Every single special rule is missing in these. It could be bumped for 2++ for all we know but it wouldn't be there.
If you try to play with these assembly guides stuff you are without:
bolter drill
the marine assault bonus
resurection protocol
all inv saves
-1 to hit for fists etc
etc etc etc.
Of course also no point costs etc. Literally only good for teasers for future releases or for bunch of players(likely kids) who just throw models they have around and play with simplified ruleset without codexes etc.
Kanluwen wrote: I don't have my SM codex right now, but do Aggressors currently have the same bit as Eradicators where they get double shots but have to target a specific unit?
Cause if they do not, I could see that happening.
They can shoot 2 different units. The catch is that they have to stand still. Personally I'd like to keep my aggressors how they are, they were the Allstars of my lists
My guess is that double tap will go away. OW with flamers with the double tap is just insane and should not be a thing.
yukishiro1 wrote: And the biggest problem is just that certain ones of them are fundamentally ridiculous and never should have made it into the game. I have no idea how anybody who did the math on master artisans / expert crafters could have thought that was ok to give as a custom trait, much less one that can be comboed with something else too. The only thing I can think of is that nobody actually did the math. Which is itself telling.
Yeah, master artisans were sooo OP that when the first SM codex hit at the start of 8th, almost no one played Salamanders for three years.
Oh wait...
Uh lots of people were using master artisans as a custom trait ever since it became available. People didn't play salamanders because why would you when RG/IH/IF were so much stronger at the time and you could just play Master Artisans versions of those instead?
That's the whole point of the problem with MA as a custom trait. It is way too powerful a thing to just hand out to anybody who wants it with any space marine army.
But EC is a bigger problem than master artisans honestly, space marines have so many rerolls anyway and aren't really encouraged to take a bunch of single entity units. It's much worse for what it does to eldar.
Hello, Nick Nanavathi used MA/Stealthy IH for 3 mounts. MA was super popular, because SM were allowed to cheats to get the stratagems and relics.
EC is popular because aeldar dont have insane aura rerolls that allow small units to be effective. And the other reason is that the default traits are lackluster and you can life easily without the ONE(not 10 like SM) stratagem. Even LVO showed that EC was not really issue, the best performing aeldar armies were using melee units and less shooting.
Sterling191 wrote: Took some digging, but managed to find the new Inceptor sheet. Its the lack of overcharged plasma on their simplified sheet, just like every other plasma unit. The real "nerf" was their assault bolters not getting D2, but frankly its not a nerf as if they had actually gotten their damage output doubled they would go to instant auto-take status at 40ppm.
How is it not a nerf when squatmarine/sister with HB can now output the same damage at twice the range for far less?
The HB change was stupid, they should raise all weapons using the same ammunition (Inceptor guns, heavy bolt pistols, etc) to D2 or go back to D1, doubling of firepower just created endless issues like devaluing whole swatches of guns at a stroke (the above, plus autocannons, gun that became largely pointless with HB change) and spat at game fluff verisimilitude at the same time...
Who said HBPs and HBs use the same ammo? They have lower strength than a HB so why do you draw the conclusion they use same ammo? Simply from the use of word ‘Heavy’?
Sterling191 wrote: Took some digging, but managed to find the new Inceptor sheet. Its the lack of overcharged plasma on their simplified sheet, just like every other plasma unit. The real "nerf" was their assault bolters not getting D2, but frankly its not a nerf as if they had actually gotten their damage output doubled they would go to instant auto-take status at 40ppm.
How is it not a nerf when squatmarine/sister with HB can now output the same damage at twice the range for far less?
The HB change was stupid, they should raise all weapons using the same ammunition (Inceptor guns, heavy bolt pistols, etc) to D2 or go back to D1, doubling of firepower just created endless issues like devaluing whole swatches of guns at a stroke (the above, plus autocannons, gun that became largely pointless with HB change) and spat at game fluff verisimilitude at the same time...
Who said HBPs and HBs use the same ammo? They have lower strength than a HB so why do you draw the conclusion they use same ammo? Simply from the use of word ‘Heavy’?
"essentially a hand-held pistol version of the conventional Heavy Bolter outfitted with a large box magazine and high-speed autoloader"
Sterling191 wrote: Took some digging, but managed to find the new Inceptor sheet. Its the lack of overcharged plasma on their simplified sheet, just like every other plasma unit. The real "nerf" was their assault bolters not getting D2, but frankly its not a nerf as if they had actually gotten their damage output doubled they would go to instant auto-take status at 40ppm.
How is it not a nerf when squatmarine/sister with HB can now output the same damage at twice the range for far less?
The HB change was stupid, they should raise all weapons using the same ammunition (Inceptor guns, heavy bolt pistols, etc) to D2 or go back to D1, doubling of firepower just created endless issues like devaluing whole swatches of guns at a stroke (the above, plus autocannons, gun that became largely pointless with HB change) and spat at game fluff verisimilitude at the same time...
Who said HBPs and HBs use the same ammo? They have lower strength than a HB so why do you draw the conclusion they use same ammo? Simply from the use of word ‘Heavy’?
"essentially a hand-held pistol version of the conventional Heavy Bolter outfitted with a large box magazine and high-speed autoloader"
Rifle ammo tends to be longer.
Quite well possible to be the same calibre, but the cartrige is fat for the hand held version like an RL handgun, compared to a HB which is probably alot closer to a Rifle / Machinegun.
It is funny to me that we are quibbling about the munition compatibility between two of the bajillion types of Space Marine bolt weapons, but armor facings are complicated and scary...
Unit1126PLL wrote: It is funny to me that we are quibbling about the munition compatibility between two of the bajillion types of Space Marine bolt weapons, but armor facings are complicated and scary...
20, now, assuming that the 30" range boltgun veterans have gets a new name.
Just in case anyone was wondering.
I will be going to my local games workshop store to inquire as to whether I get a free ice cream cone as I have punched my ticket again.
the_scotsman wrote: 20, now, assuming that the 30" range boltgun veterans have gets a new name.
Sister of Battle: "Yes, we love the bolter, it's like our third favorite weapon type. We love it so much that we won't use anything else beside melta and flamers. We have all of the bolter weapons, the whole 4 different types: pistol, normal, storm and heavy" Space marines: "Lol we use a gazillion other type of weapons but we also have access to 20 types of bolters get rekt"
the_scotsman wrote: 20, now, assuming that the 30" range boltgun veterans have gets a new name.
Sister of Battle: "Yes, we love the bolter, it's like our third favorite weapon type. We love it so much that we won't use anything else beside melta and flamers. We have all of the bolter weapons, the whole 4 different types: pistol, normal, storm and heavy"
Space marines: "Lol we use a gazillion other type of weapons but we also have access to 20 types of bolters get rekt"
20 bolters ~10 plasmaguns ~8 missile launchers...no we don't have a problem with making weapons that are microscopic variations of one another instead of just putting the ability on the god damn datasheet of the unit why do you ask?
the_scotsman wrote: 20, now, assuming that the 30" range boltgun veterans have gets a new name.
Sister of Battle: "Yes, we love the bolter, it's like our third favorite weapon type. We love it so much that we won't use anything else beside melta and flamers. We have all of the bolter weapons, the whole 4 different types: pistol, normal, storm and heavy"
Space marines: "Lol we use a gazillion other type of weapons but we also have access to 20 types of bolters get rekt"
20 bolters ~10 plasmaguns ~8 missile launchers...no we don't have a problem with making weapons that are microscopic variations of one another instead of just putting the ability on the god damn datasheet of the unit why do you ask?
Ah, but be fair. Other armies also get the same treatment. I mean, you just have to look at the dazzling variation in DE weapons:
Unit1126PLL wrote: It is funny to me that we are quibbling about the munition compatibility between two of the bajillion types of Space Marine bolt weapons, but armor facings are complicated and scary...
Its worth noting that 'munition compatibility' is a pure background thing that has zero effect on gameplay. Not sure how or why you're relating that to armor facings.
You'd think that but literally nobody is going to take the rerolling melee hits on Xenos armies as a Custom trait simply because they won't make up the majority of the armies you'll face.
I run my steel confessors with Stalward + Preferred enemy : Tyranids.
Fits their fluff pretty well.
You gotta realise that some people do not play with minmaxing in mind, probably the majority of players even.
yukishiro1 wrote: I don't think I've ever met a single player who uses the non-overpowered custom traits for their army for fluff reasons, in my experience people who play for fluff would much rather use the established, more fluffy rules including the relics, strats and characters than give that up in return for some generic bad rules. But if those people do exist and really want their bad custom traits to stay...I have no problem with that, as long as the overpowered ones are removed.
As soon as Blood of the Phoenix came out, my wraith army started using wrath of the dead and hunters of ancient relics as it's traits. Granted, Hunters has actually become a very solid trait with 9th's focus on objectives.
Same, and its what made my wraiths playable in 8th.
the_scotsman wrote: 20, now, assuming that the 30" range boltgun veterans have gets a new name.
Sister of Battle: "Yes, we love the bolter, it's like our third favorite weapon type. We love it so much that we won't use anything else beside melta and flamers. We have all of the bolter weapons, the whole 4 different types: pistol, normal, storm and heavy"
Space marines: "Lol we use a gazillion other type of weapons but we also have access to 20 types of bolters get rekt"
20 bolters ~10 plasmaguns ~8 missile launchers...no we don't have a problem with making weapons that are microscopic variations of one another instead of just putting the ability on the god damn datasheet of the unit why do you ask?
Ah, but be fair. Other armies also get the same treatment. I mean, you just have to look at the dazzling variation in DE weapons:
I am in no way counting "twin" versions of bolt weapons as a unique weapon. Just bolt weapons that have unique names. And nah, I'm not really interested in being "fair" because the marine list friggin looks like this:
Bolt pistol
Boltgun
Special-issue boltgun
Veteran 30" Range Regular Boltgun?
Stalker Boltgun
Combi-Bolter
Storm Bolter
Angelus Boltgun
Combi-Flamer
Combi-Plasma
Combi-Melta
Heavy Bolter
Hurricane Bolter
Infernus Heavy Bolter
Sniper Boltgun (or whatever the name of the one scouts use)
-----------------------Primaris starts here, people wondering whether this is a primaris-only phenomenon
Heavy bolt pistol
Absolvor Bolt Pistol
Boltstorm Gauntlets
Bolt Rifle
Stalker Bolt Rifle
Assault Bolt Rifle
Bolt Carbine
Occulum Bolt Carbine
Incursor Bolt Carbine
Inceptor Light Heavy Bolters
Eliminator Bolt Sniper Rifle
Single Shot Heavy Bolter Used By Invictus?
27, initially I wasn't counting the deathwatch+blood angels specific ones or the various combi weapons as unique bolt weapons.
Eh, you really should group the various combi-weapons together (isn't combi-grav a thing? Not sure if SW get a combi-frost or not), given the bolt side of them is identical, and the only difference is the other half of the gun.
As far as I'm aware the sniper rifle used by Scouts is a standard needle rifle, so not a Bolt weapon - though the lack of such weapon keyowrding does make it unclear.
I honestly thought we were up to more Primaris variants, but then I remembered the design studio's current hard-on for Stubber and Gatling weapons on Primaris vehicles instead of Bolt weapons...
I've only got the 8.0 SM 'dex to hand, but they're listed as "Assault Bolters" there - not sure if there was a name change for 8.5.
I cant remember all the goddamn names for all these things off the top of my head, you can nearly make a dang pokemon game out of the space marine wargear list.
"Go! Oculum Light Heavy Assault Boltstorm Ironstorm Boltgunpistol!"
"Well, I know OLHABIB is both the Bolt Type and the Assault Type, so I should choose a Missile type Spacemon to have a super effective attack...GO, AUXILIARY FRAGSTORM TWIN-LINKED MISSILE GRENADE LAUNCHER!"
I've only got the 8.0 SM 'dex to hand, but they're listed as "Assault Bolters" there - not sure if there was a name change for 8.5.
I cant remember all the goddamn names for all these things off the top of my head, you can nearly make a dang pokemon game out of the space marine wargear list.
"Go! Oculum Light Heavy Assault Boltstorm Ironstorm Boltgunpistol!"
"Well, I know OLHABIB is both the Bolt Type and the Assault Type, so I should choose a Missile type Spacemon to have a super effective attack...GO, AUXILIARY FRAGSTORM TWIN-LINKED MISSILE GRENADE LAUNCHER!"
You were the one presenting the claim as if it were a definitive list - perhaps next time you should do the research before going off on one, or at least make it clear that you're working from memory rather than referencing the book...
Sterling191 wrote: Took some digging, but managed to find the new Inceptor sheet. Its the lack of overcharged plasma on their simplified sheet, just like every other plasma unit. The real "nerf" was their assault bolters not getting D2, but frankly its not a nerf as if they had actually gotten their damage output doubled they would go to instant auto-take status at 40ppm.
How is it not a nerf when squatmarine/sister with HB can now output the same damage at twice the range for far less?
