Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Quixote wrote:
I wonder if character vehicles (like a Knight) will be issuing challenges.

So like...that poor Chaplain is well ****ed.

Not big on these duelling rules. If you are going to get into the nitty gritty of duels, then the worst thing you can do IMO is still have people strike first or second.

Not being able to strike at all before your opponent kills you removes the interactivity something at the scale of a duel should be granting.


To get the actual back and forth they should start either start with the highest I with a single dice and then flick to the other character, alternating between individual attacks, or have them strike simultaneously and give the higher I model bonus attacks to reflect their speed.

No matter how many fancy rules you provide, having one model wait to see if it survives its duel is just no fun for anyone.

SamusDrake wrote:

 Quixote wrote:
I wonder if character vehicles (like a Knight) will be issuing challenges.

So like...that poor Chaplain is well ****ed.

I was thinking of some poor sod Sergeant in a Solar Auxilla Lasrifle Section.

"SARGE! The giant robot knight is calling for you... specifically!"

 Quixote wrote:


I was thinking of some poor sod Sergeant in a Solar Auxilla Lasrifle Section.

"SARGE! The giant robot knight is calling for you... specifically!"

HAHAHAHAHAA!

"Well??? Where is he? Lets'be'avin'him!"

 Hellebore wrote:
Not big on these duelling rules. If you are going to get into the nitty gritty of duels, then the worst thing you can do IMO is still have people strike first or second.

Not being able to strike at all before your opponent kills you removes the interactivity something at the scale of a duel should be granting.


To get the actual back and forth they should start either start with the highest I with a single dice and then flick to the other character, alternating between individual attacks, or have them strike simultaneously and give the higher I model bonus attacks to reflect their speed.

No matter how many fancy rules you provide, having one model wait to see if it survives its duel is just no fun for anyone.

Yeah, this is one of the cases where following combat closer along the lines of how it's set up in Kill Team would be better, since at least you can plan to be defensive via parry/block versus just going all out on offense.

Rulebook is in the wild now thanks to one of those eBay listings, pictures popping up all over the place. Nothing from the army books though.

 Marshal Loss wrote:
Rulebook is in the wild now thanks to one of those eBay listings, pictures popping up all over the place. Nothing from the army books though.

Had a look, I'm off the game completely. I wasn't a fan of 9thbed army building and I'm not super joyed to see 15 unit types all locked in littleboxes arbitrarily when there are also basically no mandatory requirements for an army beyond a character.

6 pages of rules for challenges, but they've Simplified vehicles down to 40k levels almost. It's very all over the place with needless complexity in places imo.

A few things spoiled.

Vehicle damage being the only nice one - glancing hits are a D3 table of Tacticas Statuses with no HP loss, penetrating is just HP loss equal to Damage with no suppression.

Everything else is... pretty bad. FOC is indeed like 8th edition but worse - a clusterfeth of tiny detachments - the bigger of which grand bonuses to the more basic types of units - and units split into no less than 15 battlefield roles. Terminators are their own battlefield role with their own slot... which is pointless because as most support types they come 2 slots to a "terminator detachment". Bleh.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
A few things spoiled.

Vehicle damage being the only nice one - glancing hits are a D3 table of Tacticas Statuses with no HP loss, penetrating is just HP loss equal to Damage with no suppression.

Everything else is... pretty bad. FOC is indeed like 8th edition but worse - a clusterfeth of tiny detachments - the bigger of which grand bonuses to the more basic types of units - and units split into no less than 15 battlefield roles. Terminators are their own battlefield role with their own slot... which is pointless because as most support types they come 2 slots to a "terminator detachment". Bleh.

This is what bothers me, the vehicle rules are actually not in line with what this rules set stands for. They would be perfect for 40k however, the tactical statuses also good for 40k where there are less other things to consider.

But they're in here, drowning in loads of just... stuff.

One of the more bizarre page leaks indicates that during any Charge, both units Snap Fire at each other with Assault weapons.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Everything else is... pretty bad. FOC is indeed like 8th edition but worse - a clusterfeth of tiny detachments - the bigger of which grand bonuses to the more basic types of units - and units split into no less than 15 battlefield roles. Terminators are their own battlefield role with their own slot... which is pointless because as most support types they come 2 slots to a "terminator detachment". Bleh.

That does not sound good, but then nothing does when you're describing it...

