Slipspace wrote: Which seems like a reasonable approximation of the lightning claw rules, so I'm not sure what the problem is.
Makes them less special. And seems to leave Power Fists, Chainfists and Thunder Hammers as the only different special HTH weapons outside of "Power Weapons". Now any melee weapon can be lightning claws just by having two of them. Ho hum.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Every time they buff the toughness of a vehicle without changing the Wound Chart, they are just making small arms more and more efficient relative to AT guns.
Oh no, rhinos are T9! My lasguns are afraid. I bet Baneblades are even T-15. Lascannons wound on 5s with one shot? Ha! Bolters are better.
Didn't realise you'd seen all the rules already.
Sorry, I thought the thread was discussing the previews. If you would prefer to wait until the full rules release to discuss them, you could always ask for the thread to be locked.
Methinks you're being purposefully obtuse. There's a different between discussing the previews and making things up, crying about the sky falling down, and then discussing that.
You're making assumptions, and it's bringing down the quality of discussion. As other users have demonstrated, you can discuss things without making assumptions and complaining about them.
Slipspace wrote: Which seems like a reasonable approximation of the lightning claw rules, so I'm not sure what the problem is.
Makes them less special. And seems to leave Power Fists, Chainfists and Thunder Hammers as the only different special HTH weapons outside of "Power Weapons". Now any melee weapon can be lightning claws just by having two of them. Ho hum.
Do you know what the stats for Lightning Claws are? Do you know if power swords will have the same offensive profile as a single lightning claw?
No, I thought not.
Yet again, a brilliant example of an absolute statement, given without knowing the actual situation.
Slipspace wrote: Which seems like a reasonable approximation of the lightning claw rules, so I'm not sure what the problem is.
Makes them less special. And seems to leave Power Fists, Chainfists and Thunder Hammers as the only different special HTH weapons outside of "Power Weapons". Now any melee weapon can be lightning claws just by having two of them. Ho hum.
How does maintaining the rules for them make them les special? Remember, we're getting weapon profiles per unit now, so there's no requirement for one unit's pair of CC weapons to be treated like a pair of lightning claws if GW don't think that's appropriate. Where it is appropriate, they can do so.
It's entirely possible we'll see a wide range of different Power Weapon profiles, depending on the wielders. I'd prefer that over the endless flip-flopping between whichever option out of swords and axes happens to be best at the time.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Do you know what the stats for Lightning Claws are? Do you know if power swords will have the same offensive profile as a single lightning claw?
It's called an educated guess and pattern recognition. It really isn't that complicated, but let me break it down for you rather than level insults like you just did:
1. We've seen "Power Weapon" be presented as a weapon type, rather than "Power Sword". From this we can reasonably infer that Mauls/Axes/Swords are being consolidated into a single profile.
2. Then we look at Chosen, who have already had all but Fists consolidated into "Accursed Weapons", which includes lightning claws.
3. And then we see that Twin-Linked now applies to melee weapons, and the rule it provides is the rule that Lightning Claws have had since 3rd Edition.
Therefore it is reasonable to assume that what happened with Accursed Weapons for Chaos Marines will be applied to Power Weapon varieties with Loyalist Marines. And as Lightning Claws ceased to be a separate entry with them, and the new twin-linked rules confer the benefit that lightning claws have enjoyed for literal decades, it makes sense to take an educated guess that lightning claws are now just twin linked power weapons rather than their own specific separate weapon.
Doesn't mean that is actually going to be the case, but this is how discussions work where people take what we know and speculate based upon known facts.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Melta rifles are strength 9, meaning they wound Rhinos only twice as well as bolters or lasguns.
They do more damage past the wound... but lol.
Yeah, the Wound chart is still pants. I hope they address it, but atm it looks like they're just trying to tackle it with keywords, which GW has a bit of a spotty history with.
Bolt rifle scores: 0.11 wounds against a Rhino
Melta rifle scores 0.77 wounds against a Rhino.
Make of that what you will. Melta does improve if stationary or at half range.
Edit: sorry, T12 like a gladiator in the math. It's better for the meltas against the rhino, I think it even breaks 1 wound.
Right, so 5 Intercessors will do 0.55.
3 Eradicators will do 3.5
Or in other words - 636% better - 1000% better ( literally ) in half range, but who's counting?
Yep, and as we know, the usual antitank weapon is only 6 times* better at killing enemy tanks than a man with a sharp bayonet, and that isn't absurd at all and certainly wouldn't make tanks obsolete overnight in a setting.
*10 times at half range!
(And all this right near a thread asking if you can play "in character"... )
For most of its life, a Lightning Claw was little more than a Power Weapon that rerolled to wound. What is the tragedy of it going back to exactly that?
And I highly doubt there will be a weapon called Twin-Linked Accursed Weapon. If the Lightning Claw is different from the other weapons, it will be Lightning Claw [Twin-Linked] other weapon rules.
alextroy wrote: For most of its life, a Lightning Claw was little more than a Power Weapon that rerolled to wound. What is the tragedy of it going back to exactly that?
It's not "going back to that". It's already that, but now it's rules aren't unique to it.
alextroy wrote: And I highly doubt there will be a weapon called Twin-Linked Accursed Weapon. If the Lightning Claw is different from the other weapons, it will be Lightning Claw [Twin-Linked] other weapon rules.
Twin-Linked is just two of the same weapon. So, yes, it is unlikely that it will be called Twin-Linked Accursed Weapon*, but it'll be something along the lines of "A model with two accursed weapons gains the twin-linked rule in melee".
*And not just because "Twin-Linked" is in the weapon rules now rather than the name...
alextroy wrote: For most of its life, a Lightning Claw was little more than a Power Weapon that rerolled to wound. What is the tragedy of it going back to exactly that?
It's not "going back to that". It's already that, but now it's rules aren't unique to it.
alextroy wrote: And I highly doubt there will be a weapon called Twin-Linked Accursed Weapon. If the Lightning Claw is different from the other weapons, it will be Lightning Claw [Twin-Linked] other weapon rules.
Twin-Linked is just two of the same weapon. So, yes, it is unlikely that it will be called Twin-Linked Accursed Weapon*, but it'll be something along the lines of "A model with two accursed weapons gains the twin-linked rule in melee".
*And not just because "Twin-Linked" is in the weapon rules now rather than the name...
I... I don't really get your complaint.
Other weapons being able to reroll wounds doesn't make Lightning Claws less good, especially when the unit that has TL Powerfists (Aggressors) has no Lightning Claw option.
Yep, and as we know, the usual antitank weapon is only 6 times* better at killing enemy tanks than a man with a sharp bayonet, and that isn't absurd at all and certainly wouldn't make tanks obsolete overnight in a setting.
*10 times at half range!
(And all this right near a thread asking if you can play "in character"... )
That's an order of magnitude.
When those marines bolter a single wound off the melta have finished off the Rhino. And that's probably with the best small arms profile available in the game.
But let's give them Lethal Hits and OoM in a squad of 10.
Meltaguns usually wounding on 5+ does weird me out, but if this is an edition where stacked AP is going away, then being able to ignore armor saves altogether could be pretty powerful. D6+2 damage is also nothing to sneeze at if they're reining in lethality across the board.
Basically I'm thinking that most things are going to be wounding tanks on 5s and 6s, but it'll be the AP and damage that make the difference.
I also want to point out that having twin-linked re-roll to wound actually makes it a lot more impactful than re-roll to hit for most armies. If you're succeeding on a 3+, then a re-roll is just a 33% bonus. At 4+ it's 50%, at 5+ it's 67%, and at 6+ it's 83%, or just shy of doubling your performance anyways.
The corollary there is that you'll get the most benefit when shooting things just outside your normal performance envelope, too tough to be an ideal matchup for your given weapon.
connected to the same mounting point for ranged weapons
two of the same melee weapon for melee weapons
Aggressors already break your first tenet.
i'd argue that infantry is a single mounting point tbh
Twin-linked has historically been about two of the same weapon mounted side by side for redundancy into a single target. Arms and thus arm mounted weapons allow multiple targets to be selected.
Insectum7 wrote: Twin-linked has come all the way back around to 2nd ed rules, lol.
Not really. It's been 2 hits in 1, reroll hits, double the shots before. Now it's new thing. Unless RT had reroll to wounds
I was seeing the analogy that TL is back to the single die to hit, then effecting Wound results. Although yes, in 2nd you just rolled both Wound dice rather than a reroll.
Technically you are correct, whuch is the best kind of correct.
alextroy wrote: For most of its life, a Lightning Claw was little more than a Power Weapon that rerolled to wound. What is the tragedy of it going back to exactly that?
It's not "going back to that". It's already that, but now it's rules aren't unique to it.
Yeah I gotta say I'm overall ok with the change here. This is just one of those consolidation efforts where different people draw the line in different places. Maybe some people like 50 types of bolters too (but they're wrong to do so )
The thing I like about it is that I don't like the look of LCs on Power Armored troopers, and it looks like now I can just use two Power Swords instead. That's nice.
If you are on the "I hate small arms can hurt tanks" then presumably the great concern is going to be Termagants with Spinefists with Hyper Aggression for lethal hits.
If you could get 60 into 12" (they aren't exactly rapid at M6" but you could advance) that's...
120*1/6*1/3=6.666 wounds.
120*1/3*11/36*1/3=4.07.
Total: 10.74 wounds
So you'd expect to kill a Rhino. But a slightly hot roll, you are popping the Gladiator too and putting a big dent in a Repulsor.
If you could charge a unit in afterwards and got 30 swings (probably not possible I'd guess) you'd almost certainly contribute a couple more wounds and so bag the Gladiator.
I'm not really concerned with Tryanids evolved to destroy vehicles actually destroying vehicles
Now if we assume that Meltaguns are S9 (per the Melta Rifle), we are looking at vehicles being more resistant to Melta, which isn't a tragedy. I just hope that vehicle mounted AT is better than the man-portable units. It would be nice if the various turret versions of weapons on tanks were better at killing tanks. There is a reason we fight tanks with tanks, not RPGs.
Tyel wrote: If you are on the "I hate small arms can hurt tanks" then presumably the great concern is going to be Termagants with Spinefists with Hyper Aggression for lethal hits.
If you could get 60 into 12" (they aren't exactly rapid at M6" but you could advance) that's...
120*1/6*1/3=6.666 wounds.
120*1/3*11/36*1/3=4.07.
Total: 10.74 wounds
So you'd expect to kill a Rhino. But a slightly hot roll, you are popping the Gladiator too and putting a big dent in a Repulsor.
If you could charge a unit in afterwards and got 30 swings (probably not possible I'd guess) you'd almost certainly contribute a couple more wounds and so bag the Gladiator.
AKA it isn't a big deal despite the people not having moved on from the awful AV system.
catbarf wrote: Meltaguns usually wounding on 5+ does weird me out, but if this is an edition where stacked AP is going away, then being able to ignore armor saves altogether could be pretty powerful. D6+2 damage is also nothing to sneeze at if they're reining in lethality across the board.
Basically I'm thinking that most things are going to be wounding tanks on 5s and 6s, but it'll be the AP and damage that make the difference.
I also want to point out that having twin-linked re-roll to wound actually makes it a lot more impactful than re-roll to hit for most armies. If you're succeeding on a 3+, then a re-roll is just a 33% bonus. At 4+ it's 50%, at 5+ it's 67%, and at 6+ it's 83%, or just shy of doubling your performance anyways.
The corollary there is that you'll get the most benefit when shooting things just outside your normal performance envelope, too tough to be an ideal matchup for your given weapon.
Meltas wounding on 5s gives Lascannons room to be anti-tank without needing a special rule, which I like.
Looking back on Termagant weapons -- spinefists are the standout, but getting 10 T3 5+ models within 12" of something can be a feat. They can run and gun, which helps. The devourer is the safe pick with good range and output. And in last place is the Fleshborer, which has a wounding edge, but I think S5 may not be useful enough and I don't think Assault can save that gun unless mobility is crucial -- that does give them the longest reach by 3 to 4" ( assuming run is a D6 still ) , but the scenarios where that matters will be few and subject to the dice gods.
I think it's appropriate for such a short range and model density. It's the Fleshborer that needs help. Obviously we're still missing a lot of info so who knows, but I doubt there will be anything to sort it out.
Or you could be right and it should be 1 and I'm just not looking at it right.
I think 10th should be a great edition given the contents and quality of the complaints so far. The current recurring sore points:
- USRs having a few too many words in their definition
- USRs having too many characters in the name
- The currently unrevealed to-wound chart, but in it's absence let's bash the existing one
- Weapons with similar profiles potentially getting consolidated being boring (notably by the same people complaining about bolter variants)
- Some complaints about the lack of auras after 2 editions of people complaining about wombo combo auras
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Daedalus81 wrote: I think it's appropriate for such a short range and model density. It's the Fleshborer that needs help. Obviously we're still missing a lot of info so who knows, but I doubt there will be anything to sort it out.
Or you could be right and it should be 1 and I'm just not looking at it right.
Fleshborer will have price & range on it's side if the devourer is a paid-for upgrade.
I expect them all to be the same cost ( free ), but there's been a lot of surprises so far. That and I'm not sure 1 point per model would be a meaningful difference; 2 would probably too much just on account of them dying often.
( harkens back a bit to points not being a good solution for this sort of granularity )
The one thing we can say conclusively, is that this new ruleset is as different from 9th as 8th was from 7th. Maybe more so.
And the thing we should have learned at the beginning of 8th is, basing anything about the new edition off of hownit functions in the current one is not going to work.
Even comparing like for like 10th edition rules will be a total shot in the dark for a couple of months after release. I still have fond memories of people right when 8th dropped, claiming Inceptors were going to lay waste to all the land, only for them to come out and be about 40% overpriced.
ERJAK wrote: The one thing we can say conclusively, is that this new ruleset is as different from 9th as 8th was from 7th. Maybe more so.
And the thing we should have learned at the beginning of 8th is, basing anything about the new edition off of hownit functions in the current one is not going to work.
Even comparing like for like 10th edition rules will be a total shot in the dark for a couple of months after release. I still have fond memories of people right when 8th dropped, claiming Inceptors were going to lay waste to all the land, only for them to come out and be about 40% overpriced.
For me there are three "true" editions. 2nd ( wild west ), 3rd to 7th ( classic 40K ), and 8th to 10th ( nu40K ). I typify this current edition by vehicles with wounds instead of AV, no WS table, no I, stratagems, etc.
I think 10th still embodies largely what 9th was, but organized and with a bit more care put into it.
But aside from all that, like you said, there's enough changing that how we approach the game is changing pretty fundamentally. I'm eager to see what they've done to Magnus and if they're able to still make them imposing without being overwhelming.
It is indeed a reset of the dexes, but there are no fundamental changes in the rules. There are tweaks. Big ones at times, but the rule framework is the same. You can probably play with 10th rules and 9th dexes with minimal issues. It will suck, but it will probably be possible. The only incompatibility on stat level seems to be how the leadership is expressed.
Doing the same between 7th and 8th was impossible.
I sometimes wonder if people really are failing to understand my point (which is my fault for explaining it badly) or are being deliberately obtuse.
I want 40k to be a fun rehashing of a battle in the 41st (42nd, lol) millennium. I want to tell fun stories and immerse myself and play "in character".
It's very difficult to do so when the lore doesn't match the tabletop. If you accept the tabletop as the "bottom line" and the rest of the lore as various shades of propaganda/reinterpretation, then you end up with a universe that is internally inconsistent (for example, no group of people would produce tanks on an industrial scale, if the tanks had to be careful near enemy civilians less they take too many Strength 1 open-hand slaps).
Once the ludonarrative dissonance becomes this great, it's difficult to enjoy the game, which is disappointing because I am not interested in competitive play, and my mates play other games when we are doing a "get together with the lads" night because 40k just isn't that good of a "get together with the lads" game.
It is indeed a reset of the dexes, but there are no fundamental changes in the rules. There are tweaks. Big ones at times, but the rule framework is the same. You can probably play with 10th rules and 9th dexes with minimal issues. It will suck, but it will probably be possible. The only incompatibility on stat level seems to be how the leadership is expressed.
Doing the same between 7th and 8th was impossible.
The big question mark is scoring which I don't think they've talked about yet.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I sometimes wonder if people really are failing to understand my point (which is my fault for explaining it badly) or are being deliberately obtuse.
I want 40k to be a fun rehashing of a battle in the 41st (42nd, lol) millennium. I want to tell fun stories and immerse myself and play "in character".
It's very difficult to do so when the lore doesn't match the tabletop. If you accept the tabletop as the "bottom line" and the rest of the lore as various shades of propaganda/reinterpretation, then you end up with a universe that is internally inconsistent (for example, no group of people would produce tanks on an industrial scale, if the tanks had to be careful near enemy civilians less they take too many Strength 1 open-hand slaps).
Once the ludonarrative dissonance becomes this great, it's difficult to enjoy the game, which is disappointing because I am not interested in competitive play, and my mates play other games when we are doing a "get together with the lads" night because 40k just isn't that good of a "get together with the lads" game.
Fun is how you make it, I guess. Is it feasible for your group to say 2x T can't be wounded?
Ultimately the game is just different now. I get that you don't like it - that doesn't mean it's bad.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I sometimes wonder if people really are failing to understand my point (which is my fault for explaining it badly) or are being deliberately obtuse.
I want 40k to be a fun rehashing of a battle in the 41st (42nd, lol) millennium. I want to tell fun stories and immerse myself and play "in character".
It's very difficult to do so when the lore doesn't match the tabletop. If you accept the tabletop as the "bottom line" and the rest of the lore as various shades of propaganda/reinterpretation, then you end up with a universe that is internally inconsistent (for example, no group of people would produce tanks on an industrial scale, if the tanks had to be careful near enemy civilians less they take too many Strength 1 open-hand slaps).
Once the ludonarrative dissonance becomes this great, it's difficult to enjoy the game, which is disappointing because I am not interested in competitive play, and my mates play other games when we are doing a "get together with the lads" night because 40k just isn't that good of a "get together with the lads" game.
The issue is that your vision of the "lore" is too narrow. Specifically it is human warfare based. You want things like armor facing, suppression and similar mechanics, which simply are not for a game like this. They are good for HH which is a human like warfare, but for something the scale of 40K, were the humans are the exception, you can't try to chase bolt action rules.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I sometimes wonder if people really are failing to understand my point (which is my fault for explaining it badly) or are being deliberately obtuse.
I want 40k to be a fun rehashing of a battle in the 41st (42nd, lol) millennium. I want to tell fun stories and immerse myself and play "in character".
It's very difficult to do so when the lore doesn't match the tabletop. If you accept the tabletop as the "bottom line" and the rest of the lore as various shades of propaganda/reinterpretation, then you end up with a universe that is internally inconsistent (for example, no group of people would produce tanks on an industrial scale, if the tanks had to be careful near enemy civilians less they take too many Strength 1 open-hand slaps).
Once the ludonarrative dissonance becomes this great, it's difficult to enjoy the game, which is disappointing because I am not interested in competitive play, and my mates play other games when we are doing a "get together with the lads" night because 40k just isn't that good of a "get together with the lads" game.
The issue is that your vision of the "lore" is too narrow. Specifically it is human warfare based. You want things like armor facing, suppression and similar mechanics, which simply are not for a game like this. They are good for HH which is a human like warfare, but for something the scale of 40K, were the humans are the exception, you can't try to chase bolt action rules.
The problem is one of logic.
What I want is warfare to make sense. I love fantasy games, in general - in fact some of my favorite settings are fantastical (like LotR).
But I do like my settings to be consistent. If Rohan didn't specialize in horses but rather went to battle naked and armed only with scarves, my suspension of disbelief would be ruined.
Similarly, 40k has been this way for me for a while - if we take the game as the "ground truth" of the setting, then the factions are unbelievably childish and stupid. Fielding tanks is mostly senseless if they genuinely fear even the most basically equipped enemy infantrymen. Heck, fielding anti-tank weapons is mostly senseless if a platoon of your troops can kill a whole enemy tank.
It's just too absurd, and it's not looking for historical human warfare. It's looking for narrative consistency and coherency. Human warfare is just a good reference because humans are the "baseline" intelligent creature, so if a creature is intelligent, it should be able to AT LEAST figure out the same things we humans have about cost and benefit, if not even more. If it's dramatically stupider than humans, it's probably not a threat.
H.B.M.C. wrote: 2. Then we look at Chosen, who have already had all but Fists consolidated into "Accursed Weapons", which includes lightning claws.
This part is new information, and as according, I retract my statement.
However, I still don't really care too much for the difference. Power swords, power mauls, power axes, and now power claws (probably a fine way to refer to them) doesn't really irk me. There's been plenty more changes made, and this one isn't particularly egregious.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I sometimes wonder if people really are failing to understand my point (which is my fault for explaining it badly) or are being deliberately obtuse.
I want 40k to be a fun rehashing of a battle in the 41st (42nd, lol) millennium. I want to tell fun stories and immerse myself and play "in character".
It's very difficult to do so when the lore doesn't match the tabletop. If you accept the tabletop as the "bottom line" and the rest of the lore as various shades of propaganda/reinterpretation, then you end up with a universe that is internally inconsistent (for example, no group of people would produce tanks on an industrial scale, if the tanks had to be careful near enemy civilians less they take too many Strength 1 open-hand slaps).
Once the ludonarrative dissonance becomes this great, it's difficult to enjoy the game, which is disappointing because I am not interested in competitive play, and my mates play other games when we are doing a "get together with the lads" night because 40k just isn't that good of a "get together with the lads" game.
No, I get you. I'm afraid the game has simply moved to a place you no longer find palatable. Ever consider playing an older edition?
My little group has already changed the rules to suit our needs. We want the crazy background of 40K but we also want a tactical wargame, or at least the similarity to one. Perhaps 10th will move more in that direction. I find these kind of discussions interesting even though I don't intend to play 10th, because most editions at least bring a novel approach to something at some point, even if not well implemented.
The importance of details and justifications for some rules can be arbitrary but you need to decide what abstractions you can accept. The small arms argument versus tanks for example is one that bothers me as well. The effect of small arms on tanks is less than negligible - crews seldom notice munitions pattering against the hull over the noise and vibration of their own machines. In fact the impact of an anti-tank round often was overlooked in the heat of combat until one saw a dead fellow crewman. I've seen a study where sustained 50 cal. machine gun fire couldn't damage a WWII Sherman tank's tracks. After all it was common practice to shoot at your own tanks to remove enemy troops from planting satchel charges or mines in close quarters. Not something you could justify against trucks or other lightly armed vehicles of course.
The point is everyone has to choose for themselves what crosses the line for them personally in playing this wacky game. Maybe GW will get 40K right this time. Perhaps...but it would be a first.
