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.

Voss wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Hammer of Wrath on Assault Marines needs to be clearer, it's easy to interpret it as "roll for each model in the enemy unit".

Imagine a 5 man Assault Squad hitting a 20 strong unit of Termagants and rolling 20 dice, each killing a Gant on a 4+.

This=own, that=enemy. For once gw been consistent on terms for long long time.

That's fair, but it still looks to be easily misinterpretable.

Eh.
'When this unit charges, roll dice for each model in this unit' seems hard to misinterpret.

Actual wording makes it clearer:

"Hammer of Wrath: Each time this unit ends a Charge move, select one enemy unit within Engagement Range of it and roll one D6 for each model in this unit: for each 4+, that enemy unit suffers 1 mortal wound."

So I can see easy confusion over the wording around "select one enemy unit... each model in this unit"

Voss wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Hammer of Wrath on Assault Marines needs to be clearer, it's easy to interpret it as "roll for each model in the enemy unit".

Imagine a 5 man Assault Squad hitting a 20 strong unit of Termagants and rolling 20 dice, each killing a Gant on a 4+.

This=own, that=enemy. For once gw been consistent on terms for long long time.

That's fair, but it still looks to be easily misinterpretable.

Eh.
'When this unit charges, roll dice for each model in this unit' seems hard to misinterpret.

Sure. But I had to read it twice and give it a think. Maybe I'm dumb. But I won't be alone in that

I see it like video game testing (which I'm more proffessionally familiar with than proofreading), where you witness players do mind boggling things. I just wonder if there were a non-legalese way to be clearer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Trickstick wrote:

So I can see easy confusion over the wording around "select one enemy unit... each model in this unit"

Yes exactly.

I know it's just an editing issue but the LS Typhoon is shown with a Typhoon Launcher, Multimelta & Assault Cannon.

And I noticed that Tac Squads are mandatory 10-men now. Fluffy...yes, tactically sound...no, I don't think so. At least they can be armed with 2 of the same special weapons if they want.

Edit: Additionally, something that's been grinding my gears for years now: WHY DOES AN ELIMINATOR SERGEANT NEED TO HAVE A SPECIFIC WEAPON TO USE THE REDPLOY ABILITY? WTF???

 Insectum7 wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Hammer of Wrath on Assault Marines needs to be clearer, it's easy to interpret it as "roll for each model in the enemy unit".

Imagine a 5 man Assault Squad hitting a 20 strong unit of Termagants and rolling 20 dice, each killing a Gant on a 4+.

This=own, that=enemy. For once gw been consistent on terms for long long time.

That's fair, but it still looks to be easily misinterpretable.

Eh.
'When this unit charges, roll dice for each model in this unit' seems hard to misinterpret.

Sure. But I had to read it twice and give it a think. Maybe I'm dumb. But I won't be alone in that

I see it like video game testing (which I'm more proffessionally familiar with than proofreading), where you witness players do mind boggling things. I just wonder if there were a non-legalese way to be clearer.

Ah. I come from the other direction, and the only form of protection from dumb misreadings is the route of library and museum signage, and write everything at the 5th grade reading level (~10 years old, for non-US folks). And even that doesn't stop people.

What works is basically peer pressuring folks who read it wrong (and especially the ones who want to willfully misinterpret things) with the collective understanding of everyone else.

Weee-Wooo. Weeeee-Wooooo. Weee-Wooo. Weeeee-Wooooo.

Hi, Officer Eight from the BS Police here. Citizen we've detected a strong smell of S in this area and we came to investigate.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Spoiler:

EightFoldPath wrote:
I still want to see the Blast rule written down just to make sure we aren't missing something, if it is:
1~5 models (which includes lone models like vehicles): +1 attack
6~10: +2
11~15: +3
It feels off.

It gets wonky as soon as you give every model in a 5 man or 10 man unit a blast weapon. Examples from 9th - Einhyr Hearthguard, Warp Spiders. 10 Warp Spiders as written in 9th but with 10th Blast rule would get 10d6 + 40 shots (75 average) into a 20 man unit of Guard and possibly + 10 if you attach a Leader model to push the unit from 16~20 to 21~25.

It gets really wild if you can dual wield blast weapons (and have them not be twin linked). Examples from 9th - Desolation Squad, Crisis Suits with AFB. 10 Desolation Squad as written in 9th but with 10th Blast rule and Super Frag as their main weapon would get 10d3 + 30 + 40 + 10d3 + 40 (150 average) into a 20 man unit of Guard and possibly + 20 if you attach a Leader model.

