Spoiler:
I do really like that the sword/axe/staff all are better at different break points due to the new Str vs T table.
What's the Y axis?
My brain isn't working well at the moment.
Invulnerable saves are gonna mix things up in T4/T5 too, there's no point in taking a sword over an axe against 2+/4++ or 3+/5++ or straight 5+
Average wounds caused.
That will depend heavily on whether or not we can take both saves, but I would expect them to be fairly rare unlike with Rubrics.
Eyjio wrote: As expected, it looks like for the majority of situations, you'll want a force axe over the stave, and the sword just seems surprisingly poor. Interesting.
Check the individual charts. The sword maintains a higher average through T7.
I'm not sure T7 is going to be the issue though. I sort of feel like if you've charged something above T5, something has likely gone badly wrong. Performance between T3-5 seems much more important IMO, as that's where most infantry fights will likely be. I don't think it's a huge issue which one is picked ultimately, but my guess is that we'll be seeing more axes than anything else (if people can be bothered to change models for marginal gain).
Go look at the Age of Sigmar books/warscolls page on the GW website.
Sigmarines got a whole new Battletome to cover Sigmarines who ride mounts. So... yeah, I did look and it sure looks like AoS supplemental materials are a thing. Also, I have Orruks who don't wear armor in one Battletome and Orruks who do in another. I don't have Battletome: Orruks. I don't know why you'd think that Codex: Tau Empire would include Tau groups who aren't part of the Tau Empire. Codex: Tau Empire and Codex: Farsight Enclaves would more accurately represent what we see in AoS.
You're working off some old information there, Kris. Starting with Sylvaneth, GW figured out a better way to do battletomes. They redid the Stormcast and Khorne Bloodbound rules by combining the original material with the new rules that had come out since then for Stormast (including the "Sigmarines who ride mounts") and combing the Bloodbound with Khorne Daemons, both in books that were cheaper then the original release. They actually seem to be intent on reducing the number of battletomes they have to release by recombining like "factions". When Death and Destruction armies get updates in the future, I fully expect them to combine some forces back together. I expect Deathrattle and Deadwalkers to be combined as well as Greenskins and Bonesplittas. I would honestly be shocked if Farsight Enclaves wasn't just a specific way of building Tau as far as rules are concerned.
Hmmm... Matchet Points will be free on the internet, just like AoS, thats I'm sure, so people that only want to play with points and datasheets will be able to do so. The Generals HandBook has the rules for the 3 modes of play, but really, once you know them, you can go basically with the "battletome" for you faction. If I remember correctly, they include too in AoS the point costs of things and even the rules of the game.
A shame that Tactical Marines and Rubric Marines have only 1 wound and not 2. In AoS, normal Chaos Warriors have now 2 wounds, but I suppose they have leaved that to the Nu-marines.
As for how AoS is set up, you can buy the generals handbook to play, but you want to buy your faction battletome to get full use.
The battletome is your standard codex price, but contains fluff, all stats, plus command traits, special faction wargrear, faction spells, missions, etc.
For example; I play Blades of Khorne. I could use just generals handbook, got my points and warscrolls and play, but im missing out on relics for war gear a leader can take, spells my bloodpriests can cast, special commands they can do etc.
I can only take 1 piece of relic gear though, same with commands for my leader model. Spells as assigned rando or picked. (all of it can be rando actually). But spells can only be casted once a turn. So if I had 4 guys with arcane bolt, after I cast it once, or fail that's it. No more bolts. so it makes you want to spread your spells out
Actually battletomes are cheaper than codexes. Your average codex costs between 33 to 39 euros for softcover. AoS battletomes are 20-25 euros, those that are post-GHB (which are the ones worth taking if you want them for the rules).
As for how AoS is set up, you can buy the generals handbook to play, but you want to buy your faction battletome to get full use.
The battletome is your standard codex price, but contains fluff, all stats, plus command traits, special faction wargrear, faction spells, missions, etc.
For example; I play Blades of Khorne. I could use just generals handbook, got my points and warscrolls and play, but im missing out on relics for war gear a leader can take, spells my bloodpriests can cast, special commands they can do etc.
I can only take 1 piece of relic gear though, same with commands for my leader model. Spells as assigned rando or picked. (all of it can be rando actually). But spells can only be casted once a turn. So if I had 4 guys with arcane bolt, after I cast it once, or fail that's it. No more bolts. so it makes you want to spread your spells out
Is that not only true for a couple of armies though as they only just started doing proper codexs. Hence Sigmarines getting a replacement after 2 years to add all the content missing since launch.
So Khorne,Sigmarines and Squats have full codexs. Tzeentch has the options split over mortal and Demons so have less options individually. Finally Sylvanath we're the first try at a proper codexs so has options but not as many as the newest codexs.
Everything else has gimped armies with few of the options avaiable to the newer armies.
Right. Only a few of the armies have Battletomes out currently. Sylvaneth have same amount of options as the other codexes. They are not "out of date" because they were the first book.
The generals handbook has "General" bonus rules for armies that are "Order, Destruction, Death, Chaos" but nothing very specific to your faction. I also think the Wild Oruks got a book (though I don't know if it has special stuff) and same with Beastclaw Raiders got a book (again no idea on special gear, abilities, spells specific to them)
So in short, yes. In AoS if your army doesent have a Battletome, you are "gimped" as in you don't have all the army specific stuff Sigmar, Khorne, Squats, and Tree people have. Im sure the goal is to release them as they progress the events/story but its a slow go as its all 40k soon and really the rest of the year im sure besides a few releases here and there.
This would/could be a concern unless they release a lot of 8th Edition "Battletomes" all at once for the armies. If they do a stagger like Space Marines, then Nurgle, etc the armies with books will be on a higher playing level then the armies without. Not to say armies without Battletomes in AoS are trash, just not as many options
Eyjio wrote: As expected, it looks like for the majority of situations, you'll want a force axe over the stave, and the sword just seems surprisingly poor. Interesting.
Check the individual charts. The sword maintains a higher average through T7.
I'm not sure T7 is going to be the issue though. I sort of feel like if you've charged something above T5, something has likely gone badly wrong. Performance between T3-5 seems much more important IMO, as that's where most infantry fights will likely be. I don't think it's a huge issue which one is picked ultimately, but my guess is that we'll be seeing more axes than anything else (if people can be bothered to change models for marginal gain).
As far as rubrics go I have the hardest time facing things like daemon princes in combat. The MEQs I just shoot into oblivion.
So when comparing the sword to the staff the black areas are where the sword is better (before T7) and red is where the staff is better. This gives you a quick visual that shows the black areas encompass more space than red so overall that weapon will be a better choice in that range.
Please remember that posting and reading online is a visual format and as such the spelling, grammar and look of your posts is the only way others understand what you are saying. Therefore, in order to be polite, all users are expected to make an effort to use proper spelling, grammar and punctuation and should refrain from using internet shorthand or other distracting methods of writing, such as writing a post completely bolded, with capital letters, in a strange color, etc.
IN OTHER WORDS - KNOCK IT OFF WITH THE GIANT COLOR TEXT.
To be fair, in AoS it's not like you need to be one of the new factions to make a competitive list.
Just using the standard bonus from your grand alliance you can make a lot of good lists. I have won a lot of games with my Seraphon, and they have no allegiance bonuse so far.
Anyone else getting a little tired of the 'every option is viable now!' spiel?
I'm sure it's been shaken up and units that sucked might now be better, but inevitably there will be no brainer choices better than others which will just not be viable.
Anyone else getting a little tired of the 'every option is viable now!' spiel?
I'm sure it's been shaken up and units that sucked might now be better, but inevitably there will be no brainer choices better than others which will just not be viable.
I'm more tired to these h2g units rock without explaining how. Here shows big nasty weapon. Ok? Sure he kills but lack of killiness has never been problem in h2h
I hope the promises live up and we'll see more than Scatterbike/Spider/WK spam on the table.
Well, if the Avatar resembles anything like we see in the new statlines, being able to hit for d6 and rolling twice per hit and keeping highest, he's going to be a beast.
Striking Scorpions particularly are just vicious combatants that will strike fear into your opponent and disrupt their battle plans with the Masters of Stealth special rule and their Mandiblasters softening up enemy units at the beginning of the Fight phase by dishing out mortal wounds.
Mortal Wounds - will they show up too often, ala AoS?
Howling Banshees get a new lease on life too. These girls are now faster than almost any other Infantry unit in the game, and nearly always get to go first in the Fight phase even if they didn’t charge.
And of course, there will always be 'exceptions to rules' and 'exceptions to exceptions', but will they show up too much as well?
So we have armor, which is ignorable by enough AP.
Then we have Invul saves, which is ignorable by mortal wounds.
Now we have Avatar saves, which (as far as we know) are not yet ignorable.
Anyone else getting a little tired of the 'every option is viable now!' spiel?
I'm sure it's been shaken up and units that sucked might now be better, but inevitably there will be no brainer choices better than others which will just not be viable.
I think because it looks like the power curve has flattened out a bit it's possible everything actually will be viable. Sure some things will be better, even WAY better but it's possible they could have gotten it to the point where nothing is a liability at least.
Hm...not a lot of substance but enough to make some things look pretty decent.
Makes me think the Avatar is really going to be a nasty piece of work.
I'm think 2+ to hit with shooting and melee, Str 8-10 (+2 from weapon) plus 9 or 10 wounds, vehicle level toughness, obviously a 2+/5++ or even 4++, ignores mortal wounds, Daemon as a keyword, grants power buff bubble to make Eldar hit harder and more Ld. And when they say even Guilliman should be cautious I'm thinking a feth load of attacks as well.
Anyone else getting a little tired of the 'every option is viable now!' spiel?
I'm sure it's been shaken up and units that sucked might now be better, but inevitably there will be no brainer choices better than others which will just not be viable.
It's a matter of degrees of separation. Some things will be better, but marginally enough to not dissuade someone from taking something else and feeling bad about it.
I'm think 2+ to hit with shooting and melee, Str 8-10 (+2 from weapon) plus 9 or 10 wounds, vehicle level toughness, obviously a 2+/5++ or even 4++, ignores mortal wounds, Daemon as a keyword, grants power buff bubble to make Eldar hit harder and more Ld. And when they say even Guilliman should be cautious I'm thinking a feth load of attacks as well.
JimOnMars wrote: So we have armor, which is ignorable by enough AP.
Then we have Invul saves, which is ignorable by mortal wounds.
Now we have Avatar saves, which (as far as we know) are not yet ignorable.
Do I have this right?
Basically, yes. I doubt that they will make Ultra Mortal Wounds. Is just like AoS, but with a Invulnerable save here for... I don't know what reason.
The point here is... invulnerable saves are now as AoS? Where you can roll for save, and if you fail, roll for invulnerable save, or you only use it if you are hurt by a attack that makes your armour save worse than your invulnerable save?
Striking Scorpions particularly are just vicious combatants that will strike fear into your opponent and disrupt their battle plans with the Masters of Stealth special rule and their Mandiblasters softening up enemy units at the beginning of the Fight phase by dishing out mortal wounds.
Mortal Wounds - will they show up too often, ala AoS?
They tend to be on elite units and are used to rep up things that used to be similar to Hammer of Wrath attacks.
I think it's entirely appropriate for Mandiblasters to do them.
Howling Banshees get a new lease on life too. These girls are now faster than almost any other Infantry unit in the game, and nearly always get to go first in the Fight phase even if they didn’t charge.
And of course, there will always be 'exceptions to rules' and 'exceptions to exceptions', but will they show up too much as well?
"Exceptions to exceptions" are, shockingly, not that common in AoS.
I really don't think the author of the article quite understands what "a new lease on life" means though. Howling Banshees were still used pretty heavily in 7th; what with the Banshee Mask negating Overwatch(and against Tau; Supporting Fire).
JimOnMars wrote: So we have armor, which is ignorable by enough AP.
Then we have Invul saves, which is ignorable by mortal wounds.
Now we have Avatar saves, which (as far as we know) are not yet ignorable.
Do I have this right?
AoS has certain equipment that can shrug off mortal wounds in certain situations, but they're always unique to a unit.
JimOnMars wrote: So we have armor, which is ignorable by enough AP.
Then we have Invul saves, which is ignorable by mortal wounds.
Now we have Avatar saves, which (as far as we know) are not yet ignorable.
Do I have this right?
It may not be a save - simply the ability to ignore X wounds per turn - eg Manfred Von Carstein has in AOS, the ability to ignore 1 wound per round, normal or mortal (IIRC)
Striking Scorpions particularly are just vicious combatants that will strike fear into your opponent and disrupt their battle plans with the Masters of Stealth special rule and their Mandiblasters softening up enemy units at the beginning of the Fight phase by dishing out mortal wounds.
Mortal Wounds - will they show up too often, ala AoS?
They tend to be on elite units and are used to rep up things that used to be similar to Hammer of Wrath attacks.
I think it's entirely appropriate for Mandiblasters to do them.
Howling Banshees get a new lease on life too. These girls are now faster than almost any other Infantry unit in the game, and nearly always get to go first in the Fight phase even if they didn’t charge.
And of course, there will always be 'exceptions to rules' and 'exceptions to exceptions', but will they show up too much as well?
"Exceptions to exceptions" are, shockingly, not that common in AoS.
I really don't think the author of the article quite understands what "a new lease on life" means though. Howling Banshees were still used pretty heavily in 7th; what with the Banshee Mask negating Overwatch(and against Tau; Supporting Fire).
Really, banshees were used? I haven't seen Banshees mentioned on this forum in years. The only Eldar units I've seen mentioned over the last few years; Wraightknight, Wave Serpents, and of course: Scatterbikes. In fact I was almost convinced Scatterbikes were available in every slot because I only ever saw mention of Scatterbikes and scatbikes and yet more scatterbikes. Occassionally with an Invisibility and Prescience toting Seerbike. Support by Wraightknights.
+ Phoenix Lords have a 2+ save and give buffs to nearby friendly units
+ Asurman gives an Invul save inside a bubble and does Mortal Wounds in melee
+ Maniblasters do Mortal Wounds at the beginning of the Fight Phase (out of order activation?)
