Hellfire Rounds are going to create a significant problem for GW and balance. Not that balance was expected to be perfect, but this is really tits up.
Captain
2x10 Sternguard
Use the strat on one unit ( all bolt rifle ).
20 * .888 * .998 = 18 mortal wounds ( at long range! ) -- they'll most certainly have killed something and get to shoot again ( at a second target under Oath, because of the Tome ).
Then you can use the Captain's ability to use that strat again on the second unit of Sternguard. Probably with no rerolls, but who cares? Drop pod for even more insanity?
This isn't something points can fix. So what changes to the strat would you make to prevent this absurdity? Ban this strat?
Daedalus81 wrote: Hellfire Rounds are going to create a significant problem for GW and balance. Not that balance was expected to be perfect, but this is really tits up.
Captain
2x10 Sternguard
Use the strat on one unit ( all bolt rifle ).
20 * .888 * .998 = 18 mortal wounds ( at long range! ) -- they'll most certainly have killed something and get to shoot again ( at a second target under Oath, because of the Tome ).
Then you can use the Captain's ability to use that strat again on the second unit of Sternguard. Probably with no rerolls, but who cares? Drop pod for even more insanity?
This isn't something points can fix. So what changes to the strat would you make to prevent this absurdity? Ban this strat?
Eliminators can do this to a lesser extent, but that might be a worthwhile idea. Is there a reasonable long term fix?
All said this is "only on infantry" ( also Monster 5+ ) so there's ways around it, but I don't think it's realistic to expect everyone to be boxed up all the time to avoid this.
Change it to Anti-Infantry 4+ and Anti-Monster 4+. The interaction with Devastating Wounds is certainly intentional and I think it is pretty fluffy to encourage using it on Sternguards.
However, all these special-issue ammo strats should be restricted to Bolt weapons. This Sternguard/Eliminators are just one thing, but a full Infernus Squad getting Kraken Rounds is no fun either.
Alternatively, ban all non-KT unit from the Deathwatch detachment.
Why does it make no sense? You're the one who is often telling people they're too attached to names. Call it "special ammo" and done if it bothers you, the sternguard bolters already have the devastating wounds to represent their special ammo and this strat applies to all sorts of weird ass weapons that make less sense.
It's not as ridiculous as the stern guard thing, but I don't quite get what they are going for with the fights first rule in general.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I understand it if you have fights first and and enemy unit has not, you fight first even if you were charged.
That just straight up makes fight first the most powerful rule to have in the fight phase.
So if you're a melee army, you basically need access to this rule somehow otherwise you are at a severe disadvantage against any army with a powerful unit that can geht fight first (like any space marine unit that can have a judiciar leading it for example).
Just on face value that doesn't seem like good rule design to be honest.
Tiberias wrote: It's not as ridiculous as the stern guard thing, but I don't quite get what they are going for with the fights first rule in general.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I understand it if you have fights first and and enemy unit has not, you fight first even if you were charged.
That just straight up makes fight first the most powerful rule to have in the fight phase.
So if you're a melee army, you basically need access to this rule somehow otherwise you are at a severe disadvantage against any army with a powerful unit that can geht fight first (like any space marine unit that can have a judiciar leading it for example).
Just on face value that doesn't seem like good rule design to be honest.
It's just one of GW's design bugbears that they're perpetually unable to solve. Two editions down the line they'll probably re-introduce initiative or whatever; in the past their (dumb) system was too complicated, so now their pendulum swung back to 'no complexity at all', it's very predictable that halfways through 10th, the creep will start with various 'fight firsterer' abilities, gimmicks that make enemies lose 'fights first' and so on... Fulgrim/Slaanesh or various flavours of Eldar are likely candidates to start messing with it.
Tiberias wrote: It's not as ridiculous as the stern guard thing, but I don't quite get what they are going for with the fights first rule in general.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I understand it if you have fights first and and enemy unit has not, you fight first even if you were charged.
That just straight up makes fight first the most powerful rule to have in the fight phase.
So if you're a melee army, you basically need access to this rule somehow otherwise you are at a severe disadvantage against any army with a powerful unit that can geht fight first (like any space marine unit that can have a judiciar leading it for example).
Just on face value that doesn't seem like good rule design to be honest.
Disagree here. For fights first to matter you need to be getting charged, which means you've lost the initiative. If you can't fight through someone's judiciar / fights first unit...shoot it. He can't join with any other characters and can't join any super tough units.
Tiberias wrote: It's not as ridiculous as the stern guard thing, but I don't quite get what they are going for with the fights first rule in general.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I understand it if you have fights first and and enemy unit has not, you fight first even if you were charged.
That just straight up makes fight first the most powerful rule to have in the fight phase.
So if you're a melee army, you basically need access to this rule somehow otherwise you are at a severe disadvantage against any army with a powerful unit that can geht fight first (like any space marine unit that can have a judiciar leading it for example).
Just on face value that doesn't seem like good rule design to be honest.
Disagree here. For fights first to matter you need to be getting charged, which means you've lost the initiative. If you can't fight through someone's judiciar / fights first unit...shoot it. He can't join with any other characters and can't join any super tough units.
Sanguinor is alone and Mephiston and the Judiciar can't join anything crazy. So the only tough one is Lion who will likely be expensive.
Shoot it isn't really a good argument here. In my opinion a rule like this should be designed so that it has counterplay in the fight phase itself.
I think this is even more idiotic than the overly convoluted fight first fight last crap in 9th.
You basically don't have to care at all of being charged if you have fight first in 10th and if you are a somewhat competent melee unit. If that isn't an example of bad basic rules design then I really don't know what is.
Ah yes. Everything just automatically deletes everything. Never mind attacks have been reduced, ap been reduced, armies like ba have lost +1 to wound. Everything just dies automatically. Judicator led unit with no other characters just deletes everything without even effort.
Tiberias wrote: Shoot it isn't really a good argument here. In my opinion a rule like this should be designed so that it has counterplay in the fight phase itself.
I think this is even more idiotic than the overly convoluted fight first fight last crap in 9th.
You basically don't have to care at all of being charged if you have fight first in 10th and if you are a somewhat competent melee unit. If that isn't an example of bad basic rules design then I really don't know what is.
There's more tactical considerations available to deal with fights first than with Hellfire. You can multi-charge and prevent them from being able to use counter-offensive to protect a valuable unit that doesn't have fights first. You can avoid the unit. You can shoot the unit. You can speed bump it. You can bait them with a unit that can move when they come too close. You can rapid ingress a blocking unit.
tneva82 wrote: Ah yes. Everything just automatically deletes everything. Never mind attacks have been reduced, ap been reduced, armies like ba have lost +1 to wound. Everything just dies automatically. Judicator led unit with no other characters just deletes everything without even effort.
Nobody said anything about delete. A unit of Black templar bladeguard veterans lead by a judiciary kills 2,5 marine terminators if they get charged, before they get to do anything, if they get +1 to wound trough a strat or whatever they kill 3.
Does that seem like good rules design to you? Does that in any way incetivise melee combat if you don't have fight first?
