Attacks, Strength, WS and BS are now apart of the weapon stats.

They have a new OC stat, which I think means something like Objective Control.

Assault likely still means that you can advance and shoot, pistol will likely still allow you to fire in combat. Not sure what Twin linked will be now.

I think I like it, I'm a bit concerned about what it will do to melee, if you're only able to make attacks in melee with one weapon then it seems like an improvement, having to divide attacks and bonus attacks among melee weapons (the basic one not being listed) makes things harder than they need to be. Worst case scenario I'm seeing is more draconian wargear selection or models with two power fists getting twice as many attacks.

I think it's interesting to give different weapons their own hit rate. There's potential there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also I had made a suggestion on their surveys before that models should have their own value in terms of controlling objectives, so if that's what OC stands for I can't wait to see the impact.

Stream specifically called for "Objective Control"

Interesting to note that weapons can be multiple types now, or no type at all. Seems a bit weird there's no column in the datasheet specifically for the weapon type. Putting the Strength, Attacks and hit roll on each melee weapon gives a bit more flexibility. Models with multiple weapons will presumably be given a number of attacks with each one, so we won't need the "you can make X number of extra attacks with this weapon" text any more.

Reduced AP on the Fleshborer is a good sign. Let's wait and see jhow long it takes for them to start increasing it again.

Strange to see Twin-Linked coming back, that's a bit of a blast from the past.

Overall it looks ok to me, the loss of the innate strength and WS stats is odd, but I suppose it won't take so long to get used to. I do like the OC stat, makes sense. My main gripe though is are they going to keep cutting stuff out of the game to "speed it up"? Not needed in my opinion, there's already been too much cut under that premise.

 Valkyrie wrote:
Strange to see Twin-Linked coming back, that's a bit of a blast from the past.

Overall it looks ok to me, the loss of the innate strength and WS stats is odd, but I suppose it won't take so long to get used to. I do like the OC stat, makes sense. My main gripe though is are they going to keep cutting stuff out of the game to "speed it up"? Not needed in my opinion, there's already been too much cut under that premise.

maybe, but when a game takes 3-4 hours to play, thats a sign it needs improving.

It looks much more simple, I might be inclined to try and find a game

xerxeskingofking wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:
Strange to see Twin-Linked coming back, that's a bit of a blast from the past.

Overall it looks ok to me, the loss of the innate strength and WS stats is odd, but I suppose it won't take so long to get used to. I do like the OC stat, makes sense. My main gripe though is are they going to keep cutting stuff out of the game to "speed it up"? Not needed in my opinion, there's already been too much cut under that premise.

maybe, but when a game takes 3-4 hours to play, thats a sign it needs improving.

This new (old) GW though. The rules could fit on 2 sides of A4 paper but GW would find some way of having the important rules on page 3....

I actually like the new layout and am very impressed that free downloads will be a thing. Speeded up gameplay will get get me more involved but I'm an old GW cynic.

 Mr. Burning wrote:



This new (old) GW though. The rules could fit on 2 sides of A4 paper but GW would find some way of having the important rules on page 3....

I actually like the new layout and am very impressed that free downloads will be a thing. Speeded up gameplay will get get me more involved but I'm an old GW cynic.

oh, agreed. I dont trust GW not to keep adding bloat on after trimming the core rules. the real test will be what happens when we see the new space marine codex. how much extra stuff will they add thier? will they be able to restrain themselves properly or just start adding stuff agian?

I wonder if 9th saw a drop in people playing or perhaps didn’t generate the extra enthusiasm a new launch normally does.

xerxeskingofking wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:



This new (old) GW though. The rules could fit on 2 sides of A4 paper but GW would find some way of having the important rules on page 3....

I actually like the new layout and am very impressed that free downloads will be a thing. Speeded up gameplay will get get me more involved but I'm an old GW cynic.

oh, agreed. I dont trust GW not to keep adding bloat on after trimming the core rules. the real test will be what happens when we see the new space marine codex. how much extra stuff will they add thier? will they be able to restrain themselves properly or just start adding stuff agian?

this will be the real test. If they quickly bloat the game again with extra crap in the codexes to sell them (see strategems) it won't matter as things will still end up terrible

xerxeskingofking wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:



This new (old) GW though. The rules could fit on 2 sides of A4 paper but GW would find some way of having the important rules on page 3....

I actually like the new layout and am very impressed that free downloads will be a thing. Speeded up gameplay will get get me more involved but I'm an old GW cynic.

oh, agreed. I dont trust GW not to keep adding bloat on after trimming the core rules. the real test will be what happens when we see the new space marine codex. how much extra stuff will they add thier? will they be able to restrain themselves properly or just start adding stuff agian?

For reference, GW have stated at the start of the last 2 editions that streamlining and simplification were big driving factors. That didn't turn out so well. GW's design process seems to generate extra complexity of its own accord, mainly because they don't seem capable of having a strict set of design rules at the start of an edition and sticking to them.

mrFickle wrote:I wonder if 9th saw a drop in people playing or perhaps didn’t generate the extra enthusiasm a new launch normally does.

9th was pretty successful for GW. We're just following the standard trend from them of a new edition every 3 years.

 vict0988 wrote:
...Worst case scenario I'm seeing is more draconian wargear selection...

This.

How they've been moving towards homogenization of unit's choices (ex: Death Guard squad load outs) really worries me.

I think I like it.

There’s plenty space on them, and they seem easy enough to read. Certainly as someone mildly irritated by Heresy’s “hunt the rule” layout I like the theory.

However, we do have a very straight forward unit as the Only Example. So for now I’m withholding judgement until we have a better spread of examples.

If they’re all clear and concise? Thumbs up. But that’s an if.

I like it alot, the choice of layout lets them have differences between different models holding the same weapon, lets them remove a load of extra rules (extra attack, -1 to hit, +3 Str, etc...).

It does heavily imply that there will be more restrictions on what units can be equipped with.
They show a simple datasheet -it'll be interesting to see all the different weapons listed for a space marine captain or hell even a tactical Srg.
Other than firstborn marines though its not a huge issue as other factions units and primaris have much more limited weapon options.

I wouldn't be shocked to see them roll power sword/axes/mauls back into a group of power weapons and similar with all the various bolters and flamers and plasma guns and such.