The HB change was stupid, they should raise all weapons using the same ammunition (Inceptor guns, heavy bolt pistols, etc) to D2 or go back to D1, doubling of firepower just created endless issues like devaluing whole swatches of guns at a stroke (the above, plus autocannons, gun that became largely pointless with HB change) and spat at game fluff verisimilitude at the same time...
Who said HBPs and HBs use the same ammo? They have lower strength than a HB so why do you draw the conclusion they use same ammo? Simply from the use of word ‘Heavy’?
"essentially a hand-held pistol version of the conventional Heavy Bolter outfitted with a large box magazine and high-speed autoloader"
Not Online!!! wrote: i know you mean this in joke, but i wouldn't even be surprised...
I am not joking. Heavy Intercessors were in the leaked pics. A new Primaris Captain has the heavy armour, and from the pictures the weapon he has appeared to be a "Heavy Bolt Rifle".
H.B.M.C. wrote: Pretty sure Marines are getting a Heavy Bolt Rifle when the Heavy Intercessors arrive.
i know you mean this in joke, but i wouldn't even be surprised...
There was a captured pic from the leaf through of the Loyalist Scum codex of a captain (or some other loyalist HQ, they have so many) with a heavy bolt rifle. So it won't be a surprise.
Not Online!!! wrote: i know you mean this in joke, but i wouldn't even be surprised...
I am not joking. Heavy Intercessors were in the leaked pics. A new Primaris Captain has the heavy armour, and from the pictures the weapon he has appeared to be a "Heavy Bolt Rifle".
do we really need another boltrifle...
Marines now have more bloody bolters then some factions have units...
The Absolver Bolt Pistol (primaris chaplains, apothecaries) is the pistol chambered for HB ammo. And it got an extra 2” of range and D2 from the Indominus box.
I don’t know what the fluff says about it, but it was S5, -1AP 1D, the same profile as a HB before, and a big honking pistol, so I always assumed it was shooting HB ammo. Now it gets stats still in line with the HB upgrades, so I’m keeping that bit of headcannon.
We'll get to a point that Primaris units are going to be so similar to each other that even more busted stratagems and rules will be needed so they make sense on the table.
Denegaar wrote: We'll get to a point that Primaris units are going to be so similar to each other that even more busted stratagems and rules will be needed so they make sense on the table.
Or they could just...be the same, ruleswise. Just be different aesthetically. If they want to make 12 different units of boltgun-armed power armored infantry, fine, but in a game as abstracted as 40k do they really NEED to all have meaningfully unique rules?
How much support do we currently have to make our marines' rules distinct that's totally independent of how the model looks and is just up to personal preference? You can now choose each army trait rule separately, you have like 3 dozen choices, and you can choose a set of strats rules etc to go along with them.
If I like the looks of phobos marines, maybe I play with Raven Guard rules or my own custom sneaky chapter. If I like the look of Reivers, maybe I play a close combat chapter.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Don't marines already have more types of bolt weapon than some armies have units?
yes, tbf tho it is easy to have more standard rifles for units then Harlequins have units But when you start to have more standard rifles then i dunno SoB or GSC has normal non charachter units, then i think something in the priorities went , wierd..
Unit1126PLL wrote: Don't marines already have more types of bolt weapon than some armies have units?
yes, tbf tho it is easy to have more standard rifles for units then Harlequins have units But when you start to have more standard rifles then i dunno SoB or GSC has normal non charachter units, then i think something in the priorities went , wierd..
And also gw's understanding of how an army works. What army would want that many different types of ammunition to keep track of? Hasn't gw ever heard of logistics?
Kanluwen wrote: I don't have my SM codex right now, but do Aggressors currently have the same bit as Eradicators where they get double shots but have to target a specific unit?
Cause if they do not, I could see that happening.
They can shoot 2 different units. The catch is that they have to stand still. Personally I'd like to keep my aggressors how they are, they were the Allstars of my lists
My guess is that double tap will go away. OW with flamers with the double tap is just insane and should not be a thing.
If I were a betting man I'd be betting in the other direction. Aggressors will change from "stand still to double tap" to the Eradicator wording, and that's why they dropped the ranged profiles from Assault 6/Assault 2d6 to Assault 3/Assault d6. Standing still to double-tap with that unit never made sense and the UM Super-doctrine and the Sallies "that unit is Stationary" strat made them impossible to point-balance properly. GWhad to have gotten a ton of complaints about that unit.
Kanluwen wrote: I don't have my SM codex right now, but do Aggressors currently have the same bit as Eradicators where they get double shots but have to target a specific unit?
Cause if they do not, I could see that happening.
They can shoot 2 different units. The catch is that they have to stand still. Personally I'd like to keep my aggressors how they are, they were the Allstars of my lists
My guess is that double tap will go away. OW with flamers with the double tap is just insane and should not be a thing.
If I were a betting man I'd be betting in the other direction. Aggressors will change from "stand still to double tap" to the Eradicator wording, and that's why they dropped the ranged profiles from Assault 6/Assault 2d6 to Assault 3/Assault d6. Standing still to double-tap with that unit never made sense and the UM Super-doctrine and the Sallies "that unit is Stationary" strat made them impossible to point-balance properly. GWhad to have gotten a ton of complaints about that unit.
The other possibility, of course, being that the profiles we've seen are per gauntlet, while the profile in the 8.0 and 8.5 book was for a pair of gauntlets (I just checked the 8.0 listing, which describes Aggressors as armed with "auto boltstorm gauntlets", which could be replaced with "flamestorm gauntlets").
Gadzilla666 wrote: Can't somebody buy some devastators or something else with a lascannon? I'd like to know if they're getting buffed like everything else apparently is.
Firing into the dark, I'll put my money on Lascannons getting a 3D minimum, if anything at all.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Can't somebody buy some devastators or something else with a lascannon? I'd like to know if they're getting buffed like everything else apparently is.
Firing into the dark, I'll put my money on Lascannons getting a 3D minimum, if anything at all.
That's my guess as well. Would be great on a unit with eight of them.
The worst part is we know that list is about to get even longer in the 9th edition codex
What's next each marines bolter gets a unique name and statline?
Brother Mathews bolter has a scope on it so he gets +2 inches of range.
Brother Dantes bolter has a chainsword strapped to it so he gets to punch you realy hard in Close combat and has +1 strength when he charges.
Brother Bob's the new guy so his bolters is like -1 range and -1 to hit in combat.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Not really valid all the way. Things like all the TL weapons were used with a USR compared to now with the separate profile.
You can nitpick, but I think the point is made.
Also CC weapons were mostly USRs. CC weapon, Power Weapons, and Power fists were all generic. There are a couple more items described in the wargear section, such as the Cyclone Missile Launcher, too. But I didn't include the 8th edition CC weapon list in the highlighted area, and that's another 26 entries if I counted right.
Gadzilla666 wrote: If loyalists get all that can csm at least have kai guns back?
I lol'd.
And no you can't for generic CSM, it'll be included in the separate Emperor's Children codex for(and only for) a Daemon Prince model that's an 80$ mono-build kit.
Gadzilla666 wrote: If loyalists get all that can csm at least have kai guns back?
I lol'd.
And no you can't for generic CSM, it'll be included in the separate Emperor's Children codex for(and only for) a Daemon Prince model that's an 80$ mono-build kit.
forgot the limited Edition Tag.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I am still waiting though on a predators with a twin hades AC turret and a greater havocs launcher laffete.
Gadzilla666 wrote: If loyalists get all that can csm at least have kai guns back?
I lol'd.
And no you can't for generic CSM, it'll be included in the separate Emperor's Children codex for(and only for) a Daemon Prince model that's an 80$ mono-build kit.
forgot the limited Edition Tag..
Is that limited edition-limited edition? Or is that "limited edition" in an exclusive big-box, and then released separately 18 months later?
Gadzilla666 wrote: If loyalists get all that can csm at least have kai guns back?
I lol'd.
And no you can't for generic CSM, it'll be included in the separate Emperor's Children codex for(and only for) a Daemon Prince model that's an 80$ mono-build kit.
forgot the limited Edition Tag..
Is that limited edition-limited edition? Or is that "limited edition" in an exclusive big-box, and then released separately 18 months later?
Gadzilla666 wrote: If loyalists get all that can csm at least have kai guns back?
I lol'd.
And no you can't for generic CSM, it'll be included in the separate Emperor's Children codex for(and only for) a Daemon Prince model that's an 80$ mono-build kit.
forgot the limited Edition Tag..
Is that limited edition-limited edition? Or is that "limited edition" in an exclusive big-box, and then released separately 18 months later?
Well in a box except gw lost the mould just Like they did with half the cultists and koptas and obliterators seemingly.
Then there's a second Edition an actual limited Edition.
A good looking dp with wings infact. 100$ and only 1000.
Tyel wrote: There's a Rhino/Razorback sheet floating around. Nothing that interesting except S10 on the hunter-killer. Which I think might have come up before.
Sort of confirms Lascannons are going to be a joke compared with MMs though.
So no charges to lascannons? Minimum 3D would probably be a special rule, so not on the instructions.
Tyel wrote: There's a Rhino/Razorback sheet floating around. Nothing that interesting except S10 on the hunter-killer. Which I think might have come up before.
Sort of confirms Lascannons are going to be a joke compared with MMs though.
S9 and 48" range isn't a joke though. At 24" the Multimelta does 1.1 to w Knight while the Lascannon does .77 across the table. I think the range is still going to be a big deal. I'll probably switch to MMs on my Tacs, but Razorbacks/Predators etc with Las still look decent to me.
also not everyone wants to order FW resin stuff for their army, buy a FW index book yadda yadda ya. If an army doesn't work with just it's core codex elements, it's a problem. no matter the army
BrianDavion wrote: also not everyone wants to order FW resin stuff for their army, buy a FW index book yadda yadda ya. If an army doesn't work with just it's core codex elements, it's a problem. no matter the army
FW and GW are the same entity, with the same rules writers. The only difference is the website you order from.
BrianDavion wrote: also not everyone wants to order FW resin stuff for their army, buy a FW index book yadda yadda ya. If an army doesn't work with just it's core codex elements, it's a problem. no matter the army
FW and GW are the same entity, with the same rules writers. The only difference is the website you order from.
Yeah. . . Another set of books that will become obsolete in a few years.
The only FW I've ever bought is reinforced armor for Land Raiders. I have a few other things but they were donations, and I probably wouldn't have bought them otherwise.
Tyel wrote: There's a Rhino/Razorback sheet floating around. Nothing that interesting except S10 on the hunter-killer. Which I think might have come up before.
Sort of confirms Lascannons are going to be a joke compared with MMs though.
S9 and 48" range isn't a joke though. At 24" the Multimelta does 1.1 to w Knight while the Lascannon does .77 across the table. I think the range is still going to be a big deal. I'll probably switch to MMs on my Tacs, but Razorbacks/Predators etc with Las still look decent to me.
You would want mm's on vehicles though negating range issue. More m, no -1 to hit.
Tyel wrote: There's a Rhino/Razorback sheet floating around. Nothing that interesting except S10 on the hunter-killer. Which I think might have come up before.
Sort of confirms Lascannons are going to be a joke compared with MMs though.
S9 and 48" range isn't a joke though. At 24" the Multimelta does 1.1 to w Knight while the Lascannon does .77 across the table. I think the range is still going to be a big deal. I'll probably switch to MMs on my Tacs, but Razorbacks/Predators etc with Las still look decent to me.
You would want mm's on vehicles though negating range issue. More m, no -1 to hit.
It's not like there's many Marine vehicles that can replace their lascannons with multi-meltas (or vice-versa) though. Only Dreadnoughts come to mind. Pretty much every other non-Infantry unit has access to one and not the other, or can have both simultaneously
Tyel wrote: There's a Rhino/Razorback sheet floating around. Nothing that interesting except S10 on the hunter-killer. Which I think might have come up before.
Sort of confirms Lascannons are going to be a joke compared with MMs though.
S9 and 48" range isn't a joke though. At 24" the Multimelta does 1.1 to w Knight while the Lascannon does .77 across the table. I think the range is still going to be a big deal. I'll probably switch to MMs on my Tacs, but Razorbacks/Predators etc with Las still look decent to me.
You would want mm's on vehicles though negating range issue. More m, no -1 to hit.
The problem with MultiMeltas is that to really make them hurt, you gotta get really close. I don't always want to do that with vehicles, especially since that's diving into Melta range. Lascannon platforms can stay safer, and will be more able to take advantage of Obscuring. There's also the thing with re-rolls. If I'm suiciding Meltas into the middle it's going to be riskier to support them with Chapter Master + Lt.
I think the Meltas with staying power are going to be Meltas on infantry like my Tac squads. They're going to have a lower profile and be able to take advantage of cover more.
VladimirHerzog wrote: FW and GW are the same entity, with the same rules writers. The only difference is the website you order from.
It's not that simple.
Given we're in an age of internet shopping, why isn't it?