Daedalus81 wrote: Hellfire Rounds are going to create a significant problem for GW and balance. Not that balance was expected to be perfect, but this is really tits up.
Captain
2x10 Sternguard
Use the strat on one unit ( all bolt rifle ).
20 * .888 * .998 = 18 mortal wounds ( at long range! ) -- they'll most certainly have killed something and get to shoot again ( at a second target under Oath, because of the Tome ).
Then you can use the Captain's ability to use that strat again on the second unit of Sternguard. Probably with no rerolls, but who cares? Drop pod for even more insanity?
This isn't something points can fix. So what changes to the strat would you make to prevent this absurdity? Ban this strat?
Has anyone found anything truly absurd?
When you apply the relevant (ie reasonable & easily accessible) buffs, it works out at being closer to 28 MWs. Of course, you can also do it twice.
If you're really determined, you can do it 4 times in a single shooting phase!
And there are a couple of other unit combos in the deathwatch index that can do similar.
tneva82 wrote: Ah yes. Everything just automatically deletes everything. Never mind attacks have been reduced, ap been reduced, armies like ba have lost +1 to wound. Everything just dies automatically. Judicator led unit with no other characters just deletes everything without even effort.
Nobody said anything about delete. A unit of Black templar bladeguard veterans lead by a judiciary kills 2,5 marine terminators if they get charged, before they get to do anything, if they get +1 to wound trough a strat or whatever they kill 3.
Does that seem like good rules design to you? Does that in any way incetivise melee combat if you don't have fight first?
What makes you think I've ever been incentivized to engage in melee? Let alone vs obvious melee specialists??
Nope, my answer to stuff like that is to shoot it. A LOT.
Tiberias wrote: Shoot it isn't really a good argument here. In my opinion a rule like this should be designed so that it has counterplay in the fight phase itself.
I think this is even more idiotic than the overly convoluted fight first fight last crap in 9th.
You basically don't have to care at all of being charged if you have fight first in 10th and if you are a somewhat competent melee unit. If that isn't an example of bad basic rules design then I really don't know what is.
"Units that are bad to charge into" is pretty common in a lot of games. Usually polearm infantry get rules like this.
Tiberias wrote: Shoot it isn't really a good argument here. In my opinion a rule like this should be designed so that it has counterplay in the fight phase itself.
I think this is even more idiotic than the overly convoluted fight first fight last crap in 9th.
You basically don't have to care at all of being charged if you have fight first in 10th and if you are a somewhat competent melee unit. If that isn't an example of bad basic rules design then I really don't know what is.
There's more tactical considerations available to deal with fights first than with Hellfire. You can multi-charge and prevent them from being able to use counter-offensive to protect a valuable unit that doesn't have fights first. You can avoid the unit. You can shoot the unit. You can speed bump it. You can bait them with a unit that can move when they come too close. You can rapid ingress a blocking unit.
Dealing with Fights First has options.
I haven't read through the marine rules yet, but I think Daedalus probably has it right. If charging a melee unit is a bad tactic, then don't use that tactic. The counterplay is to shoot that melee unit or to speed bump it or to movement block them, etc. I don't think it's necessarily bad game design to expect people to find counterplay options outside of the charge/fight phases.
Also, the enemy fighting first even when charged was just the norm in a lot of matchups prior to 8th edition (when the initiative stat was a thing.) Now obviously that system was annoying enough that GW went looking for alternatives, but it certainly wasn't the end of the world.
Hellfire Rounds sound spicy. Maybe I'll change my mind once I actually get some games in against it. Isn't the usual approach to MW problems just to put a cap on how many mortals can be generated?
Why does it make no sense? You're the one who is often telling people they're too attached to names. Call it "special ammo" and done if it bothers you, the sternguard bolters already have the devastating wounds to represent their special ammo and this strat applies to all sorts of weird ass weapons that make less sense.
1. I'm referring to the unit entry of Sternguard, not whether or not they exist in the Deathwatch (which obviously not, but that's GW trying to cram Deathwatch into the main codex instead of doing the Grey Knight treatment).
2. If you have to stop a unit from using a particular Strat, especially a wargear one, then it shouldn't exist in that incarnation and needs to be revised or just removed. Sternguard carry Bolters, and there's no reason why the rounds wouldn't work on theirs vs an Intercessors. You gotta go back to the drawing board.
I doesn't seem that "having bolters" is a prerequisite to using Deathwatch specialist bolter ammunition. They appear to work with every gun, even those that don't use bolt rounds.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I doesn't seem that "having bolters" is a prerequisite to using Deathwatch specialist bolter ammunition. They appear to work with every gun, even those that don't use bolt rounds.
I'm more referring to the fix proposed of "just don't let THIS particular Bolter unit use them!", which is a silly proposition.
That the Strats are for any unit's weapon and not just the Bolts is a whole other can of worms.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I doesn't seem that "having bolters" is a prerequisite to using Deathwatch specialist bolter ammunition. They appear to work with every gun, even those that don't use bolt rounds.
I'm more referring to the fix proposed of "just don't let THIS particular Bolter unit use them!", which is a silly proposition.
That the Strats are for any unit's weapon and not just the Bolts is a whole other can of worms.
I never said bolter, I said unit. There's a few units it's problematic with and the strat needs a redesign completely, but removing a strat from applying to 1 type of unit isn't exactly a bad solutions if it only has 1 dud interaction. Again, stop getting hung up on names.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I doesn't seem that "having bolters" is a prerequisite to using Deathwatch specialist bolter ammunition. They appear to work with every gun, even those that don't use bolt rounds.
I'm more referring to the fix proposed of "just don't let THIS particular Bolter unit use them!", which is a silly proposition.
That the Strats are for any unit's weapon and not just the Bolts is a whole other can of worms.
I never said bolter, I said unit. There's a few units it's problematic with and the strat needs a redesign completely, but removing a strat from applying to 1 type of unit isn't exactly a bad solutions if it only has 1 dud interaction. Again, stop getting hung up on names.
Nothing I said had to do with names, so I'm really not sure what you're trying to prove.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I doesn't seem that "having bolters" is a prerequisite to using Deathwatch specialist bolter ammunition. They appear to work with every gun, even those that don't use bolt rounds.
I'm more referring to the fix proposed of "just don't let THIS particular Bolter unit use them!", which is a silly proposition.
That the Strats are for any unit's weapon and not just the Bolts is a whole other can of worms.
I never said bolter, I said unit. There's a few units it's problematic with and the strat needs a redesign completely, but removing a strat from applying to 1 type of unit isn't exactly a bad solutions if it only has 1 dud interaction. Again, stop getting hung up on names.
Nothing I said had to do with names, so I'm really not sure what you're trying to prove.
You can't seem to divorce the stratagem use from bolters based off historic use of the term hellfire rounds in relation to bolters. This isn't bolter ammo, it's nothing to do with bolters, it isn't the sternguard boltguns that I was talking about. There is no reference to bolters at all.
Hellfire Rounds (along with Kraken Rounds and Dragonfire Rounds) are terms with meaning within the setting, Dudeface - you don't get to just handwave them away.