What I want is warfare to make sense. I love fantasy games, in general - in fact some of my favorite settings are fantastical (like LotR).
But I do like my settings to be consistent. If Rohan didn't specialize in horses but rather went to battle naked and armed only with scarves, my suspension of disbelief would be ruined.
Similarly, 40k has been this way for me for a while - if we take the game as the "ground truth" of the setting, then the factions are unbelievably childish and stupid. Fielding tanks is mostly senseless if they genuinely fear even the most basically equipped enemy infantrymen. Heck, fielding anti-tank weapons is mostly senseless if a platoon of your troops can kill a whole enemy tank.
It's just too absurd, and it's not looking for historical human warfare. It's looking for narrative consistency and coherency. Human warfare is just a good reference because humans are the "baseline" intelligent creature, so if a creature is intelligent, it should be able to AT LEAST figure out the same things we humans have about cost and benefit, if not even more. If it's dramatically stupider than humans, it's probably not a threat.
If a tank with heavy bolter sponsons just sits there and trades with a unit of intercessors trying to plink at it with bolters, the tank is going to win and win handily. Tanks taking any damage at all from small arms is not the same thing as "fearing" them.
Side note, the factions are unbelievably childish and stupid. It's 40k. This is the "let's get stuck in, lads!" fantasy in space war game, Lord of the Rings is a terrible comparison as that setting is far more grounded in reality. 40k is more like if just having a horde of Jedi was not only feasible but commonplace in Star Wars battles.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I sometimes wonder if people really are failing to understand my point (which is my fault for explaining it badly) or are being deliberately obtuse.
I want 40k to be a fun rehashing of a battle in the 41st (42nd, lol) millennium. I want to tell fun stories and immerse myself and play "in character".
It's very difficult to do so when the lore doesn't match the tabletop. If you accept the tabletop as the "bottom line" and the rest of the lore as various shades of propaganda/reinterpretation, then you end up with a universe that is internally inconsistent (for example, no group of people would produce tanks on an industrial scale, if the tanks had to be careful near enemy civilians less they take too many Strength 1 open-hand slaps).
Once the ludonarrative dissonance becomes this great, it's difficult to enjoy the game, which is disappointing because I am not interested in competitive play, and my mates play other games when we are doing a "get together with the lads" night because 40k just isn't that good of a "get together with the lads" game.
The issue is that your vision of the "lore" is too narrow. Specifically it is human warfare based. You want things like armor facing, suppression and similar mechanics, which simply are not for a game like this. They are good for HH which is a human like warfare, but for something the scale of 40K, were the humans are the exception, you can't try to chase bolt action rules.
No no no . . . That's not right at all.
There's like 25 years of consistency in 40k when AT weapons acted like AT weapons, and similarly tanks were immune to small arms fire. The world that UNIT has in his head is the world as GW described it for a very long time.
Let's take your other examples though, Armor Facing and Suppression. Armor Facing was not human-centric. In fact it helped differentiate humans from other factions, as the human factions concentrated their armor up front, but other factions had the mechanical freedom to express their differences in vehicle design philosophy. Eldar had vehicles with equal armor on their front and sides, making them more suitable for flanking and very mobile warfare. Back in the day Necrons only had the Monolith, a super-armored floating building with maximum armor on all sides. Armor facing mechanics helped to differentiate factions and designs.
As for Suppression, you may also note that old-40k had more units which were immune to Morale tests, pinning tests, psychological effects and otherwise, providing more ways to differentiate troops. Proving again that having a human-centric starting point in no way means that you're limited to only human-centric units or factions. These mechanics can exist, while at the same time further the methods of establishing variety.
Side note, the factions are unbelievably childish and stupid. It's 40k. This is the "let's get stuck in, lads!" fantasy in space war game, Lord of the Rings is a terrible comparison as that setting is far more grounded in reality. 40k is more like if just having a horde of Jedi was not only feasible but commonplace in Star Wars battles.
That would carry more weight if 40k didn't have decades of precedent in UNITs favor.
When you say "childish and stupid" I take that as evidence of literal dumbing down.
What I want is warfare to make sense. I love fantasy games, in general - in fact some of my favorite settings are fantastical (like LotR).
But I do like my settings to be consistent. If Rohan didn't specialize in horses but rather went to battle naked and armed only with scarves, my suspension of disbelief would be ruined.
Similarly, 40k has been this way for me for a while - if we take the game as the "ground truth" of the setting, then the factions are unbelievably childish and stupid. Fielding tanks is mostly senseless if they genuinely fear even the most basically equipped enemy infantrymen. Heck, fielding anti-tank weapons is mostly senseless if a platoon of your troops can kill a whole enemy tank.
It's just too absurd, and it's not looking for historical human warfare. It's looking for narrative consistency and coherency. Human warfare is just a good reference because humans are the "baseline" intelligent creature, so if a creature is intelligent, it should be able to AT LEAST figure out the same things we humans have about cost and benefit, if not even more. If it's dramatically stupider than humans, it's probably not a threat.
As other has noted, the game designers have decided that fun is more important than realistic. They also decided that units that are invulnerable to a large portion of the attacks in the game is not fun.
You are therefore left with 3 choices:
Abandon the Game: If the rules cause too much cognitive dissonance for you to accept, play something else. The designer are not going to change the game to fit you because you are in the minority.
Change the Game: Nothing stops you and your gaming group from deciding that weapons of a certain quality don't hurt targets of a certain quality in your home game. GW won't send the Inquisition to your door to punish such heresy.
Change your Mind: Stop thinking about 41st Century warfare as Modern or even WW2 warfare. For all the modern technology tossed about, things function much more like a strange mashup of WW1, Colonial, and Fantasy warfare. Tanks are more like mystical beast than unstoppable hunks of metal, charges with swords into the teeth of machine-guns is a viable tactic, and anything can be brought low by some wizard and his tricky magics.
Yeah. When I started playing, the "big men in big armor acting full of hrrp and derp" was a meme, not literally the background.
'stupid" things happened because of religion and scientific failures, like Khorne Berzerkers being melee-oriented. They were rightly seen as madmen in the setting, who traded logic and good sense for BLOODY BLOOD!
Turns out they were role models, I guess, for the Blood Angels, rather than frothing madmen.
As for the most recent post:
I am doing the first and second options - my mates and I play CoC more than anything, and other games when not that.
I do play 4th with one other friend.
That said, why shouldn't I at least hope that 40k becomes more fun for me in its modern incarnation? Why would it be automatically less fun for others if it is more realistic?
Only GW knows why they decided that everything can damage everything is good. I presume because it allows them to put Grots and Titans on the same battlefield. It can also be because people who grew up on a steady diet of video games and modern media are used to targets that can be whittled down rather than be immune to attacks of low strength. For good or ill, it is the game they designed.
alextroy wrote: There is a reason we fight tanks with tanks, not RPGs.
It's mainly because the tanks can't pick up the dice very easily, and are terrible at staying in character.
Spoletta wrote:They are good for HH which is a human like warfare, but for something the scale of 40K, were the humans are the exception, you can't try to chase bolt action rules.
[* Citation required]
alextroy wrote:Abandon the Game: If the rules cause too much cognitive dissonance for you to accept, play something else. The designer are not going to change the game to fit you because you are in the minority.
I think it just comes from gw wanting the type of customer who just wants to run a ton of one unit gakked up with a thick coat of spraypaint to stick around instead of running into issues such as lacking the ability to take down tanks and whining about it on Reddit before dumping their army on eBay for a godly discount of 1% off
alextroy wrote: Only GW knows why they decided that everything can damage everything is good. I presume because it allows them to put Grots and Titans on the same battlefield. It can also be because people who grew up on a steady diet of video games and modern media are used to targets that can be whittled down rather than be immune to attacks of low strength. For good or ill, it is the game they designed.
Everyone knows why, because they told us at 8th launch cycle.
It was to avoid matchups where you had zero chance of doing damage, e.g. Guard Infantry vs Imperial Knights in 7th.
Whether you like the solution or not, we expressly do know why they used it.
alextroy wrote: Only GW knows why they decided that everything can damage everything is good. I presume because it allows them to put Grots and Titans on the same battlefield. It can also be because people who grew up on a steady diet of video games and modern media are used to targets that can be whittled down rather than be immune to attacks of low strength. For good or ill, it is the game they designed.
It simply reduces the diversity of armies you can play. Imagine super heavies or all tank armies that can cover a objectives and can't be killed in a reasonable amount of time, because all the anti-tank was blown away by them.
Hmm. Not sure how I feel about the change to twin-linked. I like that lethality *seems* to be reduced in general, but this means that my wave serpents' firepower just got halved. That's also a bit of a hit to most biker units (assuming their guns remain TL instead of getting rewritten to be two guns.) But again, reduced lethality is good.
The Sustained Fire example feels a bit weird only in that it's being shown off in the same article as the assault cannon which doesn't have that rule. Apparently it's a rule for weapons that pump out lots of shots, but the assault cannon (with 6 attacks) doesn't pump out enough shots to get it while the shuriken cannon (3 attacks) does?
That's not the end of the world, but like, if you want me to *feel like* my gun is putting out a bunch of shots, actually giving it more shots would probably convey that better than a swingy crit rule. (And would be more reliable too if my math is right.) So if it's not conveying the feeling they're going for as well as just upping the Attacks stat would, then I'm not sure what the intent behind the rule is.
Wyldhunt wrote: Hmm. Not sure how I feel about the change to twin-linked. I like that lethality *seems* to be reduced in general, but this means that my wave serpents' firepower just got halved. That's also a bit of a hit to most biker units (assuming their guns remain TL instead of getting rewritten to be two guns.) But again, reduced lethality is good.
The Sustained Fire example feels a bit weird only in that it's being shown off in the same article as the assault cannon which doesn't have that rule. Apparently it's a rule for weapons that pump out lots of shots, but the assault cannon (with 6 attacks) doesn't pump out enough shots to get it while the shuriken cannon (3 attacks) does?
That's not the end of the world, but like, if you want me to *feel like* my gun is putting out a bunch of shots, actually giving it more shots would probably convey that better than a swingy crit rule. (And would be more reliable too if my math is right.) So if it's not conveying the feeling they're going for as well as just upping the Attacks stat would, then I'm not sure what the intent behind the rule is.
Umm say you wound on 4+. Rather than 2 hits with 4+ to wound averaging 1 wound you end up average 0.75.
alextroy wrote: Only GW knows why they decided that everything can damage everything is good. I presume because it allows them to put Grots and Titans on the same battlefield. It can also be because people who grew up on a steady diet of video games and modern media are used to targets that can be whittled down rather than be immune to attacks of low strength. For good or ill, it is the game they designed.
It simply reduces the diversity of armies you can play. Imagine super heavies or all tank armies that can cover a objectives and can't be killed in a reasonable amount of time, because all the anti-tank was blown away by them.
It would have been much less of an issue if GW didn't drastically reduce the capability of armies to engage such units by making grenades a one-per-unit weapon.
Imagine units like Ork Tankbustas, Eldar Fire Dragons with Meltabombs, Assault Squads with Krak/Melta, and Dark Eldar with Haywire Grenades able to use such weapons effectively against Superheavies, like they were in editions prior.
What we have is a lousy solution to a problem they created. They introduced Superheavies in the BRB, then removed major abilities to deal with them.
Doesn't the new Twin-Linked rule mean that two guns are significantly better than one TL gun? For instance, the two sponson Lascannons on an Annihilator are potentially more dangerous than the Annihilator's main gun?
JNAProductions wrote: I... I don't really get your complaint. Other weapons being able to reroll wounds doesn't make Lightning Claws less good, especially when the unit that has TL Powerfists (Aggressors) has no Lightning Claw option.
Can you articulate why this is such a big deal?
Because Lightning Claws wouldn't exist in this new set up. They're just Power Weapon (Twin-Linked), and become no different to someone wielding a Power Axe and Power Sword at the same time, both of which are also now "Power Weapons". It also makes single lightning claws into nothing basically. They're just "power weapons".
I think that's boring. I think that in an effort to make things "Simple, not simplistic", they are making things grey-scale.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Doesn't the new Twin-Linked rule mean that two guns are significantly better than one TL gun? For instance, the two sponson Lascannons on an Annihilator are potentially more dangerous than the Annihilator's main gun?
Do you not want lethality to go down? Yes twin-linked guns are weaker now, because doubling the number of shots for a ton of weapons wasn't actually a great idea when they did it in 8th.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Doesn't the new Twin-Linked rule mean that two guns are significantly better than one TL gun? For instance, the two sponson Lascannons on an Annihilator are potentially more dangerous than the Annihilator's main gun?
I wouldn't worry too much about it. GW already made the Chaos Predator Annihilator's main gun better than a pair of Lascannons. I expect they will do the same in 10th.
That's a near non-sequitur. Yes, leathatlity does need to go down, but not at the expense of common sense.
If the sponsons on an Annihilator are more effective than a tanks main gun, that strikes me as a problem.
I really did like the solution we tried years ago. Kept the same re-roll To Hit, but on a natural (not re-rolled) 6 To Hit, you hit twice. So more reliable, occasionally more dangerous.
alextroy wrote: I wouldn't worry too much about it. GW already made the Chaos Predator Annihilator's main gun better than a pair of Lascannons. I expect they will do the same in 10th.
Well I will worry about it because GW are absolutely horrendous at writing consistent and coherent rule sets, but yes, I hadn't considered that point. Well spotted.
Arachnofiend wrote: If it matters that much, they could just give the tank's main gun better BS than the sponsons; 3+ heavy twin-linked las with 4+ heavy las sponsons.
You think it doesn't matter that a tank's main gun isn't its most effective weapon? And that two individual lascannons are somehow more effective than two strapped together?
And yes, the way BS works in 10th seems like a prime way to differentiate weapons such as this, but GW has to remember that...
I think it's important that the main gun is better than either of the sponsons individually but that's about as far as I strongly care about the matter. If the main gun has specific bonuses to make it better than everything else the tank shoots that's fine, if it doesn't then that's fine too.
Arachnofiend wrote: If it matters that much, they could just give the tank's main gun better BS than the sponsons; 3+ heavy twin-linked las with 4+ heavy las sponsons.
You think it doesn't matter that a tank's main gun isn't its most effective weapon? And that two individual lascannons are somehow more effective than two strapped together?
And yes, the way BS works in 10th seems like a prime way to differentiate weapons such as this, but GW has to remember that...
You do realize that right now, two Lascannons are better than one Twin Lascannon?
Exact same, but with the ability to split fire if needed, for a pretty minor boost.
JNAProductions wrote: I... I don't really get your complaint.
Other weapons being able to reroll wounds doesn't make Lightning Claws less good, especially when the unit that has TL Powerfists (Aggressors) has no Lightning Claw option.
Can you articulate why this is such a big deal?
Because Lightning Claws wouldn't exist in this new set up. They're just Power Weapon (Twin-Linked), and become no different to someone wielding a Power Axe and Power Sword at the same time, both of which are also now "Power Weapons". It also makes single lightning claws into nothing basically. They're just "power weapons".
I think that's boring. I think that in an effort to make things "Simple, not simplistic", they are making things grey-scale.
As someone who has used Lightning Claws, both paired and singular, heavily in both my characters and Champions (as it is "in character" for my preferred Legion), I find this concept offensive.
Good thing that I play a game that has the good sense to make Lightning Claws distinctive compared to other Power Weapons, I guess, instead of the absolute show that 10th edition is shaping up to be.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Doesn't the new Twin-Linked rule mean that two guns are significantly better than one TL gun? For instance, the two sponson Lascannons on an Annihilator are potentially more dangerous than the Annihilator's main gun?
[
Yea. Good luck making things less lethal without weakening damage output.
Of course we could add more defensive layers. Howabout luck save? Roll dice for each damage and on 5+ ignored. This in addition to fnp's etc :>
Ideally, a giant, twin-barreled, turret mounted Lascannon would be more dangerous than a small sponson mounted Lascannon. It took the Rules Designers until some point between producing the 9th Edition Codex Space Marines (and Death Guard and Thousand Sons) and 9th Edition Chaos Codex Space Marine to make that reality.
Still, I take heart in the fact they did make that jump before 10th Edition rolled around.
That's a near non-sequitur. Yes, leathatlity does need to go down, but not at the expense of common sense.
If the sponsons on an Annihilator are more effective than a tanks main gun, that strikes me as a problem.
Twinlinked has spent most of its existence as a re-roll buff. The whole doubling of shots bit came about in 8th. This is very much a "return to form".
And on that front... It's also always been that way. I can flip open by 3rd, 4th, 5th, or 6th ed SM codex and find that, if I want to throw all lascannons onto my predator tank, the two "sponsons" are technically capable of more damage than the "main gun". However the TL main-gun has a reroll, meaning that it's point-for-point better than either of the sponsons because it's more likely to actually hurt its target.
This feels like such a weird, pointless hill to die on. The main gun is still more dangerous than an individual sponson because of the reroll aspect, and "But my sponsons could do more damage if they both hit, both wound, and both saves are failed!" has been a thing for as long as 40k vehicles have been a thing.
JNAProductions wrote: Exact same, but with the ability to split fire if needed, for a pretty minor boost.
Their damage output is identical. Two shots, same strength, AP and damage. The shift to the TL one just being a re-roll to wound dramatically decreases its potential damage output vs two separate weapons, making two individual weapons more effective than two of the same weapons strapped together.
The tactical implications over selecting targets are a whole separate issue.
But as Alex correctly pointed out, the turret gun may have a different profile to the sponson weapons, and GW might use the differing ballistic skill and "weapon abilities" rules to further differentiate them and make turret weapons better than their lesser brethren, so this entire discussion might be moot.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: This part is new information, and as according, I retract my statement.
However, I still don't really care too much for the difference. Power swords, power mauls, power axes, and now power claws (probably a fine way to refer to them) doesn't really irk me. There's been plenty more changes made, and this one isn't particularly egregious.
It can be one, when your entire army infantry carries or can carry a plethora of once different power weapons. Even more so when some of the weapons are part of what constitutes your anti tank, and now it just became a power sword in a world of higher T vehicles and monsters.
It's illogical. Why do two weapons strapped together do less damage than two of the same weapons that aren't???
Twin-Linked was always a reroll prior to 8th.
Twin-Linked was always a reroll prior to 8th.
One more time, for the people in the back, Twin-Linked was always a reroll prior to 8th.
This is not some bizarre utter reworking of a rule, it's returning a rule to the capacity it filled for 20 years.
So far as logic goes? This is a game where space knights charge through heavy weapons fire to stab their enemies with chainsaw swords. Logic was checked at the door, and that's not even getting into the weeds of 40ks stupidity as a setting. If you really, really, really need something? Two bullets (or laser blasts) hitting the exact same spot do not deal more damage in a technical sense; the first simply makes the second more likely to penetrate now damaged defenses and thereby inflict appreciable harm.
H.B.M.C. wrote: It's illogical. Why do two weapons strapped together do less damage than two of the same weapons that aren't???
There are logical reasons why twin mounts are not twice as good as single mounts.
It could be that the power conduits feeding twin-linked guns tend to be less robust than those feeding single mounts, or that vibrations from both guns firing at once means that a twin-mount of ballistic weapons can't keep on target as easily as two of those weapons across multiple mounts. The second one happened IRL to US battleships before they figured out the harmonics created by firing their weapons and corrected the issue.
One more time, for the people in the back, Twin-Linked was always a reroll prior to 8th.
You keep repeating this like it has some special deep significance or meaning. You didn't even stop to ask: Was that a good rule back then?
morganfreeman wrote: So far as logic goes? This is a game where space knights charge through heavy weapons fire to stab their enemies with chainsaw swords.
How many times... *sigh*
You realise this argument doesn't function? The more fantastical the setting, the more noticeable the deviations from reality become. We can accept a towering machine with a giant chainsaw fighting a hellish beast made of willpower from another dimension, but it only makes the differences in the mundane more stark.
Two guns? Good! Two guns slightly closer together? Less good... for some reason...? What?
Canadian 5th wrote: It could be that the power conduits feeding twin-linked guns tend to be less robust than those feeding single mounts, or that vibrations from both guns firing at once means that a twin-mount of ballistic weapons can't keep on target as easily as two of those weapons across multiple mounts. The second one happened IRL to US battleships before they figured out the harmonics created by firing their weapons and corrected the issue.
Nice of you to join us. You've provided an actual counter-argument beyond "They used to be a re-roll".
I can actually see your points of view - hell you've even explained the much-maligned Macharius problem - other than I don't buy the idea of a Predator Annihilator's main turret guns being less effective than its defensive sponsons. I just cannot see how they'd design the tank that way.
There are reasons we don't double up on primary weapons on things smaller than ships. It's been tried with tanks and generally, the ergonomics were terrible and everybody decided that a single sufficiently powerful weapon worked just as well as a pair. The same goes for infantry and support weapons outside of the AA roll where massed bullets were basically used as flak to score [b]any[/b[ hits on a fast target with a short engagement window.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Nice of you to join us. You've provided an actual counter-argument beyond "They used to be a re-roll".
I can actually see your points of view - hell you've even explained the much-maligned Macharius problem - other than I don't buy the idea of a Predator Annihilator's main turret guns being less effective than its defensive sponsons. I just cannot see how they'd design the tank that way.
It might just be a not-very-good design that gets used because that's what's in the STL. Perhaps it ends up that expected battle damage tends to leave at least one of the pair of weapons functional after expedient field repairs and that's worth each turret-mounted weapon being less efficient when they're both working. There are plenty of logical reasons why two guns crammed on a mount are enough worse than those same guns over a pair of mounts that I can accept re-roll wounds as a compromise solution because other options are too powerful.
As an ork player I am kinda sad it isn’t reroll hits anymore, plus the idea of it being hits makes a bit more sense than wounds. Hits makes me think- shoot more bullets in same area hit more things. Wound rerolls makes me think you’re robin hooding the exact same point the last lascannon hit didn’t penetrate
Personally I am on the Twin-Linked should be double the shots train.
Mainly because it is two guns, they may be shooting at the same target but it is still two guns.
I think of it like this gun, it's a quad gun but the principal is the same (two Twin-Linked maybe)
Twin linking guns is something that is mostly done for rapid fire Anti Air weapons, simply because it makes it easier to actually hit the target if you fire more shots. It doesn't make your hits more dangerous. It will also not double the amount of shots you hit, like if 2 different platforms were shooting at that target. So for this kind of weapons the best representation is a bonus to hit.
If applied to single shot weapons, then that concept is lost, you aim at the target and fire with both barrels. If you shoot with a double lascannon then yes the actual effect is that you are more likely to inflict lethal damage since the area affected is bigger, assuming that the target is large enough. It isn't in any way the same as shooting two laser cannons at two different points, so the best rule representation is a bonus to wound.