Of course, we've not seen those units yet. I'm mainly interested to see if they spotted the problem and found a fix. I think if Blast works as we think, you could even have a compelling 1 shot weapon with Blast on a 10 man squad.

CSM, Necrons and IG have all looked a bit undercooked to me. My (conspiracy) theory is:
- That Space Marines and Tyranids are getting their codex rules previewed.
- Everyone else will have their index rules previewed.
- This leaves room for GW to add another 20% to the later codexes to sell them.

You're jumping the gun on this when the grenade launcher went from D6 to D3. They're aware of the potential. Inceptors abused the hell out of the old rule and now will likely be twin linked instead.

Super Frag Desolation Squads are in fact 10d6 + 10 + 40 + 10d3 + 40 = 145 shots on average into a 20 man unit of Guard.

Citizen, it turns out in fact GW were not aware of the potential of their own rules.

Until next time!

Weee-Wooo. Weeeee-Wooooo. Weee-Wooo. Weeeee-Wooooo.

EightFoldPath wrote:
...20 man unit of Guard.

There are going to be a fair few 26 man Guard units running around...

Voss wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Hammer of Wrath on Assault Marines needs to be clearer, it's easy to interpret it as "roll for each model in the enemy unit".

Imagine a 5 man Assault Squad hitting a 20 strong unit of Termagants and rolling 20 dice, each killing a Gant on a 4+.

This=own, that=enemy. For once gw been consistent on terms for long long time.

That's fair, but it still looks to be easily misinterpretable.

Eh.
'When this unit charges, roll dice for each model in this unit' seems hard to misinterpret.

Sure. But I had to read it twice and give it a think. Maybe I'm dumb. But I won't be alone in that

I see it like video game testing (which I'm more proffessionally familiar with than proofreading), where you witness players do mind boggling things. I just wonder if there were a non-legalese way to be clearer.

Ah. I come from the other direction, and the only form of protection from dumb misreadings is the route of library and museum signage, and write everything at the 5th grade reading level (~10 years old, for non-US folks). And even that doesn't stop people.

What works is basically peer pressuring folks who read it wrong (and especially the ones who want to willfully misinterpret things) with the collective understanding of everyone else.

All well and good, but I bet there's a clearer way write it. Like "roll a dice for each model in the charging unit, on a 4+ yada yada yada"

 Lord Clinto wrote:
I know it's just an editing issue but the LS Typhoon is shown with a Typhoon Launcher, Multimelta & Assault Cannon.

And I noticed that Tac Squads are mandatory 10-men now. Fluffy...yes, tactically sound...no, I don't think so. At least they can be armed with 2 of the same special weapons if they want.

Edit: Additionally, something that's been grinding my gears for years now: WHY DOES AN ELIMITAOR SERGEANT NEED TO HAVE A SPECIFIC WEAPON TO USE THE REDPLOY ABILITY? WTF???

because they designed a model with a cool carbine like weapon and needed to create a reason for anyone to actaully use it as oppose to bringing another sniper rifle.

for a less cynical answer, they wanted to create a sidegrade option where you reduce your primary damage, but gain a defensive ability as a result.

Interestingly, the Las Fusils got better, their now str 9, damage D6 (was str 8, Damage 3). They seem a lot better at the "anti-material rifle", light vehicle counter role they were intended to be used in (although 2 or 3 shots is still a bit iffy in terms of reliability to wound), but have lost a lot of utility against harder targets


speaking of eliminators, I wonder if deathwatch can still run squads of 5 of them via kill team shenanigans?

Voss wrote:

Its mostly gone from the big tanks and drop pods, but rhinos, razorbacks and impulsors still have an 'armor check'

If you mean Terminators can't embark on a Rhino etc, I expected that.

Some of the things I noticed - GW should be buying Vanguard Vets dinner. Not only did they get hit harder than the Sternguard without even a Mortal Wounds mechanic but they're also susceptible to everybody and their sister having an Anti-Fly 2+

The Bikes took a step back (Their Twin bolt-X's are not heavy or assault) but the Bike Captain makes them (and everything else including the attached ATV) assault borrowing from the Ravenguard Detachment special rules.

Again, just about everything and it's sister has Anti-Fly 2+.

Grav and Dreads are likely to be King.

The "Escort" abilities are a neat twist. Go ahead, shoot the Phobos troops camping on the objective right next to the Warsuits.

Incursors shooting first with Oath of Moment feels little mean. I get +1 to hit, and reroll everything?

The Primaris Company Champion came back from Legends.

The Primaris Company Command being Seperate and Super Attached SuperMan compared to the firstborn being normal dudes is a bit of a head scratcher.

