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.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Which is why they did supplements.

But I guess they've decided not to iterate there either...

Yeah, I feel as much as it caused problems in chaos land they made an effort to make it so there isn't as much shared between them, but for the loyalists it's a much larger swathe of the unit choices, which outs it back firmly into "1 book and a supplement". Or as this is, "unlock these units extra, here's your new rules and a selection of detachments et al.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Which is why they did supplements.

Which is part of the problem. Is it so hard to just have "Marines gone loco" as a unit entry itself? Do we NEED Death Company by name because otherwise it's not Blood Angels?

Just noticed that the GK Teleport Assault rule only specifies "Grey Knights" units; wonder if we have incoming Remove and Deep Strike Land Raiders?

 Lord Clinto wrote:
Just noticed that the GK Teleport Assault rule only specifies "Grey Knights" units; wonder if we have incoming Remove and Deep Strike Land Raiders?

It specifies 'Grey Knight units with this ability' - they just need to leave it off the Datasheet, like they did with the Custodes Army Rule and SoS.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Don't forget Bobby G even stated that the codex was more of a set of guidelines than anything and doesn't enforce them stringently.

And then in the same breath said "But Oaths of Moment? Yeah you should all be doing that all the time. I mean, that's kind of what Space Marines are all about!"

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Nemesis being consolidated is a good thing.

You have an unusual definition of the word 'good'. I mean, not even "Twin-Linked" on a pair of Nemesis Scimitars?

Sorry - good is too strong a word. There's a happy medium that could be found I'm sure.

Just happy to see the end of the GK weapon issues, which seemed more abused than any other.

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Lord Clinto wrote:
Just noticed that the GK Teleport Assault rule only specifies "Grey Knights" units; wonder if we have incoming Remove and Deep Strike Land Raiders?

It specifies 'Grey Knight units with this ability' - they just need to leave it off the Datasheet, like they did with the Custodes Army Rule and SoS.

Good point.

Purgation Squad shows the "Core: Deep Strike" and "Faction: Teleport Assault". So I guess the datasheet will determine if they can use it.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Which is why they did supplements.

Which is part of the problem. Is it so hard to just have "Marines gone loco" as a unit entry itself? Do we NEED Death Company by name because otherwise it's not Blood Angels?

yes, because DC is different from lets say Wulfen. Same way DW terminators are different from Wolfguard or how SG is different from TWC.

Oh, Psilencers & Psycannons aren't heavy weapons anymore. Hitting on 3+ base, no "heavy" keyword.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Which is why they did supplements.

Which is part of the problem. Is it so hard to just have "Marines gone loco" as a unit entry itself? Do we NEED Death Company by name because otherwise it's not Blood Angels?

Yes, yes we do need Death Company to be their own thing.

They're so different from Wulfen or Dragon Claws or Abominations! They have red crosses!

Credit where it's due, Grey Knights teleporting around like Dawn of War termies is actually pretty cool. Not a word I use for that faction very often.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
They're so different from Wulfen or Dragon Claws or Abominations! They have red crosses!

Wulfen can just be Mutant Marines. They don't NEED to be called Wulfen, it isn't a difficult concept to grasp.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
Credit where it's due, Grey Knights teleporting around like Dawn of War termies is actually pretty cool. Not a word I use for that faction very often.

I know it's flanderised, but it I also like that they're not Thousand Sons, but Grey ( and no lopsided daemon rules ). I think they've done a decent job so far of making each army feel different on it's face.

Chaos is simple strong leaders. That's what every chaos warbands has in common Including the ols legions(demon primarchs) it is litteraly what holds their fighting forces together. The most giften, the strongest, the smartest the most blessed by the gods. It obvious in all the books all the lore.

Regular space marines fallow the authority the chapter master is listened to becuse he is the chapter master, not because he is the best fighter (though he is usually very good at fightinng) he dosent need to be the smartest, he dosent need to be the best. Chaos should have a strong undisputed leader of their warbands and everything is built around that.

A mechanic where they acheve goals and are blessed for the rest of the match by the gods would also be cool.

Boosykes wrote:
Chaos is simple strong leaders. That's what every chaos warbands has in common Including the ols legions(demon primarchs) it is litteraly what holds their fighting forces together. The most giften, the strongest, the smartest the most blessed by the gods. It obvious in all the books all the lore.

Regular space marines fallow the authority the chapter master is listened to becuse he is the chapter master, not because he is the best fighter (though he is usually very good at fightinng) he dosent need to be the smartest, he dosent need to be the best. Chaos should have a strong undisputed leader of their warbands and everything is built around that.

A mechanic where they acheve goals and are blessed for the rest of the match by the gods would also be cool.

Not all of the Traitor Legions are led by a Daemon Primarch. And some are known for their distrust and rebellion against leadership. the "Gods'. AVE DOMINUS NOX!!

Dai wrote:

Karol wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Space Wolves are famous for not following the Codex Astartes and they are not alone in the annuals of the Adeptus Astartes.

How is this relevant? Space Wolves are getting their own book

And they shouldn't

They had one since 2ed. If they don't get one then non faction should.