If firing with a rapid fire weapon at a big target, then you are probably hitting with twice as many shots, and spreading them over a sufficiently large area where the single damages inflicted are independent. In this case the best representation is double the amount of shots. Were this rule version really doesn't work is against infantry targets. You can't tell me that a double barreled lascannon is conveniently nailing 2 marines.
So reroll to hit, reroll to wound and double shots are all abstractions which fall flat to represent something. You have to decide which one works best for you.
I can actually see your points of view - hell you've even explained the much-maligned Macharius problem - other than I don't buy the idea of a Predator Annihilator's main turret guns being less effective than its defensive sponsons. I just cannot see how they'd design the tank that way.
Something to consider is that sponsons don't really exist on modern tanks and haven't since (IIRC) the early WW2 era. They were basically replaced by the turret, which provided far better firing arcs (and probably far better accuracy).
However, when sponsons did exist (generally on WW1-era tanks), they were the main guns.
Thus, since many 40k vehicles have chosen to have both sponsons and turrets, you could see the former as still being main guns in the own right (not just secondary or point-defence weapons).
You can see examples of this even on some of the more alien tanks. For example, the Dark Eldar Ravager has the exact same weapons on its sponsons as it's central platform.
There's like 25 years of consistency in 40k when AT weapons acted like AT weapons, and similarly tanks were immune to small arms fire. The world that UNIT has in his head is the world as GW described it for a very long time.
Is there, though? Storm of Iron has a Chaos Lord in Terminator armor taking down a Warhound with a powerfist and combi-melta, a thing that in 3rd Edition when it was written was basically impossible to do in game. There has always been a massive mismatch on the world as presented and the rules of the game.
I can actually see your points of view - hell you've even explained the much-maligned Macharius problem - other than I don't buy the idea of a Predator Annihilator's main turret guns being less effective than its defensive sponsons. I just cannot see how they'd design the tank that way.
Something to consider is that sponsons don't really exist on modern tanks and haven't since (IIRC) the early WW2 era. They were basically replaced by the turret, which provided far better firing arcs (and probably far better accuracy).
However, when sponsons did exist (generally on WW1-era tanks), they were the main guns.
There's like 25 years of consistency in 40k when AT weapons acted like AT weapons, and similarly tanks were immune to small arms fire. The world that UNIT has in his head is the world as GW described it for a very long time.
Is there, though? Storm of Iron has a Chaos Lord in Terminator armor taking down a Warhound with a powerfist and combi-melta, a thing that in 3rd Edition when it was written was basically impossible to do in game. There has always been a massive mismatch on the world as presented and the rules of the game.
The novels are sometimes inconsistent, and the aithors are often pretty bad. . .
But a Chaos Lord with a Powerfist could take out a Warhound in 3rd, I believe. The Powerfist could Glance/Pen AV 13/14, a Chaos Lord also could have Daemonic Strength, and a Meltagun could likewise Glance/Pen once past the Void Shields. Moreover, the Powerfist both in game and in lore is depicted as a capable AT weapon from RT through 7th, arguably still. A Chainfist would be better, but the Fist will suffice.
Powerfists vs. vehicles actually worries me a little about 10th. They always were a credible threat to tanks, but if they are staying at S8 and tanks are getting tougher, I don’t see that going forward.
Nevelon wrote: Powerfists vs. vehicles actually worries me a little about 10th. They always were a credible threat to tanks, but if they are staying at S8 and tanks are getting tougher, I don’t see that going forward.
Don't worry, the new Demolationisters will be S14 and can break open tanks.
Honestly I'm fine with vehicles being a lot harder to take down.
What I'm not ok with is the de facto removal of degradation. It would have been a nice trade off if they were harder to damage but damaging them was actually significant and made them degrade.
Nevelon wrote: Powerfists vs. vehicles actually worries me a little about 10th. They always were a credible threat to tanks, but if they are staying at S8 and tanks are getting tougher, I don’t see that going forward.
Don't worry, the new Demolationisters will be S14 and can break open tanks.
Dudes. We literally have chainfists.
As for the TL uproar. A TLLC is stronger than a LC. That the sum of all other weapons is stronger than the turret seems pretty irrelevant.
There's like 25 years of consistency in 40k when AT weapons acted like AT weapons, and similarly tanks were immune to small arms fire. The world that UNIT has in his head is the world as GW described it for a very long time.
Is there, though? Storm of Iron has a Chaos Lord in Terminator armor taking down a Warhound with a powerfist and combi-melta, a thing that in 3rd Edition when it was written was basically impossible to do in game. There has always been a massive mismatch on the world as presented and the rules of the game.
The novels are sometimes inconsistent, and the aithors are often pretty bad. . .
But a Chaos Lord with a Powerfist could take out a Warhound in 3rd, I believe. The Powerfist could Glance/Pen AV 13/14, a Chaos Lord also could have Daemonic Strength, and a Meltagun could likewise Glance/Pen once past the Void Shields. Moreover, the Powerfist both in game and in lore is depicted as a capable AT weapon from RT through 7th, arguably still. A Chainfist would be better, but the Fist will suffice.
Titans had Structure Points(the OG version where you had to do 3 "wounds" per SP) and a separate Super Heavy damage table in 3rd.
Nevelon wrote: Powerfists vs. vehicles actually worries me a little about 10th. They always were a credible threat to tanks, but if they are staying at S8 and tanks are getting tougher, I don’t see that going forward.
Don't worry, the new Demolationisters will be S14 and can break open tanks.
Dudes. We literally have chainfists.
As for the TL uproar. A TLLC is stronger than a LC. That the sum of all other weapons is stronger than the turret seems pretty irrelevant.
Well, it's great that after 5+ editions GW decided that power fists are not anti-tank weapons anymore, because we all have phones.
Nevelon wrote: Powerfists vs. vehicles actually worries me a little about 10th. They always were a credible threat to tanks, but if they are staying at S8 and tanks are getting tougher, I don’t see that going forward.
Don't worry, the new Demolationisters will be S14 and can break open tanks.
Dudes. We literally have chainfists.
As for the TL uproar. A TLLC is stronger than a LC. That the sum of all other weapons is stronger than the turret seems pretty irrelevant.
Well, it's great that after 5+ editions GW decided that power fists are not anti-tank weapons anymore, because we all have phones.
Spoiler:
Powerfists have been a credible threat to tanks because weapons were so lethal that specific anti-tank options, like chainfists, were basically useless.
Powerfists have been a credible threat to tanks because weapons were so lethal that specific anti-tank options, like chainfists, were basically useless.
That extra D6AV penetration on Chainfists was baller.
vict0988 wrote: Well, it's great that after 5+ editions GW decided that power fists are not anti-tank weapons anymore, because we all have phones.
Spoiler:
In 7th a PF glanced rhino front armor on a 3 and penned on a 4 and you had 2 attacks. Against a Leman Russ it was 5 and 6. The pinnacle of anti-tank, I tell you.
Like you literally had armorbane on chainfists back then and you made the assumption that PF was the quintessential anti-tank?
I can actually see your points of view - hell you've even explained the much-maligned Macharius problem - other than I don't buy the idea of a Predator Annihilator's main turret guns being less effective than its defensive sponsons. I just cannot see how they'd design the tank that way.
Remember they powered up the turret version compared to the sponson guns in the Chaos codex. You think that won't carry over to loyalists?
That the game and the fluff don't often coincide such that the game is a good representation of battle in universe and that there isn't as much history of the game fitting the story as you propose.
Nevelon wrote: Powerfists vs. vehicles actually worries me a little about 10th. They always were a credible threat to tanks, but if they are staying at S8 and tanks are getting tougher, I don’t see that going forward.
Don't worry, the new Demolationisters will be S14 and can break open tanks.
Dudes. We literally have chainfists.
As for the TL uproar. A TLLC is stronger than a LC. That the sum of all other weapons is stronger than the turret seems pretty irrelevant.
Well, it's great that after 5+ editions GW decided that power fists are not anti-tank weapons anymore, because we all have phones.
That depends on what you think an Anti-Tank weapon is and should do.
For starters, I'm pretty sure that Chainfist and Metla-Bombs were Anti-Tank weapons (Double Strength and 2d6 for Armor Penetration) while Power Fist (Sx2) were merely decent against light tanks if you were S4 (not so much for Strength 3 models).
Next we compare the damage caused by the various weapons of the known Terminator Squad (assuming no change to the Wound Table) against Tanks with 3+ Save:
Terminator with Power weapon: 0.59 Wounds against a T6-9, 0.29 Against a T10+
Terminator with Power Fist: 1.77 Wounds vs T6-7, 1.33 Wounds vs T8, 0.89 W vs T9+
Terminator with Chainfist: 1.33 Wounds vs T6-7, 1.33 Wounds vs T8+
So you can see a Power Fist is between 150% and 300% more effective than Power Weapon against Tanks. The Chain Fist is between 225% and 450% as effective as a Power Weapon against Tanks. The Chain Fist is less effective than a Power Fist against below S8 due to the higher accuracy of the Fist, but is equal at S8 and 150% as effective starting at Strength 9.
So i think a Power Fist is perfectly decent light vehicle AT and much better than a Power Weapon against any vehicle. The Chainfist is better than a Power Fist against tanks but otherwise a bit worst. Pretty much matches up with the rules back in the day if you don't want Chainfist to be flat out better than Power Fist.
Has WarCom showing us anything yet to make us believe a twin-linked weapon will have fewer shots than two singles of the same type? The Annihilator's turret gun might well get 2 attacks in its profile.
That the game and the fluff don't often coincide such that the game is a good representation of battle in universe and that there isn't as much history of the game fitting the story as you propose.
Well I call BS on that. But also with the caveats of "which fluff" and "what are you asserting with it". But also, as shown, a Powerfist has been pretty consistent in its representation.
In 7th a PF glanced rhino front armor on a 3 and penned on a 4 and you had 2 attacks. Against a Leman Russ it was 5 and 6. The pinnacle of anti-tank, I tell you.
Like you literally had armorbane on chainfists back then and you made the assumption that PF was the quintessential anti-tank?
Nobody said "pinnacle". We just said, "good at anti-tank". Something can be good at the same time that other things are better.
Snugiraffe wrote: Has WarCom showing us anything yet to make us believe a twin-linked weapon will have fewer shots than two singles of the same type? The Annihilator's turret gun might well get 2 attacks in its profile.
Yes. How about:
Warhammer Community wrote:Melee weapons can also have abilities, including a blast from the past – Twin-linked is back! This classic rule is now found on ranged and melee weapons alike, and confers a re-roll to wound. In recent editions, many weapons that used to be twin-linked were instead treated like two guns taped together, which had a serious impact on balance. This change makes them more reliable, rather than twice as killy.
Spoiler:
Notice the loss of half the attacks between a pair of Auto Boltstorm Guantlets and the new rules? The melee profile did get a glow-up since it didn't provide any benefit in 9th.
I also like how they just called it Power Fist to avoid needing a melee profile for both Auto Boltstorm Gauntlets and Flamestorm Gauntlets on the Aggressor Datasheet. Also eliminates that annoying (Shooting) and (Melee) tags on the weapon profiles.
Snugiraffe wrote: Has WarCom showing us anything yet to make us believe a twin-linked weapon will have fewer shots than two singles of the same type? The Annihilator's turret gun might well get 2 attacks in its profile.
That the game and the fluff don't often coincide such that the game is a good representation of battle in universe and that there isn't as much history of the game fitting the story as you propose.
Chaos lord with chainfist was capable of taking down warhound in game. Same as story.
What's your problem with those? That the chaos lord doesn't one shot it at 99% reliably? Where in story it said that's how likely it was?
It's not even particularly noteworthy for story to point out if it is such a easy feat...So it actually made game and lore fit BETTER than if lord was eating warhounds for lunch.
You keep providing evidence AGAINST your claim Thanks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Snugiraffe wrote: Has WarCom showing us anything yet to make us believe a twin-linked weapon will have fewer shots than two singles of the same type? The Annihilator's turret gun might well get 2 attacks in its profile.
Powerfists have been a credible threat to tanks because weapons were so lethal that specific anti-tank options, like chainfists, were basically useless.
That extra D6AV penetration on Chainfists was baller.
It was great when you needed it. most tanks had 10 rear armor, which is what you were hitting in CCmost of the time. So a marine with a S8 fist did a pretty good job crunching it.
Paying 5 points to upgrade to a chainfist was like a meltabomb. Waste of points most games. But when you needed it? Best points you ever spent. So when fighting walkers where you needed to get past the tougher front armor, or AV 14 bricks like land raiders or monoliths, you just got to carve those open. 8+2d6 got the job done.
I always included one chainfist in my tactical terminator squads. Almost no place else you could take them.
Snugiraffe wrote: Has WarCom showing us anything yet to make us believe a twin-linked weapon will have fewer shots than two singles of the same type? The Annihilator's turret gun might well get 2 attacks in its profile.
Maybe a Predators turrets gun will be different, but I wouldn't count on it.
Looks like, my vendetta will have 3 las cannon shots probably hitting things on 3s or 4s, wounding on 3s or 4s (rerolling) with d6 damage each. I believe it will be better to have lots of different weapons rather than a single weapon platform on the damage front. Not looking good for my vendetta....
Insectum7 wrote: Nobody said "pinnacle". We just said, "good at anti-tank". Something can be good at the same time that other things are better.
Sure and so far it's demonstrably good. You're just expecting 9th edition lethality.
When a MM wounds a rhino on a 4 the window is clearly shifted for all but the best AT.
My point is merely that the Powerfist has always been reasonable anti-tank. It still exists in that role, which means it's been relatively consistent. What it can't do is kill a vehicle in one hit, which was a distinct possibility in the past.
Dat Multimelta tho . . . 2 shots and D6+2 Damage. It may wound on a 4+, but daaaamn. Curious to see how its stats get shifted with 10th.
Don't forget in 3rd and 4th (pre-Apocalypse), there was a "Chain Reaction" damage effect, that essentially was a SP loss and another roll on the damage chart, which could itself be "Chain Reaction..."
It was absolutely possible to one-shot a Superheavy in 3rd and 4th with a single penetrating hit, be it a powerfist or otherwise. There was also a chance the tank/vehicle crew would pass their Damage Control check and keep the thing held together, too.
Big things worked almost like warships, where you had damage control crews trying to battle flames.and other damage that were spreading.
I'm also a bit underwhelmed by the powerfists. I'm onboard with the idea to reduce lethality in the game overall, and although I don't expect a powerfist to be the best thing against tanks it does seem weaker than I feel it should be.
A squad of 3 Aggressors in melee against a rhino with their twin-linked powerfists can only expect to score 1 -2 wounds against the rhino, in comparison to the 5-6 wounds in 9th edition. I wouldn't necessarily expect them to reliable destroy it, but less than 2 wounds seems a bit on the low side.
Aash wrote: I'm also a bit underwhelmed by the powerfists. I'm onboard with the idea to reduce lethality in the game overall, and although I don't expect a powerfist to be the best thing against tanks it does seem weaker than I feel it should be.
A squad of 3 Aggressors in melee against a rhino with their twin-linked powerfists can only expect to score 1 -2 wounds against the rhino, in comparison to the 5-6 wounds in 9th edition. I wouldn't necessarily expect them to reliable destroy it, but less than 2 wounds seems a bit on the low side.
Aash wrote: I'm also a bit underwhelmed by the powerfists. I'm onboard with the idea to reduce lethality in the game overall, and although I don't expect a powerfist to be the best thing against tanks it does seem weaker than I feel it should be.
A squad of 3 Aggressors in melee against a rhino with their twin-linked powerfists can only expect to score 1 -2 wounds against the rhino, in comparison to the 5-6 wounds in 9th edition. I wouldn't necessarily expect them to reliable destroy it, but less than 2 wounds seems a bit on the low side.
We've seen the equipment card for Agressors' Boltgauntlets, but not the actual unit card for Aggressors themselves- they may very well have a unit ability that interacts with their weapons.
No, he's expecting a reasonable effect from a Power Fist, a weapon that was decent - not excellent - at damaging vehicles.
It has nothing to do with "9th Ed Lethality". Power Fists have been a good way of damaging vehicles since 2nd Ed.
Looks like they're doing a scale recalibration like they've done with various vehicle weapons in the past.
ie, titans used to equip lascannons and autocannons. The predator turret used to be an autocannon identical to a guard infantry one, now it's its own thing.
2nd ed dreadnoughts used to equip a powerfist which was identical to a guardsman's powerfist (S8 SM-5 D1 APD6+D20+8) giving it the same chance of penetrating as a guard colonel with powerfist (3 auto hit attacks each), which ironically was far worse at killing a carnifex than a tank. The dread had a special tear attack it could make, but that only applied to the penetration table after penetration. It was funny to see a sergeant with powerfist blow up a vehicle with one hit , but need to punch a carnifex and have it fail its 8+ on 2D6 save 10 times because it only did 1 pt of damage per hit. And it being T8 meant only 1/2 all PF hits actually wounded it in the first place. So that's a lot of punches.
so it seems to me that they're re calibrating weapon scales so that a squad of terminator powerfists will destroy a tank, but one by itself won't. But I imagine a dreadnought's powerfist will be more powerful, or have more attacks/damage to make it better by itself.
Aash wrote: I'm also a bit underwhelmed by the powerfists. I'm onboard with the idea to reduce lethality in the game overall, and although I don't expect a powerfist to be the best thing against tanks it does seem weaker than I feel it should be.
A squad of 3 Aggressors in melee against a rhino with their twin-linked powerfists can only expect to score 1 -2 wounds against the rhino, in comparison to the 5-6 wounds in 9th edition. I wouldn't necessarily expect them to reliable destroy it, but less than 2 wounds seems a bit on the low side.
9 * .5 * .555 * .666 * 2 = 3.3
Ahhh. I forgot the powerfists were D2. That isn't as bad as I initially thought.
It has nothing to do with "9th Ed Lethality". Power Fists have been a good way of damaging vehicles since 2nd Ed.
Great. Define what exactly that is supposed to be.
How much damage should the PF to a rhino, lrbt, and land raider?
It’s important to bear in mind that, back when lrbt had 14 front facing armor, melee attacks stuck back armor. So while powerfists weren’t the ultimate in AT, they would routinely rip apart apart any vehicle that wasn’t a 14-all-around brick or actively fighting back (like dreadnoughts do). There’s even an argument for them being designed specifically to do that, especially back in 3rd and 4th when they shared the same ap value (by flatly bypassing saves) as quicker power weapons.
Coming at it from that context, it seems like fists will have taken a substantial hit in lethality not just from the insane damage meta of 8th and 9th, but from all previous editions of 40k.
It has nothing to do with "9th Ed Lethality". Power Fists have been a good way of damaging vehicles since 2nd Ed.
Great. Define what exactly that is supposed to be.
How much damage should the PF to a rhino, lrbt, and land raider?
It’s important to bear in mind that, back when lrbt had 14 front facing armor, melee attacks stuck back armor. So while powerfists weren’t the ultimate in AT, they would routinely rip apart apart any vehicle that wasn’t a 14-all-around brick or actively fighting back (like dreadnoughts do). There’s even an argument for them being designed specifically to do that, especially back in 3rd and 4th when they shared the same ap value (by flatly bypassing saves) as quicker power weapons.
Coming at it from that context, it seems like fists will have taken a substantial hit in lethality not just from the insane damage meta of 8th and 9th, but from all previous editions of 40k.
In 2-5 ed, 1 pf attack could kill a land raider.
The lethality of a pf has dropped substantially BEFORE 10th, ever since they gave vehicles structure points and then Wounds.
The 10th ed pf is in the same lethality range as an 8-9 ed pf, more like a 6-7 Ed pf and nothing like 2-5 Ed pf.
I find it weird that this is the issue people are obsessing over. The difference between an 8th Ed index pf with 1d3 damage -3ap and the 10th ed 2d -3ap is pretty minor.
The lethality of a pf has dropped substantially BEFORE 10th, ever since they gave vehicles structure points and then Wounds.
The 10th ed pf is in the same lethality range as an 8-9 ed pf, more like a 6-7 Ed pf and nothing like 2-5 Ed pf.
I find it weird that this is the issue people are obsessing over. The difference between an 8th Ed index pf with 1d3 damage -3ap and the 10th ed 2d -3ap is pretty minor.
Its worth pointing out that the 10th ed PF has dropped to -2AP not -3 as it was before, and although it has stayed the same strength, the Toughness has gone up on all the vehicles previewed, For example the Rhino has gone from T7 to T9, changing the wound roll for the PF to a 5+ instead of a 3+, combined with the drop in AP it makes a significant change to how much damage a PF can expect to put into a vehicle.
The days you could charge a single Power Fist into a Rhino and destroy it died when we entered 8th Edition. It getting worst in 10th is not much of a surprise give they said they are reducing lethality and improving vehicle resilience. I hope they didn't overcompensate and make the true anti-tank weapons too feeble against vehicles.
The lethality of a pf has dropped substantially BEFORE 10th, ever since they gave vehicles structure points and then Wounds.
The 10th ed pf is in the same lethality range as an 8-9 ed pf, more like a 6-7 Ed pf and nothing like 2-5 Ed pf.
I find it weird that this is the issue people are obsessing over. The difference between an 8th Ed index pf with 1d3 damage -3ap and the 10th ed 2d -3ap is pretty minor.
So back then if the tank moved .01" it would only be hit on 4+.
2 * .5 * .167 * .167 = 0.03
That means you'd need 66 pf swings to score a destroyed on average.
If you pull off all the guns and immobilize you'd need something like 15 to 20.
That's 10 termies back then.
Do the math for 10 termies on whatever with OoM on, because that's the system you're balancing in.
10 Termis are 30 attacks (if Sarge can get a Fist-assuming yes for ease of math)
2+ rerolling to hit is 175/6 hits
5+ rerolling to wound is 875/54 wounds
Saving on a 5+ is 1750/162 failed saves
20-22 damage
I'm saying the "top dog" of each army should (usually) be able to go toe to toe in some form with the "top dog" of any other army.
So like, my IG or Tau commander should be able to go toe to toe with a Custodes Captain?
Yeah, no. F that.
"In some form". I'm not saying Commander Shadowsun should be able to outpunch Marneus Calgar, but I do think they should be able to (maybe/as an example) outshoot him by about as much as Calgar can outpunch him (adjusting for the ease/frequency of shooting over melee)
A Daemon Prince should best a Marine Captain, a Greater Daemon should best a Daemon Prince, an Avatar should be roughly on par with a Greater Daemon. The Nightbringer should be up there too, and that tier should be chopping Chapter Masters in half.