My favourite thing they mentioned was the reset of the lethality and durability in the game, also mentioned on the stream was a gamewide reduction in AP which should help make the base defensive stats have more impact and thus not requiring the arms race of offensive/defensive special rules that 9th has had.

As someone mentioned above -laying out a decent overall design stratagy is all well and good, I like what they have outlined........ but! They have to stick to it for the whole edition, thats the whole reason for a design strategy in the first place.

We can but hope.

mrFickle wrote:
I wonder if 9th saw a drop in people playing or perhaps didn’t generate the extra enthusiasm a new launch normally does.

Well OnePageRule's patreon saw MASSIVE growth this last year and a half, i think its no coincidence that they came out and said that we'd "only need ONE PAGE of RULES" to play the game now

Be interested how something like a Tac squad layout looks now. Personally I wouldn't mind weapon profiles being amalgamated, but to some that is anathema.

Generally, I like it and look forward to seeing how it plays out.

• Presentation is cleaner and better organized.

• Weapons having their own Attack and Strength instead of a + modifier reduces redundancy, as does removing the "Type" column. Do we really need the word "Melee" listed twice for each melee weapon?

• Moving the BS/WS to the weapon allows more flexibility in unit design. It's never made much sense to me that Space Marines have the same BS using assault weapons as they do with vehicle sponson weapons. I honestly don't expect a lot of change, there's only so much you can do with a game based around six-sided dice, but I do think this is an improvement.

• These changes also fix silliness like melee goddess Lelith Hesperax having a BS of 2+ when she doesn't have ranged weapons and can't be given any.

The only problem I see is the vast amount of wasted space in that datasheet. I hope they didn't implement a standard size requirement for datasheets. Sigh, who am I kidding? We know they did.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Be interested how something like a Tac squad layout looks now. Personally I wouldn't mind weapon profiles being amalgamated, but to some that is anathema.

I'm a very old school player and I really like to have choices when building a unit, a bit of planning and tactics in army building adds alot to the game.

That said we really don't need 15 types of slightly different bolter, 5 types of slightly different flamer and so on....... have a small medium and large of each and that should be plenty.

Hopefully with the complete re-stating of the game we can get away from the primaris having the same equipment as firstborn but slightly better mentality - just make it the same but looks slightly bigger.

 Breotan wrote:
Generally, I like it and look forward to seeing how it plays out.

• Presentation is cleaner and better organized.

• Weapons having their own Attack and Strength instead of a + modifier reduces redundancy, as does removing the "Type" column. Do we really need the word "Melee" listed twice for each melee weapon?

• Moving the BS/WS to the weapon allows more flexibility in unit design. It's never made much sense to me that Space Marines have the same BS using assault weapons as they do with vehicle sponson weapons. I honestly don't expect a lot of change, there's only so much you can do with a game based around six-sided dice, but I do think this is an improvement.

• These changes also fix silliness like melee goddess Lelith Hesperax having a BS of 2+ when she doesn't have ranged weapons and can't be given any.

The only problem I see is the vast amount of wasted space in that datasheet. I hope they didn't implement a standard size requirement for datasheets. Sigh, who am I kidding? We know they did.

Agreed completly with all points - if there are going to continue to waste huge amounts of blank space - at the very least put in some lore snippets or quotes etc

I also like the progression of the stats which seems to fit comabt so you look at Toughness, then Saves, then Wounds, then Leadership - almost intuative.

vict0988 wrote:I think I like it, I'm a bit concerned about what it will do to melee, if you're only able to make attacks in melee with one weapon then it seems like an improvement, having to divide attacks and bonus attacks among melee weapons (the basic one not being listed) makes things harder than they need to be. Worst case scenario I'm seeing is more draconian wargear selection or models with two power fists getting twice as many attacks.

EviscerationPlague wrote:I think it's interesting to give different weapons their own hit rate. There's potential there.

These are both things that have already existed more or less; they've just cleaned up the implementation. Instead of some weapons giving you 2x attacks and others giving you bonus attacks in addition to your normal wargear, they'll just each have a set number of attacks. Instead of saying a model hits at its WS but gets a -1 for a powerfist or whatever, they'll just roll that into the profile.

I think it's safe to assume they're going to re-work how wargear is allocated accordingly. Expect a model with two powerfists to have a single 'twin powerfist' profile, not two identical weapons.

So instead of needing to flip between the codex entry for the model's stats and the wargear entry for its weapons in the back of the book and then combine them to figure out what you're doing, you just read the weapon statline left to right off the card. Simple.

I like what I'm hearing so far, and so does my group. The overt emphasis on dramatically reducing how much cross-referencing you have to do is exactly what we've been hoping for. All your faction/subfaction abilities and strats fitting on two pages sounds perfect. The question will be how long it is before they screw it up again.

 catbarf wrote:

vict0988 wrote:I think I like it, I'm a bit concerned about what it will do to melee, if you're only able to make attacks in melee with one weapon then it seems like an improvement, having to divide attacks and bonus attacks among melee weapons (the basic one not being listed) makes things harder than they need to be. Worst case scenario I'm seeing is more draconian wargear selection or models with two power fists getting twice as many attacks.

EviscerationPlague wrote:I think it's interesting to give different weapons their own hit rate. There's potential there.

These are both things that have already existed more or less; they've just cleaned up the implementation. Instead of some weapons giving you 2x attacks and others giving you bonus attacks in addition to your normal wargear, they'll just each have a set number of attacks. Instead of saying a model hits at its WS but gets a -1 for a powerfist or whatever, they'll just roll that into the profile.

I think it's safe to assume they're going to re-work how wargear is allocated accordingly. Expect a model with two powerfists to have a single 'twin powerfist' profile, not two identical weapons.

So instead of needing to flip between the codex entry for the model's stats and the wargear entry for its weapons in the back of the book and then combine them to figure out what you're doing, you just read the weapon statline left to right off the card. Simple.

I like what I'm hearing so far, and so does my group. The overt emphasis on dramatically reducing how much cross-referencing you have to do is exactly what we've been hoping for. All your faction/subfaction abilities and strats fitting on two pages sounds perfect. The question will be how long it is before they screw it up again.

How are you going to fit every Tactical Squad weapon on a single physical datasheet?

