alextroy wrote: I will join you in praying to the Emperor that Acts of Faith are the Faction Ability of Adepta Sororitas. It can't be too hard to trim that rule down to fit on the two page spread with the rest of the detachment rules.
There's a good chance that on release there won't be any miracle mechanics. I'd be shocked if I had any 'Cabal' rules.
The damage profiles seem fairly similar. This means they haven’t really changed the way damage works. That they still want to make the game exciting and your decisions impactful. Which means one action means shovelling enemy units off the table to speed up the game.
Sisters are disproportionally impacted because the armour save is a degrading profile whilst toughness and wounds aren’t. Plus the game is scaled to kill marines. If somebody thinks it’s reasonable for an assault cannon to kill two marines well that’s half a Sisters squad. Points has never been balanced because there’s a refusal to make marines too high in points and an assumption Sisters are better than Guardsmen applying 3rd edition logic. It doesn’t account for bolters not being able to punch through low armour saves or that armour can be degraded or that most units damage output can remove a T3 squad.
Plus it’s an army built around special rules and they’re cutting a lot of them. They’re reliant on them because they can’t alter the profile since they’re humans. Can’t change the weapons as they’re standard Imperial guns and that means the only way to get more damage is to throw various army and special rules at them. A system focused on the basic unit profile, especially if things like Orks being T5 stay or they up Tyranids to compensate that’s going to put them in a bad place.
Previously that AssCan would kill 1.7 Sisters and now it kills 1.1 or a 35% reduction.
If your Sisters squad of 10 took 5 casualties in 9th you would fail your morale 50% of the time, lose a model, and lose 1-2 more after that. Now you will test and the unit will operate worse, but you won't lose models. Since marines are generally more durable is was difficult to get them to test and lose models to morale. Hell, if you lose 4 models in 9th you'd test with a good chance of additional casualties, but now you won't.
a_typical_hero wrote: "A Grot should be able to go against Mortarion in some form because the Grot is the leader of the Grot army" is such a weird take on the game.
And on the flipside of that, it's such a weird take on the game to feel that something should be entirely unable to do something because of a bad match-up.
That's where we used to be. Nobody's asking for Mabari to be able to one-shot Mortarion or whatever goofy argument you're putting forward here to strawman against.
Yeah, or whatever goofy argument I'm putting forward to strawman against.
Spoiler:
Breton wrote: I'm still curious why the Marine centerpiece model shouldn't be able to go toe-to-toe with the Daemon centerpiece model.
It seems you are unfamiliar with the definition of the word you accuse others to do, but don't let that get into your way of trying to one up others.
Then we need more categories for characters to fulfill and more diverse loadouts.
It's daft that people think Guard Commanders should just explode when engaged in combat, especially considering they insist on giving them "beatstick" loadouts or piddly peashooters like a boltgun on a T3 platform. Tau at least get the ability to load up on more specialized weapons on their Battlesuited Commanders.
Ah yes 50 pts hq should obviously be able to go toe to toe in cc vs 400pts hq or he's worthless.
People sure love today to show how bad players they are to need such op rules.
I'm saying the "top dog" of each army should (usually) be able to go toe to toe in some form with the "top dog" of any other army.
No you're not though, because if you were, you'd be saying that Primarchs can solo a GD (for Chapters that have them) or Chapter Masters (for chapters that don't have a Primarch). And if you were arguing that, you'd be getting less pushback.
The issue is that Captains are not actually the top dogs of a Chapter. They're close, but they aren't.
For what it's worth, I think it should be POSSIBLE for a Captain to solo a GD, but rare- like an any given Sunday kinda deal. I also think that when it happens, the Captain should walk away with lasting injuries. I know that if one of my Captains soloed a GD, I'd auto fail the recovery test and take a battle scar or even two, and I'd probably swap my Captain model out for one with a trophy and perhaps a shiny new bionic limb... Cuz that's how a narrative campaign player does it.
vipoid wrote: It seems a lot of HQs currently suffer from only being able to pick very lacklustre ranged weapons.
They want HQ's engaged in glorious heroic charges, leading from the front, and so on. This is why there are so many relic HTH weapons that people take, and so many relic pistols that everyone completely ignores.
I've always thought that expanding ranged options for characters was a no brainer. Why not a Terminator Captain with an Assault Cannon? A Cyclone? Is there a reason my Marine Captain can't have a heavy weapon? I've long wondered if the Captain of the 9th Company - the shootiest Company in a Marine Chapter! - could have some cool Combi-heavy bolter/lascannon thing.
Tau and Guard have ranged options, but it seems odd that basically everyone else is HTH all the time ('cept 'Nids who can do both for some reason).
Then we need more categories for characters to fulfill and more diverse loadouts.
It's daft that people think Guard Commanders should just explode when engaged in combat, especially considering they insist on giving them "beatstick" loadouts or piddly peashooters like a boltgun on a T3 platform. Tau at least get the ability to load up on more specialized weapons on their Battlesuited Commanders.
Ah yes 50 pts hq should obviously be able to go toe to toe in cc vs 400pts hq or he's worthless.
Ah yes HQ should obviously just be able to be shut out of entire phases of the game or they're useful.
Read. Better. I said that they shouldn't just explode when engaged in combat. ESPECIALLY because they get a beatstick loadout. It takes you going into the "One Per Detachment"(Commandants) characters to get Krieg(Marshal), Cadian(Castellan) players a genuine, non-Pistol ranged weapon on an HQ choice while Catachans have two on nameds(Harker with his Heavy Bolter and Straken with his Shotgun).
For whatever stupid reason though, the generic Command Squad gets the option as base.
People sure love today to show how bad players they are to need such op rules.
People sure love today to show how bad they are at reading comprehension or not arguing against strawmen they've concocted.
Daedalus81 wrote: Previously that AssCan would kill 1.7 Sisters and now it kills 1.1 or a 35% reduction.
Yeah I really don't see how anyone can look at the rules we've seen so far and not see the reduction in lethality.
I can see the reduction in lethality, and I know slightly more than two thirds of fifty percent of eff all about the modern game.
AP down across the board, damage down as well. That…..that reduces lethality, as everyone will be saving more often, and taking less wounds when the save is failed.
alextroy wrote: I will join you in praying to the Emperor that Acts of Faith are the Faction Ability of Adepta Sororitas. It can't be too hard to trim that rule down to fit on the two page spread with the rest of the detachment rules.
There's a good chance that on release there won't be any miracle mechanics. I'd be shocked if I had any 'Cabal' rules.
The damage profiles seem fairly similar. This means they haven’t really changed the way damage works. That they still want to make the game exciting and your decisions impactful. Which means one action means shovelling enemy units off the table to speed up the game.
Sisters are disproportionally impacted because the armour save is a degrading profile whilst toughness and wounds aren’t. Plus the game is scaled to kill marines. If somebody thinks it’s reasonable for an assault cannon to kill two marines well that’s half a Sisters squad. Points has never been balanced because there’s a refusal to make marines too high in points and an assumption Sisters are better than Guardsmen applying 3rd edition logic. It doesn’t account for bolters not being able to punch through low armour saves or that armour can be degraded or that most units damage output can remove a T3 squad.
Plus it’s an army built around special rules and they’re cutting a lot of them. They’re reliant on them because they can’t alter the profile since they’re humans. Can’t change the weapons as they’re standard Imperial guns and that means the only way to get more damage is to throw various army and special rules at them. A system focused on the basic unit profile, especially if things like Orks being T5 stay or they up Tyranids to compensate that’s going to put them in a bad place.
Previously that AssCan would kill 1.7 Sisters and now it kills 1.1 or a 35% reduction.
If your Sisters squad of 10 took 5 casualties in 9th you would fail your morale 50% of the time, lose a model, and lose 1-2 more after that. Now you will test and the unit will operate worse, but you won't lose models. Since marines are generally more durable is was difficult to get them to test and lose models to morale. Hell, if you lose 4 models in 9th you'd test with a good chance of additional casualties, but now you won't.
As a sisters player, I'm not hugely worried about it. It's a consideration armies like marines don't really need to keep in mind that we do, but we've been good as T3 models plenty of times before.
I especially enjoy that normally what they give us to balance it out is just a metric fethton of damage. Doesn't matter if your gun kill 4 sisters vs 1 marine, if that one remaining sister has the DPS to kill the other 4 marines, lol.
I'm saying the "top dog" of each army should (usually) be able to go toe to toe in some form with the "top dog" of any other army.
No you're not though, because if you were, you'd be saying that Primarchs can solo a GD (for Chapters that have them) or Chapter Masters (for chapters that don't have a Primarch). And if you were arguing that, you'd be getting less pushback.
The issue is that Captains are not actually the top dogs of a Chapter. They're close, but they aren't.
For what it's worth, I think it should be POSSIBLE for a Captain to solo a GD, but rare- like an any given Sunday kinda deal. I also think that when it happens, the Captain should walk away with lasting injuries. I know that if one of my Captains soloed a GD, I'd auto fail the recovery test and take a battle scar or even two, and I'd probably swap my Captain model out for one with a trophy and perhaps a shiny new bionic limb... Cuz that's how a narrative campaign player does it.
I had an SoB Canoness 1v1 a knight and win. That was fun.
Breton wrote: I'm saying the "top dog" of each army should (usually) be able to go toe to toe in some form with the "top dog" of any other army.
Do you really think a 50pt Company Commander ought to be able to take on your Captain just because he's also an HQ choice?
Also I'm not sure why you seem to think everyone telling you 'a Captain soloing a Bloodthirster is stupid' is actually saying 'only my army deserves a capable centerpiece', particularly when most of the people saying this don't even play daemons.
You have relic dreadnoughts. Hovertanks. Some of the strongest infantry in the game. An incredible array of potent weapons and ideal delivery platforms for them. Models stronger than a Captain, including Chapter Masters and Primarchs. Perhaps you can find some way to be content with merely having the most varied capabilities and most options of any army in the game, rather than complaining that your basic HQ choice can't also solo any model from any other army as well.
vipoid wrote: It seems a lot of HQs currently suffer from only being able to pick very lacklustre ranged weapons.
They want HQ's engaged in glorious heroic charges, leading from the front, and so on. This is why there are so many relic HTH weapons that people take, and so many relic pistols that everyone completely ignores.
Relic pistols get ignored because of opportunity cost. Other range weapons get used after all. Hell, the last list I played used the Dark Angels relic Storm Bolter with a Storm of Fire Captain.
If you had two tiers of relics where you got to use one of each, I'd argue that the pistols would get more use. After all, I don't think anyone would argue a Captain with Purgatorius and the Burning Blade is broken, or the Equis Pistol, Thunder Hammer, and Armor Indomitus is broken in any combo.
It simply requires more effort than GW is willing to put in.
I'd argue they get ignored due to lack of cost. If Relics cost points rather than one-size-fits-all command points (or 1 for free) then this would be less of an issue. Then the value of a Daemon Weapon or a Burning Blade or whatever wouldn't be "equal" to some dinky pistol you'll never use.
On that subject, I guess we can say goodbye to paid upgrades in 10th. So much for that mid-edition paradigm shift.
For Guard at least, a relic that affects your actual units like ROLC is always going to be better than a relic power sword, points cost or no. Because the platform you're putting it on isn't worth it.
Marines, playing a Space Wolves successor, I find that the relics you take tend to be upgrades to the character. Points costs might work better there.
I'd argue they get ignored due to lack of cost. If Relics cost points rather than one-size-fits-all command points (or 1 for free) then this would be less of an issue. Then the value of a Daemon Weapon or a Burning Blade or whatever wouldn't be "equal" to some dinky pistol you'll never use.
On that subject, I guess we can say goodbye to paid upgrades in 10th. So much for that mid-edition paradigm shift.
I don't think there's anything wrong with "free" Relics as long as there's different tiers. If Pistols and other lower Relics were on one and then bigger weapons and armors with better protection were on another, there's less worry of competition of slots. You're absolutely correct they're never going to be equal. However, nobody is gonna pay 5 points for the Purgatorius. HOWEVER if you can take it alongside maybe Teeth of Terra, maybe you'd forego Artificer Armor once in a while.
Free Relics and Warlord Traits also gives room for generic characters to compete vs named Characters but that's my view and an entirely different discussion.
RaptorusRex wrote: For Guard at least, a relic that affects your actual units like ROLC is always going to be better than a relic power sword, points cost or no. Because the platform you're putting it on isn't worth it.
Marines, playing a Space Wolves successor, I find that the relics you take tend to be upgrades to the character. Points costs might work better there.
For relic pistols or AM power swords you can add an Aura on top, so the question becomes do I take the thing that just buffs my other dudes or the one that buffs my character and buffs my dudes a little less.
RaptorusRex wrote: For Guard at least, a relic that affects your actual units like ROLC is always going to be better than a relic power sword, points cost or no. Because the platform you're putting it on isn't worth it.
Marines, playing a Space Wolves successor, I find that the relics you take tend to be upgrades to the character. Points costs might work better there.
For relic pistols or AM power swords you can add an Aura on top, so the question becomes do I take the thing that just buffs my other dudes or the one that buffs my character and buffs my dudes a little less.
Honestly for guard I'd just be happy with being able to put a non relic plasma gun or melta gun in the hands of the Company Commander. Its kind of silly that for basically decades the options for them has been to basically either take them with as little wargear as possible and a buffing relic, or kitting them out for melee of all things. The buff option at least makes sense, but kitting them in melee builds has always been of dubious benefit, as by the time the costs added up you were halfway to another infantry squad in some editions while bumping their weakness up slightly and not playing to any of their strengths (bonus points in that aside from say the Warrior Weapons option in 3.5 dex, I don't really think there was a way to get the rest of the squad to have increased melee ability through wargear etc.).
Giving the melee weapons a small buff to nearby units might be a neat tradeoff at least. Still, I think I'd like the commander just learn to hold a bigger weapon than a sidearm/bolter.
Sure, but that Dark Eldar isn't locked into carrying around 4 backpacks to fulfill a slot. Worth mentioning as well that in a Cadian Command Squad? Two of those slots are immediately locked into Medic and Vox.
At least they get character protection now.
I remember back in 7th when my Company Command Squad had the lifespan of a snowman in a microwave.
H.B.M.C. wrote: They want HQ's engaged in glorious heroic charges, leading from the front, and so on. This is why there are so many relic HTH weapons that people take, and so many relic pistols that everyone completely ignores.
I've always thought that expanding ranged options for characters was a no brainer. Why not a Terminator Captain with an Assault Cannon? A Cyclone? Is there a reason my Marine Captain can't have a heavy weapon? I've long wondered if the Captain of the 9th Company - the shootiest Company in a Marine Chapter! - could have some cool Combi-heavy bolter/lascannon thing.
Tau and Guard have ranged options, but it seems odd that basically everyone else is HTH all the time ('cept 'Nids who can do both for some reason).
Yeah, I've never really understood why HQs seem to get the arse end of ranged weapons.
I don't know if it's because (as you say) they think holding a sword is more dramatic or helps distinguish them more. However, one would think that could be solved by exploring magical technology like 'straps' or even 'holsters' (if they want to really emphasise the advanced future technology armies have access to). i.e. they could have a commander holding a sword and pistol, but then have a ranged weapon strapped to his back or at his feet (like he's just dropped it to draw his melee gear).
I'd argue they get ignored due to lack of cost. If Relics cost points rather than one-size-fits-all command points (or 1 for free) then this would be less of an issue. Then the value of a Daemon Weapon or a Burning Blade or whatever wouldn't be "equal" to some dinky pistol you'll never use.
On that subject, I guess we can say goodbye to paid upgrades in 10th. So much for that mid-edition paradigm shift.
Oh yeah, this is absolutely a factor, no doubt combined with the fact that you can only take a single relic.
I do, however, think there are a couple of other factors that make things even worse:
- Relic Melee Weapons tend to make already good weapons even better, whilst most relic pistols make bad weapons merely passable.
- Relic melee weapons scale with a character's stats, while relic pistols don't. A relic bolt pistol might get 3 shots, but a relic melee weapon is usually getting 5 or more, and can usually expect higher strength and damage on those attacks to boot. Not only that, but warlord traits and other buffs that boost a character's stats will benefit the melee weapon, whilst buffing the pistol tends to be a good deal harder.
It's a shame as I do like a lot of the relic pistols... they're just rarely worth a precious CP and your only relic slot.
The Company Commander's job is the lead, not to get the best weapon possible to leverage his Ballistic Skill. They carry melee weapons to lead by example and protect themselves during close combats that occur, not to be beatsticks.
alextroy wrote: The Company Commander's job is the lead, not to get the best weapon possible to leverage his Ballistic Skill.
Company Commander is gone. It's literally called the "Platoon Command Squad".
Cadian Command Squad just has a "Cadian Commander". The Castellan is its own thing. Nothing says you can't lead and leverage that Ballistic Skill. Or are you willing to admit that the reason for officers being so cheap is because they're finally fixing the bloated points cost given by that Ballistic Skill?
They carry melee weapons to lead by example and protect themselves during close combats that occur, not to be beatsticks.
Or they carry whatever weapons they want, given that most of the time they're veterans if they're officers.
We get this stuff all the time in Black Library novels for Guard. We see it all the time in the video game portrayals too. And this isn't even getting into some of the weirder, world-specific things like Kasrkin officers, Grenadier officers, etc.
Yeah, I've never really understood why HQs seem to get the arse end of ranged weapons.
I don't know if it's because (as you say) they think holding a sword is more dramatic or helps distinguish them more. However, one would think that could be solved by exploring magical technology like 'straps' or even 'holsters' (if they want to really emphasise the advanced future technology armies have access to). i.e. they could have a commander holding a sword and pistol, but then have a ranged weapon strapped to his back or at his feet (like he's just dropped it to draw his melee gear).
I chalked up as a historical thematic thing. Historically officers had swords as a symbol of office on the field, even in the World Wars. Even today officers are given a ceremonial sword, although I don't think they take it with them on deployment.
From a modeling perspective it's a lot easier to differentiate the officer if he's the only one with a sword. Personally though I'd rather they went the Roman route and give them a nice helmet or bit of armour.
alextroy wrote: The Company Commander's job is the lead, not to get the best weapon possible to leverage his Ballistic Skill.
Company Commander is gone. It's literally called the "Platoon Command Squad".
Cadian Command Squad just has a "Cadian Commander". The Castellan is its own thing.
Nothing says you can't lead and leverage that Ballistic Skill. Or are you willing to admit that the reason for officers being so cheap is because they're finally fixing the bloated points cost given by that Ballistic Skill?
Don't get pedantic on me. Be it a Company Commander, Platoon Commander Squad leader, or Castellan from 3rd to 9th edition, the model's job has never been to bring the best gun. It has been to lead. It's not like their points value has been too high because you can't give them Plasmaguns. The unit's value wouldn't really change if their BS became 6+ tomorrow. They bring the orders that make the rest of the army better. More leader models need to do things that make them better leaders rather than be the better combatants (ranged or melee) their faction has.
They carry melee weapons to lead by example and protect themselves during close combats that occur, not to be beatsticks.
Or they carry whatever weapons they want, given that most of the time they're veterans if they're officers.
We get this stuff all the time in Black Library novels for Guard. We see it all the time in the video game portrayals too. And this isn't even getting into some of the weirder, world-specific things like Kasrkin officers, Grenadier officers, etc.
Sometimes we do. Sometimes we don't. Should be have movie marines to match Uriel Ventris in his novels?
No. The background is full of extraordinary individuals that the game does not support. The game, especially now days, is centered around the models GW produces, for good or ill. Your officer doesn't get to run around with a Plasmagun because his model doesn't have a Plasmagun. It doesn't have a Plasmagun because the design studio's vision is IG leaders with a pistol in one hand, a sword in the other, looking imposing or saying charge!
alextroy wrote: The Company Commander's job is the lead, not to get the best weapon possible to leverage his Ballistic Skill. They carry melee weapons to lead by example and protect themselves during close combats that occur, not to be beatsticks.
You can say that about just about every hq in the game - their job is to lead. The point is that for most of the game's existence, most hq type units have been given dozens of options for bumping up their melee, while having very few options of adding to their ranged. I don't think anybody is asking for guard company commanders to get rapid fire lascannons here - just maybe the option to occasionally take a non-pistol ranged weapon instead of buffing up their melee from "bad" to "mediocre". The same really goes for space marine captains/chapter masters and the like - it would be interesting if instead of all melee options/relics you could instead give them something beyond a handgun.
I think very few people are asking for the ability of these units to break the game with dozens of shot reaching across the entire gameboard. It would just be neat to have well, the *option* to instead of taking a pistol/sword, say take a decent rifle.
alextroy wrote: Don't get pedantic on me. Be it a Company Commander, Platoon Commander Squad leader, or Castellan from 3rd to 9th edition, the model's job has never been to bring the best gun.
Company Commander was a solo HQ choice that issued 2 Orders/turn in 8E.
Platoon Commander was an Elite choice that issued 1 Order/turn in 8E.
The new book does away with the Company Commander entirely. You can insist that I'm just being pedantic, but they were two very different concepts in the previous book and you're being called out for misrepresenting what is actually present now.
It has been to lead. It's not like their points value has been too high because you can't give them Plasmaguns. The unit's value wouldn't really change if their BS became 6+ tomorrow.
A Cadian/Platoon Command Squad(issues 1 Order/turn) is 75pts.
A Castellan(which is 1/Detachment to issue 2 Orders/turn) is 50 pts and comes with no support squad.
Iron hand Straken is 75pts, also 2/turn and a Commandant as well meaning 1/Detachment--no support squad.
Ursula Creed is 80pts, 3/turn, and a Commandant--no support squad.
A Death Korps Marshal is 35pts, 2/turn, also Commandant w/ no support squad.
They bring the orders that make the rest of the army better.
Orders are a relatively new thing though. They coincided with the removal of the "Command Platoon" setup, which let the Officer be surrounded by Special Weapon Squads, Heavy Weapon Squads, and even in some editions a Sentinel Squad.
More leader models need to do things that make them better leaders rather than be the better combatants (ranged or melee) their faction has.