Factions should be different. Part of that means not being equal in the "beatstick" category.
Because it sounds like we're either going to be playing checkers with chess pieces, or they're going to spend most of the next two years throwing things against the wall trying to rebalance everything.
Unless he likes to spam troops. Who of course should be able to go toe to toe with best elites 1=1. 1 grot should be able to fight terminator of course.
Because 500 points of Grots vs 500 points of Knights is 1:1. If you're going to lie, could you do it better?
As oc helps elite troops over troops compared to now no wonder he complains. Can't just spam cheap troops to win(cheap yet be just as good in fight as elite)
Again, if you're going to lie could you do it better? I've made several posts pointing out that ObSec needed a rework, and things that didn't have ObSec either should have it or should have some sort of cancellation effect to alter the ObSec subgame thing. But you lie you.
a_typical_hero wrote: "A Grot should be able to go against Mortarion in some form because the Grot is the leader of the Grot army" is such a weird take on the game.
And on the flipside of that, it's such a weird take on the game to feel that something should be entirely unable to do something because of a bad match-up.
That's where we used to be. Nobody's asking for Mabari to be able to one-shot Mortarion or whatever goofy argument you're putting forward here to strawman against.
Also who says Makari is the top dog in a Grot list? Warlord and "Top Dog" are not always the same.
I'm saying the "top dog" of each army should (usually) be able to go toe to toe in some form with the "top dog" of any other army.
So like, my IG or Tau commander should be able to go toe to toe with a Custodes Captain?
Yeah, no. F that.
A Daemon Prince should best a Marine Captain, a Greater Daemon should best a Daemon Prince, an Avatar should be roughly on par with a Greater Daemon. The Nightbringer should be up there too, and that tier should be chopping Chapter Masters in half.
Factions should be different. Part of that means not being equal in the "beatstick" category.
Then we need more categories for characters to fulfill and more diverse loadouts.
It's daft that people think Guard Commanders should just explode when engaged in combat, especially considering they insist on giving them "beatstick" loadouts or piddly peashooters like a boltgun on a T3 platform. Tau at least get the ability to load up on more specialized weapons on their Battlesuited Commanders.
Besides which, I'd probably lean toward the Stormsurge for "Top Dog" status - though the Commander in Suit should have some give and take with a SM Cap shoot vs punch as I said above.
I'm saying the "top dog" of each army should (usually) be able to go toe to toe in some form with the "top dog" of any other army.
So like, my IG or Tau commander should be able to go toe to toe with a Custodes Captain?
Yeah, no. F that.
"In some form". I'm not saying Commander Shadowsun should be able to outpunch Marneus Calgar, but I do think they should be able to (maybe/as an example) outshoot him by about as much as Calgar can outpunch him (adjusting for the ease/frequency of shooting over melee)
Because it sounds like we're either going to be playing checkers with chess pieces, or they're going to spend most of the next two years throwing things against the wall trying to rebalance everything
The Rhino Tank is shows as T9 W10, while the Primaris ___Strike Speeder is T9, W11, the Gladiator is T10, W12, and the Repulsor is T12 W16.
The Rhino is a tank, but "less" than a speeder which are usually portrayed as more fragile than a tank. Assuming they keep the same Chassis/Statblock paradigm from previous editions the Implusor is also T10 W12 - ergo also more than the Rhino Tank - and also bad news for Predators, Whirlwinds/etc. - Additionally the durability difference between the ____Strike Speeder, and the Gladiator ____ is unlikely to be enough to overcome any terrain difficulties the non-flying hover tank will run into (unless they restore Hover flight, or in some other way clear the path for vehicles)
Knee Jerk reaction to Twin Linking Aggressors (And potentially others - but Aggressors were the only one specifically listed) feels painful. Taking a breath to analyze maybe not. Depends on Points afterwards. I suspect they're being pushed onto the shelf in order to sell new Terminators. But don't be surprised to see Terminators and Stormbolters in general turn into a Twin Linked Bolter. Apply this same paradigm to double Boneswords/Scything Claws/Lightning Claws/and so on. GW isn't good at trickle-down balancing. They rarely go to a second order cause/effect check i.e. First Order: Lethality is too high, so Stormbolters/etc are now twin linked that make half the shots better. Second Order is that now all the high priced stuff with stormbolters/twinlinked talons/whatever they applied the first order to are now putting out half the offense for the same price.
I'm also worried about what they're going to do with Bolter Drill flavor now that bolters are Assault And/Or Heavy but not Rapid Fire.
I'm also worried about what they're going to do with Bolter Drill flavor now that bolters are Assault And/Or Heavy but not Rapid Fire.
It looks like it may be gone as the stats they showed off for the Bolt Rifle basically make them do what Bolter Drill used to. If that's the case, I think it's an elegant solution - replacing a special rule with just the basic weapon rules.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: We aleady know that Terminators have rapid fire 2 stormbolters.
indeed. it will be intresting to see if Chaos and relic terminators with combi-bolters turn back to being twin linked bolters, or remain storm bolters with another name.
I'm also worried about what they're going to do with Bolter Drill flavor now that bolters are Assault And/Or Heavy but not Rapid Fire.
It looks like it may be gone as the stats they showed off for the Bolt Rifle basically make them do what Bolter Drill used to. If that's the case, I think it's an elegant solution - replacing a special rule with just the basic weapon rules.
That's 10th in a nutshell, it seems.
"Instead of And They Shall No Know Fear, why not just give Marines a really good Leadership stat?"
"Instead of Bolter Discipline, why not just build the rules into the weapon profile?"
The story of Rhinos and Powerfists is more about how Rhino resilience has risen over time. To a degree this is a problem - because it means the Metal Bawkses have to become more expensive.
You probably wouldn't want a scenario where say Rhino's were 35 points, and you could use 10 of them to set up car parks across large parts of the board (while still retaining most of your army). Your opponent would have to spend all game trying to cut through 100 T9 3+ wounds (that regenerate).
But equally - as we've seen - if Rhinos (or Trukks etc) are expensive then its harder to justify them in lists. You'd rather bring a second unit than let one go a bit faster on the first turn.
Breton wrote: I'm also worried about what they're going to do with Bolter Drill flavor now that bolters are Assault And/Or Heavy but not Rapid Fire.
I don't understand what flavour bolter drill delivered. That Space Marines are a static force? It seems to me it was wholly inappropriate rule for them. Space Marines are the defensive faction of the 40k video game Gladius, they don't have large numbers so they rely on their fortresses to hold the line, while the Space Marines themselves can move to where they are most needed, this works super well. But just making Tactical Squads shoot twice when they remain stationary is probably the most stupid change of 8th. I think Combat/Super Doctrines was a better idea, even if the execution was unbalanced.
Breton wrote: I'm also worried about what they're going to do with Bolter Drill flavor now that bolters are Assault And/Or Heavy but not Rapid Fire.
I don't understand what flavour bolter drill delivered. That Space Marines are a static force? It seems to me it was wholly inappropriate rule for them. Space Marines are the defensive faction of the 40k video game Gladius, they don't have large numbers so they rely on their fortresses to hold the line, while the Space Marines themselves can move to where they are most needed, this works super well. But just making Tactical Squads shoot twice when they remain stationary is probably the most stupid change of 8th. I think Combat/Super Doctrines was a better idea, even if the execution was unbalanced.
That was not what Bolter Drill did (in Ninth) - or at least not the limit:
Original Rule
"Tactical Squad" (likely sitting on an objective) double taps while defending.
Termies and Bikes (used to be more, but the list was whittled as units on that list caught a nerf-bat) just plain double tapped to assist their more assaulty roles.
Breton wrote: I'm also worried about what they're going to do with Bolter Drill flavor now that bolters are Assault And/Or Heavy but not Rapid Fire.
I don't understand what flavour bolter drill delivered. That Space Marines are a static force? It seems to me it was wholly inappropriate rule for them. Space Marines are the defensive faction of the 40k video game Gladius, they don't have large numbers so they rely on their fortresses to hold the line, while the Space Marines themselves can move to where they are most needed, this works super well. But just making Tactical Squads shoot twice when they remain stationary is probably the most stupid change of 8th. I think Combat/Super Doctrines was a better idea, even if the execution was unbalanced.
That was not what Bolter Drill did (in Ninth) - or at least not the limit:
Original Rule
"Tactical Squad" (likely sitting on an objective) double taps while defending.
Termies and Bikes (used to be more, but the list was whittled as units on that list caught a nerf-bat) just plain double tapped to assist their more assaulty roles.
Why should vehicles, Termies and Bikes get to double tap at more than half range? I've only played a few games with SM in 8th and it's been a good while since I read a lot of SM fluff so I'm sorry if this is obvious to an SM player or someone with a better memory of all the fluff but I don't get it.
Breton wrote: I'm also worried about what they're going to do with Bolter Drill flavor now that bolters are Assault And/Or Heavy but not Rapid Fire.
I don't understand what flavour bolter drill delivered. That Space Marines are a static force? It seems to me it was wholly inappropriate rule for them. Space Marines are the defensive faction of the 40k video game Gladius, they don't have large numbers so they rely on their fortresses to hold the line, while the Space Marines themselves can move to where they are most needed, this works super well. But just making Tactical Squads shoot twice when they remain stationary is probably the most stupid change of 8th. I think Combat/Super Doctrines was a better idea, even if the execution was unbalanced.
That was not what Bolter Drill did (in Ninth) - or at least not the limit:
Original Rule
"Tactical Squad" (likely sitting on an objective) double taps while defending.
Termies and Bikes (used to be more, but the list was whittled as units on that list caught a nerf-bat) just plain double tapped to assist their more assaulty roles.
Why should vehicles, Termies and Bikes get to double tap at more than half range? I've only played a few games with SM in 8th and it's been a good while since I read a lot of SM fluff so I'm sorry if this is obvious to an SM player or someone with a better memory of all the fluff but I don't get it.
I don't really remember vehicles (except Dreads - and I could be wrong vehicles were pretty bad and didn't get a lot of play) along with Cents which flows in the same way Termies do - implacable inexorable advance, covering fire until the fist of death is in range kind of thing. Plus the whole Marines sleep with their bolters under their pillows fluff thing.
Plus what we have now (at least so far) is that the Stalker Bolt Rifle is gone so no D2 sniper bolt rifle you might see in a Ravenguard theme, "they" all get 2 24" shots, and if you stand still you get +1 to hit which isn't going to push Marines to move. I suspect at best you'll see the "Tactical Squad" move, then Assault Move - but AWAY from the enemy - to get on a different objective while still tagging the enemy unit from 24" away. Especially if Sticky Capping makes the jump.
Because it sounds like we're either going to be playing checkers with chess pieces, or they're going to spend most of the next two years throwing things against the wall trying to rebalance everything
The Rhino Tank is shows as T9 W10, while the Primaris ___Strike Speeder is T9, W11, the Gladiator is T10, W12, and the Repulsor is T12 W16.
The Rhino is a tank, but "less" than a speeder which are usually portrayed as more fragile than a tank. Assuming they keep the same Chassis/Statblock paradigm from previous editions the Implusor is also T10 W12 - ergo also more than the Rhino Tank - and also bad news for Predators, Whirlwinds/etc. - Additionally the durability difference between the ____Strike Speeder, and the Gladiator ____ is unlikely to be enough to overcome any terrain difficulties the non-flying hover tank will run into (unless they restore Hover flight, or in some other way clear the path for vehicles)
What are you on about? Why is it bad for Predators? If Rhinos are T9 and meltas have a harder time wounding them and Predator winds up being T9 then it, too, is more durable than before.
Why are you assuming Impulsors are T10? They're T7 now. But even if they are the Rhino presumably allows 2 "units" to shoot out with a traditional capacity of 10 where the Impulsors capacity is 6. I'm guessing you're concerned that Predators won't be T10 and that the Impulsor will be tougher than them?
And the gladiator is worse, because it can't fly, even if it's tougher? Is that what you're trying to say?
Knee Jerk reaction to Twin Linking Aggressors (And potentially others - but Aggressors were the only one specifically listed) feels painful. Taking a breath to analyze maybe not. Depends on Points afterwards. I suspect they're being pushed onto the shelf in order to sell new Terminators. But don't be surprised to see Terminators and Stormbolters in general turn into a Twin Linked Bolter. Apply this same paradigm to double Boneswords/Scything Claws/Lightning Claws/and so on. GW isn't good at trickle-down balancing. They rarely go to a second order cause/effect check i.e. First Order: Lethality is too high, so Stormbolters/etc are now twin linked that make half the shots better. Second Order is that now all the high priced stuff with stormbolters/twinlinked talons/whatever they applied the first order to are now putting out half the offense for the same price.
I'm also worried about what they're going to do with Bolter Drill flavor now that bolters are Assault And/Or Heavy but not Rapid Fire.
The Aggressor datasheet isn't even fully revealed and you want to claim it's to sell the new Terminators. We don't even have the stats for their frag launcher, but ignoring that -- Aggressors get 3 shots to 18" with wound rerolls. Terminators get 2 to 24" or 4 to 12" with no rerolls. Aggressors get 3 swings at 4+ but with wound rerolls. Terminators get 3 swings at 3+, but no rerolls. Then throw in the Frag Launchers and whatever ability they get.
And, yes, it still comes down to points. Aggressors are more consistent in damage than Terminators, but Terminators are more durable and have heavy options.
they're going to spend most of the next two years throwing things against the wall
I think rather what's happening here is you're making up stuff, throwing it against a wall, and using that to justify whatever misplaced angst it is you wish to have.
This whole thing feels like a 'Primaris units are better and I hate it' using made up evidence until you get to Terminators, which you assume must be getting pushed, because they're new.
So far the only thing I've seen that gives me question is that the melta weapon shown didn't have any bonuses against vehicles and had S9 I think.
Now if we assume it's higher than normal because primaris and they have to get the best stuff, which is evident by the bolt rifle shown being better than normal because I guarantee that the regular bolt is not going to be that good, doesn't that remove the benefit of melta weapons as being anti-tank?
I'm fine with them making small arms less effective against vehicles as long as they understand and remember the entire reason they changed that design in the first place was because it was almost impossible to actually wound vehicles unless you brought dedicated anti-tank. So either they're going to remember that or they're just going to backtrack to how things were years ago and have to change it again later showing they are absolute morons and have learned nothing.
Because it sounds like we're either going to be playing checkers with chess pieces, or they're going to spend most of the next two years throwing things against the wall trying to rebalance everything
The Rhino Tank is shows as T9 W10, while the Primaris ___Strike Speeder is T9, W11, the Gladiator is T10, W12, and the Repulsor is T12 W16.
The Rhino is a tank, but "less" than a speeder which are usually portrayed as more fragile than a tank. Assuming they keep the same Chassis/Statblock paradigm from previous editions the Implusor is also T10 W12 - ergo also more than the Rhino Tank - and also bad news for Predators, Whirlwinds/etc. - Additionally the durability difference between the ____Strike Speeder, and the Gladiator ____ is unlikely to be enough to overcome any terrain difficulties the non-flying hover tank will run into (unless they restore Hover flight, or in some other way clear the path for vehicles)
The Primaris Hover Vehicles have always been an oddity in being more or as resilient as their tracked counterparts. But we have learned that:
Rhino: T 7, W 10, Sv 3+ has become T9, W 10, Sv 3+
Storm Speeder: T 6, W 10, Sv 3+ has become T9, W 11, Sv 3+
Gladiator: T 8, W 12, Sv 3+ has become T10, W 12, Sv 3+
Repulsor: T 8, W 16, Sv 3+ has become T12, W 16, Sv 3+
Takaways are minimum Toughness of vehicles is up and the range of Toughness values has been spreed out. Hopefully the increased Toughness place on Predators and Land Raiders will continue into 10 Edition. The Predator and Vindicator were historically tougher than a Rhino.
Knee Jerk reaction to Twin Linking Aggressors (And potentially others - but Aggressors were the only one specifically listed) feels painful. Taking a breath to analyze maybe not. Depends on Points afterwards. I suspect they're being pushed onto the shelf in order to sell new Terminators. But don't be surprised to see Terminators and Stormbolters in general turn into a Twin Linked Bolter. Apply this same paradigm to double Boneswords/Scything Claws/Lightning Claws/and so on. GW isn't good at trickle-down balancing. They rarely go to a second order cause/effect check i.e. First Order: Lethality is too high, so Stormbolters/etc are now twin linked that make half the shots better. Second Order is that now all the high priced stuff with stormbolters/twinlinked talons/whatever they applied the first order to are now putting out half the offense for the same price.
As other have pointed out Stormbolters are Rapid Fire 2 per the Terminator datasheet. It is unclear when they will apply Twin-Linked as opposed to other rules. In Killteam, they applied more attack dice to paired weapons compared to their single weapon counterparts. The new weapon rules give them that simple option, but they also have the option to Twin-Link if they like. I hope they use restraint since they are supposed to be handing out less re-rolls in 10th.
I'm also worried about what they're going to do with Bolter Drill flavor now that bolters are Assault And/Or Heavy but not Rapid Fire.
Again, Bolter Drill has been rolled into the Bolt Rifle. They managed to imperfectly, but interestingly put three weapons and a unit ability into one weapon profile. I know we are all used to the current Rapid Fire vs Assault 3 vs Heavy 1 with more damage/AP, but go back to the beginning. My imperfect memory says we started back in 8th with Auto Bolt Rifles being Assault 2 24" (no AP?) and Stalkers being Heavy 1 36" with only 1 damage (maybe AP -2?). We then went through various iterations in an attempt to make all three attractive. Now we have one weapon that provides flavor of them all. You have Assault of the Autobolt Rifle, always 2 attacks for Bolter Drill, AP -1 for the Bolt Rifle, and Heavy for the Stalkers (more accurate when not moving rather than more range). Cutting back the range to 24" is a way of reducing lethality by limiting engagement range. Bolt Rifles no longer reach beyond the classic 24" No Mans Land! I have to say I am rather happy with this and am interested to see what other interesting things they do with weapons in 10th.
Wayniac wrote: So far the only thing I've seen that gives me question is that the melta weapon shown didn't have any bonuses against vehicles and had S9 I think.
Spoiler:
Melta's bonus is right there.
Personally? I'm fine with it not being vehicles only. Melta is supposed to be used for bunker-busting, vehicle hunting, and monster hunting. Makes sense that the bonus isn't restricted to just vehicles.
Haywire would finally have a real place to exist if it's treated as such.
As long as all man-portable Metlas are Strength 9, we should be fine.
Now Haywire, I can see it now: Haywire [Anti-Vehicle 4+, Devastating]. Any Wound Roll against a Vehicle of 4+ is a Critical Hit, which Devastating turns into Mortal Wounds! The Entire rule is turned into 2 USRs.
Wayniac wrote: I'm fine with them making small arms less effective against vehicles as long as they understand and remember the entire reason they changed that design in the first place was because it was almost impossible to actually wound vehicles unless you brought dedicated anti-tank.
If you don't bring anti-tank weapons, you should have problems when facing tanks and/or monsters...
Wayniac wrote: I'm fine with them making small arms less effective against vehicles as long as they understand and remember the entire reason they changed that design in the first place was because it was almost impossible to actually wound vehicles unless you brought dedicated anti-tank.
If you don't bring anti-tank weapons, you should have problems when facing tanks and/or monsters...
Whilst I agree, it's also not fun if you literally can't stop them because you invested ~25% of your force into anti armour as a TAC list, which has been annihilated already, but likewise of you take more than hordes just laugh at you. Ofc this is a problem that was more exacerbated at 1500 in old editions.
Wayniac wrote: So far the only thing I've seen that gives me question is that the melta weapon shown didn't have any bonuses against vehicles and had S9 I think.
Now if we assume it's higher than normal because primaris and they have to get the best stuff, which is evident by the bolt rifle shown being better than normal because I guarantee that the regular bolt is not going to be that good, doesn't that remove the benefit of melta weapons as being anti-tank?
I'm fine with them making small arms less effective against vehicles as long as they understand and remember the entire reason they changed that design in the first place was because it was almost impossible to actually wound vehicles unless you brought dedicated anti-tank. So either they're going to remember that or they're just going to backtrack to how things were years ago and have to change it again later showing they are absolute morons and have learned nothing.
They made the 8th/9th because of IGOUGO which skew the game in favor of the starting player who can strategically cripple your army on turn 1.
Making infantry more capable at killing tanks was a way to go around that gameplay problem.
One thing they still haven't learned is that IGOUGO needs to be abandoned, alongside rerolls of any kind, to give proper space to strategic decision.
Breton wrote: I don't really remember vehicles (except Dreads - and I could be wrong vehicles were pretty bad and didn't get a lot of play) along with Cents which flows in the same way Termies do - implacable inexorable advance, covering fire until the fist of death is in range kind of thing. Plus the whole Marines sleep with their bolters under their pillows fluff thing.
It was quickly removed from vehicles because of hurricane bolters. Cents took a while longer, they were just way too cheap for what they did. If you actually want Termies and Cents to advance then don't enable them to double-tap at more than half range, because you're giving them an incentive to stay at max range instead of getting within half range. I think Marines sleeping with their bolters is represented by their high BS of 3+, I assume you like the SoB flamer profile buff? To me it clutters the game up too much.
Wayniac wrote: I'm fine with them making small arms less effective against vehicles as long as they understand and remember the entire reason they changed that design in the first place was because it was almost impossible to actually wound vehicles unless you brought dedicated anti-tank.
If you don't bring anti-tank weapons, you should have problems when facing tanks and/or monsters...
Whilst I agree, it's also not fun if you literally can't stop them because you invested ~25% of your force into anti armour as a TAC list, which has been annihilated already, but likewise of you take more than hordes just laugh at you. Ofc this is a problem that was more exacerbated at 1500 in old editions.
Agree with Wayniac and Dudeface. Lowered lethality is a good thing. Making small arms less good against vehicles is a valid thing. I just don't want to spend half the game unable to meaningfully hurt my opponent's mechanized skew list because I took a "normal" amount of anti-tank instead of spamming anti-tank. And by extension, I don't want to find myself ignoring half the options in my codex because a skew-heavy meta demands I always take fire dragons over scorpions.
That said, there's still a ton we don't know, and I'm open to change.
Agree with Wayniac and Dudeface. Lowered lethality is a good thing. Making small arms less good against vehicles is a valid thing. I just don't want to spend half the game unable to meaningfully hurt my opponent's mechanized skew list because I took a "normal" amount of anti-tank instead of spamming anti-tank. And by extension, I don't want to find myself ignoring half the options in my codex because a skew-heavy meta demands I always take fire dragons over scorpions.
That said, there's still a ton we don't know, and I'm open to change.