As with WH40k, the move away from a 'restrictive' FOC might satisfy the players who just want their favourite toys on the table, but it leads to s**t looking armies.

 Snord wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Everything else is... pretty bad. FOC is indeed like 8th edition but worse - a clusterfeth of tiny detachments - the bigger of which grand bonuses to the more basic types of units - and units split into no less than 15 battlefield roles. Terminators are their own battlefield role with their own slot... which is pointless because as most support types they come 2 slots to a "terminator detachment". Bleh.

That does not sound good, but then nothing does when you're describing it...

As with WH40k, the move away from a 'restrictive' FOC might satisfy the players who just want their favourite toys on the table, but it leads to s**t looking armies.

I mean its a verbatim explanation of the page, I aren't sure how else you can explain it lol

And yet I've had no luck explaining how it's worse to the sycophants in the HH discord...

From what I see you will have fewer unit slots overall, and need to spam HQs to unlock anything that isn't the first 4 Troops, usually 1 HQ to 2 non-HQ. So you'd need 5 HQ just to get to the 4 Elites, 3 Fast, 3 Heavy of yore. But of course you can take something dumb like 3 HQ 6 Heavy. So the only ones who benefit are spammers.

And by the looks of it you can game it a little by taking an army of only allies with no models of the main faction, and get a slightly better HQ to non HQ ratio. Ain't nobody proofread this gak.

Dudeface wrote:
I mean its a verbatim explanation of the page, I aren't sure how else you can explain it lol

How can it be both 'verbatim' (which means literally the same words) and an explanation? It's a highly subjective interpretation, from someone who tends to put the worst possible spin on everything rules-related. Whether or not he's correct in this case is another issue.

 Snord wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
I mean its a verbatim explanation of the page, I aren't sure how else you can explain it lol

How can it be both 'verbatim' (which means literally the same words) and an explanation? It's a highly subjective interpretation, from someone who tends to put the worst possible spin on everything rules-related. Whether or not he's correct in this case is another issue.

How is this not a relevant description?

FOC is indeed like 8th edition but worse - a clusterfeth of tiny detachments - the bigger of which grand bonuses to the more basic types of units - and units split into no less than 15 battlefield roles. Terminators are their own battlefield role with their own slot... which is pointless because as most support types they come 2 slots to a "terminator detachment".

 lord_blackfang wrote:
A few things spoiled.

Everything else is... pretty bad. FOC is indeed like 8th edition but worse - a clusterfeth of tiny detachments - the bigger of which grand bonuses to the more basic types of units - and units split into no less than 15 battlefield roles. Terminators are their own battlefield role with their own slot... which is pointless because as most support types they come 2 slots to a "terminator detachment". Bleh.

Almost sounds like Flames of War, which I love. This could be quite cool!

No one gonna share the pics or even a link so we can see for ourselves?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
No one gonna share the pics or even a link so we can see for ourselves?

Amended the image, it was farting out, links here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Warhammer30k/comments/1l8hafo/rulebook_leaks/?share_id=esFLCP0ono3ehOZTk3HeR&utm_content=1&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_source=share&utm_term=3

https://www.reddit.com/user/BitsHammer/comments/1l8hc0e/rulebook_leaks_2/?share_id=jBEPSjGV1hLr8LhUw_55a&utm_content=1&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_source=share&utm_term=3

Dudeface wrote:
How is this not a relevant description?

Your initial (entirely gratuitous) comment was wrong - it was not 'a verbatim explanation'. Now you're saying it was a 'relevant description' - wtf does that mean?

Now that the actual wording has been provided, people can form their own view. And yes, Blackfang's assessment may well prove to be accurate.

Ahhh, Photato.

Lovely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
From the clear pics? I like Snapshots being more accurate the higher your base BS.

Shred is interesting.

We can also extrapolate from Suppressive that some weapons will apply negative modifiers to mental stat checks.

That I really like. Having never been particularly persuaded of Pinning since 3rd Ed (too few weapons, with too few shots, rarely killed much, and most stuff had high enough Ld a failed test, all things considered, was rare) I do prefer having a built in modifier.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ooooh, and Damage Table does indeed provide Tactical Status to vehicles. Well done whoever speculated/wished for that earlier!

Looks like i may be the minority but I hate a lot of this. It looks like someones homebrew draft rules that were published without playtest or edit.