+ Howling Banshees are now one of the fastest moving units in the game and almost always go first, even when they didn't charge + Avatar of Khaine can ignore some mortal wounds (and likely still makes things Fearless, aka ignore Battle Shock)
+ The Wailing Doom:
And Battle Focus is still in so the run and shoot or shoot and run mobility is still there.
They better keep those mortal wounds limited to to Asurman, Striking Scorpions and very few other selected elite models and price them accordingly. If they simply turn all those Eldar D-weapons into Mortal Wound weapons they will either be completely broken or the most expensive army to field with the lowest model count. I am seriously not hopeful from reading the faction preview.
Good thing that if they end up being broken cheese again we can still at least raise hell and hopefully they will be addressed after a year.
+ Phoenix Lords have a 2+ save and give buffs to nearby friendly units
+ Asurman gives an Invul save inside a bubble and does Mortal Wounds in melee
+ Maniblasters do Mortal Wounds at the beginning of the Fight Phase (out of order activation?)
+ Howling Banshees are now one of the fastest moving units in the game and almost always go first, even when they didn't charge + Avatar of Khaine can ignore some mortal wounds (and likely still makes things Fearless, aka ignore Battle Shock)
+ The Wailing Doom:
And Battle Focus is still in so the run and shoot or shoot and run mobility is still there.
Requoting for bolded bit. If Banshee's have any level of canon to compensate their glass, I envision them being powerful, or powerful homebase objective campers. Hide them in cover to mitigate shooting, counterattack on next turn (say a 10" move followed by ~7" charge?), as well as the thing you absolutely DO NOT ever charge. However, if they are simply glass-pea-shooters and lack any real punch they will not be very much used.
JimOnMars wrote: So we have armor, which is ignorable by enough AP. Then we have Invul saves, which is ignorable by mortal wounds. Now we have Avatar saves, which (as far as we know) are not yet ignorable.
Do I have this right?
It may not be a save - simply the ability to ignore X wounds per turn - eg Manfred Von Carstein has in AOS, the ability to ignore 1 wound per round, normal or mortal (IIRC)
Or like Archaon's Chaos Runeshield, where you can roll a D6 and save against Mortal Wounds.
Deadshot wrote: Really, banshees were used? I haven't seen Banshees mentioned on this forum in years. The only Eldar units I've seen mentioned over the last few years; Wraightknight, Wave Serpents, and of course: Scatterbikes. In fact I was almost convinced Scatterbikes were available in every slot because I only ever saw mention of Scatterbikes and scatbikes and yet more scatterbikes. Occassionally with an Invisibility and Prescience toting Seerbike. Support by Wraightknights.
Really, because what gets mentioned on a forum=what actually gets played.
The units that got complained about on forums were those that stuck out in many peoples' minds. If you want to try to get snarky about the fact that Howling Banshees didn't get complained about, I don't know what to tell you. Obviously people felt they weren't units that were exceedingly bothersome.
Ragnar Blackmane wrote:They better keep those mortal wounds limited to to Asurman, Striking Scorpions and very few other selected elite models and price them accordingly. If they simply turn all those Eldar D-weapons into Mortal Wound weapons they will either be completely broken or the most expensive army to field with the lowest model count. I am seriously not hopeful from reading the faction preview.
Good thing that if they end up being broken cheese again we can still at least raise hell and hopefully they will be addressed after a year.
I think that it might be something like on a Wound roll of a 6, Distortion weaponry causes a Mortal Wound.
Striking Scorpions particularly are just vicious combatants that will strike fear into your opponent and disrupt their battle plans with the Masters of Stealth special rule and their Mandiblasters softening up enemy units at the beginning of the Fight phase by dishing out mortal wounds.
Mortal Wounds - will they show up too often, ala AoS?
Howling Banshees get a new lease on life too. These girls are now faster than almost any other Infantry unit in the game, and nearly always get to go first in the Fight phase even if they didn’t charge.
And of course, there will always be 'exceptions to rules' and 'exceptions to exceptions', but will they show up too much as well?
While there is more Mortal wounds in AoS, its not to often. Most of the game is close combat. So you got to get there, and its mostly leader or elite guys that do it.
40k might have less mortal wounds over all, but the amount of killing it has over AoS is waaaaay more, so its more deadly. But that's expected as its the future...with lasers
Albino Squirrel wrote: mandiblasters do mortal wounds??? Never imagined them as being specialized anti-titan weapons.
You want large amounts of multi-damage for anti-titan weapons. Mortal Wounds could very well be useless against titans if they deal single damage just by the sheer amount of wounds titans will have.
Mortal wounds are used to counter elite infantry and small characters with high save. There are more efficient ways to down big stuff with lots of wounds.
docdoom77 wrote: I was disappointed to see Battle Focus on the list. What's the point of move values if you keep adding weird movement abilities?
Hopefully it at least has a drawback. Like can shoot after advancing but shooting is at -1.
The drawback could be that it only applies to units with the "Infantry" keyword.
That's not a drawback. Only infantry units can use it now. If you give Eldar a higher Move value AND let them run and shoot freely every turn, that sounds like just too much. But, my money is on it having an actual drawback of some kind.
Or they are just that mobile. They have short ranged weapons, so it's not that big of an issue and makes them interesting to play. They will hardly be able to run after shooting, because now you run in the movement phase.
WrentheFaceless wrote: So much for the hopes of Eldar being toned down to be on balance with everyone else
Yeah, I'm worried this might be another Eldar edition.
Like the last few ones Then again, we haven't seen the rest of the factions. Maybe the other xenos factions and space marines have their own cheese.
docdoom77 wrote: I was disappointed to see Battle Focus on the list. What's the point of move values if you keep adding weird movement abilities?
Hopefully it at least has a drawback. Like can shoot after advancing but shooting is at -1.
The drawback could be that it only applies to units with the "Infantry" keyword.
That's not a drawback. Only infantry units can use it now. If you give Eldar a higher Move value AND let them run and shoot freely every turn, that sounds like just too much. But, my money is on it having an actual drawback of some kind.
Don't War Walkers and Jetbikes have Battle Focus?
I don't have a copy of the current Eldar book handy; could have swore they did.
Spoletta wrote: Or they are just that mobile. They have short ranged weapons, so it's not that big of an issue and makes them interesting to play. They will hardly be able to run after shooting, because now you run in the movement phase.
It's in no way game-breaking. But if it works like: "Can always shoot on turns they advanced," then I'll simply find it unpleasant. But since we don't know how it works yet, I guess there's not much point to this line of conversation.
Kanluwen wrote: They tend to be on elite units and are used to rep up things that used to be similar to Hammer of Wrath attacks.
I think it's entirely appropriate for Mandiblasters to do them.
Don\t think mandiblasters has ever been described as making attacks capable of punching effortlessly through titans armour...
I don't think it ever said that it caused Mortal Wounds on Titans.
Ah yes that makes less bloat if they start separating against what each weapon causes mortal wounds.
Furthermore mandiblaster has _never_ been described as being particularly powerful attack. It's not hyper terminator killer either!
For all you know, Mandiblasters cause Mortal Wounds in combats against things with the Infantry or Monstrous Creature keywords.
Which would still be quite a spam. Lots of infantry etc in there.
Mortal wound is simply awful mechanism. Just look at AOS where it's race between mortal wounds and hordes. Tougher infantry are in deep trouble when mortal wounds just ignores all saves(and in 40k also T)
docdoom77 wrote: I was disappointed to see Battle Focus on the list. What's the point of move values if you keep adding weird movement abilities?
Hopefully it at least has a drawback. Like can shoot after advancing but shooting is at -1.
The drawback could be that it only applies to units with the "Infantry" keyword.
That's not a drawback. Only infantry units can use it now. If you give Eldar a higher Move value AND let them run and shoot freely every turn, that sounds like just too much. But, my money is on it having an actual drawback of some kind.
Don't War Walkers and Jetbikes have Battle Focus?
I don't have a copy of the current Eldar book handy; could have swore they did.
Jetbikes have it, but can't use it, because bikes can't run. I'm unsure about WarWalkers. Even if they have it, stripping it from a single unit isn't really a drawback. But, like I said, it's moot. I just don't like the idea.
Kanluwen wrote: They tend to be on elite units and are used to rep up things that used to be similar to Hammer of Wrath attacks.
I think it's entirely appropriate for Mandiblasters to do them.
Don\t think mandiblasters has ever been described as making attacks capable of punching effortlessly through titans armour...
I don't think it ever said that it caused Mortal Wounds on Titans.
Ah yes that makes less bloat if they start separating against what each weapon causes mortal wounds.
Furthermore mandiblaster has _never_ been described as being particularly powerful attack. It's not hyper terminator killer either!
For all you know, Mandiblasters cause Mortal Wounds in combats against things with the Infantry or Monstrous Creature keywords.
Which would still be quite a spam. Lots of infantry etc in there.
Mortal wound is simply awful mechanism. Just look at AOS where it's race between mortal wounds and hordes. Tougher infantry are in deep trouble when mortal wounds just ignores all saves(and in 40k also T)
Rule of thumb is: attacks inflict wounds (with a few exceptions), special rules inflict mortal wounds (with very few exceptions).
For example i'm 100% sure that acid blood will inflict mortal wounds.
Kanluwen wrote: They tend to be on elite units and are used to rep up things that used to be similar to Hammer of Wrath attacks.
I think it's entirely appropriate for Mandiblasters to do them.
Don\t think mandiblasters has ever been described as making attacks capable of punching effortlessly through titans armour...
I don't think it ever said that it caused Mortal Wounds on Titans.
Ah yes that makes less bloat if they start separating against what each weapon causes mortal wounds.
Furthermore mandiblaster has _never_ been described as being particularly powerful attack. It's not hyper terminator killer either!
For all you know, Mandiblasters cause Mortal Wounds in combats against things with the Infantry or Monstrous Creature keywords.
Which would still be quite a spam. Lots of infantry etc in there.
Mortal wound is simply awful mechanism. Just look at AOS where it's race between mortal wounds and hordes. Tougher infantry are in deep trouble when mortal wounds just ignores all saves(and in 40k also T)
My point was that doing mortal wounds doesn't seem to fit at all with what mandiblasters are. Are they supposed to punch effortlessly through terminator armor? Or just as effortlessly through anything regardless of toughness and armor? It seems like they just gave them mortal wounds to save the effort of thinking of a rule that made sense.
My point was that doing mortal wounds doesn't seem to fit at all with what mandiblasters are. Are they supposed to punch effortlessly through terminator armor? Or just as effortlessly through anything regardless of toughness and armor? It seems like they just gave them mortal wounds to save the effort of thinking of a rule that made sense.
They punch through any armor. We don't know what the strength of the shot it. It could even be S3.
Datasheets Q: Warhammer 40,000 How many of you man this page? Or is did some poor guardsmen just get locked up in a room to field the unending wave of questions?
A: Just one of us... One soul standing against the tide. Much like Sly Marbo, but somewhat less heroic and chiseled.
Q: Warhammer 40,000 hey can we have the slightest hint of necron stuff in the next teaser please? the red harvest must begin!
A: *This message has been formatted so only true Necrontyr can read it.
Q: Hey guys @Warhammer 40,000, would you consider doing deep strike rules preview ?
A: We can consider it...
Q: You guys are savage and have no chill when it comes to absolutely destroying people, how can I become a member of the community team?
A: You should have seen the quadra-savage reply we typed out... but then thought better of it...!
Q: will weapons have point value's?
also if an aspiring sorcerer can move 6" and the rest of hits unit can move 5" doesn't that mean the sorcerer can only move 5"?
A: It means he can move slightly faster, so long as he stays with his unit.
Q: Give me the new protocols for my Necron minions or you will be harvested.
A: Errrr.....sure thing! We'll get right on it!
Q: Hey GW, will you release a datasheet for khorne berzerkers anytime soon?? (Hopefully before 8th hits) Ever since the CSM faction focus, i am super hyped to see what you have in mind with those lobotomised nutjobs
A: We haven't released anything yet.... but by Jimminy.... they are just as good in combat as you hope them to be....
Q: Well.. definitely will take some getting used too. I do like the effort to balance out the game.
A: It's just not the same without your Marbo memes.
Q: Love all the articles! We would love you to throw us a little more Xenos examples. We have heard a ton about the factions of Man, and just a splash about Orks. Can we please have more splashs of Xenos? <3
A: We like splashing Xenos.... all over the wall with a boltgun.
More Xenos bits on the way REAL soon...
Q: I have only one burning question for 8th -
Will Shadow Captain Shrike's new datasheet reflect his ascension to Chapter Master of the Raven Guard?
A: If that's your only question, we're doing something right. Not sure on that specific detail right now - we will have wait for the rules to appear.
Q: So given that the Rubric Marines have no special ability that allows them to charge after using Rapid Fire and Heavy weapons in the shooting phase, am I correct to assume all units can do that now?
A: Assumptions are a dangerous thing, Oliver...!
Q: That is a seriously better format than how it was handled in the past, very well done.
BUT, are the point costs cropped out of the datasheet or are there going to be multiple versions? Might get bloaty..
A: No bloaty-ness here. Loads more on points coming tomorrow.
Q: I didn't get to post this in time yesterday to be relevant but here we go. First, I'd like to say the new rules are cool. But, I do have a concern. As a chaos player who favors his dinobots and dragons, I'm concerned that the weapon loadouts for the forgefiends (2 hadesautocannons and plasma cannon at +25pts) and heldrakes (with either a baleflamer, whos profile no longer works in 8th, or a single hadesautocannon) were somewhat wanting for the 175 point costs but now units that are cheaper with more weapon sets and/or twinlinked weapons will not only be better (as they kinda were with upgrade capabilities) but completely outshine them or render them useless?
A: Fair comment, James. Chances are that our exstensive group of playtesters will have looked at this and a new, appropriate points value assigned. We aren't just about to change how good a model is without changing it's points value.
Q: Hello new(tm) games workshop, i'd like to ask a badly worded question about whether you'll answer this question and if you do do so will this question be answered? Also if you're doing an article on points values could you tell us how many points my personal favourite, the haruspex, will cost. (How can you not love that face?)