The only real difference I can think of between the two is shipping prices - on the other hand, I think there were electronic version of the FW Index books available, which circumvents that nicely for the rules component, if not the models themselves.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Heavy 2, S8, AP-4, Dd6 will hurt most things plenty without getting into melta range.
For sure, I think it's a great weapon. I just think there's still a valuable place for Lascannons.
Agreed. I was just pointing out that you don't need to get in extremely close for multi-meltas to be effective. Especially SOB using the Storm of Retribution strategem.
Dysartes wrote: Given we're in an age of internet shopping, why isn't it?
The only real difference I can think of between the two is shipping prices - on the other hand, I think there were electronic version of the FW Index books available, which circumvents that nicely for the rules component, if not the models themselves.
It's got nothing to do with shopping or access.
FW found out about 8th Ed when we did. That's how much of a singular company GW proper and FW are.
The "siloing" in that part of the world is detrimental to their output.
Dysartes wrote: Given we're in an age of internet shopping, why isn't it?
The only real difference I can think of between the two is shipping prices - on the other hand, I think there were electronic version of the FW Index books available, which circumvents that nicely for the rules component, if not the models themselves.
It's got nothing to do with shopping or access.
FW found out about 8th Ed when we did. That's how much of a singular company GW proper and FW are.
The "siloing" in that part of the world is detrimental to their output.
And iirc they moved the rules for FW models from FW to GW. So they fixed the silo issue.
Dysartes wrote: Given we're in an age of internet shopping, why isn't it?
The only real difference I can think of between the two is shipping prices - on the other hand, I think there were electronic version of the FW Index books available, which circumvents that nicely for the rules component, if not the models themselves.
It's got nothing to do with shopping or access.
FW found out about 8th Ed when we did. That's how much of a singular company GW proper and FW are.
The "siloing" in that part of the world is detrimental to their output.
Was a factor at the start of 8th. Has been confirmed multiple times now that GW Studio is writing the 40k rules for FW models, so should no longer be a factor.
There also is the issue with FW units suddenly disappearing without a warning without as much as a legends entry for those units or units being nerfed into oblivion for no apparent reason.
At this point, spending money on 40kFW models is very much a gamble - your expensive brick of resin might be completely unplayable after the next FAQ/CA.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dysartes wrote: Was a factor at the start of 8th. Has been confirmed multiple times now that GW Studio is writing the 40k rules for FW models, so should no longer be a factor.
Which is kind of irrelevant when the current FW rules, sans points, were still the ones written by the FW team, right?
Jidmah wrote: There also is the issue with FW units suddenly disappearing without a warning without as much as a legends entry for those units or units being nerfed into oblivion for no apparent reason.
At this point, spending money on 40kFW models is very much a gamble - your expensive brick of resin might be completely unplayable after the next FAQ/CA.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dysartes wrote: Was a factor at the start of 8th. Has been confirmed multiple times now that GW Studio is writing the 40k rules for FW models, so should no longer be a factor.
Which is kind of irrelevant when the current FW rules, sans points, were still the ones written by the FW team, right?
It also doesn't look good for fw when gw "nerfs fw units into oblivion" as you put it.
If they ever release those FQ book updates they've been promising for literally years now, it'll presumably give some pretty strong clues for whether the range has a future or is being wound down.
Dysartes wrote: Was a factor at the start of 8th. Has been confirmed multiple times now that GW Studio is writing the 40k rules for FW models, so should no longer be a factor.
Not if they decide to just not write rules for something, or something languishes and goes out of production and never sees an update. Given how many things have vanished from FW's line, sometimes without warning, it would be callous at best (foolish at worst) to assume that everything from now on will be fine.
Wakshaani wrote: Looking at a box of Triarch Praetorians I got in today and … did they always have a movement of 10"? I thought they had a 5" like most Necrons.
I don't think they'd even goof THAT hard would they?
When you are talking about person who are selected not due to competence but attitude hardly surprising. Ability to shout waagh enthusticially and willingness to work with low wage doesnt' mean you are competent designer/writer.
Wakshaani wrote: Looking at a box of Triarch Praetorians I got in today and … did they always have a movement of 10"? I thought they had a 5" like most Necrons.
Uuuuh....yes? Would be kinda lousy jump packs them if they moved just 5"...As it is they are already slow jump packs compared to what others have. 5" would be ridiculous. "here's our elite melee units with jump packs. Watch them hop with zero speed boost!"
When you are talking about person who are selected not due to competence but attitude hardly surprising. Ability to shout waagh enthusticially and willingness to work with low wage doesnt' mean you are competent designer/writer.
Not to call this a good practice, but that's still better than what's going on in some US companies where people that apparently dislike their franchise and fans are hired since they have the correct social and political views.
At least the people hired at gw care about the game. Doesn't make them better at writing it, sadly.
When you are talking about person who are selected not due to competence but attitude hardly surprising. Ability to shout waagh enthusticially and willingness to work with low wage doesnt' mean you are competent designer/writer.
Not to call this a good practice, but that's still better than what's going on in some US companies where people that apparently dislike their franchise and fans are hired since they have the correct social and political views.
At least the people hired at gw care about the game. Doesn't make them better at writing it, sadly.
the best case would be a competentish designer ontop of someone that loves the game and the universe. Basically not only able to shout waaaggh but also catch the feeling for it to implement it correctly into the rules.
GW people love their own opinion of what the game should be. They certainly don't love the game.
That's how you get Robin - frack the Tyranids- Cruddace and Mr Ermagherd Ulrtrumuhrines destroying factions left and right just because they do not like them.
His Chaos Daemons book was the actual thing that drove me out of the game, but his 7th edition Orcs and Goblins book sowed the seeds for it. The only positive thing that book did was make Choppas count as hand weapons. Basically everything else in the book removed options or flavour with the most egregious stuff being to nerf anything Goblin-related into the ground and be made irrelevant.
I don't think 8th edition High Elves was of the tier of 6th edition Skaven or 7th edition Daemons - but it was still probably the most powerful book, and in the top tier by a considerable distance.
Really though I think it just shows that while CA isn't perfect, its massively improved balance because you don't just get multi-year codex creep with no compensation.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Another fantastic typo. The Multi-Melta fires D6 shots, apparently.
Did fething nobody read these things before they went to print?
Probably not. Likely they just wanted them made and shipped.
Stupid question, which one is the multi melta?
The only thing I see that looks like it is number 18. But the stat profile looks like a heavy flamer. Is it possible given the buffs to meltas they are taking it away from devastators?
H.B.M.C. wrote: Another fantastic typo. The Multi-Melta fires D6 shots, apparently.
Did fething nobody read these things before they went to print?
Probably not. Likely they just wanted them made and shipped.
Stupid question, which one is the multi melta?
The only thing I see that looks like it is number 18. But the stat profile looks like a heavy flamer. Is it possible given the buffs to meltas they are taking it away from devastators?
And give what back? Not heavy flamer as kit doesn't come with. Nor are they leaving weapon to sprue without using.
Check previous pages. That"s the typo that been talked
18 is definitely not the Heavy Flamer image. It's the right profile (and with BA being rolled into the main codex that might even be the intent) but there's clearly a mismatch there.
In regards to points? At the start all points are derived by 5 or 10 (except some exceptions or rarities), when codex's come out this will be delineated more, didn't this happen with indexes in 8th...) I mean I see a lot of YouTube clips saying this or that or posts but this is just the hold over... every point will change in actual codex's (well i feel, isn't GW just reseting?)
As in play what will now and make your armies but they are just place holders, until the real points etc values start to come out in October/November.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Another fantastic typo. The Multi-Melta fires D6 shots, apparently.
Did fething nobody read these things before they went to print?
Probably not. Likely they just wanted them made and shipped.
Yea these matter so little in the grand scheme of things. Definitely no one gave them a second glance.
And yet it makes them look, bad, again.
I just dont understand how stuff like this happens so consistently and they do nothing to make it better in future releases. Dont they get tired of having to put out day 1 FAQs and their players finding broken combos in the first days they have to fix?
Stuff like this happens because GW just doesn't really care. It's easier to let the players do your proofreading for you, and, incredibly, you even get credit and praise for fixing your obvious errors because you've lowered expectations so much that that actually seems like progress.
Maybe they are replacing the multi melta with the heavy flamer and when printing the stats for it accidentally left the multi melta range on the sheet. This would also make it so all weapons in the sprues have rules. I'll admit this is probably the least likely scenario.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Another fantastic typo. The Multi-Melta fires D6 shots, apparently.
Did fething nobody read these things before they went to print?
Probably not. Likely they just wanted them made and shipped.
Yea these matter so little in the grand scheme of things. Definitely no one gave them a second glance.
And yet it makes them look, bad, again.
I just dont understand how stuff like this happens so consistently and they do nothing to make it better in future releases. Dont they get tired of having to put out day 1 FAQs and their players finding broken combos in the first days they have to fix?
Well seeing these aren"t usable datasheets in matched play hardly broken anyway
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mournwhelk wrote: Maybe they are replacing the multi melta with the heavy flamer and when printing the stats for it accidentally left the multi melta range on the sheet. This would also make it so all weapons in the sprues have rules. I'll admit this is probably the least likely scenario.
Uuh that would mean datasheet would have weapon kit doesn't have and sprue would have weapon without rules. Kit has multimelta. Replacing kit would mean doing new expensive sprue. No way in hell. You have bigger chance of going to moon within 1 year than that.
mournwhelk wrote: Maybe they are replacing the multi melta with the heavy flamer and when printing the stats for it accidentally left the multi melta range on the sheet. This would also make it so all weapons in the sprues have rules. I'll admit this is probably the least likely scenario.
Uuh that would mean datasheet would have weapon kit doesn't have and sprue would have weapon without rules. Kit has multimelta. Replacing kit would mean doing new expensive sprue. No way in hell. You have bigger chance of going to moon within 1 year than that.
Ok, in the interests of fairness I have to point out that we're talking about the Tac kit here; it does not have the Multimelta on the sprue. It doesn't have any of those heavy weapons outside of the Missile Launcher, and it doesn't have the Thunder Hammer either.
I do wonder why the Tac kit only comes with the Power Fist, Power Sword, and Chain Sword when they expect to be in melee eventually, and the Devastator box comes with all the melee options when they want to stay out of melee.
Do you work at GW? That list could go right to print and not raise any eyebrows ;-)
Nope. I just misinterpreted that rather grainy image and missed that the range was wrong for a Heavy Flamer.
So that looks like 2 errors (Multi-melts and possibly Thunder Hammer) and a missing profile (Missile Launcher - Krak) if there is an update to Grav Cannon. Not perfect, but hardly horrible.
Who's to say that the 4 damage TH isn't wrong, and that this 3 damage TH isn't correct? Honestly I think it would be better (for the game) if 3 damage is correct.
You can make a great army with just those two kits.
True. A box of GK termintors can make, all the characters save for Draigo. And the GK strike squad box makes all the other units and Crow.
Custodes seem to be in the same position, as they practicaly build an army around the jetbiker kit making HQs and units out of it.
Just checking: last battlescribe update was titled 'eradicators to 85ppm'
I'm pretty positive this is glaringly obvious sarcasm, but I just want to check because if this is true this is the most gigantic nerf bat GW have ever employed
I'm pretty positive this is glaringly obvious sarcasm, but I just want to check because if this is true this is the most gigantic nerf bat GW have ever employed
While there was an update to the Munitorum Field Manual on the 24th, the Eradicators weren't changed in it.
And I imagine we're still far too early for advance copies of the new SM 'dex to be floating around - and even if they were, they normally seem to be under a NDA until the week (or two?) before release.
The Newman wrote: I do wonder why the Tac kit only comes with the Power Fist, Power Sword, and Chain Sword when they expect to be in melee eventually, and the Devastator box comes with all the melee options when they want to stay out of melee.
Because the Dev Kit was made when:
A) you no longer had to keep the Veteran Sergeant in the 4 heavy weapon combat squad to prevent the opponents assasin from autokilling your bolter marine when he reveals himself and wipes your Devs in one round of close combat
B) (I thnk?) before you wanted to keep the Sergeant in the Heavy Weapon combat squad for the signum/auspex/etc and they still had targetters on all four Heavy Weapons.
There was a period where had to keep the Sarge in the squad,
then there was a period where you gave him a CCW, 4 bolter meatshields, and a Razorback,
and now you keep him in the squad again, probably without the extra marines.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Voss wrote: Odd that the Stormraven twin plasma cannon shows both profiles.
Also unlike the devastator sheet, plasma cannon starts at D2 (and overcharges to D3).
That makes sense a bit for Plasma Cannon in general. A Rapid fire Plasma Gun had the potential to out damage the cannon, and mathematically probably averaged something too similar to justify extra points for a heavy weapon version.
I'm pretty positive this is glaringly obvious sarcasm, but I just want to check because if this is true this is the most gigantic nerf bat GW have ever employed
Battlescribe, or more specifically the group maintaining the 40k rules repository, has been doing community meta-commentary in their update titles for as long as I can remember. There have been no rules, or points, updates on Eradicators.
