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.

 Traditio wrote:

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:Vets + Forward Sentries + Aegis Defense Barricade = 3+ cover save. They're still T3, though.

What do you want to bet that GW is going to figure out a way to give you TEQ guardsmen?

There's probably already a way, I just haven't thought it up.

 Traditio wrote:

Let's be clear on this: imperial guard and orks are getting a MASSIVE boost in durability.

Well, on one hand, an ork in the open is going to suffer 1/6 less casualties vs regular bolters. On the other hand, an ork in cover will suffer more casualties vs heavier weapons and identical casualties vs bolters. Furthermore, there will be morale tests that will increase death count. So unless there is some serious battleshock mitigation hordes are even less durable than before. And much less in larger blobs cause the enemy can concentrate fire and force more extra casualties.

However, i'm pretty sure there's going to be some sort of battleshock mitigation for larger squads and for orks in particular.

koooaei wrote:Well, on one hand, an ork in the open is going to suffer 1/6 less casualties vs regular bolters.

'eavy armor.

If you still have the option to get 4+ 'eavy armor, I think that it's going to be worth its points.

 Traditio wrote:

koooaei wrote:Well, on one hand, an ork in the open is going to suffer 1/6 less casualties vs regular bolters.

'eavy armor.

If you still have the option to get 4+ 'eavy armor, I think that it's going to be worth its points.

I've never found Carapace Armour to worth all that much for vets. I stick it on them sometimes, but as a whole, they're stiffer behind the gunline with Camo Nets.

In general, I've found resilience not all it's cracked up to be. Having more cheaper units with big guns works out better than a few tough ones. Making them dead first is the best protection.

 Traditio wrote:

koooaei wrote:Well, on one hand, an ork in the open is going to suffer 1/6 less casualties vs regular bolters.

'eavy armor.

If you still have the option to get 4+ 'eavy armor, I think that it's going to be worth its points.

This can be a solution but we know nothing about 'eavy armor cost and if it's even an option. And the 40% increase in price to get a 33% better save that can still be mitigated and is wholly ignored by morale system might make footslogging 'ard boyz actually more fragile than t-shird boyz point for point. It's a no-brainer for trukkboyz though.

Anywayz. Time shall tell. If nothing else changes, i don't see footslogging hordes being any good. But we can always go back to trukk rushes and msu.

Each general in AoS has the ability to use Inspiring presence [make one unit immune to battleshock for the turn] on one unit per turn. If your fielding a 50 man blob squad. Why would you not use it on that squad?

 insaniak wrote:



Same AP as Bolters. Because reasons.

Bolters and Lasguns having the same save modifier worked just fine in Rogue Trader and 2nd Edition. I don't imagine it's a problem now.

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:Well, Marines don't come in big enough units to be affected seriously. Grey Hunters are up to 10, and Blood Claws are the biggest I found in my book at up to 15. Do Neophytes go up to 20?

FWIW, Black Templar Crusader Squads currently can have up to 20 members.
0-1 Sword Brother, replacing an Initiate
5-10 Initiates
0-10 Neophytes, dependent on Initiate count.

Who knows if that unit will remain the same or even exist in the next edition, though. Blood Claw counts are similar, they may go up in price.

The other bit of reasoning there is that if you give most standard infantry weapons AP -1, then:
1) You create the weird situation where bolters and heavy bolters are equally good at ignoring armor, or
2) heavy bolters knock TEQs down to a 4+ save, which seems perverse, and so on down the line: 5+ from a krak missile? Too much AP makes armor nearly useless, requiring invulns and other hackery everywhere, and we're back to the current nasty status quo.

Templates being just dice rolls is definitely a benefit, because it let's us get on with the game and not wait 45 minutes for you to scatter every one of your 12 wyvern templates. Ugh.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

koooaei wrote:Well, on one hand, an ork in the open is going to suffer 1/6 less casualties vs regular bolters.

'eavy armor.

If you still have the option to get 4+ 'eavy armor, I think that it's going to be worth its points.

I've never found Carapace Armour to worth all that much for vets. I stick it on them sometimes, but as a whole, they're stiffer behind the gunline with Camo Nets.

Armor and cover are now on the same modifier spectrum, so a piece of cover or a better armor amounts to the same thing. Now carapace will stack with camo nets, if there is still such a thing.

HandofMars wrote:

Armor and cover are now on the same modifier spectrum, so a piece of cover or a better armor amounts to the same thing. Now carapace will stack with camo nets, if there is still such a thing.

3

I got the impression that GW are making Cover and Concealment different.
So Carapace armour will increase save (as will cover)
But camo gear/smoke launchers and other equivalents (Stealth/Shrouded etc) will instead modify the to-hit rolls.

Which would make sense really

I wonder if they'll do something interesting with Tank Shock.
Its always been an underwhelming thing anyway.

Assuming it not disappearing all together, I can imagine it ceasing to being a morale type thing and more like a squashy type thing.

Maybe something like half of starting wounds equals the number of D6 attacks at a strength equal to half the toughness of the vehicle . Then hitting on a 6+ at slow movement, 5+ at normal movement and 4+ at a fast.

Since all vehicles have A stat presumably tank shock is now represented by vehicle charging into close combat.

tneva82 wrote:
Since all vehicles have A stat presumably tank shock is now represented by vehicle charging into close combat.

Do they? I've missed that (where should I be looking?). That'd be simpler. Do they have a strength value too?

They have said all models have same stat block. No more different stat blocks for vehicles.

tneva82 wrote:
They have said all models have same stat block. No more different stat blocks for vehicles.

I knew that, but I'd imagined attacks and strength to end up as an "*" without a listed value, same as when comparing a dreadnought with a rhino in current rules

 obsidianaura wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
They have said all models have same stat block. No more different stat blocks for vehicles.

I knew that, but I'd imagined attacks and strength to end up as an "*" without a listed value, same as when comparing a dreadnought with a rhino in current rules

I believe they said 'vehicles' now get a single attack at high strength in cc. Which begs a question of whether vehicles can run down hordes of Orks surrounding them or whether they still only get the one attack.

That one attack could cause D6 hits for all we know.