A: Hello, Peter - we'd like to provide a suitably vague yet teasing response about being more than happy to answer your question.
The Haruspex definitely has a points value, but we haven't revealed it yet. As such,we can't mention it yet, despite your obviously adorable face.
Q: This all looks great!!! *Oliver Twist-style pleading request* Adeptus sororitas faction feature/teaser?? cough cough 'obligatory plastic sisters comment' cough cough
A: The Faction Focus article is on it's way for sure.
Q: Love the articles!
Can we expect to see some info on the inquisition? Really want to know how they will be in 8th, like are they a full force on their own, or are they more of an add-on to other armies?
A: Indeed - there will be a focus article on the Imperial Agents for sure.
Q: I assume that point costs is kept separate from unit profiles in order to facilitate easier updates in the future, without invalidating the entire book, or are points supposed to be kept completely outside the codices, in a dedicated book?
A: Assuming is a dangerous past time, Marcin! Check out tomorrow's article on points for more.
Q: On the data sheet it doesn't say what an icon of flame does (unless I missed it), will there be a section of banners and such that all armies have access to?
A: Maybe! It wouldn't be a teaser if we just flat our told you everything, now would it?!
Q: I feel like the page is very busy. And I'm curious about the power rating.... Are the matched play points cost going to be a big list like in AoS's General's Handbook?
A: You will find out loads more in tomorrow's points article.
Q: Nice. So much info on one sheet. Loving it.
First look at melee weapons too. No range - so who gets to fight in cc?
A: More on that real soon.
Q: Will there be a points version of these data sheets for more balanced games?
A: Sounds like you need to tune in to tomorrow's article all about points!
Q: Nice. So the aspiring champion only knows smite? Or will there be another table / sheet for what powers he has access to ?
A: We haven't covered that yet; more on psychic powers coming later.
Q: But GW, where oh where will the points values be listed for matched play?
A: There's every chance that will be covered by tomorrow's "points and power levels" article...
Q: DANGEROUS ASSUMPTION ALERT
I'm assuming that psychic powers will be assigned from a book via keyword as I see no other reference there?
A: DANGEROUS ASSUMPTION DETECTED
Fear not, Assumptee... loads more information will be coming. Enlightenment is coming to these dark times.
Q: the lack of points scares the bejesus out of me... and i'm still not happy about losing templates!... going to need a lot more detail before i'm sold
A: What up, Leigh; Guildford represent! Points are still a thing, my fellow Baboon Samurai. Watch out for more on those tomorrow in the "points and power level" article.
Q: Power ranking besides points? Ohhh no.... "We finally really did it. You maniacs! You blew it up!"
A: There will be both! Tune in to the article all about points tomorrow.
Q: Rubrics! Huzzah! I have to wonder... what does the Icon of Flame do...?
A: Looks like you'll have to wait to find out that one!
Q: Awesome job! Any chance you'll go over the difference between Force weapons & Power weapons in a future article?
A: Of course we can. More articles planned in the future about melee weapons.
Q: Will these sheets be available in cards similar to Psychic Power cards?
A: No news on that right now. .
Q: What exactly is power rating? Is it the same thing as power level that you wrote later in the article?
A: All will be covered in tomorrow's article, fear not.
Q: If the Matched play points aren't going to be on the sheets where will they be? Will we need another book to view these?
A: Tune in tomorrow for the points and power level article and all will be revealed...
Q: Will there be another Datasheet for competitive game?
A: If you mean a points value, then looks like you need to tune into tomorrow's article entitled "points and power levels"....
Q: You tell us what... Death to the False Emperor does? **cheeky grin
A: Not yet...
Q: Will we have a look at the real points system before the release ?
A: Hey Quentin - sure thing - watch out tomorrow for an article all about points.
Q: Great article!!! Will you make an article about Renegades ?
A: You mean the Forge World models? We are focusing on the main Citadel factions for the articles.
Q: I thought invulnerable saves were gone?
A: Not at all - they are right there!
Q: Great stuff but why not call them "dataslates"
A: ...because they are on a sheet. We wanted to put them on slate but it made the rules too heavy...
Q: Can we get a look at Ork boyz?? Please!!
A: There are literally hundreds of units in the game and we wish we had the time to sho...*SMACK*.
"Give us da roolz,you puny 'umie! Don't make 'im ask again else I'll krump yer good"
Eldar Faction Focus Q: If you say Banshees will be one of the fastest troops in the game then i really wonder what you guys have in store for Harlequins!
Can i expect my fellow clowns to be at the same speed or even faster?!
A: We shall but see!
Q: Are we going to be seeing Aspect Warriors in plastic any time soon, or are we still going to be relegated to Finecast?
A: We have no news on models right now, Andrew - if we ever do hear anything, you will see it here first!
Q: Wait, didn't Fulgrim kill an Avatar by putting it in a headlock and strangling it to death? If so, Guilliman shouldn't fear anything.
A: Besides... Guillian kills three Avatars every day before breakfast. For fun. With a butter knife.
Or so we heard.
Q: You guys better release a skitarii or cult mech (or maybe both) faction focus or the might of the Omnissiah shall make all your computer's unbearably slow.
A: We were wondering why the internet was dropping like a Guardsman in a trench. Now we know.
Q: I'm hoping the Wraithseer will get a datasheet and awesome rules.
A: Guys -with models like that, we are not sure about what is coming yet as FW haven't released information on their rules. As soon as we have it, we will be able to let you know.
Q: When we will have some love for the Custodian Guard?
Soon™, Really Soon™...?
And also, will we have this articles until release? Or will they continue after 8th is available?
A: There will indeed be some more articles coming Real, Real Soon!™
Q: I think Warhammer 40,000 is holding off on the Ork faction preview trying to build up the Waaagh...
A: Savin' da best fer later!
Q: Isn't Reece Robbins the Frontline gaming guy with them awesome Youtube batrep videos?
A: It is indeed him. He has the coolest voice!
Q: This information is completely wrong ... please see the Imperial Infantryman's Uplifting Primer for correct info on the Eldar. If you see anyone reading this info please report them to your Commisar!
A: That's how you get promoted around here, trooper!
Q1: Any chance of seeing a Necron profile soon?
A1: You mean.... like this? Q2: Oh...
Games Workshop.
A2: I know what you're thinking. You're thinking "These guys are better than that, right?!".
But we're not. If there is a pun to be had, we will take it.
Q: Will Ynnari remain or have that army just been discarded?
A: You will 100% be able to use that army.
Kanluwen wrote: They tend to be on elite units and are used to rep up things that used to be similar to Hammer of Wrath attacks.
I think it's entirely appropriate for Mandiblasters to do them.
Don\t think mandiblasters has ever been described as making attacks capable of punching effortlessly through titans armour...
I don't think it ever said that it caused Mortal Wounds on Titans.
Ah yes that makes less bloat if they start separating against what each weapon causes mortal wounds.
Or it could be that Titans have rules we haven't seen yet. Things like "This unit ignores Mortal Wounds from weapons with a certain Strength value".
There's a whole ton of unknown variables, but you know that.
Furthermore mandiblaster has _never_ been described as being particularly powerful attack. It's not hyper terminator killer either!
Mandiblasters are an Eldar weapon system in the form of pods built into either side of the helmets of Striking Scorpions. Known also as the Scorpion's Sting or the Sting of the Scorpion, Mandiblasters are neurally activated weapons which fire a hail of deadly metallic shards. These shards, while capable of cutting and lacerating flesh, are not particularly powerful alone; they act as a conductor to a follow-up intense laser burst. The laser flashes the slivers of metal into plasma, which can cause significant injury or death. Because of the neural activation of the device the accuracy is often very high and it makes an effective pre-combat rank thinner. However its range is very short, a meter or two at most, making it a weapon geared for close quarters combat.
You were saying?
So yeah, it's not described as a "hyper Terminator killer" or anything like that--but it is getting rules to match the fluff now.
For all you know, Mandiblasters cause Mortal Wounds in combats against things with the Infantry or Monstrous Creature keywords.
Which would still be quite a spam. Lots of infantry etc in there.
And Poisoned or Haywire weapons affected their respective unit types a lot before.
What's your point?
Mortal wound is simply awful mechanism. Just look at AOS where it's race between mortal wounds and hordes.
Considering most of the units you really see in "hordes" have an armor value of "5+", "6+", or "-"...it didn't really matter whether it is a Mortal Wound or not.
Tougher infantry are in deep trouble when mortal wounds just ignores all saves(and in 40k also T)
Did I miss them saying Mandiblasters hit and wound automatically?
Striking Scorpions particularly are just vicious combatants that will strike fear into your opponent and disrupt their battle plans with the Masters of Stealth special rule and their Mandiblasters softening up enemy units at the beginning of the Fight phase by dishing out mortal wounds.
Mortal Wounds - will they show up too often, ala AoS?
They tend to be on elite units and are used to rep up things that used to be similar to Hammer of Wrath attacks.
I think it's entirely appropriate for Mandiblasters to do them.
Howling Banshees get a new lease on life too. These girls are now faster than almost any other Infantry unit in the game, and nearly always get to go first in the Fight phase even if they didn’t charge.
And of course, there will always be 'exceptions to rules' and 'exceptions to exceptions', but will they show up too much as well?
"Exceptions to exceptions" are, shockingly, not that common in AoS.
I really don't think the author of the article quite understands what "a new lease on life" means though. Howling Banshees were still used pretty heavily in 7th; what with the Banshee Mask negating Overwatch(and against Tau; Supporting Fire).
BWAHAHAHA. Banshee's being used in 7th. Take that to the Eldar FB group and tell them that. Be prepared for some salt and to be laughed out of the room however.
Kanluwen wrote: Or it could be that Titans have rules we haven't seen yet. Things like "This unit ignores Mortal Wounds from weapons with a certain Strength value".
There's a whole ton of unknown variables, but you know that.
Seeing mortal wounds don't have S value that's real helpful...
Mandiblasters are an Eldar weapon system in the form of pods built into either side of the helmets of Striking Scorpions. Known also as the Scorpion's Sting or the Sting of the Scorpion, Mandiblasters are neurally activated weapons which fire a hail of deadly metallic shards. These shards, while capable of cutting and lacerating flesh, are not particularly powerful alone; they act as a conductor to a follow-up intense laser burst. The laser flashes the slivers of metal into plasma, which can cause significant injury or death. Because of the neural activation of the device the accuracy is often very high and it makes an effective pre-combat rank thinner. However its range is very short, a meter or two at most, making it a weapon geared for close quarters combat.
You were saying?
Don't see anything in that that says mandiblasters easily ignore all T and armour values without issue...
Did I miss them saying Mandiblasters hit and wound automatically?
No hit but just FYI. Mortal wounds so far that we know from AOS and from 40k previews don't roll "to wound". They just cause wound if they hit. You have any reason(apart from your GW can do no wrong attitude) to believe 40k will work differently to AOS and have 2 ways to cause mortal wounds? One that ignores T(definitely exists) and one that doesn't.
Daedalus81 wrote: They punch through any armor. We don't know what the strength of the shot it. It could even be S3.
So far neither in AOS nor in what we have seen in 40k has mortal wound required to wound...IT's automatic wound with no save.
Sure, but in AoS quite often they're "activated" by certain conditions.
For example, Retributors for Stormcast Eternals require you to roll a 6 To Hit. If you do so, they just cause 2 Mortal Wounds instead of you rolling to cause a single 2 damage attack.
Albino Squirrel wrote: mandiblasters do mortal wounds??? Never imagined them as being specialized anti-titan weapons.
You want large amounts of multi-damage for anti-titan weapons. Mortal Wounds could very well be useless against titans if they deal single damage just by the sheer amount of wounds titans will have.
Id presume Titans kinda just shrug off 1 dam weapons with its regenerating power shields. And something like OLD D weapons or death strike missiles should do 2d6 wounds or 3+d6.
As long as all factions have access to mortal wounds of some sort. In AoS some of the factions that don't are less competitive. I sure hope they've learned that.
Kanluwen wrote: Or it could be that Titans have rules we haven't seen yet. Things like "This unit ignores Mortal Wounds from weapons with a certain Strength value". There's a whole ton of unknown variables, but you know that.
Seeing mortal wounds don't have S value that's real helpful...
Seeing as Mandiblasters likely have a weapon profile, it sure is.
But again--you know this.
Mandiblasters are an Eldar weapon system in the form of pods built into either side of the helmets of Striking Scorpions. Known also as the Scorpion's Sting or the Sting of the Scorpion, Mandiblasters are neurally activated weapons which fire a hail of deadly metallic shards. These shards, while capable of cutting and lacerating flesh, are not particularly powerful alone; they act as a conductor to a follow-up intense laser burst. The laser flashes the slivers of metal into plasma, which can cause significant injury or death. Because of the neural activation of the device the accuracy is often very high and it makes an effective pre-combat rank thinner. However its range is very short, a meter or two at most, making it a weapon geared for close quarters combat.
You were saying?
Don't see anything in that that says mandiblasters easily ignore all T and armour values without issue...
Don't see anything in that that says they don't.
Did I miss them saying Mandiblasters hit and wound automatically?
No hit but just FYI. Mortal wounds so far that we know from AOS and from 40k previews don't roll "to wound". They just cause wound if they hit. You have any reason(apart from your GW can do no wrong attitude) to believe 40k will work differently to AOS and have 2 ways to cause mortal wounds? One that ignores T(definitely exists) and one that doesn't.
Mortal Wounds in AoS function two different ways. A) They're triggered by a specific circumstance("Roll X To Hit or To Wound; this weapon causes Mortal Wounds instead") B) They just happen(Starsoul Maces, for example, require you to simply designate a target and they suffer D6 Mortal Wounds)
BWAHAHAHA. Banshee's being used in 7th. Take that to the Eldar FB group and tell them that. Be prepared for some salt and to be laughed out of the room however.
See again how the internet does not equate to people actually playing.
Many of the folks in Eldar FB groups claim that scatter laser jetbikes are "the only counter" to Grav-Centurions, for example.