More on point, they also have a hard rule that any updates, even if theyre known in advance, arent incorporated into live rulesets until after street release date for their appropriate publication. We're not gonna see 2 wound marines or anything else in those files till October.
The Newman wrote: I do wonder why the Tac kit only comes with the Power Fist, Power Sword, and Chain Sword when they expect to be in melee eventually, and the Devastator box comes with all the melee options when they want to stay out of melee.
Both the Tactical Squad and Devastator Squad have three sprues, but the Tactical Squad has 10 models while the Devastator Squad has 5. This means there was much more space to dedicate to weapon option in the Devastator box, space that the Tactical box dedicated to more models. Given that you can't even build a proper Devastator squad form one box (there are only 2 copies of each heavy weapon in the kit), it ensures you have lots of bits for kit-bashing other models in your army.
The Newman wrote: I do wonder why the Tac kit only comes with the Power Fist, Power Sword, and Chain Sword when they expect to be in melee eventually, and the Devastator box comes with all the melee options when they want to stay out of melee.
Both the Tactical Squad and Devastator Squad have three sprues, but the Tactical Squad has 10 models while the Devastator Squad has 5. This means there was much more space to dedicate to weapon option in the Devastator box, space that the Tactical box dedicated to more models. Given that you can't even build a proper Devastator squad form one box (there are only 2 copies of each heavy weapon in the kit), it ensures you have lots of bits for kit-bashing other models in your army.
Define a "proper" Devastator squad, especially in an edition where split fire is a thing.
Define a "proper" Devastator squad, especially in an edition where split fire is a thing.
Kind of a hard to build a proper squad, when one box gives you half(thank you auto correct) the weapons you need. Still much better then CSM players needing to buy 4 boxs to get 4 reaper canons for one unit of havocks.
The Newman wrote: I do wonder why the Tac kit only comes with the Power Fist, Power Sword, and Chain Sword when they expect to be in melee eventually, and the Devastator box comes with all the melee options when they want to stay out of melee.
Both the Tactical Squad and Devastator Squad have three sprues, but the Tactical Squad has 10 models while the Devastator Squad has 5. This means there was much more space to dedicate to weapon option in the Devastator box, space that the Tactical box dedicated to more models. Given that you can't even build a proper Devastator squad form one box (there are only 2 copies of each heavy weapon in the kit), it ensures you have lots of bits for kit-bashing other models in your army.
Define a "proper" Devastator squad, especially in an edition where split fire is a thing.
Splitfire might be a thing but only reason to mix weapons is flak missiles and the hbolter mw thing. 40k is specialization rather than generalism.
The Newman wrote: I do wonder why the Tac kit only comes with the Power Fist, Power Sword, and Chain Sword when they expect to be in melee eventually, and the Devastator box comes with all the melee options when they want to stay out of melee.
Both the Tactical Squad and Devastator Squad have three sprues, but the Tactical Squad has 10 models while the Devastator Squad has 5. This means there was much more space to dedicate to weapon option in the Devastator box, space that the Tactical box dedicated to more models. Given that you can't even build a proper Devastator squad form one box (there are only 2 copies of each heavy weapon in the kit), it ensures you have lots of bits for kit-bashing other models in your army.
Define a "proper" Devastator squad, especially in an edition where split fire is a thing.
I will leave this as a exercise for the reader. Two hints: there are 2 copies of each heavy weapon in the box; a Devastator squad can have up to 4 heavy weapons.
The Newman wrote: I do wonder why the Tac kit only comes with the Power Fist, Power Sword, and Chain Sword when they expect to be in melee eventually, and the Devastator box comes with all the melee options when they want to stay out of melee.
Both the Tactical Squad and Devastator Squad have three sprues, but the Tactical Squad has 10 models while the Devastator Squad has 5. This means there was much more space to dedicate to weapon option in the Devastator box, space that the Tactical box dedicated to more models. Given that you can't even build a proper Devastator squad form one box (there are only 2 copies of each heavy weapon in the kit), it ensures you have lots of bits for kit-bashing other models in your army.
Define a "proper" Devastator squad, especially in an edition where split fire is a thing.
I will leave this as a exercise for the reader. Two hints: there are 2 copies of each heavy weapon in the box; a Devastator squad can have up to 4 heavy weapons.
Therefore a proper devastator squad is a 2/2 split, possibly split into two combat squad squads for flexibility?
Alternately, 1 heavy weapon, 3 bolter marines and a sigum + Cherub is fine too.
stratigo wrote: I just want to point out, again, death guard, without these changes, are dominating tournaments with regularity whenever they happen.
Please provide a source for all the tournaments they are dominating.
Because frankly, every single person I asked for a source so far went silent afterwards, and the analysis of data actually available says the opposite.
So either back up that claim with facts, or stop spreading it.
stratigo wrote: I just want to point out, again, death guard, without these changes, are dominating tournaments with regularity whenever they happen.
Please provide a source for all the tournaments they are dominating.
Because frankly, every single person I asked for a source so far went silent afterwards, and the analysis of data actually available says the opposite.
So either back up that claim with facts, or stop spreading it.
stratigo wrote: I just want to point out, again, death guard, without these changes, are dominating tournaments with regularity whenever they happen.
Yeah uh, nope. Death Guard are currently chilling at about a 40% winrate I believe? "General Chaos Soup" is doing slightly better but not cracking 50%.
There's a related but separate rountable from Goonhammer talking about impressions of 9th so far, and one of the things they discuss is how DG arent doing as well (by the numbers) as most folks expected to, and dig into a few of the reasons why.
There's a related but separate rountable from Goonhammer talking about impressions of 9th so far, and one of the things they discuss is how DG arent doing as well (by the numbers) as most folks expected to, and dig into a few of the reasons why.
So when you said "I just want to point out, again, death guard, without these changes, are dominating tournaments with regularity whenever they happen."
you meant "I just want to point out, again, death gaurd, without these changes, aren't dominating tournaments with any regularity but I believe extenuating circumstances are at play that explain those losses."
There's a related but separate rountable from Goonhammer talking about impressions of 9th so far, and one of the things they discuss is how DG arent doing as well (by the numbers) as most folks expected to, and dig into a few of the reasons why.
So when you said "I just want to point out, again, death guard, without these changes, are dominating tournaments with regularity whenever they happen."
you meant "I just want to point out, again, death gaurd, without these changes, aren't dominating tournaments with any regularity but I believe extenuating circumstances are at play that explain those losses."
Check your quotes, you're replying to the wrong person.
There's a related but separate rountable from Goonhammer talking about impressions of 9th so far, and one of the things they discuss is how DG arent doing as well (by the numbers) as most folks expected to, and dig into a few of the reasons why.
So when you said "I just want to point out, again, death guard, without these changes, are dominating tournaments with regularity whenever they happen."
you meant "I just want to point out, again, death gaurd, without these changes, aren't dominating tournaments with any regularity but I believe extenuating circumstances are at play that explain those losses."
Check your quotes, you're replying to the wrong person.
Have you had a look at any of the datasheets in 8th edition boxes? Some of the DG charcters have nothing but their statline printed on them, what the hell is the point of that?
Jidmah wrote: Have you had a look at any of the datasheets in 8th edition boxes? Some of the DG charcters have nothing but their statline printed on them, what the hell is the point of that?
These are pretty much of the same quality.
What if there isn't one anywhere else, it might shift the game again.
Alcibiades wrote: The Stormraven has heavy plasma cannons, not plasma cannons. That might be the reason for the perceived discrepancy.
Does anything else have Twin Heavy Plasma Cannons? Or just single Heavy Plasma Cannons? What I'm wondering is if this was a naming quirk over Twin, or a leftover Heavy from Copy/Paste thing that didn't matter before, or if they intentionally made a Heavy Plasma Cannon and few people noticed.
Prediction: Oldmarine and "regular" warhammer factions will get the 1 shot multimelta.
Primaris marines and nuPrimaris units will get the 2 shot MM (or some other way to give melta two shots). That fits the data we've seen so far (the Necron multimelta clone only having one shot, now the oldmarine MM having one shot). Not sure about the Devastator MM entry, but I guess a 24" range heavy flamer is pretty cool??
They will balance Xenos/other factions by giving them units like Dire Fragons, that will be Fire Dragons but with ,T4, 3 wounds, and 2 shots each. They'll also have Wecron Norriers, who will be T5 with 3 wounds, and Wirefarriers who are 2 wounds with Strength 6 2 damage guns. They'll be 2ppm more expensive than their oldhammer counterparts.
You can still take your Fire Dragons, Necron Warriors, and Firewarriors if you want, of course. No one is stopping you. That'd just be rude of GW.
GW wrote:Now, we know that LOTS of armies use these weapons, whether supplied by the Tech-Adepts of Mars or perhaps even “acquired” through less Imperium-friendly means to turn on their former masters. In any case, when Codex: Space Marines arrives in October, every other unit that utilises the same wargear – regardless of Faction – will get their weapon profiles upgraded accordingly.
Hell, the picture they used when describing the new Multi-Melta rules was a Leman Russ.
Is there any other billion dollar (actually 4 billion dollar...) company out there as hilariously bad at proofreading as GW? It boggles the mind that they still refuse to shell out for a decent proofreader or two.
alextroy wrote: Yes. They are putting the Killer in Hunter Killer Missile.
Yes, but why? S9 would have sufficed against the vast majority of heavy armour. S10 is only better against T9, which has mostly been priced out of the game, and T5. So is the best target for HK missiles now biker units? I mean, that's fine, I guess, but it seems an odd use for a one shot per game weapon.
Because GW still don't understand that the 8th/9th To Wound chart doesn't function the way they think it does, and are still under the impressive than single shot high-strength weapons are the best way to kill vehicles, rather than spamming mid-range, multi-shot, mid-S/dam guns?
Unit1126PLL wrote: Prediction: Oldmarine and "regular" warhammer factions will get the 1 shot multimelta.
Primaris marines and nuPrimaris units will get the 2 shot MM (or some other way to give melta two shots). That fits the data we've seen so far (the Necron multimelta clone only having one shot, now the oldmarine MM having one shot). Not sure about the Devastator MM entry, but I guess a 24" range heavy flamer is pretty cool??
They will balance Xenos/other factions by giving them units like Dire Fragons, that will be Fire Dragons but with ,T4, 3 wounds, and 2 shots each. They'll also have Wecron Norriers, who will be T5 with 3 wounds, and Wirefarriers who are 2 wounds with Strength 6 2 damage guns. They'll be 2ppm more expensive than their oldhammer counterparts.
You can still take your Fire Dragons, Necron Warriors, and Firewarriors if you want, of course. No one is stopping you. That'd just be rude of GW.
Sorry to burst your theory but GW already said these are imperium wide weapon changes. Why would old marines have 1 shot multi melta when even IG will have 2 shot?
Xenos will get whatever leftovers. NPC race. It's surprising even non-marine imperium gets weapon changes
Because GW still don't understand that the 8th/9th To Wound chart doesn't function the way they think it does, and are still under the impressive than single shot high-strength weapons are the best way to kill vehicles, rather than spamming mid-range, multi-shot, mid-S/dam guns?
TBF, they seem more concerned to nerf yeste- years boogyman aswell. it's as if they are 2 metas behind what is the issue, cue the nerf to hordes as if marines wouldn't have banished infantry heavy armies regardless.
Because GW still don't understand that the 8th/9th To Wound chart doesn't function the way they think it does, and are still under the impressive than single shot high-strength weapons are the best way to kill vehicles, rather than spamming mid-range, multi-shot, mid-S/dam guns?
TBF, they seem more concerned to nerf yeste- years boogyman aswell. it's as if they are 2 metas behind what is the issue, cue the nerf to hordes as if marines wouldn't have banished infantry heavy armies regardless.
Well, this is what you get when you play whack-a-mole with a shotgun
Because GW still don't understand that the 8th/9th To Wound chart doesn't function the way they think it does, and are still under the impressive than single shot high-strength weapons are the best way to kill vehicles, rather than spamming mid-range, multi-shot, mid-S/dam guns?
TBF, they seem more concerned to nerf yeste- years boogyman aswell. it's as if they are 2 metas behind what is the issue, cue the nerf to hordes as if marines wouldn't have banished infantry heavy armies regardless.
Well, this is what you get when you play whack-a-mole with a shotgun
If they'd play whack a mole with a shotgun they'd have blown up the whole systems paradigms, aka removed the core issue of hordes and overly effective mid strength high ap weaponry by finally fixing the bloody wound table......
They'd also react faster....
Not Online!!! wrote: TBF, they seem more concerned to nerf yeste- years boogyman aswell. it's as if they are 2 metas behind what is the issue, cue the nerf to hordes as if marines wouldn't have banished infantry heavy armies regardless.
This has always been the case. I remember when they "fixed" the Wraithlord, long after the combo of Wraithlord + original 3rd Ed assault rules had long since stopped being a problem.