The thing is outside the forums, no one was killing vehicles with small arms. So really making vehicles/monsters tougher meant nerfing "anti-tank".
Its still very much in the "wait and see" phase - but I suspect they want to change the idea that almost every boosted up 200 point unit can go smash every other 200 point unit in a turn.
I mean its not as if the 10th edition Terminators won't tear down a 10th Rhino (or Gladiator). Its just that it will take 2-3 fight phases rather than "charge, maybe pop a stratagem to be sure, move on".
Siegfriedfr wrote: They made the 8th/9th because of IGOUGO which skew the game in favor of the starting player who can strategically cripple your army on turn 1.
Making infantry more capable at killing tanks was a way to go around that gameplay problem.
One thing they still haven't learned is that IGOUGO needs to be abandoned, alongside rerolls of any kind, to give proper space to strategic decision.
AA has flaws when you're trying to apply it to a game with the model count and flexibility of 40K. 10th appears to be a hybridized version that allows decision making on the opponent's turn. I don't know to what degree, however.
Alpha strikes haven't been a problem in 9th for quite some time.
Agree with Wayniac and Dudeface. Lowered lethality is a good thing. Making small arms less good against vehicles is a valid thing. I just don't want to spend half the game unable to meaningfully hurt my opponent's mechanized skew list because I took a "normal" amount of anti-tank instead of spamming anti-tank. And by extension, I don't want to find myself ignoring half the options in my codex because a skew-heavy meta demands I always take fire dragons over scorpions.
That said, there's still a ton we don't know, and I'm open to change.
The thing is outside the forums, no one was killing vehicles with small arms. So really making vehicles/monsters tougher meant nerfing "anti-tank".
Its still very much in the "wait and see" phase - but I suspect they want to change the idea that almost every boosted up 200 point unit can go smash every other 200 point unit in a turn.
I mean its not as if the 10th edition Terminators won't tear down a 10th Rhino (or Gladiator). Its just that it will take 2-3 fight phases rather than "charge, maybe pop a stratagem to be sure, move on".
Yeah. Honestly, I've been pretty okay with where small arms vs vehicles have been for 8th and 9th. Generally, S4 guns have been able to chip away a meaningful amount of a T7 vehicle's health to finish it off, set it up to die using one fewer Anti-Tank units, etc. But they haven't been so powerful that you're efficiently going around killing rhinos with bolters and shurikens. That's a decent state of affairs. Let the S4 attacks contribute while still making people want to bring dedicated anti-tank to be more efficient.
That said, I'm open to change. Like you said, we're in the "wait and see" phase.
Agree with Wayniac and Dudeface. Lowered lethality is a good thing. Making small arms less good against vehicles is a valid thing. I just don't want to spend half the game unable to meaningfully hurt my opponent's mechanized skew list because I took a "normal" amount of anti-tank instead of spamming anti-tank. And by extension, I don't want to find myself ignoring half the options in my codex because a skew-heavy meta demands I always take fire dragons over scorpions.
That said, there's still a ton we don't know, and I'm open to change.
The thing is outside the forums, no one was killing vehicles with small arms. So really making vehicles/monsters tougher meant nerfing "anti-tank".
Its still very much in the "wait and see" phase - but I suspect they want to change the idea that almost every boosted up 200 point unit can go smash every other 200 point unit in a turn.
I mean its not as if the 10th edition Terminators won't tear down a 10th Rhino (or Gladiator). Its just that it will take 2-3 fight phases rather than "charge, maybe pop a stratagem to be sure, move on".
I imagine if things stay relatively the same points wise then terminators will be 5 for 200.
Yeah. People disliked having their vehicles taken out by a single lucky anti-tank attack, and other people disliked being unable to hurt parking lots with S3 (and S4 shooting) attacks. So GW made killing vehicles more of a steady process that all units can contribute towards rather than a binary all-or-nothing affair.
It seems like 10th wants to back off on letting S3 and S4 contribute as meaningfully, so I guess we'll see how that shakes out.
Honestly I just want instant death type things back. Like a power klaw used to be able to carve open like any tank very reliably as well as just insta popping almost anything you’d run it into.
One thing to remember with the heightened Vehicle Strength and lowered AP values, is that in the coming edition that there's nothing (that we know of so far) that will limit your ability to take an armored list besides the rule of 3, and the requirement to take a character. Which means you could, in theory, just take a techmarine, shove him and maybe a retinue in a rhino/razorback/Land-raider and then fill out everything else with just vehicles. Obviously, this presumably means objective play will be harder, but how much does that matter unless the enemy spams AT?
ProfSrlojohn wrote: One thing to remember with the heightened Vehicle Strength and lowered AP values, is that in the coming edition that there's nothing (that we know of so far) that will limit your ability to take an armored list besides the rule of 3, and the requirement to take a character. Which means you could, in theory, just take a techmarine, shove him and maybe a retinue in a rhino/razorback/Land-raider and then fill out everything else with just vehicles. Obviously, this presumably means objective play will be harder, but how much does that matter unless the enemy spams AT?
We have not seen any dedicated anti-tank units yet, specifically not their special rules; there might be dedicated anti-tank squad leaders that stick a juicy ability on the whole unit, or tank-hunter units with nasty abilities that counter much of the increased survivability. We have already seen that one tyranid skill that rolls out army-wide bonuses against specific enemies if you need it, counters like this might exist for other forces as well. Other than that, you'd still need things that can hold obejctives, and most tanks seem to be limited to OC in the single digits, while units of infantry seem to bring 20 or more in some cases.
Wyldhunt wrote: Yeah. People disliked having their vehicles taken out by a single lucky anti-tank attack, and other people disliked being unable to hurt parking lots with S3 (and S4 shooting) attacks. So GW made killing vehicles more of a steady process that all units can contribute towards rather than a binary all-or-nothing affair.
It seems like 10th wants to back off on letting S3 and S4 contribute as meaningfully, so I guess we'll see how that shakes out.
That is all well and good, till armies start spaming vehicles or GW creates armies that neither have mass weapons fire, nor a large number of efficient anti tank weapons.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tsagualsa 809431 11519727 wrote:
We have not seen any dedicated anti-tank units yet, specifically not their special rules; there might be dedicated anti-tank squad leaders that stick a juicy ability on the whole unit, or tank-hunter units with nasty abilities that counter much of the increased survivability. We have already seen that one tyranid skill that rolls out army-wide bonuses against specific enemies if you need it, counters like this might exist for other forces as well. Other than that, you'd still need things that can hold obejctives, and most tanks seem to be limited to OC in the single digits, while units of infantry seem to bring 20 or more in some cases.
The problem is wtih GW history in writing rules. Will there be efficient anti tank units? I am sure, at worse after an early edition nerf to all good armies consisting of waves of vehicles. The problem with the special rules and counter mechanics is that all armies, in the game have to get them. Otherwise with GW push to use more vehicles, each army that can't deal with them, will end up very unfun to play with.
People worry about marine stuff, because that is what was shown to us. But what if a 9+MC tyranid army is valid? Or if an ork army can wall off entire parts of the table witch cheap, and now more resilient vehicles, while also running a wave of OC 2 models to swarm objectives?
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: Honestly I just want instant death type things back. Like a power klaw used to be able to carve open like any tank very reliably as well as just insta popping almost anything you’d run it into.
They have that, it's called 'every competitively viable weapon in 9th edition'.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: Honestly I just want instant death type things back. Like a power klaw used to be able to carve open like any tank very reliably as well as just insta popping almost anything you’d run it into.
They have that, it's called 'every competitively viable weapon in 9th edition'.
Wyldhunt wrote: It seems like 10th wants to back off on letting S3 and S4 contribute as meaningfully, so I guess we'll see how that shakes out.
How exactly are they doing that? Increased Toughness doesn't help if everything still wounds on a 6.
It would if you were better at math.
Or are you generally just that worried about 90 intercessors shooting at a rhino?
From the arguments made, it seemed pretty clear its a verisimilitude/conceptual issue, not a maths one. That it's conceptually dumb to have the ability to damage a tank with S3, regardless of how unlikely it is to do anything.
Oh I'd forgotten why I put you on ignore, ERJAK. Thanks for the lesson...
Hellebore wrote: From the arguments made, it seemed pretty clear its a verisimilitude/conceptual issue, not a maths one. That it's conceptually dumb to have the ability to damage a tank with S3, regardless of how unlikely it is to do anything.
Thank you for understanding what I was trying to convey rather than just jumping into a thread looking for a fight like some people.
And yes: I don't care that this particular event has a low mathematical probability. I care that it can happen in the first place.
Or are you generally just that worried about 90 intercessors shooting at a rhino?
I was vehicle hunting with Termagaunts armed with Devourers for a while. Against Custodes in particular it was far more efficient to shoot some of their vehicles with Devourers instead of targeting their infantry. That was a pretty irritating state of affairs.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Oh I'd forgotten why I put you on ignore, ERJAK. Thanks for the lesson...
Yeah I dunno why ERJAK feels a need to be a jackass about toy soldiers, but it's not a good look.
Really re: S3/4 damaging tanks, it sounds like some people are trying to have it both ways: That it's good for lasguns and bolters to be able to contribute to taking out vehicles so they're not totally useless at it, but also that you'd need a hundred Intercessors or whatever so they're functionally useless at it. Well, which is it? Are they capable of inflicting enough damage to be a credible threat, or are they so irrelevant that it's not worth getting worked up over? If you need dedicated anti-tank weapons to take the first 9 wounds off a Rhino and then an entire squad rapid firing can chip off the last, it doesn't really seem all that different from just needing anti-tank weapons to do it- the entire output of a 10-man Intercessor squad is equivalent to rolling a '4' instead of a '3' for lascannon damage, and if you're down to your basic rifles you're screwed under either ruleset.
I don't have strong feelings about it one way or the other because from a gameplay perspective it ultimately doesn't matter whether small arms can technically hurt tanks, they're still useless at it. I just question the premise that it was an improvement to gameplay on the basis that small arms can now 'meaningfully' contribute to killing vehicles. It sounds like placebo more than anything else.
Quite a while back, after we got sick of 4th Edition and laughed at 5th Edition, we tried our hand at our own set of rules. Part of that was a set of terrain rules that allowed building destruction. They were fine, except that in the initial version you could weapons that weren't strictly "anti-tank" weapons causing damage to vehicles. It let to situations where targets, or even individual models, would take pot-shots at empty buildings by 'fishing for 6's'. We later changed it so you needed weapons that would be suited towards taking out structures (Meltas, Ordnance weapons) to stop idle squads wasting ammo on buildings.
I have the same feelings around squads just unloading their small arms at a Land Raider or Baneblade because "Might as well!". As position and manoeuvre has been reduced time and time again in 40k, it has created situations where the rules don't match with "reality". I mean, back in the day small arms like bolt guns and whatnot could damage a Leman Russ or Wave Serpent... it they got behind the tank! If you wanted to pepper your small arms into a vehicle in the hope of causing some minor damage, or get a lucky hit through, you had to work at it. You couldn't just lazily throw a few squad's worth of guns at a tank 'cause it was in range.
Now there are no armour facings, and anything can wound anything on a 6. That doesn't scale well, because it means Mr. Laspitol can wound Mr. Warlord Titan, and no matter how mathematically improbable that is, I don't think it should be possible in the first place.
In the real world you can, in fact, inconvenience tanks with small arms fire (i.e. ST 3 and 4 attacks). At the very least you can force their commanders back inside the vehicle, and you can also blind or distract the crew by firing at vision slits. In 1940 German general Erwin Rommel even defeated a French counterattack by firing a flare pistol at attack French tanks, which thought the flares were tracer rounds for German anti-tank guns.
If we think of "wounds" as also representing the loss of morale or the spread of confusion within the target unit then it's not utterly ridiculous that small arms can wound a tank. While I'm not unsympathetic to criticisms of the relative realism of the rule, it's not totally absurd given the level of abstraction that 40K works at.
And once upon a time this was represented by damage conditions - Shaken and Stunned.
And whilst it might be the most extreme example possible, just because you might be able to do it to a vehicle, I don't think that a Laspistol should ever be able to "inconvenience" a Titan.
About stuff like instant death, I'd rather not have it come back unless we're talking an extreme discrepancy in a unit's toughness versus a weapon's strength, and the same goes with sweeping advance. The latter especially seems to be a feel-bad mechanic.
H.B.M.C. wrote:And whilst it might be the most extreme example possible, just because you might be able to do it to a vehicle, I don't think that a Laspistol should ever be able to "inconvenience" a Titan.
What about those epic moments when a single laser manages to take down the Titan's last wound and the reactor goes critical, annihilating half the units on the table?
ArcaneHorror wrote: About stuff like instant death, I'd rather not have it come back unless we're talking an extreme discrepancy in a unit's toughness versus a weapon's strength, and the same goes with sweeping advance. The latter especially seems to be a feel-bad mechanic.
It was the lack of scaling that made those into "feels bad" moment.
I think back to when "Strength D" was introduced in Apocalypse. It always bothered me as that would have been better served as a weapon special rule, but the strength value kept, because just killing whatever just didn't seem to make much sense. I also think that they set the ceiling for what was "Strenght D" far too low, but that's a separate debate. Sweeping Advances had the same thing. Got super lucky and a lone Grot could chase down a full unit of Chosen Terminators. That certainly feels bad.
That's why we need good comparative and scaling mechanics, and not limitess rules (like any strength can wound any toughness!). Instant Death works fine as a mechanic as long as it scales correctly, rather than having weapons that cause "Instant Death". Beyond that you'd have to use the keyword system, and use it sparingly for weapons that realistically shouldn't be in a game of this scale (ie. Volcano Cannons have 'Instant Death' against units with the 'Infantry, Swarms, Bike or Cavalry' keywords, as an out-of-thin-air example).
H.B.M.C. wrote: And once upon a time this was represented by damage conditions - Shaken and Stunned.
And whilst it might be the most extreme example possible, just because you might be able to do it to a vehicle, I don't think that a Laspistol should ever be able to "inconvenience" a Titan.
I've got no skin in the game over small arms fire damaging tanks- I don't care one way or another.
But I hated that damage chart. At the height of vehicle fragility in 9th, I still felt like vehicles had a better chance than in some editions- one-shotting was far more common in AV systems, because as soon as the armour was penetrated even once, it lead to a chance of instant death. And even if it wasn't instant death, it could make your vehicle totally useless with one shot.
I'd say that's not an argument against the chart per se, but rather the severity of the chart (which got worse, as time went on).
See I hated the Glancing Chart, and how a 6 could kill your tank. When we did our own version of the vehicle rules, we wrote it so that the first few results on the glancing table were 'no effect' - you got a glancing hit, well done, but it didn't do anything! The 6 result wasn't "Tank asplode!", but "Roll on the Penetrating Chart". Meant that lucky shots really felt lucky, rather than something that happened too often.
I maintain that there have been numerous mechanics that GW has created over the years that were good ideas, just poorly implemented, and skewed/broken over time (ie. making the damage charge more lethal over time) and that if they spent the time to test and improve those systems rather than just throwing them out and reinventing the wheel time after time after time, the game would be in a much better state, and we wouldn't be entering the 10th (tenth!!!) edition wondering what the hell we're about to get as they're throwing everything out* once again rather than fixing problems.
*Throwing things out isn't always a bad thing, some ideas (the current morale system, for example) aren't worth salvaging and should be done away with wholesale so that they can replace them with something (hopefully) better.
I just wish they had stuck with messing around with model positioning. Stuff like the old morale or tank shock having your models move when you don’t want them to was really interesting, especially when like 85% of 40k’s skill comes from movement.
What are you on about? Why is it bad for Predators? If Rhinos are T9 and meltas have a harder time wounding them and Predator winds up being T9 then it, too, is more durable than before.
Because Predator TANKS will still be "weaker" than Gladiators. And equal to those "fragile" SPEEDERS. SM should (probably) have two/three TANK statbands, (Transport, Rearmed Transport, LR/Repulsor) and 2ish Speeder Bands.
Why are you assuming Impulsors are T10? They're T7 now. But even if they are the Rhino presumably allows 2 "units" to shoot out with a traditional capacity of 10 where the Impulsors capacity is 6. I'm guessing you're concerned that Predators won't be T10 and that the Impulsor will be tougher than them?
Was that part about "assuming the Weapons platforms built on transport tank chassis sharing a statblock" too subtle for you?
And the gladiator is worse, because it can't fly, even if it's tougher? Is that what you're trying to say?
Potentially, assuming the minor difference in Toughness not being offset by cost-benefit (weapons, special rules etc) I suspect the speeders are right and both the Rhino chassis and the Impulsor Chassis will end up too low which potentially also rolls into the Land Raiders and Repulsors depending on where the weapon strength sweet spots shake out. The only one I've seen so far was a Melta Rifle with S9 - which even hits that Rhino/Rhino Variant/Impulsor/Gladiator stat block. Wound Rhinos on 4, Impulsors on 5.
Knee Jerk reaction to Twin Linking Aggressors (And potentially others - but Aggressors were the only one specifically listed) feels painful. Taking a breath to analyze maybe not. Depends on Points afterwards. I suspect they're being pushed onto the shelf in order to sell new Terminators. But don't be surprised to see Terminators and Stormbolters in general turn into a Twin Linked Bolter. Apply this same paradigm to double Boneswords/Scything Claws/Lightning Claws/and so on. GW isn't good at trickle-down balancing. They rarely go to a second order cause/effect check i.e. First Order: Lethality is too high, so Stormbolters/etc are now twin linked that make half the shots better. Second Order is that now all the high priced stuff with stormbolters/twinlinked talons/whatever they applied the first order to are now putting out half the offense for the same price.
I'm also worried about what they're going to do with Bolter Drill flavor now that bolters are Assault And/Or Heavy but not Rapid Fire.
The Aggressor datasheet isn't even fully revealed and you want to claim it's to sell the new Terminators. We don't even have the stats for their frag launcher, but ignoring that -- Aggressors get 3 shots to 18" with wound rerolls. Terminators get 2 to 24" or 4 to 12" with no rerolls. Aggressors get 3 swings at 4+ but with wound rerolls. Terminators get 3 swings at 3+, but no rerolls. Then throw in the Frag Launchers and whatever ability they get.
And, yes, it still comes down to points. Aggressors are more consistent in damage than Terminators, but Terminators are more durable and have heavy options.
Is your personal animus affecting your reading comprehension?
Taking a breath to analyze maybe not. Depends on Points afterwards. I suspect they're being pushed onto the shelf in order to sell new Terminators.
they're going to spend most of the next two years throwing things against the wall
I think rather what's happening here is you're making up stuff, throwing it against a wall, and using that to justify whatever misplaced angst it is you wish to have.
This whole thing feels like a 'Primaris units are better and I hate it' using made up evidence until you get to Terminators, which you assume must be getting pushed, because they're new.
Right, because thinking the Primaris Speeder is too close in toughness to the Primaris Tank is all about hating Primaris from someone who usually runs full Primaris. Maybe take a minute to unwad your shorts and reread that without injecting animus.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wayniac wrote: So far the only thing I've seen that gives me question is that the melta weapon shown didn't have any bonuses against vehicles and had S9 I think.
Now if we assume it's higher than normal because primaris and they have to get the best stuff, which is evident by the bolt rifle shown being better than normal because I guarantee that the regular bolt is not going to be that good, doesn't that remove the benefit of melta weapons as being anti-tank?
I'm fine with them making small arms less effective against vehicles as long as they understand and remember the entire reason they changed that design in the first place was because it was almost impossible to actually wound vehicles unless you brought dedicated anti-tank. So either they're going to remember that or they're just going to backtrack to how things were years ago and have to change it again later showing they are absolute morons and have learned nothing.
It didn't have Anti-tank before- it had the Melta rule, and it still does. There's now a Melta X rule. I assume that's so that they're as effective against big bad monsters as they are against tanks and dreads, whereas Chain Fists are Anti-Vehicle, while Power Fists lost Unweildy in a different approach.
Breton wrote: I don't really remember vehicles (except Dreads - and I could be wrong vehicles were pretty bad and didn't get a lot of play) along with Cents which flows in the same way Termies do - implacable inexorable advance, covering fire until the fist of death is in range kind of thing. Plus the whole Marines sleep with their bolters under their pillows fluff thing.
It was quickly removed from vehicles because of hurricane bolters. Cents took a while longer, they were just way too cheap for what they did. If you actually want Termies and Cents to advance then don't enable them to double-tap at more than half range, because you're giving them an incentive to stay at max range instead of getting within half range. I think Marines sleeping with their bolters is represented by their high BS of 3+, I assume you like the SoB flamer profile buff? To me it clutters the game up too much.
Haven't seen the SOB thing. And I think you have it backwards. Forcing Terminators/etc to choose between shooting all their shots, or moving closer to Punching Range doesn't make them move more than being able to shoot all their shots, AND move into punching range.
The old/current Bolter Drill allowed Terminators to move their 5, and shoot rapid fire full range. What we have so far of the new version still allows most of that, but going back to an Either/Or is what will make them static whenever they get more (effective) shots than punches.
Agree with Wayniac and Dudeface. Lowered lethality is a good thing. Making small arms less good against vehicles is a valid thing. I just don't want to spend half the game unable to meaningfully hurt my opponent's mechanized skew list because I took a "normal" amount of anti-tank instead of spamming anti-tank. And by extension, I don't want to find myself ignoring half the options in my codex because a skew-heavy meta demands I always take fire dragons over scorpions.
That said, there's still a ton we don't know, and I'm open to change.
The thing is outside the forums, no one was killing vehicles with small arms. So really making vehicles/monsters tougher meant nerfing "anti-tank".
Its still very much in the "wait and see" phase - but I suspect they want to change the idea that almost every boosted up 200 point unit can go smash every other 200 point unit in a turn.
I mean its not as if the 10th edition Terminators won't tear down a 10th Rhino (or Gladiator). Its just that it will take 2-3 fight phases rather than "charge, maybe pop a stratagem to be sure, move on".
I wouldn't go that far. Say 5 Terminators, 1 Power Sword, 2 Chain Fists, 2 Power Fists. (Though given what we've seen so far I wouldn't be surprised to see 4-5 Chainfists - 3+ vs 4+ with a +1 Oath of Moment, Strats and potential character leadership) FOF/OOM alone turns chainfists into powerfists with Anti-Vehicle 3+. Anyone expect that to be one of the first Updates? 12 attacks, 9-10ish hits, and 5-9ish 5+ Saves vs D2 (The swing is Anti Vehicle3+) And that's going to be before whatever we can do to a Critical Wound or what ELSE a "Critical Wound" means or might mean. And that's not a bad thing. Terminators that get into punching range of a Rhino should mess it up in short order - they have to work to do it or you have to have really dropped the ball. Teleport is (apparently) still not within 9 - and all that follows 16-20ish shots and 3+ish storm bolter wounds plus an Assault Cannon or Cyclone. And not assuming there's some form of Shock Assault (potentially a Strat as I don't see a reference section on the data sheet)
Sadly we don't see a couple of the datasheets I'm particularly interested in - Assault Marines (Chain Swords and Eviscerators), Outriders (their Ginsu special rule), Eliminators/Scouts (Sniper rifles, las fusils), Terminator Assault Squads (especially the 2LC).