Yep nothing in the article said that all the mandiblaster shots were mortal wounds. It's quite possible that rolls of 6 will cause a mortal wound or something similar.
WrentheFaceless wrote: So much for the hopes of Eldar being toned down to be on balance with everyone else
From the tone of the article, it's almost as if Reece was saying "All Eldar units are now just as broken as scatbikes!!" I am still hopeful that this is just hyperbole, and that Reece and the other playtesters beat NuDar armies just as often as they lost to them.
WrentheFaceless wrote: So much for the hopes of Eldar being toned down to be on balance with everyone else
To be fair, the balance aspect comes from the cost of the units and not just the abilities they have. It's what allows distinguishing between small elite armies that should be very powerful and cause lots of damage on a per model basis and horde armies that blow up left and right and get damage through from weight of numbers.
Also, I laughed at someone saying howling banshees are used heavily in 7th. Sure, the mask gets used on autarchs who wear them here and there, but not on banshees themselves. I've seen them once in about 3 years and it was for a big highlander game so scatbikes couldn't be spammed.
Over 2,000 members who play Eldar. Only one I know of bought a ton of Banshee's and now he's happy. Everyone else says they suck, being foot bound, no grenades and poor armor. Nobody uses them.
And I've never once heard that Scat-bikes were the only counter to centurions.... not when you have a Heavy 2, S7 AP2 weapon. Or bright lances. Or pulse lasers. Or any number of shuriken weapons.
I just realized that if those force weapon profiles hole true for everyone else, then Grey Knights became even more lethal in assault than they already were...
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote: I just realized that if those force weapon profiles hole true for everyone else, then Grey Knights became even more lethal in assault than they already were...
Especially since they don't need to use "Force" anymore.
Also anyone else think they will get the weakened version of Smite to use in their Brotherhood of Psyker units?
My eldar army has 10 banshees and 10 Striking Scorpions in the collection along with the exarch and pheonix lord for each. As they used to be really good in 2nd edition when I played them.
That would allow them to fire during the shooting phase before they pile into close combat. It would also make them extremely deadly as the BS of striking scorpion should make it so they hit on a 3+.
WrentheFaceless wrote: So much for the hopes of Eldar being toned down to be on balance with everyone else
Pick one:
1) These articles are puff pieces with no information.
2) The way they word this means everything is broken!
If everything is broken then the game will finally be balanced.
...but not fun to play?
It was a joke.
Seriously though, we're not seeing full rules or stats for most things, so even hearing "mortal wounds" doesn't really do much to shake me. I'm withholding my freak outs for when the game actually launches.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Youn wrote: My eldar army has 10 banshees and 10 Striking Scorpions in the collection along with the exarch and pheonix lord for each. As they used to be really good in 2nd edition when I played them.
That would allow them to fire during the shooting phase before they pile into close combat. It would also make them extremely deadly as the BS of striking scorpion should make it so they hit on a 3+.
Mandiblasters seem to be a melee weapon that goes off at the start of the fight phase (likely out of sequence of unit activations).
BWAHAHAHA. Banshee's being used in 7th. Take that to the Eldar FB group and tell them that. Be prepared for some salt and to be laughed out of the room however.
See again how the internet does not equate to people actually playing.
Many of the folks in Eldar FB groups claim that scatter laser jetbikes are "the only counter" to Grav-Centurions, for example.
The internet is a much larger sample size then your personal play group by far. What makes you the expert on what is and is not played?
Q: Hello new(tm) games workshop, i'd like to ask a badly worded question about whether you'll answer this question and if you do do so will this question be answered? Also if you're doing an article on points values could you tell us how many points my personal favourite, the haruspex, will cost. (How can you not love that face?)
A: Hello, Peter - we'd like to provide a suitably vague yet teasing response about being more than happy to answer your question.
Kanluwen wrote: Seeing as Mandiblasters likely have a weapon profile, it sure is.
But again--you know this.
How hard is it for you to grasp that so far no mortal wound whatsoever cares one whif about T. If mortal wound hits it's that.
In AoS, sure, but we haven't seen that it's the case in 40k yet. All we know is you can't get normal (armour/invul) saves against Mortal Wounds. It could be they still need to roll to wound but then you don't get saves. Some mortal wounds could even be triggered by the to-wound rolls (Shuriken weapons for example may do Mortal Wounds on a to-wound roll of a 6). Let's not pretend to be experts on a game system that isn't out yet just because it shares some things with AoS. The two systems are not identical, and pretending that one must work that way because the other does is a bit silly.
Also, do we need to really start calling people White Knights for not assuming that the system is a carbon copy of AoS?
Note how neither cares about T...You just proved my point. Good job!
Ah well. Pointless trying to arque with GW white knight who thinks GW can do no wrong. GW decides autogun causes mortal wounds. "Absolutely logical! That's how they have always been!"
Does that make you a GW Black Knight who connects dots to information that doesn't exist?
Note how neither cares about T...You just proved my point. Good job!
Ah well. Pointless trying to arque with GW white knight who thinks GW can do no wrong. GW decides autogun causes mortal wounds. "Absolutely logical! That's how they have always been!"
Does that make you a GW Black Knight who connects dots to information that doesn't exist?
Kanluwen wrote: Seeing as Mandiblasters likely have a weapon profile, it sure is.
But again--you know this.
How hard is it for you to grasp that so far no mortal wound whatsoever cares one whif about T. If mortal wound hits it's that.
In AoS, sure, but we haven't seen that it's the case in 40k yet. All we know is you can't get normal (armour/invul) saves against Mortal Wounds. It could be they still need to roll to wound but then you don't get saves. Some mortal wounds could even be triggered by the to-wound rolls (Shuriken weapons for example may do Mortal Wounds on a to-wound roll of a 6). Let's not pretend to be experts on a game system that isn't out yet just because it shares some things with AoS. The two systems are not identical, and pretending that one must work that way because the other does is a bit silly.
Also, do we need to really start calling people White Knights for not assuming that the system is a carbon copy of AoS?
I agree that there will probably be some "triggered" mortal wounds. On a hit or wound roll of a '6' for instance, but we do know that standard Mortal Wounds do not require a "to-wound" roll, per the Smite power previewed earlier. It just causes d3 Mortal wounds.
BWAHAHAHA. Banshee's being used in 7th. Take that to the Eldar FB group and tell them that. Be prepared for some salt and to be laughed out of the room however.
See again how the internet does not equate to people actually playing.
Many of the folks in Eldar FB groups claim that scatter laser jetbikes are "the only counter" to Grav-Centurions, for example.
The internet is a much larger sample size then your personal play group by far. What makes you the expert on what is and is not played?
Than my personal play group..... that's about 20 people. This is just one eldar group:
Yeah, that's 4,082 members that play Eldar. Also, check the eldar sub-sections of this forum, that I also frequently habit. There's all those people too, and they all agree. Banshee's suck in 7th.
Ah well. Pointless trying to arque with GW white knight who thinks GW can do no wrong. GW decides autogun causes mortal wounds. "Absolutely logical! That's how they have always been!"
There's a big difference between people being "white knights" and people who are just withholding judgment until more information is revealed. I keep seeing people claim "you just think GW is perfect so you don't see the flaw" but I just think you guys are getting too worked up about balance when we don't know enough yet. Why whine and complain about things before you've even played a single game let alone know all the rules that will affect army balance in game.
So what, maybe they do get lots of mortal wounds. If they cost a lot of points then they'll be great against armies like Thousand Sons and terrible against armies like Orks.
Kanluwen wrote: Seeing as Mandiblasters likely have a weapon profile, it sure is.
But again--you know this.
How hard is it for you to grasp that so far no mortal wound whatsoever cares one whif about T. If mortal wound hits it's that.
In AoS, sure, but we haven't seen that it's the case in 40k yet. All we know is you can't get normal (armour/invul) saves against Mortal Wounds. It could be they still need to roll to wound but then you don't get saves. Some mortal wounds could even be triggered by the to-wound rolls (Shuriken weapons for example may do Mortal Wounds on a to-wound roll of a 6). Let's not pretend to be experts on a game system that isn't out yet just because it shares some things with AoS. The two systems are not identical, and pretending that one must work that way because the other does is a bit silly.
Also, do we need to really start calling people White Knights for not assuming that the system is a carbon copy of AoS?
I agree that there will probably be some "triggered" mortal wounds. On a hit or wound roll of a '6' for instance, but we do know that standard Mortal Wounds do not require a "to-wound" roll, per the Smite power previewed earlier. It just causes d3 Mortal wounds.
We don't "know" that because the Smite power still relies on triggering a certain effect to gain Mortal Wounds (rolling over 10 on the psychic test):
Plus since when has the abilities of a single anything been proof of how a core mechanic works? By that logic Mortal Wounds don't roll to hit either since the psychic power is an autohit (likely a Witchfire style power, only, you know, actually good). There is nothing that has been shown or said by GeeDubs that Mortal Wounds don't roll to wound.
I wouldn't worry about Mandiblasters. Whilst Mortal Wounds skip to wound and save rolls, there's typically still some form of roll to hit, or the number of Mortal Wounds in randomised. At least going on AoS.
Plus, we've got extremely limited information, so no need to freak out or judge based on what we've got.
As others have said, Mandiblasters may only affect units with the Infantry keyword. It may be a 5 or a 6 to cause that Mortal Wound. And for balance, it could be various units with Jump Packs gain a similar Mortal Wound mechanic in place of the current Hammer of Wrath (quite possible, because having a Jet-Propelled Astartes in full power armour landing on you strikes me as a regularly and reliably fatal interface for most Infantry, no?)
BWAHAHAHA. Banshee's being used in 7th. Take that to the Eldar FB group and tell them that. Be prepared for some salt and to be laughed out of the room however.
See again how the internet does not equate to people actually playing.
Many of the folks in Eldar FB groups claim that scatter laser jetbikes are "the only counter" to Grav-Centurions, for example.
The internet is a much larger sample size then your personal play group by far. What makes you the expert on what is and is not played?
Than my personal play group..... that's about 20 people. This is just one eldar group:
Yeah, that's 4,082 members that play Eldar. Also, check the eldar sub-sections of this forum, that I also frequently habit. There's all those people too, and they all agree. Banshee's suck in 7th.
Bumshees are primarily rubbish because their much vaunted masks don't do their sodding job when charging into cover, and they carry no grenades because reasons
In AoS they got a bit out of hand, but nothing major.
In a game where you have mortal wounds, the cost per wound of a model becomes an important parameter. No matter how much you load your char with upgrades, you know that a certain number of mortal wounds will down it.
It balances the game, by creating a mechanic that punishes the over upgrading.
tneva82 wrote: How hard is it for you to grasp that so far no mortal wound whatsoever cares one whif about T. If mortal wound hits it's that.
Yet we've seen numerous instances where a 'To Wound' roll of a 6 causes a Mortal Wound instead of a normal Wound. Mandiblasters could very well be the same. Miss your 'To Hit' roll or don't roll a 6 on your 'To Wound' roll, no Mortal Wounds.
nintura wrote: That looks like it does mortal wounds by default....
Right - his point still stand about rolling to hit though.
Maybe, but I'm referencing this:
We don't "know" that because the Smite power still relies on triggering a certain effect to gain Mortal Wounds (rolling over 10 on the psychic test):
You're right, I got that part wrong because I started to type my post before I went to pull the actual image.
Point is that if we want to assume that you don't roll to wound because of the Smite power, then by the same logic Mortal Wounds don't roll to hit either.
It's the specific mechanics of one power, not the actual core rule of how the game works that we're seeing. Using one data point to draw a conclusion on the big picture is a poor use of logic.
In AoS they got a bit out of hand, but nothing major.
In a game where you have mortal wounds, the cost per wound of a model becomes an important parameter. No matter how much you load your char with upgrades, you know that a certain number of mortal wounds will down it.
It balances the game, by creating a mechanic that punishes the over upgrading.
"Boyz before toys" is a mantra that works for pretty much every army.
In AoS they got a bit out of hand, but nothing major.
In a game where you have mortal wounds, the cost per wound of a model becomes an important parameter. No matter how much you load your char with upgrades, you know that a certain number of mortal wounds will down it.
It balances the game, by creating a mechanic that punishes the over upgrading.
"Boyz before toys" is a mantra that works for pretty much every army.
Azreal13 wrote: So is switching D3 to D6 not gaining Mortal Wounds?
Not terribly well expressed, but I think that's what he meant, given we're discussing triggers.
I was more trying to show that extrapolating the Mortal Wounds rule based on the power isn't an effective measure due to it being merely a single datapoint. I mean Smite doesn't roll to hit either but no one is claiming Mortal Wounds don't roll to hit normally, so why claim they don't roll to wound?
Let's wait for the actual rules on Mortal Wounds before we assume how they function because we're just getting worked up over something we assume to be true.
How do you get to the Island of Conclusions? Think about it...
Talk about a tough crowd. I get that a lot of folks are passionate about 40k and want the game to be the best it can be, but some folks' expectations may be too high, or too strict.
From my point of view, if the information we've been given so far leads you to conclude that 40k has stopped being a game you want to play, I'd say you should take a look at what 40k was really doing for you in the first place. It may be that you were barking up the wrong tree the whole time: there are so many great games out there that would love your time and money.
JimOnMars wrote: So we have armor, which is ignorable by enough AP.
Then we have Invul saves, which is ignorable by mortal wounds.
Now we have Avatar saves, which (as far as we know) are not yet ignorable.
Do I have this right?
Yeah... I was fearing that this was where it was going when I heard the Mortal Wounds are in.
Jambles wrote: How do you get to the Island of Conclusions? Think about it...
It's just a small leap.
Jambles wrote: Talk about a tough crowd. I get that a lot of folks are passionate about 40k and want the game to be the best it can be, but some folks' expectations may be too high, or too strict.
From my point of view, if the information we've been given so far leads you to conclude that 40k has stopped being a game you want to play, I'd say you should take a look at what 40k was really doing for you in the first place. It may be that you were barking up the wrong tree the whole time: there are so many great games out there that would love your time and money.