That's a problem for other leader models then? Not sure why you think that Guard should be punished from getting a bit more utility(with an appropriate cost adjustment) and flavor added to their hero choices just because everyone else needs to work on their shouting exercises.
Oh, and BTW? One. Order. Per. Turn. That's how many Orders the Command Squads issue. Just in case you forgot.
You have to get into named characters, Relics, Warlord Traits, or the 1 per Detachment levels of Officer to get 2/turn.
Sometimes we do. Sometimes we don't. Should be have movie marines to match Uriel Ventris in his novels?
We already do? I mean, that's why we saw things like:
Armour of Contempt, the additional Wounds, etc.
No. The background is full of extraordinary individuals that the game does not support. The game, especially now days, is centered around the models GW produces, for good or ill.
That's a lie. We literally could have Tempestor Primes/Tempestors with Hotshot Lasguns, Kasrkin Sergeants with Hotshot Lasguns(which are even an option in Kill Team!), Cadian Sergeants now can get Lasguns from the upgrade frame, etc.
All of that stuff is straight from the kit.
Your officer doesn't get to run around with a Plasmagun because his model doesn't have a Plasmagun. It doesn't have a Plasmagun because the design studio's vision is IG leaders with a pistol in one hand, a sword in the other, looking imposing or saying charge!
Spoiler:
For the record, these are 2 upcoming novels. One featuring a Cadian Officer standing behind Ursula Creed with a lasgun out, and the bottom most featuring a Lieutenant wielding a sniper rifle with a pair of snipers accompanying them.
The middle one(Traitor's Rock) features Lieutenant Minka Lesk with her lasgun, prior to her capture of the sabre that she gets as an option in the forthcoming kit.
All of these images have to be approved by GW licensing, which works with the Design Studio. There's also the image in my avatar, which is the cover art for "Kasrkin" which is a Kasrkin Captain(y'know...an Officer?) wielding his hellgun.
I'm not asking for much here. I just would like to see Guard get the option for a dedicated ranged fighty character.
alextroy wrote: Don't get pedantic on me. Be it a Company Commander, Platoon Commander Squad leader, or Castellan from 3rd to 9th edition, the model's job has never been to bring the best gun.
Company Commander was a solo HQ choice that issued 2 Orders/turn in 8E.
Platoon Commander was an Elite choice that issued 1 Order/turn in 8E.
The new book does away with the Company Commander entirely. You can insist that I'm just being pedantic, but they were two very different concepts in the previous book and you're being called out for misrepresenting what is actually present now.
It has been to lead. It's not like their points value has been too high because you can't give them Plasmaguns. The unit's value wouldn't really change if their BS became 6+ tomorrow.
A Cadian/Platoon Command Squad(issues 1 Order/turn) is 75pts.
A Castellan(which is 1/Detachment to issue 2 Orders/turn) is 50 pts and comes with no support squad.
Iron hand Straken is 75pts, also 2/turn and a Commandant as well meaning 1/Detachment--no support squad.
Ursula Creed is 80pts, 3/turn, and a Commandant--no support squad.
A Death Korps Marshal is 35pts, 2/turn, also Commandant w/ no support squad.
And your point is what? They lead. Some better than others. Some for different points than others. None of them have good enough weapons that you would actually care much if their BS changed to 6+ because you aren't taking them for their weapons. (Exclude the non-Officer models in the Command Squads, which is why they are more expensive than the one-model units. That squad can actually bring dangerous weapons with range.)
They bring the orders that make the rest of the army better.
Orders are a relatively new thing though. They coincided with the removal of the "Command Platoon" setup, which let the Officer be surrounded by Special Weapon Squads, Heavy Weapon Squads, and even in some editions a Sentinel Squad.
More leader models need to do things that make them better leaders rather than be the better combatants (ranged or melee) their faction has.
That's a problem for other leader models then? Not sure why you think that Guard should be punished from getting a bit more utility(with an appropriate cost adjustment) and flavor added to their hero choices just because everyone else needs to work on their shouting exercises.
Who's being punished? They are doing what they do, which is what they are supposed to do.
Oh, and BTW? One. Order. Per. Turn. That's how many Orders the Command Squads issue. Just in case you forgot.
You have to get into named characters, Relics, Warlord Traits, or the 1 per Detachment levels of Officer to get 2/turn.
Sometimes we do. Sometimes we don't. Should be have movie marines to match Uriel Ventris in his novels?
We already do? I mean, that's why we saw things like:
Armour of Contempt, the additional Wounds, etc.
No. The background is full of extraordinary individuals that the game does not support. The game, especially now days, is centered around the models GW produces, for good or ill.
That's a lie. We literally could have Tempestor Primes/Tempestors with Hotshot Lasguns, Kasrkin Sergeants with Hotshot Lasguns(which are even an option in Kill Team!), Cadian Sergeants now can get Lasguns from the upgrade frame, etc.
This is all nice. And none of it is particularly dangerous. Single Lasguns and Hotshot Lasguns don't to much in the game. I'm all fine with Squad leaders have the same gun as the rest of the squad. I just don't agree then need special and heavy weapons.
All of that stuff is straight from the kit.
Your officer doesn't get to run around with a Plasmagun because his model doesn't have a Plasmagun. It doesn't have a Plasmagun because the design studio's vision is IG leaders with a pistol in one hand, a sword in the other, looking imposing or saying charge!
Spoiler:
For the record, these are 2 upcoming novels. One featuring a Cadian Officer standing behind Ursula Creed with a lasgun out, and the bottom most featuring a Lieutenant wielding a sniper rifle with a pair of snipers accompanying them.
The middle one(Traitor's Rock) features Lieutenant Minka Lesk with her lasgun, prior to her capture of the sabre that she gets as an option in the forthcoming kit.
All of these images have to be approved by GW licensing, which works with the Design Studio. There's also the image in my avatar, which is the cover art for "Kasrkin" which is a Kasrkin Captain(y'know...an Officer?) wielding his hellgun.
I'm not asking for much here. I just would like to see Guard get the option for a dedicated ranged fighty character.
Nice pictures of extraordinary character. Interesting that the most dangerous items here are mundane weapons of lasguns, a hellion, and that special one with a Sniper Rifle.
But like a said, just because characters in novels break the rules doesn't mean you should expect GW to write their game rules that way. We all know they have been paring back options for the last 4 editions of the game.
alextroy wrote: The Company Commander's job is the lead, not to get the best weapon possible to leverage his Ballistic Skill. They carry melee weapons to lead by example and protect themselves during close combats that occur, not to be beatsticks.
And every Company Commander is the same? You can't think of any reason why a commander, from the multitude of worlds across the Imperium, would be more inclined to carry a big gun rather than a big stick?
alextroy wrote: The Company Commander's job is the lead, not to get the best weapon possible to leverage his Ballistic Skill. They carry melee weapons to lead by example and protect themselves during close combats that occur, not to be beatsticks.
And every Company Commander is the same? You can't think of any reason why a commander, from the multitude of worlds across the Imperium, would be more inclined to carry a big gun rather than a big stick?
I can think of many reasons. I also know that GW is leaning stronger into No Model, No Rules with every release. So I think this falls into the "that would be nice, but don't hold your breathe" category of wishlisting.
For HQs with guns, I'm just trying to recall some off the top of my head.
Tyranids get HQs with Venom Cannons, etc.
Eldar I'm not sure about, but at least in the past I think Autarchs could get Reaper Launchers or Shuriken Canons. Can an HQ mount a Shuriken Cannon on their Jetbike?
Tau had that (quad?) Fusion gun loadout, iirc. Their suits are obviously weapon-centric.
There's probably some more out there.
Marines used to get the option for a Conversion Beamer on a Techmarine HQ, I think that's long gone though.
While not a "gun", Tzeentch Sorcerors with Bolt of Change is pretty classic.
Insectum7 wrote: For HQs with guns, I'm just trying to recall some off the top of my head.
Tyranids get HQs with Venom Cannons, etc.
Eldar I'm not sure about, but at least in the past I think Autarchs could get Reaper Launchers or Shuriken Canons. Can an HQ mount a Shuriken Cannon on their Jetbike?
Tau had that (quad?) Fusion gun loadout, iirc. Their suits are obviously weapon-centric.
There's probably some more out there.
Marines used to get the option for a Conversion Beamer on a Techmarine HQ, I think that's long gone though.
While not a "gun", Tzeentch Sorcerors with Bolt of Change is pretty classic.
Primaris Captain and lieutenant can take either a Mastercrafted auto bolt rifle or a Mastercrafted stalker bolt rifle.
Gravis version takes a Mastercrafted heavy bolt rifle.
Lord of Virulence has a twin plague spewer.
Cadian Castellan can take a boltgun
Tank Commander has a tank.
Insectum7 wrote: For HQs with guns, I'm just trying to recall some off the top of my head.
Tyranids get HQs with Venom Cannons, etc.
Eldar I'm not sure about, but at least in the past I think Autarchs could get Reaper Launchers or Shuriken Canons. Can an HQ mount a Shuriken Cannon on their Jetbike?
Tau had that (quad?) Fusion gun loadout, iirc. Their suits are obviously weapon-centric.
There's probably some more out there.
Marines used to get the option for a Conversion Beamer on a Techmarine HQ, I think that's long gone though.
While not a "gun", Tzeentch Sorcerors with Bolt of Change is pretty classic.
Yes autarchs can take reaper launchers and fusion guns, and all jetbikes can take shuricannons or scatter lasers. Then there's the Poenix Lords many if whom actually have really good shooting weapons - asurmen has 24" assault6 and Jain zar has 12" assault6...
World eaters Daemon princes now have infernal cannons as standard.
Jackal alpha's have a sniper rifle
Brokyr iron masters have graviton rifles
Mega armour warbosses and meks have big shootas and mega blasters respectively (not to mention the shokk attack gun)
Necron overlords have their tachyon arrow or staff of light
I don’t see any reason Sisters of Battle will do better in an edition about removing their special rules.
1.7 to 1.1 using the base profile without knowing what army special rules they have, detachment abilities or the critical wound they reference which could be some kind of mortal wound mechanic versus infantry. These are modest changes to damage. So overall you’re in pretty much the same place. There’s probably still many special rules and strategies that give you minus 1 AP or auto wound etc etc
Plus every single edition damage inflates as the game progresses. So, once Marine Dex drops will be better because people will complain that they can’t table an opponent in 2 turns and that means their models aren’t doing anything. Were already starting in a similar place anyway.
They’ve never got the points system right. This is because they want armies to be roughly the same size. They don’t want marine armies being too small and they don’t want a balanced Guard army with tanks to be 200 models.
They don’t factor in that armour is a degrading profile whilst wounds and toughness aren’t. So an army built around having low wound, toughness and relying on armour disproportionally has a bad time of it and has to be used as a glass hammer. But because ohhh it’s power armour you’re ignoring 2/3 of damage it must be amazing that means Sister have to be over priced. Ohh bolters were great at killing light infantry when AP5 was a thing ten years ago but they’re still great at that anyway so let’s not factor that in.
Like they’re very close to making Orks 2 wounds as well as T5. That makes it likely they will boost tyranids up to compensate. So you have to boost Tau guns. Ah but we can’t really change Sisters because bolters are bolters and power armour is so good at mitigating damage. Those are premium items.
Again, it should be a trade out between taking those Repentia and Xephrim because one has armour and the other does not. In practice the armour is meaningless because damage is so high. So of course you end up taking low armour high damage units because if you take a hit you die anyway. That’s not how the army should function but it’s how the rules have been written.
An edition about removing special rules is really about removing mechanics to make Sisters units viable against T5 Orks, 2W marines and make up for them having Guard profiles. Just base stats won’t cut it if you don’t change the AP system to distinguish between cutting through flak armour and chipping away at Terminator armour. Only the worst guns in the game shouldn’t be able to cut through a 5 plus save but only the best guns should be able to reduce Terminator armour by 1 point.
Re characters woth close combat weapons. I think its because gw thinks duals/challenges are cool af and always wanted to encourage that. How that worked in practice varies.but its clearly the goal looking at rules and fluff
Dai wrote: Re characters woth close combat weapons. I think its because gw thinks duals/challenges are cool af and always wanted to encourage that. How that worked in practice varies.but its clearly the goal looking at rules and fluff
That would make sense if all "duelists" were equal.
Because as we all know, an ordinary human with a pointy stick can totally beat a 20 foot tall winged demon that looks like something straight out of Berserk.
Totalwar1402 wrote: I don’t see any reason Sisters of Battle will do better in an edition about removing their special rules.
1.7 to 1.1 using the base profile without knowing what army special rules they have, detachment abilities or the critical wound they reference which could be some kind of mortal wound mechanic versus infantry. These are modest changes to damage. So overall you’re in pretty much the same place. There’s probably still many special rules and strategies that give you minus 1 AP or auto wound etc etc
Plus every single edition damage inflates as the game progresses. So, once Marine Dex drops will be better because people will complain that they can’t table an opponent in 2 turns and that means their models aren’t doing anything. Were already starting in a similar place anyway.
They’ve never got the points system right. This is because they want armies to be roughly the same size. They don’t want marine armies being too small and they don’t want a balanced Guard army with tanks to be 200 models.
They don’t factor in that armour is a degrading profile whilst wounds and toughness aren’t. So an army built around having low wound, toughness and relying on armour disproportionally has a bad time of it and has to be used as a glass hammer. But because ohhh it’s power armour you’re ignoring 2/3 of damage it must be amazing that means Sister have to be over priced. Ohh bolters were great at killing light infantry when AP5 was a thing ten years ago but they’re still great at that anyway so let’s not factor that in.
Like they’re very close to making Orks 2 wounds as well as T5. That makes it likely they will boost tyranids up to compensate. So you have to boost Tau guns. Ah but we can’t really change Sisters because bolters are bolters and power armour is so good at mitigating damage. Those are premium items.
Again, it should be a trade out between taking those Repentia and Xephrim because one has armour and the other does not. In practice the armour is meaningless because damage is so high. So of course you end up taking low armour high damage units because if you take a hit you die anyway. That’s not how the army should function but it’s how the rules have been written.
An edition about removing special rules is really about removing mechanics to make Sisters units viable against T5 Orks, 2W marines and make up for them having Guard profiles. Just base stats won’t cut it if you don’t change the AP system to distinguish between cutting through flak armour and chipping away at Terminator armour. Only the worst guns in the game shouldn’t be able to cut through a 5 plus save but only the best guns should be able to reduce Terminator armour by 1 point.
It's probably a bit much to say a Sister has a 'guard profile'. And they didn't boost termagants - on top of their weapons getting nerfed...
One goal of this edition is to reduce lethality. Claiming they're going to bump it right out the gate? Seems dubious.
There aren't going to be many layered special rules. You get 2 page of which 1 will be the 6 strats. The article today is going to show us one.
Dai wrote: Re characters woth close combat weapons. I think its because gw thinks duals/challenges are cool af and always wanted to encourage that. How that worked in practice varies.but its clearly the goal looking at rules and fluff
That would make sense if all "duelists" were equal.
Because as we all know, an ordinary human with a pointy stick can totally beat a 20 foot tall winged demon that looks like something straight out of Berserk.
Haha well yeah, it harkens back to the metal album cover era. My personal take is a SM chapter master should be able to take on a bloodthirster and win on occasion, but it would seriously feth him up and lore wise be one for the annuls. Should that be possible in game? I think so but again I am a sucker for the metal album era.
I dont see the harm in allowing them to have a decent gun though, sure GW have modelled this in the past by having the main gun slung over the shoulder and cc stuff in hands. This sort of thing is ridiculously easy to convert to a good enough standard too. Nmnr strikes again!
Totalwar1402 wrote: I don’t see any reason Sisters of Battle will do better in an edition about removing their special rules.
1.7 to 1.1 using the base profile without knowing what army special rules they have, detachment abilities or the critical wound they reference which could be some kind of mortal wound mechanic versus infantry. These are modest changes to damage. So overall you’re in pretty much the same place. There’s probably still many special rules and strategies that give you minus 1 AP or auto wound etc etc
Plus every single edition damage inflates as the game progresses. So, once Marine Dex drops will be better because people will complain that they can’t table an opponent in 2 turns and that means their models aren’t doing anything. Were already starting in a similar place anyway.
They’ve never got the points system right. This is because they want armies to be roughly the same size. They don’t want marine armies being too small and they don’t want a balanced Guard army with tanks to be 200 models.
They don’t factor in that armour is a degrading profile whilst wounds and toughness aren’t. So an army built around having low wound, toughness and relying on armour disproportionally has a bad time of it and has to be used as a glass hammer. But because ohhh it’s power armour you’re ignoring 2/3 of damage it must be amazing that means Sister have to be over priced. Ohh bolters were great at killing light infantry when AP5 was a thing ten years ago but they’re still great at that anyway so let’s not factor that in.
Like they’re very close to making Orks 2 wounds as well as T5. That makes it likely they will boost tyranids up to compensate. So you have to boost Tau guns. Ah but we can’t really change Sisters because bolters are bolters and power armour is so good at mitigating damage. Those are premium items.
Again, it should be a trade out between taking those Repentia and Xephrim because one has armour and the other does not. In practice the armour is meaningless because damage is so high. So of course you end up taking low armour high damage units because if you take a hit you die anyway. That’s not how the army should function but it’s how the rules have been written.
An edition about removing special rules is really about removing mechanics to make Sisters units viable against T5 Orks, 2W marines and make up for them having Guard profiles. Just base stats won’t cut it if you don’t change the AP system to distinguish between cutting through flak armour and chipping away at Terminator armour. Only the worst guns in the game shouldn’t be able to cut through a 5 plus save but only the best guns should be able to reduce Terminator armour by 1 point.
Chill man.
We have seen all of 2.25 Datasheets as of now. We have seen almost no detachments yet since all we know is the Space Marine detachment is Gladius Strike Force and their Faction Ability is Oath of Moment that we know has something to do with targeting a unit. There is so much they can do to make Sister of Battle playable in a system that we know Intercessors seem to be pretty much as they are in 9th, Terminators are tougher but have less AP, and Termagants have less AP also.
info on faction rules, not read it yet, but here ya go.
ok, so some new info:
all the rules for a detachment MUST fit onto one double page spread. no detachment will have more than 6 strats, and the core strats set has been expanded to 12. they give an example of a strat as "armour of contempt", which is a -1AP mod on a single astartes unit. they mention a lot of strats from 9e have been embodied into units as abilites, though, with the logic they simplifying the play of game, not trying to make it "shallow".
the index rules will have a single detachment for each faction. the two examples named are the tyranid Invasion Fleet, and the space marine Gladius Task Force. Codexes will contain additional ones, but the intent is almost all army rules for a playable force should be within that two page spread, and different detachments are supposed to be sidegrades, not expansions. we will see if GW have the discipline to pull this off.
ALL relics and WLT are linked to specific detachments, and part of the customisable design space for those. I imagine some might be part of multiple detachments, though.
re rolls are "significantly" less common. Space marines get a faction ability "oaths of moment", that gives full re-rolls to hit AND wound vs one specifed unit per battle round, chosen by the marine player. the tryanid faction ability is all about manipulation of the new battleshock and morale rules. they mention going into detail on the tyranid rules "next month", so sometime in May.
these faction rules are separate to the detachment ones, but seem to be pretty minimal, at least so far, so shouldn't be too hard to just keep "in the head".
exploding 6s to hit is now codifed as "sustained hits", and "auto wounds on 6s to hit" is now codifed as "lethal hits". theirs a ability called "precision", but i didnt see what that did. Critical hits and critical wounds appear to defined terms for natural 6s, and lethal hits are automatically critical hits (ie a 6 to hit on unit with lethal hits can cascade and trigger abilities that key off a 6 to wound)
theirs a "cryptic" reference to characters "leading" units that they call attention to, and remarks that some enhancements improve the squads the character is in, so im guessing they are moving towards allowing characters to join units again.
It's probably a bit much to say a Sister has a 'guard profile'.
There aren't going to be many layered special rules. You get 2 page of which 1 will be the 6 strats. The article today is going to show us one.
Is it? They are much closer to Guard than to Space Marines without special rules.
Yes and i have to somewhat agree with Totalwar1402, the only reason Sisters ever worked since 8th Edition were always many layered special rules, which means GW would need to be all of a sudden far more competent than ever before without that let alone without any impactful Miracles mechanics
CthuluIsSpy wrote: The leading character hint is probably just them returning to pre-8th ed embedded characters.
Which is great, because the 8th and 9th ed characters were stupid and clunky as hell.
Absolutely not. Characters attached to units was one of the single worst aspects of 3rd-7th since all other did was encourage death stars moreso than 8th worst "death stars". On top of that, it's characters forgetting they're leading an army, not just that one single squad.
xerxeskingofking wrote: ... all the rules for a detachment MUST fit onto one double page spread...
Remember when the design process for AoS and 40k got all messed up because those in charge became obsessed with the idea of the core rules having to fit on 8 pages?
PenitentJake wrote: Yeah, I hated characters joining units- especially ones with different toughness and save characteristics- clumsy AF.
The allocation rules will determine how clumsy it will be. Majority toughness is no big deal and if you still need to allocate to the wounded unit then you're taking saves for that model rather than a unit wide average save.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: The leading character hint is probably just them returning to pre-8th ed embedded characters.
Which is great, because the 8th and 9th ed characters were stupid and clunky as hell.
Absolutely not. Characters attached to units was one of the single worst aspects of 3rd-7th since all other did was encourage death stars moreso than 8th worst "death stars". On top of that, it's characters forgetting they're leading an army, not just that one single squad.
Yeah, because it was so much better for characters to stand out in the open and no one was allowed to shoot them because that grot that was slightly closer was a much more pressing target. That 8th ed rule was dumb.
In 9th ed they sort of fixed it by making it so that the character must be within 3", but by that point he might as well join the unit and it was still clunky because they had to specify that the character had to be the closest model to be targeted.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PenitentJake wrote: Yeah, I hated characters joining units- especially ones with different toughness and save characteristics- clumsy AF.
Was fine in 4th ed. You just took everyone else around them as casualties.
It was only after 6th ed that it got convoluted, I think.