GW wrote:Now, we know that LOTS of armies use these weapons, whether supplied by the Tech-Adepts of Mars or perhaps even “acquired” through less Imperium-friendly means to turn on their former masters. In any case, when Codex: Space Marines arrives in October, every other unit that utilises the same wargear – regardless of Faction – will get their weapon profiles upgraded accordingly.
Hell, the picture they used when describing the new Multi-Melta rules was a Leman Russ.
Shh, you act like these pesky facts ever stopped beating dead strawhorse. I wouldn't be surprised if in their imagination every intercessor had two multi-meltas, each with 6 shots, which is why they think SM are so OP
GW wrote:Now, we know that LOTS of armies use these weapons, whether supplied by the Tech-Adepts of Mars or perhaps even “acquired” through less Imperium-friendly means to turn on their former masters. In any case, when Codex: Space Marines arrives in October, every other unit that utilises the same wargear – regardless of Faction – will get their weapon profiles upgraded accordingly.
Hell, the picture they used when describing the new Multi-Melta rules was a Leman Russ.
Yeah, well, GW also said I could take all my Inquisition units without breaking detachment rules / battleforged.
We really can't make any solid assumption until we have the codex. Even then there might be errors (and usually are).
Although it's not a new datasheet, someone on reddit got their hands on our new repackaged Croissants noted the change in flight stands.
I'm kinda ambivalent about it for now. I guess aircraft flight stands will be more uniform with what we've seen from the Inceptors, Seraphim etc. but I am curious about the strength of the cross connection to the stem.
Mixzremixzd wrote: Although it's not a new datasheet, someone on reddit got their hands on our new repackaged Croissants noted the change in flight stands.
I'm kinda ambivalent about it for now. I guess aircraft flight stands will be more uniform with what we've seen from the Inceptors, Seraphim etc. but I am curious about the strength of the cross connection to the stem.
Oh ick that sucks. They're not quite as bad as the small flight stands but they're still pretty much ass and break at the slightest provocation, I've got one of those AOS turtles and it's already snapped off.
I'll trust warhammer community articles as far as I can throw them (which is not at all because they're internet data).
They've been documented as wrong about rules sources more than once. And not just like "well maybe they interpreted it badly" wrong, but like outright incorrect.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I'll trust warhammer community articles as far as I can throw them (which is not at all because they're internet data).
They've been documented as wrong about rules sources more than once. And not just like "well maybe they interpreted it badly" wrong, but like outright incorrect.
there's this thing called a printer though, and with the right folding technique you'd be able to throw them pretty far.
And it's way cheaper than throwing your phone or computer
alextroy wrote: Yes. They are putting the Killer in Hunter Killer Missile.
Yes, but why? S9 would have sufficed against the vast majority of heavy armour. S10 is only better against T9, which has mostly been priced out of the game, and T5. So is the best target for HK missiles now biker units? I mean, that's fine, I guess, but it seems an odd use for a one shot per game weapon.
Because it makes it better against light vehicles.
alextroy wrote: Yes. They are putting the Killer in Hunter Killer Missile.
Yes, but why? S9 would have sufficed against the vast majority of heavy armour. S10 is only better against T9, which has mostly been priced out of the game, and T5. So is the best target for HK missiles now biker units? I mean, that's fine, I guess, but it seems an odd use for a one shot per game weapon.
Because it makes it better against light vehicles.
Yeh I was gonna say... making something better against T9 is mostly useless, but it's also not the point. Making it better against T5 is actually a big deal. A bunch of expensive units are T5. Custodes are T5. So are DG, though they are hard to kill even with S10. A whole bunch of Eldar vehicles are T5.
Whether the weapon is worth taking, I wouldn't say. But S10 is not a waste.
alextroy wrote: Yes. They are putting the Killer in Hunter Killer Missile.
Yes, but why? S9 would have sufficed against the vast majority of heavy armour. S10 is only better against T9, which has mostly been priced out of the game, and T5. So is the best target for HK missiles now biker units? I mean, that's fine, I guess, but it seems an odd use for a one shot per game weapon.
Because it makes it better against light vehicles.
Yeh I was gonna say... making something better against T9 is mostly useless, but it's also not the point. Making it better against T5 is actually a big deal. A bunch of expensive units are T5. Custodes are T5. So are DG, though they are hard to kill even with S10. A whole bunch of Eldar vehicles are T5.
Whether the weapon is worth taking, I wouldn't say. But S10 is not a waste.
And all those units have an Invul that makes them not care or a FNP. They aren't good targets.
H.B.M.C. wrote: And I don't think they were thinking about Custodes or DG when they gave the HK S10.
They're thinking that High S = awesome vehicle killer!
Because they don't understand their own game.
Seems like a pretty reasonable guess, but then again, it would alsow explain why they think that wound roll modifiers are not that great, making votwl and transhuman way too cheap...
well either that or they expect people hate bikers and plague marines so they want to give something to utterly anahilate them..
I do not understand what would be so hard about just making it have a higher damage characteristic against vehicles/monsters. Surely that would be the easiest and most straightforward way to do things?
NinthMusketeer wrote: I do not understand what would be so hard about just making it have a higher damage characteristic against vehicles/monsters. Surely that would be the easiest and most straightforward way to do things?
As already pointed out, GW doesn't understand how even their own wounding chart works.
Seems like the leaks of the simplified datasheets have finally tapered out huh? Still waiting to see one from a faction that isn't necron or space marines. Or the full datasheets with the special rules and the like.
I don't think they were leaking datasheets. They were people posting them as they happened to get newly boxed stock.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I do not understand what would be so hard about just making it have a higher damage characteristic against vehicles/monsters. Surely that would be the easiest and most straightforward way to do things?
Nah man! Vehicles have really high toughness, so you need really high strength to beat that!!1
This is how GW thinks. This is why things like HK missiles go to S10 rather than getting a damage increase. This is why they're afraid of putting T9 (or higher) on things that should have it. If the To Wound chart remained as it was in 7th, this wouldn't be such a big issue.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: As already pointed out, GW doesn't understand how even their own wounding chart works.
Or more that they don't understand how their wounding chart creates the environment where mid-strength/high ROF/mid-damage weapons trump any kind of single shot/high S/high-but-swingy damage "anti-tank" weapons.
There's a poster over on B&C claiming to have seen the new Repulsive Executioner build sheet (no pics, so take with large amounts of ). Says the laser destructer is going to Dd3+3 and the super duper plasma gun is going to D2 on its standard profile.
cody.d. wrote: Seems like the leaks of the simplified datasheets have finally tapered out huh? Still waiting to see one from a faction that isn't necron or space marines. Or the full datasheets with the special rules and the like.
Well full datasheets will come with codex. Too early for that level leaks.
Or more that they don't understand how their wounding chart creates the environment where mid-strength/high ROF/mid-damage weapons trump any kind of single shot/high S/high-but-swingy damage "anti-tank" weapons.
Maybe that is what GW really wants. Not a balanced war game, not a fun game, but something where 10 years later you tell stories at the store how 10 grots killed a chaos lord in melee.
There is also a strange interaction between fluff and game rules. It is realy hard to balance cheap multi shot plasma style weapons and marines of any kind. Either plasma owns everything, and then marine players have a bad time playing a faction that seems less resilient then orc or IG, or marines are cheap super tanks that require anti tank weapons to blow up even a single one. I would rather see the game be more abstract, and maybe with different weapon stats for different type of targets infantry, tanks and titans. But I ain't no game designer, so who knows. Maybe GW really thinks that people don't play the game and take fun from painting a model for 100 hours. And that is suppose to be the fun thing about their games. And for games one should play kill team or warcry.
Or more that they don't understand how their wounding chart creates the environment where mid-strength/high ROF/mid-damage weapons trump any kind of single shot/high S/high-but-swingy damage "anti-tank" weapons.
Maybe that is what GW really wants. Not a balanced war game, not a fun game, but something where 10 years later you tell stories at the store how 10 grots killed a chaos lord in melee.
There is also a strange interaction between fluff and game rules. It is realy hard to balance cheap multi shot plasma style weapons and marines of any kind. Either plasma owns everything, and then marine players have a bad time playing a faction that seems less resilient then orc or IG, or marines are cheap super tanks that require anti tank weapons to blow up even a single one. I would rather see the game be more abstract, and maybe with different weapon stats for different type of targets infantry, tanks and titans. But I ain't no game designer, so who knows. Maybe GW really thinks that people don't play the game and take fun from painting a model for 100 hours. And that is suppose to be the fun thing about their games. And for games one should play kill team or warcry.
There is something to this. Its the crazy stuff that happened in games you remember >20 years later. I had a friend who had terrible luck with dice and I still remember killing his entire 1500 pt chaos marine army with one squad of 5 death wing terminators in 2nd edition!
I see absolutely no reason to think that the HKM was designed as a heavy-vehicle killer (obviously it isn't, it's a one-shot weapon that does D6 damage), and the people who are complaining out GW not making it one are just talking out of their asses.
Alcibiades wrote: I see absolutely no reason to think that the HKM was designed as a heavy-vehicle killer (obviously it isn't, it's a one-shot weapon that does D6 damage), and the people who are complaining out GW not making it one are just talking out of their asses.
What in-universe purpose would the HKM serve, then?
Alcibiades wrote: I see absolutely no reason to think that the HKM was designed as a heavy-vehicle killer (obviously it isn't, it's a one-shot weapon that does D6 damage), and the people who are complaining out GW not making it one are just talking out of their asses.
What in-universe purpose would the HKM serve, then?
Alcibiades wrote: I see absolutely no reason to think that the HKM was designed as a heavy-vehicle killer (obviously it isn't, it's a one-shot weapon that does D6 damage), and the people who are complaining out GW not making it one are just talking out of their asses.
What in-universe purpose would the HKM serve, then?
Gotta hurt Primaris with something.
So the Imperium purchased Hunter-Killer Missiles 10,000 years ago from their treaty-bound Mechanicum Forge Worlds to ... kill their own Marines that wouldn't be developed for another 10,000 years?
The HKM absolutey was an anti-vehicle weapon in past editions, both in the rules and the fluff. It didn't make the transition to vehicles having wounds because GW has a very bad grasp of their own game system and didn't realize that a single-shot, 1d6 damage weapon was not going to be a good vehicle killer if vehicles have 10+ wounds, no matter what strength or AP or bonus to hit they gave it.
Alcibiades wrote: I see absolutely no reason to think that the HKM was designed as a heavy-vehicle killer (obviously it isn't, it's a one-shot weapon that does D6 damage), and the people who are complaining out GW not making it one are just talking out of their asses.
What in-universe purpose would the HKM serve, then?
It's a cheap tack-on anti-tank weapon for units without anti-tank armament. It exists as a real-world shout-out to the ATGM launchers stuck onto light armoured vehicles during the Cold War (though the tanks tend to carry one instead of 4-6) to allow units to engage heavy armour quickly rather than needing to wait for the real tanks to show up.
Alcibiades wrote: I see absolutely no reason to think that the HKM was designed as a heavy-vehicle killer (obviously it isn't, it's a one-shot weapon that does D6 damage), and the people who are complaining out GW not making it one are just talking out of their asses.
What in-universe purpose would the HKM serve, then?
It's a cheap tack-on anti-tank weapon for units without anti-tank armament. It exists as a real-world shout-out to the ATGM launchers stuck onto light armoured vehicles during the Cold War (though the tanks tend to carry one instead of 4-6) to allow units to engage heavy armour quickly rather than needing to wait for the real tanks to show up.
But Alcibiades said it wasn't a vehicle killer, so I want to know what he thinks its purpose is.
(I know it is intended to be similar to the ATGMs mounted on BMP-1s and the like, but those ARE heavy vehicle killers. Alcibiades knows something we don't though, so I'd like to hear what he thinks they are. The other assumption is that GW's designers don't have a clue what they're doing, but he didn't seem to espouse that notion.)
Given that almost no weapon in the current edition can one-shot kill a tank, the hunter-killer missile has a perfectly fine anti-tank profile. Stop comparing real world effects to game play effects.
Alcibiades wrote: I see absolutely no reason to think that the HKM was designed as a heavy-vehicle killer (obviously it isn't, it's a one-shot weapon that does D6 damage), and the people who are complaining out GW not making it one are just talking out of their asses.
What in-universe purpose would the HKM serve, then?
It's a cheap tack-on anti-tank weapon for units without anti-tank armament. It exists as a real-world shout-out to the ATGM launchers stuck onto light armoured vehicles during the Cold War (though the tanks tend to carry one instead of 4-6) to allow units to engage heavy armour quickly rather than needing to wait for the real tanks to show up.
But Alcibiades said it wasn't a vehicle killer, so I want to know what he thinks its purpose is.