That or take a break from the internet and come back after your mood settles and see what new things have come out since then.
JimOnMars wrote: So we have armor, which is ignorable by enough AP.
Then we have Invul saves, which is ignorable by mortal wounds.
Now we have Avatar saves, which (as far as we know) are not yet ignorable.
Do I have this right?
Yeah... I was fearing that this was where it was going when I heard the Mortal Wounds are in.
We don't really know. All we can do is extrapolate.
In AoS, Mortal Wounds don't roll to wound, and grant no save. But, some models (mostly characters) have a save which can be taken against Mortal Wounds.
Looking at that from 40k's angle? Mortal Wounds skip wound and save rolls, but Invulnerable saves can be taken.
JimOnMars wrote: So we have armor, which is ignorable by enough AP.
Then we have Invul saves, which is ignorable by mortal wounds.
Now we have Avatar saves, which (as far as we know) are not yet ignorable.
Do I have this right?
Yeah... I was fearing that this was where it was going when I heard the Mortal Wounds are in.
We don't really know. All we can do is extrapolate.
In AoS, Mortal Wounds don't roll to wound, and grant no save. But, some models (mostly characters) have a save which can be taken against Mortal Wounds.
Looking at that from 40k's angle? Mortal Wounds skip wound and save rolls, but Invulnerable saves can be taken.
They already told us Mortal Wounds are no saves and no invulnerable saves.
I think it's entirely appropriate for Mandiblasters to do them.
No it isn't, not even remotely. If Mortal Wounds have to exist, they should be reserved to things like distortion weapons, vortex grenades and some psychic attacks.
Ah well. Pointless trying to arque with GW white knight who thinks GW can do no wrong. GW decides autogun causes mortal wounds. "Absolutely logical! That's how they have always been!"
There's a big difference between people being "white knights" and people who are just withholding judgment until more information is revealed. I keep seeing people claim "you just think GW is perfect so you don't see the flaw" but I just think you guys are getting too worked up about balance when we don't know enough yet. Why whine and complain about things before you've even played a single game let alone know all the rules that will affect army balance in game.
So what, maybe they do get lots of mortal wounds. If they cost a lot of points then they'll be great against armies like Thousand Sons and terrible against armies like Orks.
I see repeatedly how people go "but but but there might be this or that and that" but you know what? Then new info comes out and those but but but's were wrong all the time.
It's not THAT hard to figure out GW's things. There is extremely unlikely to be "mortal wounds against this and that but not against this". GW is looking to simplify game. They aren't likely to add that kind of rules.
You CAN make up quite accurate extrapolation of rules. People have been doing it for years.
Trying to invent some convoluted "but but but but" lines are nearly always wrong.
JimOnMars wrote: So we have armor, which is ignorable by enough AP.
Then we have Invul saves, which is ignorable by mortal wounds.
Now we have Avatar saves, which (as far as we know) are not yet ignorable.
Do I have this right?
Yeah... I was fearing that this was where it was going when I heard the Mortal Wounds are in.
Actually it's quite a bit simpler so far...
7th:
What if they gave you a save.
If you duck behind this rock you get a different save if your other save doesn't work.
Cool stuff gets a special save in case you didn't get your regular save. We'll call that invulnerable.
Some models should be tougher than that so we'll give them another save! Let's call that feel no pain.
Although...some guns are suuuuper strong so if strength is double toughness we'll say they don't get feel no pain and dies instantly.
But what about my character? He shouldn't die to those big guns so easily? Ok, ok we'll make a rule that let's them ignore that last part.
Phew.
Or
Regular Save
Invulnerable Save
Mortal Wound Save (aka Eternal Warrior)
At least so far. I imagine we'll have other various save if they let us take multiple saves like AoS.
ClockworkZion wrote: I was more trying to show that extrapolating the Mortal Wounds rule based on the power isn't an effective measure due to it being merely a single datapoint. I mean Smite doesn't roll to hit either but no one is claiming Mortal Wounds don't roll to hit normally, so why claim they don't roll to wound?
Let's wait for the actual rules on Mortal Wounds before we assume how they function because we're just getting worked up over something we assume to be true.
Is there SINGLE CASE where mortal wounds roll for wound? AOS is very good comparison as 8th ed adopts so much that you can make very accurate predictions from there.
If there's not single case there's no point going for some far off theory there is something when it's MUCH MORE likely there isn't.
JimOnMars wrote: So we have armor, which is ignorable by enough AP.
Then we have Invul saves, which is ignorable by mortal wounds.
Now we have Avatar saves, which (as far as we know) are not yet ignorable.
Do I have this right?
Yeah... I was fearing that this was where it was going when I heard the Mortal Wounds are in.
We don't really know. All we can do is extrapolate.
In AoS, Mortal Wounds don't roll to wound, and grant no save. But, some models (mostly characters) have a save which can be taken against Mortal Wounds.
Looking at that from 40k's angle? Mortal Wounds skip wound and save rolls, but Invulnerable saves can be taken.
They already told us Mortal Wounds are no saves and no invulnerable saves.
Again, my point wasn't that mandiblasters causing mortal wounds is somehow too powerful. I don't think anyone is trying to say that, because we don't know anything about how many they cause or how many points a striking scorpion is or anything like that.
My point is that mandiblasters doing mortal wounds doesn't make any sense with how they are described. The idea that titans might be immune to mortal wounds or the mortal wounds might only work against infantry are completely irrelevant and pointless suppositions.
From the description they should be very likely to hit (as they are fired at point blank range while the target is likely distracted by the guy trying to kill them with a chainsaw), but not that powerful. I could even imagine them working more like grenades, as a way to distract or stun the enemy or make them dive for cover when you charge them, but without needing to use your hands to throw a grenade.
Best way to think about mortal wounds (from AoS).
At the point in the attack the mortal wounds are generated, you skip the rest of the dice rolls needed and go straight to inflicting wounds.
So some don't require any rolls, some require hit rolls, some require hit and wound rolls.
ClockworkZion wrote: I was more trying to show that extrapolating the Mortal Wounds rule based on the power isn't an effective measure due to it being merely a single datapoint. I mean Smite doesn't roll to hit either but no one is claiming Mortal Wounds don't roll to hit normally, so why claim they don't roll to wound?
Let's wait for the actual rules on Mortal Wounds before we assume how they function because we're just getting worked up over something we assume to be true.
Is there SINGLE CASE where mortal wounds roll for wound? AOS is very good comparison as 8th ed adopts so much that you can make very accurate predictions from there.
If there's not single case there's no point going for some far off theory there is something when it's MUCH MORE likely there isn't.
I've shown you several instances where, while they do not "roll for wound", Mortal Wounds are triggered by a specific roll value to Hit.
Vanguard-Raptors for Stormcast Eternals, for instance, have their "Headshot" rule on the Longstrike Crossbows and Retributors have the "Blast to Ashes" special rule.
ClockworkZion wrote: I was more trying to show that extrapolating the Mortal Wounds rule based on the power isn't an effective measure due to it being merely a single datapoint. I mean Smite doesn't roll to hit either but no one is claiming Mortal Wounds don't roll to hit normally, so why claim they don't roll to wound?
Let's wait for the actual rules on Mortal Wounds before we assume how they function because we're just getting worked up over something we assume to be true.
Is there SINGLE CASE where mortal wounds roll for wound? AOS is very good comparison as 8th ed adopts so much that you can make very accurate predictions from there.
If there's not single case there's no point going for some far off theory there is something when it's MUCH MORE likely there isn't.
There is only a SINGLE CASE of ANY Mortal Wounds being shown in detail. Not enough to start the panic wagon rolling yet.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gamgee wrote: And one way to ignore mortal wounds with the avatar. So... not really all that much simpler... really.
The Avatar can ignore "some" mortal wounds. So either a rule that lets him get saves as normal, or a rule that negates up to X wounds a turn.
What if they gave you a save.
If you duck behind this rock you get a different save if your other save doesn't work.
Cool stuff gets a special save in case you didn't get your regular save. We'll call that invulnerable.
Some models should be tougher than that so we'll give them another save! Let's call that feel no pain.
Although...some guns are suuuuper strong so if strength is double toughness we'll say they don't get feel no pain and dies instantly.
But what about my character? He shouldn't die to those big guns so easily? Ok, ok we'll make a rule that let's them ignore that last part.
Yeah, sure, that was not great either. FNP should have never worked like it did in this only-one-save system.
Ah well. Pointless trying to arque with GW white knight who thinks GW can do no wrong. GW decides autogun causes mortal wounds. "Absolutely logical! That's how they have always been!"
There's a big difference between people being "white knights" and people who are just withholding judgment until more information is revealed. I keep seeing people claim "you just think GW is perfect so you don't see the flaw" but I just think you guys are getting too worked up about balance when we don't know enough yet. Why whine and complain about things before you've even played a single game let alone know all the rules that will affect army balance in game.
So what, maybe they do get lots of mortal wounds. If they cost a lot of points then they'll be great against armies like Thousand Sons and terrible against armies like Orks.
I see repeatedly how people go "but but but there might be this or that and that" but you know what? Then new info comes out and those but but but's were wrong all the time.
It's not THAT hard to figure out GW's things. There is extremely unlikely to be "mortal wounds against this and that but not against this". GW is looking to simplify game. They aren't likely to add that kind of rules.
You CAN make up quite accurate extrapolation of rules. People have been doing it for years.
Trying to invent some convoluted "but but but but" lines are nearly always wrong.
I feel like most of the early pages of people claiming "this game is ruined and now my faction sucks" have actually been getting disproven as time has gone on.
My point isn't that there may be more rules to stop the mortal wounds though, I'm saying why are you complaining about balance when all you know is there is a faction that probably has more ways to pierce armor and invul saves? That's what I want in the game. Some faction specializing in weight of numbers to get through armor, so elite armies that consistently do lots of damage but have far less models on the table, and everything in between.
Without a point cost, what's the point in saying that it's too good? It's too good for what? Take any unit in the game right now and adjust its cost. If you divide it by 5, it's going to be too good for its cost. If you multiply it by 5, I don't care how good it is it won't make an overpowered army even if the model itself is still very powerful.
If you want a game where everyone has access to the exact same mechanics, pick up chess or checkers. I want variety in the armies and its the points I'll look to for determining balance.
ClockworkZion wrote: I was more trying to show that extrapolating the Mortal Wounds rule based on the power isn't an effective measure due to it being merely a single datapoint. I mean Smite doesn't roll to hit either but no one is claiming Mortal Wounds don't roll to hit normally, so why claim they don't roll to wound?
Let's wait for the actual rules on Mortal Wounds before we assume how they function because we're just getting worked up over something we assume to be true.
Is there SINGLE CASE where mortal wounds roll for wound? AOS is very good comparison as 8th ed adopts so much that you can make very accurate predictions from there.
If there's not single case there's no point going for some far off theory there is something when it's MUCH MORE likely there isn't.
I've shown you several instances where, while they do not "roll for wound", Mortal Wounds are triggered by a specific roll value to Hit.
Vanguard-Raptors for Stormcast Eternals, for instance, have their "Headshot" rule on the Longstrike Crossbows and Retributors have the "Blast to Ashes" special rule.
AoS is not a perfect example since we know there is plenty that didn't make a direct translation. It's fine to look at as an example of how something MIGHT work, but to assume it's how something WILL work is a step too far in my book.
Albino Squirrel wrote: The idea that titans might be immune to mortal wounds or the mortal wounds might only work against infantry are completely irrelevant and pointless suppositions.
Apart from zero evidence that's the case that would also be extremely illogical.
What's the most logical source of mortal wounds? Well guess what...Weapons that are titan killing scale. Stuff like volcano cannon that's so powerful unshielded warlord doesn't generally want to hit by one...That's the kind of weapon that appropriately doesn't particularly care about your toughness or save.
ClockworkZion wrote: I was more trying to show that extrapolating the Mortal Wounds rule based on the power isn't an effective measure due to it being merely a single datapoint. I mean Smite doesn't roll to hit either but no one is claiming Mortal Wounds don't roll to hit normally, so why claim they don't roll to wound?
Let's wait for the actual rules on Mortal Wounds before we assume how they function because we're just getting worked up over something we assume to be true.
Is there SINGLE CASE where mortal wounds roll for wound? AOS is very good comparison as 8th ed adopts so much that you can make very accurate predictions from there.
If there's not single case there's no point going for some far off theory there is something when it's MUCH MORE likely there isn't.
There is only a SINGLE CASE of ANY Mortal Wounds being shown in detail. Not enough to start the panic wagon rolling yet.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gamgee wrote: And one way to ignore mortal wounds with the avatar. So... not really all that much simpler... really.
The Avatar can ignore "some" mortal wounds. So either a rule that lets him get saves as normal, or a rule that negates up to X wounds a turn.
Oh then another faction can ignore "some" on other units in other ways. I think 8th has simplified, but nowhere near as much as the sales pitch makes it seem. Every faction is going to have tons of unique rules just like before ignoring or changing the way the core rules work. I'm down with 8th don't get me wrong, but some of the hype is a little too intense. It's looking like a fairly complicated game compared to AoS.
I've shown you several instances where, while they do not "roll for wound", Mortal Wounds are triggered by a specific roll value to Hit.
Ahahahaha! That's what I have been talking about. Don't just reply without reading what I write. That's TO HIT. I'm talking about WOUNDING. To hit obviously doesn't care about opponents toughness. It punches right through.
You are making my point for me. Thanks!
Mortal wounds don't roll to wound. You keep claiming they could. I ask you to show one example. You show where they roll to hit. Gee. I have never claimed mortal wounds auto hit. I'm saying they auto wound.
Again. Read what I say if you want to reply. Otherwise we are going to be going this in circles.
"Mortal wounds if hit automatically wound"
"No they don't. Look. Here's them rolling to hit"
"Yes. That's right. You have to see if mortal wound hits. But that's not wounding. They don't care about how tough you are. They just wound you"
"But hey! They need to HIT!"
"Yes. That's what I mean. IF you hit you wound target automatically."
"But they need to hit! Therefore they don't auto-wound!"
Repeat this like decade if you want. I'm bored of it. You want to believe to hit and to wound are same thing feel free.