On the flip side it meant characters were squishier compared to now, iirc.
I think there's both positives and negatives to the character rules now and in pre 8th when they joined units but I do feel 8th/9th is a bit clunkier in general. One thing that always bothered me was when I would teleport in my Terminators with a Terminator character and then the unit makes their charge but the character doesn't, just leaving him stuck in the wind for reasons? I just hope that joining units doesn't mean they only effect that unit. If characters can join units to get rid of the clunky targeting rules we have now, but their aura and abilities still remain an area of effect I think we might get the best of both worlds.
all the rules for a detachment MUST fit onto one double page spread. no detachment will have more than 6 strats,
Yup, right up to whatever point that proves inconvenient for the new thing that needs selling....
(I'm betting around this time next year)
Oh, dont get me wrong, im pretty cynical about it as well, but im at least going to wait for them to get impatient before i moan about it. we've already seen this sort of thing with Armies of Renown basically doing these sorts of sidegrades, so its not beyond their ability, if they just apply some discipline.
Id imagine that many armies might have 6 or 7 detachments, of which 2 get played competitively as they are objectively "better", same as it is now.
Totalwar1402 wrote: I don’t see any reason Sisters of Battle will do better in an edition about removing their special rules.
Spoiler:
1.7 to 1.1 using the base profile without knowing what army special rules they have, detachment abilities or the critical wound they reference which could be some kind of mortal wound mechanic versus infantry. These are modest changes to damage. So overall you’re in pretty much the same place. There’s probably still many special rules and strategies that give you minus 1 AP or auto wound etc etc
Plus every single edition damage inflates as the game progresses. So, once Marine Dex drops will be better because people will complain that they can’t table an opponent in 2 turns and that means their models aren’t doing anything. Were already starting in a similar place anyway.
They’ve never got the points system right. This is because they want armies to be roughly the same size. They don’t want marine armies being too small and they don’t want a balanced Guard army with tanks to be 200 models.
They don’t factor in that armour is a degrading profile whilst wounds and toughness aren’t. So an army built around having low wound, toughness and relying on armour disproportionally has a bad time of it and has to be used as a glass hammer. But because ohhh it’s power armour you’re ignoring 2/3 of damage it must be amazing that means Sister have to be over priced. Ohh bolters were great at killing light infantry when AP5 was a thing ten years ago but they’re still great at that anyway so let’s not factor that in.
Like they’re very close to making Orks 2 wounds as well as T5. That makes it likely they will boost tyranids up to compensate. So you have to boost Tau guns. Ah but we can’t really change Sisters because bolters are bolters and power armour is so good at mitigating damage. Those are premium items.
Again, it should be a trade out between taking those Repentia and Xephrim because one has armour and the other does not. In practice the armour is meaningless because damage is so high. So of course you end up taking low armour high damage units because if you take a hit you die anyway. That’s not how the army should function but it’s how the rules have been written.
An edition about removing special rules is really about removing mechanics to make Sisters units viable against T5 Orks, 2W marines and make up for them having Guard profiles. Just base stats won’t cut it if you don’t change the AP system to distinguish between cutting through flak armour and chipping away at Terminator armour. Only the worst guns in the game shouldn’t be able to cut through a 5 plus save but only the best guns should be able to reduce Terminator armour by 1 point.
The reason is simple: Everything in the spoiler tag is blind speculation pulled mostly out of your own hind end.
I can do the same in the opposite direction:
Sisters are going to be beyond OP in this edition because their relative durability and damage output has been creeping steadily up for two editions now. Clearly they intend to keep Shield of Faith and are obviously going to expand it as an army wide 2++.
Additionally, Sisters units have been receiving increased damage output via stratagems and datasheet upgrades. Obviously repentia are going to be insane with Move 26" and 37 attacks per model, Anti-Everything 2+, Lethal hits, Sustained hits 8+, and AP-5 D11, but battle sisters going to T11 while also all being allowed to take a Thunderhammer and a Multimelta on each model for a total of 11ppm, a model that is ALSO OC Infinite, is going to be severely gamebreaking.
(Also, unrelated to anything else, if you look at those profiles and thought the advantage Zephyrim had was armor rather than speed, that's where a lot of your problems are.)
I wouldn't like chars joining units again, even if that Tyranid detachment practically says they do.
The issue was the possibility for characters to face tank hits for the rest of the squad, so you took cheap and hard chars and used them to protect dev squads and the like... which was dumb, why would you target the guy in front!!!
CthuluIsSpy wrote: The leading character hint is probably just them returning to pre-8th ed embedded characters.
Which is great, because the 8th and 9th ed characters were stupid and clunky as hell.
Absolutely not. Characters attached to units was one of the single worst aspects of 3rd-7th since all other did was encourage death stars moreso than 8th worst "death stars". On top of that, it's characters forgetting they're leading an army, not just that one single squad.
Yeah, because it was so much better for characters to stand out in the open and no one was allowed to shoot them because that grot that was slightly closer was a much more pressing target. That 8th ed rule was dumb.
In 9th ed they sort of fixed it by making it so that the character must be within 3", but by that point he might as well join the unit and it was still clunky because they had to specify that the character had to be the closest model to be targeted.
That could literally be fixed with a size stat to determine what blocks what.
Also your point on 9th's fix is terribly ironic as, if a character did not "join" the unit in 3rd-7th you could just shoot at it. Do you not understand why that's silly?
Spoletta wrote: I wouldn't like chars joining units again, even if that Tyranid detachment practically says they do.
The issue was the possibility for characters to face tank hits for the rest of the squad, so you took cheap and hard chars and used them to protect dev squads and the like... which was dumb, why would you target the guy in front!!!
The same could be said of all RPGs But yeah, that was silly. If he were big bloke sure, he can probably stop all of the bullets. But a normal sized guy? Is everyone just standing behind him in single file line? 6th ed really messed up the wound allocation rules, really. I remember them being pretty silly and convoluted.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: The leading character hint is probably just them returning to pre-8th ed embedded characters.
Which is great, because the 8th and 9th ed characters were stupid and clunky as hell.
Absolutely not. Characters attached to units was one of the single worst aspects of 3rd-7th since all other did was encourage death stars moreso than 8th worst "death stars". On top of that, it's characters forgetting they're leading an army, not just that one single squad.
Yeah, because it was so much better for characters to stand out in the open and no one was allowed to shoot them because that grot that was slightly closer was a much more pressing target. That 8th ed rule was dumb.
In 9th ed they sort of fixed it by making it so that the character must be within 3", but by that point he might as well join the unit and it was still clunky because they had to specify that the character had to be the closest model to be targeted.
That could literally be fixed with a size stat to determine what blocks what.
Also your point on 9th's fix is terribly ironic as, if a character did not "join" the unit in 3rd-7th you could just shoot at it. Do you not understand why that's silly?
No, why would be it silly to be able to shoot an exposed target that's in the open, especially if he's the commanding officer? If I can shoot a squad of grunts out in the open, I should be able to shoot a commander who's standing in the field of fire. They're both separate units, after all.
If you're going to have proximity target priority rules like what characters had in 8th ed it should apply to everyone, not just characters
xerxeskingofking wrote: ... all the rules for a detachment MUST fit onto one double page spread...
Remember when the design process for AoS and 40k got all messed up because those in charge became obsessed with the idea of the core rules having to fit on 8 pages?
It's happening again...
This simplified not simple corporate speak they got going on leads me to think they consider the biggest gripes against previous editions were rules all over the place. I mean that is annoying granted but really?
Spoletta wrote: I wouldn't like chars joining units again, even if that Tyranid detachment practically says they do.
The issue was the possibility for characters to face tank hits for the rest of the squad, so you took cheap and hard chars and used them to protect dev squads and the like... which was dumb, why would you target the guy in front!!!
That was when instant death was a thing and taking out a multi-wound character when you didn't double out their toughness on top of 'Look Out, Sir!' at the time made it fairly difficult.
Now if you point anti-tank at the unit and they opt to allocate to that character it will slow things down a bit, but they're going to die. It may even wind up a mental game again by putting small arms into the unit trying to bait out a wound onto the character allowing follow up shooting to go straight into them.
Spoletta wrote: I wouldn't like chars joining units again, even if that Tyranid detachment practically says they do.
The issue was the possibility for characters to face tank hits for the rest of the squad, so you took cheap and hard chars and used them to protect dev squads and the like... which was dumb, why would you target the guy in front!!!
That was when instant death was a thing and taking out a multi-wound character when you didn't double out their toughness on top of 'Look Out, Sir!' at the time made it fairly difficult.
Now if you point anti-tank at the unit and they opt to allocate to that character it will slow things down a bit, but they're going to die. It may even wind up a mental game again by putting small arms into the unit trying to bait out a wound onto the character allowing follow up shooting to go straight into them.
Eh, it depends. I remember Archons being pretty annoying with their 2+ invul saves, and I recall there being a time where rerollable invul saves were a thing.
Sure, there was instant death, but you still have to get through that invul first.
I do not recall it being that much of an issue in 4th ed though.
xerxeskingofking wrote: ... all the rules for a detachment MUST fit onto one double page spread...
Remember when the design process for AoS and 40k got all messed up because those in charge became obsessed with the idea of the core rules having to fit on 8 pages?
It's happening again...
This simplified not simple corporate speak they got going on leads me to think they consider the biggest gripes against previous editions were rules all over the place. I mean that is annoying granted but really?
9th is pretty obscene.
The 'simplified not simple' proved it's veracity with today's article. It looks like many of the mechanics we have in 9th are here to stay, but just codified and restrained.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I do not recall it being that much of an issue in 4th ed though.
Yea I don't think it really came into popularity until 6th / 7th with all the upgrades and spells that could stack.
Daedalus81 wrote: The allocation rules will determine how clumsy it will be. Majority toughness is no big deal and if you still need to allocate to the wounded unit then you're taking saves for that model rather than a unit wide average save.
Honestly I don't understand why it created such consternation in the first place.
When it was all the same toughness, you applied wounding hits at 1 per model until everyone had at least one hit on them before looping around. When there were different toughnesses you just did the same, but with hits, then rolled to wound.
Why it became "Every hit piles on the first guy you pick until he dies, then you move onto the next guy!" I will never know.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: The leading character hint is probably just them returning to pre-8th ed embedded characters.
Which is great, because the 8th and 9th ed characters were stupid and clunky as hell.
Absolutely not. Characters attached to units was one of the single worst aspects of 3rd-7th since all other did was encourage death stars moreso than 8th worst "death stars". On top of that, it's characters forgetting they're leading an army, not just that one single squad.
The mission design of 9th Ed makes deathstars a lot less valuable than other editions.
Sure, you can pile all your characters into a star unit and then pump them up with all your relics and WLTs and stratagems to make them as powerful as possible. You could do this in 9th just fine, since characters weren't targetable as long as they stayed in the middle of a friendly unit.
But it's not a game-winning strategy if the opponent can pick apart the remainder of your army and take the three or four objectives your deathstar can't hold.
I feel that the choice of words of 'lead squads' instead of 'join squads' is significant. Maybe there are abilities which a character grants a squad they are near, instead of actually joining. Like Aura abilities being like 1", instead of 6".
jaredb wrote: I feel that the choice of words of 'lead squads' instead of 'join squads' is significant. Maybe there are abilities which a character grants a squad they are near, instead of actually joining. Like Aura abilities being like 1", instead of 6".
That's a significant distinction. It could also be poor wording on the part of GW. My big concern is that I still think there are too many variables for GW to manage and balance. We'll see how it pans out.
I'm really hoping we're not going back to deathstars. Time will tell.
The army abilities are concerning to me. I could see this easily causing a large imbalance in the game if GW isn't careful. If they get too "fluffy" with these abilities.... I think it could be bad.
jaredb wrote: I feel that the choice of words of 'lead squads' instead of 'join squads' is significant. Maybe there are abilities which a character grants a squad they are near, instead of actually joining. Like Aura abilities being like 1", instead of 6".
The fact that nids get a rule called "Precise" when critically hitting character units practically says that characters are inside units.
It all comes down to character design. If you can't stuff multiple characters in a unit and their abilities only affect the unit they're in then you have to make some hard choices instead of having a collection of characters just flinging buffs.
jaredb wrote: I feel that the choice of words of 'lead squads' instead of 'join squads' is significant. Maybe there are abilities which a character grants a squad they are near, instead of actually joining. Like Aura abilities being like 1", instead of 6".
The fact that nids get a rule called "Precise" when critically hitting character units practically says that characters are inside units.
Or it could just be a USR for the 'ignore Look Out Sir' rule.
I wouldn't be opposed to them turning aura abilities into 'affects a single unit within 2"' and otherwise keeping how characters work the same as 9th, rather than actually joining units. Six of one, half dozen of the other as far as tabletop effect is concerned.
jaredb wrote: I feel that the choice of words of 'lead squads' instead of 'join squads' is significant. Maybe there are abilities which a character grants a squad they are near, instead of actually joining. Like Aura abilities being like 1", instead of 6".
The fact that nids get a rule called "Precise" when critically hitting character units practically says that characters are inside units.
I mean, there's a lot of different wibbly ways this could go.
We would have to know what the [ Precision ] keyword does.It might let them bypass Cover Saves, ignore negative Hit modifiers(since it counts Critical Hits--which we already know are rolls of natural 6s-- as those Precision Hits), or even things which might negate Critical Hits(IE: a "critical defense" trait).
Personal guess is that the "unit" part after Character is simply to note the Character element is what triggers that trait.
jaredb wrote: I feel that the choice of words of 'lead squads' instead of 'join squads' is significant. Maybe there are abilities which a character grants a squad they are near, instead of actually joining. Like Aura abilities being like 1", instead of 6".
The fact that nids get a rule called "Precise" when critically hitting character units practically says that characters are inside units.
I mean, there's a lot of different wibbly ways this could go.
We would have to know what the [ Precision ] keyword does.It might let them bypass Cover Saves, ignore negative Hit modifiers(since it counts Critical Hits--which we already know are rolls of natural 6s-- as those Precision Hits), or even things which might negate Critical Hits(IE: a "critical defense" trait).
Personal guess is that the "unit" part after Character is simply to note the Character element is what triggers that trait.
Daedalus81 wrote: The allocation rules will determine how clumsy it will be. Majority toughness is no big deal and if you still need to allocate to the wounded unit then you're taking saves for that model rather than a unit wide average save.
Honestly I don't understand why it created such consternation in the first place.
When it was all the same toughness, you applied wounding hits at 1 per model until everyone had at least one hit on them before looping around. When there were different toughnesses you just did the same, but with hits, then rolled to wound.
Why it became "Every hit piles on the first guy you pick until he dies, then you move onto the next guy!" I will never know.
Two Words: Nob Bikers.
I too remember back in the day where hits were divided over the unit by like models (name and equipment) and those models then saved together. Then Nob Bikers rolled into town with every model is equipped differently and had multiple Wounds. The unit could lose half its wounds without losing a single model!
Better might be going back to 4th where all wounds were saved by the unit with models removed by the owner, except for every multiple Wounds of the unit size (unit of 5 models take 5/10/15... Wounds) the attacker could say, "make that model take a save". If the model failed its save, it took the wound and often died since it only had one. Made it so that the Squad Leader, Special Weapon, and Heavy Weapon were not always the last three models remaining in the 10 model unit.
jaredb wrote:I feel that the choice of words of 'lead squads' instead of 'join squads' is significant. Maybe there are abilities which a character grants a squad they are near, instead of actually joining. Like Aura abilities being like 1", instead of 6".
Could be a little of both.
If a character has to lead a unit, maybe only one character can be added to a unit. When that character is leading a unit, it provides that unit a bonus.
This doesn't stop a character from having either aura or directed abilities that impact units it is not leading.
Spoletta wrote:
jaredb wrote: I feel that the choice of words of 'lead squads' instead of 'join squads' is significant. Maybe there are abilities which a character grants a squad they are near, instead of actually joining. Like Aura abilities being like 1", instead of 6".
The fact that nids get a rule called "Precise" when critically hitting character units practically says that characters are inside units.
I wonder if Precise may be a way of targeting characters while they lead a unit or models within a unit? Wouldn't it be awesome if Sniper Rifles had a chance to Snipe?
jaredb wrote: I feel that the choice of words of 'lead squads' instead of 'join squads' is significant. Maybe there are abilities which a character grants a squad they are near, instead of actually joining. Like Aura abilities being like 1", instead of 6".
The fact that nids get a rule called "Precise" when critically hitting character units practically says that characters are inside units.
I mean, there's a lot of different wibbly ways this could go.
We would have to know what the [ Precision ] keyword does.It might let them bypass Cover Saves, ignore negative Hit modifiers(since it counts Critical Hits--which we already know are rolls of natural 6s-- as those Precision Hits), or even things which might negate Critical Hits(IE: a "critical defense" trait).
Personal guess is that the "unit" part after Character is simply to note the Character element is what triggers that trait.
We know that it is an anti character rule.
I understand this. That is why I made the "personal guess" that I did.
Here's the specific element from GW:
Spoiler:
It does not say "an enemy unit containing a character".
It says "an enemy Character unit".
It's entirely possible that they're implementing a Middle Earth/Warmahordes styled "warband" system where a character gets to "lead" X amount of units.
jaredb wrote: I feel that the choice of words of 'lead squads' instead of 'join squads' is significant. Maybe there are abilities which a character grants a squad they are near, instead of actually joining. Like Aura abilities being like 1", instead of 6".
The fact that nids get a rule called "Precise" when critically hitting character units practically says that characters are inside units.
I mean, there's a lot of different wibbly ways this could go.
We would have to know what the [ Precision ] keyword does.It might let them bypass Cover Saves, ignore negative Hit modifiers(since it counts Critical Hits--which we already know are rolls of natural 6s-- as those Precision Hits), or even things which might negate Critical Hits(IE: a "critical defense" trait).
Personal guess is that the "unit" part after Character is simply to note the Character element is what triggers that trait.
We know that it is an anti character rule.
I understand this. That is why I made the "personal guess" that I did.
Here's the specific element from GW:
Spoiler:
It does not say "an enemy unit containing a character".
It says "an enemy Character unit".
It's entirely possible that they're implementing a Middle Earth/Warmahordes styled "warband" system where a character gets to "lead" X amount of units.
Ah, good catch on the wording. Yeah, it definitely reads like Characters are still separate to units.
Daedalus81 wrote: The allocation rules will determine how clumsy it will be. Majority toughness is no big deal and if you still need to allocate to the wounded unit then you're taking saves for that model rather than a unit wide average save.
Honestly I don't understand why it created such consternation in the first place.
When it was all the same toughness, you applied wounding hits at 1 per model until everyone had at least one hit on them before looping around. When there were different toughnesses you just did the same, but with hits, then rolled to wound.
Why it became "Every hit piles on the first guy you pick until he dies, then you move onto the next guy!" I will never know.
Two Words: Nob Bikers.
I too remember back in the day where hits were divided over the unit by like models (name and equipment) and those models then saved together. Then Nob Bikers rolled into town with every model is equipped differently and had multiple Wounds. The unit could lose half its wounds without losing a single model!
Yah. That was incredibly dumb, and one of the major problems with 5th edition.
Captain
Unit size 1 model
Unit cost 85 pts
• Jump pack+25 pts
• Thunder hammer +10 pts
That's copy/pasted directly from the Munitorum Field Manual for this year.
I just feel like it would be incredibly weird for them to have brought back Guard Command Squads as a thing if they were just going to throw the ability to join a unit back into the mix.
Daedalus81 wrote: The allocation rules will determine how clumsy it will be. Majority toughness is no big deal and if you still need to allocate to the wounded unit then you're taking saves for that model rather than a unit wide average save.
Honestly I don't understand why it created such consternation in the first place.
When it was all the same toughness, you applied wounding hits at 1 per model until everyone had at least one hit on them before looping around. When there were different toughnesses you just did the same, but with hits, then rolled to wound.
Why it became "Every hit piles on the first guy you pick until he dies, then you move onto the next guy!" I will never know.
Well imagine say 3 wound unit. Every model takes 1-2 wounds. Then you start actually losing models.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: The leading character hint is probably just them returning to pre-8th ed embedded characters.
Which is great, because the 8th and 9th ed characters were stupid and clunky as hell.
Absolutely not. Characters attached to units was one of the single worst aspects of 3rd-7th since all other did was encourage death stars moreso than 8th worst "death stars". On top of that, it's characters forgetting they're leading an army, not just that one single squad.
Characters joining squads wasn't inherently a problem, and I'd argue most incarnations of that worked just fine. The problems arose when GW started getting really loosey-goosey with special rules, universal or otherwise, and their application to joined units. That's where the deathstars came from. Not playing major deathstar factions myself, I don't recall the major problematic interactions, but I know I had access to a Terminator Captain with Relentless, and for some reason they decided he could give Relentless to any unit he joined, which was asinine. Sure, my Captain joins my Devastators, and suddenly they can walk and shoot, no problem!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: I still don't know why 5th changed 4th's wound allocation system.
And then, was it 6th where the model in front took the wounds? So you had some tank character up front shrugging off wounds for the whole squad? That was ***t too.
Given the context of Hive Predators, I can't see it being an ability that is normally triggered by a Critical Hit nor apply only to Characters. If that was the case, it would just be granted to units rather than being granted upon a Critical Hit. This strongly implies that it is an ability that is useful for a Character unit that isn't just a single Character model.
Currently, a unit is considered to have all the keywords of all the models within it, so a Character unit can easily be a unit that includes one or more Character models. Perhaps leads is the new rules terminology for characters joining units, one you would hope informs the other rules around leading. We have certainly seen a number of character models in otherwise non-character units in the last few codexes (Cadian/Platoon Command Squad, Dark Commune).
My conjecture is it is a rule that allows you to single out a model within a unit to be hit from an attack, although it could only apply to character models leading a unit and Hive Predators is just limiting the impact of giving all attacks the rule by requiring a Critical Hit first.