And given HBMC's point about lasweapons apparently working with the strat, I'd love to hear your explanation of how a lasweapon is projecting acid, given the description from within the Hellfire Round strat itself:
Hellfire rounds douse their targets in voracious acids that are utterly lethal to organic life
Similar issues apply to the Kraken Rounds and Dragonfire Rounds - how does a laser manage to have an adamantine core, or explode just before impact to shower the target with gas and flames?
EDIT - Minor formatting tweak, following a copy & paste from the PDF
Tiberias wrote: It's not as ridiculous as the stern guard thing, but I don't quite get what they are going for with the fights first rule in general.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I understand it if you have fights first and and enemy unit has not, you fight first even if you were charged.
That just straight up makes fight first the most powerful rule to have in the fight phase.
So if you're a melee army, you basically need access to this rule somehow otherwise you are at a severe disadvantage against any army with a powerful unit that can geht fight first (like any space marine unit that can have a judiciar leading it for example).
Just on face value that doesn't seem like good rule design to be honest.
I took a quick peek at the units a Judy can join and it seems to me that a tough vehicle or monster unit won't need to worry much about the opponent fighting first. A Brutalis Dreadnaught, a Bloodthirster, or a Soulgrinder would likely shrug off the couple of wounds that actually got through. The Brutalis could kill 2 or 3 by merit of shooting and its MW charge ability before they even got to fight first.
Dysartes wrote: Hellfire Rounds (along with Kraken Rounds and Dragonfire Rounds) are terms with meaning within the setting, Dudeface - you don't get to just handwave them away.
And given HBMC's point about lasweapons apparently working with the strat, I'd love to hear your explanation of how a lasweapon is projecting acid, given the description from within the Hellfire Round strat itself:
Hellfire rounds douse their targets in voracious acids that are utterly lethal to organic life
Similar issues apply to the Kraken Rounds and Dragonfire Rounds - how does a laser manage to have an adamantine core, or explode just before impact to shower the target with gas and flames?
EDIT - Minor formatting tweak, following a copy & paste from the PDF
Yes, but EviscerationPlague is the first to tell people to stop being attached to names and just use vanguard vets for death company etc. I was highlighting thr hypocrisy of that.
Irrespective of the in-setting relevance of the name, its utterly detached from the effect. So if the name shouldn't be hand waved away, it needs renaming.
Dysartes wrote: Hellfire Rounds (along with Kraken Rounds and Dragonfire Rounds) are terms with meaning within the setting, Dudeface - you don't get to just handwave them away.
And given HBMC's point about lasweapons apparently working with the strat, I'd love to hear your explanation of how a lasweapon is projecting acid, given the description from within the Hellfire Round strat itself:
Hellfire rounds douse their targets in voracious acids that are utterly lethal to organic life
Similar issues apply to the Kraken Rounds and Dragonfire Rounds - how does a laser manage to have an adamantine core, or explode just before impact to shower the target with gas and flames?
EDIT - Minor formatting tweak, following a copy & paste from the PDF
Load a Hellfire cartridge that is propelled along the laser beam. Beam punches a hole, capsule delivers Hellfire substance ito the target in a horrid messy manner, exploding out and showering nearby unfortunates too. Or a secondary pulse detonates the capsule in an airburst to grizzly effect.
Before you tell me that’s daft look up how needlers work in-universe.
Not defending any rules-writing, just saying you can plausibly technobabble almost anything away in the 40K universe and keep with lore precedent.
Dysartes wrote: Hellfire Rounds (along with Kraken Rounds and Dragonfire Rounds) are terms with meaning within the setting, Dudeface - you don't get to just handwave them away.
And given HBMC's point about lasweapons apparently working with the strat, I'd love to hear your explanation of how a lasweapon is projecting acid, given the description from within the Hellfire Round strat itself:
Hellfire rounds douse their targets in voracious acids that are utterly lethal to organic life
Similar issues apply to the Kraken Rounds and Dragonfire Rounds - how does a laser manage to have an adamantine core, or explode just before impact to shower the target with gas and flames?
EDIT - Minor formatting tweak, following a copy & paste from the PDF
Load a Hellfire cartridge that is propelled along the laser beam. Beam punches a hole, capsule delivers Hellfire substance ito the target in a horrid messy manner, exploding out and showering nearby unfortunates too. Or a secondary pulse detonates the capsule in an airburst to grizzly effect.
Before you tell me that’s daft look up how needlers work in-universe.
Not defending any rules-writing, just saying you can plausibly technobabble almost anything away in the 40K universe and keep with lore precedent.
This is the reason people need to consider rules at a rules level without prior experience on unconscious bias from previous editions going into these things, the fluff wording and name can change, the point of the thread and the issue at hand is how one rule interacts with another, isolated from what things used to do or what the little fluff blurb says.
How to fix Deathwatch: 1. Special Rounds only affect Bolt weapons 2. All combi-weapons return to being bolter+special weapon (perhaps even one shot special like back in 5th) instead of the ugly monstrosity that they are now
Dysartes wrote: Hellfire Rounds (along with Kraken Rounds and Dragonfire Rounds) are terms with meaning within the setting, Dudeface - you don't get to just handwave them away.
And given HBMC's point about lasweapons apparently working with the strat, I'd love to hear your explanation of how a lasweapon is projecting acid, given the description from within the Hellfire Round strat itself:
Hellfire rounds douse their targets in voracious acids that are utterly lethal to organic life
Similar issues apply to the Kraken Rounds and Dragonfire Rounds - how does a laser manage to have an adamantine core, or explode just before impact to shower the target with gas and flames?
EDIT - Minor formatting tweak, following a copy & paste from the PDF
Load a Hellfire cartridge that is propelled along the laser beam. Beam punches a hole, capsule delivers Hellfire substance ito the target in a horrid messy manner, exploding out and showering nearby unfortunates too. Or a secondary pulse detonates the capsule in an airburst to grizzly effect.
Before you tell me that’s daft look up how needlers work in-universe.
Not defending any rules-writing, just saying you can plausibly technobabble almost anything away in the 40K universe and keep with lore precedent.
This is the reason people need to consider rules at a rules level without prior experience on unconscious bias from previous editions going into these things, the fluff wording and name can change, the point of the thread and the issue at hand is how one rule interacts with another, isolated from what things used to do or what the little fluff blurb says.
There is an easy solution to this whole mess: call the rule by a different name. The background has meaning, so naming a rule with reference to a specific aspect of it, while completely messing said reference up by rules interactions is... just bad design.
so, the goonhammer guys discuss just changing the hellfire rounds strat so it only causes regular wounds, rather than Critical Wounds, which would be the quickest way to shut down that specific exploit, and still leave the deathwatch with a powerful strat that's not totally broken..
Dysartes wrote: Hellfire Rounds (along with Kraken Rounds and Dragonfire Rounds) are terms with meaning within the setting, Dudeface - you don't get to just handwave them away.
And given HBMC's point about lasweapons apparently working with the strat, I'd love to hear your explanation of how a lasweapon is projecting acid, given the description from within the Hellfire Round strat itself:
Hellfire rounds douse their targets in voracious acids that are utterly lethal to organic life
Similar issues apply to the Kraken Rounds and Dragonfire Rounds - how does a laser manage to have an adamantine core, or explode just before impact to shower the target with gas and flames?