Albino Squirrel wrote: The idea that titans might be immune to mortal wounds or the mortal wounds might only work against infantry are completely irrelevant and pointless suppositions.
Apart from zero evidence that's the case that would also be extremely illogical.
How in the world is that "extremely illogical"?
The whole reason this stupid argument started is people started throwing outlandish claims of Mandiblasters killing Titans and other such nonsense.
All we know is they cause Mortal Wounds. That's it.
What's the most logical source of mortal wounds? Well guess what...Weapons that are titan killing scale. Stuff like volcano cannon that's so powerful unshielded warlord doesn't generally want to hit by one...That's the kind of weapon that appropriately doesn't particularly care about your toughness or save.
Sniper rifles inflicting a headshot, handheld weapons that are inflicting enough damage to disintegrate an enemy, etc all can fit under this umbrella of causing mortal wounds.
A Mortal Wound is simply a wound that you cannot save against for some reason.
Albino Squirrel wrote: The idea that titans might be immune to mortal wounds or the mortal wounds might only work against infantry are completely irrelevant and pointless suppositions.
Apart from zero evidence that's the case that would also be extremely illogical.
What's the most logical source of mortal wounds? Well guess what...Weapons that are titan killing scale. Stuff like volcano cannon that's so powerful unshielded warlord doesn't generally want to hit by one...That's the kind of weapon that appropriately doesn't particularly care about your toughness or save.
Or weapons adept at striking between armour joins, such as Mandiblasters. Or those crystal pistols Harlequins carry that fry your brain, bypassing armour as there's no physical assault. Mindwar, another example of a brain-baking attack. 'Eadbursta, that attack that makes your head asplode. Spectacularly accurate Snipers (such as the Vindicare, possibly Eldar Rangers on a 6 to hit.)
Or many of the myriad extremely nasty and very unusual ways of being forcibly shuffled off this mortal coil we see in 40k.
I've shown you several instances where, while they do not "roll for wound", Mortal Wounds are triggered by a specific roll value to Hit.
Ahahahaha! That's what I have been talking about. Don't just reply without reading what I write. That's TO HIT. I'm talking about WOUNDING. To hit obviously doesn't care about opponents toughness. It punches right through.
You are making my point for me. Thanks!
Mortal wounds don't roll to wound. You keep claiming they could. I ask you to show one example. You show where they roll to hit. Gee. I have never claimed mortal wounds auto hit. I'm saying they auto wound.
I "keep claiming" that Mortal Wounds aren't a thing that just happen in most cases. Many of the instances of Mortal Wounds in Age of Sigmar are triggered by specific events. They're not a thing that just happen willynilly.
There's very few things that just say "Apply a number of Mortal Wounds to a target".
Again. Read what I say if you want to reply.
I would advise the same thing. You're so hellbent on this idea of someone needing to produce an example of "Mortal Wounds needing to be rolled for" that you're missing the forest for the trees.
...
A Mortal Wound is simply a wound that you cannot save against for some reason.
Correction, that you cannot save against AND that doesn't care how high your toughness is.
Like a wraithcannon or vortex grenade. What reason would there be for a hot piece of metal to cause mortal wounds?
And a titan was just an example of something that would have a really high toughness and really good armor save and possibly an invulnerable save. Substitute any other such thing, like a land raider, if that is what is making this difficult for you.
docdoom77 wrote: I was disappointed to see Battle Focus on the list. What's the point of move values if you keep adding weird movement abilities?
Hopefully it at least has a drawback. Like can shoot after advancing but shooting is at -1.
The drawback could be that it only applies to units with the "Infantry" keyword.
That's not a drawback. Only infantry units can use it now. If you give Eldar a higher Move value AND let them run and shoot freely every turn, that sounds like just too much. But, my money is on it having an actual drawback of some kind.
For all you know all it does is let them reroll there run while maybe fleet only works in the assault phase now. Just because something is called the same thing as it was in 7th doesnn't mean it works remotely similar, look at melta for example.
...
A Mortal Wound is simply a wound that you cannot save against for some reason.
Correction, that you cannot save against AND that doesn't care how high your toughness is.
Like a wraithcannon or vortex grenade. What reason would there be for a hot piece of metal to cause mortal wounds?
And a titan was just an example of something that would have a really high toughness and really good armor save and possibly an invulnerable save. Substitute any other such thing, like a land raider, if that is what is making this difficult for you.
Considering that you can always wound on a 6, and always fail an armor save on a 1, there's only so much Toughness and Armor you can give a titan (or a Land Raider) to protect it. Therefore most of the actual resilience of a Titan will likely be in its wound count. While Mortal wounds will obviously help do damage to titans, I don't think that they'll be in enough quantity to consider them more than a moderately useful tool to deal with them. You'd be better off with high strength weapons with good rend and multiple wounds, so that those attacks that do get through actually have an impact. [strike]I also think that D-strength weapons will be the only weapons that can deal multiple mortal wounds (beyond weird individual effects). [/strike] I forgot about Smite. Still I think it will be relatively rare.
This mortal wounds vs titan debate reminds me of the Lasgun vs Land Raider one. Just because you can kill a titan with a mandiblaster doesn't mean that they'll be the go-to weapon for the job.
Kanluwen wrote: They tend to be on elite units and are used to rep up things that used to be similar to Hammer of Wrath attacks.
I think it's entirely appropriate for Mandiblasters to do them.
Don\t think mandiblasters has ever been described as making attacks capable of punching effortlessly through titans armour...
I don't think it ever said that it caused Mortal Wounds on Titans.
Ah yes that makes less bloat if they start separating against what each weapon causes mortal wounds.
Furthermore mandiblaster has _never_ been described as being particularly powerful attack. It's not hyper terminator killer either!
For all you know, Mandiblasters cause Mortal Wounds in combats against things with the Infantry or Monstrous Creature keywords.
Which would still be quite a spam. Lots of infantry etc in there.
Mortal wound is simply awful mechanism. Just look at AOS where it's race between mortal wounds and hordes. Tougher infantry are in deep trouble when mortal wounds just ignores all saves(and in 40k also T)
My point was that doing mortal wounds doesn't seem to fit at all with what mandiblasters are. Are they supposed to punch effortlessly through terminator armor? Or just as effortlessly through anything regardless of toughness and armor? It seems like they just gave them mortal wounds to save the effort of thinking of a rule that made sense.
Honestly this isn't the first time scorpians made zero sense. Remember when they were magically s4 or when their tiny crappy looking chainswords were +1 strength? Or in 7th, when their mandiblasters are are super poison 4+ and ap2, yeah they still wound GMC on a 4+ because, reasons ?
It's because despite being cool looking, they have ALWAYS sucked. They are slow, have worse gear then banshees but are worse infiltrators then rangers but are somehow supposed to stand out as combat masters of stealth, when in reality they have the profile of a storm guardian with a 3+ save and a couple USR's. I love the back ground for SS, but honestly I would rather they just retire that shrine then have them make ridiculously imbalanced nonfluffy rules just so they are viable.
...
A Mortal Wound is simply a wound that you cannot save against for some reason.
Correction, that you cannot save against AND that doesn't care how high your toughness is.
Like a wraithcannon or vortex grenade. What reason would there be for a hot piece of metal to cause mortal wounds?
And a titan was just an example of something that would have a really high toughness and really good armor save and possibly an invulnerable save. Substitute any other such thing, like a land raider, if that is what is making this difficult for you.
Considering that you can always wound on a 6, and always fail an armor save on a 1, there's only so much Toughness and Armor you can give a titan (or a Land Raider) to protect it. Therefore most of the actual resilience of a Titan will likely be in its wound count. While Mortal wounds will obviously help do damage to titans, I don't think that they'll be in enough quantity to consider them more than a moderately useful tool to deal with them. You'd be better off with high strength weapons with good rend and multiple wounds, so that those attacks that do get through actually have an impact. I also think that D-strength weapons will be the only weapons that can deal multiple mortal wounds.
This mortal wounds vs titan debate reminds me of the Lasgun vs Land Raider one. Just because you can kill a titan with a mandiblaster doesn't mean that they'll be the go-to weapon for the job.
You can Kan are the only people debating about mortal wounds vs titans, which has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion about mandiblasters.
... A Mortal Wound is simply a wound that you cannot save against for some reason.
Correction, that you cannot save against AND that doesn't care how high your toughness is.
The second part is up in the air.
We know that you cannot save against it. We know that certain things with no Strength values(Psychic Powers) just inflict them.
Like a wraithcannon or vortex grenade. What reason would there be for a hot piece of metal to cause mortal wounds?
It's not a "hot piece of metal". It's slivers of metal, launched accurately at speed into exposed flesh, which then gets turned into a deadly piece of hot metal when inside of something.
And a titan was just an example of something that would have a really high toughness and really good armor save and possibly an invulnerable save. Substitute any other such thing, like a land raider, if that is what is making this difficult for you.
Here's the rub.
You're not "making this difficult" for me. You purposely picked an outlandish scenario to try to make an absurdist argument for something that you disagree with. Yes yes we know that vehicles have a Toughness value now. That doesn't just automatically mean that every single thing that applies to flesh and blood is going to affect them though.
Literally all we know is that Mandiblasters can cause a Mortal Wound, somehow. We don't have the rules for Mandiblasters though.
I've shown you several instances where, while they do not "roll for wound", Mortal Wounds are triggered by a specific roll value to Hit.
Ahahahaha! That's what I have been talking about. Don't just reply without reading what I write. That's TO HIT. I'm talking about WOUNDING. To hit obviously doesn't care about opponents toughness. It punches right through.
You are making my point for me. Thanks!
Mortal wounds don't roll to wound. You keep claiming they could. I ask you to show one example. You show where they roll to hit. Gee. I have never claimed mortal wounds auto hit. I'm saying they auto wound.
Again. Read what I say if you want to reply. Otherwise we are going to be going this in circles.
"Mortal wounds if hit automatically wound"
"No they don't. Look. Here's them rolling to hit"
"Yes. That's right. You have to see if mortal wound hits. But that's not wounding. They don't care about how tough you are. They just wound you"
"But hey! They need to HIT!"
"Yes. That's what I mean. IF you hit you wound target automatically."
"But they need to hit! Therefore they don't auto-wound!"
Repeat this like decade if you want. I'm bored of it. You want to believe to hit and to wound are same thing feel free.
Q: any chance we can get an article about the changes that help melee focused armies? Like some of their special rules or some samplings of wargear (or both)? It'd go a long way to make people feel that melee is no longer dead if we knew some more on why it's not dead.
A: We will look into it; that's a great idea.
So we may get some melee focused love in the future to help soothe some fears.
...
A Mortal Wound is simply a wound that you cannot save against for some reason.
Correction, that you cannot save against AND that doesn't care how high your toughness is.
The second part is up in the air.
We know that you cannot save against it. We know that certain things with no Strength values(Psychic Powers) just inflict them.
Like a wraithcannon or vortex grenade. What reason would there be for a hot piece of metal to cause mortal wounds?
It's not a "hot piece of metal". It's slivers of metal, launched accurately at speed into exposed flesh, which then gets turned into a deadly piece of hot metal when inside of something.
And a titan was just an example of something that would have a really high toughness and really good armor save and possibly an invulnerable save. Substitute any other such thing, like a land raider, if that is what is making this difficult for you.
Here's the rub.
You're not "making this difficult" for me. You purposely picked an outlandish scenario to try to make an absurdist argument for something that you disagree with. Yes yes we know that vehicles have a Toughness value now. That doesn't just automatically mean that every single thing that applies to flesh and blood is going to affect them though.
Literally all we know is that Mandiblasters can cause a Mortal Wound, somehow. We don't have the rules for Mandiblasters though.
You can Kan are the only people debating about mortal wounds vs titans, which has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion about mandiblasters.
Albino Squirrel wrote: mandiblasters do mortal wounds??? Never imagined them as being specialized anti-titan weapons.
Want to try that again? You brought up this whole argument in the first place.
If you'll excuse me, I'm going to go do something productive now though. Maybe I'll build some Striking Scorpions crouched on a dead Knight.
You are making it difficult for yourself. It shouldn't be difficult. Striking scorpions charging a titan or monstrous creature or anything else with high toughness and a good save is not an outlandish scenario. In fact if the rules make them disproportionately effective against those targets, I'd think it would become a very common scenario. That's kind of the problem, as it doesn't fit with their background.
Lexicanum wrote:Mandiblasters are neurally activated weapons which fire a hail of deadly metallic shards. These shards, while capable of cutting and lacerating flesh, are not particularly powerful alone; they act as a conductor to a follow-up intense laser burst. The laser flashes the slivers of metal into plasma, which can cause significant injury or death. Because of the neural activation of the device the accuracy is often very high and it makes an effective pre-combat rank thinner.
So, a highly accurate, point blank, plasma shot.
Sounds exactly like the sort of thing that should be bypassing armour and hitting the vulnerable spots.
Plus, lets not pretend that Scorpions didn't really need something to help them out.
- AoS mortal wounds ignore 'Save Rolls' only. A Save Roll is a specific term using the characteristic on the profile.
- AoS have extra abilities granting a roll versus wounds, mortal wounds, or both.
- AoS has no concept of an invulnerable save even if some act like it.
- A mortal wound save in AoS is equivalent to an invulnerable in 40K.
- A mortal wound in AoS is equivalent to an attack that has a rend of 6 in 40K.
- AoS and 40K are not the same system even if they share a lot of similarities.
You are making it difficult for yourself. It shouldn't be difficult. Striking scorpions charging a titan or monstrous creature or anything else with high toughness and a good save is not an outlandish scenario. In fact if the rules make them disproportionately effective against those targets, I'd think it would become a very common scenario. That's kind of the problem, as it doesn't fit with their background.
I'm pretty confident they took those scenarios into consideration.
Lexicanum wrote:Mandiblasters are neurally activated weapons which fire a hail of deadly metallic shards. These shards, while capable of cutting and lacerating flesh, are not particularly powerful alone; they act as a conductor to a follow-up intense laser burst. The laser flashes the slivers of metal into plasma, which can cause significant injury or death. Because of the neural activation of the device the accuracy is often very high and it makes an effective pre-combat rank thinner.