It was just rules stacking. Take a unit with say 8-10 characters (half of which are psykers) plus some other stuff. Give it invisibility so it can only be hit on 6s (and not targeted at all with templates). Give it FNP from Endurance (I think?). Stack in Ravenwing with their buffs so you have rerollable 2++ jink save. Chaplain or something in there so the whole unit rerolls hits in melee etc. You had the Bark Bark Star which did this with masses of Fenrisian Wolves to provide meat and footprint etc.
Flash forward, you have a superfast unit which is almost impossible to hurt. It just runs around the table eating stuff for most of the game until its time to go sit on objectives. (See Nob Bikers for a similar thing half a decade or so earlier.)
As Catbarf said - partly this is a function of how scoring worked - both in regular 40k and ITC. It might not apply in 10th.
Ultimately given how trigger happy GW get with "lists that do not conform to how we imagine armies" these days, you feel they'd quickly nerf them if character blobs became a staple again. But I kind of hope if they do let characters join/lead units, they just limit it so only one character can do so at a time.
Insectum7 wrote: And then, was it 6th where the model in front took the wounds? So you had some tank character up front shrugging off wounds for the whole squad? That was ***t too.
Yeah, that was in 6th.
Also, not only could you have a character up front tanking wounds, but because LoS existed you could pretty much cherry-pick which wounds they took.
So if a character had a 2+ save, you could use them to tank small-arms fire, but then allocate wounds with AP2 or Instant Death to ordnary squad members instead.
Ultimately given how trigger happy GW get with "lists that do not conform to how we imagine armies" these days, you feel they'd quickly nerf them if character blobs became a staple again. But I kind of hope if they do let characters join/lead units, they just limit it so only one character can do so at a time.
It should have always been one character, imo.
Stuffing a unit full of characters felt wrong to me. Dawn of War did it best, oddly enough.
I too remember back in the day where hits were divided over the unit by like models (name and equipment) and those models then saved together. Then Nob Bikers rolled into town with every model is equipped differently and had multiple Wounds. The unit could lose half its wounds without losing a single model!
Yeah, and in 3rd Ed it was't like that (and you couldn't only kill what was in range and that could be seen). Page 25 of the 5th Ed rulebook created the stupidity you're talking about, and it didn't need to be.
tneva82 wrote: Well imagine say 3 wound unit. Every model takes 1-2 wounds. Then you start actually losing models.
Sounds fun? Imagine wound tracking what a fun.
'Cept you had to remove whole models first, and couldn't have multiple wounded models in a unit.
GW has been adjusting wound allocation it seems every edition in an effort to fix the problems caused by their prior fix. First the fixed Rhino Scoping and intention range limiting. Then they had to fix the Nob Biker phenomenon. Then they had to fix the character shield. And so on and so forth.
Hopefully, they have worked hard to create a way for character to lead units that doesn't recreate the problems seen in the last 5 editions.
I imagine that "leading units", like others have said, will be giving targeted buffs while at close range to a friendly unit, but not actually being in that unit.
Characters joining units is cool and sometimes very thematic, but it creates a lot of rules wonkiness unless you make the rule that allows it absolute word salad.
I too remember back in the day where hits were divided over the unit by like models (name and equipment) and those models then saved together. Then Nob Bikers rolled into town with every model is equipped differently and had multiple Wounds. The unit could lose half its wounds without losing a single model!
Better might be going back to 4th where all wounds were saved by the unit with models removed by the owner, except for every multiple Wounds of the unit size (unit of 5 models take 5/10/15... Wounds) the attacker could say, "make that model take a save". If the model failed its save, it took the wound and often died since it only had one. Made it so that the Squad Leader, Special Weapon, and Heavy Weapon were not always the last three models remaining in the 10 model unit
This is one of the fixes we house ruled when we went back to playing our 5th ed games- 4th edition wound allocation-
rolls to wound are based on majority toughness and armor saves on majority saves, casualties are chosen by the owning player. wounded models must be removed first- simple and easy.
The issue with the leaders, special and heavy weapons...they will always be the last because in the lore the guy with a bolter will sling it and pick up that more important plasma gun if the guy with it goes down.
I too remember back in the day where hits were divided over the unit by like models (name and equipment) and those models then saved together. Then Nob Bikers rolled into town with every model is equipped differently and had multiple Wounds. The unit could lose half its wounds without losing a single model!
Better might be going back to 4th where all wounds were saved by the unit with models removed by the owner, except for every multiple Wounds of the unit size (unit of 5 models take 5/10/15... Wounds) the attacker could say, "make that model take a save". If the model failed its save, it took the wound and often died since it only had one. Made it so that the Squad Leader, Special Weapon, and Heavy Weapon were not always the last three models remaining in the 10 model unit.
Having faced Nob Bikers a lot back in the day, I never considered it much of an issue.
They could soak wounds pretty well but it hardly made them invincible. Especially when you consider how many points they cost. If my friend's army was anything to go by, you'd end up with something like 80-90% of your points invested into just 12 models.
Same thing with GK Paladins. Sure, they can make use of wound-allocation rules but they also cost an absolute ton of points.
I too remember back in the day where hits were divided over the unit by like models (name and equipment) and those models then saved together. Then Nob Bikers rolled into town with every model is equipped differently and had multiple Wounds. The unit could lose half its wounds without losing a single model!
Better might be going back to 4th where all wounds were saved by the unit with models removed by the owner, except for every multiple Wounds of the unit size (unit of 5 models take 5/10/15... Wounds) the attacker could say, "make that model take a save". If the model failed its save, it took the wound and often died since it only had one. Made it so that the Squad Leader, Special Weapon, and Heavy Weapon were not always the last three models remaining in the 10 model unit
This is one of the fixes we house ruled when we went back to playing our 5th ed games- 4th edition wound allocation-
rolls to wound are based on majority toughness and armor saves on majority saves, casualties are chosen by the owning player. wounded models must be removed first- simple and easy.
The issue with the leaders, special and heavy weapons...they will always be the last because in the lore the guy with a bolter will sling it and pick up that more important plasma gun if the guy with it goes down.
Doesn't sound like a good solution, and slows down the game considerably.
If you have a unit with mixed toughness and saves, you have to resolve the attacks one at a time because depending on which casualties are pulled, the majority save and toughness may change. Also, it allows a player to save on an high save and remove models with the bad save. Doesn't sound fair.
No, honestly the 9th edition system so far is the one with less issues.
I too remember back in the day where hits were divided over the unit by like models (name and equipment) and those models then saved together. Then Nob Bikers rolled into town with every model is equipped differently and had multiple Wounds. The unit could lose half its wounds without losing a single model!
Better might be going back to 4th where all wounds were saved by the unit with models removed by the owner, except for every multiple Wounds of the unit size (unit of 5 models take 5/10/15... Wounds) the attacker could say, "make that model take a save". If the model failed its save, it took the wound and often died since it only had one. Made it so that the Squad Leader, Special Weapon, and Heavy Weapon were not always the last three models remaining in the 10 model unit
This is one of the fixes we house ruled when we went back to playing our 5th ed games- 4th edition wound allocation-
rolls to wound are based on majority toughness and armor saves on majority saves, casualties are chosen by the owning player. wounded models must be removed first- simple and easy.
The issue with the leaders, special and heavy weapons...they will always be the last because in the lore the guy with a bolter will sling it and pick up that more important plasma gun if the guy with it goes down.
Doesn't sound like a good solution, and slows down the game considerably.
If you have a unit with mixed toughness and saves, you have to resolve the attacks one at a time because depending on which casualties are pulled, the majority save and toughness may change. Also, it allows a player to save on an high save and remove models with the bad save. Doesn't sound fair.
No, honestly the 9th edition system so far is the one with less issues.
Hahahahahah
Oh wait you're serious
Hahahah hahahahahahaha
4th edition was a fast-rolling only edition. You calculated the majority toughness and majority save once for a single unit's shooting and rolled that. The end.
How does 9th's rules handle a unit with 3+ saves, 5+ saves, and some models T9 and some T5?
You choose the model that takes the safe, and have to role one by one until it's dread. Then you choose the next. If all profiles match, than you can fast roll.
I thinks it's better personally, only thing missing is that once no units are in line of sight of the attacker, the attack sequence ends and any left over attacks are lost.
Brickfix wrote: You choose the model that takes the safe, and have to role one by one until it's dread. Then you choose the next. If all profiles match, than you can fast roll.
I thinks it's better personally, only thing missing is that once no units are in line of sight of the attacker, the attack sequence ends and any left over attacks are lost.
You had better decide before you wound, too.
A unit that is both T5/6+ and T4/4+ is an exciting unit isn't it, in 9th.
I'm pretty sure every unit with mixed Toughness in 9th has rules dictating how you resolve To Wound Rolls against that unit since it is not covered by the standard game rules.
So resolving an attack against a unit containing both T5/6+ and T4/4+ models isn't really any more difficult that resolving attacks against any other unit.
alextroy wrote: I'm pretty sure every unit with mixed Toughness in 9th has rules dictating how you resolve To Wound Rolls against that unit since it is not covered by the standard game rules.
So resolving an attack against a unit containing both T5/6+ and T4/4+ models isn't really any more difficult that resolving attacks against any other unit.
I literally can't think of any. Not Silent King. Not CSM Mutants. Not Dark Apostles. Not Helbrecht. Not Gaunt's Ghosts.
You're going to slow roll saves in some like Gaunt's Ghosts, but you can do that 3 or 4 at a time.
Tau Empire Drones are ignored for Toughness purposes, because of how wound rolls are made it's not a good idea to have mixed toughness values in any edition IMO. Increasing the Toughness characteristic must have been pretty useless in editions where characters joined units when the Toughness increase did not affect Instant Death, which I believe neither Bikes nor Mark of Nurgle did. Please correct me if I am wrong.
"A Character may be joined to a unit (that contains multiple models) if it finished its movement in coherency with it. When it does, use the defensive stats of the unit. When no models are left in the unit, the Character becomes its own unit. no more than one character can join a unit at a time."
something like that would be pretty simple i think, yeah sure. It would mean putting a low Toughness character in a high toughness unit would make the character tougher but i don't think thats too big of a problem if it means the game plays faster (no need to slow roll every time you shoot at one of these units)
vict0988 wrote: Increasing the Toughness characteristic must have been pretty useless in editions where characters joined units when the Toughness increase did not affect Instant Death, which I believe neither Bikes nor Mark of Nurgle did. Please correct me if I am wrong.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this.
Certainly toughness used to affect the wound roll quite substantially. e.g. going from T5 to T6 would halve the chance of being wounded by both bolters and autocannons.
Beyond that, it was useful to have a naturally T5 Warboss in a unit of T4(5) bikers because he could tank S8-9 wounds without fear of Instant Death.
vict0988 wrote: Increasing the Toughness characteristic must have been pretty useless in editions where characters joined units when the Toughness increase did not affect Instant Death, which I believe neither Bikes nor Mark of Nurgle did. Please correct me if I am wrong.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this.
Certainly toughness used to affect the wound roll quite substantially. e.g. going from T5 to T6 would halve the chance of being wounded by both bolters and autocannons.
Beyond that, it was useful to have a naturally T5 Warboss in a unit of T4(5) bikers because he could tank S8-9 wounds without fear of Instant Death.
If you shot 2 melta shots and 16 bolter shots at 3 unmarked Chaos Bikes and a Chaos Lord with MoN on bike IIRC then the MoN would have no effect and the Chaos Lord could be one-shot by one of the melta shots.
Spoletta wrote: If you have a unit with mixed toughness and saves, you have to resolve the attacks one at a time because depending on which casualties are pulled, the majority save and toughness may change. Also, it allows a player to save on an high save and remove models with the bad save. Doesn't sound fair.
Then just add the following clauses:
1) All wounds for an attack are rolled at the majority toughness value for the unit.
2) Choose one model in the unit to make saves at the start of the attack before any rolls are made.
3) The model making saves takes the wounds for failed saves until it is removed.
4) Once the model taking saves is removed the defending player chooses the next model in the unit to take saves.
Simple, but I truly hope the eliminate all this roll one dice at a time stuff for unit rolls. I rather have divide attacks based on saves in some proportional manner and then apply the wounds appropriately than have the headache of rolling wounds one at a time.
Could you fix most these problems by having the attacking player pick wich model is hit? then once it's wounded all attack go to it untill it's dead. Maybe you can only hit leaders with persision or once the unit is dead or somthing?
Ideally, the process is a unit makes all its attacks at the same time, then the defender rolls all his defenses and takes off models as appropriate. This is only an issue when you have a unit with multiple saves to roll against. The question is how do you handle that with minimal disruption to the process?
I'm glad they are cutting down on rerolls and Oath of Moment looks fun and easy to use for Marine players.
Interested to see where they go with characters and leading units. I vastly preferred Independent characters joining another unit, and would rather seem them fix the problems with that system rather than the current character system.
If you shot 2 melta shots and 16 bolter shots at 3 unmarked Chaos Bikes and a Chaos Lord with MoN on bike IIRC then the MoN would have no effect and the Chaos Lord could be one-shot by one of the melta shots.
The meltas wound wound against the general unit toughness, but when resolving said wounds (in terms of armor / instant death) you'd refer to the individual profiles. Ergo the lord, in this case, would be able to tank the melta shots without suffering Instant Death.
Unless I'm heavily misremembering what MoN did / we're talking about an edition where the toughness bones from bikes didn't effect ID (which, again IIRC, swung back and forth for several).
Leaders Now Join Squads To Personally Deliver Powerful Boons in the New Warhammer 40,000
Aura bonuses that they used to impart on all nearby troops are gone – in almost all cases the potential to stack them up made balancing the game tricky.
your heroes now join a single squad and act as one cohesive unit.
the Leader ability unlocks the ability to join a squad
This is done before deployment, at the same time as transports are allocated and units are placed in Reserve – the Leader becomes a permanent member of that unit for the whole battle.
Each Leader has a short selection of units that they can join, all of them listed on their datasheet
Most of the time, only one Leader can join each unit – but as you can see, the Lieutenant is an exception, and can join the same squad as a superior Captain. Plenty of factions have similar low-ranked support Leaders, from Biophagus surgeons to Warlock battle-psykers.
The old Look Out, Sir! rule has also been devolved into this new system. Your Leader is kept safe by their Bodyguards, and can usually* be targeted only when everyone else in the squad has breathed their last.
Independent characters may have the Lone Operative ability, which means that they can’t be targeted by ranged attacks unless the attacker is within 12″.
Some characters only gain the Lone Operative ability when taking shelter near an appropriate unit
So unofficial retinues and command squads are back on the menu boyz!
Curious what the Redacted units are. Bog standard Intercessors just don't seem like Command Squad worthy. But I guess I'll just paint them as Veterans.
kodos wrote: so basically everything that was changed to remove Deathstars in 8th, is now being replaced again
I mean, GW listed Intercessors as an option to attach Lts to as if anyone was going to do that, which proves again they don't understand their own game.
kodos wrote: so basically everything that was changed to remove Deathstars in 8th, is now being replaced again
I mean, GW listed Intercessors as an option to attach Lts to as if anyone was going to do that, which proves again they don't understand their own game.
.... right, every option has to be top tier competitive.
Unit attachment happens at deployment, and if there are rules for voluntary separation from an attached unit during the game, they don't seem to have been mentioned in the article.
I think it's better when characters can join and leave as dictated by the action of the battle.
I'm also concerned about mixed toughnes and armour saves.
kodos wrote: so basically everything that was changed to remove Deathstars in 8th, is now being replaced again
I mean, GW listed Intercessors as an option to attach Lts to as if anyone was going to do that, which proves again they don't understand their own game.
.... right, every option has to be top tier competitive.
Looking at the LT's rules, with autowound on 6s and fall back and shoot (and charge, if need be), it isn't even terrible. Its a fire support and objective grabbing unit that can't be pinned down.
Its also notably eating a couple chapter tactics and spitting them back out as leader abilities.
------------------------
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit attachment happens at deployment, and if there are rules for voluntary separation from an attached unit during the game, they don't seem to have been mentioned in the article.
I think it's better when characters can join and leave as dictated by the action of the battle.
I'm also concerned about mixed toughnes and armour saves.
Concerns addressed (though you may not be happy with the answers):
The first thing to notice is the Leader ability, which unlocks the ability to join a squad. This is done before deployment, at the same time as transports are allocated and units are placed in Reserve – the Leader becomes a permanent member of that unit for the whole battle.
You don't have to join your leader to a unit, but if you do, no take backs until everybody is dead. No voluntary separation.
Mixed T and saves seems (to me at least) to be addressed by lone operative. Any leader that could potentially cause that problem is going to be LO instead.
kodos wrote: so basically everything that was changed to remove Deathstars in 8th, is now being replaced again
I mean, GW listed Intercessors as an option to attach Lts to as if anyone was going to do that, which proves again they don't understand their own game.
I suppose you have the full rulebook, datasheets and the like to hand to demonstrate that? Even then the reduction in ap means that if the auto bolter retains its 3 shots they currently benefit most from the auto-wound from the Lieutenant.
kodos wrote: this wasn't a thing at the start of 7th either (actually Deathstars were not a thing from 3rd to early 7th)
Deathstars were a thing long before 7th.
of course, they were just never considered a problem until "imperial soup" came up and you could add buffs from multiple factions into one unit
I cannot remember anyone complaining about 4th Edition Marine HQ units being a problem, and the only deathstar in 5th were Ork biker, but nor because of the buff stacking characters but the possibility to abuse wound allocation system
there was a reason characters joining units was not removed from 3rd to 7th but seen as one if the most important changes in addition to removing USRs in 8th (which were also not a big problem until 7th)
The Lone Operator trait is fantastic, it means specialized units like Assassin and Lictors (potentially) can't get shot off the board from far away anymore, which is a massive boon to their utility.
I don't think it's problematic, 1P40k works the same way with not being able to switch units, it's not like a plasma gunner can join a different Tactical Squad after his buddies die. I really hope they get rid of the Command Phase, it can burn in oil. Who wants their leader's ability to not work the turn the leader disembarks from a transport?
The removal of auras is a bad idea, it's very appropriate for one-of commanders, because you don't gain anything from spamming them. All you have to do is get the points remotely right *cough* DPs/Smash Captains *cough* and people will only take one. While with this you have reason to take one for each unit, so Necrons might end up taking an Overlord to babysit each unit of Immortals again which is very unfluffy. Stringing things out to benefit from auras was super silly so I think I might take that back.
vict0988 wrote: I don't think it's problematic, 1P40k works the same way with not being able to switch units, it's not like a plasma gunner can join a different Tactical Squad after his buddies die. I really hope they get rid of the Command Phase, it can burn in oil. Who wants their leader's ability to not work the turn the leader disembarks from a transport?
The removal of auras is a bad idea, it's very appropriate for one-of commanders, because you don't gain anything from spamming them. All you have to do is get the points remotely right *cough* DPs/Smash Captains *cough* and people will only take one. While with this you have reason to take one for each unit, so Necrons might end up taking an Overlord to babysit each unit of Immortals again which is very unfluffy. Stringing things out to benefit from auras was super silly so I think I might take that back.
Auras are not removed in total, they're 'reduced in frequency' - i strongly suspect that units like special characters and dedicated characters like chaplains or dark apostles will still have them.
Unit attachment happens at deployment, and if there are rules for voluntary separation from an attached unit during the game, they don't seem to have been mentioned in the article.
I think it's better when characters can join and leave as dictated by the action of the battle.
I'm leaning the same way.
If a character loses his bodyguards, why shouldn't he be able to join another unit of such? Why does he have to just stand around uselessly, waiting for death?
So now, rather than handing out re-rolls to anyone in earshot, your heroes now join a single squad and act as one cohesive unit. It’s an elegant system that helps keep over-buffed super-units at bay.
A BSG quote comes to mind, "All this has happened before, and all of it will happen again." No complaints here, I vastly preferred characters joining squads over characters walking around with Look Out Sir shenanigans.
Having leaders be restricted on what squads they can be attached to is a bit worrisome. I understand the balance concerns, but with the wide variety of unique models out there, its bound to have a few where you'll be wondering why can't X be a leader of unit Y or Z. I suppose we'll wait and see.
Auras are not removed in total, they're 'reduced in frequency' - i strongly suspect that units like special characters and dedicated characters like chaplains or dark apostles will still have them.
Yeah I'd be very surprised if Chaplains/Dark Apostles lost their Auras, unless it was replaced with a simple army wide improvement mechanism (that doesn't involve any measurement).
It'll be interesting what they do with the number of wounds on bigger character/monster models now that the cap of 9W doesn't matter to qualify for Look Out Sir.
Some of the issues people have with the new leader rules could maybe be solved by upcoming reveals (Of course they may not be)
- People don't like that once a squad is dead the character can not join a new squad. - This could easily be addressed by a stratagem that allows a leader without a squad to join a new one. (I would still limit it so they can't leave though)
- Limits on what squads characters can join
- In this case we only know lieutenants rules. Who is to say that captains/chapter masters can't join any unit? Also Space Marines are pretty unique in that they have so many types of lieutenant so limiting each one makes sense. Gives a good reason for taking different ones.
I think we must see leaders with different armour types able to join other units in some way with the smaller armies (ie DG their lords all have terminator armour apart from the generic ones which aren't true DG units imo).
Basically what I am trying to say is that SMs have such a wide variety of same units in different armour types we will likely see more restrictions for them than other factions, at least at lieutenant level.
I can't wait to add an Inquisitor in Terminator Armor to my all plasma Acolyte squad so their armor save can be a 2+ for the first six wounds for six plasma guns (and a psycannon, naturally).
kodos wrote: of course, they were just never considered a problem until "imperial soup" came up and you could add buffs from multiple factions into one unit
I cannot remember anyone complaining about 4th Edition Marine HQ units being a problem, and the only deathstar in 5th were Ork biker, but nor because of the buff stacking characters but the possibility to abuse wound allocation system
there was a reason characters joining units was not removed from 3rd to 7th but seen as one if the most important changes in addition to removing USRs in 8th (which were also not a big problem until 7th)
Wasn't seer council on jetbikes and on foot considered a problem in the past?
Karol wrote: I was told it was crazy in the Craftworld Codex and that was 4th ed I think.