Complexity for the sake of complexity and additional granularity where it wasnt needed or wanted at the expense of simplifying other aspects of core gameplay that actually were fun. I didnt ask for critical hit effects or 4 mental stats - they might add something to gameplay but you took away the risk v reward of deep strike and the vehicle damage table.

Poorly worded, phrased, and structured rules writing (the way shred is written nearly gave me a stroke) and layout (advanced reactions for flyers are in a separate section of the book instead of keeping them with the other advanced reactions where im more likely to already be looking during a game).

Etc. etc. etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lord_blackfang wrote:


Vehicle damage being the only nice one - glancing hits are a D3 table of Tacticas Statuses with no HP loss, penetrating is just HP loss equal to Damage with no suppression.

Did you not catch that duplicate results on the glancing hit table cause the loss of HP? You can very easily destroy a light vehicle by glancing it to death with lighter weapons like heavy bolters.

Army building gives me Legions Imperialis vibes.

I don’t think Shred is overly wordy.

It makes it clear. Shred 5+ applies an additional wound, in excess my weapons D stat, should my opponent fail the associated save. And provides nothing again Armour Penetration (which is the wounding equivalent against vehicles)

Meeting the Shred (X) cannot automatically wound - so if I have Shred 5+, need a 6+ to wound based on S v T? Rolling a 5 to wound achieves nowt.

That’s….pretty FAQ proof in isolation. Isolation important word here because a lot of FAQ stuff arises from rules interacting with each other.

Just because a wording is lengthy, doesn’t mean it’s not succinct.

FOC wise? Prime Slots are….interesting. They essentially allow us to soup a unit, or a model in a unit, filling that slot. Or we can use the Logistics one to add an option to the detachment we otherwise may not have access to. It’s also seemingly similar in practice to LI, which I’m quite fond of.

Reactions. Too blurry to read, but seems we have to accrue points. Will need literally clearer info to really say more.

Those afflicted by any Tactical Status have universal nerfs (I1 in combat, never count as stationary, can’t hold or contest objectives and so on). Which opens up possibilities.

Vehicles can be Pinned, Stunned and Suppresed all at once. Irritated we didn’t get the Armour Penetration rules shown off.

So what happened with them being happy with where the rules were, and no widescale re-write. There are changes to nearly every part of the game.

And I've yet to see a single leak that made me think that sounds good.

Time to buy those last two Libers for 2.0 and call it a day. Wait and see what 4.0 brings in 2028.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
One of the more bizarre page leaks indicates that during any Charge, both units Snap Fire at each other with Assault weapons.

Do you not enjoy fishing for 6s ???

Fishing for 5+, if you’re BS4.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Reddit images are gone :(

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Fishing for 5+, if you’re BS4.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Reddit images are gone :(

Lol GW got sadmad

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Vehicle damage being the only nice one - glancing hits are a D3 table of Tacticas Statuses with no HP loss, penetrating is just HP loss equal to Damage with no suppression.

Seems kind of weird that a glancing hit could knock/stun a tank for a turn but a shot that blows right through the armor, potentially killing crew inside, only does HP damage with no other ill effects. Well, until all the HP are removed and it blows up.

Das_Ubermike wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Vehicle damage being the only nice one - glancing hits are a D3 table of Tacticas Statuses with no HP loss, penetrating is just HP loss equal to Damage with no suppression.

Seems kind of weird that a glancing hit could knock/stun a tank for a turn but a shot that blows right through the armor, potentially killing crew inside, only does HP damage with no other ill effects. Well, until all the HP are removed and it blows up.

The status isn't for a turn, it persists until healed.

Dudeface wrote:

Das_Ubermike wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Vehicle damage being the only nice one - glancing hits are a D3 table of Tacticas Statuses with no HP loss, penetrating is just HP loss equal to Damage with no suppression.

Seems kind of weird that a glancing hit could knock/stun a tank for a turn but a shot that blows right through the armor, potentially killing crew inside, only does HP damage with no other ill effects. Well, until all the HP are removed and it blows up.

The status isn't for a turn, it persists until healed.

Then that seems even worse. It's an edge case, I know, but I can envision a world where you'd rather get a glancing hit to stun the vehicle until you can finish it off next turn in CC, rather than penning it and allowing it freedom of action with full firepower in the next turn. I get that they probably didn't want to make pens too strong, but yeesh.