Most of what we've seen is just rearranging the deck chairs on a cruise ship that may or may not be the Titanic. BS/WS/(Melee A) moved to the weapon and not the unit stat line. A little rewording to deal with that here and there. We've seen a little stat tweaking. The change to 8th losing +1A for two weapons, and +1A for charging was extremely hard on Assault Marines for example (they gave Chainswords +1A, and added Shock Assault to try and patch it) and Assault Marines were again almost to actually viable. Who knows how many steps back we're going to take.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ProfSrlojohn wrote: One thing to remember with the heightened Vehicle Strength and lowered AP values, is that in the coming edition that there's nothing (that we know of so far) that will limit your ability to take an armored list besides the rule of 3, and the requirement to take a character. Which means you could, in theory, just take a techmarine, shove him and maybe a retinue in a rhino/razorback/Land-raider and then fill out everything else with just vehicles. Obviously, this presumably means objective play will be harder, but how much does that matter unless the enemy spams AT?
I have a few theme lists I try and make every edition:
Spear of Macragge (Tanks, Chronus, etc)
Double Wing (Death and Raven working together)
Iyanden Wraith Host
Just to see how well it supports the atypical but fluff lists.
And with the new Objective Controlled stuff it may not be as hard as it was. I suspect ObSec/ObCon is as messed up as always with 5 Grots beating 4 Intercessors, but we'll see.
Wyldhunt wrote: Yeah. People disliked having their vehicles taken out by a single lucky anti-tank attack, and other people disliked being unable to hurt parking lots with S3 (and S4 shooting) attacks. So GW made killing vehicles more of a steady process that all units can contribute towards rather than a binary all-or-nothing affair.
It seems like 10th wants to back off on letting S3 and S4 contribute as meaningfully, so I guess we'll see how that shakes out.
That is all well and good, till armies start spaming vehicles or GW creates armies that neither have mass weapons fire, nor a large number of efficient anti tank weapons.
Meh. That's a concept a number of people on here don't understand. Mostly because they probably had a hate on for the army used as an example. Partly because it takes more than a surface look. And it fluctuates around various different "sweet spots" in points tiers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tsagualsa 809431 11519727 wrote:
We have not seen any dedicated anti-tank units yet, specifically not their special rules; there might be dedicated anti-tank squad leaders that stick a juicy ability on the whole unit, or tank-hunter units with nasty abilities that counter much of the increased survivability. We have already seen that one tyranid skill that rolls out army-wide bonuses against specific enemies if you need it, counters like this might exist for other forces as well. Other than that, you'd still need things that can hold obejctives, and most tanks seem to be limited to OC in the single digits, while units of infantry seem to bring 20 or more in some cases.
The problem is wtih GW history in writing rules. Will there be efficient anti tank units? I am sure, at worse after an early edition nerf to all good armies consisting of waves of vehicles. The problem with the special rules and counter mechanics is that all armies, in the game have to get them. Otherwise with GW push to use more vehicles, each army that can't deal with them, will end up very unfun to play with.
People worry about marine stuff, because that is what was shown to us. But what if a 9+MC tyranid army is valid? Or if an ork army can wall off entire parts of the table witch cheap, and now more resilient vehicles, while also running a wave of OC 2 models to swarm objectives?
Oh there are definitely a lot of non-marine things to worry about that you can pickup on looking at the Marine things that were released. Angels of Death (and its sub rules) is (probably) gone. Do we think Hive Mind, Instinctive Behavior etc are also gone? Poisoned Weapons are now probably Anti-(Not-Vehicle?) but Power From Pain, Mob Rule. Strands of Fate, 'Ere We Go, The CSM variants of Angels of Death (Hateful Assault, Savage Volleys, etc), Canticles, and so on.
Wyldhunt wrote: It seems like 10th wants to back off on letting S3 and S4 contribute as meaningfully, so I guess we'll see how that shakes out.
How exactly are they doing that? Increased Toughness doesn't help if everything still wounds on a 6.
To a limited extend - they also reduced AP/Save Mods (tho mostly on higher S weapons), AOC is a strat (for Marines)
Edit to Add: What everyone's missing is how they changed leaders. The SM Lieutenant now gives 6s to hit Auto Wound to everyone in the squad he joins. I don't care what S my attacks are, I care how many I can pack in and reroll. Everything is now a third edition Terminator. I'm not going to waste a plasma cannon on a Terminator, that's what 2,000 lasguns are for.
ArcaneHorror wrote: About stuff like instant death, I'd rather not have it come back unless we're talking an extreme discrepancy in a unit's toughness versus a weapon's strength, and the same goes with sweeping advance. The latter especially seems to be a feel-bad mechanic.
It was the lack of scaling that made those into "feels bad" moment.
I think back to when "Strength D" was introduced in Apocalypse. It always bothered me as that would have been better served as a weapon special rule, but the strength value kept, because just killing whatever just didn't seem to make much sense. I also think that they set the ceiling for what was "Strenght D" far too low, but that's a separate debate. Sweeping Advances had the same thing. Got super lucky and a lone Grot could chase down a full unit of Chosen Terminators. That certainly feels bad.
That's why we need good comparative and scaling mechanics, and not limitess rules (like any strength can wound any toughness!). Instant Death works fine as a mechanic as long as it scales correctly, rather than having weapons that cause "Instant Death". Beyond that you'd have to use the keyword system, and use it sparingly for weapons that realistically shouldn't be in a game of this scale (ie. Volcano Cannons have 'Instant Death' against units with the 'Infantry, Swarms, Bike or Cavalry' keywords, as an out-of-thin-air example).
It could be as simple as continuing the logic of the current wound 'chart' one step further and have triple-toughness+ strength values auto-wound and one-third-toughness- weapons never wound; that would mean that the most ubiquitous smallarm would end up useless against T 9/10 (depending on the exakt wording) and T 12/13 respectively, and that seems a desireable cutoff for many reasons. In practice it would mean that unboosted lasguns cap out at light vehicles and skimmers, while bolters can threaten anything up to IFVs and light tanks.
And with the new Objective Controlled stuff it may not be as hard as it was. I suspect ObSec/ObCon is as messed up as always with 5 Grots beating 4 Intercessors, but we'll see.
I suspect that Grots will be OC 1 regardless of them being troops. Still means three would beat one Intercessor though.
And with the new Objective Controlled stuff it may not be as hard as it was. I suspect ObSec/ObCon is as messed up as always with 5 Grots beating 4 Intercessors, but we'll see.
I suspect that Grots will be OC 1 regardless of them being troops. Still means three would beat one Intercessor though.
The mental image of an intercessor chasing three grots in a wack-a-mole is quite entertaining
I think grots should just go back to like toughness 2, but get oc2 in return. Though I’d like it more if they got some rules to really prompt using them as a bunch of bodies, maybe like a 7” move or something?, inbuilt grot shields maybe
And with the new Objective Controlled stuff it may not be as hard as it was. I suspect ObSec/ObCon is as messed up as always with 5 Grots beating 4 Intercessors, but we'll see.
I suspect that Grots will be OC 1 regardless of them being troops. Still means three would beat one Intercessor though.
That's getting into the range of believable.
WIth Two grots vs one Intercessor, its like trying to outrun the bear jokes i.e. "I don't have to outrun the bear, I have to outrun you.". With three there's a gang up on him potential.
I could easily see that happening with 'chaff' infantry in general - chaos cultists, conscripts etc could be OC1 while the higher quality troops are OC2, to indicate that these poorly trained troops aren't as good at holding ground as those with proper training. It would be a good way to encourage players not just to use the cheapest possible bodies as objective campers all the time.
Agree with Wayniac and Dudeface. Lowered lethality is a good thing. Making small arms less good against vehicles is a valid thing. I just don't want to spend half the game unable to meaningfully hurt my opponent's mechanized skew list because I took a "normal" amount of anti-tank instead of spamming anti-tank. And by extension, I don't want to find myself ignoring half the options in my codex because a skew-heavy meta demands I always take fire dragons over scorpions.
That said, there's still a ton we don't know, and I'm open to change.
The thing is outside the forums, no one was killing vehicles with small arms. So really making vehicles/monsters tougher meant nerfing "anti-tank".
Its still very much in the "wait and see" phase - but I suspect they want to change the idea that almost every boosted up 200 point unit can go smash every other 200 point unit in a turn.
I mean its not as if the 10th edition Terminators won't tear down a 10th Rhino (or Gladiator). Its just that it will take 2-3 fight phases rather than "charge, maybe pop a stratagem to be sure, move on".
Actually, I had some good games using a 10-man intercessor squad to take out vehicles. Simply put, throwing down 60 s4 shots (Auto bolt rifle + Rapid Fire) at things like Doomsday Arks put a serious dint into it - especially once you get rerolls and AP from doctrine. You are looking at ~10 unsaved wounds, and hot dice can carry you into outright killing. A second smaller squad can often finish it if needed.
And with the new Objective Controlled stuff it may not be as hard as it was. I suspect ObSec/ObCon is as messed up as always with 5 Grots beating 4 Intercessors, but we'll see.
I suspect that Grots will be OC 1 regardless of them being troops. Still means three would beat one Intercessor though.
That's getting into the range of believable.
WIth Two grots vs one Intercessor, its like trying to outrun the bear jokes i.e. "I don't have to outrun the bear, I have to outrun you.". With three there's a gang up on him potential.
Controlling objectives is generally weird under both the current and the future rules (as far as we can tell). If one player has 10 blue space marines at the objective and the other 11 spiky ones, you wouldn't expect either of them to have control over the objective but rather that it's currently contested. In the given example of three (or two) grots and a space marine I don't think any of them would realistically be in control of the objective.
Naturally, it wouldn't work on game terms of you could just deny objectives to your opponent by constantly throwing the last remnants of a unit at the objective so there has to be some sort of compromise. I personally think that it would be best if there was some kind of contested status in between either side controlling it, probably based on outnumbering the other side two to one or something.
And with the new Objective Controlled stuff it may not be as hard as it was. I suspect ObSec/ObCon is as messed up as always with 5 Grots beating 4 Intercessors, but we'll see.
I suspect that Grots will be OC 1 regardless of them being troops. Still means three would beat one Intercessor though.
That's getting into the range of believable.
WIth Two grots vs one Intercessor, its like trying to outrun the bear jokes i.e. "I don't have to outrun the bear, I have to outrun you.". With three there's a gang up on him potential.
Controlling objectives is generally weird under both the current and the future rules (as far as we can tell). If one player has 10 blue space marines at the objective and the other 11 spiky ones, you wouldn't expect either of them to have control over the objective but rather that it's currently contested. In the given example of three (or two) grots and a space marine I don't think any of them would realistically be in control of the objective.
Naturally, it wouldn't work on game terms of you could just deny objectives to your opponent by constantly throwing the last remnants of a unit at the objective so there has to be some sort of compromise. I personally think that it would be best if there was some kind of contested status in between either side controlling it, probably based on outnumbering the other side two to one or something.
That sort of exists already - since you can't do actions while engaged. Even if the one side controls the objective, the mission rules or secondaries (if they're still a thing) may give an additional bonus for being able to do some sort of action on it while you're there.
Tsagualsa wrote:It could be as simple as continuing the logic of the current wound 'chart' one step further and have triple-toughness+ strength values auto-wound and one-third-toughness- weapons never wound; that would mean that the most ubiquitous smallarm would end up useless against T 9/10 (depending on the exakt wording) and T 12/13 respectively, and that seems a desireable cutoff for many reasons. In practice it would mean that unboosted lasguns cap out at light vehicles and skimmers, while bolters can threaten anything up to IFVs and light tanks.
Plus at the other end of the scale, it would be nice for weapons like lascannons and meltaguns to auto-wound Guardsmen and the like.
But I'm not holding my breath for it. The wording on Critical Wounds (that you always wound on a 6) implies that the wound table is staying the same.
Dolnikan wrote:Controlling objectives is generally weird under both the current and the future rules (as far as we can tell). If one player has 10 blue space marines at the objective and the other 11 spiky ones, you wouldn't expect either of them to have control over the objective but rather that it's currently contested. In the given example of three (or two) grots and a space marine I don't think any of them would realistically be in control of the objective.
Naturally, it wouldn't work on game terms of you could just deny objectives to your opponent by constantly throwing the last remnants of a unit at the objective so there has to be some sort of compromise. I personally think that it would be best if there was some kind of contested status in between either side controlling it, probably based on outnumbering the other side two to one or something.
It would be pretty easy to say you only control an objective if you have double the OC on it than your opponent. Otherwise it's contested and nobody has it. Random models wouldn't be able to deny control of the objective against any moderately-sized unit, but being outnumbered by one Grot wouldn't decide the battle.
I find the somewhat ballyhooed new mechanic of control a bit silly. Does any unit really 'control' an objective if the enemy is also parked next to it? I'd say no.
I can see why GW wants some kind of tie-breaking function but it seems there are much more important things to emphasize in a war game. I get it; it's trying to clarify new ground. It just seems more like solving a problem of it's own creation.
amanita wrote: I find the somewhat ballyhooed new mechanic of control a bit silly. Does any unit really 'control' an objective if the enemy is also parked next to it? I'd say no.
I can see why GW wants some kind of tie-breaking function but it seems there are much more important things to emphasize in a war game. I get it; it's trying to clarify new ground. It just seems more like solving a problem of it's own creation.
There literally aren't more important things to emphasize? The objective is the point of the battle. Who controls the objective decides who wins the battle. Is literally the entire reason you're at the table at all.
amanita wrote: I find the somewhat ballyhooed new mechanic of control a bit silly. Does any unit really 'control' an objective if the enemy is also parked next to it? I'd say no.
I can see why GW wants some kind of tie-breaking function but it seems there are much more important things to emphasize in a war game. I get it; it's trying to clarify new ground. It just seems more like solving a problem of it's own creation.
It is pretty odd, I agree. It seems to encourage massive scrums of models mashing into each other. It's a sharp contrast over earlier forms of missions that had objective control as being "cleared of opposition" from wither a radius from a point or just table quarters at the end of the game. I think the current model is largely there because of progressive scoring?
Insectum7 wrote: It is pretty odd, I agree. It seems to encourage massive scrums of models mashing into each other. It's a sharp contrast over earlier forms of missions that had objective control as being "cleared of opposition" from wither a radius from a point or just table quarters at the end of the game. I think the current model is largely there because of progressive scoring?
Think of it this way - if control requires all or nothing then what stops someone from denying you control by just throwing small units thereby making it impossible to score?
Insectum7 wrote: It is pretty odd, I agree. It seems to encourage massive scrums of models mashing into each other. It's a sharp contrast over earlier forms of missions that had objective control as being "cleared of opposition" from wither a radius from a point or just table quarters at the end of the game. I think the current model is largely there because of progressive scoring?
Think of it this way - if control requires all or nothing then what stops someone from denying you control by just throwing small units thereby making it impossible to score?
Nothing? Just like in real life?
"Sir, the area is secure, you can send forward the Rear Area-" (explosion, gun fire, enemy screaming)
"Doesn't sound like it!"
"Oh they have a lower-" (chainsword revving, grots screeching) "-lower OC than us" (meltagun chooms)
"Ah, Roger that, sending forward the women and children!"
Insectum7 wrote: It is pretty odd, I agree. It seems to encourage massive scrums of models mashing into each other. It's a sharp contrast over earlier forms of missions that had objective control as being "cleared of opposition" from wither a radius from a point or just table quarters at the end of the game. I think the current model is largely there because of progressive scoring?
Think of it this way - if control requires all or nothing then what stops someone from denying you control by just throwing small units thereby making it impossible to score?
I understand the gameplay reason. The logic remains a bit odd though. How much control do you really have if there are roving bands of enemy forces nearby.
Back when it was table quarters, scoring happened at the end of a 6 turn game where many units had been destroyed or driven off (as Broken troops did not count for scoring). The 'real world' interpretation of that makes more sense. The battle has been fought, and either one side is a clear victor or they aren't. Current version says has you constantly tally points while models are still in the heat of combat. Just feels weird.
Insectum7 wrote: It is pretty odd, I agree. It seems to encourage massive scrums of models mashing into each other. It's a sharp contrast over earlier forms of missions that had objective control as being "cleared of opposition" from wither a radius from a point or just table quarters at the end of the game. I think the current model is largely there because of progressive scoring?
Think of it this way - if control requires all or nothing then what stops someone from denying you control by just throwing small units thereby making it impossible to score?
Nothing? Just like in real life?
"Sir, the area is secure, you can send forward the Rear Area-" (explosion, gun fire, enemy screaming)
"Doesn't sound like it!"
"Oh they have a lower-" (chainsword revving, grots screeching) "-lower OC than us" (meltagun chooms)
"Ah, Roger that, sending forward the women and children!"
Right, well, another nail in the coffin for realism being suitable for good gameplay.
I understand the gameplay reason. The logic remains a bit odd though. How much control do you really have if there are roving bands of enemy forces nearby.
Back when it was table quarters, scoring happened at the end of a 6 turn game where many units had been destroyed or driven off (as Broken troops did not count for scoring). The 'real world' interpretation of that makes more sense. The battle has been fought, and either one side is a clear victor or they aren't. Current version says has you constantly tally points while models are still in the heat of combat. Just feels weird.
There's a number of ways you could look at it.
Your final game score is a representation of how well you held the line or if you pushed territory. Similar to how you see stats for Euro Football where they measure how much time you were in the opponents field and time controlling the ball. In an imaginary world were the game is tied you could conceivably say the team with the greatest overall control was the victor.
The "circles" are a loose representation of some important part of the battlefield be it vantage, archeotech, terrain, etc. Quarters represent that struggle better, but when you're given a whole table quarter for an objective it becomes more about bodies and shooting than it does about physically taking territory. An objective gives a more concise measurement and increases the tension on the field.
Right, well, another nail in the coffin for realism being suitable for good gameplay.
Pffft. Happy to disagree with this one!
Sorry - I shouldn't make that sound like no game would be suitable for such rules. It has it's place, but not in a game where people are concerned about balance as well as having the diversity of armies.
Insectum7 wrote: It is pretty odd, I agree. It seems to encourage massive scrums of models mashing into each other. It's a sharp contrast over earlier forms of missions that had objective control as being "cleared of opposition" from wither a radius from a point or just table quarters at the end of the game. I think the current model is largely there because of progressive scoring?
Think of it this way - if control requires all or nothing then what stops someone from denying you control by just throwing small units thereby making it impossible to score?
If this was about a more serious ruleset then it would be a multi-layer action/reaction and suppression mechanic that allows the holding unit to incapacitate approaching small units, so the enemy has to use good maneuvering and their own action/reaction/suppression tricks to first incapacitate the holding unit then take the objective by storm. So despite it being all-or-nothing you can have a massive number of different situations generated by player interaction on the battlefield.
Right, well, another nail in the coffin for realism being suitable for good gameplay.
Pffft. Happy to disagree with this one!
Sorry - I shouldn't make that sound like no game would be suitable for such rules. It has it's place, but not in a game where people are concerned about balance as well as having the diversity of armies.
Tsagualsa wrote:It could be as simple as continuing the logic of the current wound 'chart' one step further and have triple-toughness+ strength values auto-wound and one-third-toughness- weapons never wound; that would mean that the most ubiquitous smallarm would end up useless against T 9/10 (depending on the exakt wording) and T 12/13 respectively, and that seems a desireable cutoff for many reasons. In practice it would mean that unboosted lasguns cap out at light vehicles and skimmers, while bolters can threaten anything up to IFVs and light tanks.
Plus at the other end of the scale, it would be nice for weapons like lascannons and meltaguns to auto-wound Guardsmen and the like.
But I'm not holding my breath for it. The wording on Critical Wounds (that you always wound on a 6) implies that the wound table is staying the same.
It would be nice if certain high Strength weapons, low number of attack weapons could auto wounds. A simple weapon ability that lets you auto-wound any target whose Toughness is half your Strength would have worked well in 8th or 9th, but if 10th is expanding Strength and Toughness another solution would be needed to avoid antitank weapons being pointed at infantry all day.
Tsagualsa wrote:It could be as simple as continuing the logic of the current wound 'chart' one step further and have triple-toughness+ strength values auto-wound and one-third-toughness- weapons never wound; that would mean that the most ubiquitous smallarm would end up useless against T 9/10 (depending on the exakt wording) and T 12/13 respectively, and that seems a desireable cutoff for many reasons. In practice it would mean that unboosted lasguns cap out at light vehicles and skimmers, while bolters can threaten anything up to IFVs and light tanks.
Plus at the other end of the scale, it would be nice for weapons like lascannons and meltaguns to auto-wound Guardsmen and the like.
But I'm not holding my breath for it. The wording on Critical Wounds (that you always wound on a 6) implies that the wound table is staying the same.
It would be nice if certain high Strength weapons, low number of attack weapons could auto wounds. A simple weapon ability that lets you auto-wound any target whose Toughness is half your Strength would have worked well in 8th or 9th, but if 10th is expanding Strength and Toughness another solution would be needed to avoid antitank weapons turn pointed at infantry all day.
I agree with much of this. I think autowounding when you get to certain S vs. T levels should be a given. It never felt right that a Lascannon or MultiMelta could simply roll a 1 and fail to wound a target like a Guardsmean that was actually struck by it with the Hit roll. Plus it reduces rolling, even if in just a small way.
Certainly. I just don't know how you design a system that allows stuff like one-shot kills of tanks to be balanced.
Bolt Action is balanced if the people playing communicate beforehand. There's tons of units - especially bigger tanks - that you won't see competitively. Instead it will be flamethrowers and body armor.
Your final game score is a representation of how well you held the line or if you pushed territory. Similar to how you see stats for Euro Football where they measure how much time you were in the opponents field and time controlling the ball. In an imaginary world were the game is tied you could conceivably say the team with the greatest overall control was the victor.
The "circles" are a loose representation of some important part of the battlefield be it vantage, archeotech, terrain, etc. Quarters represent that struggle better, but when you're given a whole table quarter for an objective it becomes more about bodies and shooting than it does about physically taking territory. An objective gives a more concise measurement and increases the tension on the field.