Seer council was abusive in several editions mostly because you could stack buffs on them like crazy, and on top of that could abuse wound allocation rules to make them even more unkillable. The problem with them, like with e.g. nob bikers, was not so much the unit in itself as the ecosystem they existed in, which just could not handle a unit purposefully made up to exploit the absolutely most extreme edge-cases of specific rules that were mostly sensible for cases that actually arose in non-exploitative play.
Karol wrote: I was told it was crazy in the Craftworld Codex and that was 4th ed I think.
Seer council was abusive in several editions mostly because you could stack buffs on them like crazy, and on top of that could abuse wound allocation rules to make them even more unkillable. The problem with them, like with e.g. nob bikers, was not so much the unit in itself as the ecosystem they existed in, which just could not handle a unit purposefully made up to exploit the absolutely most extreme edge-cases of specific rules that were mostly sensible for cases that actually arose in non-exploitative play.
This. Where weapons either Nuked you, or plinked a single wound, it didn’t work. Very short version is you just assigned wounds to different models to keep as much of the unit alive as possible.
But. If we add in D2, D3, D D3 etc? Much of that problem begins to resolve itself. Yes you’re largely in control of who gets blatted, but they’re still getting blatted.
I don't know if its the best archival research, but you can see people complaining online about deathstars on Dakkadakka (and elsewhere) from at least mid-5th edition. The term unsurprisingly grew more popular by 7th but it wasn't invented then.
The difference is that in those days a Deathstar was say "10 Terminators and a character". Not the rather unnatural combination of say 2 tricked out Rune Priests, Tigurius and 3 Librarians, Azrael for the invul etc etc.
Its been a long time - but my memory of Seer Council wasn't so much wound allocation but that they had a 4++. Which became a rerollable 4++ with Fortune. Which might not sound that crazy in today's game given every unit rolls dice in a bucket, but that wasn't the case for most things back then. Bit of hot dice and they just don't die. Meanwhile they can win combats and with a bit of luck sweep whole units from the table.
Here's a little throwaway item from today's article that I haven't seen discussed.
The old Look Out, Sir! rule has also been devolved into this new system. Your Leader is kept safe by their Bodyguards, and can usually* be targeted only when everyone else in the squad has breathed their last.
I'm suspecting they have dealt with the issue of characters having different Toughness values than their unit and the issue of them using better Saves to soak wounds by simply having all damage go into the unit without any allocation or saves by the Leader(s). As for the *, I think that has to do with the PrecisionUSR which in some way allows you to allocate select hits into any model of a unit, including Characters.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I can't wait to add an Inquisitor in Terminator Armor to my all plasma Acolyte squad so their armor save can be a 2+ for the first six wounds for six plasma guns (and a psycannon, naturally).
Currently it's most likely that an inquisitor in termie armor would be a lone wolf. Nothing in the reveal suggests a unit with a deepstrike capable setup (terminator armor/Jumppack) would be able to join a non-matching squad.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
alextroy wrote: Here's a little throwaway item from today's article that I haven't seen discussed.
The old Look Out, Sir! rule has also been devolved into this new system. Your Leader is kept safe by their Bodyguards, and can usually* be targeted only when everyone else in the squad has breathed their last.
I'm suspecting they have dealt with the issue of characters having different Toughness values than their unit and the issue of them using better Saves to soak wounds by simply having all damage go into the unit without any allocation or saves by the Leader(s). As for the *, I think that has to do with the PrecisionUSR which in some way allows you to allocate select hits into any model of a unit, including Characters.
Thoughts?
They probably just won't let characters with a different toughness characteristic join different squads.
My main concern, thinking about it more, is how is this going to avoid the 7th edition problem of Deathstars. You could argue we already have that with aura stacking, but this is going to just put all your buffs on one single unit.
Wayniac wrote: My main concern, thinking about it more, is how is this going to avoid the 7th edition problem of Deathstars. You could argue we already have that with aura stacking, but this is going to just put all your buffs on one single unit.
You're... answering your own question? It's what we already have, except only one unit will be able to stack buffs instead of every unit within 6" of the character blob.
Wayniac wrote: My main concern, thinking about it more, is how is this going to avoid the 7th edition problem of Deathstars. You could argue we already have that with aura stacking, but this is going to just put all your buffs on one single unit.
I think a few things. There's a limit of only one or two characters max joining a unit. You can have a Lieutenant and Chapter Master join a unit, but you can't add Librarians and Chaplains too.
Only specific characters can join a given unit, so there shouldn't be unexpected combinations that are more powerful than anticipated.
Oath of Moment. Every single army in the most popular faction in the game has its core mechanic designed to hate on Deathstars.
vict0988 wrote: The removal of auras is a bad idea, it's very appropriate for one-of commanders, because you don't gain anything from spamming them.
The article literally says that Lion El'Johnson will have an aura, so specific special characters are still likely to have auras but likely a far smaller number than had such effects in 8th and 9th.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I can't wait to add an Inquisitor in Terminator Armor to my all plasma Acolyte squad so their armor save can be a 2+ for the first six wounds for six plasma guns (and a psycannon, naturally).
Given that the article literally says "can be targeted only when everyone else in the squad has breathed their last." I'm having trouble reading that as allowing the leader to be shoved out front as a shield.
alextroy wrote: Here's a little throwaway item from today's article that I haven't seen discussed.
The old Look Out, Sir! rule has also been devolved into this new system. Your Leader is kept safe by their Bodyguards, and can usually* be targeted only when everyone else in the squad has breathed their last.
I'm suspecting they have dealt with the issue of characters having different Toughness values than their unit and the issue of them using better Saves to soak wounds by simply having all damage go into the unit without any allocation or saves by the Leader(s). As for the *, I think that has to do with the PrecisionUSR which in some way allows you to allocate select hits into any model of a unit, including Characters.
Thoughts?
A lot of the issues with character wound allocation go away if the player taking damage never gets to choose; either the non-character models always take the damage, or the attacker has Precision and gets to pick. At first blush I don't see how this could be abused by the defender.
Curious what the Redacted units are. Bog standard Intercessors just don't seem like Command Squad worthy. But I guess I'll just paint them as Veterans.
Presumably it's the flamer armed primaris from the trailer (probably called hellfuries, it's referenced in Dark Imperium) and the ranged vet squad we saw in the trailer that had combi-meltas and heavy bolters.
I'd rather there was a choice with auras. Your Lt. gives everyone +1 To Wound within 6", but if he attaches to a squad then the squad gets full re-rolls on To Wound, but the aura goes away.
Canadian 5th wrote: The article literally says that Lion El'Johnson will have an aura, so specific special characters are still likely to have auras but likely a far smaller number than had such effects in 8th and 9th.
So tournament armies will have even more mandatory special characters to get the multi-unit wombo combos.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I'd rather there was a choice with auras. Your Lt. gives everyone +1 To Wound within 6", but if he attaches to a squad then the squad gets full re-rolls on To Wound, but the aura goes away.
Imagine the arguments that will cause when the aura giver is placed so that it's in coherency with a unit and TFG at a tournament tries to use the attached version after already having used the aura version that turn.
So tournament armies will have even more mandatory special characters to get the multi-unit wombo combos.
Sounds fantastic.
If special characters are good they'll be taken, if they aren't they won't be. Whatever is good will be spammed, be that special characters, generic HQs, or something else; that's just how tournament lists work.
Also, why the special character hate? Are you a 3rd edition grognard who misses the days when mostly terrible special characters needed special permission to see the table?
H.B.M.C. wrote: I'd rather there was a choice with auras. Your Lt. gives everyone +1 To Wound within 6", but if he attaches to a squad then the squad gets full re-rolls on To Wound, but the aura goes away.
Do you want the aura version to get Lone Operative too? Your answer will determine which version of the lieutenant is completely useless and never sees play.
alextroy wrote:Here's a little throwaway item from today's article that I haven't seen discussed.
The old Look Out, Sir! rule has also been devolved into this new system. Your Leader is kept safe by their Bodyguards, and can usually* be targeted only when everyone else in the squad has breathed their last.
I'm suspecting they have dealt with the issue of characters having different Toughness values than their unit and the issue of them using better Saves to soak wounds by simply having all damage go into the unit without any allocation or saves by the Leader(s). As for the *, I think that has to do with the PrecisionUSR which in some way allows you to allocate select hits into any model of a unit, including Characters.
Thoughts?
That is my reading as well.
I also noticed this line
A Primaris Lieutenant can shack up with Intercessors or Bladeguard Veterans but leaves Gravis-armoured Aggressors and Heavy Intercessors to his more appropriately equipped colleagues.
This strongly implies that we are getting a gravis Lieutenant at some point as well. I also wonder, if leaders are going to be restriced to units with the same armor type are we going to be getting versions of all the different leaders to fit all the armor types like a captain and lieutenant on bikes or a terminator chaplain?
Also I noticed that none of the units that the Primaris Lieutenant could join are firstborn meaning that the division could be as strong as ever when an earlier article implied otherwise.
either we get a Marine and Primaris version of all armour/unit types, or some units will never be joined by a character
first version would mean more bloat than we already have, 2nd version would mean that units need to be changed to work as stand alone unit (which is not bad but doubt that GW thinks about that)
Canadian 5th wrote: Imagine the arguments that will cause when the aura giver is placed so that it's in coherency with a unit and TFG at a tournament tries to use the attached version after already having used the aura version that turn.
Put as simply as I can: Who cares?
Based on these rules, you attach units at the start of the game, and there they stay until the unit they're attached to ceases to be. The situation you've described isn't even likely to occur, and certainly isn't worth spending any effort considering. Moreover, "I can think of a situation where an donkey-cave would cheat" isn't a compelling reason not to do something, or even a valid reason to dismiss an idea.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Based on these rules, you attach units at the start of the game, and there they stay until the unit they're attached to ceases to be. The situation you've described isn't even likely to occur, and certainly isn't worth spending any effort considering. Moreover, "I can think of a situation where an donkey-cave would cheat" isn't a compelling reason not to do something, or even a valid reason to dismiss an idea.
Then what is the benefit of your suggestion? It seems like the auras would either be strong enough that you'd still want to aura stack them or too weak to where you would always attach them to a unit. What do we get for adding an extra layer of complexity while risking aura stacking making a comeback?
H.B.M.C. wrote: "A unit may only benefit from one aura or attached character at any given time."
RuLeS aRe HaRd!
\
Which article is that in? Not doubting, just seeking clarification.
Another potential upside to not relying on buff bubbles is a squad with a Lt can now scuttle off up a flank, away from the main body, and not necessarily miss out on buffs.
I did so to illustrate that Canadian 5th's objections come in two forms:
"That wouldn't work because of [minor fringe case that might as well be a red herring]." "I found a single tiny potential flaw, so the whole idea is obviously unworkable and we shouldn't even discuss beginning to find a solution!"
When no attempt is made to engage with speculation, theories, and simply looking for simple rules-based solutions, then there's no reason to engage back.
H.B.M.C. wrote: "A unit may only benefit from one aura or attached character at any given time."
RuLeS aRe HaRd!
So are you going to tell me how you intend to make the attached an unattached modes equally useful so this illusion of choice is actually useful or whine because I think your suggestion is clunky and bad?
H.B.M.C. wrote: "A unit may only benefit from one aura or attached character at any given time."
RuLeS aRe HaRd!
Isn’t this limiting choices and just as arbitrary as only letting characters join specific units?
Yeah. The reality is almost any rule is imposing some kind of limitation. Different people just disagree on where the line between acceptable and unacceptable should be drawn.
I think limiting character buffs by limiting which units they can join seems fine. It allows for more specific tailoring of buffs to certain units and makes balancing the game easier, as does limiting the number of characters who can join a unit.
H.B.M.C. wrote: "That wouldn't work because of [minor fringe case that might as well be a red herring]."
"I found a single tiny potential flaw, so the whole idea is obviously unworkable and we shouldn't even discuss beginning to find a solution!"
When no attempt is made to engage with speculation, theories, and simply looking for simple rules-based solutions, then there's no reason to engage back.
Don't you know that GW game design is absolute peak rules writing and it is impossible to write better rules or design a better game with so many units to take care of to avoid unwanted interaction
no one can make better rules without investing thousands of hours /s
or in other words, it would decrease corporate profit if more than the absolute minimum is spend on writing those rules and you should be glad that they even cared of writing new stuff and not just copy&paste the old book and replace the headlines (not that this already happened from 3rd to 7th)
Aash wrote: Isn’t this limiting choices and just as arbitrary as only letting characters join specific units?
It means there's no benefit to "bonus stacking", as it can't be done, which is - in my mind - better than placing arbitrary hard limits on who can join who.
Another alternative - as opposed to just pretending there are no solutions and asking meaningless red herring questions like the guy beneath your post - is something that was suggested elsewhere here (sorry I forgot who) in that characters only provide a benefit to the types of units they can join.
So, for instance, a Captain in Terminator Armour's bonus only applies to units with the 'Terminator' keyword, so joining him to a unit of Intercessors or Sternguard really has no advantage. That's less egregious than "He can join this unit, but not this unit because... we say so!". There's actually an in-game mechanical reason then beyond an arbitrary limitation.
Canadian 5th wrote: So are you going to tell me how you intend to make the attached an unattached modes equally useful...
Yay! A False dilemma! What fun!
But if I must answer that which need not even be asked in the first place, the answer is fething obvious: You can either get a small bonus for lots of units at once, or a larger bonus for a single unit. That's the built-in choice. There's nothing artificial about it. Really simple stuff.
this is GW looking at other games and think keywords are cool we want that too
but not knowing what they should use them for
same with USRs
hence we have keywords and USRs but instead of using the potential we get additional special rules on an additional unit card to write down what keywords and USRs should do in the first place
Unit1126PLL wrote: I can't wait to add an Inquisitor in Terminator Armor to my all plasma Acolyte squad so their armor save can be a 2+ for the first six wounds for six plasma guns (and a psycannon, naturally).
oh you got the rules and know thats a possibility? Or even how it works at all?
Aash wrote: Isn’t this limiting choices and just as arbitrary as only letting characters join specific units?
It means there's no benefit to "bonus stacking", as it can't be done, which is - in my mind - better than placing arbitrary hard limits on who can join who.
Another alternative - as opposed to just pretending there are no solutions and asking meaningless red herring questions like the guy beneath your post - is something that was suggested elsewhere here (sorry I forgot who) in that characters only provide a benefit to the types of units they can join.
So, for instance, a Captain in Terminator Armour's bonus only applies to units with the 'Terminator' keyword, so joining him to a unit of Intercessors or Sternguard really has no advantage. That's less egregious than "He can join this unit, but not this unit because... we say so!". There's actually an in-game mechanical reason then beyond an arbitrary limitation.
But surely that's just as much of a limitation? I mean, why would the Captain's orders/commands/advice be suddenly ignored by his first company brethren because they don't wear the same armour?
They're both arbitrary abstractions and limitations. You're just drawing them in a different place - which is exactly what Aash was saying.
No-one's saying there are no solutions, but don't pretend that your "solution" isn't just as arbitrary.
alextroy wrote: Here's a little throwaway item from today's article that I haven't seen discussed.
The old Look Out, Sir! rule has also been devolved into this new system. Your Leader is kept safe by their Bodyguards, and can usually* be targeted only when everyone else in the squad has breathed their last.
I'm suspecting they have dealt with the issue of characters having different Toughness values than their unit and the issue of them using better Saves to soak wounds by simply having all damage go into the unit without any allocation or saves by the Leader(s). As for the *, I think that has to do with the PrecisionUSR which in some way allows you to allocate select hits into any model of a unit, including Characters.
Thoughts?
A lot of the issues with character wound allocation go away if the player taking damage never gets to choose; either the non-character models always take the damage, or the attacker has Precision and gets to pick. At first blush I don't see how this could be abused by the defender.
I don't think it will get abused, but it presents a problem with the current rules. With Precision you can have a wounded character and a wounded unit member. I imagine the controlling player can assign wounds to a wounded model of their choice, but then are they forced to pick the character after the other model dies? Probably not. So that wording has to change a bit.
I don't think it will get abused, but it presents a problem with the current rules. With Precision you can have a wounded character and a wounded unit member. I imagine the controlling player can assign wounds to a wounded model of their choice, but then are they forced to pick the character after the other model dies? Probably not. So that wording has to change a bit.
my guess would be that characters are ignored for the purposes of wound allocation by the defender
that way you can't just do one damage to the character then unload in the unit and watch the defender be forced to kill the character.
Okey, but what will happen if your unit is made out of characters vide warlocks+2farseers, or a unit of paladins with an ancient, apothecary, Grandmaster and brother captin attached. If someone unloads Lion number of attacks in to the unit, it may run out of regular "troopers" very fast, often ending up with a ton of excessive wounds, and with the "unit" no longer being a thing if there are no more regular models in it, I struggle to imagine how the wound jumping would have to work.
I think we're safely in the - they haven't given a whole enough picture, people are making assumptions based on past behaviours and/or contemporary information which won't exist or come to pass in both cases - zone, hence people are having concerns, making bold statements and getting frustrated in all directions, myself included.
Hopefully they fill in more gaps soon. Too easy to run with an incomplete picture and make wrong conclusions.
Karol wrote: Okey, but what will happen if your unit is made out of characters vide warlocks+2farseers, or a unit of paladins with an ancient, apothecary, Grandmaster and brother captin attached. If someone unloads Lion number of attacks in to the unit, it may run out of regular "troopers" very fast, often ending up with a ton of excessive wounds, and with the "unit" no longer being a thing if there are no more regular models in it, I struggle to imagine how the wound jumping would have to work.
We have nowhere near enough info to answer this. However, it would appear from the article yesterday that the max number of characters you can add to a unit is 2 - one Captain-type character (probably Overlords, Archons, Grandmasters, etc) and one mini character (Lts, Warlocks, etc). We can probably further conclude that attacks go on the unit and use the unit's T and Save, so maybe having characters in a unit will, on occasion, mean they are easier to hurt if you manage sufficient overkill on their unit. That doesn't seem like a terrible trade-off for being almost immune to damage the rest of the time. They also seem to be trying to tone down offensive output, so maybe such extreme overkill won't be as common in 10th.
Karol wrote: Okey, but what will happen if your unit is made out of characters vide warlocks+2farseers, or a unit of paladins with an ancient, apothecary, Grandmaster and brother captin attached. If someone unloads Lion number of attacks in to the unit, it may run out of regular "troopers" very fast, often ending up with a ton of excessive wounds, and with the "unit" no longer being a thing if there are no more regular models in it, I struggle to imagine how the wound jumping would have to work.
They said most units will only be able to have a single character join them. And its probably gonna use the Toughness of the unit for the to-wound roll. And if you wipe the unit and only the character is left, you just take saves on them normally.....
Oh and most importantly, we havnt seen the rules, just wait.
Dudeface wrote: I think we're safely in the - they haven't given a whole enough picture, people are making assumptions based on past behaviours and/or contemporary information which won't exist or come to pass in both cases - zone, hence people are having concerns, making bold statements and getting frustrated in all directions, myself included.
Hopefully they fill in more gaps soon. Too easy to run with an incomplete picture and make wrong conclusions.
Agree.
While getting to read snippets of stuff to come is mildly interesting, it's of no real use or concern for me yet.
Nor is theorizing how this one bit might/might not work & dreaming up variants (that gw will almost certainly not implement) for it.
As I've said before, I play games in the here & now.
So I'll worry about what's to come when it arrives in about 2.5 months.
Karol wrote: Okey, but what will happen if your unit is made out of characters vide warlocks+2farseers, or a unit of paladins with an ancient, apothecary, Grandmaster and brother captin attached. If someone unloads Lion number of attacks in to the unit, it may run out of regular "troopers" very fast, often ending up with a ton of excessive wounds, and with the "unit" no longer being a thing if there are no more regular models in it, I struggle to imagine how the wound jumping would have to work.
They said most units will only be able to have a single character join them. And its probably gonna use the Toughness of the unit for the to-wound roll. And if you wipe the unit and only the character is left, you just take saves on them normally.....
Oh and most importantly, we havnt seen the rules, just wait.
That is true. Still GW is made on exeptions, and even with marines we know they can attach a Lt and a Cpt/CM to a single unit. The rules have to, or at least should represent what happens, if a Calgar and an Lt joined by a single Blade guard get hit by a 20 shot weapon. Does it spread, or does the blade guard get hit REALLY hard and then the Lt and Calgar split. All rules interaction can be "broken" and all that can impact the game will impact the unit composition.
At worse we are going to have to roll each hit/wound/save separate for such units.
Karol wrote: Okey, but what will happen if your unit is made out of characters vide warlocks+2farseers, or a unit of paladins with an ancient, apothecary, Grandmaster and brother captin attached. If someone unloads Lion number of attacks in to the unit, it may run out of regular "troopers" very fast, often ending up with a ton of excessive wounds, and with the "unit" no longer being a thing if there are no more regular models in it, I struggle to imagine how the wound jumping would have to work.
They said most units will only be able to have a single character join them. And its probably gonna use the Toughness of the unit for the to-wound roll. And if you wipe the unit and only the character is left, you just take saves on them normally.....
Oh and most importantly, we havnt seen the rules, just wait.
That is true. Still GW is made on exeptions, and even with marines we know they can attach a Lt and a Cpt/CM to a single unit. The rules have to, or at least should represent what happens, if a Calgar and an Lt joined by a single Blade guard get hit by a 20 shot weapon. Does it spread, or does the blade guard get hit REALLY hard and then the Lt and Calgar split. All rules interaction can be "broken" and all that can impact the game will impact the unit composition.
At worse we are going to have to roll each hit/wound/save separate for such units.
The same thing already happens when a Tau Commander with some Drones gets hit by a Knight's Avenger Gatling Cannon. It's not hard to resolve.
Yeah, attacks are allocated to the unit as a whole. They aren't allocated to a model until you have to take a save. I'm not sure what the problem would be.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I can't wait to add an Inquisitor in Terminator Armor to my all plasma Acolyte squad so their armor save can be a 2+ for the first six wounds for six plasma guns (and a psycannon, naturally).