 Breotan wrote:

The only problem I see is the vast amount of wasted space in that datasheet. I hope they didn't implement a standard size requirement for datasheets. Sigh, who am I kidding? We know they did.

well, they outright said they plan to sell unit datacard sets as a accessory (instead of/in additon to codexes.....my money is on the latter), so standardised card sizes are something of a necessity.

 vict0988 wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

vict0988 wrote:I think I like it, I'm a bit concerned about what it will do to melee, if you're only able to make attacks in melee with one weapon then it seems like an improvement, having to divide attacks and bonus attacks among melee weapons (the basic one not being listed) makes things harder than they need to be. Worst case scenario I'm seeing is more draconian wargear selection or models with two power fists getting twice as many attacks.

EviscerationPlague wrote:I think it's interesting to give different weapons their own hit rate. There's potential there.

These are both things that have already existed more or less; they've just cleaned up the implementation. Instead of some weapons giving you 2x attacks and others giving you bonus attacks in addition to your normal wargear, they'll just each have a set number of attacks. Instead of saying a model hits at its WS but gets a -1 for a powerfist or whatever, they'll just roll that into the profile.

I think it's safe to assume they're going to re-work how wargear is allocated accordingly. Expect a model with two powerfists to have a single 'twin powerfist' profile, not two identical weapons.

So instead of needing to flip between the codex entry for the model's stats and the wargear entry for its weapons in the back of the book and then combine them to figure out what you're doing, you just read the weapon statline left to right off the card. Simple.

I like what I'm hearing so far, and so does my group. The overt emphasis on dramatically reducing how much cross-referencing you have to do is exactly what we've been hoping for. All your faction/subfaction abilities and strats fitting on two pages sounds perfect. The question will be how long it is before they screw it up again.

How are you going to fit every Tactical Squad weapon on a single physical datasheet?

Who knows, there may be stuff like smaller cards to put on the empty spaces of the large card, like they do with wepaon cards in Adeptus Titanicus, or something like that. The 50-page-document mentioned something like that.

xerxeskingofking wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

The only problem I see is the vast amount of wasted space in that datasheet. I hope they didn't implement a standard size requirement for datasheets. Sigh, who am I kidding? We know they did.

well, they outright said they plan to sell unit datacard sets as a accessory (instead of/in additon to codexes.....my money is on the latter), so standardised card sizes are something of a necessity.

For Sigmar there are some 2 page data cards. Front is the unit picture, then the other 3 sides have data.

 Mr Morden wrote:


Agreed completly with all points - if there are going to continue to waste huge amounts of blank space - at the very least put in some lore snippets or quotes etc

disagree, the datasheet should be as clean as possible, with only rules.

them being a standardized size is because they'll sell physical cards as game aids, so it makes sense for all of them to be the same size

They need to fix the core rules to have mechanical depth built into the foundation of the game or else it will become another bloat fest like 8th/9th became. If the core rules are basically just move, shoot, stab, die again then the cycle will continue.

That said seeing "Twin Linked" in the unit card without a wall of "bespoked" text next to it makes me almost have hope that USRs will be something that makes a return. Game becomes WAAAAAAY more accessible when you need to learn a couple of game mechanics and rules that are found in every army instead of trying to remember dozens if not hundreds of unique yet similar functioning rules for every codex in the game plus all the idiotic stratagems.

 vict0988 wrote:

How are you going to fit every Tactical Squad weapon on a single physical datasheet?

by consolidating some weapons (power stuff) and making combi weapons just Boltgun + special weapon

OR by making these extra large datasheet twice the size that can fold into a regular sized one(like they did for lords of change in AoS for example)

 Breotan wrote:
• Weapons having their own Attack and Strength instead of a + modifier reduces redundancy, as does removing the "Type" column. Do we really need the word "Melee" listed twice for each melee weapon?

I'm going to disagree on you - sort of - with the Type column. While there's possibly not a need for a Type column now, are you really going to claim that "Things in brackets after the weapon name" is better presentation than repurposing the Type column into a Keyword column for weapons? Looking at you (sigh) Termagant Spinefists and Fleshborer.

Assault and Pistol on the Spinefists row is interesting, now I think about it - which are they today?

Pistols atm. Assault and pistol is an attempt to make pistols more attractive overall, I think.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:


Agreed completly with all points - if there are going to continue to waste huge amounts of blank space - at the very least put in some lore snippets or quotes etc

disagree, the datasheet should be as clean as possible, with only rules.

them being a standardized size is because they'll sell physical cards as game aids, so it makes sense for all of them to be the same size

They could make them a standard size for cards and stop wasting vast amounts of space by having them standard layout but not standard size in the books - its just laziness

That's a nice clean looking data sheet and I'm looking forward to them having a reduction in cross-referencing as a design goal.

I'm on the fence about the split BS profiles per weapon. On one hand it's quite nice to represent how some weapons are more accurate than others, especially on a platform like a Tank or a Knight which has many different kinds of weapons. On the other hand, when you play large armies there's something quite nice and quick about having a near uniform BS for your army. I guess we'll see smooth it plays.

 The Red Hobbit wrote:
That's a nice clean looking data sheet and I'm looking forward to them having a reduction in cross-referencing as a design goal.

I'm on the fence about the split BS profiles per weapon. On one hand it's quite nice to represent how some weapons are more accurate than others, especially on a platform like a Tank or a Knight which has many different kinds of weapons. On the other hand, when you play large armies there's something quite nice and quick about having a near uniform BS for your army. I guess we'll see smooth it plays.

Agreed, hopefully its reserved for things like sniper rifles being extra accurate even in the hands of a guardsman or stuff like Tau Smart Missile Systems which are homing weapons that can navigate around cover.

Seriously hope proper cover saves makes a return instead of cover just modifying armor saves.

 The Red Hobbit wrote:
That's a nice clean looking data sheet and I'm looking forward to them having a reduction in cross-referencing as a design goal.

I'm on the fence about the split BS profiles per weapon. On one hand it's quite nice to represent how some weapons are more accurate than others, especially on a platform like a Tank or a Knight which has many different kinds of weapons. On the other hand, when you play large armies there's something quite nice and quick about having a near uniform BS for your army. I guess we'll see smooth it plays.

Near uniform BS values are legacy for sake of legacy. It's a good change but GW has to actually take advantage of it (which they likely won't like they did with the new wounding chart).

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Near uniform BS values are legacy for sake of legacy. It's a good change but GW has to actually take advantage of it (which they likely won't like they did with the new wounding chart).