EDIT - Minor formatting tweak, following a copy & paste from the PDF
Load a Hellfire cartridge that is propelled along the laser beam. Beam punches a hole, capsule delivers Hellfire substance ito the target in a horrid messy manner, exploding out and showering nearby unfortunates too. Or a secondary pulse detonates the capsule in an airburst to grizzly effect.
Before you tell me that’s daft look up how needlers work in-universe.
Not defending any rules-writing, just saying you can plausibly technobabble almost anything away in the 40K universe and keep with lore precedent.
This is the reason people need to consider rules at a rules level without prior experience on unconscious bias from previous editions going into these things, the fluff wording and name can change, the point of the thread and the issue at hand is how one rule interacts with another, isolated from what things used to do or what the little fluff blurb says.
There is an easy solution to this whole mess: call the rule by a different name. The background has meaning, so naming a rule with reference to a specific aspect of it, while completely messing said reference up by rules interactions is... just bad design.
Gotta agree, even just "specialist ammo" or "xeno hunter ammo" would have triggered less people, doesn't exactly solve the problem though unless people are more upset about a laser firing a hellfire round than the fact DW can spew out 90ish MW a turn?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
xerxeskingofking wrote: so, the goonhammer guys discuss just changing the hellfire rounds strat so it only causes regular wounds, rather than Critical Wounds, which would be the quickest way to shut down that specific exploit, and still leave the deathwatch with a powerful strat that's not totally broken..
Dysartes wrote: Hellfire Rounds (along with Kraken Rounds and Dragonfire Rounds) are terms with meaning within the setting, Dudeface - you don't get to just handwave them away.
And given HBMC's point about lasweapons apparently working with the strat, I'd love to hear your explanation of how a lasweapon is projecting acid, given the description from within the Hellfire Round strat itself:
Hellfire rounds douse their targets in voracious acids that are utterly lethal to organic life
Similar issues apply to the Kraken Rounds and Dragonfire Rounds - how does a laser manage to have an adamantine core, or explode just before impact to shower the target with gas and flames?
EDIT - Minor formatting tweak, following a copy & paste from the PDF
Load a Hellfire cartridge that is propelled along the laser beam. Beam punches a hole, capsule delivers Hellfire substance ito the target in a horrid messy manner, exploding out and showering nearby unfortunates too. Or a secondary pulse detonates the capsule in an airburst to grizzly effect.
Before you tell me that’s daft look up how needlers work in-universe.
Not defending any rules-writing, just saying you can plausibly technobabble almost anything away in the 40K universe and keep with lore precedent.
This is the reason people need to consider rules at a rules level without prior experience on unconscious bias from previous editions going into these things, the fluff wording and name can change, the point of the thread and the issue at hand is how one rule interacts with another, isolated from what things used to do or what the little fluff blurb says.
There is an easy solution to this whole mess: call the rule by a different name. The background has meaning, so naming a rule with reference to a specific aspect of it, while completely messing said reference up by rules interactions is... just bad design.
Gotta agree, even just "specialist ammo" or "xeno hunter ammo" would have triggered less people, doesn't exactly solve the problem though unless people are more upset about a laser firing a hellfire round than the fact DW can spew out 90ish MW a turn?
No, the underlying rules issue would be the same of course. And it definitely needs adressing.
I assume it will get either a day 1 "patch" or be on the top of the list for the first balance update GW seems to be doing regularly these days. So there is a good chance this will not stay an issue for too long.
Wyldhunt wrote: Isn't the usual approach to MW problems just to put a cap on how many mortals can be generated?
That works when the mortal wounds are produced 'in addition to' or in accordance with a set number of dice. These MW interrupt the combat sequence and so limiting the total would be super awkward.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: I love that Hellfire rounds can be used with Las-weaponry.
Well done to whomever came up with that.
Yea. It's weird. On the one hand it's simple so no unit is singled out, but on the other it makes for some weird or broken gak.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
xerxeskingofking wrote: so, the goonhammer guys discuss just changing the hellfire rounds strat so it only causes regular wounds, rather than Critical Wounds, which would be the quickest way to shut down that specific exploit, and still leave the deathwatch with a powerful strat that's not totally broken..
I'm not keen on making an exception to the core rules so quickly.
With Nids resurrecting extra units with Hive Tyrants the damage might be needed sometimes. It just isn't needed in such quantity.
What, why? I get that people don't like it because flavor or they like the specifics of specific weapons. But from a design perspective, what makes it horrible?
Matt.Kingsley wrote: How to fix Deathwatch:
1. Special Rounds only affect Bolt weapons
2. All combi-weapons return to being bolter+special weapon (perhaps even one shot special like back in 5th) instead of the ugly monstrosity that they are now
They missed a trick by not rolling out some sort of [Basic] keyword for weapons and having certain stratagems/boosts only affect [Basic] weapons.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: How to fix Deathwatch:
1. Special Rounds only affect Bolt weapons
2. All combi-weapons return to being bolter+special weapon (perhaps even one shot special like back in 5th) instead of the ugly monstrosity that they are now
They missed a trick by not rolling out some sort of [Basic] keyword for weapons and having certain stratagems/boosts only affect [Basic] weapons.
They've had a few places where they've missed out on making basic keywords i.e. BIOLOGICAL and MECHANICAL (Poison, Haywire) and others since the introduction of keywords.
What, why? I get that people don't like it because flavor or they like the specifics of specific weapons. But from a design perspective, what makes it horrible?
because combis werent all anti-infantry.
a better fix wouldve been
"X models in this unit can take a Bolter and a weapons from the special weapons list (melta/plasma/flamer/grav)"
What, why? I get that people don't like it because flavor or they like the specifics of specific weapons. But from a design perspective, what makes it horrible?
Because easily accessable and spammable [Devastating][Anti-] shouldn't be a thing. Loyalist and Chaos Marines particularly (but also Orks if kombis get the same treatment) have multiple ways they can spam full units worth of them. Sure, you can point combis to be high points cost to compensate, but as can been seen here with Deathwatch that still limits the design space for any syngergies that you might want to combine with Critical Wounds.
[Devastating] should be rarer and not able to be efficiently spammed en-masse in the one unit or on the one model.
Outside of that, there's also the anti-synergy (as opposed to [Anti-] synergy ) of rolling in weapons that used to have distinct roles into one awkward anti-infantry weapon when their existing units were more anti-vehicle or anti-monster.
Then there's also the awkwardness of all the Marine named characters that now have special named combies that have the keywords of the new combis but otherwise has the profile of the special weapon. Sure, there's no reason why their profile had to be the exact same as the rest of the combis. If the nature of Azrael's combi-plasma acting like a plasma weapon is so important to its essence, or Tycho's combi-melta acting like a melta for that matter, why not all other combis?
What, why? I get that people don't like it because flavor or they like the specifics of specific weapons. But from a design perspective, what makes it horrible?