(I know it is intended to be similar to the ATGMs mounted on BMP-1s and the like, but those ARE heavy vehicle killers. Alcibiades knows something we don't though, so I'd like to hear what he thinks they are. The other assumption is that GW's designers don't have a clue what they're doing, but he didn't seem to espouse that notion.)
with the new and improved S9, feth primaris, and the ones that go to S10 feth plague marines ?
alextroy wrote: Given that almost no weapon in the current edition can one-shot kill a tank, the hunter-killer missile has a perfectly fine anti-tank profile. Stop comparing real world effects to game play effects.
Alcibiades wrote: I see absolutely no reason to think that the HKM was designed as a heavy-vehicle killer (obviously it isn't, it's a one-shot weapon that does D6 damage), and the people who are complaining out GW not making it one are just talking out of their asses.
What in-universe purpose would the HKM serve, then?
Gotta hurt Primaris with something.
So the Imperium purchased Hunter-Killer Missiles 10,000 years ago from their treaty-bound Mechanicum Forge Worlds to ... kill their own Marines that wouldn't be developed for another 10,000 years?
Remember, I asked about in-universe purpose.
Problem is most AT weapons only do 6 damage at most - I think they were always described as Krak Missiles - glanced through a few codexs and not a lot of description about them
NinthMusketeer wrote: I do not understand what would be so hard about just making it have a higher damage characteristic against vehicles/monsters. Surely that would be the easiest and most straightforward way to do things?
Yeah. I have been thinking about it a bit. Why not make something like a lascanon D3 or even D4, but if it has a vehicle or monster it does x3 dmg. We wouldn't need melta double tapping or those wierd moments where a anti meq weapon like plasma suddenly becoming the anti tank weapon of choice, on top of being the best anti light vehicle, anti character , anti elite infantry etc.
Maybe melta should do more damage then lascanon to a single target, but the lascanon gets wound over spill.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I do not understand what would be so hard about just making it have a higher damage characteristic against vehicles/monsters. Surely that would be the easiest and most straightforward way to do things?
Yeah. I have been thinking about it a bit. Why not make something like a lascanon D3 or even D4, but if it has a vehicle or monster it does x3 dmg. We wouldn't need melta double tapping or those wierd moments where a anti meq weapon like plasma suddenly becoming the anti tank weapon of choice, on top of being the best anti light vehicle, anti character , anti elite infantry etc.
Maybe melta should do more damage then lascanon to a single target, but the lascanon gets wound over spill.
Because an anti tank missile doesn't do less damage against a person.
Giving true AT weapons stuff like D3+3 damage is, imo, fine so long as they are priced correctly. Stuff like this is also why re-evaluating weapons and their profile isn't a bad thing (the bad thing was doing it to Marines first).
Many weapons haven't changed since the move to multi-damage weapons and many suffer from GW not really knowing what they were doing. All those D d6 weapons are way to unreliable to see real use.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Bit of a tangent but I could swear that the HK missile in 2nd edition would stick around if it missed. You'd roll every turn until it hit.
Because an anti tank missile doesn't do less damage against a person.
Giving true AT weapons stuff like D3+3 damage is, imo, fine so long as they are priced correctly. Stuff like this is also why re-evaluating weapons and their profile isn't a bad thing (the bad thing was doing it to Marines first).
Many weapons haven't changed since the move to multi-damage weapons and many suffer from GW not really knowing what they were doing. All those D d6 weapons are way to unreliable to see real use.
An anti tank projectile flys through a person, and kills one dude they don't suddenly turn around and go in for another go. An anti tank weapon should be an anti tank weapon, not an anti tank weapon , an anti infantry weapon, an anti flyer weapon, because in such a case the weapon should be give to every person and vehicle able to carry it. and in w40k it seems to go down to the number of shots, because it doesn't matter if the weapon does 2 or 3 dmg, if it has 8 shots instead of 4, it is going to be a better weapon in all cases.
I am not sure why the marine are a problem is mentioned though. Would you want the first 9th ed codex to not have changes that fit the 9th ed rules design? If it was not done, this would mean that marine players, who make up the majority of all players, would lag behind other factions as soon as they started getting their own books. This would end like 8th, or at least I think so, it would be an example of very bad design.
H.B.M.C. wrote: And for comparison's sake, the average armour pen of Lascannon in 2nd Ed was 19.5, and the HK was 22.5. So yes, it was a dedicated anti-tank weapon.
GW is trying to replicate this with S10 without realising that that's not what kills vehicles in 9th, and hasn't been since the start of 8th.
Wounding T8 on a 3+ is a start, but yes more damage and/or more AP would help. Then again, it's only 5 points right now and can be taken more than once, while the 2nd Ed. version costs 30 points and you could only take one in an army.
Because an anti tank missile doesn't do less damage against a person.
Giving true AT weapons stuff like D3+3 damage is, imo, fine so long as they are priced correctly. Stuff like this is also why re-evaluating weapons and their profile isn't a bad thing (the bad thing was doing it to Marines first).
Many weapons haven't changed since the move to multi-damage weapons and many suffer from GW not really knowing what they were doing. All those D d6 weapons are way to unreliable to see real use.
An anti tank projectile flys through a person, and kills one dude they don't suddenly turn around and go in for another go. An anti tank weapon should be an anti tank weapon, not an anti tank weapon , an anti infantry weapon, an anti flyer weapon, because in such a case the weapon should be give to every person and vehicle able to carry it. and in w40k it seems to go down to the number of shots, because it doesn't matter if the weapon does 2 or 3 dmg, if it has 8 shots instead of 4, it is going to be a better weapon in all cases.
I am not sure why the marine are a problem is mentioned though. Would you want the first 9th ed codex to not have changes that fit the 9th ed rules design? If it was not done, this would mean that marine players, who make up the majority of all players, would lag behind other factions as soon as they started getting their own books. This would end like 8th, or at least I think so, it would be an example of very bad design.
Agreed with the first part
If you boost a already powerful faction and make it even better as they are obviously doing with Marines then its a problem. Just look at the massive slab of cheese that is Eradicators.
For once they actually are boosting other Imperial armies but similar weapons in non Imperial armies will suffer massively in comparison.
We don't know if marines are boosted by the new codex or not. Individual units are boosted,but even then we don't know how expensive wargear will be.it still comes down to points efficiency,and that includes chapter tactics and stratagems, too.
As if GW would not buff their master race. Their whole point is to be the heroic guys Tim-12yo's can play and defeat the evil NPC races. Thus they need to be strong enough Tim-12yo's can win with them. Can't have them lose game.
tneva82 wrote: As if GW would not buff their master race. Their whole point is to be the heroic guys Tim-12yo's can play and defeat the evil NPC races. Thus they need to be strong enough Tim-12yo's can win with them. Can't have them lose game.
I really hope when a xenos book comes out and is top of the meta, you officially retire from posting this hyperbolic junk.
tneva82 wrote: As if GW would not buff their master race. Their whole point is to be the heroic guys Tim-12yo's can play and defeat the evil NPC races. Thus they need to be strong enough Tim-12yo's can win with them. Can't have them lose game.
I really hope when a xenos book comes out and is top of the meta, you officially retire from posting this hyperbolic junk.
Edgelords gonna edgelord. It's what the ignore button is for!
tneva82 wrote: As if GW would not buff their master race. Their whole point is to be the heroic guys Tim-12yo's can play and defeat the evil NPC races. Thus they need to be strong enough Tim-12yo's can win with them. Can't have them lose game.
I wonder where you were when marines where below average for half of the last edition.
tneva82 wrote: As if GW would not buff their master race. Their whole point is to be the heroic guys Tim-12yo's can play and defeat the evil NPC races. Thus they need to be strong enough Tim-12yo's can win with them. Can't have them lose game.
I wonder where you were when marines where below average for half of the last edition.
depends entirely if you count index era gulliman spam.. then that was waaaaayyy less than half the edition.
Sm needed a fix, especially the core statline old school marines , whilest the intercissors would've needed a bit of work aswell, what sm didn't need was a 2.0 dex with such systems in place.....
Unit1126PLL wrote: You know, if antitank weapons can't one-shot tanks, perhaps the problem is the amount of damage they do, rather than the strength.
GW: "Lascannons are anti-tank, how do we make the HKM more anti-tank like it used to be?"
Also GW: "I know, let's give it one better strength. That's how armor penetration works, right?"
Or, hear me out here, we classify vehicles seperatly and implement armor facings? Right? that way, we have positioning and angle of attack counting for something, and terrain would become even more important? Right?
Unit1126PLL wrote: You know, if antitank weapons can't one-shot tanks, perhaps the problem is the amount of damage they do, rather than the strength.
GW: "Lascannons are anti-tank, how do we make the HKM more anti-tank like it used to be?"
Also GW: "I know, let's give it one better strength. That's how armor penetration works, right?"
Or, hear me out here, we classify vehicles seperatly and implement armor facings? Right? that way, we have positioning and angle of attack counting for something, and terrain would become even more important? Right?
shhh you'll scare the kiddos, it's much easier to remember 30 different types of boltgun and 160 stratagems than it is to understand armor facing and *gasp* a second type of damage resolution in a wargame.
Unit1126PLL wrote: You know, if antitank weapons can't one-shot tanks, perhaps the problem is the amount of damage they do, rather than the strength.
GW: "Lascannons are anti-tank, how do we make the HKM more anti-tank like it used to be?"
Also GW: "I know, let's give it one better strength. That's how armor penetration works, right?"
Or, hear me out here, we classify vehicles seperatly and implement armor facings? Right? that way, we have positioning and angle of attack counting for something, and terrain would become even more important? Right?
shhh you'll scare the kiddos, it's much easier to remember 30 different types of boltgun and 160 stratagems than it is to understand armor facing and *gasp* a second type of damage resolution in a wargame.
tneva82 wrote: As if GW would not buff their master race. Their whole point is to be the heroic guys Tim-12yo's can play and defeat the evil NPC races. Thus they need to be strong enough Tim-12yo's can win with them. Can't have them lose game.
I wonder where you were when marines where below average for half of the last edition.
depends entirely if you count index era gulliman spam.. then that was waaaaayyy less than half the edition.
Sm needed a fix, especially the core statline old school marines , whilest the intercissors would've needed a bit of work aswell, what sm didn't need was a 2.0 dex with such systems in place.....
Marines needed 2.0,but they didn't need the Chapter supplements. Those turned them way beyond 11,and then after the hotfixes they were sitting at 11 to 12 still. 10 being the goal.
But prior to that and after gully was fixed,marines were below the curve. And it feels to me like that was a large part of 8th, at least close to 50%. Might check release dates later.
Might be skewed since I don't play UM and dont own a Gully,never played him myself.
Marines needed 2.0,but they didn't need the Chapter supplements.
My codex without the PA supplement is one of the worse codex of 8th ed. It is hard for me to judge the DA and 1ksons stuff in the book we share, as I don't play those armies, but I don't think the players of those armies were unhappy that they got extra rules.
shhh you'll scare the kiddos, it's much easier to remember 30 different types of boltgun and 160 stratagems than it is to understand armor facing and *gasp* a second type of damage resolution in a wargame.
Well it is. Because there is a whole planet of difference between learning an arbitrary rule or even a rule set, and have you and your opponent agree on something you both have opposit views on. One is at worse a 5-10 min checking in a rule book, the other can be months of hate and different friends of different people getting the blow back for what you or your opponent did durning a game. Anything that is a competition that requires an ad hoc agreement between two people is a simple way to create instant hell. And from reports and stories people tell it seemed to have been a very universal thing, not just limited to my part of the woods.
Not Online!!! wrote: Or, hear me out here, we classify vehicles seperatly and implement armor facings? Right? that way, we have positioning and angle of attack counting for something, and terrain would become even more important? Right?
Not as long as a vehicle in this kind of position receives zero benefits for cover and can fire all its guns, even the ones on the opposite side of the tank, without having to move.
Unit1126PLL wrote: You know, if antitank weapons can't one-shot tanks, perhaps the problem is the amount of damage they do, rather than the strength.
GW: "Lascannons are anti-tank, how do we make the HKM more anti-tank like it used to be?"
Also GW: "I know, let's give it one better strength. That's how armor penetration works, right?"
Or, hear me out here, we classify vehicles seperatly and implement armor facings? Right? that way, we have positioning and angle of attack counting for something, and terrain would become even more important? Right?
shhh you'll scare the kiddos, it's much easier to remember 30 different types of boltgun and 160 stratagems than it is to understand armor facing and *gasp* a second type of damage resolution in a wargame.
am i too old then? i am too old,
Nah. If you were really old, you'd remember that vehicles started with Toughness and wounds (well, 'Damage'), and the armor systems the cropped up to replace it kept getting replaced and revised (sometimes twice an edition) because they were just _that bad_.
The starting point for the Land Raider was T8, Damage 30, and a 5+ save.
Marines needed 2.0,but they didn't need the Chapter supplements.
My codex without the PA supplement is one of the worse codex of 8th ed. It is hard for me to judge the DA and 1ksons stuff in the book we share, as I don't play those armies, but I don't think the players of those armies were unhappy that they got extra rules.
shhh you'll scare the kiddos, it's much easier to remember 30 different types of boltgun and 160 stratagems than it is to understand armor facing and *gasp* a second type of damage resolution in a wargame.