Currently it's most likely that an inquisitor in termie armor would be a lone wolf. Nothing in the reveal suggests a unit with a deepstrike capable setup (terminator armor/Jumppack) would be able to join a non-matching squad.
I can't wait for acolytes to not be able to bodyguard my inquisitor after doing so for 6 editions
Unit1126PLL wrote: I can't wait to add an Inquisitor in Terminator Armor to my all plasma Acolyte squad so their armor save can be a 2+ for the first six wounds for six plasma guns (and a psycannon, naturally).
Currently it's most likely that an inquisitor in termie armor would be a lone wolf. Nothing in the reveal suggests a unit with a deepstrike capable setup (terminator armor/Jumppack) would be able to join a non-matching squad.
I can't wait for acolytes to not be able to bodyguard my inquisitor after doing so for 6 editions
I REALLY hope they flesh out Agents of the Imperium as a standalone faction honestly, the boarding action box kinda gives me hope.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I can't wait to add an Inquisitor in Terminator Armor to my all plasma Acolyte squad so their armor save can be a 2+ for the first six wounds for six plasma guns (and a psycannon, naturally).
Currently it's most likely that an inquisitor in termie armor would be a lone wolf. Nothing in the reveal suggests a unit with a deepstrike capable setup (terminator armor/Jumppack) would be able to join a non-matching squad.
I can't wait for acolytes to not be able to bodyguard my inquisitor after doing so for 6 editions
I feel like you could resolve these issues with:
-Allow the character to join the unit, even if they have different defensive profiles or deployment methods
-Don't allow the unit to deploy via alternative means unless the character also has the same ability
-Hits are resolved solely against the unit until the entire unit is gone
There's still the edge case of how you fast-roll attacks that have the potential to kill the whole unit and then also hurt the character- probably just roll in batches the size of the unit, which could get tedious if you're down to one dude plus the character, but that seems like it's going to be a relevant concern in any implementation.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I can't wait to add an Inquisitor in Terminator Armor to my all plasma Acolyte squad so their armor save can be a 2+ for the first six wounds for six plasma guns (and a psycannon, naturally).
Currently it's most likely that an inquisitor in termie armor would be a lone wolf. Nothing in the reveal suggests a unit with a deepstrike capable setup (terminator armor/Jumppack) would be able to join a non-matching squad.
I can't wait for acolytes to not be able to bodyguard my inquisitor after doing so for 6 editions
I REALLY hope they flesh out Agents of the Imperium as a standalone faction honestly, the boarding action box kinda gives me hope.
The boarding box admittedly gives me the opposite of hope, but then again I'm a fan of the Inquisition, not Agents. It's like if they bolted on a bunch of extra stuff to ecclesiarchy in sisters then kept adding stuff until the Sisters themselves became a footnote in their own faction. The Inqusition units (Named Chars, inqusitor, acolytes, jokero, Daemonhost, Inquisition Land Raider Promethius) haven't had their actual stats changed since 8th. Not to mention, Agents doesn't feel like a cohesive force, rule sor lore wise. The Inqusition Doesn't regularly fight alongside Navy Breachers. An Assassin doesn't regularly fight with a Rogue Trader and her Crew. The Old Daemonhunters/Witchhunters books worked because those forces *did* fight together. The Inqusition, their Specialists, their Stormtroopers, and their respective chamber militants do fight together regularly. These days Agents can't even take Death Cult assassins, which they had in the old codex. They can't even take the crusaders that are listed in their sections on their page on the Fething Website, even though they could in Witchhunters.
Inquisition and Angents will need a serious rework to remotely function either as standalone or as the support faction they seem to want it to be.
catbarf wrote: There's still the edge case of how you fast-roll attacks that have the potential to kill the whole unit and then also hurt the character- probably just roll in batches the size of the unit, which could get tedious if you're down to one dude plus the character, but that seems like it's going to be a relevant concern in any implementation.
They could just treat it the same way transports currently work, it takes two activations to kill a transport plus its cargo and the first activation can only kill the transport and often results in overkill/wasted damage. Currently if you fire 1,000 bullets at a Rhino and deal 500 wounds or fire 20 bullets to deal exactly 10 wounds, the end result is the same.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I can't wait to add an Inquisitor in Terminator Armor to my all plasma Acolyte squad so their armor save can be a 2+ for the first six wounds for six plasma guns (and a psycannon, naturally).
Currently it's most likely that an inquisitor in termie armor would be a lone wolf. Nothing in the reveal suggests a unit with a deepstrike capable setup (terminator armor/Jumppack) would be able to join a non-matching squad.
I can't wait for acolytes to not be able to bodyguard my inquisitor after doing so for 6 editions
Or maybe he get that rule they talked about in the article where they screen him. Or maybe they'll just get rid of the inquisitor with terminator armor altogether. Or maybe he'll only be 1 wound now. Or maybe his terminator armor will be 4+ save. Or maybe they'll send out GW employees to eat all the termieInq models before the new edition comes out.
It's all irrelevant until the full rules drop. Right now all you're doing is making something up and then choosing to be mad about it.
catbarf wrote: There's still the edge case of how you fast-roll attacks that have the potential to kill the whole unit and then also hurt the character- probably just roll in batches the size of the unit, which could get tedious if you're down to one dude plus the character, but that seems like it's going to be a relevant concern in any implementation.
They could just treat it the same way transports currently work, it takes two activations to kill a transport plus its cargo and the first activation can only kill the transport and often results in overkill/wasted damage. Currently if you fire 1,000 bullets at a Rhino and deal 500 wounds or fire 20 bullets to deal exactly 10 wounds, the end result is the same.
And it isn't rocket science anyway. You could just arbitrarily decide on simple mechanics other than discarding the wounds like, applying all unsaved wounds to the remaining character and allowing that character to save against those wounds.
Does it mean the wound ends up getting saved twice? Yes.
Is it better than the big pile of wounds miraculously missing the Primaris Lieutenant and piling into the corpse of the single Bladeguard Veteran left in the unit when the attack happened? Yes.
Are there other ways GW could do it? Yes.
I say we wait to see the all the rules on attack resolution and characters in units before we panic.
Personally, I'm trying to figure out what Precise means as a weapon rule as a thought exercise. My current theory is: A weapon with this rule may target Lone Operators regardless of the distance to the target and may have its hits allocated to Wound a Character leading a unit. This makes sense in relation to Tyranid Hyper-Adaptions: Hive Predators use of Precision against Character units (assuming units led by a character gain their keywords much as one model in a unit having a keyword give that unit the keyword in 8th/9th).
Tyranids gain Precise only after rolling to hit, so it cannot be something that influences targeting.
IMO normally all hits are resolved against the unit, you can't hit the character and the owner cannot have the character take the hit.
The character is literally inside a transpor, for targeting purposes. You can only hit the transport.
With Precise, the attacker can allocate the hits to the character instead of the unit.
It could influence targeting since the fact they gain Precise on a Critical Hit means Precise doesn’t normally require a Critical Hit. If it did, they would just gain Precise.
alextroy wrote: It could influence targeting since the fact they gain Precise on a Critical Hit means Precise doesn’t normally require a Critical Hit. If it did, they would just gain Precise.
I think what Spoletta's getting at is that it isn't an ability that applies to the targeting step before you roll; ie it can't be that it allows you to ignore 12" targeting range limits.
It's something that only comes into play after you roll to hit, so the theory that it allows the attacker to choose hit allocation rather than the defender makes sense. Then snipers and assassin characters might have Precise as an innate ability, so they always get to pick characters out of units.
Whilst it seems basic weapons can still plink away, strikes me we’ll want some dedicated Anti-Tank.
Of course, we’re yet to see a great many weapon profiles, so as ever, a lot remains to be seen. Jack of all Trades like Autocannon might still be preferred.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Depends how Light Vehicles (buggies, venoms, Vyper et al) turn out. They may yet remain Autocannon fodder.
If Autocannons retain multiple-damage that might be enough to promote them to 'jack of all trades' status, as damage seems to be going down across the board.
Every time they buff the toughness of a vehicle without changing the Wound Chart, they are just making small arms more and more efficient relative to AT guns.
Oh no, rhinos are T9! My lasguns are afraid. I bet Baneblades are even T-15. Lascannons wound on 5s with one shot? Ha! Bolters are better.
Automatically Appended Next Post: On the bright side, vehicles only barely degrade, which is good because everyone knows tanks are fully functional (except the FCS) until they lose their last hit point. Immobilization or drive train damage? What is this, HISTORICALS? And don't get me started on the squishy people inside - they are just a weakness. Modern tank crews can't be stunned, shocked, or otherwise affected by morale because that's dumb. And this isn't Historicals.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Every time they buff the toughness of a vehicle without changing the Wound Chart, they are just making small arms more and more efficient relative to AT guns.
Oh no, rhinos are T9! My lasguns are afraid. I bet Baneblades are even T-15. Lascannons wound on 5s with one shot? Ha! Bolters are better.
Automatically Appended Next Post: On the bright side, vehicles only barely degrade, which is good because everyone knows tanks are fully functional (except the FCS) until they lose their last hit point.
Let's see how generous with their weapon 'perks' like Anti-vehicle(X+) and Lethal/Devastating etc. attacks they are, it might be that dedicated anti-tank gear circumvents much of the hit-wound-save sequence and/or ignores printed values.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Every time they buff the toughness of a vehicle without changing the Wound Chart, they are just making small arms more and more efficient relative to AT guns.
Oh no, rhinos are T9! My lasguns are afraid. I bet Baneblades are even T-15. Lascannons wound on 5s with one shot? Ha! Bolters are better.
Automatically Appended Next Post: On the bright side, vehicles only barely degrade, which is good because everyone knows tanks are fully functional (except the FCS) until they lose their last hit point.
Let's see how generous with their weapon 'perks' like Anti-vehicle(X+) and Lethal/Devastating etc. attacks they are, it might be that dedicated anti-tank gear circumvents much of the hit-wound-save sequence and/or ignores printed values.
I am glad they made vehicles tougher, then. It surely will affect all those weapons that currently terrorize vehicles, like Autocannons and Grenade Launchers. Such a meaningful impact!
Small arms and AT weapons are unaffected by this change, then, most likely.
Note the Hunter Killer Missile is our first glimpse of a dedicated Anti-Vehicle weapon. And that is S14.
So to say “Lascannon only wound on a 5+” is…premature. Very premature.
I know. I was being a bit silly, but...
Elevating vehicle toughness, and then elevating weapon strengths, has no effect, unless you take away the "auto wound on 6s" part of the table.
If all AT weapons continue to wound vehicles on 3s and 4s mostly, and all small arms continue to wound on 6s, are vehicles really tougher? Is this *really* a well-titled article?
Unit, we don't know for certain what GW's planning with weapon profiles. For all we know they might make it so that if Toughness is 3x Strength, you can't wound at all. I'm not putting money on it, I'm just saying you're being a bit presumptive.
Plus even if small arms can still wound vehicles, a Rhino with 10 wounds and regenerating one per turn is not going to be particularly upset by lasguns.
I'm just hoping that the changes don't devalue anti-tank weapons too badly. Better durability is good, but if a lascannon and autocannon wound tanks on the same value you need substantially more AP and Dam for the lascannon to be worthwhile.
I know I'm basically saying 'wait and see', but applying snippets of new rules to the current paradigm is often pretty misleading.
Note the Hunter Killer Missile is our first glimpse of a dedicated Anti-Vehicle weapon. And that is S14.
So to say “Lascannon only wound on a 5+” is…premature. Very premature.
I know. I was being a bit silly, but...
Elevating vehicle toughness, and then elevating weapon strengths, has no effect, unless you take away the "auto wound on 6s" part of the table.
If all AT weapons continue to wound vehicles on 3s and 4s mostly, and all small arms continue to wound on 6s, are vehicles really tougher? Is this *really* a well-titled article?
Lasguns have never been a problem to vehicles in 9th and 8th.
What instead proved to be an issue were mid strenght, high ROF, damage 2 weapons.
These changes do nothing to the former, while protecting the vehicles against the latter.
Vehicles Are Even Tougher in the New Edition of Warhammer 40,000
armoured vehicles have been struggling to keep up with the relentless firepower the average Warhammer 40,000 army can throw around. So one major focus in the new edition has been to make those units that should feel tough more meaningfully durable. And that mentality starts with the tanks.
Almost every vehicle has received a bump in Toughness
Vehicles are significantly less vulnerable to most infantry-portable weapons, even meltagun blasts.
the majority of vehicles (and monsters) are beefier than before.
Rhino : T7 > T9
Repulsor T8> T12
Gladiator T8 > T10
Storm Speeder T6 > T9
Some abilities have been made CORE :
Deadly Demise dictates how many mortal wounds are suffered by nearby units when a vehicle explodes
Firing Deck how many embarked units can shoot from inside a transport
most Vehicles have an OC (Objective Control) of more than 1, meaning that ramming a depleted enemy infantry squad to muscle them off an objective, is an entirely legitimate tactic!
Degrading vehicles profiles A lot of vehicles used to suffer from characteristics that degraded as they took damage.
Most of those now simply suffer a penalty to their hit rolls when reduced to one-third of their starting wounds – leaving big vehicles and monsters in the fight to the last.
My hope for this is that the wider range will decrease the 'all-comers' weapons.
Small arms will plink like allways,
Assuming AT get's increased too, they will remain good at taking out vehicles.
Then if things like plasma, autocannon etc stay true mid range meaning they will hopefully not be great anti vehicle and will have to carve out their own role, maybe as light vehicle/TEQ killers
Unit1126PLL wrote: Every time they buff the toughness of a vehicle without changing the Wound Chart, they are just making small arms more and more efficient relative to AT guns.
Oh no, rhinos are T9! My lasguns are afraid. I bet Baneblades are even T-15. Lascannons wound on 5s with one shot? Ha! Bolters are better.
Didn't realise you'd seen all the rules already.
On the bright side, vehicles only barely degrade, which is good because everyone knows tanks are fully functional (except the FCS) until they lose their last hit point. Immobilization or drive train damage? What is this, HISTORICALS? And don't get me started on the squishy people inside - they are just a weakness. Modern tank crews can't be stunned, shocked, or otherwise affected by morale because that's dumb. And this isn't Historicals.
And famously, organic (or as close to organic as 40k allows) creatures also suffer no loss of performance until their last wound is gone. Your Chapter Master can keep on hitting as if he'd just walked out from the Chapter Shower this morning.
Doohicky wrote: My hope for this is that the wider range will decrease the 'all-comers' weapons.
Small arms will plink like allways,
Assuming AT get's increased too, they will remain good at taking out vehicles.
Then if things like plasma, autocannon etc stay true mid range meaning they will hopefully not be great anti vehicle and will have to carve out their own role, maybe as light vehicle/TEQ killers
I'm guessing the point here is to weaken the mid range options like you said. Right now things get weird if a plasma or autocannon unit gets too strong. With a wider range of toughness options things like the helverins and plasmaceptors can be buffed without throwing the entire game out of whack.
catbarf wrote:Unit, we don't know for certain what GW's planning with weapon profiles. For all we know they might make it so that if Toughness is 3x Strength, you can't wound at all. I'm not putting money on it, I'm just saying you're being a bit presumptive.
Plus even if small arms can still wound vehicles, a Rhino with 10 wounds and regenerating one per turn is not going to be particularly upset by lasguns.
I'm just hoping that the changes don't devalue anti-tank weapons too badly. Better durability is good, but if a lascannon and autocannon wound tanks on the same value you need substantially more AP and Dam for the lascannon to be worthwhile.
I know I'm basically saying 'wait and see', but applying snippets of new rules to the current paradigm is often pretty misleading.
I know this, yes. I was speculating the same "3x toughness" thing...
But it's such a regression. We had good vehicle rules, where they were immune to small arms, and they felt *different*.
Right now, they just feel like an infantry unit with higher stats, and by removing degrading, even moreso. I guess I just don't see a way ahead for genuinely better vehicles in 40k - because the problem with them wasn't "too weak, make tougher" caveman brain level issues. It was basic wargame core rules issues.
Note the Hunter Killer Missile is our first glimpse of a dedicated Anti-Vehicle weapon. And that is S14.
So to say “Lascannon only wound on a 5+” is…premature. Very premature.
I know. I was being a bit silly, but...
Elevating vehicle toughness, and then elevating weapon strengths, has no effect, unless you take away the "auto wound on 6s" part of the table.
If all AT weapons continue to wound vehicles on 3s and 4s mostly, and all small arms continue to wound on 6s, are vehicles really tougher? Is this *really* a well-titled article?
Lasguns have never been a problem to vehicles in 9th and 8th.
What instead proved to be an issue were mid strenght, high ROF, damage 2 weapons.
These changes do nothing to the former, while protecting the vehicles against the latter.
Really? Autocannons and Grenade Launchers bothered vehicles last edition?
Man, good thing I didn't run into any of those - my Baneblades usually died to other things.
Note the Hunter Killer Missile is our first glimpse of a dedicated Anti-Vehicle weapon. And that is S14.
So to say “Lascannon only wound on a 5+” is…premature. Very premature.
I know. I was being a bit silly, but...
Elevating vehicle toughness, and then elevating weapon strengths, has no effect, unless you take away the "auto wound on 6s" part of the table.
If all AT weapons continue to wound vehicles on 3s and 4s mostly, and all small arms continue to wound on 6s, are vehicles really tougher? Is this *really* a well-titled article?
It takes over 26 bolter ( 36 lasgun ) shots to take a wound off a Rhino, which it then heals the next turn. You enjoy shooting them with bolters and lasguns all you want.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Every time they buff the toughness of a vehicle without changing the Wound Chart, they are just making small arms more and more efficient relative to AT guns.
Oh no, rhinos are T9! My lasguns are afraid. I bet Baneblades are even T-15. Lascannons wound on 5s with one shot? Ha! Bolters are better.
Didn't realise you'd seen all the rules already.
Sorry, I thought the thread was discussing the previews. If you would prefer to wait until the full rules release to discuss them, you could always ask for the thread to be locked.
After all, I didn't realize *anyone* had seen the full rules yet, posting here.
Note the Hunter Killer Missile is our first glimpse of a dedicated Anti-Vehicle weapon. And that is S14.
So to say “Lascannon only wound on a 5+” is…premature. Very premature.
I know. I was being a bit silly, but...
Elevating vehicle toughness, and then elevating weapon strengths, has no effect, unless you take away the "auto wound on 6s" part of the table.
If all AT weapons continue to wound vehicles on 3s and 4s mostly, and all small arms continue to wound on 6s, are vehicles really tougher? Is this *really* a well-titled article?
It takes over 26 bolter ( 36 lasgun ) shots to take a wound off a Rhino, which it then heals the next turn. You enjoy shooting them with bolters and lasguns all you want.
If there's one thing about vehicles that's realistic, it's that they're immune to small arms IRL because their armor just grows back!
(I think people are missing the point: the vehicle rules for this edition disappoint me because they don't fix anything that I considered bad about the earlier edition, really. Except fire points).
Unit1126PLL wrote: Every time they buff the toughness of a vehicle without changing the Wound Chart, they are just making small arms more and more efficient relative to AT guns.
Oh no, rhinos are T9! My lasguns are afraid. I bet Baneblades are even T-15. Lascannons wound on 5s with one shot? Ha! Bolters are better.
Automatically Appended Next Post: On the bright side, vehicles only barely degrade, which is good because everyone knows tanks are fully functional (except the FCS) until they lose their last hit point. Immobilization or drive train damage? What is this, HISTORICALS? And don't get me started on the squishy people inside - they are just a weakness. Modern tank crews can't be stunned, shocked, or otherwise affected by morale because that's dumb. And this isn't Historicals.
You're right, what kind of world is this where we don't have the fundamental historical realism of vehicles being immobolized by small shrubs, are picket fences, or moderate inclines. Even better, let's have a crew of psychically indoctrinated super soldiers literally pee their pants when a shell hits their transport for the 30,000th time in their hundreds of years of service.
They should bring back the scatter die to see which direct the pee comes out of the Marine's armor. Thank you Unit1126PLL, for your ardent support of rules revolving around people peeing on themselves.
Unit1126PLL wrote: (I think people are missing the point: the vehicle rules for this edition disappoint me because they don't fix anything that I considered bad about the earlier edition, really. Except fire points).
That small arms can graze a vehicle isn't, to me, an indication of a system problem that needs fixing. I get that you want the 'feeling on invincibility', because you take gakloads of super heavies and tanks, but the impact feels pretty negligible.
If you grind out their anti-tank you're going to steam roll them.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Every time they buff the toughness of a vehicle without changing the Wound Chart, they are just making small arms more and more efficient relative to AT guns.
Oh no, rhinos are T9! My lasguns are afraid. I bet Baneblades are even T-15. Lascannons wound on 5s with one shot? Ha! Bolters are better.
Automatically Appended Next Post: On the bright side, vehicles only barely degrade, which is good because everyone knows tanks are fully functional (except the FCS) until they lose their last hit point. Immobilization or drive train damage? What is this, HISTORICALS? And don't get me started on the squishy people inside - they are just a weakness. Modern tank crews can't be stunned, shocked, or otherwise affected by morale because that's dumb. And this isn't Historicals.
You're right, what kind of world is this where we don't have the fundamental historical realism of vehicles being immobolized by small shrubs, are picket fences, or moderate inclines. Even better, let's have a crew of psychically indoctrinated super soldiers literally pee their pants when a shell hits their transport for the 30,000th time in their hundreds of years of service.
They should bring back the scatter die to see which direct the pee comes out of the Marine's armor. Thank you Unit1126PLL, for your ardent support of rules revolving around people peeing on themselves.
I have no idea what world you live in that you think I was asking for small shrubs, picket fences, or moderate inclines to immobilize tanks. That's not even a rule in most Historicals, not to mention not a rule in older editions of 40k (unless your group counted those things as difficult terrain for tanks, which is hardly the rules's problem. Historicals would have that problem with the same groups.).
Methinks not every army in 40k are psychically indoctrinated supersoldiers, and methinks you should write the core rules for the BASELINE, and then the psychically indoctrinated supersoldiers can feel super duper supersoldier special when they ignore the baseline, instead of being the same as everyone else!