Because easily accessable and spammable [Devastating][Anti-] shouldn't be a thing. Loyalist and Chaos Marines particularly (but also Orks if kombis get the same treatment) have multiple ways they can spam full units worth of them. Sure, you can point combis to be high points cost to compensate, but as can been seen here with Deathwatch that still limits the design space for any syngergies that you might want to combine with Critical Wounds.
[Devastating] should be rarer and not able to be efficiently spammed en-masse in the one unit or on the one model.
Devastating combo-ing with Anti-X is actually the point, that's how it functions and limits targets. With reasonable numbers and restrictions (ie, outside deathwatch) it isn't actually a problem.
The deathwatch issue is spreading it too wide, to inappropriate weapons, and setting the number far too low (2+ shouldn't be happening on this scale).
A unit of 10 sternguard, for example, is firing 20 shots at close range, missing half, then wounding with half of those, ending up with 5 MW on their target. That's... moderately ok. In many, many cases, their bolt rifle is better.
Outside of that, there's also the anti-synergy (as opposed to [Anti-] synergy ) of rolling in weapons that used to have distinct roles into one awkward anti-infantry weapon when their existing units were more anti-vehicle or anti-monster.
That isn't anti-synergy. There isn't 'synergy' in 'that's how it used to be.' That's a deliberate design change.
The anti-infantry weapon may not be what people wanted, but it isn't awkward. Its very straightforward: 50% of wounds just skip to the end of the attack process and just work. But it also has a relative penalty to hit, so you aren't generating large numbers of wound rolls.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Because easily accessable and spammable [Devastating][Anti-] shouldn't be a thing.
I'm inclined to think the issue is really just that the two keywords multiply together in a way that others don't.
Change [Anti-] to just be that you never wound on worse than that value- with only 6s counting as Critical Wounds as normal- and the problem goes away. It's still powerful, but only in a linearly-increasing way.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Because easily accessable and spammable [Devastating][Anti-] shouldn't be a thing.
I'm inclined to think the issue is really just that the two keywords multiply together in a way that others don't.
Change [Anti-] to just be that you never wound on worse than that value- with only 6s counting as Critical Wounds as normal- and the problem goes away. It's still powerful, but only in a linearly-increasing way.
That breaks the design of stuff like Haywire though. The interaction is fine - it broke when they let you lay it on to anything without regard for that particular weapon design. I think the once per battle restriction could work just fine so people don't lean into it too much, but it's still a tool.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Because easily accessable and spammable [Devastating][Anti-] shouldn't be a thing.
I'm inclined to think the issue is really just that the two keywords multiply together in a way that others don't.
Change [Anti-] to just be that you never wound on worse than that value- with only 6s counting as Critical Wounds as normal- and the problem goes away. It's still powerful, but only in a linearly-increasing way.
That breaks the design of stuff like Haywire though. The interaction is fine - it broke when they let you lay it on to anything without regard for that particular weapon design. I think the once per battle restriction could work just fine so people don't lean into it too much, but it's still a tool.
Yeah the issue is not Anti+Devastating or even Anti 2+ and Devastating, the issue is Anti 2+ and Devastation out the wazoo.
What, why? I get that people don't like it because flavor or they like the specifics of specific weapons. But from a design perspective, what makes it horrible?
Because easily accessable and spammable [Devastating][Anti-] shouldn't be a thing. Loyalist and Chaos Marines particularly (but also Orks if kombis get the same treatment) have multiple ways they can spam full units worth of them. Sure, you can point combis to be high points cost to compensate, but as can been seen here with Deathwatch that still limits the design space for any syngergies that you might want to combine with Critical Wounds.
[Devastating] should be rarer and not able to be efficiently spammed en-masse in the one unit or on the one model.
Devastating combo-ing with Anti-X is actually the point, that's how it functions and limits targets. With reasonable numbers and restrictions (ie, outside deathwatch) it isn't actually a problem.
The deathwatch issue is spreading it too wide, to inappropriate weapons, and setting the number far too low (2+ shouldn't be happening on this scale).
A unit of 10 sternguard, for example, is firing 20 shots at close range, missing half, then wounding with half of those, ending up with 5 MW on their target. That's... moderately ok. In many, many cases, their bolt rifle is better.
That's... that's literally my point? I didn't say it shouldn't be a thing at all, I said it shouldn't be spammable.
Outside of that, there's also the anti-synergy (as opposed to [Anti-] synergy ) of rolling in weapons that used to have distinct roles into one awkward anti-infantry weapon when their existing units were more anti-vehicle or anti-monster.
That isn't anti-synergy. There isn't 'synergy' in 'that's how it used to be.' That's a deliberate design change.
The anti-infantry weapon may not be what people wanted, but it isn't awkward. Its very straightforward: 50% of wounds just skip to the end of the attack process and just work. But it also has a relative penalty to hit, so you aren't generating large numbers of wound rolls.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this part.
First, I am in the camp that likes what I am seeing of 10th so far (I don't care about weapon consolidation etc.)
However, this issue raised (i.e. the hellfire rounds) to me is indicative of a real problem with 10th. [Devastating wounds] is far to pervasive in the game. Especially with how it works with [Anti-X]. Way to many weapons have [Devastating wounds] and so far there seems to be multiple ways to hand it out to units. This is especially problematic with units that have many shots, like sternguard. Also [Devastating wounds] on really big guns also make them really good against infantry, as MW spill over. This is an ability I would personally not have put into the game except exceedingly rare, and if they wanted something to improve with a crit wound roll I would have had rending (-1 ap, which funny enough some units like Rubrics with an icon actually get), or even Devastating wound ="saves cannot be take against this wound" which would prevent the spill over issue.
I don't think GW is going to have to just fix the Hellfire rounds, I think [Devastating wounds] in general is going to need to be reduced.
It is also funny because I thought [Lethal Hits] being so prevasive would be the bigger issued, but with less ap to go around, plus abundant cover, I think it is less of an issue.
Yea, I get the feeling that everyone is going to have a cover save most of the time.
It's going to take them a couple of passes at least to get back to where 9th is...if codexes don't tip the apple cart. I just hope the crazy stuff is dealt with quickly. I don't want to play against nothing but "Deathwatch".
I'm not sure how you would fix DW though without it benefitting models with an invuln more though?
Daedalus81 wrote: Yea, I get the feeling that everyone is going to have a cover save most of the time.
It's going to take them a couple of passes at least to get back to where 9th is...if codexes don't tip the apple cart. I just hope the crazy stuff is dealt with quickly. I don't want to play against nothing but "Deathwatch".
I'm not sure how you would fix DW though without it benefitting models with an invuln more though?
Just cap the number of Assault Cannons in Killteams, make Hellfire rounds only affect one Killteam and make it one use per battle and 2CP. It can be good, it just shouldn't be the obviously dominating strategy for the whole faction.
Daedalus81 wrote: Yea, I get the feeling that everyone is going to have a cover save most of the time.
And/Or FNP. I get the feeling they're trying to introduce Regular, High AP for Invulns, and Mortals for FNP as three different "mechanics" for driving damage.
It's going to take them a couple of passes at least to get back to where 9th is...if codexes don't tip the apple cart. I just hope the crazy stuff is dealt with quickly. I don't want to play against nothing but "Deathwatch".