So, a highly accurate, point blank, plasma shot.
Sounds exactly like the sort of thing that should be bypassing armour and hitting the vulnerable spots.
Plus, lets not pretend that Scorpions didn't really need something to help them out.
What? You didnt like them being super expensive ablative wounds for your Exarch's Claw?
Lexicanum wrote:Mandiblasters are neurally activated weapons which fire a hail of deadly metallic shards. These shards, while capable of cutting and lacerating flesh, are not particularly powerful alone; they act as a conductor to a follow-up intense laser burst. The laser flashes the slivers of metal into plasma, which can cause significant injury or death. Because of the neural activation of the device the accuracy is often very high and it makes an effective pre-combat rank thinner.
So, a highly accurate, point blank, plasma shot.
Sounds exactly like the sort of thing that should be bypassing armour and hitting the vulnerable spots.
Plus, lets not pretend that Scorpions didn't really need something to help them out.
Maybe. Sounds like it would be really effective against unarmored guys, and not at all against any kind of armor. I mean, even a plasma cannon presumably does not cause mortal wounds. To suggest that the blast of a mandiblaster is more powerful seems unlikely. I guess you could argue they intend that it's so accurate that they always bypass the armor by finding a weak point, but again that's not really how I could have imagined it, since you literally have to point your whole face at what you want to hit.
I love the power approach. It's a more honest points system that doesn't pretend to be anything more than a general guideline for building scenarios and setting up games.
The best thing is that having two systems means those who want to pretend their matched play points system will produce balanced results can continue to do so.
The "we can't show you everything, but we'll give you a taste of what's happening and hint at stuff coming later!" Attitude is really annoying, while I know it's designed to stir up hype it just ends up creating "technically not baseless but functionally baseless" speculation and gets annoying with all the waiting. It'll be really funny if when we have enough info and leaks and start piecing the codexes together a few weeks from launch, and they're still hyping like the new edition is a year away. The tiny amount of info every day feels like the community is on an I.V drip, and I wish that we'd get enough crunch to actually do something with in weekly dumps and the hyperbole and hype in avoidable daily posts. Or they could run an ARG or something, that way it would feel like we're actively participating in discovering the new rules.
"Mandiblasters are neurally activated weapons which fire a hail of deadly metallic shards. These shards, while capable of cutting and lacerating flesh, are not particularly powerful alone; they act as a conductor to a follow-up intense laser burst. The laser flashes the slivers of metal into plasma, which can cause significant injury or death."
Maybe. Sounds like it would be really effective against unarmored guys, and not at all against any kind of armor. I mean, even a plasma cannon presumably does not cause mortal wounds. To suggest that the blast of a mandiblaster is more powerful seems unlikely. I guess you could argue they intend that it's so accurate that they always bypass the armor by finding a weak point, but again that's not really how I could have imagined it, since you literally have to point your while face at what you want to hit.
A plasma cannon is not precise nor point blank, correct.
The roles of units are going to change. We don't know precisely how effective these guys will be or what they'll really be good at. I imagine they are the anti-elite CC where banshees are anti-horde.
frozenwastes wrote: The best thing is that having two systems means those who want to pretend their matched play points system will produce balanced results can continue to do so.
frozenwastes wrote: I love the power approach. It's a more honest points system that doesn't pretend to be anything more than a general guideline for building scenarios and setting up games.
The best thing is that having two systems means those who want to pretend their matched play points system will produce balanced results can continue to do so.
You can dig on it all you want, but paying for your special weapons will always be more balanced than not - especially when a whole unit of Rubrics can take flamers for free otherwise.
Lexicanum wrote:Mandiblasters are neurally activated weapons which fire a hail of deadly metallic shards. These shards, while capable of cutting and lacerating flesh, are not particularly powerful alone; they act as a conductor to a follow-up intense laser burst. The laser flashes the slivers of metal into plasma, which can cause significant injury or death. Because of the neural activation of the device the accuracy is often very high and it makes an effective pre-combat rank thinner.
So, a highly accurate, point blank, plasma shot.
Sounds exactly like the sort of thing that should be bypassing armour and hitting the vulnerable spots.
Plus, lets not pretend that Scorpions didn't really need something to help them out.
Maybe. Sounds like it would be really effective against unarmored guys, and not at all against any kind of armor. I mean, even a plasma cannon presumably does not cause mortal wounds. To suggest that the blast of a mandiblaster is more powerful seems unlikely. I guess you could argue they intend that it's so accurate that they always bypass the armor by finding a weak point, but again that's not really how I could have imagined it, since you literally have to point your whole face at what you want to hit.
just curious, have you ever seen/heard of an EFP? Explosively Formed Penetrator? I'm not saying the mandile metal slivers are the same, but I'm trying to explain what heat can do to armor. An EFP is a copper cone. Copper as we know is a soft metal. However, when this explodes, it's so hot that it can melt through INCHES of steel INSTANTLY and with no resistance. Purely from heat alone. Insurgents did that because we were uparmoring our humvees. It's crazy what heat can do when it's a few thousand degrees.
gnome_idea_what wrote: The "we can't show you everything, but we'll give you a taste of what's happening and hint at stuff coming later!" Attitude is really annoying, while I know it's designed to stir up hype it just ends up creating "technically not baseless but functionally baseless" speculation and gets annoying with all the waiting. It'll be really funny if when we have enough info and leaks and start piecing the codexes together a few weeks from launch, and they're still hyping like the new edition is a year away. The tiny amount of info every day feels like the community is on an I.V drip, and I wish that we'd get enough crunch to actually do something with in weekly dumps and the hyperbole and hype in avoidable daily posts. Or they could run an ARG or something, that way it would feel like we're actively participating in discovering the new rules.
Patience is a virtue!
I have something to look forward to reading each day and a little extra every other day. Makes work go by faster.
People that choose to draw haphazard conclusions do so at their own risk.
I guess it does somewhat underscore how much the game has changed. Half the people seem to only care about how powerful a rule is or how well the rule combines with other rules to help them win. I am more interested in the rules bringing to life the described background.
Yes, I realize they've always struggled with that. Doesn't mean I can't point out when they continue to fail at it.
We're processing the rules day by day and building an understanding on how things work as compared to the old edition, in pieces.
You know what used to happen? We get the book when it comes out and people would freak the feth out, because they're constantly trying to reconcile the new to the old all at once.
We're processing the rules day by day and building an understanding on how things work as compared to the old edition, in pieces.
You know what used to happen? We get the book when it comes out and people would freak the feth out, because they're constantly trying to reconcile the new to the old all at once.
There is still a fair amount of freaking out at the moment, but maybe by the time the books drop all the big freak outs will be out of people's systems.
Considering that you can always wound on a 6, and always fail an armor save on a 1, there's only so much Toughness and Armor you can give a titan (or a Land Raider) to protect it. Therefore most of the actual resilience of a Titan will likely be in its wound count. While Mortal wounds will obviously help do damage to titans, I don't think that they'll be in enough quantity to consider them more than a moderately useful tool to deal with them. You'd be better off with high strength weapons with good rend and multiple wounds, so that those attacks that do get through actually have an impact. [strike]I also think that D-strength weapons will be the only weapons that can deal multiple mortal wounds (beyond weird individual effects). [/strike] I forgot about Smite. Still I think it will be relatively rare.
This mortal wounds vs titan debate reminds me of the Lasgun vs Land Raider one. Just because you can kill a titan with a mandiblaster doesn't mean that they'll be the go-to weapon for the job.
Yes but point is it\s odd those are suddenly so powerful they ignore all those defences.
And if you want more realistic whatabout terminator armour_ The armour that\s supposed to be super tough being able to survive being stomped by a titan. Mandiblaster has never been described as effortlessly punching through even that. Squad of striking scorpions will be huge threat to terminators with just the mandiblaster...Nevermind real weapons.
Mandiblaster has been always fairly low level attack but one that strikes before enemy generally gets. IT\s support weapon rather than main weapon. How powerful scorpions themselves are if their support weapon is mortal wound level_
Lexicanum wrote:Mandiblasters are neurally activated weapons which fire a hail of deadly metallic shards. These shards, while capable of cutting and lacerating flesh, are not particularly powerful alone; they act as a conductor to a follow-up intense laser burst. The laser flashes the slivers of metal into plasma, which can cause significant injury or death. Because of the neural activation of the device the accuracy is often very high and it makes an effective pre-combat rank thinner.
So, a highly accurate, point blank, plasma shot.
Sounds exactly like the sort of thing that should be bypassing armour and hitting the vulnerable spots.
Plus, lets not pretend that Scorpions didn't really need something to help them out.
Right, so a plasma gun should inflict mortal wounds then since they are the same energy.
I don't have an issue if they cause a mortal wound on a to wound roll of 6, but otherwise have a strength and rend. I also don't mind them causing mortal wounds on a to hit roll of say a 6.
I do have a massive issue with them if they always trigger first and cause mortal wounds without requiring some conditional roll. If mortal wounds auto wound with no save then you have really stupid events occur like 8 scorpians charge or feth it, get charged by a dreadnought, who flat out dies before it gets a turn.
I am not gonna worry yet, since I would have to assume they balanced it somehow. But I do think the puff piece articles are causing more damage then hype by virtue of being so vague. I like the waling doom leak since it was a complete snippet, what I think is stupid is name dropping rules that have massive implications out of a responsible amount of context.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Here's three Scrolls from AoS, showing different situations Mortal Wounds can crop up.
None of them as simply 'dish out Mortal Wounds'. All have some kind of trigger ability.
Mournfangs? If their save is a 6, they inflict a mortal wound on a unit with 1"
Archaic on? D3 if you select the Nurgle head after slaying an enemy model in combat.
Ironclad? If the enemy ends a charge move with 1", then on a 4+ they take D3 mortal wounds.
That's just the first three I could find with Mortal Wounds. Hardly a 'just inflict them' for any, no?
Which of them cares about opponents resiliency rather than just causing wound when hitting_
Any reason to believe that when you cause mortal wound in 40k you still have to roll to hit_ Or will it be like AOS if it triggers it punches straight through...
We're processing the rules day by day and building an understanding on how things work as compared to the old edition, in pieces.
You know what used to happen? We get the book when it comes out and people would freak the feth out, because they're constantly trying to reconcile the new to the old all at once.
There is still a fair amount of freaking out at the moment, but maybe by the time the books drop all the big freak outs will be out of people's systems.
Yes, but at least we're able to do it one thing at a time.
jamopower wrote: "Mandiblasters are neurally activated weapons which fire a hail of deadly metallic shards. These shards, while capable of cutting and lacerating flesh, are not particularly powerful alone; they act as a conductor to a follow-up intense laser burst. The laser flashes the slivers of metal into plasma, which can cause significant injury or death."
Sounds suitable for mortal wounds for me.
@can inflict@ That\s not @I punch through whatever protection you have@ level of weapon.
Plasma gun fires pure...well plasma. Same as mandiblaster. Expecting plasma guns to be causing mortal wounds any time soon_
jamopower wrote: "Mandiblasters are neurally activated weapons which fire a hail of deadly metallic shards. These shards, while capable of cutting and lacerating flesh, are not particularly powerful alone; they act as a conductor to a follow-up intense laser burst. The laser flashes the slivers of metal into plasma, which can cause significant injury or death."
Sounds suitable for mortal wounds for me.
@can inflict@ That\s not @I punch through whatever protection you have@ level of weapon.
Plasma gun fires pure...well plasma. Same as mandiblaster. Expecting plasma guns to be causing mortal wounds any time soon_
Our plasma technology is thousands of years ahead of your mon'keigh
Considering that you can always wound on a 6, and always fail an armor save on a 1, there's only so much Toughness and Armor you can give a titan (or a Land Raider) to protect it. Therefore most of the actual resilience of a Titan will likely be in its wound count. While Mortal wounds will obviously help do damage to titans, I don't think that they'll be in enough quantity to consider them more than a moderately useful tool to deal with them. You'd be better off with high strength weapons with good rend and multiple wounds, so that those attacks that do get through actually have an impact. [strike]I also think that D-strength weapons will be the only weapons that can deal multiple mortal wounds (beyond weird individual effects). [/strike] I forgot about Smite. Still I think it will be relatively rare.
This mortal wounds vs titan debate reminds me of the Lasgun vs Land Raider one. Just because you can kill a titan with a mandiblaster doesn't mean that they'll be the go-to weapon for the job.
Yes but point is it\s odd those are suddenly so powerful they ignore all those defences.
And if you want more realistic whatabout terminator armour_ The armour that\s supposed to be super tough being able to survive being stomped by a titan. Mandiblaster has never been described as effortlessly punching through even that. Squad of striking scorpions will be huge threat to terminators with just the mandiblaster...Nevermind real weapons.
Mandiblaster has been always fairly low level attack but one that strikes before enemy generally gets. IT\s support weapon rather than main weapon. How powerful scorpions themselves are if their support weapon is mortal wound level_
I'm pretty sure that Terminators have always been afraid of Scorpions due to their exarch's high-Initiative powerfist attacks. I don't see too much of an issue if scorpions continue to be a melee can-opener unit.
A lot depends on how exactly the mandiblasters trigger. With alternating unit activation and chargers striking first, it makes a difference when they activate in a combat.
gnome_idea_what wrote: The "we can't show you everything, but we'll give you a taste of what's happening and hint at stuff coming later!" Attitude is really annoying, while I know it's designed to stir up hype it just ends up creating "technically not baseless but functionally baseless" speculation and gets annoying with all the waiting. It'll be really funny if when we have enough info and leaks and start piecing the codexes together a few weeks from launch, and they're still hyping like the new edition is a year away. The tiny amount of info every day feels like the community is on an I.V drip, and I wish that we'd get enough crunch to actually do something with in weekly dumps and the hyperbole and hype in avoidable daily posts. Or they could run an ARG or something, that way it would feel like we're actively participating in discovering the new rules.