But you're right, thinking is hard and strawmen are much easier to beat.
Unit1126PLL wrote: (I think people are missing the point: the vehicle rules for this edition disappoint me because they don't fix anything that I considered bad about the earlier edition, really. Except fire points).
That small arms can graze a vehicle isn't, to me, an indication of a system problem that needs fixing. I get that you want the 'feeling on invincibility', because you take gakloads of super heavies and tanks, but the impact feels pretty negligible.
If you grind out their anti-tank you're going to steam roll them.
No, I think it's indicative of a system that doesn't care about actually modeling conflict.
My critiques are not balance critiques or "I am personally offended that my Baneblade took 1 wound from a bolter" (as you say, it literally never matters).
My critiques are "40k isn't a wargame, and with every edition since 6th it's moved further and further from accurately modeling conflict in the 41st millennium and moving closer and closer to just being a mechanism for Games Workshop to make money".
catbarf wrote:Unit, we don't know for certain what GW's planning with weapon profiles. For all we know they might make it so that if Toughness is 3x Strength, you can't wound at all. I'm not putting money on it, I'm just saying you're being a bit presumptive.
Plus even if small arms can still wound vehicles, a Rhino with 10 wounds and regenerating one per turn is not going to be particularly upset by lasguns.
I'm just hoping that the changes don't devalue anti-tank weapons too badly. Better durability is good, but if a lascannon and autocannon wound tanks on the same value you need substantially more AP and Dam for the lascannon to be worthwhile.
I know I'm basically saying 'wait and see', but applying snippets of new rules to the current paradigm is often pretty misleading.
I know this, yes. I was speculating the same "3x toughness" thing...
But it's such a regression. We had good vehicle rules, where they were immune to small arms, and they felt *different*.
Right now, they just feel like an infantry unit with higher stats, and by removing degrading, even moreso. I guess I just don't see a way ahead for genuinely better vehicles in 40k - because the problem with them wasn't "too weak, make tougher" caveman brain level issues. It was basic wargame core rules issues.
Note the Hunter Killer Missile is our first glimpse of a dedicated Anti-Vehicle weapon. And that is S14.
So to say “Lascannon only wound on a 5+” is…premature. Very premature.
I know. I was being a bit silly, but...
Elevating vehicle toughness, and then elevating weapon strengths, has no effect, unless you take away the "auto wound on 6s" part of the table.
If all AT weapons continue to wound vehicles on 3s and 4s mostly, and all small arms continue to wound on 6s, are vehicles really tougher? Is this *really* a well-titled article?
Lasguns have never been a problem to vehicles in 9th and 8th.
What instead proved to be an issue were mid strenght, high ROF, damage 2 weapons.
These changes do nothing to the former, while protecting the vehicles against the latter.
Really? Autocannons and Grenade Launchers bothered vehicles last edition?
Man, good thing I didn't run into any of those - my Baneblades usually died to other things.
Good for you that you never played against missilesides, inceptors, exocrines, hellblasters, redemptor dreadnaughts, grav pods, hyve guards, burstides, liquefiers, disintegrators, or the other dozens of units which spammed damage 2/3/d3 mid strenght attacks and that forced GW to push the -1 damage rule on everything that was meant to be at least a little bit tanky.
And all of this is not taking into account melee kills. Melee is THE spammer of mid damage mid strenght attacks, and have you seen those profiles? Power fists are still S8, so good luck fisting a tank into debris now!
Nice that firing points are back. That might give transports some use again.
I'm now curious what the embark/disembark rules will be for the new edition. Will it be only before the vehicle moves, or will units be allowed ti disembark after their transport has moved? I guess we'll see.
The article specifically says that rhinos are tougher against melta than they were in 9th; that means that even if melta did get buffed, it can't be higher than S9, wounding on a 4+ on rhinos and a 5+ on the actually sturdy vehicles.
Arachnofiend wrote: The article specifically says that rhinos are tougher against melta than they were in 9th; that means that even if melta did get buffed, it can't be higher than S9, wounding on a 4+ on rhinos and a 5+ on the actually sturdy vehicles.
Or it has less AP, or less damage or the anti-vehicle part only kicks in at melta range etc. it's not as later as strength vs toughness any more.
Arachnofiend wrote: The article specifically says that rhinos are tougher against melta than they were in 9th; that means that even if melta did get buffed, it can't be higher than S9, wounding on a 4+ on rhinos and a 5+ on the actually sturdy vehicles.
Or it has less AP, or less damage or the anti-vehicle part only kicks in at melta range etc. it's not as later as strength vs toughness any more.
The article pretty directly talks about the interaction of S and T.
Its new Toughness of 9 leaves it significantly less vulnerable to most infantry-portable weapons, even meltagun blasts.
Arachnofiend wrote: The article specifically says that rhinos are tougher against melta than they were in 9th; that means that even if melta did get buffed, it can't be higher than S9, wounding on a 4+ on rhinos and a 5+ on the actually sturdy vehicles.
Or it has less AP, or less damage or the anti-vehicle part only kicks in at melta range etc. it's not as later as strength vs toughness any more.
The article pretty directly talks about the interaction of S and T.
Its new Toughness of 9 leaves it significantly less vulnerable to most infantry-portable weapons, even meltagun blasts.
Which also implies that vehicle-mounted weapons might be the only ones to be able to easily pierce trough vehicles/monster armor.
So, what will be the role of infantry-heavy weapons/squads, and at what cost ? They are expansive, and vulnerable when not a Primaris.
Arachnofiend wrote: The article specifically says that rhinos are tougher against melta than they were in 9th; that means that even if melta did get buffed, it can't be higher than S9, wounding on a 4+ on rhinos and a 5+ on the actually sturdy vehicles.
Or it has less AP, or less damage or the anti-vehicle part only kicks in at melta range etc. it's not as later as strength vs toughness any more.
The article pretty directly talks about the interaction of S and T.
Its new Toughness of 9 leaves it significantly less vulnerable to most infantry-portable weapons, even meltagun blasts.
Which also implies that vehicle-mounted weapons might be the only ones to be able to easily pierce trough vehicles/monster armor.
So, what will be the role of infantry-heavy weapons/squads, and at what cost ? They are expansive, and vulnerable when not a Primaris.
Most does not mean all, typical anti-tank weapons like lascannons will surely pack enough of a punch to reliably threaten tanks. At a price, of course.
With a general decrease in lethality, other squad-based. heavy weapons might just be what's needed to get rid of things like heavy (Terminators etc.) and superheavy infantry or smaller monsters and vehicles like e.g. Killa Kans. Armies that are not power-armoured might see intermediate heavy weapons like guard field batteries, ork artillery or eldar weapons platforms in a support role to give you access to reliable anti-tank firepower without bringing tanks yourself.
Arachnofiend wrote: The article specifically says that rhinos are tougher against melta than they were in 9th; that means that even if melta did get buffed, it can't be higher than S9, wounding on a 4+ on rhinos and a 5+ on the actually sturdy vehicles.
Or it has less AP, or less damage or the anti-vehicle part only kicks in at melta range etc. it's not as later as strength vs toughness any more.
The article pretty directly talks about the interaction of S and T.
Its new Toughness of 9 leaves it significantly less vulnerable to most infantry-portable weapons, even meltagun blasts.
I understand but I really can't envisage a meltagun suddenly struggling to hurt a rhino. Maybe base S8 at max range then anti-vehicle 3+ under half range?
It is going to be funny, when 20 unbuffed lasguns are better vs a tank then 20 bolters, per point cost. I wonder with the T and W going up, what is GW going to do with factions that don't have high strenght squad weapons, and limited to non heavy weapons on vehicles. Maybe it is going to be melee anti tank and praying for 6s and perfect rolls on Thunder Hammers.
All in all, at worse this could make more vehicles actualy see the tables. Huge buff to smaller vehicles though. being t9 on rhino, is not the same as melta shots suddenly bouncing of skimer tanks. pre any saves rolled.
Arachnofiend wrote: The article specifically says that rhinos are tougher against melta than they were in 9th; that means that even if melta did get buffed, it can't be higher than S9, wounding on a 4+ on rhinos and a 5+ on the actually sturdy vehicles.
Or it has less AP, or less damage or the anti-vehicle part only kicks in at melta range etc. it's not as later as strength vs toughness any more.
The article pretty directly talks about the interaction of S and T.
Its new Toughness of 9 leaves it significantly less vulnerable to most infantry-portable weapons, even meltagun blasts.
Which also implies that vehicle-mounted weapons might be the only ones to be able to easily pierce trough vehicles/monster armor.
So, what will be the role of infantry-heavy weapons/squads, and at what cost ? They are expansive, and vulnerable when not a Primaris.
Most does not mean all, typical anti-tank weapons like lascannons will surely pack enough of a punch to reliably threaten tanks. At a price, of course.
With a general decrease in lethality, other squad-based. heavy weapons might just be what's needed to get rid of things like heavy (Terminators etc.) and superheavy infantry or smaller monsters and vehicles like e.g. Killa Kans. Armies that are not power-armoured might see intermediate heavy weapons like guard field batteries, ork artillery or eldar weapons platforms in a support role to give you access to reliable anti-tank firepower without bringing tanks yourself.
I think you've triggered a thought for me. They have to be careful that lascannon (as an example) isn't also default better against infantry than the weapon it replaces or we're no better off than now for weapon variation. Why bother buying a plasma gun when a lascannon can threaten tanks and likely kill a 3+ wound elite infantry just as easily.
I think you've triggered a thought for me. They have to be careful that lascannon (as an example) isn't also default better against infantry than the weapon it replaces or we're no better off than now for weapon variation. Why bother buying a plasma gun when a lascannon can threaten tanks and likely kill a 3+ wound elite infantry just as easily.
Getting that right has been a problem for GW in almost every edition: as long as you have only a handful of stats to play with, that are the same accross the board for all unit types, you have to be pretty careful or the anti-tank gun is also the anti-everything gun. Of course you can still balance that out by restricting its availability and making it expensive to field, but the general problem remains. One possible avenue they could take would be to give dedicated AT a low number of shots with good BS and high damage, so that most of it would be wasted on e.g. superheavy infantry models because the one shot could still kill a maximum of one model, while 'lesser' weapons would have more shots with less damage per shot. Of course, this hinges on them keeping restraint and not giving most tanks invulnerable saves or other things that allowed them to shrug off single, powerful hits.
Karol wrote: It is going to be funny, when 20 unbuffed lasguns are better vs a tank then 20 bolters, per point cost. I wonder with the T and W going up, what is GW going to do with factions that don't have high strenght squad weapons, and limited to non heavy weapons on vehicles. Maybe it is going to be melee anti tank and praying for 6s and perfect rolls on Thunder Hammers.
All in all, at worse this could make more vehicles actualy see the tables. Huge buff to smaller vehicles though. being t9 on rhino, is not the same as melta shots suddenly bouncing of skimer tanks. pre any saves rolled.
The dedicated psychic factions already have a clear AV weakness, which will certainly be exacerbated if tanks are good enough to be common. Since damage spells go in the shooting phase now I feel like the obvious answer to this is for Thousand Sons/Grey Knights to just have spells that kill tanks but we'll have to see what they do.
I think you've triggered a thought for me. They have to be careful that lascannon (as an example) isn't also default better against infantry than the weapon it replaces or we're no better off than now for weapon variation. Why bother buying a plasma gun when a lascannon can threaten tanks and likely kill a 3+ wound elite infantry just as easily.
Getting that right has been a problem for GW in almost every edition: as long as you have only a handful of stats to play with, that are the same accross the board for all unit types, you have to be pretty careful or the anti-tank gun is also the anti-everything gun. Of course you can still balance that out by restricting its availability and making it expensive to field, but the general problem remains. One possible avenue they could take would be to give dedicated AT a low number of shots with good BS and high damage, so that most of it would be wasted on e.g. superheavy infantry models because the one shot could still kill a maximum of one model, while 'lesser' weapons would have more shots with less damage per shot. Of course, this hinges on them keeping restraint and not giving most tanks invulnerable saves or other things that allowed them to shrug off single, powerful hits.
With the return of twin-linked a lot of models that were getting two lascannon shots will only get one now.
Dudeface wrote: I understand but I really can't envisage a meltagun suddenly struggling to hurt a rhino. Maybe base S8 at max range then anti-vehicle 3+ under half range?
Struggling is probably the wrong word, but I doubt it will wound better than a 4+ based on how they worded that. Half range might be as people said - Anti-Vehicle...maybe 2+? Maybe they'll show us the MM tomorrow.
Maybe GW will use my idea. And heavy weapons won't be equal on different platforms.
A tactical marines lascanon can be a +5 wounding "pray to Jesus" type of anti tank weapon. While one mounted on a predator will have a (anti vehicle+4) or (+3), making it a much better anti tank platform. Of course the problem with that is that eldar with their warwalkers, skimer tanks, vypers etc would be blowing up tanks left and right, if such a thing were to be real.
Karol wrote: It is going to be funny, when 20 unbuffed lasguns are better vs a tank then 20 bolters, per point cost. I wonder with the T and W going up, what is GW going to do with factions that don't have high strenght squad weapons, and limited to non heavy weapons on vehicles. Maybe it is going to be melee anti tank and praying for 6s and perfect rolls on Thunder Hammers.
All in all, at worse this could make more vehicles actualy see the tables. Huge buff to smaller vehicles though. being t9 on rhino, is not the same as melta shots suddenly bouncing of skimer tanks. pre any saves rolled.
The efficiency of bolters vs lasguns isn't really important, imo.
One thing this reveals is that GW should probably make First Born upgrades cost points again, because otherwise this system would only reinforce taking squad heavies for free as crucially useful.
That is why I say it would be funny, not powerful. a bucket of grunt IG blowing stuff up more efficiently, then 10 terminator veterans is, to me, comical. Although if Karskin keep the "my +5 are a +6" it could be different.
I wonder how GW is going to entice people to take the new primaris veterans with their combi weapons. If there is a low troop detachment or a detachment that makes veterans better at scoring, marines could stay in the as few as possible troops bracket of armies. In general 10th shapes up to be a very funny, edition. And by funny I don't mean fun or not fun. I mean like comedic , a bit like 8th index armies were. I wonder what is going to be 10th flocks+reapers=infinite number of extra turns, kind of a "we missed it" thing. I hope it is something from GSC or orks.
I think you've triggered a thought for me. They have to be careful that lascannon (as an example) isn't also default better against infantry than the weapon it replaces or we're no better off than now for weapon variation. Why bother buying a plasma gun when a lascannon can threaten tanks and likely kill a 3+ wound elite infantry just as easily.
Getting that right has been a problem for GW in almost every edition: as long as you have only a handful of stats to play with, that are the same accross the board for all unit types, you have to be pretty careful or the anti-tank gun is also the anti-everything gun. Of course you can still balance that out by restricting its availability and making it expensive to field, but the general problem remains. One possible avenue they could take would be to give dedicated AT a low number of shots with good BS and high damage, so that most of it would be wasted on e.g. superheavy infantry models because the one shot could still kill a maximum of one model, while 'lesser' weapons would have more shots with less damage per shot. Of course, this hinges on them keeping restraint and not giving most tanks invulnerable saves or other things that allowed them to shrug off single, powerful hits.
Even if LC wounds termies on 2s they still have to beat the 4++ and roll enough damage. There are enough barriers there to make it unpalatable. While LC might be useful against other elite infantry without an invuln they are unlikely to be efficient enough as a cure-all weapon, which requires diversity.
Spoletta wrote: Good for you that you never played against missilesides, inceptors, exocrines, hellblasters, redemptor dreadnaughts, grav pods, hyve guards, burstides, liquefiers, disintegrators, or the other dozens of units which spammed damage 2/3/d3 mid strenght attacks and that forced GW to push the -1 damage rule on everything that was meant to be at least a little bit tanky.
And all of this is not taking into account melee kills. Melee is THE spammer of mid damage mid strenght attacks, and have you seen those profiles? Power fists are still S8, so good luck fisting a tank into debris now!
Yeah.
Bit contrived - but look at say a unit of 5 Terminators, power sword on sergeant, 1 chain fist, 3 power fists.
Current rules would see them expect to do 8.74~ wounds to a Rhino in assault before any other effects. (Assuming +1 attack from first round of combat.)
These rules, they are doing just 4.59~ wounds.
Which is a dramatic shift.
In case it needs stating, bolters do nothing.
Lets say 20 shots from 5 of them. 20*2/3*1/6*1/3=0.74 expected wounds. I guess that rises to almost 2 with Oaths of the Moment in play - but its still not much.
It would seem weird to me to have say meltas wounding vehicles on 5s - but if they want to reduce lethality its one way to go.
Arachnofiend wrote: The dedicated psychic factions already have a clear AV weakness, which will certainly be exacerbated if tanks are good enough to be common. Since damage spells go in the shooting phase now I feel like the obvious answer to this is for Thousand Sons/Grey Knights to just have spells that kill tanks but we'll have to see what they do.
Yea, if anything, this makes mortal wounds more powerful. I imagine spells will produce fewer of those given they'll probably be mind bullets again.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote: Maybe GW will use my idea. And heavy weapons won't be equal on different platforms.
A tactical marines lascanon can be a +5 wounding "pray to Jesus" type of anti tank weapon. While one mounted on a predator will have a (anti vehicle+4) or (+3), making it a much better anti tank platform. Of course the problem with that is that eldar with their warwalkers, skimer tanks, vypers etc would be blowing up tanks left and right, if such a thing were to be real.
It won't be that severe. Perhaps it will be BS4, which is itself a curiosity, because it means it doesn't matter if they move or not -- they hit the same. I imagine Heavy will still be a weapon type for Infantry though and that the greatest difference will just be -1 to hit.
Will CSM keep the super lascannons? Who knows.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyel wrote: It would seem weird to me to have say meltas wounding vehicles on 5s - but if they want to reduce lethality its one way to go.
They'll definitely wound knights on 5s, which is a boon to the big guys.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote: Bright Lance . str 8, ap -3 , 3+d3 D, {anti tank +4, anti monster +4). And the dark lance being a clone of it with a different name.
That's another avenue to make anti-tank weapons -- low S, but high Anti-Vehicle. It keeps them off elites and focused on vehicles unless they really need to. I doubt GW will have done much of that though.
Easier to use the Anti-Keyword system, which helps keep it pointed away from smaller things. Lots of options in their playbook and it will be very interesting to see what decisions they made.
kurhanik wrote: Nice that firing points are back. That might give transports some use again.
I'm now curious what the embark/disembark rules will be for the new edition. Will it be only before the vehicle moves, or will units be allowed ti disembark after their transport has moved? I guess we'll see.
Same, I'm curious about this as well. The disembark before the transport moves has always been an unintuitive rule to explain to new players.
Daedalus81 wrote: Ooh...yea...autocannons. I think those are definitely going into plink category and getting used more on infantry now.
Which doesn't make any sense to me. They're meant to be light anti-tank weaponry. They shouldn't be putting a dent in Land Raiders, but they should reasonably expected to damage Rhinos and Chimeras with a decent volley.
Daedalus81 wrote: It takes over 26 bolter ( 36 lasgun ) shots to take a wound off a Rhino, which it then heals the next turn. You enjoy shooting them with bolters and lasguns all you want.
It shouldn't be possible in the first place. If Toughness values go up, but you can still wound anything on a 6+, then there's even more incentive to go "fishing for sixes" than there is right now.
It won't be that severe. Perhaps it will be BS4, which is itself a curiosity, because it means it doesn't matter if they move or not -- they hit the same. I imagine Heavy will still be a weapon type for Infantry though and that the greatest difference will just be -1 to hit.
Will CSM keep the super lascannons? Who knows.
I remember what -+4 or worse to hit weapons do in game from 8th. If GW shapes their anti tank weapons that way, then we will have another edition of no lascanons , unless someone has a ton of special and extra rules that make lascanons, not lascanons. And we will get more melta and anti-X weapon spam. And the faction that gets the most undercosted anti-X weapons, which also work great vs marines, will be the first one to dominate. Especialy if it gets good secondaries too, if those are a thing in 10th.
In my fantasy setting I see MM as the shorter range umph anti tank weapon, while the lascanon can switch between an direct pin point anti tank shot and a wide beam that works more like a scatter laser. While stuff like hvy bolters and AC could be anti-infantry, and the rocket/grenade launchers having some utility rules with slow down ammo, debuff ammo etc. Just to make the weapons actual options or make it more feel like there maybe are options, but the chance of that happening is zero, or almost zero. In the end it is all speculations unless someone works in what ever place is/was printing the rules books for 10th.
Daedalus81 wrote: That's another avenue to make anti-tank weapons -- low S, but high Anti-Vehicle. It keeps them off elites and focused on vehicles unless they really need to. I doubt GW will have done much of that though.
A notable problem with this is that it makes these weapons especially terrible against monsters, which I don't think is desirable.
I doubt Anti-Vehicle will be very common. It has the effect of making a weapon equally useful against all vehicles, be they T9 or T14. That is a bad thing unless you are dealing with a very specific type of weapon, like a S8 Chainfist that does 2 Damage an attack.
Daedalus81 wrote: It takes over 26 bolter ( 36 lasgun ) shots to take a wound off a Rhino, which it then heals the next turn. You enjoy shooting them with bolters and lasguns all you want.
It shouldn't be possible in the first place. If Toughness values go up, but you can still wound anything on a 6+, then there's even more incentive to go "fishing for sixes" than there is right now.
I mean, using small arms or light autocannons to damage view ports, annetenas, fire control sensors, etc, is something we see in the real world. Not everything on a tank is bulletproof, and "buttoning up" a tank to limit its situational awareness, focus its attention away form the flanking AT system, or generally cuase problems with it.
its not unrealistic at all to fish a few wounds off it.
xerxeskingofking wrote: I mean, using small arms or light autocannons to damage view ports, annetenas, fire control sensors, etc, is something we see in the real world. Not everything on a tank is bulletproof, and "buttoning up" a tank to limit its situational awareness, focus its attention away form the flanking AT system, or generally cuase problems with it.