Not gonna lie, the football analogy makes it sound absurd- your force got nearly wiped out and holds none of the territory that was being fought over, but you earned style points by holding it for the first four turns so you win? Really?
Progressive scoring seems reasonable to me for time-critical objectives (hold the AA guns, download the data, extract the prisoner, whatever) but for raw territory control it makes no sense. Accepting it as a gameplay abstraction is better than trying to justify it.
The Red Hobbit wrote: It would be nice if certain high Strength weapons, low number of attack weapons could auto wounds. A simple weapon ability that lets you auto-wound any target whose Toughness is half your Strength would have worked well in 8th or 9th, but if 10th is expanding Strength and Toughness another solution would be needed to avoid antitank weapons turn pointed at infantry all day.
Why is this necessary?
Is killing a guardsman or marine with a lascannon that important?
This sort of falls into the 'feels good' category, but not so much on necessary mechanics to make the game play better.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
catbarf wrote: Not gonna lie, the football analogy makes it sound absurd- your force got nearly wiped out and holds none of the territory that was being fought over, but you earned style points by holding it for the first four turns so you win? Really?
Progressive scoring seems reasonable to me for time-critical objectives (hold the AA guns, download the data, extract the prisoner, whatever) but for raw territory control it makes no sense. Accepting it as a gameplay abstraction is better than trying to justify it.
You can choose whatever head cannon is necessary to justify how points are scored. I don't particularly care about the specific details as to why I am scoring points. I care about the tactical method(s) used to score.
Your existence on the battlefield could just be to delay the enemy force as long as possible to allow for some other part of the battlefield to score a major victory.
Daedalus81 wrote: Your existence on the battlefield could just be to delay the enemy force as long as possible to allow for some other part of the battlefield to score a major victory.
If your mission is to hold the line for as long as possible, why would seizing territory, getting killed nearly to a man, and losing it all again be better than successfully defending your deployment zone with only minor casualties?
Again, I don't really mind abstractions for the sake of gameplay, but your justifications aren't making any sense.
Because you're willing to sit around and split hairs when ultimately I really just don't care. I'd rather mentally engage in playing the game instead of making sure what I am doing has some real world related effect.
If they wanted to make missions more realistic, or at least increase their verisimilitude, they could do something like:
Each match has a maximum score of 12.
0 - 4 points are scored based on how many points worth of your army's models remain on the board at the end of the game.
4 - >80%
3 - >60%
2 - >40%
1 - > 20%
0 - <20%
0 - 4 points are scored for holding primary objectives or completing primary tasks. Score one point for each turn you held more objectives than your opponent or completed a primary task.
0 - 4 points are scored for secondary objectives. See your army's data slate for how these points are scored.
Now you get points based on how many of your men survived the mission, how well you did what the top brass wanted you to do, and how well you achieved what local command wanted you to do.
It might even be possible to tweak these percentages so, as an example, Guard might only score 3 points for survival but might earn 5 points for primary objectives. If we're feeling brave, perhaps Khorne or DE might flip that entirely and score based on how few points the enemy has on the table at the end of the game.
You can make gameplay and reality meet closer to the middle if you're willing to make scoring a little bit more complex and recognize that getting tabled should hurt your score.
See, demanding that the objective be clear of enemy is fine in a vacuum, but given they are currently trying to dial back the lethality of game and increase unit staying power in 10th (or at least, this is a stated intention, we'll see how successful they are), then your likely to run into a position where neither side manages to convincingly control the mid board objectives for almost the whole game. The final victory ends up riding on the results of a fight phase between two intercessors and one pissed off ork boy, who are all thats left of a 5 turn winnowing melee thats ground on indecisively the whole game. To continue the football analogy, its like every game going down to a penalty shoot-out: its fine every so often as the nail biting clincher to a hard fought draw, but you dont want it EVERY game.
If you switch form progressive primary scoring to end game control only, then that incentivises 4 turns of hiding and desultory skirmishing until the final turn, when EVERYONE rushes forward to try and claim the objectives at the last second to claim victory.
If you want forces to come forward and fight in the centre of the table, then progressive scoring or something similar, that incentives both armies to push out of thier deployment zones is required to make that happen.
Certainly. I just don't know how you design a system that allows stuff like one-shot kills of tanks to be balanced.
Bolt Action is balanced if the people playing communicate beforehand. There's tons of units - especially bigger tanks - that you won't see competitively. Instead it will be flamethrowers and body armor.
How about you try Chain of Command, where the forces aren't determined (outside of your core platoon) until after the scenario is drawn, and there are many player decisions to make about how to interact with something besides just "kill it or not".
Need to capture an objective in CoC? Well, the enemy Jump Off Points represent his front line, and you will have to capture them in order to get through to the objective without smacking straight into them unprepared. But they are placed by your opponent - with some say from you based on how your patrols advanced - so it will be a hard ask. Typically, though, the attacker has plenty of support available...
Will you go for a small support bombardment, pinning the enemy down while you try to make progress? Hopefully your supporting guns don't get retasked by higher at a bad time!
Bring light mortars perhaps - under your direct control, but somewhat ineffective... except to deploy smoke. Got a formidable enemy strong point? Blind and bypass, if you can't direct assault.
Bringing armor? Good luck! Just know with so much support available, your opponent may have planned for this, so you need to protect your investment from ambushes by enemy infantry with satchel charges, man-portable AT weapons, anti-tank guns, etc. And you better hope they didn't put a minefield that forces your tank into a swamp!
You could just go for fire superiority, with lots of machine-guns providing covering fire to make his life difficult, while you advance with a small team or scout car to probe for weaknesses and force him out into your supporting bullet hoses...
Use your tools well though, your enemy may have less but he has the same choices, if not more!
Daedalus81 wrote:Because you're willing to sit around and split hairs when ultimately I really just don't care. I'd rather mentally engage in playing the game instead of making sure what I am doing has some real world related effect.
Does it matter what the game is to you? Could you mentally engage with MTG or MCP or bolt action?
This sounds very much like "don't get the reason to play the game in the way of actually playing the game!" Which is a bit cart wagging the horse.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
xerxeskingofking wrote: See, demanding that the objective be clear of enemy is fine in a vacuum, but given they are currently trying to dial back the lethality of game and increase unit staying power in 10th (or at least, this is a stated intention, we'll see how successful they are), then your likely to run into a position where neither side manages to convincingly control the mid board objectives for almost the whole game.
If only there were ways you could interact with the enemy other than KILL them, then this contradiction wouldn't exist...
Heck, gw might even be doing this with the broken condition, we will see how it pans out.
Daedalus81 wrote: Because you're willing to sit around and split hairs when ultimately I really just don't care. I'd rather mentally engage in playing the game instead of making sure what I am doing has some real world related effect.
And people don't want real w40k. 20 allarus terminators should be able to drop 300 veteran csm. a demi company of marines should be a problem to handle for an IG regiment. Orks and Tyranids should not exist in forced under a few hundred models, unless it is something like Dread Mobs or Carnifex swarms. Demons , once they get a hold of a space should have infinite respawn, and vice versa GK should make the smaller ones start to lose connection to the real world just by being in eye sight of a demon.
Just like sports are sudo fights and sudo wars, and people can enjoy them. So should wargames be enjoyable to play and realism, especialy in fantasy or sci fi, being a far off Nth style goal to achive, by the game designers.
Daedalus81 wrote: Because you're willing to sit around and split hairs when ultimately I really just don't care. I'd rather mentally engage in playing the game instead of making sure what I am doing has some real world related effect.
And people don't want real w40k. 20 allarus terminators should be able to drop 300 veteran csm. a demi company of marines should be a problem to handle for an IG regiment. Orks and Tyranids should not exist in forced under a few hundred models, unless it is something like Dread Mobs or Carnifex swarms. Demons , once they get a hold of a space should have infinite respawn, and vice versa GK should make the smaller ones start to lose connection to the real world just by being in eye sight of a demon.
Something like that is better for the RTS genre. Have you played Dawn of War: Dark Crusade or Dawn of War 2 by chance?
The game we play, but in general any game. Should do two things, make us want to play it. And reasons for that maybe many, but I think people cover this under the fun aspect. And then keep some sort of faction, identity.
Now, I know there are people who say, they want to play their X as everything. But if something is everything it most often is nothing. So if BA are about those funky jump pack units of various types, there should be lists or at least a list that allows it. If someone wants to play harlequins, then he shouldn't be made to first pick up 1000pts of CWE or DE.
Greenwave, tyranid swarms, tyranid monster mash etc all should exist, and they should be fun to play.
A person who spends a lot of cash on the models and then has to paint them, or pay more cash to do it for him, should not be faced with the risk of finding out that, because they decided to pick X, they just wasted time and money. This is not PoE, the re-grinding of an army doesn't take one or two weeks.
And if all of this means that a Death Jester is not soloing an IG army worth 2500pts, then I am willing to accept that sacrifice at the altar of the game being fun to more people then those that one to play with a Death Jester.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Does it matter what the game is to you? Could you mentally engage with MTG or MCP or bolt action?
This sounds very much like "don't get the reason to play the game in the way of actually playing the game!" Which is a bit cart wagging the horse.
I play Bolt Action regularly. It's the game I play when I'm being less serious. I play with a Tiger, because it's fun. That tank is otherwise pretty meh.
The reason to play the game is to have fun. Having fun takes many shapes. Some people like maneuvering to hit a tank in the side and score a well deserved explode result. I could play Infinity, but I like the lore and models of 40K and I hate the overbaked rules of Infinity. Conversely, one can play any old edition of 40K if they're after rear armor pens.
The problem arises when people are incapable of divorcing themselves from old editions and their other desires. e.g. Lethality is too high, but power fists should hurt tanks a lot
Either you want a balanced game or you don't.
A system with one shot kills and end of game scoring is inherently more difficult to balance. It can be done -- if you want to reduce 80 to 90% of 40Ks units, reduce the model count as well, lock down upgrades and unit sizes, etc.
It certainly behooves people to talk about WW2 games where tanks are all rectangles, guns are basically the same, and nothing is taller than 12'. Trying to differentiate a Kar98 from a Garand would make the game more difficult to play, right? 40K doesn't have these luxuries unless you want to turn termagants into 'guardsmen, but ugly', CSM into Marines ( but like really this time ), and daemons, but like umm...I guess just remove daemons. And Eldar tanks. And a bunch of other stuff.
Unit1126PLL wrote: One might say that including absurdly powerful things is a mistake.
Imagine a WWII game where one side could run the OSS and the other side could play Pacific Islanders, and the scenario is a tank battle...
[Grognard]back in my day,[/grognard] they kept the Custodes out of the wargame, precisely because of these issues
Honestly Custodes really wouldn't have been a problem had they been handled correctly. And besides, any S7+ weapon would have been wounding T5 on 2+s. Main problem with the old system was how MCs were handled, and the lack of a Damage variable once MCs started their inflation around 5th ed.
Hecaton wrote: I'm kind of excited Nids are getting attention in 10th.
It's actually more likely to bring women into the game than any focus on representation of female characters in Imperium factions.
Yeah, what's up with that?
I'm noticing a lot of women 'Nid players in my neck of the woods too...
Not complaining! MORE THE MERRIER!
I wonder if it's the freedom in choosing how they look? Some of the paint jobs that are facsimiles of real world creatures are pretty awesome. It tickles the creative process a bit more.
Karol wrote: But so are orks or eldar, or more or less any non specific name space marine chapter. It has to be something else. God knows what though.
We should probably ask them, lol, but maybe is the asexual-ish nature of nids? Less 'masculine machines of war' and more 'force of nature'. All I know is my wife loves goofy dwarves and goblins.
Karol wrote: But so are orks or eldar, or more or less any non specific name space marine chapter. It has to be something else. God knows what though.
We should probably ask them, lol, but maybe is the asexual-ish nature of nids? Less 'masculine machines of war' and more 'force of nature'. All I know is my wife loves goofy dwarves and goblins.
I always thought that people either picked up the hobby, because either they wanted or liked to play the game or because they want to paint the models. No idea what sexuality would have to do with picking armies. I must say that it is very confusing to hear.
I wonder if it's the freedom in choosing how they look? Some of the paint jobs that are facsimiles of real world creatures are pretty awesome. It tickles the creative process a bit more.
Over the years I’ve had 3 girlfriends who’ve found the nids very cute. LThese are also the kind of women who find bugs in general (especially chibi depictions, such as Lucas the Spider) absolutely adorable.
Hecaton wrote: I'm kind of excited Nids are getting attention in 10th.
It's actually more likely to bring women into the game than any focus on representation of female characters in Imperium factions.
Yeah, what's up with that?
I'm noticing a lot of women 'Nid players in my neck of the woods too...
Not complaining! MORE THE MERRIER!
My suspicion is because they don't look like a military, like the human factions basically all do. The miniature games that I've seen a lot of women playing are MCP and Malifaux, neither of which have the assumption of a military milieu like 40k, Warmahordes, Infinity, etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote: And people don't want real w40k. 20 allarus terminators should be able to drop 300 veteran csm. a demi company of marines should be a problem to handle for an IG regiment. Orks and Tyranids should not exist in forced under a few hundred models, unless it is something like Dread Mobs or Carnifex swarms. Demons , once they get a hold of a space should have infinite respawn, and vice versa GK should make the smaller ones start to lose connection to the real world just by being in eye sight of a demon.
Nah, Custodes can get ganked by Harlequins, you're inflating how durable they are.
Right, well, another nail in the coffin for realism being suitable for good gameplay.
Pffft. Happy to disagree with this one!
Sorry - I shouldn't make that sound like no game would be suitable for such rules. It has it's place, but not in a game where people are concerned about balance as well as having the diversity of armies.
Happy to agree to disagree with that as well!
The problem is the premise. Not all "control" is for clearing a path to evacuate women and children. Control that hill top so you can laze the bombs onto the target. Control that train station to prevent the enemy from embarking. That just requires having more "combat power" as defined by ObSec/Control/whatever than the other person - the representation there is that 3 Intercessors keep 4 grots too busy for one to sneak onto the train.
Certainly. I just don't know how you design a system that allows stuff like one-shot kills of tanks to be balanced.
Bolt Action is balanced if the people playing communicate beforehand. There's tons of units - especially bigger tanks - that you won't see competitively. Instead it will be flamethrowers and body armor.
Epic armageddon only has one shot kills, and is pretty balanced. Everything that does not kill instantly is a temporary suppression, wich makes the unit more vulnerable.
Sure i could see 40k needing some wound and damage tracking, but that is a funny statement as I think most big battle systems have mostly one-shot kills.
Anyways, can 40k ever be balanced anymore? Isn't it just too bloated now?
the problem is, 40k is not a big battle system, although it has the size of one, it is written an marketed as skirmish game and therefore need to have skirmish style damage
Certainly. I just don't know how you design a system that allows stuff like one-shot kills of tanks to be balanced.
Bolt Action is balanced if the people playing communicate beforehand. There's tons of units - especially bigger tanks - that you won't see competitively. Instead it will be flamethrowers and body armor.
Epic armageddon only has one shot kills, and is pretty balanced. Everything that does not kill instantly is a temporary suppression, wich makes the unit more vulnerable.
Sure i could see 40k needing some wound and damage tracking, but that is a funny statement as I think most big battle systems have mostly one-shot kills.
Anyways, can 40k ever be balanced anymore? Isn't it just too bloated now?
Epic Armageddon had one shot kills for non War Machine vehicles, but those vehicles were parts of larger units, essentially acting as squads. I don't think that's a very good analogy.
That said I don't really have an issue with one-shot kills, because A: We've seen it before in 40K and it worked fine when the balance was good, and B: It's both realistic and cinematic, so at least some effort should be taken to model it.
Some of the issue is probably just variance (feels unlucky), but also maybe because it might be a hard thing to defend your tanks against because boards are more crowded than they used to be.
In terms of the number of models fielded in an army these days? I'd agree.
In terms of how zoomed in we are when we look at each model/units equipment and wargear? No, I'd say we're still at the skirmish level.
A relatively clean cut-off point is that we're still talking about individually-based infantry models, which imho puts the game into skirmish scale, as well as the wargear issues you already mentioned. The fundamental unit of the game is still the single soldier, while usually company-level wargames use fireteams or squads as their lowest-level unit.
but we move models, check LOS with models, shoot with models, roll saves for models
just with a lot of them
a big battle game moves, checks LOS, shoots, saves etc with units not models
but people don't want their individual models be more than just markers
but also want to put all of them on the table
hence we have skirmish levels rules and big battle number of models
which is the main reason why 40k games are that slow and we have bloat, as everything goes down to models and not units
but we move models, check LOS with models, shoot with models, roll saves for models
just with a lot of them
a big battle game moves, checks LOS, shoots, saves etc with units not models
but people don't want their individual models be more than just markers
but also want to put all of them on the table
hence we have skirmish levels rules and big battle number of models
which is the main reason why 40k games are that slow and we have bloat, as everything goes down to models and not units
I fully agree - that's what i meant with 'The fundamental unit is the single infantry model'. Most game actions work on a logic that works on a per-model basis.
Karol wrote: But so are orks or eldar, or more or less any non specific name space marine chapter. It has to be something else. God knows what though.
We should probably ask them, lol, but maybe is the asexual-ish nature of nids? Less 'masculine machines of war' and more 'force of nature'. All I know is my wife loves goofy dwarves and goblins.
The problem with many factions in 40k is that they are made for masculine power fantasies. Hell, even Sisters of Battle are still kind of made for men even though they've tried to steer away from that with the recent release.
Nids are free from that. They are just bugs and bugs are fun. No power fantasies(unless you have a fantasy of devouring the world I guess). Plus a lot of freedom of painting and decorating the carapaces.
Also the reason why I like Craftworlds. They tend to be neutral and come in "Taste the rainbow" selection.
I've seen women tend to like Tzeentch a lot as well, partly because of the colors and also possibly again because of the relative lack of hyper-masculinity. Even the Thousand Sons aren't much of a male power fantasy as I don't know anyone who fantasizes about being an automaton made of dust.
The New Edition of Warhammer 40,000 Makes All the Phases Count
The Psychic phase and the Morale Phase are now no more
psychic powers are used throughout the other phases
Smite is used in the the Shooting phase
Morale gets sorted in your Command Phase, when you take Battle-shock tests for any units that have taken enough losses.
Roll a 2D6 for every unit that’s Below Half-strength – that means they’re a squad with less than half of their starting models, or a single model with less than half of their starting Wounds. You’ll need to roll above your new Leadership characteristic – if you fail, that unit suffers some nasty penalties until your next turn:
-OC falls to 0
-Stratagems cannot be used on that unit
-if it Falls Back, it must take a test-roll for every model in the unit
If the old blast rule has been kept, we now have interesting choices to make. A unit with 5 models takes rolls after 3 casualties, while a unit with 6 needs 4 casualties. Even numbers are to be preferred. At the same time we all know what happens at 6 models.
2 model units are immune to morale.
Another interesting point. Even if your sniper doesn't get its job done, you can still get that character to panic.
Spoletta wrote: If the old blast rule has been kept, we now have interesting choices to make. A unit with 5 models takes rolls after 3 casualties, while a unit with 6 needs 4 casualties. Even numbers are to be preferred. At the same time we all know what happens at 6 models.
2 model units are immune to morale.
Another interesting point. Even if your sniper doesn't get its job done, you can still get that character to panic.
Hmm...I wonder if they'll allow 2 model units ( e.g. Spawn ).
The point about the sniper causing panic...really cool.
Spoletta wrote: I have no idea what that combi profile is meant to represent. Single shot, rapid fire 1, mortal wound on infanty on 4+, mortal wound on vehicle on 6.
I'm very confused.
Just an amalgamation of the options I guess. One or two shots with some MW opportunity and slight edge on elite infantry.
Honestly it brings up huge questions about CSM Termies.
So does this mean we can no longer choose our powers?
*sad Thousand Sons noises*
On a bit of a tangent, has there been any rumours on Secondaries in 10th? Always irked me how random they are: "Sergeant, go capture that position! Scratch that, we need you to kill that specific unit over there!"
Valkyrie wrote: So does this mean we can no longer choose our powers?
*sad Thousand Sons noises*
On a bit of a tangent, has there been any rumours on Secondaries in 10th? Always irked me how random they are: "Sergeant, go capture that position! Scratch that, we need you to kill that specific unit over there!"
You might be a bit behind on secondaries - what you're describing is Maelstrom. Those are commonly used in most games atm.
Spoletta wrote: I have no idea what that combi profile is meant to represent. Single shot, rapid fire 1, mortal wound on infanty on 4+, mortal wound on vehicle on 6.
I'm very confused.
Possibly combi-plasma? I'm wondering if it may even be a typo as that Librarian doesn't have a combi-weapon. Regular SM Librarians can take them though so it may well be genuine and not in error.
Spoletta wrote: If the old blast rule has been kept, we now have interesting choices to make. A unit with 5 models takes rolls after 3 casualties, while a unit with 6 needs 4 casualties. Even numbers are to be preferred. At the same time we all know what happens at 6 models.
2 model units are immune to morale.
Another interesting point. Even if your sniper doesn't get its job done, you can still get that character to panic.
Hmm...I wonder if they'll allow 2 model units ( e.g. Spawn ).
Astra Miltiarium FIeld Ordnance Batteries are limited to 2 models only.
Spoletta wrote: I have no idea what that combi profile is meant to represent. Single shot, rapid fire 1, mortal wound on infanty on 4+, mortal wound on vehicle on 6.
I'm very confused.
I thought Anti-Infantry[4+] means it never wounds infantry on worse than 4+. Devastating Wounds then means 6s to wound become mortal wounds.
So it's a bolter, but hits on 4+ instead of 3+, never wounds infantry on worse than 4+ and ignores saves on a wound roll of 6.
Yeah I don't know what that's supposed to be either.
Spoletta wrote: I have no idea what that combi profile is meant to represent. Single shot, rapid fire 1, mortal wound on infanty on 4+, mortal wound on vehicle on 6.
I'm very confused.
I thought Anti-Infantry[4+] means it never wounds infantry on worse than 4+. Devastating Wounds then means 6s to wound become mortal wounds.
So it's a bolter, but hits on 4+ instead of 3+, never wounds infantry on worse than 4+ and ignores saves on a wound roll of 6.
Yeah I don't know what that's supposed to be either.
It could just be a bespoke thing. What other model has a Storm Bolter + Combi?
Spoletta wrote: I have no idea what that combi profile is meant to represent. Single shot, rapid fire 1, mortal wound on infanty on 4+, mortal wound on vehicle on 6.
I'm very confused.