The only thing I would hope for is they release stats and such a week or two ahead of the release so you know what to buy. That's what I hate. People now are not buying or very much slowing down any purchases because we don't know anything besides a few marines and part of an elder. Not even asking for rules, just stats to see weapons and such. I cant see how they think its a good business process to release no info really so people wont buy your product. Does only effect new players though or people looking to buy new armies. I have been buying admech and buying/painting them up for 8th but im purely guessing on weapon loadouts.
tneva82 wrote: How powerful scorpions themselves are if their support weapon is mortal wound level_
Yea those shuriken pistols and chainswords are so scary right now that people are fielding them in droves. Imagine when they get something else, too!
But those are the main tool of trade. Mandiblaster has systematically been described as support system for them. Not the main weapon.
Why change even background needlessly_ There\s plenty of ways to make scorpions worth it without changing mandiblaster into some super armour puncher that ignores toughness and armour at will munching terminators before scorpions even get to attack.
Why not make scorpions fit existing fluff but in efficient way_ That\s like making assault marines into super shooty unit that is at best in assault. Sure can it be made balancedly_ Yes. But it also ignores like 30 years of existing background...
If somebody claims they need this to be worth it they are flat out wrong. There\s plenty of ways to make them worth it while making them truthful to existing fluff. You dont\ have to reinvent units every time you release new rules for them. Tweak them to be more balanced within fluff sure. Reinventing wheel is just silly.
Daedalus81 wrote: You can dig on it all you want, but paying for your special weapons will always be more balanced than not - especially when a whole unit of Rubrics can take flamers for free otherwise.
No argument here. If someone wants to take all the strongest stuff in order to get the most powerful list possible in a game using Power, then they should probably be doing Matched Play anyway. It'll suit their approach to the game better than Open or Narrative. And no one who is actually into Open or Narrative really wants someone around who is using the less exact system to intentionally break things. So I also think having the two points systems will let people get on the same page faster in terms of "ways to play."
It's just been 33 years since points were introduced to the Warhammer games and you'd think people would have developed an awareness of their limitations by now.
theocracity wrote: I'm pretty sure that Terminators have always been afraid of Scorpions due to their exarch's high-Initiative powerfist attacks. I don't see too much of an issue if scorpions continue to be a melee can-opener unit.
YEs. High initiave powerfist attack. Which might not even get to attack anymore due to mortal wounds. As it is getting hit by that powerfist will be less painful for the terminator than getting hit by mandiblaster...
Problem isn\t scorpions munching terminator. Problem is their support gear doing that. It\s never been described as weapon making mockery of toughest protection at will. In 7 editions never been that. Why now_ Balance_ You can make scorpions worth it without that.
jamopower wrote: "Mandiblasters are neurally activated weapons which fire a hail of deadly metallic shards. These shards, while capable of cutting and lacerating flesh, are not particularly powerful alone; they act as a conductor to a follow-up intense laser burst. The laser flashes the slivers of metal into plasma, which can cause significant injury or death."
Sounds suitable for mortal wounds for me.
@can inflict@ That\s not @I punch through whatever protection you have@ level of weapon.
Plasma gun fires pure...well plasma. Same as mandiblaster. Expecting plasma guns to be causing mortal wounds any time soon_
Our plasma technology is thousands of years ahead of your mon'keigh
Most people try improving their technology instead of fielding antiques.
jamopower wrote: "Mandiblasters are neurally activated weapons which fire a hail of deadly metallic shards. These shards, while capable of cutting and lacerating flesh, are not particularly powerful alone; they act as a conductor to a follow-up intense laser burst. The laser flashes the slivers of metal into plasma, which can cause significant injury or death."
Sounds suitable for mortal wounds for me.
@can inflict@ That\s not @I punch through whatever protection you have@ level of weapon.
Plasma gun fires pure...well plasma. Same as mandiblaster. Expecting plasma guns to be causing mortal wounds any time soon_
So? Probably it will be an Attack that causes mortal wounds on sixes to hit or something along those lines.
jamopower wrote: "Mandiblasters are neurally activated weapons which fire a hail of deadly metallic shards. These shards, while capable of cutting and lacerating flesh, are not particularly powerful alone; they act as a conductor to a follow-up intense laser burst. The laser flashes the slivers of metal into plasma, which can cause significant injury or death."
Sounds suitable for mortal wounds for me.
@can inflict@ That\s not @I punch through whatever protection you have@ level of weapon.
Plasma gun fires pure...well plasma. Same as mandiblaster. Expecting plasma guns to be causing mortal wounds any time soon_
Our plasma technology is thousands of years ahead of your mon'keigh
Most people try improving their technology instead of fielding antiques.
Have you read anything regarding your empire? You worship old weapons as if they were religious artifacts, and your tech has only been going down for the last 10k years. Happens when you fear science and technological advancement. No wonder your plasma sucks.
theocracity wrote: I'm pretty sure that Terminators have always been afraid of Scorpions due to their exarch's high-Initiative powerfist attacks. I don't see too much of an issue if scorpions continue to be a melee can-opener unit.
YEs. High initiave powerfist attack. Which might not even get to attack anymore due to mortal wounds. As it is getting hit by that powerfist will be less painful for the terminator than getting hit by mandiblaster...
Problem isn\t scorpions munching terminator. Problem is their support gear doing that. It\s never been described as weapon making mockery of toughest protection at will. In 7 editions never been that. Why now_ Balance_ You can make scorpions worth it without that.
I mean, if the Claw has multiple attacks, -3 AP, extra strength and / or multiple wounds it's still likely to do more damage to a 2-wound terminator than a 1-wound mortal hit. It does depend on the exact stats but I don't think it'll be a wet noodle.
I'm just not particularly bothered if a weapon that sounds really deadly and precise gets that kind of a buff, so the background implications don't worry me too much. I think it'll mostly come out in the wash, game-wise.
jamopower wrote: "Mandiblasters are neurally activated weapons which fire a hail of deadly metallic shards. These shards, while capable of cutting and lacerating flesh, are not particularly powerful alone; they act as a conductor to a follow-up intense laser burst. The laser flashes the slivers of metal into plasma, which can cause significant injury or death."
Sounds suitable for mortal wounds for me.
@can inflict@ That\s not @I punch through whatever protection you have@ level of weapon.
Plasma gun fires pure...well plasma. Same as mandiblaster. Expecting plasma guns to be causing mortal wounds any time soon_
Our plasma technology is thousands of years ahead of your mon'keigh
Most people try improving their technology instead of fielding antiques.
Not to mention using the fluff to justify poor rules is beyond silly. EVERYTHING in the background reads like some sort of fan fetish fiction, I mean have you guys ever read the description of the standard combat knife in 40k?
As an aside, I am actually OK with the Avatar ignoring mortal wounds on a certain rule so long as they apply it to every demon, after all they are immortal right?
jamopower wrote: "Mandiblasters are neurally activated weapons which fire a hail of deadly metallic shards. These shards, while capable of cutting and lacerating flesh, are not particularly powerful alone; they act as a conductor to a follow-up intense laser burst. The laser flashes the slivers of metal into plasma, which can cause significant injury or death."
Sounds suitable for mortal wounds for me.
@can inflict@ That\s not @I punch through whatever protection you have@ level of weapon.
Plasma gun fires pure...well plasma. Same as mandiblaster. Expecting plasma guns to be causing mortal wounds any time soon_
Our plasma technology is thousands of years ahead of your mon'keigh
Most people try improving their technology instead of fielding antiques.
Have you read anything regarding your empire? You worship old weapons as if they were religious artifacts, and your tech has only been going down for the last 10k years. Happens when you fear science and technological advancement. No wonder your plasma sucks.
The only thing my army worships is the God Emperor. Don't lump me in with those cog heads. They can't even be trusted to tune an Exorcist tank properly.
jamopower wrote: "Mandiblasters are neurally activated weapons which fire a hail of deadly metallic shards. These shards, while capable of cutting and lacerating flesh, are not particularly powerful alone; they act as a conductor to a follow-up intense laser burst. The laser flashes the slivers of metal into plasma, which can cause significant injury or death."
Sounds suitable for mortal wounds for me.
@can inflict@ That\s not @I punch through whatever protection you have@ level of weapon.
Plasma gun fires pure...well plasma. Same as mandiblaster. Expecting plasma guns to be causing mortal wounds any time soon_
So? Probably it will be an Attack that causes mortal wounds on sixes to hit or something along those lines.
So expecting to see plasma gun cause mortal wounds on 6\s to hit_
In 30 years mandiblaster has never been described as capable of hurting everything. It\s biggest advantage has been ability to hit enemy at close range before enemy gets to attack.
This new ability comes out of blue with no basis on existing background. Furthermore it isnt even really needed. There would be lots of ways to make scorpions threatening and worth their points without forgetting decades of background material.
If we want to redesign everything from scratch I say make assault marines jumpping shooty units.
jamopower wrote: "Mandiblasters are neurally activated weapons which fire a hail of deadly metallic shards. These shards, while capable of cutting and lacerating flesh, are not particularly powerful alone; they act as a conductor to a follow-up intense laser burst. The laser flashes the slivers of metal into plasma, which can cause significant injury or death."
Sounds suitable for mortal wounds for me.
@can inflict@ That\s not @I punch through whatever protection you have@ level of weapon.
Plasma gun fires pure...well plasma. Same as mandiblaster. Expecting plasma guns to be causing mortal wounds any time soon_
Our plasma technology is thousands of years ahead of your mon'keigh
Most people try improving their technology instead of fielding antiques.
Have you read anything regarding your empire? You worship old weapons as if they were religious artifacts, and your tech has only been going down for the last 10k years. Happens when you fear science and technological advancement. No wonder your plasma sucks.
And Ork technology works because they believe it will. Again, using the fluff to justify or invalidate every design element in any scenario is ridiculous.
tneva82 wrote: Furthermore it isnt even really needed. There would be lots of ways to make scorpions threatening and worth their points without forgetting decades of background material.
Says you. You have no idea how any of the eldar units function.
frozenwastes wrote: I love the power approach. It's a more honest points system that doesn't pretend to be anything more than a general guideline for building scenarios and setting up games.
The best thing is that having two systems means those who want to pretend their matched play points system will produce balanced results can continue to do so.
You can dig on it all you want, but paying for your special weapons will always be more balanced than not - especially when a whole unit of Rubrics can take flamers for free otherwise.
But its just a way to put the models you want to represent your army that is what you envision your army as and not supposed to be asystem for WAAC players to abuse. Besides, suppose that the power points cost might be adjusted according to how much the upgrades can boost them as well as naked? I think this will be a great edition to be honest. Maybe not at launch but I bet if people interact with Games Workshop CONSTRUCTIONALLY then we will one day have a near perfect system. Quit saying stuff sucks and they should feel bad its not helping anyone.
theocracity wrote: I mean, if the Claw has multiple attacks, -3 AP, extra strength and / or multiple wounds it's still likely to do more damage to a 2-wound terminator than a 1-wound mortal hit. It does depend on the exact stats but I don't think it'll be a wet noodle.
Claw is on one guy. Mandiblaster is on every guy and striking before claw gets to hit. There might not be much of terminators left for claw to kill...
jamopower wrote: "Mandiblasters are neurally activated weapons which fire a hail of deadly metallic shards. These shards, while capable of cutting and lacerating flesh, are not particularly powerful alone; they act as a conductor to a follow-up intense laser burst. The laser flashes the slivers of metal into plasma, which can cause significant injury or death."
Sounds suitable for mortal wounds for me.
@can inflict@ That\s not @I punch through whatever protection you have@ level of weapon.
Plasma gun fires pure...well plasma. Same as mandiblaster. Expecting plasma guns to be causing mortal wounds any time soon_
So? Probably it will be an Attack that causes mortal wounds on sixes to hit or something along those lines.
So expecting to see plasma gun cause mortal wounds on 6\s to hit_
In 30 years mandiblaster has never been described as capable of hurting everything. It\s biggest advantage has been ability to hit enemy at close range before enemy gets to attack.
This new ability comes out of blue with no basis on existing background. Furthermore it isnt even really needed. There would be lots of ways to make scorpions threatening and worth their points without forgetting decades of background material.
If we want to redesign everything from scratch I say make assault marines jumpping shooty units.
There are only two immutable rules of 40k fluff: there are no female space Marines, and Mandiblasters are for tickling only.
theocracity wrote: I mean, if the Claw has multiple attacks, -3 AP, extra strength and / or multiple wounds it's still likely to do more damage to a 2-wound terminator than a 1-wound mortal hit. It does depend on the exact stats but I don't think it'll be a wet noodle.
Claw is on one guy. Mandiblaster is on every guy and striking before claw gets to hit. There might not be much of terminators left for claw to kill...
As I said, we don't know when or how mandiblasters and their mortal wounds trigger. It's an important piece of information we need. And also, it doesn't necessarily change the unit's effective role or the way that it's dealt with.
jamopower wrote: "Mandiblasters are neurally activated weapons which fire a hail of deadly metallic shards. These shards, while capable of cutting and lacerating flesh, are not particularly powerful alone; they act as a conductor to a follow-up intense laser burst. The laser flashes the slivers of metal into plasma, which can cause significant injury or death."
Sounds suitable for mortal wounds for me.
@can inflict@ That\s not @I punch through whatever protection you have@ level of weapon.
Plasma gun fires pure...well plasma. Same as mandiblaster. Expecting plasma guns to be causing mortal wounds any time soon_
So? Probably it will be an Attack that causes mortal wounds on sixes to hit or something along those lines.
So expecting to see plasma gun cause mortal wounds on 6\s to hit_
In 30 years mandiblaster has never been described as capable of hurting everything. It\s biggest advantage has been ability to hit enemy at close range before enemy gets to attack.
This new ability comes out of blue with no basis on existing background. Furthermore it isnt even really needed. There would be lots of ways to make scorpions threatening and worth their points without forgetting decades of background material.
If we want to redesign everything from scratch I say make assault marines jumpping shooty units.
There are only two immutable rules of 40k fluff: there are no female space Marines, and Mandiblasters are for tickling only.
I thought it was no female Space Marines and Lasguns double as flashlights.
S+1 and 
?