I imagine 90% of the values will be the same. It's going to be more specialized items getting variances.

They are taking advantage of the wounding chart now though. Well, if I heard Brandt right, anyway.

Points for equipment can't survive a system where stats change depending on the weilder.

There can't be a generic cost for a chainsword if it's a murder machine in a primarch's hand.

I suppose you could argue that any str+ or strx melee weapon is already a generic price for a variable power weapon...

But once the edition is in swing, people will forget that the numbers on the weapon profile are derived in part from the weilder's stats, and they'll be screaming about balance all over again.

PenitentJake wrote:
There can't be a generic cost for a chainsword if it's a murder machine in a primarch's hand.

The solution is simple, make the price different. A lascannon is an upgrade for both lasgun Guardsmen and boltgun Space Marines and should cost points.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Near uniform BS values are legacy for sake of legacy. It's a good change but GW has to actually take advantage of it (which they likely won't like they did with the new wounding chart).

I imagine 90% of the values will be the same. It's going to be more specialized items getting variances.

They are taking advantage of the wounding chart now though. Well, if I heard Brandt right, anyway.

Even changing 10% is doing SOMETHING. I'm for that.

We will see if Brandt is correct. I still doubt the ability of GW "rules writers" but I'm willing to be proven wrong just for the sake of being able to play a good game.

PenitentJake wrote:
Points for equipment can't survive a system where stats change depending on the weilder.

There can't be a generic cost for a chainsword if it's a murder machine in a primarch's hand.

I suppose you could argue that any str+ or strx melee weapon is already a generic price for a variable power weapon...

But once the edition is in swing, people will forget that the numbers on the weapon profile are derived in part from the weilder's stats, and they'll be screaming about balance all over again.

I think in most cases these upgrades / side-grades will be free. You'll just go for the one that suits your build more appropriately. They can make a captain swing a chainsword 10 times on a captain ( to make it appealing against a power fist ) and 3 times on a marine without having to have a special chainsword listing for the captain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
We will see if Brandt is correct. I still doubt the ability of GW "rules writers" but I'm willing to be proven wrong just for the sake of being able to play a good game.

GW screws up lots, but if there is anything that I noticed is that they were getting better and more responsive.

I can't imagine things will be perfectly rosy, but 10th is their opportunity to utilize everything they learned since and gives them a clean slate to do the things like taking AP down a notch.

They also made some pretty bold statements so as long as they stick to their word things should hopefully not get quickly out of hand.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
They can make a captain swing a chainsword 10 times on a captain ( to make it appealing against a power fist ) and 3 times on a marine without having to have a special chainsword listing for the captain.

They can't though- look at the card design.

Lets say you've got your Chainsword weilding assault intercessors with 2a each, but your Sarge has 3a.

The a characteristic used to belong to the dude, so there was a stat line for the troops and a statline for the sarge.

Now a belongs to the weapon, so to represent the same effect, you need two chainsword lines- one Chainsword Marine (2a), one Chainsword Sarge (3a).

PenitentJake wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
They can make a captain swing a chainsword 10 times on a captain ( to make it appealing against a power fist ) and 3 times on a marine without having to have a special chainsword listing for the captain.

They can't though- look at the card design.

Lets say you've got your Chainsword weilding assault intercessors with 2a each, but your Sarge has 3a.

The a characteristic used to belong to the dude, so there was a stat line for the troops and a statline for the sarge.

Now a belongs to the weapon, so to represent the same effect, you need two chainsword lines- one Chainsword Marine (2a), one Chainsword Sarge (3a).

or you just don't need the extra attack on the sarge anyway.

oh and they totally can. AoS does it by adding

CHAMPION: 1 model in this unit can be a Sargeant. Add 1 to the Attacks characteristic of that model’s melee weapons.

PenitentJake wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
They can make a captain swing a chainsword 10 times on a captain ( to make it appealing against a power fist ) and 3 times on a marine without having to have a special chainsword listing for the captain.

They can't though- look at the card design.

Lets say you've got your Chainsword weilding assault intercessors with 2a each, but your Sarge has 3a.

The a characteristic used to belong to the dude, so there was a stat line for the troops and a statline for the sarge.

Now a belongs to the weapon, so to represent the same effect, you need two chainsword lines- one Chainsword Marine (2a), one Chainsword Sarge (3a).

What you'll get is what Sigmar has. A little section on the data sheet that says something like "One model may be/is a (fill in word for squad leader/champ/etc). Add 1 to that models chainsword attacks #."

 Dysartes wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
• Weapons having their own Attack and Strength instead of a + modifier reduces redundancy, as does removing the "Type" column. Do we really need the word "Melee" listed twice for each melee weapon?

I'm going to disagree on you - sort of - with the Type column. While there's possibly not a need for a Type column now, are you really going to claim that "Things in brackets after the weapon name" is better presentation than repurposing the Type column into a Keyword column for weapons? Looking at you (sigh) Termagant Spinefists and Fleshborer.

I suppose I'll need to see what a cluttered datasheet like the Heavy Intercessor Squad looks like in the new system.

I really like what I see! Anything that can help streamline the game is good for me. One of the reasons I don't play as much as I would like is the time commitment, especially on weekdays. Anything that smooths the experience from list building to turns is a welcome change.

I know some people have already complained about the "lack of tactical depth" when really that should come from mission packs before anything else. The inclusion of reactions, even if limited, should definitely make the game more dynamic in general (crud, if I move over there his guys can do X). With the simplified datasheet format, we also have a way to avoid "gotchas!" by having it all on there. One of the things I love about games like Xwing is that you have the ship card and upgrade card right there in front of you and all info is easily accessible.

So according to the new Data sheet, how many are in a squad? This picture raises more questions than it answers. Just put all the relevant info on a single page. How hard is that?

ccs wrote:
What you'll get is what Sigmar has. A little section on the data sheet that says something like "One model may be/is a (fill in word for squad leader/champ/etc). Add 1 to that models chainsword attacks #."

Seems really clunky.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

ccs wrote:
What you'll get is what Sigmar has. A little section on the data sheet that says something like "One model may be/is a (fill in word for squad leader/champ/etc). Add 1 to that models chainsword attacks #."

Seems really clunky.

Its not clunky considering there are other rules attached with your unit having a champion or not in AoS.

And its better than just having 2 rows of stats because one dude is different IMO

Is it though?