They were in fact the first ever Warhammer 40k codex. If that isnt a reason to keep it around for tradition sake I don't know what is.

Well Tradition in and of itself isn't really a reason to keep a codex around, but they're deviation is.

Breton wrote:

Dai wrote:

Karol wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Space Wolves are famous for not following the Codex Astartes and they are not alone in the annuals of the Adeptus Astartes.

How is this relevant? Space Wolves are getting their own book

And they shouldn't

They had one since 2ed. If they don't get one then non faction should.

They were in fact the first ever Warhammer 40k codex. If that isnt a reason to keep it around for tradition sake I don't know what is.

Well Tradition in and of itself isn't really a reason to keep a codex around, but they're deviation is.

Harlequins and Eldar are different factions in the same Codex.
I think that Generic Marines and Viking Marines can be in the same 'Dex too.

But, apparently, not the Chaos Gods loving Word Bearers, and the Chaos Gods ignoring Night Lords. Because, apparently, all CSM are now Word Bearers.

(Seriously, are the 40k writers just trying to push CSM players into 30k now)

 JNAProductions wrote:

Breton wrote:

Dai wrote:

Karol wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Space Wolves are famous for not following the Codex Astartes and they are not alone in the annuals of the Adeptus Astartes.

How is this relevant? Space Wolves are getting their own book

And they shouldn't

They had one since 2ed. If they don't get one then non faction should.

They were in fact the first ever Warhammer 40k codex. If that isnt a reason to keep it around for tradition sake I don't know what is.

Well Tradition in and of itself isn't really a reason to keep a codex around, but they're deviation is.

Harlequins and Eldar are different factions in the same Codex.
I think that Generic Marines and Viking Marines can be in the same 'Dex too.

Harlequinns are closer to Inquisition/Imperial Agents than a seperate faction but I'm ok with splitting out the Harlies. More fluff is always nice.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
But, apparently, not the Chaos Gods loving Word Bearers, and the Chaos Gods ignoring Night Lords. Because, apparently, all CSM are now Word Bearers.

(Seriously, are the 40k writers just trying to push CSM players into 30k now)

It really seems that way. Just look at the Night Lords legion rules, as well as their inductii. They were written by someone who honest to his gets what the legion is supposed to be and how it should play, and who took the time to make them both thematic and useful at once.

GK teleport shenanigans are pretty cool I guess, but the army doesn't feel like an army of psykers like it did before.

Obviously when the dex comes, there will be a detachment that does feel like an army of psykers- after seeing Ksons, I now know that GW can do it despite the curb stomping of psychic rules, so I'm sure one of our detachments will make it possible.

Could be waiting awhile for that dex though.

In the meantime, Here we are! Oh, nope, we're actually over here. (No we aren't).

 morganfreeman wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
But, apparently, not the Chaos Gods loving Word Bearers, and the Chaos Gods ignoring Night Lords. Because, apparently, all CSM are now Word Bearers.

(Seriously, are the 40k writers just trying to push CSM players into 30k now)

It really seems that way. Just look at the Night Lords legion rules, as well as their inductii. They were written by someone who honest to his gets what the legion is supposed to be and how it should play, and who took the time to make them both thematic and useful at once.

Yeah. It definitely feels like the 30k writers actually understand the Traitor Legions better than the 40k writers.

Edit: And to an extreme scale where the 8th is concerned.

I'm convinced that different teams wrote different parts of this book and never spoke to one another during the development process. Their inconsistency is hair-tearingly frustrating.

What the hell am I talking about?

Well, almost all the remaining rules for 10th have leaked. You can watch this full 73m video on it, or Auspex's 20m summary. Up to you.

In it we get the rules for disembarking from a destroyed transport:

Deploy within 3".
Roll a D6 for each model.
For each 1, the unit suffers a MW.

If a model cannot deploy within 3", it can deploy within 6", but the unit suffers a MW on a 1-3 rather than a 1.

Why the hell isn't Desperate Breakout using the exact same mechanic?

Rather than insta-killing models regardless of toughness/wounds/save on a 1-2, you cause Mortal Wounds on a 1-2.

Why not use the same damned mechanic rather than creating a weird new method of causing damage that ignores all the basic rules of causing damage?

It's so fething frustrating...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I'm convinced that different teams wrote different parts of this book and never spoke to one another during the development process. Their inconsistency is hair-tearingly frustrating.

What the hell am I talking about?

Well, almost all the remaining rules for 10th have leaked. You can watch this full 73m video on it, or Auspex's 20m summary. Up to you.

In it we get the rules for disembarking from a destroyed transport:

Deploy within 3".
Roll a D6 for each model.
For each 1, the unit suffers a MW.

If a model cannot deploy within 3", it can deploy within 6", but the unit suffers a MW on a 1-3 rather than a 1.

Why the hell isn't Desperate Breakout using the exact same mechanic?

Rather than insta-killing models regardless of toughness/wounds/save on a 1-2, you cause Mortal Wounds on a 1-2.

Why not use the same damned mechanic rather than creating a weird new method of causing damage that ignores all the basic rules of causing damage?

It's so fething frustrating...

Because they are not the same game situation.