Schrodinger's combi-weapon, it exists in a state of quantum superposition of being a flamer, plasma gun, meltagun, volkite charger, and grenade launcher all at the same time, and whether you succeed or fail at the attack collapses the wavefunction to determine what it was.
Personally I think a better approach to simplifying combi-weapons would have been to say "okay, the special weapon guy doesn't lose his boltgun" and make them just cosmetically different from having a special weapon with a boltgun slung over the shoulder (like how Star Wars Legion support weapons don't lose their basic rifle), but making the combi-weapon a single universal profile (in the same way the Flash Gitz with plasma guns and the Flash Gitz with autoguns do the same thing, or Obliterators don't have distinct weapon profiles anymore) isn't a bad idea either.
Spoletta wrote: I have no idea what that combi profile is meant to represent. Single shot, rapid fire 1, mortal wound on infanty on 4+, mortal wound on vehicle on 6.
I'm very confused.
Schrodinger's combi-weapon, it exists in a state of quantum superposition of being a flamer, plasma gun, meltagun, volkite charger, and grenade launcher all at the same time, and whether you succeed or fail at the attack collapses the wavefunction to determine what it was.
Personally I think a better approach to simplifying combi-weapons would have been to say "okay, the special weapon guy doesn't lose his boltgun" and make them just cosmetically different from having a special weapon with a boltgun slung over the shoulder (like how Star Wars Legion support weapons don't lose their basic rifle), but making the combi-weapon a single universal profile (in the same way the Flash Gitz with plasma guns and the Flash Gitz with autoguns do the same thing, or Obliterators don't have distinct weapon profiles anymore) isn't a bad idea either.
That's not how Combi-Weapons have ever been though. Orks have Combi-Weapons too.
Spoletta wrote: I have no idea what that combi profile is meant to represent. Single shot, rapid fire 1, mortal wound on infanty on 4+, mortal wound on vehicle on 6.
I'm very confused.
I thought Anti-Infantry[4+] means it never wounds infantry on worse than 4+. Devastating Wounds then means 6s to wound become mortal wounds.
So it's a bolter, but hits on 4+ instead of 3+, never wounds infantry on worse than 4+ and ignores saves on a wound roll of 6.
Yeah I don't know what that's supposed to be either.
Anti X causes a critical wound on the determined roll.
Critical wounds become mortals with devastating wounds.
Spoletta wrote: If the old blast rule has been kept, we now have interesting choices to make. A unit with 5 models takes rolls after 3 casualties, while a unit with 6 needs 4 casualties. Even numbers are to be preferred. At the same time we all know what happens at 6 models.
2 model units are immune to morale.
Another interesting point. Even if your sniper doesn't get its job done, you can still get that character to panic.
actually, they could introduce a "pinning" ability to certain weapons that force a battleshock test if you suffer any wounds form them, like snipers, or some of the more horrifying weapons in the lore, or units with something like Warhammer Fantasy battles "Fear" ability, that would again force a battleshock if you were in melee with the unit.
hell, I;d be suprised if the tryanids dont have something like that. maybe it will be the Night lords detachment ability (or rather, the CSM detachment that is "favoured" by the night lords)?
xerxeskingofking wrote: actually, they could introduce a "pinning" ability to certain weapons that force a battleshock test if you suffer any wounds form them, like snipers, or some of the more horrifying weapons in the lore, or units with something like Warhammer Fantasy battles "Fear" ability, that would again force a battleshock if you were in melee with the unit.
hell, I;d be suprised if the tryanids dont have something like that. maybe it will be the Night lords detachment ability (or rather, the CSM detachment that is "favoured" by the night lords)?
Super cool idea, but feels like it would also be really strong. Maybe if it makes you battleshock on your turn regardless so at least you can react to losing control of the objective and try to reinforce.
I like what they're doing with this, the as Catbarf noted rolling for every unit can be a bit much but the effects are significant and I overall like them.
Psychic phase is hit and miss, I like how they integrate it into each phase, but the downside appears to be we don't get much flexibility in our power choice anymore. Unless for armies like 1k Sons and Eldar they plan on making some of the psychic powers stratagems and then detachment specific.
The Librarian examples brings up an interesting question. Previously they could smite in one phase and shoot in another, will they be limited to just one shooting attack in 10th? Or will they be able to shoot everything that isn't a pistol, or just pistols that turn. If it's the latter I'm curious how they'll phrase it so you can't fire off both Psychic powers on your profile.
The Red Hobbit wrote: I like what they're doing with this, the as Catbarf noted rolling for every unit can be a bit much but the effects are significant and I overall like them.
Psychic phase is hit and miss, I like how they integrate it into each phase, but the downside appears to be we don't get much flexibility in our power choice anymore. Unless for armies like 1k Sons and Eldar they plan on making some of the psychic powers stratagems and then detachment specific.
The Librarian examples brings up an interesting question. Previously they could smite in one phase and shoot in another, will they be limited to just one shooting attack in 10th? Or will they be able to shoot everything that isn't a pistol, or just pistols that turn. If it's the latter I'm curious how they'll phrase it so you can't fire off both Psychic powers on your profile.
Smite is "moded" so it's one "weapon". He'll otherwise shoot everything on the profile is my guess.
As for Thousand Sons - my big question is what are squad sorcs doing? Just smite or something more interesting? Probably the former along with their own psychic FNP?
p5freak wrote: Smite, a single weapon, can now, in theory, do 36 MW ? 12 shots with 3 MW each ? Am i understanding that correctly ?
No. You pick one mode. The focused mode allows MW on 6s to wound. Maximum potential is 18MW, but that's so absurdly impossible you'll never see it.
3.5 * .666 * .167 * 2 = 0.8 MW on average
You forgot that smite gains one extra hit with sustained hits 1 when rolling a 6 to hit. Also smite hits on 2s with full rerolls to hit and wound against 1 enemy unit with oath of moment.
Smite is one weapon with two profiles. You cannot fire both profiles in the same way you cannot fire krak and frag missiles from the same missile launcher at the same time.
xerxeskingofking wrote: actually, they could introduce a "pinning" ability to certain weapons that force a battleshock test if you suffer any wounds form them, like snipers, or some of the more horrifying weapons in the lore, or units with something like Warhammer Fantasy battles "Fear" ability, that would again force a battleshock if you were in melee with the unit.
hell, I;d be suprised if the tryanids dont have something like that. maybe it will be the Night lords detachment ability (or rather, the CSM detachment that is "favoured" by the night lords)?
Super cool idea, but feels like it would also be really strong. Maybe if it makes you battleshock on your turn regardless so at least you can react to losing control of the objective and try to reinforce.
yes, sorry, i should clarify i meant it forces you to test at the same time you would for casulties, ie, YOUR command phase. these are just means to force a test without inflicting the required number of casualties for a normal test.
also, note that battleshock is a one turn affect, at least according to that article. "if you fail, that unit suffers some nasty penalties until your next turn." (emphasis mine). I cant determine if you roll every turn after going half strenght, or if its a "one and done" test, but the penatly is time-limited. I would also suspect one of the core strategems is going to be "rally" or something simmilar.
The Red Hobbit wrote: I like what they're doing with this, the as Catbarf noted rolling for every unit can be a bit much but the effects are significant and I overall like them.
Psychic phase is hit and miss, I like how they integrate it into each phase, but the downside appears to be we don't get much flexibility in our power choice anymore. Unless for armies like 1k Sons and Eldar they plan on making some of the psychic powers stratagems and then detachment specific.
The Librarian examples brings up an interesting question. Previously they could smite in one phase and shoot in another, will they be limited to just one shooting attack in 10th? Or will they be able to shoot everything that isn't a pistol, or just pistols that turn. If it's the latter I'm curious how they'll phrase it so you can't fire off both Psychic powers on your profile.
Smite is limited in the same way as choosing frag or krak missiles is limited on the datasheet:
Before selecting torgets for this weapon, select one of its profiles to make attacks with.
I imagine for other psykers they will use similar phrasing or else just give them a single ranged weapon Psychic power.
Tyran wrote: Smite is one weapon with two profiles. You cannot fire both profiles in the same way you cannot fire krak and frag missiles from the same missile launcher at the same time.
xerxeskingofking wrote: yes, sorry, i should clarify i meant it forces you to test at the same time you would for casulties, ie, YOUR command phase. these are just means to force a test without inflicting the required number of casualties for a normal test.
also, note that battleshock is a one turn affect, at least according to that article. "if you fail, that unit suffers some nasty penalties until your next turn." (emphasis mine). I cant determine if you roll every turn after going half strenght, or if its a "one and done" test, but the penatly is time-limited. I would also suspect one of the core strategems is going to be "rally" or something simmilar.
Yea we'll be rolling every affected unit each turn. And good call on the rally - definitely something in that category.
The changes to psychic are going to be great for psychic artillery units (and Tyranids have many of those) but definitely a nerf for buff/debuff psykers.
Fury of the first rule gives the libby +1 to hit against an enemy unit selected with oath of moment.
We don't know if that's the case. They've not explained how or if unit abilities transfer to characters in those units. It could be a one-way thing where character abilities transfer but unit abilities don't. Also, even if they do hit on 2+ it's still not hugely devastating in average. The potential of something that needs to roll 3 6s in a row is not a potential anyone should be worried about.
Fury of the first rule gives the libby +1 to hit against an enemy unit selected with oath of moment.
We don't know if that's the case. They've not explained how or if unit abilities transfer to characters in those units. It could be a one-way thing where character abilities transfer but unit abilities don't. Also, even if they do hit on 2+ it's still not hugely devastating in average. The potential of something that needs to roll 3 6s in a row is not a potential anyone should be worried about.
Hitting on 2+ is relevant if you want to use Oath of the Moomins' reroll to fish for 6's to trigger Sustained & Devastating Wounds to convert the Damage to Mortal Wounds. That's high-risk-ish, uses your one OoM nomination, and still does not get you a great return on what is probably a pretty expensive combination of unit and character.
Tyran wrote: Unless you are trying to take on a tank, I don't really see the point in trying to max mortals.
T5 4++ termies. More mortals will always be more better, but the cost of putting that effort in will be high so "choose wisely", because having two libbies within 24" of you OoM target while they need to be in units won't always be simple.
I like the new morale system. I like that psychic powers are spread throughout other phases now.
Not loving the idea of pre-set psychic powers. Being able to choose what type of powers your psykers favor was a nice bit of character customization/flavor. My mortal wound farseer gives off very different vibes than my support farseer. Hopefully they've just presented it this way for simplicity and we won't see psykers going the way of the haemonculus (zero customization options.)
oni wrote: The new edition hasn't even launched, and the rules layering is already a problem.
I don't think there's a problem yet. We're just seeing things from 10,000 feet.
After rereading everything I don't think characters get their own buff.
In the Character article is says "His Tactical Precision ability grants his subordinates Lethal Hits". The rules also both say "While this model is leading a unit, models in that unit have...".
Wyldhunt wrote: I like the new morale system. I like that psychic powers are spread throughout other phases now.
Not loving the idea of pre-set psychic powers. Being able to choose what type of powers your psykers favor was a nice bit of character customization/flavor. My mortal wound farseer gives off very different vibes than my support farseer. Hopefully they've just presented it this way for simplicity and we won't see psykers going the way of the haemonculus (zero customization options.)
I wouldn't be surprised to see psychic powers as enhancements. Psykers will have the default ones, and then instead of giving them a spicy gun or whatever you can give them Warp Time.
Wyldhunt wrote: I like the new morale system. I like that psychic powers are spread throughout other phases now.
Not loving the idea of pre-set psychic powers. Being able to choose what type of powers your psykers favor was a nice bit of character customization/flavor. My mortal wound farseer gives off very different vibes than my support farseer. Hopefully they've just presented it this way for simplicity and we won't see psykers going the way of the haemonculus (zero customization options.)
I wouldn't be surprised to see psychic powers as enhancements. Psykers will have the default ones, and then instead of giving them a spicy gun or whatever you can give them Warp Time.
Possible. It's also possible that they change their mind (yet again) in the middle of the edition and release something like that old 'Dark Millenium' box with additional wargear, psychic powers and so on. I think their restraint is fine for the Index/get-you-by phase of all of this, but i'd be very suprised if it survived the first couple of codexes and supplements.
Tsagualsa wrote: Possible. It's also possible that they change their mind (yet again) in the middle of the edition and release something like that old 'Dark Millenium' box with additional wargear, psychic powers and so on. I think their restraint is fine for the Index/get-you-by phase of all of this, but i'd be very suprised if it survived the first couple of codexes and supplements.
I think detachments they do in codex will tackle that sort of stuff on it's own. Just swap detachments for difference enhancements that fit the bill.
Wyldhunt wrote: I like the new morale system. I like that psychic powers are spread throughout other phases now.
Not loving the idea of pre-set psychic powers. Being able to choose what type of powers your psykers favor was a nice bit of character customization/flavor. My mortal wound farseer gives off very different vibes than my support farseer. Hopefully they've just presented it this way for simplicity and we won't see psykers going the way of the haemonculus (zero customization options.)
Probably pure fantasy - but hoping GW bite the bullet and just make the Haemonculus a "quasi-Psyker". (Aka a psyker for rules purposes).
But tend to agree with you. Farseers have a lot of iconic psychic powers - and I'm not totally sure how you'd represent that if you get a fixed loadout and that's it.
Tbf they could all be on the datasheet with some rule that you can only cast 2 a turn or whatever.
Arguably though this would apply to Weirdboyz and seemingly no.
Hate to say it, but given the way wargear options have progressed over the last few editions, I won't be surprised at all if picking your psychic powers is gone and psyker-heavy armies just divide up who gets which power(s).
novembermike wrote: I wouldn't be surprised to see psychic powers as enhancements. Psykers will have the default ones, and then instead of giving them a spicy gun or whatever you can give them Warp Time.
Wouldn't want a player to exceed the regulation amount of fun now, would we?
oni wrote: The new edition hasn't even launched, and the rules layering is already a problem.
I don't think there's a problem yet. We're just seeing things from 10,000 feet.
After rereading everything I don't think characters get their own buff.
In the Character article is says "His Tactical Precision ability grants his subordinates Lethal Hits". The rules also both say "While this model is leading a unit, models in that unit have...".
On the other hand, by joining the unit he has become part of it for many purposes.
As tneva pointed out, though, we are looking at this without the complete set of rules, so I know I'm not worrying about it too much just yet.
novembermike wrote: I wouldn't be surprised to see psychic powers as enhancements. Psykers will have the default ones, and then instead of giving them a spicy gun or whatever you can give them Warp Time.
Wouldn't want a player to exceed the regulation amount of fun now, would we?
Given how much bloat was a complaint? Yes, probably.
More rules and less restrictions makes for a spectacle, but not necessarily a great game. 9th is a fun and fluffy system, but it is now terribly difficult to manage.
I am sad to lose much of my customizability, but I am excited to play a tighter game where everyone is having a good time rather than just those with enough time to process rules from all the new codexes each month or two. It is a sacrifice I am ok with given how much more interesting other aspects of the game seem to becoming.
Dysartes wrote: On the other hand, by joining the unit he has become part of it for many purposes.
As tneva pointed out, though, we are looking at this without the complete set of rules, so I know I'm not worrying about it too much just yet.
Yea, totally not stressed about it. I'm sure they'll call it out in the rules for joining units.
novembermike wrote: I wouldn't be surprised to see psychic powers as enhancements. Psykers will have the default ones, and then instead of giving them a spicy gun or whatever you can give them Warp Time.
Wouldn't want a player to exceed the regulation amount of fun now, would we?
Given how much bloat was a complaint? Yes, probably.
More rules and less restrictions makes for a spectacle, but not necessarily a great game. 9th is a fun and fluffy system, but it is now terribly difficult to manage.
I am sad to lose much of my customizability, but I am excited to play a tighter game where everyone is having a good time rather than just those with enough time to process rules from all the new codexes each month or two. It is a sacrifice I am ok with given how much more interesting other aspects of the game seem to becoming.
You can try to justify knighting it, but it's obvious that combining Combi-Weapons like this is terrible decision making.
Daedalus81 wrote: Given how much bloat was a complaint? Yes, probably.
I don't think people are complaining there being too many options of wargear to personalise your characters.
The fact we had pages of "options", and only a few were relevant, that's called bloat, so yes we do complain about it.
Ah, but see, I never complained that there were too many options. I just complained that most of them were false options (read: underpowered). Getting rid of customizability gets rid of the "trap" of taking a subpar choice, but it doesn't help with what I originally wanted (which was to be able to give my units some personality by taking options that change the way they behave/fight.)
The 5th edition Dark Eldar codex is a decent case study for this. Your haemonculus could take several flavors of poison weapons, one of several single-use ranged weapons that were especially potent against different types of targets, and also had wonky options like the fleshgauntlet which was a "bad" melee weapon but would insta-kill a target if you got lucky or the mindphase gauntlet which didn't kill things well but could be used to take the teeth off of certain models/units while your friends did the killing.
So depending on what I wanted him to do, my haemi could be a beatstick, a support character, an assassin, or a delivery system for a tide-changing single-use attack. All those builds could give a haemonculus a different personality or change up how the unit played. Which was very appropriate for the mad scientist unit that spends all day figuring out how to bring whacky variety to harming others. Fluffy as heck. The only downsides were that a couple of the poison weapons were less good than the others, and the gauntlets were a little situational. But on the whole, I vastly preferred that approach to the haemonculus over the zero options version we have now.
Daedalus81 wrote: Given how much bloat was a complaint? Yes, probably.
I don't think people are complaining there being too many options of wargear to personalise your characters.
That's what happened though. There's no way you can know all 15 of my possible traits on top of 27 spells and 6 pacts on top of 30 relics. Not to mention my 9 Cabal abilities and mountain of strats. And that's one book.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
EviscerationPlague wrote: You can try to justify knighting it, but it's obvious that combining Combi-Weapons like this is terrible decision making.
I don't have to justify it. I just have to read this very forum over the past year.
Time and time again people complained about balance and were told that 40K has an absurd amount of variables, which makes it incredibly difficult. But no, GW is stupid / evil.
Lo and behold - we're getting things wrapped up in ways that allow balance to be more achievable.
Be careful what you wish for or what you complain about, I guess.
novembermike wrote: I wouldn't be surprised to see psychic powers as enhancements. Psykers will have the default ones, and then instead of giving them a spicy gun or whatever you can give them Warp Time.
Wouldn't want a player to exceed the regulation amount of fun now, would we?
Given how much bloat was a complaint? Yes, probably.
More rules and less restrictions makes for a spectacle, but not necessarily a great game. 9th is a fun and fluffy system, but it is now terribly difficult to manage.
I am sad to lose much of my customizability, but I am excited to play a tighter game where everyone is having a good time rather than just those with enough time to process rules from all the new codexes each month or two. It is a sacrifice I am ok with given how much more interesting other aspects of the game seem to becoming.
You can try to justify knighting it, but it's obvious that combining Combi-Weapons like this is terrible decision making.
No, its just a decision you don't like.
We need a lot more context to judge it as 'terrible.' Or good.
Daedalus81 wrote: Given how much bloat was a complaint? Yes, probably.
I don't think people are complaining there being too many options of wargear to personalise your characters.
That's what happened though. There's no way you can know all 15 of my possible traits on top of 27 spells and 6 pacts on top of 30 relics. Not to mention my 9 Cabal abilities and mountain of strats. And that's one book.
While bloat is definitely one of my current complaints, character options aren't really the part that bugs me. I find stratagems and doctrine-slot abilities way harder to keep track of and interact with. Giving a character a special ability or better statline always seemed like one of the better rules layers as it gave personality to the enemy characters and the rules were generally simple and static. Giving your warlord the ability to deny the witch because he has anti-psyker wards is simple and fluffy. Necrons/admech having 6 different special rules that show up for a single turn and then disappear is way harder for me to learn/plan around. That said, I'd prefer that warlord traits and relics and such just become options you purchase with points. Like exarch powers.
On the topic of psyhic powers, I'm really hoping they get rid of the restriction that a given power only be usable once per turn. Let both of the wyrd boyz jump around blast stuff. Let both of the warlocks conceal their squad. Let both of the Thousand Sons Sorcerers throw tzeentch fire around without needing to include a dozen versions of the same power in the codex to facilitate that.
Wyldhunt wrote: While bloat is definitely one of my current complaints, character options aren't really the part that bugs me. I find stratagems and doctrine-slot abilities way harder to keep track of and interact with. Giving a character a special ability or better statline always seemed like one of the better rules layers as it gave personality to the enemy characters and the rules were generally simple and static. Giving your warlord the ability to deny the witch because he has anti-psyker wards is simple and fluffy. Necrons/admech having 6 different special rules that show up for a single turn and then disappear is way harder for me to learn/plan around. That said, I'd prefer that warlord traits and relics and such just become options you purchase with points. Like exarch powers.
On the topic of psyhic powers, I'm really hoping they get rid of the restriction that a given power only be usable once per turn. Let both of the wyrd boyz jump around blast stuff. Let both of the warlocks conceal their squad. Let both of the Thousand Sons Sorcerers throw tzeentch fire around without needing to include a dozen versions of the same power in the codex to facilitate that.
They'll definitely be stuff that is 'purchasable'. I don't know if Enhancements will need CP or points. Points would be nice.
The spells appear to have their restriction built in. Only one Weirdboy can cast Da Jump per turn. Otherwise spells are free reign. I do imagine the more impactful ones like Doom will be restricted.
One nice thing about the Weirdboy is he can Da Jump and then snipe a character in the shooting phase with a massive S12 D7 shot ( provided he's with 30 boyz ). And given it's a shooting attack any other Weirdboy can also use their 'Eadbanger.
p5freak wrote: Smite, a single weapon, can now, in theory, do 36 MW ? 12 shots with 3 MW each ? Am i understanding that correctly ?
No one else has followed your logic on this to get to the max damage.
Smite Focused Witchfire [DEVASTATING WOUNDS, SUSTAINED HITS 1 (while leading a unit)]
D6 shots roll a 6 = 6 shots.
6 hit rolls of 6 = 12 hits thanks to SUSTAINED HITS 1.
12 wound rolls of 6 = 12d3 wounds that bypass saves thanks to DEVASTATING WOUNDS.
12 d3 rolls of 3 = 36 damage.
I do wonder if you can be "leading a unit of just yourself" or if you actually have to be in a unit.
I'm interested to see what 5 Scarabs + a Scarab Terminator Sorcerer can do in 10th, feels like a cool little unit. On the comment about 6 man units being good for battleshock purposes, 5 mans with an attached leader will be just that.
I'm also interested to see the combined Force Weapon profile as I converted a pair with swords that were sent to legends mid 9th almost to the day I finished painting them.
show that 10th edition is shaping up to be.