Generally speaking "Sergeant" style models provided better leadership as well, and if the Sergeant was killed early (for whatever reason), there would be a penalty to the unit as the Sergeant wouldn't be there. Do you want a further line that says "As long as the Sergeant is alive, subtract one from the unit's Leadership score"? "Sergeants" could also have wildly different stats if the designers wanted to, greater amounts of wounds, better abilities, more durability, different armour saves, and all sorts of things (Exarchs and Nobz spring to mind). Why limit that design space?

Seems like having a simple and clean numerical representation of what a "Sergeant" (or "Unit Character") at the top of the sheet is a hell of a lot cleaner and certainly more elegant than "And this model gets +1A with this weapon, and if he's alive then the unit also gets -1Ld, and he also has a 2+ save, and...".

They want to simplify things, and they're already adding exceptions to sheets and (weapon rule, other weapon rule) next to the names of guns rather than just having a column for those rules.

Why create a system where the need for overly verbose exceptions and caveats are inherent to the sheet when you can avoid that right from the start?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Why create a system where the need for overly verbose exceptions and caveats are inherent to the sheet when you can avoid that right from the start?

because all those differences shouldn't actually matter at the scale of 40k.

the "only" impact the sergeant truly has is an expanded weapon option. A sergeant simply isnt special enough compared to the other dudes in a squad to warrant giving him different stats

Not to be a party pooper but I sort of wish they showed us a tac marine sheet.

So far it looks clean sure, but these are hormagaunts so it's to be expected that it'll look simple some games you don't even use their weapons, just have them catch bullets to the face.

But even one weapon has 3 special rules/catagories. We shall see what fancier weapons will look like, a titan weapon for example.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
because all those differences shouldn't actually matter at the scale of 40k.

Says who? And based on what criteria?

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
the "only" impact the sergeant truly has is an expanded weapon option. A sergeant simply isnt special enough compared to the other dudes in a squad to warrant giving him different stats

Except it has been the case in every edition prior to this.

They've already stripped away virtually all weapon and wargear options, they're about to rip out most of the relics from the game. Now you want to remove even different stats for unit characters?

How bland do you want 40k to be?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
because all those differences shouldn't actually matter at the scale of 40k.

Says who? And based on what criteria?

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
the "only" impact the sergeant truly has is an expanded weapon option. A sergeant simply isnt special enough compared to the other dudes in a squad to warrant giving him different stats

Except it has been the case in every edition prior to this.

They've already stripped away virtually all weapon and wargear options, they're about to rip out most of the relics from the game. Now you want to remove even different stats for unit characters?

How bland do you want 40k to be?

Don't lie to us like we've never played the game before. No one outside of the absolute most casual narrative games EVER took sergeant weapons since like 5th edition. Don't play pretend like it was some huge flavor booster because it's absolutely bullgak.

Being able to cripple your army by wasting 100+pts on sergeant plasma pistols and sergeant power weapons does not flavor make.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:So according to the new Data sheet, how many are in a squad? This picture raises more questions than it answers. Just put all the relevant info on a single page. How hard is that?

They will likely go the AoS route and put the unit sizes in a separate part of the codex with point costs.

ERJAK wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
because all those differences shouldn't actually matter at the scale of 40k.

Says who? And based on what criteria?

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
the "only" impact the sergeant truly has is an expanded weapon option. A sergeant simply isnt special enough compared to the other dudes in a squad to warrant giving him different stats

Except it has been the case in every edition prior to this.

They've already stripped away virtually all weapon and wargear options, they're about to rip out most of the relics from the game. Now you want to remove even different stats for unit characters?

How bland do you want 40k to be?

Don't lie to us like we've never played the game before. No one outside of the absolute most casual narrative games EVER took sergeant weapons since like 5th edition. Don't play pretend like it was some huge flavor booster because it's absolutely bullgak.

Being able to cripple your army by wasting 100+pts on sergeant plasma pistols and sergeant power weapons does not flavor make.

Only bad players are crippled by spending those points.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
How bland do you want 40k to be?

From what I've been seeing from a number of people since at least the start of 8th? Think the worst canned Cream of Chicken soup you ever did have...

ERJAK wrote:
Don't lie to us like we've never played the game before. No one outside of the absolute most casual narrative games EVER took sergeant weapons since like 5th edition. Don't play pretend like it was some huge flavor booster because it's absolutely bullgak.

You never took a power fist on a Sergeant? A combi-weapon to lead a squad?

I'm sorry, who's the one who's lying?

ERJAK wrote:
Being able to cripple your army by wasting 100+pts on sergeant plasma pistols and sergeant power weapons does not flavor make.

You are literally the first person in the history of the entire fething universe that I've heard say that taking weapons on Sergeants would "cripple" an army. What a absolute crock!

ERJAK wrote:

Don't lie to us like we've never played the game before.

I wonder how cringy it would be if someone was to look at your post history, check out the threads you've started with army lists, and see that every single one of them includes combi-weapons on sergeants.

I wonder...

ERJAK wrote:
Don't lie to us like we've never played the game before. No one outside of the absolute most casual narrative games EVER took sergeant weapons since like 5th edition. Don't play pretend like it was some huge flavor booster because it's absolutely bullgak.

Being able to cripple your army by wasting 100+pts on sergeant plasma pistols and sergeant power weapons does not flavor make.

The 7th edition lists you posted to this very site suggest that you're full of it.

ERJAK wrote:
Don't lie to us like we've never played the game before. No one outside of the absolute most casual narrative games EVER took sergeant weapons since like 5th edition. Don't play pretend like it was some huge flavor booster because it's absolutely bullgak.

Being able to cripple your army by wasting 100+pts on sergeant plasma pistols and sergeant power weapons does not flavor make.

TIL craftworld eldar are a casual narrative faction.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


because all those differences shouldn't actually matter at the scale of 40k.

the "only" impact the sergeant truly has is an expanded weapon option. A sergeant simply isnt special enough compared to the other dudes in a squad to warrant giving him different stats

Maybe not to you, or in your opinion. But since it's been done since every single version of the game going all the way back to rogue trader, I'd say it matters to the game designers and a good chunk of the player base.

Maybe we'll get to see and example of a card for a complex unit soon.

Show me the card for any of the Deathwatch Kill Teams. Then I'll be impressed.