In one case you are talking about a transport being popped. Normal event. A player put stuff into a transport and the other player destroyed it. If they had used the desperate escape rules for disembarking no one would use transports because it would be too dangerous. It is too much of an advantage given to the attacker for not that special of an achievement.

On the other hand you have the case of battleshocked unit trying to run away from melee. Creating that situation is a lot harder for the attacker, and rewarding him with "maybe some MW" doesn't give him an incentive to pursue this game situation. To create a game with real tactical choices, you have to balance how much an impact a certain move can bring to the table with how difficult is for a player to pull that move.

At the moment they are balanced. If they did it like you proposed, the game would be worse, because you would remove for a player the option of trying to trap a unit with a combined assault of melee units and battleshock sources.

Spoletta wrote:
Because they are not the same game situation.

So we need two different sets of mechanics to determine how people die from being caught in something (exploding transport vs melee) with wildly differing outcomes (MW vs insta-death regardless of wounds) but having combi-weapons with different profiles is just a bridge too far!

Spoletta wrote:
On the other hand you have the case of battleshocked unit trying to run away from melee. Creating that situation is a lot harder for the attacker, and rewarding him with "maybe some MW" doesn't give him an incentive to pursue this game situation. To create a game with real tactical choices, you have to balance how much an impact a certain move can bring to the table with how difficult is for a player to pull that move.

I don't believe you. I think causing MW to 1/3rd of the unit is a pretty hefty penalty for being able to run away.

This is the same situation, especially on a game of this scale: It's units being caught in a dangerous situation where getting out safely is impossible and it will result in damage to the unit in some degree. The difference is one is scalable and uses and existing mechanic inherent to the rules of the game whereas the other invents an entirely new method of killing things that circumvents all existing rules and doesn't scale.

There is no need to differentiate these two situations with entirely different mechanics.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Because they are not the same game situation.

So we need two different sets of mechanics to determine how people die from being caught in something (exploding transport vs melee) with wildly differing outcomes (MW vs insta-death regardless of wounds) but having combi-weapons with different profiles is just a bridge too far!

Spoletta wrote:
On the other hand you have the case of battleshocked unit trying to run away from melee. Creating that situation is a lot harder for the attacker, and rewarding him with "maybe some MW" doesn't give him an incentive to pursue this game situation. To create a game with real tactical choices, you have to balance how much an impact a certain move can bring to the table with how difficult is for a player to pull that move.

I don't believe you. I think causing MW to 1/3rd of the unit is a pretty hefty penalty for being able to run away.

It is for W1 models.
But if you manage to Battleshock a squad of Allarus Custodians, get them in melee, and force them to fall back, you'd need a squad of 12 to kill ONE.

 JNAProductions wrote:
It is for W1 models.

That's. The. Point.

Tougher things shouldn't just insta-die like that.

 JNAProductions wrote:
But if you manage to Battleshock a squad of Allarus Custodians, get them in melee, and force them to fall back, you'd need a squad of 12 to kill ONE.

Yes. And?

And that's not fine.

If you manage to battleshock a high discipline unit like Allarus AND put them in a situation where they have to run, you shouldn't be rewarded with one wound on one guy.

That's a get out of prison free ticket. That's bad for the game.

Also I still don't understand why in your mind a transport being popped and a unit running for their lives while surrounded are the same game situation.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
It is for W1 models.

That's. The. Point.

Tougher things shouldn't just insta-die like that.

 JNAProductions wrote:
But if you manage to Battleshock a squad of Allarus Custodians, get them in melee, and force them to fall back, you'd need a squad of 12 to kill ONE.

Yes. And?

It'd be a bit like Damage 1 lascannons, they'd feel awful to use. If after Battleshocking a squad of Allarus Custodians by using a Relic and an ability and a bit of luck they still had zero chance of suffering real consequences it would feel bad.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
It is for W1 models.

That's. The. Point.

Tougher things shouldn't just insta-die like that.

 JNAProductions wrote:
But if you manage to Battleshock a squad of Allarus Custodians, get them in melee, and force them to fall back, you'd need a squad of 12 to kill ONE.

Yes. And?

With a Leadership of 6+, you've got a just over 40% chance of making them fail a Battleshock test with a -1 penalty, such as from a Screamer Killer's Plasma.
If they maintain their current max size of 6, then if you manage to get them to take a Battleshock test, fail it, charge them, survive their melee, and concentrate enough force to threaten them or catch them in a position where they need to fall back to get somewhere else, you'd expect to half-kill ONE Allarus, from a max-sized squad.
Actually, scratch that. You'd expect to do one wound, since they have a 4+++ against Mortals.

The odds of doing no mortal wounds to a six-man squad? Just over one in three.
Killing one? Fourth fifths of a percent.

Again-this is already a tough situation. You're not likely to Battleshock them even with a penalty to their roll.
You're not likely to force them to fall back while Battleshocked, since their melee is pretty good and they can't hold objectives, so there's not even much point in falling back onto an objective or something.
So if you pull that all off... I don't think it's unreasonable to think you should have better than two in three odds of doing ANY damage, and better than one in five odds of doing evne half the wounds of one singular model.