I'm not sure how you would fix DW though without it benefitting models with an invuln more though?
I guess it depends on what the level of acceptable becomes.
I think a 5 man Possessed unit for example can approach 10 mortal wounds (plus a bunch of other regular attacks) with the "undivided, reroll everything" stratagem. Even regular Slaanesh for 5+ Sustained hits will probably see you getting 6-8 mortal wounds which will do a number on most things. If they remain around 140~ points they will be taking out units currently costing 200 (for example 5 Terminators, a lot of the bigger tanks).
Equally at 140 points they aren't exactly a ruinous loss if they die - and at 3 wounds T6 3+/5++ they aren't that fragile. A blob of 10 (with an optional MoP) is probably overkill (giving rise to bad trades etc) - but they'd be popping Knights.
If suddenly possessed were 50 points a model while Terminators were say 30, they'd be rubbish, but it seems unlikely that this will be the case.
I know it's a low bar, but props to GW for their unexpectedly fast reaction to the problem.
Yes, it should have been caught in playtesting but its good they patched it before it could cause any actual issues
Mmm, yea. I imagine we'll see that in the commentary. Bullgryns were either written by a totally different person or there's inconsistency on purpose. It will be interesting to see which way it goes, but gut tells me min 1 across the board ( and someone rumors that a youtube channel said as much ).
Lord Clinto wrote: Personally I think GW is going to have to buff "Melta" weapons to be Anti-Monster & Anti-Vehicle.
For one of the all-time premier anti-armor weapons (iirc Multi-meltas in 2nd edition dealt 1d20 damage) they really seem lack-luster in 10th edition.
Multimeltas did 2D12 in 2nd. They were nasty af.
Rihgu wrote: Melta weapons are just anti-elite now, rather than anti-vehicle.
New edition, new role. Like how grav guns went from anti-elite to anti-vehicle for some reason.
I'd still use Multimeltas for anti-vehicle. The multiple shots and high AP is still great.
The changes to Grav are . . . Unexpected. Although it did require adjustment as it was over-competetive as a choice. It gains a bit in the anti-elite role with D3 though. A single shot will kill a 3W Gravis now.
Tyran wrote: IMHO currently the biggest question is how keywords work in an Attached unit.
If they don't apply, a lot of stuff (like [anti-psyker]) is completely meaningless (barring a few exceptions like grey knights).
Logically, since you're combining the units, all keywords from both units apply. They still need to state it, like the 1 damage minimum and rounding (rounding up is only mentioned in reference to how to roll a d3, and with [blast] you round down)
Rihgu wrote: Melta weapons are just anti-elite now, rather than anti-vehicle.
New edition, new role. Like how grav guns went from anti-elite to anti-vehicle for some reason.
And that's fine.
Sure, it doesn't make sense that after 10 editions they've decided to change the role of one of the most prolific and storied anti-tank weapons in the game, but whatever - let's go with it! - and we'll say that the change to the meltagun is entirely intentional and it is meant to be an anti-elite weapon. I think it steps on the toes of what Plasma weapons are meant to do, but as I said, let's go with it and accept this as inentional. Fine.
Alongside this, your other anti-tank weapons (like the equally as prolific and common Lascannon) change to keep up with the changes in toughness values, and, if anything, further define the difference between an anti-tank and an anti-elite weapon. Also fine.
But Sisters don't have any other anti-tank weapons to increase and keep pace. Melta weaponry was their thing, and now they've been left behind. Do you see the issue?
If you choose to change the role of a near-universal weapon type for every army, then you have be aware that it might create some serious gaps. Other armies have Lascannons and Krak Missiles and other things that have changed, so the loss of melta-weaponry as a premiere tank killer isn't really that bitter a pill to swallow. For Sisters the buck stopped with Multi-Meltas.
I mean, my faction has literally nothing above S8. Decent amount of Lethal Hits, but no dice manipulation like Sisters have. And highest damage is just 1d6, which is on ONE model.
Edit: A GUO kitted for tank-murdering does...
6 attacks 4 hits, 1 crit (with Lethal Hits) 4/3 plus 1 wounds, 7/3 total 14/9 failed saves at d6 damage apiece 49/9 or 5.44 damage from the Bilesword
Bileblade has Extra Attacks, so... 3 attacks 2 hits, 1/2 crits (with Lethal Hits) 2/3 plus 1/2 wounds, 7/6 total 14/18 or 7/9 failed saves 14/9 or 1.56 damage from the Blade
7 damage total to a Rhino. From the single deadliest tankbuster in my army. Admittedly, he does have Putrid Vomit still, which adds 1.44 damage, for 8.44 damage total.
A unit of Paragon Warsuits, meanwhile, does...
6 Multimelta Shots 4 hits 2 wounds 2 failed saves for d6 damage each (d6+2 if in half range) 7 or 11 damage, depending on range
3 Grenade Shots 2 hits 3/2 wounds 1 failed save for d3 damage 2 damage
9 War Mace swings 9/2 hits 18/6 or 3 wounds 3/2 failed saves for 3 damage each 9/2 or 4.5 damage
So they can body a single Rhino in shooting if in half-range with half their guns, and their remaining damage does 3/4ths of a GUO's damage to another one.
Tyran wrote: But if they apply, you get some very weird interactions.
Such as?
H.B.M.C. wrote: If you choose to change the role of a near-universal weapon type for every army, then you have be aware that it might create some serious gaps. Other armies have Lascannons and Krak Missiles and other things that have changed, so the loss of melta-weaponry as a premiere tank killer isn't really that bitter a pill to swallow. For Sisters the buck stopped with Multi-Meltas.
Melta still does work and Sisters are one of the better factions at using it thanks to their rerolls and plentiful access to it. You'll need to adapt, perhaps by adding things like transports to get the melta where it needs to go, but it'll still do the job once you get it there.
Tyran wrote: But if they apply, you get some very weird interactions.
Such as?
Biggest issue for me is that adding your character's keywords to their unit (especially psyker) is a massive risk. The wide availability of anti psyker weapons means that simply putting a psyker into a unit makes that whole unit extremely vulnerable.
A librarian in a terminator squad means the hounds of morkai will annihilate the squad if they also count as psykers. This is an example of a very expensive negative interaction.
Farseers won't survive the first round if their ablative squad also counts as psykers - T3 4+ wound vs anti psyker X will see them mown down.
The character keyword applying to the whole unit also creates weird interactions - how do you resolve attacks against a unit of character models? According to the leader rule, attacks cannot be allocated to Character models in attached units - which if units combine keywords means every model in the unit has the Character keyword and thus can't be targeted at all unless by precision weapons.
Thus a psyker character technically would make their bodyguards impossible to target but also very vulnerable to a precision anti psyker weapon that can target them....
Just the way the precision rule and the the leader rule function make me suspect that units don't combine their keywords.
Tyran wrote: But if they apply, you get some very weird interactions.
Such as?
Monster becoming able to move through and upon ruins by gaining the Infantry keyword, Precision being able to snipe any model within an unit (not just the Leader) as they all gain Character keyword or Flying characters giving Fly to their units.