Sarges may just get a separate datasheet and slot into the unit in some way with rules that allow for the best LD score to be used. That would mean that the options are just 'sliced' in a different way, and you'd need a mechanism for something like that anyway unless all sorts of squad-level independent and support characters like Apothecaries, Lieutenants etc. now work completely different. It would also allow for stuff like Veteran Seargants, Deathwatch vets, Wolfguard etc. without wasting a lot of space for endless repetitions of the same information, as you would only need the relevant army list entry once.

No way Sergeants will be a separate Datasheet in a “reduce complexity” edition. We just haven’t seen a relevant Datasheet. WarCom will post more before long and we’ll soon see the solutions chosen.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
because all those differences shouldn't actually matter at the scale of 40k.

Says who? And based on what criteria?


----


How bland do you want 40k to be?

says me, based on the fact that a model-per-model differentiation is better for skirmish games, where wargames like 40k should treat the game on a unit-per-unit basis. Its obviously subjective and obviously your opinion can differ, i should've been more clear in my original comment .

and i don't want 40k to be bland, i personally don't think that making the sarge different adds much to the game.

To me the interesting part of the game is positioning, target priority, baiting my opponent more than being able to say that my Sargeant will shoot his plasma pistol to do 0.01% more damage on average than a regular boltgun (obviously not the exact stat)



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
No way Sergeants will be a separate Datasheet in a “reduce complexity” edition. We just haven’t seen a relevant Datasheet. WarCom will post more before long and we’ll soon see the solutions chosen.

pretty much this, picking gaunts as the reveal datasheet was a bad move IMO since it leaves too much to the imagination, Tactical marines or Intercessors (or whatever theyre called after being merged into one datasheet) would have been better

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

To me the interesting part of the game is positioning, target priority, baiting my opponent more than being able to say that my Sargeant will shoot his plasma pistol to do 0.01% more damage on average than a regular boltgun (obviously not the exact stat)

And that tends to be when people stop playing or play something else. For much of its history 40k has been complicated with list building, rules, etc. But the gameplay wasn't very complex (chess is the classic example of bland units, complex gameplay). GW has assumes (according to various designers) that complicated stuff tends to appeal its seems to younger players with time to mull over optimisation, complex stuff to older people who can figure it out but don't have more than an odd evening to play. I seem to remember Jervis going on about leaving chrome in games to foster player engagement.

If GW is going for complex and not complicated, will be interesting to see if their assumptions are still correct.

I expect that unit leaders will be a separate line on the unit datasheet, much like the Ripper Swarm on the video version of the Termegant datasheet.

I also expect their melee effectiveness will be via their melee weapons rather than some bonus rule. Either they will have “Intercessor Stg Chainsword” which is better than “Astartes Chainsword” used by the rest of the squad, or it will be thr fancy powersword that makes them better.

I look forward to 40k turning into AOS.

Choose your definitely very different weapon:

WS3+ A3 S4 AP-1 D1
WS4+ A4 S4 AP-1 D1
WS4+ A2 S4 AP-1 D2
WS5+ A6 S4 AP-1 D1

Something I noticed on the data sheet for the termagants that is interesting is that nowhere on the data sheet does it state a battlefield role (which is not surprising as it seems they are allowing a more open building process), but the data sheet also doesn't say "battle line" or any other indication that this data sheet would be equivalent to a "troops" battle field role. And it is doubtful that termagants would not be "battle line" if in fact that was a designation on a data sheet.

The reason I raise this is because it makes it interesting that the one sheet "army rules" might outline which units are "battle line" or not. So instead of having a faction like "Ultra Marines" or "Black Legion" which just allow access to the whole codex with traditional troops as "battle line", GW could offer "army rules" for more specialized formations like 1st company, Abadon's body guard, etc. which would then make terminators "battle line" and maybe restrict access to other units. I think some people have been discussing this possiblity already of formation like "army rule" but I think the termagants data sheet really supports that this is the way that they are going.

Just a thought.

 vipoid wrote:
I look forward to 40k turning into AOS.

Choose your definitely very different weapon:

WS3+ A3 S4 AP-1 D1
WS4+ A4 S4 AP-1 D1
WS4+ A2 S4 AP-1 D2
WS5+ A6 S4 AP-1 D1

Except with different types, ranges, USRs just from what we see on the data sheet shown.

Its disapoinitng that they already have elements that are not spelled out on the sheet so for instance the Synapse ability is named but not spelled out.

But maybe there is a "Army/Faction" card for this.

Its possibly a step in the right direction but more sheets will be needed to give us any real insight into if its any good, intuiative, etc

 Mr Morden wrote:
Its disapoinitng that they already have elements that are not spelled out on the sheet so for instance the Synapse ability is named but not spelled out.

But maybe there is a "Army/Faction" card for this.

Its possibly a step in the right direction but more sheets will be needed to give us any real insight into if its any good, intuiative, etc

They're going back to a USR model specifically so they don't need to spell out every rule on every sheet. Instead you just learn what your unit's keywords do and then can understand what units do at a glance without reading through a paragraph that might be similar to but not the same as what other similar units have.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Its disapoinitng that they already have elements that are not spelled out on the sheet so for instance the Synapse ability is named but not spelled out.

But maybe there is a "Army/Faction" card for this.

Its possibly a step in the right direction but more sheets will be needed to give us any real insight into if its any good, intuiative, etc

That’s no different to now, Synapse is in army rules. Now army rules will only be a double page spread so no flicking back and forth, which is a win.

And you shouldn't be reprinting those sorts of rules over and over again.

Repetition leads to mistakes. Repetition leads to mistakes. Repetition leads to mistakes. Repetion leas to mistake. Repetion leas to mistakess. Reptiles leato miss takes.

 vipoid wrote:
I look forward to 40k turning into AOS.

Choose your definitely very different weapon:

WS3+ A3 S4 AP-1 D1
WS4+ A4 S4 AP-1 D1
WS4+ A2 S4 AP-1 D2
WS5+ A6 S4 AP-1 D1

More like Kill Team than AOS. Meaningful differences could be made to make more choices compelling and somewhat equal, like:

Laspistol (Assault, Pistol) R 12 A 2 BS 4+ S 3 AP 0 W 1

Bolt Pistol (Pistol) R 12 A 2 BS 4+ S4 AP 0 W 1

Plasma Pistol (Gets Hot, Pistol) R 12 A 1 BS 4+ S 7 AP -3 W 1

I think I'm fine with the new DS design. Love USRs finally returning. Not really happy about less relics and seemingly no battlefield roles..?