Well it is. Because there is a whole planet of difference between learning an arbitrary rule or even a rule set, and have you and your opponent agree on something you both have opposit views on. One is at worse a 5-10 min checking in a rule book, the other can be months of hate and different friends of different people getting the blow back for what you or your opponent did durning a game. Anything that is a competition that requires an ad hoc agreement between two people is a simple way to create instant hell. And from reports and stories people tell it seemed to have been a very universal thing, not just limited to my part of the woods.
What? We're talking about the supplements, not psychic awakening.
Also what? Learning one more damage resolution is much simpler than learning by heart the difference between every single boltgun there is.
The whole arguing about facings was a real problem that was easily solved by being a decent human being. Worse case scenario you can just chose to not play a particular persone if the issue keeps coming up.
And in a normal relationship, "friends" don't hold grudges for months becasue of something that happened in a wargame.
Marines needed 2.0,but they didn't need the Chapter supplements.
My codex without the PA supplement is one of the worse codex of 8th ed. It is hard for me to judge the DA and 1ksons stuff in the book we share, as I don't play those armies, but I don't think the players of those armies were unhappy that they got extra rules.
I'm talking about Codex:Space Marines 2.0, and the Chapter Supplements for Iron Hands, Salamanders, Raven Guard, Imperial Fists, Ultramarines and White Scars. I have no idea what Codex YOU are talking about, or how that relates to me saying that Marines 2.0 was fine, and the Chapter Supplements fethed it up.
edit: "fine" is a relative term obviously, still had some issues probably, but it was in line with other upper tier factions.
And regarding the rest of your post: I think this was said to you multiple times, but you're apparently in an incredibly toxic community and you should really try to find a new one. This is not how local gaming communities work, generally speaking.
Alcibiades wrote: I see absolutely no reason to think that the HKM was designed as a heavy-vehicle killer...
Except that's exactly what it is meant to be, and always has been since it was first introduced in the Dark Millennium box from 2nd Ed.
I don't know what it said in 2E, but that's not what it says now.
It's been a one-shot krak missile for years and years; which is to say it has been an anti-light-vehicle weapon.
Where does it say that, though?
It says it's an anti-tank weapon. It has the profile of an anti-tank weapon. I would assume, based on that, that it is indeed an anti-tank weapon.
Just point me to the source you're basing this on, where it says that a HKM is only used to take down light vehicles or something similar.
Autocannons are what you use to take down light vehicles. The profiles are pretty different.
Not Online!!! wrote: Or, hear me out here, we classify vehicles seperatly and implement armor facings? Right? that way, we have positioning and angle of attack counting for something, and terrain would become even more important? Right?
Not as long as a vehicle in this kind of position receives zero benefits for cover and can fire all its guns, even the ones on the opposite side of the tank, without having to move.
That is a completely seperate issue, and anyone normally minded that comes from an edition with armor facings also comes from an edition were firing arks were a thing aswell.
And yes btw, my opinion on that one is as follows:
Or, hear me out here, we classify vehicles seperatly and implement armor facings? Right? that way, we have positioning and angle of attack counting for something, and terrain would become even more important? Right?
Which is great in theory. But led to vehicles being infinitely inferior to monsters in every single way for more points. Not to mention the arguments of which arc you are actually in.
Not as long as a vehicle in this kind of position receives zero benefits for cover and can fire all its guns, even the ones on the opposite side of the tank, without having to move.
I'm sorry if your suspension of disbelief allows for monsters or infantry to do just that, but not something powered by technology. Good news for you, vehicles no longer take penalties for moving and shooting. Now you can just imagine they drove out and took their shot, like you did with every other model that fired from its toes.
Frankly in a good game I'd expect all of the above, different armor depending on arc, firing arcs for different gun mountings, etc. But we're playing 40k, its not a good game. Its fun mind you, but it has gigantic warts. I think that given GW's rule writing capabilities. I'd stay away from asking for armor facings and gun arcs back. They were never able to get it right before.
Or, hear me out here, we classify vehicles seperatly and implement armor facings? Right? that way, we have positioning and angle of attack counting for something, and terrain would become even more important? Right?
Which is great in theory. But led to vehicles being infinitely inferior to monsters in every single way for more points. Not to mention the arguments of which arc you are actually in.
Not as long as a vehicle in this kind of position receives zero benefits for cover and can fire all its guns, even the ones on the opposite side of the tank, without having to move.
I'm sorry if your suspension of disbelief allows for monsters or infantry to do just that, but not something powered by technology. Good news for you, vehicles no longer take penalties for moving and shooting. Now you can just imagine they drove out and took their shot, like you did with every other model that fired from its toes.
Frankly in a good game I'd expect all of the above, different armor depending on arc, firing arcs for different gun mountings, etc. But we're playing 40k, its not a good game. Its fun mind you, but it has gigantic warts. I think that given GW's rule writing capabilities. I'd stay away from asking for armor facings and gun arcs back. They were never able to get it right before.
See, their sales models turned more and more torwards selling rules, might aswell hold them accountable for that.
But yeah, GW sucking at writing is an issue, but let's not pretend the system we have now is better for vehicles or monsters, it isn't. Especially contextualised with the wounding chart GW uses atm, which is utterly shoddy work. Not to mention that GW yet has to understand how To wound modifiers are a massive issue and values them massively to cheap, cue Votwl f.e.
The only important point I was trying to get across is that in previous editions facings and arcs were giant drawbacks that didn't come with discounts. I think the current system is better for vehicles in that one respect. But yeah GW hands out rules willy nilly and then don't understand why Iron Hands dominate the meta until its literally spelled out to them. Now that they have taken a bit of a nerf everyone is moving to the Chapter/Klan/Craftworld that lets you re-roll 1 hit and 1 wound and 1 damage with every unit, every turn. Because that doesn't significantly increase the effectiveness of your models over the course of a game. Agreed wound modifiers are an egregious example.
Or, hear me out here, we classify vehicles seperatly and implement armor facings? Right? that way, we have positioning and angle of attack counting for something, and terrain would become even more important? Right?
Which is great in theory. But led to vehicles being infinitely inferior to monsters in every single way for more points. Not to mention the arguments of which arc you are actually in.
Not as long as a vehicle in this kind of position receives zero benefits for cover and can fire all its guns, even the ones on the opposite side of the tank, without having to move.
I'm sorry if your suspension of disbelief allows for monsters or infantry to do just that, but not something powered by technology. Good news for you, vehicles no longer take penalties for moving and shooting. Now you can just imagine they drove out and took their shot, like you did with every other model that fired from its toes.
Frankly in a good game I'd expect all of the above, different armor depending on arc, firing arcs for different gun mountings, etc. But we're playing 40k, its not a good game. Its fun mind you, but it has gigantic warts. I think that given GW's rule writing capabilities. I'd stay away from asking for armor facings and gun arcs back. They were never able to get it right before.
Firing arcs are not 'good game design' they're 'simulationist' game design. In practice they're inherently doggak, especially in a game with vehicles that aren't square and vehicles that have some sort of sponson. You have to balance the tank around it's own fat butt so you either price it at what it does when it shoots directly in front of it, which makes it terrible in practice, or you price it at what it does when it only half of it can shoot, which makes it OP as balls when there;s something it can shoot in front of it.
A rebuttal to Erjak that almost certainly will be ignored:
1) simulationist design is why I am here. If you want boardgame mechanics get someone to 3D print tiny space marines for your next game of Risk. You could even turn the map upside down and call it "hive world whatever".
2) If you can't conceive of ways to write armor facings (such as a top-down datasheet view highlighted in different colors) that doesn't confuse you, don't assume the rest of us share your lack of spatial comprehension. I am able to pick up, say, a Wave Serpent and can identify which way it is pointing. To whine that you can't know where the sides are is just whining for whining's sake.
3) Other popular games that are far more balanced than 40k as it is (without armor facings) that possess gun arcs and armor facings. I suspect your inability to differentiate between "GW is bad" and "a rule is conceptually bad" affects your thinking.
Unit1126PLL wrote:A rebuttal to Erjak that almost certainly will be ignored:
1) simulationist design is why I am here. If you want boardgame mechanics get someone to 3D print tiny space marines for your next game of Risk. You could even turn the map upside down and call it "hive world whatever".
There's a world of difference between Risk and 40k being anything but simulationist.
2) If you can't conceive of ways to write armor facings (such as a top-down datasheet view highlighted in different colors) that doesn't confuse you, don't assume the rest of us share your lack of spatial comprehension. I am able to pick up, say, a Wave Serpent and can identify which way it is pointing. To whine that you can't know where the sides are is just whining for whining's sake.
Short of making the top down datasheet, it doesn't matter if *you* can identify the faces on a Wave Serpent if your opponent disagrees and thinks they're elsewhere. And when you reach the grey area where you can see both the front and side facings - what then?
And I'd be all for the top down "here's what the faces are", only that then starts to suck for people who like scratchbuilds or heavy conversions.
There's a world of difference, yes, but miniatures wargaming is more simulationist than miniatures boardgaming. That's exactly the difference. Praising a miniatures wargame for the absence of realism is like praising a miniatures boardgame for making you measure the degrees/second of tank turret traverse.
What do you mean what then? I let my opponent have his way, because arguing with someone is silly. The only time I would even worry about it is if he is clearly wrong, in which case I know he is just doing it to get an advantage, will express as much, and then slot his name in the "never play again" pile.
Everyone can tell which way a Wave Serpent is point. I have no idea where the front ends and the sides begin. I just never had to worry about it since it was 12/12/10 and the rear was rather obvious.
alextroy wrote: Everyone can tell which way a Wave Serpent is point. I have no idea where the front ends and the sides begin. I just never had to worry about it since it was 12/12/10 and the rear was rather obvious.
That's only true if you're shooting directly up it's arse.
Actually look at the thing and try to think about where the 'rear' is. The very back most part of the wave serpent is a rectangle, is it the rear if you're still shooting at the sides of that rectangle? Because if not that's like a 15 degree arc you'd have to be in to hit rear, which seems like an unfairly narrow target. If the sides ARE part of the rear, you'd have a 180 degree arc where you'd be hitting rear with the center point at the back of where the turret sits. Which seems way too big.Or is the 'rear' only the back parts of the flairs, which could create a situation where you have a model NOT in the rear that could move an inch either left OR right and now be in rear arc. Which seems silly. Everybody thinks they know where the back of a wave serpent is until it's the last model you opponent has on an objective and you have a meltagun kinda behind it...ish.
It's almost as if making vehicles that aren't perfect rectangles make it difficult to determine facing.
For a very simple quartered POV, I'd say extend the black lines that make up the V on the studio's Saim-Hann WS to form an X, and use that as a guideline.
I mean, given the Wave Serpent is on a base, and when measuring distances to models with a base we ignore the model and go base-to-base, I'd say add markings on the flight stand/base to cover the quarters, keep them lined up with where the vehicle is pointing, and whichever spot works out to be closest on the base is which quarter you're shooting at.
You'd still need LOS to the WS to make it an eligible target, but as long as that's the case, use the markings on the base to determine the arc you're shooting at.
Same principle covers other Eldar grav tanks, DE skimmers and Tau tanks, though not necessarily their Gundams.
I do like the alternative suggestion of the datasheet including a top-down view of the model with the arcs highlighted, though.
Just use the closest point of the model. If that is the back, it is the back, if that is the side it is the side. If it is the side of the back, it is the back, because it isn't the side of the tank.
If you don't know / can't decide where the armor is thinnest, what hope do your men have? And model positioning isn't absurd. In fact, I would argue it is crucial for tactics.
Edit:
And the top-down datasheet view with the arcs highlighted is just my suggestion. There are people smarter than me who have designed other games who can figure this stuff out. Just not GW.
Unit1126PLL wrote:There's a world of difference, yes, but miniatures wargaming is more simulationist than miniatures boardgaming. That's exactly the difference. Praising a miniatures wargame for the absence of realism is like praising a miniatures boardgame for making you measure the degrees/second of tank turret traverse.
I disagree - I don't think that wargaming needs angles to be counted as wargaming.
What do you mean what then? I let my opponent have his way, because arguing with someone is silly. The only time I would even worry about it is if he is clearly wrong, in which case I know he is just doing it to get an advantage, will express as much, and then slot his name in the "never play again" pile.
But that's the thing - what defines "clearly" wrong? It's imprecise - I'd rather a system that doesn't rely on imprecise "guesses" and just either does away with it, or makes it crystal clear.
Can *you* tell which direction a WS is pointing?
I can tell which way it's facing. But I can't promise that my guess on what the "front, side and back" start would be the same as yours. Which is my point.
Unit1126PLL wrote:Just use the closest point of the model. If that is the back, it is the back, if that is the side it is the side. If it is the side of the back, it is the back, because it isn't the side of the tank.