Rihgu wrote: Melta weapons are just anti-elite now, rather than anti-vehicle.
New edition, new role. Like how grav guns went from anti-elite to anti-vehicle for some reason.
And it was an extremely poor choice because pre-existing factions and their options were built around the previous roles. Look at what it did to Sisters. Grav should have gotten Anti-Monster 4+ (or so) and Melta and LasCannon should have gotten Anti Vehicle (or Anti-both) 4+ or so.
Hellebore wrote: Biggest issue for me is that adding your character's keywords to their unit (especially psyker) is a massive risk. The wide availability of anti psyker weapons means that simply putting a psyker into a unit makes that whole unit extremely vulnerable.
A librarian in a terminator squad means the hounds of morkai will annihilate the squad if they also count as psykers. This is an example of a very expensive negative interaction.
That seems intentional otherwise anti-psyker would be next to worthless given that psykers would always be hidden within a unit and untargetable.
The character keyword applying to the whole unit also creates weird interactions - how do you resolve attacks against a unit of character models? According to the leader rule, attacks cannot be allocated to Character models in attached units - which if units combine keywords means every model in the unit has the Character keyword and thus can't be targeted at all unless by precision weapons.
Yeah, the multiple-character units could use some clarification.
As for a character giving the trait to each model in the unit, I don't think that's how it works. The keyword goes on the unit, not each model so there are no issues.
Tyran wrote: [Monster becoming able to move through and upon ruins by gaining the Infantry keyword, Precision being able to snipe any model within an unit (not just the Leader) as they all gain Character keyword or Flying characters giving Fly to their units.
I've been reading it as keywords apply to the unit not to each model within it. So anti-psyker will work on attacks targeting the unit but a character joining a unit doesn't make ever model a character.
At least that's how I expect GW to rule when the inevitable FAQ comes out.
Canadian 5th wrote: That seems intentional otherwise anti-psyker would be next to worthless given that psykers would always be hidden within a unit and untargetable.
or just GWs way of saying that you cannot have more characters than units to join
Tyran wrote: IMHO currently the biggest question is how keywords work in an Attached unit.
If they don't apply, a lot of stuff (like [anti-psyker]) is completely meaningless (barring a few exceptions like grey knights).
Logically, since you're combining the units, all keywords from both units apply. They still need to state it, like the 1 damage minimum and rounding (rounding up is only mentioned in reference to how to roll a d3, and with [blast] you round down)
I'm not sure I'm with you on that one. The Magical Relic of Psyker Slaying isn't going to be - or at least it shouldn't be - more potent against Bolter Marine Redshirt than it is against Chief Librarian Jazzhands just because Redshirt is being told who to shoot at by Jazzhands. Likewise, SYLL’ESSKE leading some Daemonettes does not make the Daemonettes bigger and more monstrous.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: I mean, my faction has literally nothing above S8.
Decent amount of Lethal Hits, but no dice manipulation like Sisters have. And highest damage is just 1d6, which is on ONE model.
I'm assuming you mean Chaos Daemons - with a Nurgle bent?
It LOOKS to me like they're trying to push you into Soul Grinders and, to a lesser extent, Be'Lakor which I get is not ideal from either a fluff or a functional standpoint - and even then for Nurgle Marked its just the claw, not the Tzeentch Warp Gaze ranged attack. 1 Enhancement per Mark/God/subfaction also suggests they're not "supporting" mono-god lists, instead expecting some sort of mutli-national approach which REALLY doesn't work from a fluff standpoint when considering historical animosities.
I suspect this roll-out is going to expose the unfinished nature of a number of factions/subfactions for their lack of all-around completeness - Sisters, Daemons (especially mono-god), We'll probably see some issues with Grey Knights, maybe Custodes and Votann.
The character keyword applying to the whole unit also creates weird interactions - how do you resolve attacks against a unit of character models? According to the leader rule, attacks cannot be allocated to Character models in attached units - which if units combine keywords means every model in the unit has the Character keyword and thus can't be targeted at all unless by precision weapons.
Thus a psyker character technically would make their bodyguards impossible to target but also very vulnerable to a precision anti psyker weapon that can target them....
Just the way the precision rule and the the leader rule function make me suspect that units don't combine their keywords
Differnce between unit and model having keyword.
To wound works on unit.
Wound cannot be allocated to MODEL with character keyword.
Tyran wrote: But if they apply, you get some very weird interactions.
Such as?
Monster becoming able to move through and upon ruins by gaining the Infantry keyword, Precision being able to snipe any model within an unit (not just the Leader) as they all gain Character keyword or Flying characters giving Fly to their units.
Nope. Model has to have infantry keyword. Unit having it doesn't give every model.
The character keyword applying to the whole unit also creates weird interactions - how do you resolve attacks against a unit of character models? According to the leader rule, attacks cannot be allocated to Character models in attached units - which if units combine keywords means every model in the unit has the Character keyword and thus can't be targeted at all unless by precision weapons.
Thus a psyker character technically would make their bodyguards impossible to target but also very vulnerable to a precision anti psyker weapon that can target them....
Just the way the precision rule and the the leader rule function make me suspect that units don't combine their keywords
Differnce between unit and model having keyword.
To wound works on unit.
Wound cannot be allocated to MODEL with character keyword.
Tyran wrote: But if they apply, you get some very weird interactions.
Such as?
Monster becoming able to move through and upon ruins by gaining the Infantry keyword, Precision being able to snipe any model within an unit (not just the Leader) as they all gain Character keyword or Flying characters giving Fly to their units.
Nope. Model has to have infantry keyword. Unit having it doesn't give every model.
That's a weird position to take. So no models have any key words, but ALL models have keywords. So if you can only see one one model, it has no key words? How are you defining a unit if not a collection of models?
I can't see how a model from a unit doesn't have a keyword whilst simultaneously being affected by the keywords the unit has...
That's a weird position to take. So no models have any key words, but ALL models have keywords. So if you can only see one one model, it has no key words? How are you defining a unit if not a collection of models?
I can't see how a model from a unit doesn't have a keyword whilst simultaneously being affected by the keywords the unit has...
not quite, at least if i understand it properly.
models each have thier own keywords, be it [infantry], [fly], [psychic], etc. those apply to things like movement (so a kastellen unit with a [walker] robot is bound by whatever keywords that model has.
however, the UNIT is considered to have any and all keywords it's constituent parts have, and shooting is resolved against "the unit" until the wounds get allocated.
so, yes [anti-psychic] will affect terminators led by a Liberian. its bloody stupid and a serious nerf to Tsons and GK, but apparently thats how they want it to play.
I haven't seen any designers commentary or "rare rules" type thing that lays this out, but that's what goonhammer, who clearly HAVE seen stuff they aren't talking about yet (im guesing NDA), are talking about.
My point previously is that the character keyword is noted as being impossible to target in an attached unit, so if a leader grants its keywords to the unit, then every model is a character within an attached unit, therefore no one can be targeted.