Is it true theres no force organization now or am I misremembering?

dominuschao wrote:
I think I'm fine with the new DS design. Love USRs finally returning. Not really happy about less relics and seemingly no battlefield roles..?

Is it true theres no force organization now or am I misremembering?

Wcommunity seems to imply no org chart out of "troops". Just take 3 of any, 6 if troops.

Ah thats where I saw it, thank you.

Call me a non-visual learner but I can't get everything from this page at a glance. Say what you will about 8th and 9ths data sheets, but they were able to tell you everything about the unit in question at a glance. One page, maybe 2-3 units. Everything. Now I need this page for the base stats, another page to explain the various USRs, a third page to explain the keywords, and possibly a forth page to tell me squad sizes, limitations for equipment, and cost per unit/model?

HOW IS THIS BETTER? It's literally like they had Stevie Wonder in charge of it.

Right, because your Custodes had their Katah written in the sheets.
And the subfaction traits.
And Warlord Traits and Relics, for characters.

All I'm saying it just Cut and Paste Wahapedia and be done with it. Unit rules, stats, cost and squad sizes, all in one box. Done.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Call me a non-visual learner but I can't get everything from this page at a glance. Say what you will about 8th and 9ths data sheets, but they were able to tell you everything about the unit in question at a glance. One page, maybe 2-3 units. Everything. Now I need this page for the base stats, another page to explain the various USRs, a third page to explain the keywords, and possibly a forth page to tell me squad sizes, limitations for equipment, and cost per unit/model?

HOW IS THIS BETTER? It's literally like they had Stevie Wonder in charge of it.

Once you learn what Twin-Linked does how often will you need to look it up? The same goes for Synapse, Assault, and the other keywords on the sheet. The thing with USRs and their keywords is that you can learn what they do and apply them to multiple unit entries versus needing to read a paragraph or two of rules for each unit.

Funny you mention that. Because how often does GW completely flip the script on their rule interpretations? I'll give you a hint, there is an over-used forum called YMDC in this place, where people debate the meaning of words like "is" and "Bolter". Because GW can't write English more gooderer.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Call me a non-visual learner but I can't get everything from this page at a glance. Say what you will about 8th and 9ths data sheets, but they were able to tell you everything about the unit in question at a glance. One page, maybe 2-3 units. Everything. Now I need this page for the base stats, another page to explain the various USRs, a third page to explain the keywords, and possibly a forth page to tell me squad sizes, limitations for equipment, and cost per unit/model?

HOW IS THIS BETTER? It's literally like they had Stevie Wonder in charge of it.

Let's break it down:
"Now I need this page for the base stats" - Already the case with 9th.
"another page to explain the various USRs" - Already the case with 9th. Most datasheets have "Blah rule (pg 52)"
"a third page to explain the keywords" - Already the case with 9th. You have stratagems, army restrictions, etc that essentially "explain the keywords".
"and possibly a forth page to tell me squad sizes" - Already the case with 9th, see the Munitorum Field Manual. There were a few example where the squad sizes differ than the printed codices. Fenrisian Wolves is one example.
"limitations for equipment" - I will cede this one, but when building your squad it's a check once and forget. Not something you need during a game. I would anticipate it to be in the same place as unit / weapon costs, but it's a wait and see.
"and cost per unit/model" - Already the case with 9th, see the Munitorum Field Manual.

So the short is, from the perspective of "I can't get everything from this page at a glance", it's not functionally different than what we currently have.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Funny you mention that. Because how often does GW completely flip the script on their rule interpretations? I'll give you a hint, there is an over-used forum called YMDC in this place, where people debate the meaning of words like "is" and "Bolter". Because GW can't write English more gooderer.

you HAVE to be trolling...

people argue what bolters are BECAUSE theres no keyword for it

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Funny you mention that. Because how often does GW completely flip the script on their rule interpretations? I'll give you a hint, there is an over-used forum called YMDC in this place, where people debate the meaning of words like "is" and "Bolter". Because GW can't write English more gooderer.

you HAVE to be trolling...

people argue what bolters are BECAUSE theres no keyword for it

There is also a distinction between what can be reasonably called an unclarity or ambiguity, and nitpicking for the sake of it. A ruleset that starts under the assumption that it first needs to clarifiy what the word 'is' means will end up being unreadable. In contrast, game terms like 'turn', 'unit' or 'bolter' of course need a definition.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Its disapoinitng that they already have elements that are not spelled out on the sheet so for instance the Synapse ability is named but not spelled out.

But maybe there is a "Army/Faction" card for this.

Its possibly a step in the right direction but more sheets will be needed to give us any real insight into if its any good, intuiative, etc

They're going back to a USR model specifically so they don't need to spell out every rule on every sheet. Instead you just learn what your unit's keywords do and then can understand what units do at a glance without reading through a paragraph that might be similar to but not the same as what other similar units have.

Thank goodness for that!

 Canadian 5th wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Call me a non-visual learner but I can't get everything from this page at a glance. Say what you will about 8th and 9ths data sheets, but they were able to tell you everything about the unit in question at a glance. One page, maybe 2-3 units. Everything. Now I need this page for the base stats, another page to explain the various USRs, a third page to explain the keywords, and possibly a forth page to tell me squad sizes, limitations for equipment, and cost per unit/model?

HOW IS THIS BETTER? It's literally like they had Stevie Wonder in charge of it.

Once you learn what Twin-Linked does how often will you need to look it up? The same goes for Synapse, Assault, and the other keywords on the sheet. The thing with USRs and their keywords is that you can learn what they do and apply them to multiple unit entries versus needing to read a paragraph or two of rules for each unit.

Or you do what Magic does and put them on anyway if there is room - look at all that wasted blank space - just put them on a reminder - it costs nothing

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Call me a non-visual learner but I can't get everything from this page at a glance. Say what you will about 8th and 9ths data sheets, but they were able to tell you everything about the unit in question at a glance. One page, maybe 2-3 units. Everything. Now I need this page for the base stats, another page to explain the various USRs, a third page to explain the keywords, and possibly a forth page to tell me squad sizes, limitations for equipment, and cost per unit/model?

HOW IS THIS BETTER? It's literally like they had Stevie Wonder in charge of it.