And what if we can't make up our minds if the closest point is indeed part of the back or front? You're acting like the issue isn't that we don't know what side is what.
Unit1126PLL wrote: A rebuttal to Erjak that almost certainly will be ignored:
1) simulationist design is why I am here. If you want boardgame mechanics get someone to 3D print tiny space marines for your next game of Risk. You could even turn the map upside down and call it "hive world whatever".
2) If you can't conceive of ways to write armor facings (such as a top-down datasheet view highlighted in different colors) that doesn't confuse you, don't assume the rest of us share your lack of spatial comprehension. I am able to pick up, say, a Wave Serpent and can identify which way it is pointing. To whine that you can't know where the sides are is just whining for whining's sake.
3) Other popular games that are far more balanced than 40k as it is (without armor facings) that possess gun arcs and armor facings. I suspect your inability to differentiate between "GW is bad" and "a rule is conceptually bad" affects your thinking.
1) Then you're in the wrong fething place. Even if the rules WERE simulationist, and they aren't and aren't intended to be; the 40k universe is a ridiculous, over the top, heavy metal album cover. In universe it wouldn't be weird at all for eldar vehicles for example to just be able to dodge half of your shots by dancing around your bullets because 40k is INSANE and it's rules make less sense compared to our current military than the actual game does. Sorry if you thought a warwalker was just a sherman tank or something but honestly that's a problem with your lack of imagination in regard to the scale 40k actually operates on.
2) I could, I just wouldn't because it's stupid. It never made decisions meaningful in game (do I immediately blow up your vehicle on a 3 or spend 3 turns running around to blow it up on a 2?) it's not actually tactical because the ranges of weapons means you can just sit in a corner with your butt to the board edge, it doesn't make any sense in universe, and it's a worthless waste of additional codex space to have technicolor schematics of the exact side and angles of penetration for a hundred different vehicles in a hundred different goofy shapes, that no one will agree on anyway. Which leads me to my final point, they've already tried that and it failed. They tried that gak with knights remember? People bitched about EVERY permutation of knight arcs that they put out because a shape like that leaves 'front' 'rear' and 'side' inherently somewhat subjective. EVERYONE hated the knight pictures they put out for one reason or another. And you would have a grand time picking where the back of a wave serpent is until the first time someone disagrees with you. Claiming it to be 'whining' won't get you of the discussion that there is legitimate ambiguity in regards to the exact 'front/middle/rear' of a wave serpent. All attempting to dismiss that outright will do is force you to be stubborn. Even if your interpretation was wrong.
3) And that works within the context of those games. X-wings entire shtick is firing arcs and that works great(even though it is ALSO conceptually not ideal because you're reducing 3 dimensional combat into a 2 dimensional space). It doesn't work in 40k and never has. They've tried multiple different permutations of firing arcs across 40k and 30k and not a single one of them has added anything meaningful to the game. It's not that I can't divorce 'gw bad' from a rule being 'conceptually bad' I just think rules you like are 'conceptually bad' as they apply to 40k. I think most of the things you appear to enjoy about wargaming in other games would be pointless faff in 40k and would add nothing except apparently goofy little color coded schematics.
The problem is, you keep trying to pretend like 40k is you reenacting Rommel's north african campaign rather than what it actually is and you get frustrated when it just continues on being 40k. I don't and have never seen any need to add any of the simulationist nonsense you've been pushing because you've never once been interested in applying 40k rules to 40k. You keep trying to make Wave Serpents and Doomsday arcs function like Sherman's and Panzers because that's what you're able to conceptualize. The fact that that's less realistic to the setting than them getting up and karate kicking things seems to pass you by.
Well, the speed freeks game has these paper-gubbins that you can hold to the buggies and warbikers to find out their firing arcs. This only works for oval bases though, so as long as there are models like wave serpents, doomsday arks or defilers in the game, I don't think that there is a good way to implement firing arcs when even in 9th these models are causing issues when measuring to them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Insectum7 wrote: a sponson cannot fire through the vehicle to the opposite side.
The taurox is clear evidence of this not being true
Insectum7 wrote:Even in the 40k universe a vehicle can have more armor on the front, and a sponson cannot fire through the vehicle to the opposite side.
Even in the 40k universe, a vehicle can move to get a better angle with it's various weaponry.
I'm sure a Space Marine's power armour is stronger at the front too, or a Hive Guard's carapace. Shall we put facings in for them?
Insectum7 wrote:Even in the 40k universe a vehicle can have more armor on the front, and a sponson cannot fire through the vehicle to the opposite side.
Even in the 40k universe, a vehicle can move to get a better angle with it's various weaponry.
I'm sure a Space Marine's power armour is stronger at the front too, or a Hive Guard's carapace. Shall we put facings in for them?
1) don't confuse my desire for 'simulationism' to be limited to our reality. I want the 40k universe to be simulated, not ours. But right now, even the Heavy Metal Album cover is done wrong, because in the 40k universe, tanks have facings and on the tabletop they do not.
2) they never tried it, and if people complained, it was likely about implementation than concept. Furthermore, I played for 5 editions against Eldar, in scheduled games and pickup games, and all 5 editions had armor facings. Unless you count "what facing am I in" "well, that guy is side but the rest of the squad is rear" "are you sure he isn't rear too?" "Yep" "fair enough" as an argument, I never really had an argument about it that lasted past a few sentence.
3) simply because you don't believe it is meaningful in earlier editions of 40k doesn't mean it wasn't. Furthermore, the fact that it can conceptually work for those games mean the problem is with GW's implementation, rather than with the concept.
And I want Wave Serpents and Doomsday Arks to function just like they would in the 41st millennium. And do you know what? In the insane madness of the 41st millennium, it is easier to penetrate the rear armor of a Leman Russ than the front armor.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for facings on littler units, that depends on game scale.
Time matters. If a turn is about six seconds (which is about right for a tank to fire a single shot) facing should matter for stuff that can't turn around in that time. Obviously, myself being a human, I can turn around in six seconds, so we need not give human models facings.
Insectum7 wrote:Even in the 40k universe a vehicle can have more armor on the front, and a sponson cannot fire through the vehicle to the opposite side.
Even in the 40k universe, a vehicle can move to get a better angle with it's various weaponry.
I'm sure a Space Marine's power armour is stronger at the front too, or a Hive Guard's carapace. Shall we put facings in for them?
It's very simple, you just chose a point to enforce a cutoff of the broad level abstractions in favor of increasing the importance of large model maneuvering.
Fun fact: 2nd ed had firing arcs on infantry. It also had defensive arcs for Terminators with Storm Shields.
Insectum7 wrote:Even in the 40k universe a vehicle can have more armor on the front, and a sponson cannot fire through the vehicle to the opposite side.
Even in the 40k universe, a vehicle can move to get a better angle with it's various weaponry.
I'm sure a Space Marine's power armour is stronger at the front too, or a Hive Guard's carapace. Shall we put facings in for them?
Oh and Bikers too!
Bikers were vehicles in 2nd, and thus could have armor facings.
JohnnyHell wrote: Facings are gone and aren’t coming back. What do they have to do with the thread topic?
Datasheets in the unit boxes would be a perfect place to outline unit facings!
See above: facings are gone and aren’t coming back. You’re looking for a Core Rules change we know hasn’t happened.
Yes, but I think you are trying to shut down discussion. I couldn't let Erjak's first ignorant post go unrebutted, and this is one of the few times my reply wasn't ignored. So engage I did, because getting Erjak to talk honestly about preferring board game to war game mechanics with me is difficult.
Jidmah wrote: Well, the speed freeks game has these paper-gubbins that you can hold to the buggies and warbikers to find out their firing arcs. This only works for oval bases though, so as long as there are models like wave serpents, doomsday arks or defilers in the game, I don't think that there is a good way to implement firing arcs when even in 9th these models are causing issues when measuring to them.
I'm curious, Jidmah - why are those models causing problems when measuring to them?
Wave Serpent and Doomsday Arc both have bases, going by the pictures on the GW webstore - as per Measuring Distances in the rulebook, you measure distances base-to-base, so can ignore the hull in their cases.
The Defiler I can see being a little messier, as it normally doesn't have a base - is it really that tricky to determine the closest point to the enemy from it?
Unit1126PLL wrote:1) don't confuse my desire for 'simulationism' to be limited to our reality. I want the 40k universe to be simulated, not ours. But right now, even the Heavy Metal Album cover is done wrong, because in the 40k universe, tanks have facings and on the tabletop they do not.
Everything has "facings". The question is "what are those facings" and "is it worth measuring these facings".
Space Marines have facings. Is it even worth measuring them? What about a Knight? A Dreadknight? A Dreadnought? A Carnifex?
2) they never tried it, and if people complained, it was likely about implementation than concept. Furthermore, I played for 5 editions against Eldar, in scheduled games and pickup games, and all 5 editions had armor facings. Unless you count "what facing am I in" "well, that guy is side but the rest of the squad is rear" "are you sure he isn't rear too?" "Yep" "fair enough" as an argument, I never really had an argument about it that lasted past a few sentence.
Whereas I remember ones like "cool, I'm going to shoot at that vehicle" "right, that's a 4 to pen." "err, no, that's side armour. That's a 6 to pen." "No, I'm shooting rear" and so on.
Which player is in the wrong? Sure, either player can turn around and say "fine, you get it", but the point remained that there wasn't a way to determine, and facing aren't as simple as you want them to be.
3) simply because you don't believe it is meaningful in earlier editions of 40k doesn't mean it wasn't.
And likewise, simply because you believe it was meaningful in earlier editions doesn't mean it was.
And I want Wave Serpents and Doomsday Arks to function just like they would in the 41st millennium. And do you know what? In the insane madness of the 41st millennium, it is easier to penetrate the rear armor of a Leman Russ than the front armor.
Cool, and I want to reflect that Terminators would be easier to penetrate from the rear than from the front, that Mark 3 power armour has more frontal durability than Mark 4, and the varying marks of lasguns as well as an overcharged lasgun being able to break open a Dreadnought's chassis.
Or, we can accept abstractions and say "well, your bolter wounded my Leman Russ. Guess you must have gotten a shot in at a weak spot" or "your lascannon failed to wound? Guess you must have hit the stronger armour plating". There's your representation.
As for facings on littler units, that depends on game scale.
Time matters. If a turn is about six seconds (which is about right for a tank to fire a single shot) facing should matter for stuff that can't turn around in that time. Obviously, myself being a human, I can turn around in six seconds, so we need not give human models facings.
I don't put much faith in the whole "six seconds" thing, given how it can allow Guardsmen to run faster than their guns can shoot, or how much realism we should ascribe to that.
Imagine thinking armor facings were any important when you simply used suicide melta or haywire or gauss or later on Grav to deal with vehicles to begin with LOL
H.B.M.C. wrote: And for comparison's sake, the average armour pen of Lascannon in 2nd Ed was 19.5, and the HK was 22.5. So yes, it was a dedicated anti-tank weapon.
GW is trying to replicate this with S10 without realising that that's not what kills vehicles in 9th, and hasn't been since the start of 8th.
Or they really just wanted to make it slightly better - especially when more T5 and T8 will hit the field without making it more expensive to field.
Just because GW didn't do what people expected them to do doesn't mean they don't understand what they did. Every comment is otherwise kind of circle-jerking to make themselves feel superior.
Jidmah wrote: Well, the speed freeks game has these paper-gubbins that you can hold to the buggies and warbikers to find out their firing arcs. This only works for oval bases though, so as long as there are models like wave serpents, doomsday arks or defilers in the game, I don't think that there is a good way to implement firing arcs when even in 9th these models are causing issues when measuring to them.
I'm curious, Jidmah - why are those models causing problems when measuring to them?
Wave Serpent and Doomsday Arc both have bases, going by the pictures on the GW webstore - as per Measuring Distances in the rulebook, you measure distances base-to-base, so can ignore the hull in their cases.
Both have rules that tell you to ignore their base (hovering/hover tank) and have fiddly bits that stick out from their main hull, the spikey bits on the serpent that are representing its shield and the doomsday ark has the gauss-flayer array on its sides. Properly measuring the distance to small things off the ground is fiddly at best, especially when a tenth of an inch matters. Worst case scenario is a player who hasn't glued or modified the flight stands, then touching one of them might even spin the model.
Removing those rules would make assaulting these models a nightmare instead. For the editions with facings, both are the ones who caused arguments on facings most often, among with the battlewagon and heldrake (both whose issues disappeared in 8th and 9th).
The Defiler I can see being a little messier, as it normally doesn't have a base - is it really that tricky to determine the closest point to the enemy from it?
Three problems - upward curved spikes protruding from kneecaps, the extremely long scourge weapon (might be closest when on the top floor of a ruin) and legs that can be moved during the game. Similar walkers like soul grinders or triarch stalkers have similar issues, but lack the problem with the weapon.
). Says the laser destructer is going to Dd3+3 and the super duper plasma gun is going to D2 on its standard profile.