Hellebore wrote: My point previously is that the character keyword is noted as being impossible to target in an attached unit, so if a leader grants its keywords to the unit, then every model is a character within an attached unit, therefore no one can be targeted.
well, no, becuase only the leader has the [character] keyword. so you could still allocate wounds to other members of the unit....and the whole unit would be more vulnerable to [anti-character] weapons, because reasons.
the models dont share keywords, just "the unit", as an entity separate form his consentient models.
look, i aggree its cray-cray, but that seems to be the plan.
Hellebore wrote: I haven't actually seen any rules that say a leader combines their keywords with their unit though.
This is the argument being made, but there's no evidence that it's true.
nor have i, but some sources, like goonhammer, seem to have seen something that supports it. my guess is its covered in the hardcopy of the 40k rulebook form the leviathan box, and they can't talk about that until GW releases them form thier NDA on that specific part, most likely when pre-order ends and people start receiving their copies.
certainly, they seem very sure of this, when they are openly vague on other parts, so i assume they have good reason to take this stance
always keep in mind that GW has written the rules to be used on a model by model basis
so you always check keywords on a model by model bases unless the rulebook say otherwise
if a step mentions that it checks against that unit, it is during that step only and for that the keywords are combined
if the next step lets you check against a single model, only the keywords on that models count
kodos wrote: always keep in mind that GW has written the rules to be used on a model by model basis
so you always check keywords on a model by model bases unless the rulebook say otherwise
if a step mentions that it checks against that unit, it is during that step only and for that the keywords are combined
if the next step lets you check against a single model, only the keywords on that models count
Add these two together:
This means it only applies to units that have the Infantry keyword on their datasheet.
- Keywords section
While a Bodyguard unit contains a Leader, it is known as an Attached unit and, with the exception of rules that are triggered when units are destroyed (pg 12), it is treated as a single unit for all rules purposes
- Leaders USR
As they are treated as 1 singular unit for ALL rules purposes, checking the individual model may not matter. The ability/USR/Keyword interactions are not clearly spelled out.
So here is a good breakdown of the current discussion that is also relevant to my interests:
The Astra Militarum Stormlord says it can carry 40 Astra Militarum Infantry models.
Lord Solar Leonatus does not have the Infantry Keyword (instead having Mounted, but can attach to a 20-man Infantry Squad as a bodyguard.
1) can that 21-strong unit with the Infantry and Mounted keywords embark on the Stormlord conventionally in the movement phase?
2) Can the Stormlord's special rule, Mount up! be used to embark the unit? (Rule for context is below).
Stormlord Datasheet wrote:Mount Up!: At the end of your opponent’s Movement phase,
if there are no models currently embarked within this
Transport, you can select one friendly Astra Militarum
Infantry unit (excluding Artillery units) that is wholly
within 6" of this Transport. Unless that unit is within
Engagement Range of one or more enemy units, it can embark
within this Transport.
Unit1126PLL wrote: So here is a good breakdown of the current discussion that is also relevant to my interests:
The Astra Militarum Stormlord says it can carry 40 Astra Militarum Infantry models.
Lord Solar Leonatus does not have the Infantry Keyword (instead having Mounted, but can attach to a 20-man Infantry Squad as a bodyguard.
1) can that 21-strong unit with the Infantry and Mounted keywords embark on the Stormlord conventionally in the movement phase?
2) Can the Stormlord's special rule, Mount up! be used to embark the unit? (Rule for context is below).
Stormlord Datasheet wrote:Mount Up!: At the end of your opponent’s Movement phase,
if there are no models currently embarked within this
Transport, you can select one friendly Astra Militarum
Infantry unit (excluding Artillery units) that is wholly
within 6" of this Transport. Unless that unit is within
Engagement Range of one or more enemy units, it can embark
within this Transport.
i'd say you can't embark because the unit doesnt all have the infantry keyword, pretty simple
Unit1126PLL wrote: So here is a good breakdown of the current discussion that is also relevant to my interests:
The Astra Militarum Stormlord says it can carry 40 Astra Militarum Infantry models.
Lord Solar Leonatus does not have the Infantry Keyword (instead having Mounted, but can attach to a 20-man Infantry Squad as a bodyguard.
1) can that 21-strong unit with the Infantry and Mounted keywords embark on the Stormlord conventionally in the movement phase?
2) Can the Stormlord's special rule, Mount up! be used to embark the unit? (Rule for context is below).
Stormlord Datasheet wrote:Mount Up!: At the end of your opponent’s Movement phase,
if there are no models currently embarked within this
Transport, you can select one friendly Astra Militarum
Infantry unit (excluding Artillery units) that is wholly
within 6" of this Transport. Unless that unit is within
Engagement Range of one or more enemy units, it can embark
within this Transport.
No, because Leontus as a model does not have the Infantry keyword. Note that the Stormlord specifies Infantry Models rather than Infantry Units.
For the Mount up ability, I would say yes, but likely unintended.
Unit1126PLL wrote: So here is a good breakdown of the current discussion that is also relevant to my interests:
The Astra Militarum Stormlord says it can carry 40 Astra Militarum Infantry models.
Lord Solar Leonatus does not have the Infantry Keyword (instead having Mounted, but can attach to a 20-man Infantry Squad as a bodyguard.
1) can that 21-strong unit with the Infantry and Mounted keywords embark on the Stormlord conventionally in the movement phase?
2) Can the Stormlord's special rule, Mount up! be used to embark the unit? (Rule for context is below).
Stormlord Datasheet wrote:Mount Up!: At the end of your opponent’s Movement phase,
if there are no models currently embarked within this
Transport, you can select one friendly Astra Militarum
Infantry unit (excluding Artillery units) that is wholly
within 6" of this Transport. Unless that unit is within
Engagement Range of one or more enemy units, it can embark
within this Transport.
i'd say you can't embark because the unit doesnt all have the infantry keyword, pretty simple
How would you know this?
Unless you just assume attached units don't share keywords, which answers the question in the thread!
Unit1126PLL wrote: So here is a good breakdown of the current discussion that is also relevant to my interests:
The Astra Militarum Stormlord says it can carry 40 Astra Militarum Infantry models.
Lord Solar Leonatus does not have the Infantry Keyword (instead having Mounted, but can attach to a 20-man Infantry Squad as a bodyguard.
1) can that 21-strong unit with the Infantry and Mounted keywords embark on the Stormlord conventionally in the movement phase?
2) Can the Stormlord's special rule, Mount up! be used to embark the unit? (Rule for context is below).
Stormlord Datasheet wrote:Mount Up!: At the end of your opponent’s Movement phase,
if there are no models currently embarked within this
Transport, you can select one friendly Astra Militarum
Infantry unit (excluding Artillery units) that is wholly
within 6" of this Transport. Unless that unit is within
Engagement Range of one or more enemy units, it can embark
within this Transport.
No, because Leontus as a model does not have the Infantry keyword. Note that the Stormlord specifies Infantry Models rather than Infantry Units.
For the Mount up ability, I would say yes, but likely unintended.
Okey dokey. Will use Mount Up! to embark Leonatus in the future.
) of rolling in weapons that used to have distinct roles into one awkward anti-infantry weapon when their existing units were more anti-vehicle or anti-monster.
That's... that's literally my point? I didn't say it shouldn't be a thing at all, I said it shouldn't be spammable.