Once you learn what Twin-Linked does how often will you need to look it up? The same goes for Synapse, Assault, and the other keywords on the sheet. The thing with USRs and their keywords is that you can learn what they do and apply them to multiple unit entries versus needing to read a paragraph or two of rules for each unit.

Or you do what Magic does and put them on anyway if there is room - look at all that wasted blank space - just put them on a reminder - it costs nothing

Even then magic tends to do that only for commons and uncommons leaving rares and mythics without reminder text because who really needs to be reminded what flying or trample does at this point?

 xeen wrote:
Something I noticed on the data sheet for the termagants that is interesting is that nowhere on the data sheet does it state a battlefield role (which is not surprising as it seems they are allowing a more open building process), but the data sheet also doesn't say "battle line" or any other indication that this data sheet would be equivalent to a "troops" battle field role. And it is doubtful that termagants would not be "battle line" if in fact that was a designation on a data sheet.

The reason I raise this is because it makes it interesting that the one sheet "army rules" might outline which units are "battle line" or not. So instead of having a faction like "Ultra Marines" or "Black Legion" which just allow access to the whole codex with traditional troops as "battle line", GW could offer "army rules" for more specialized formations like 1st company, Abadon's body guard, etc. which would then make terminators "battle line" and maybe restrict access to other units. I think some people have been discussing this possiblity already of formation like "army rule" but I think the termagants data sheet really supports that this is the way that they are going.

Just a thought.

my guess is something similar to how AOS does it, where your warlord choice can bestow BATTLELINE to certain units thematically linked.

so, for example, a gravis captain might grant it to units with GRAVIS, a phobos captain might make inflitaitors battleline, etc.

or maybe BATTLELINE is nested inside one of the other keywords (ie nids have an army rule that ENDLESS MULTIUDE units are all BATTLELINE, which is on the army rules page).

or maybe the datasheet we are seeing is a early draft and they just plain forgot to add BATTLELINE to the sheet when drafting it for this presentation.

Battleline isn't a keyword in AoS. At least not one that appears on the warscrolls.

It's a Battlefield Role that gets granted via army organization.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Battleline isn't a keyword in AoS. At least not one that appears on the warscrolls.

It's a Battlefield Role that gets granted via army organization.

ok, so 10e might work the same, then? I dont play AOS, so my understanding is a little limited, was i correct with the idea of battleline being granted to some units in relation to warlord/character choice? or am i totally misunderstanding it?

AOS assigns some units to always be Battleline, but others become Battleline based on the choice of General or Army.

In 40K terms, Tactical Marine may always be battleline but Terminators may also be battleline if your General is a Captain/Chapter Master in Terminator Armor.

And then GW can change it every seson to make people buy more stuff. Like heavy or elite infantry ? Well this seson is all about tanks, so buy some. Next sesons punishes armies for taking tanks, but promotes the tanking of a ton of chaff. Then for all armies or some armies, GW could print out rules for ally, support etc. This seson is anti big vehicles, don't be sad knight player, just run 500-700pts in navy breachers or beastman, and at least you won't be losing against the mid tier armies. In theory at least.

People would have to buy stuff not a an edition or half to year schedul, but rather adopt their armies every quarter. Unless of course GW graces them with a perfect codex that works all the time, no matter what seson it is.

I do appreciate that GW have apparently taken on board the suggestion I made a couple of years back to make 'assault', 'pistol' etc. weapon abilities, rather than mutually-exclusive categories that every weapon has to fall into.

 vipoid wrote:
I do appreciate that GW have apparently taken on board the suggestion I made a couple of years back to make 'assault', 'pistol' etc. weapon abilities, rather than mutually-exclusive categories that every weapon has to fall into.

Yeah, it's a good idea.

Can't wait for a weapon to be Pistol, Heavy, Assault, AND Rapid Fire!

That will probably be something like the "heavy bolter" pistol on a scout dreadnought.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
I do appreciate that GW have apparently taken on board the suggestion I made a couple of years back to make 'assault', 'pistol' etc. weapon abilities, rather than mutually-exclusive categories that every weapon has to fall into.

Yeah, it's a good idea.

Can't wait for a weapon to be Pistol, Heavy, Assault, AND Rapid Fire!

I'd expect heavy and assault to be exclusive.

Rapid Fire they should just ditch. They've been writing exceptions around it for far too many years now. They need to just put on their designer pants and pick the numbers that fit what they want the weapon to do.

Voss wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
I do appreciate that GW have apparently taken on board the suggestion I made a couple of years back to make 'assault', 'pistol' etc. weapon abilities, rather than mutually-exclusive categories that every weapon has to fall into.

Yeah, it's a good idea.

Can't wait for a weapon to be Pistol, Heavy, Assault, AND Rapid Fire!

I'd expect heavy and assault to be exclusive.

Rapid Fire they should just ditch. They've been writing exceptions around it for far too many years now. They need to just put on their designer pants and pick the numbers that fit what they want the weapon to do.

Heavy is currently move and shoot with a penalty.
Assault is Advance and shoot with a penalty.
You could have both-fire with a -1 after moving, -2 after advancing.

Wouldn't be surprised if they just ditched Heavy as a criteria.

I realise its a jump - but direction of travel.
"If you move you can't shoot."
"If you move you hit on 6s."
"If you move its -1 to hit."
"If you move its -1 to hit but only for infantry."
"Just nah, its fine."

Assault may well be "you can advance and shoot normally".

Putting the weapon type in individual profiles gives a new potential.
A Lascannon could be listed as Heavy on an infantry and assault on a dread for example.

Do I think they will do that? no... but the potential is there.

Voss wrote:
Rapid Fire they should just ditch. They've been writing exceptions around it for far too many years now. They need to just put on their designer pants and pick the numbers that fit what they want the weapon to do.

I think Rapid Fire was fine when it was a largely detrimental ability.

The old idea seemed to be that Rapid Fire weapons could only fire at full effectiveness at half range, and models with them couldn't assault after firing.

Contrast that with Assault weapons, which fired at full effectiveness at any range, and models could fire them and still assault.

But then in 8th, things basically flipped. Now models can assault no matter what weapon they fire. Moreover, Rapid Fire seems more like a bonus than a detriment - with most weapons seeming to fire normally at long range (often with 2-3 shots at least) and then get extra shots at close range.