Do troopers regularly, when bereft of other targets, decide to empty their mags into armoured vehicles? Do whole squads line up and just unload on things that they can't appreciably damage?
xerxeskingofking wrote: I mean, using small arms or light autocannons to damage view ports, annetenas, fire control sensors, etc, is something we see in the real world. Not everything on a tank is bulletproof, and "buttoning up" a tank to limit its situational awareness, focus its attention away form the flanking AT system, or generally cuase problems with it.
Do troopers regularly, when bereft of other targets, decide to empty their mags into armoured vehicles? Do whole squads line up and just unload on things that they can't appreciably damage?
Depending on the type of engagement, yes. A typical situation would be infantry holding a defensive line being assailed by a tank. The vehicle needs to be stopped, usually by directing it into mines or with man-portable missiles, but when a firefight opens *everyone* present opens fire at the same time. Not really to destroy it as such, but to distract its crew from making out which bush in front of them contains actual AT weapons, to demoralise the crew by telling them that this is now a real firefight and perhaps drive them away, to kill any infantry advancing behind the vehicle or fleeing crew from a tank that suffers a mission kill from the AT weapons and so on. There are a bunch of reasons related to incomplete information and fog of war in a real battle that 40k doesn't deal with but which can be rolled into the abstraction of infantry generally attempting to effect the enemy in front of them.
Of course you don't start a fight on your own volition if all you have is a rifle and the enemy has a tank, but the types of small combined arms brawls depicted by 40k games are already past that stage. The game is about the short, desperate moment where you throw down everything you have to win fire superiority and in that context, firing bullets at a tank is absolutely something you would see troopers do while praying their artillery and AT teams get hustling faster.
I just can't see an American infantryman seeing a tank cresting a hill and just holding down the trigger on his M-16 until he has nothing left in the vain hope he might get lucky.
xerxeskingofking wrote: I mean, using small arms or light autocannons to damage view ports, annetenas, fire control sensors, etc, is something we see in the real world. Not everything on a tank is bulletproof, and "buttoning up" a tank to limit its situational awareness, focus its attention away form the flanking AT system, or generally cuase problems with it.
Do troopers regularly, when bereft of other targets, decide to empty their mags into armoured vehicles? Do whole squads line up and just unload on things that they can't appreciably damage?
I know nothing about real anti tank combat so will stay out of that discussion :-)
I'm hoping for a little tweak to the to wound chart for S VS T.
A simple change by adding an additional stipulation that if a target has toughness of 3x or more than the Strength of the weapon then it cannot hurt it.
Rarely comes into play other than when attacking the heaviest targets.
Lasguns won't be able to hurt proper tanks, bolters wont be able to hurt very heavy tanks. Will only have an effect on basic infantry weapons, anything S5 or above wont get effected as they said the highest T is 14.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I just can't see an American infantryman seeing a tank cresting a hill and just holding down the trigger on his M-16 until he has nothing left in the vain hope he might get lucky.
That would be an extreme example, but in reality suppressing fire might still be called for - you can get lucky hits on things on the tank, you prevent the tank commander going out of the hatch to get a better look at his surroundings (which is pretty important, as especially pre-modern tanks have very limited awareness and lines of sight if limited to scopes and viewing ports) or using pintle-mounted weaponry, you may prevent transported infantry from dismounting, and it's a boon to your own troops if they feel like they're doing something. Also, due to circumstances and environmental conditions, you may not even be entirely sure what vehicle exactly you're shooting at, maybe you do actually have a chance to hurt it with e.g. a light machine gun, maybe you we're just mistaken and you don't.
To circle back to the game, 2nd edition was iirc. the last one that tried to represent things like that - the SM razorback (which at the time had a marine manning the turret gun) had convoluted rules for the extra protection granted by the gun's front shield, and you could opt to either keep firing the gun, use the gunners pistol or retreat into the tank and close the hatches. Even for the more roleplaying-oriented 2nd edition, that was a lot of things to consider for a squad support/ transport hybrid.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Every time they buff the toughness of a vehicle without changing the Wound Chart, they are just making small arms more and more efficient relative to AT guns.
Oh no, rhinos are T9! My lasguns are afraid. I bet Baneblades are even T-15. Lascannons wound on 5s with one shot? Ha! Bolters are better.
Didn't realise you'd seen all the rules already.
Sorry, I thought the thread was discussing the previews. If you would prefer to wait until the full rules release to discuss them, you could always ask for the thread to be locked.
After all, I didn't realize *anyone* had seen the full rules yet, posting here.
).
Others aren't making assumptions of rules they don't know.
I've read a paper on a american forces vs isis combat. The us forces defended an airport and sprayed some tank with 50cals. The isis crew panicked and exited the tank, to be gunned down as they tried to run.
Also in ww1 german machinegunners sprayed into british tanks and sometimes penetrated. They might have had specialised heavier ammo for that.
So light weapons vs tanks are not unheard of
Automatically Appended Next Post: Can't see any similar theories here on meltas, but i would assume being in melta range just increase the weapon strenght. No "anti tank"-keywords are neeeded then.
U guys saw the hunter killer missle had s14 right?
This overall Scenario is not a question of damage but of Moral
does the infantry gets panic and starts shooting even knowing that it won't do anything but give away their position
and does the tank crew get distracted or panic because there are people shooting at them
all other games with modern warfare use moral and/or suppression for this
and it works
Suppressing a tank with small arms fire? Alrighty then...
I just cannot fathom the idea of infantry consciously, as a tactical decision, opening fire on something they cannot hurt on the off chance they hit something vital. Out of fear/panic, maybe, but that's not the same thing as a squad of men lining up to fire at tanks.
And none of this really takes away from the point that by making vehicles even tougher but leaving in "6+ wounds regardless of comparative Strength/Toughness", you're making those weapons more efficient. They're more numerous, and you can "fish for 6's" when you have nothing better to do.
WisdomLS wrote: I know nothing about real anti tank combat so will stay out of that discussion :-)
A simple change by adding an additional stipulation that if a target has toughness of 3x or more than the Strength of the weapon then it cannot hurt it.
Rarely comes into play other than when attacking the heaviest targets.
Lasguns won't be able to hurt proper tanks, bolters wont be able to hurt very heavy tanks. Will only have an effect on basic infantry weapons, anything S5 or above wont get effected as they said the highest T is 14.
Simple and easy to put in.
Had that same idea. And why would they up the Toughness if it didn't have any effect following the current chart?
Another variant would be the Lotr wound chart, where you have wounding on 6 (Strength 3 vs. T 7), a 6 followed by 4+ (strength 3 vs. T 8), then 6/5+ (S3 vs. T9) and so on. Would be far more complicated and involve lots of rerolls (in lotr units with T8+ are pretty rare outside of dwarfs so it's not a problem), but it would allow "everything to hurt everything" which was GWs goal in 8th, but I'm not sure they renewed that in the 10th previews so far.
Daedalus81 wrote: Ooh...yea...autocannons. I think those are definitely going into plink category and getting used more on infantry now.
Which doesn't make any sense to me. They're meant to be light anti-tank weaponry. They shouldn't be putting a dent in Land Raiders, but they should reasonably expected to damage Rhinos and Chimeras with a decent volley.
Eh, are Rhinos and Chimeras light vehicles? They seem pretty well armoured to me.
A light vehicle would be something more like a land speeder or a venom. Isn't there a jeep looking thing in the game as well?
And none of this really takes away from the point that by making vehicles even tougher but leaving in "6+ wounds regardless of comparative Strength/Toughness", you're making those weapons more efficient. They're more numerous, and you can "fish for 6's" when you have nothing better to do.
Yes, fishing for 6s is obviously un-fluffy and a point where this system apparently breaks down (unless, again, there are rules that we're not currently aware of that stop you from lasgunning a baneblade to death). If it exists in 10th, it's a weakness of the system and probably the most lazy/clutchy solution to the problem of e.g. pure Knight armies existing, which would make much of a typical army completely useless against them if small arms were flat-out unable of even scratching them at all.
Another variant would be the Lotr wound chart, where you have wounding on 6 (Strength 3 vs. T 7), a 6 followed by 4+ (strength 3 vs. T 8), then 6/5+ (S3 vs. T9) and so on. Would be far more complicated and involve lots of rerolls (in lotr units with T8+ are pretty rare outside of dwarfs so it's not a problem), but it would allow "everything to hurt everything" which was GWs goal in 8th, but I'm not sure they renewed that in the 10th previews so far.
That's also how you rolled 7+, 8+ etc. on a D6 in very early editions and sidegames based on them, but as you said, it quickly becomes impractical in games where you roll buckets of dice.
And none of this really takes away from the point that by making vehicles even tougher but leaving in "6+ wounds regardless of comparative Strength/Toughness", you're making those weapons more efficient. They're more numerous, and you can "fish for 6's" when you have nothing better to do.
True, that would be pretty lame and would hurt the flow of the game. It would encourage players to mass fire at vehicles on the off chance that they'll get a few sixes, because why wouldn't you? If there's no better target and you have a bunch of dudes with rifles sitting around, you might as well try your luck.
They should just not have that rule and save us the trouble of sitting through that.
That said things like 50cals or AA cannons can seriously damage tanks and scare/ surpress crew.
Just because you can't destroy a target doesn't mean that said target has an cold enough crew to realise that, and even if it does, getting tracked and blinded by low or even high calibre still doesn't feel nice.
Nvm that without mobility due to damage a Tank turns fast into an artillery target.
That said things like 50cals or AA cannons can seriously damage tanks and scare/ surpress crew.
Just because you can't destroy a target doesn't mean that said target has an cold enough crew to realise that, and even if it does, getting tracked and blinded by low or even high calibre still doesn't feel nice.
Nvm that without mobility due to damage a Tank turns fast into an artillery target.
IMHO a hybrid system between AV of the past and the current system would work well. The biggest hindrance to the AV system was that it was artificially limited by the available range of strength values + D6, and at the time did not take AP into account at all (because AP was its own can of worms, not a modifier like today), and damage values straight up did not exist.
Nowadays, you could use AV with a much higher range of values because strength is no longer capped at 10, and use the AP modifier directly. Give tanks a number of hull points comparable or greater to their current wounds, and use damage. Add in some rules that allow saves to reduce damage or damage-cap each individual hit for extraordinarily sturdy verhicles, and you have a system that gets the most important touchpoints right-ish.
I'm pretty sure they don't want to try balancing a game where a % of units can't certain units at all.
Does anyone remember the armoured company rules for 3-4th edition where they had to add special rules just for those vehicles to allow infantry weapons to hurt them?
From a setting perspective I like the idea of immune vehicles but I also remember 3-5 ed games where targeting the anti tank units left armies without any ability to hurt opposing vehicles.
I think they've decided that a small chance is still easier to balance than 0 chance.
Especially if you're playing knights and they take out all the more potent weapons quickly ala the aforementioned mech companies.
Hellebore wrote: I'm pretty sure they don't want to try balancing a game where a % of units can't certain units at all.
Does anyone remember the armoured company rules for 3-4th edition where they had to add special rules just for those vehicles to allow infantry weapons to hurt them?
From a setting perspective I like the idea of immune vehicles but I also remember 3-5 ed games where targeting the anti tank units left armies without any ability to hurt opposing vehicles.
I think they've decided that a small chance is still easier to balance than 0 chance.
Especially if you're playing knights and they take out all the more potent weapons quickly ala the aforementioned mech companies.
Yeah, like i said:
it's a weakness of the system and probably the most lazy/clutchy solution to the problem of e.g. pure Knight armies existing, which would make much of a typical army completely useless against them if small arms were flat-out unable of even scratching them at all.
It's a crutch that needs to exist to solve edge-cases like pure knight armies, because the system as it is currently set up can't handle them otherwise.
Frankly pure knight armies in their current form should not exist, doubly so because it ignores the household forces/ man at arms aspect. Alas gw gotta gw.
Not Online!!! wrote: Frankly pure knight armies in their current form should not exist, doubly so because it ignores the household forces/ man at arms aspect. Alas gw gotta gw.
Yes, obviously that would be the better solution, but alas, this ship has sailed long time ago.
Spoletta wrote: I don't think that GW sees the "fishing for 6s" as a weakpoint of this rule system.
They probably see it as a perk.
We have one faction right now who can just say "Oh, that's a lot of vehicles! Now I autowound them on 6s to hit".
They may see it as a perk, but it's still degenerate (in a mathematical sense) game design. Not only because it makes small arms relatively better, but also because it removes differences between small arms if the target is above a certain toughness value, which leads to paradoxical effects and makes it difficult to price weapons and options correctly (not that this is a large problem for GW and their usual approach of just eyeballing point costs ).
Hellebore wrote: I'm pretty sure they don't want to try balancing a game where a % of units can't certain units at all.
Does anyone remember the armoured company rules for 3-4th edition where they had to add special rules just for those vehicles to allow infantry weapons to hurt them?
From a setting perspective I like the idea of immune vehicles but I also remember 3-5 ed games where targeting the anti tank units left armies without any ability to hurt opposing vehicles.
I think they've decided that a small chance is still easier to balance than 0 chance.
Especially if you're playing knights and they take out all the more potent weapons quickly ala the aforementioned mech companies.
Yeah, like i said:
it's a weakness of the system and probably the most lazy/clutchy solution to the problem of e.g. pure Knight armies existing, which would make much of a typical army completely useless against them if small arms were flat-out unable of even scratching them at all.
It's a crutch that needs to exist to solve edge-cases like pure knight armies, because the system as it is currently set up can't handle them otherwise.
Or like...multiple land raiders? Knights are not at all the only vehicle in 40k that A. are canonically immune to small arms fire and B. Can be fielded en masse.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I just can't see an American infantryman seeing a tank cresting a hill and just holding down the trigger on his M-16 until he has nothing left in the vain hope he might get lucky.
I seen videos of russians doing it though. And w40k armies function a lot more like the russian army, then the US one.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I just can't see an American infantryman seeing a tank cresting a hill and just holding down the trigger on his M-16 until he has nothing left in the vain hope he might get lucky.
WW2 training material on the subject.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gitdakka wrote: I've read a paper on a american forces vs isis combat. The us forces defended an airport and sprayed some tank with 50cals. The isis crew panicked and exited the tank, to be gunned down as they tried to run.
Also in ww1 german machinegunners sprayed into british tanks and sometimes penetrated. They might have had specialised heavier ammo for that.
WW1 tanks had awful spalling issues against machine guns. They were dangerous to be in. And the noise would be quite something. Newer tanks don't have those issues. Usually if you're out of AT missiles you're cowering while randomly tossing hail mary grenades.
They may see it as a perk, but it's still degenerate (in a mathematical sense) game design. Not only because it makes small arms relatively better, but also because it removes differences between small arms if the target is above a certain toughness value, which leads to paradoxical effects and makes it difficult to price weapons and options correctly (not that this is a large problem for GW and their usual approach of just eyeballing point costs ).
I don't think you need to price weapons for incidental damage at all.
If there were ways to interact between units beyond just killing them or being killed, then it doesn't matter if things can't be hurt - because you can degrade their performance in other ways.
Daedalus81 wrote: I don't think you need to price weapons for incidental damage at all.
The fact that 10 lasgun hits do as much damage to a T8+ target as 10 boltgun hits doesn't really matter in game when both have a good chance to do nothing.
I think the issue is more that you get weird effects at the top.
An S8 gun for instance is the same into T9, T10, T12 and T14. Being T12 over T10 only matters if there's going to be a reasonable amount of S10/11/12 attacks. If there isn't, its not obvious its a worthwhile "upgrade" assuming you are paying anything meaningful for it.
Tsagualsa wrote: The problem is that there's just no pleasing some people. At this point, complaining about Warhammer is an entirely separate hobby from Warhammer
Always has been.
Twinlinked changes seem like potentially a dramatic nerf. Although we saw the Termagant Spinefists got 2 shots. So maybe there will be some compensation there for certain units.
Before any special rules etc, its interesting to think how Aggressors have gone from potentially having 12 shots from their gauntlets, to 6, and now to 3.
I'm honestly shocked that they're consolidating bolters.
In fact, giving bolt rifles the ability to advance-and-shoot and the ability to stay still for greater accuracy gives them tactical flexibility, which is perfectly fitting for Marines.
xerxeskingofking wrote: I mean, using small arms or light autocannons to damage view ports, annetenas, fire control sensors, etc, is something we see in the real world. Not everything on a tank is bulletproof, and "buttoning up" a tank to limit its situational awareness, focus its attention away form the flanking AT system, or generally cuase problems with it.
Do troopers regularly, when bereft of other targets, decide to empty their mags into armoured vehicles? Do whole squads line up and just unload on things that they can't appreciably damage?
Considering a Las gun is often equated to a 50Cal and bolters are essentially RPGs I don't know why you wouldn't shoot at armor if you are out active targets. Lots of components on tanks can be damaged by rounds of this size and depending on the armor level of certain vehicles you can punch through certain areas. Considering enough las weapons concentration will begin to superheat and melt/weaken armor it gives even more reason to shoot at armor if you don't have a better target.
Before any special rules etc, its interesting to think how Aggressors have gone from potentially having 12 shots from their gauntlets, to 6, and now to 3.
If it reduces the number of shots per unit from the ludicrous 72 of 8th edition to 18 now, that seems like a good change. I hope they reduce the rate of fire of more weapons in line with this change.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 wrote: Funnily enough codifies what people been doing anyway and expands it into ingame bonus
Yeah, it's an interesting modification to the "no model, no rules" and "has a model so must have rules" approach GW have taken in 9th. It's a good hybrid of consolidation and flexibility.
Asmodios wrote: Considering a Las gun is often equated to a 50Cal and bolters are essentially RPGs I don't know why you wouldn't shoot at armor if you are out active targets. Lots of components on tanks can be damaged by rounds of this size and depending on the armor level of certain vehicles you can punch through certain areas. Considering enough las weapons concentration will begin to superheat and melt/weaken armor it gives even more reason to shoot at armor if you don't have a better target.
'Lasguns are .50s and bolters are RPGs' is more a meme than actual fluff. It's the same kind of cherry-picking of throwaway lines to conclude that a Leman Russ has a combat speed of 80mph, and is so tough that contemporary anti-tank weapons wouldn't even dent it (which rather works against the idea that lasguns and bolters would be effective).
IRL you're never going to hard-kill an MBT with small arms but a mission kill with crew-served weapons might be doable. 40K just doesn't have any distinction between a mission kill and a hard kill, so being able to knock out a Rhino with 180 lasgun hits is the compromise. Not a big deal mechanically I can understand disliking that abstraction.
Before any special rules etc, its interesting to think how Aggressors have gone from potentially having 12 shots from their gauntlets, to 6, and now to 3.
If it reduces the number of shots per unit from the ludicrous 72 of 8th edition to 18 now, that seems like a good change. I hope they reduce the rate of fire of more weapons in line with this change.
I'm getting the distinct impression that they're handing out abilities that trigger on certain values in lieu of just more shots or more damage. More 6s to hit that turn into multiple hits, more hits that auto-wound, more wounds converting to mortal wounds. It's easier to layer as buffs and reduces the number of dice needed to achieve a result.
Asmodios wrote: ...Considering a Las gun is often equated to a 50Cal and bolters are essentially RPGs I don't know why you wouldn't shoot at armor if you are out active targets. Lots of components on tanks can be damaged by rounds of this size and depending on the armor level of certain vehicles you can punch through certain areas. Considering enough las weapons concentration will begin to superheat and melt/weaken armor it gives even more reason to shoot at armor if you don't have a better target.
If you exist in a universe in which these are things that exist in large quantities as small arms why would you not build your tank to stand up to small arms?
I can't recall any other instance of such a thing. If the guns are right next to each other they're twin-linked. And in this system it looks as if you're double-fisting the same weapon -- twin-linked.
Daedalus81 wrote: I can't recall any other instance of such a thing. If the guns are right next to each other they're twin-linked. And in this system it looks as if you're double-fisting the same weapon -- twin-linked.
The Hexmark will probably get 3 twin-linked.
But for example will a predator with lascannon sponsons get 2 lascannons or a twin-linked one?
Will a carnifex with 2 devourers get 2 devourers or a twin-linked one?
Asmodios wrote: ...Considering a Las gun is often equated to a 50Cal and bolters are essentially RPGs I don't know why you wouldn't shoot at armor if you are out active targets. Lots of components on tanks can be damaged by rounds of this size and depending on the armor level of certain vehicles you can punch through certain areas. Considering enough las weapons concentration will begin to superheat and melt/weaken armor it gives even more reason to shoot at armor if you don't have a better target.
If you exist in a universe in which these are things that exist in large quantities as small arms why would you not build your tank to stand up to small arms?
They do stand up to small arms…. Simply not high concentration of small arms much like many APCs/vehicles today. There is always a trade off between armor and functionality. A storm speeder could have tons and tons of steel welded to every surface making it take hundreds of thousands of las guns to ever penetrate though… but then if wouldn’t function as anything other then a paper weight and infantry would simply leave it immobile and ignore it. Same thing with a tank. You could take of treads and sensors so there really isn’t anything a bolt gun could hurt… then you are sitting still unable to see what’s going on and the space marine is gonna walk up and strap a melta bomb to you.
Tyran wrote: Tau are in similar boat in which crisis suits can have up to three weapons and commanders up to 4 IIRC.
Tau were always a bit of a weird one though, as they could pay 2x for two weapons, or around 1.5x for a single twin-linked one IIRC. Perhaps that may be a new option?
On a bit of a tangent, do we know if all the FW units will be updated as well? Got a Stormhammer, Warhound and Reaver just gathering dust at the moment, hoping 10th may breathe some new life into them.
I guess ultimately it doesn't matter. If something has too many shots without twin-linked it will likely get twin-linked like the new Redemptor with the MM. Everything will be on the datasheet anyway.
On a bit of a tangent, do we know if all the FW units will be updated as well? Got a Stormhammer, Warhound and Reaver just gathering dust at the moment, hoping 10th may breathe some new life into them.
They've confirmed FW models will be getting datasheets. "All the FW units" covers some pretty obscure stuff, but anything that has rules currently should be safe.
what a fun.