The BGV squad from Indomitus has a pretty hefty once per game Alpha Strike - and the Reroll 1's on your 4+ Invulns is interesting.

Primaris/Firstborn Libbies giving Power Armored non-SS dudes a 4++ is nice.

Termie Squads led by a Termie Chaplain for 2+, 4++, 4+++ feels pretty tanky.

Techmarine + Servitors can join a Tac Squad which is kinda wonky, though four hidden 1A Power Fists or 2 extra HB/MM/PC has potential.

The Firstborn/Old School Command Squad is stuck at 5 (Deathwing Command Squad could go to 10) and can't join another unit it would appear, making a strange choice between 10 man squad for max Character buffing and ablative wounds, or 2 ablative models and the specialists.

Regular Intercessors have Sticky Capping, which is nice, they kind of needing something with Heavy Intercessors around.

Scout Squad Guerilla Tactics feels like something sneaky, probably some sort of Outflank potential.

The stealthy snipers with the 12" change to Camo Cloaks looks nice.

Reivers appear to stack. For now - Terror Troops is triggered by "this unit" not "a unit of Reivers" so each "this unit" gives you a -1. For now.

Terminator Assault Squads - in addition to the Reivers - can trigger a Battle Shock Test before the fighting starts - with a different rule which could mean 2 tests at -3 before fighting.

The Contemptor Dread is absolutely hilarious. Better Assault Cannon, 5++, comes back to life on a 2+.

The Brutalis is a monster - even before the Brutalis Charge.

And yes, the Hellblasters being able to kill themselves by overcharging, and then shoot again overcharged is... epic.

Erads aren't going away.

The Desolation Squad ignoring the downsides of Indirect fire on their Castellans is nice.

The TFC got it's Fun (Tremor Shells) back, but the gunner lots the Blessing of the Omnissiah.

Servo Turrets Overwatching on a 4+ could get irritating fast - but I see issues with getting it on them reliably and cheaply enough to make them worth it.

The Predators have a nice bespoke rule - the Destructor especially.

The Gladiators aren't bad, but the Predators definitely closed the distance on them.

The Vindicator looks nice too.

The Repulsor Defensive Array is very funny.

Drop Pod Assault rules survived, and are on the Drop Pod itself.

The Storm Raven is one of the few flyers that might have a shot - with -1D per attack, and the restriction on Dreadnaught embarkation removed now able to drop some nasty infantry, and a Brutalis right on top of someone.

The Bunker got even better, even though you still may not be able to place it - I haven't looked to see how the rules changed - it could make for a GREAT way to save your Sticky Caps but shooting the unit trying to cap it since it needs to be under opponent control at the start or end of the turn.

Cassius may be one of the few ways to make Vanguard Vets pay off.

Calgar's Victrix are no longer optional, and can't be taken for other Heros anymore. And lost their Super Duper Ultramar 3++ Stormshields (but that was expected - I kind of hoped they'd get a Heavy Bolt Pistol as a couple fancy pants BGV guards but oh well) Calgar's Gravis armor is fast.

Chronus still can't pilot Primaris tanks, but almost all the firstborn got better enough its not as painful of a loss.

Telion giving Sniper Scouts Sustained Hits is ok, Precision on the close combat ones would be entertaining.

The Tyrannic War Vets are extremely disappointing bringing back the Preferred Enemy stuff.

Uriel Ventris and his Master Of The Fleet is very interesting. Any one INFANTRY unit - like Gravis - can deep strike without a Drop Pod or Terminator Armor.

Lysander making S6-9 wound his Terminators on 4's and 10+ on 3's isn't too shabby.

Tor Garadon is pretty beefy but very short ranged for Gravis Speed. If he ever does get to actually punch a hefty vehicle - like say a knight - have a camera on the oponent for their reaction to 5 S14 -4 D4 hits that follow the 2 Anti-vehicle 2+ -3 D4 shots.

Pedro is fairly lackluster.

Shrike flies.

Both Salamanders SC's have some potential.

Khan is pretty meh. Maybe the force multiplication is more than it looks like but I don't know... I can see some benefit to Lance on Assault intercessors or Assault on Sternguard - but regular intercessors already have assault and don't really have CCWs worthy of lance. As for Trophy Taker, how many characters will there be on the table?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

xerxeskingofking wrote:

Interestingly, the Las Fusils got better, their now str 9, damage D6 (was str 8, Damage 3). They seem a lot better at the "anti-material rifle", light vehicle counter role they were intended to be used in (although 2 or 3 shots is still a bit iffy in terms of reliability to wound), but have lost a lot of utility against harder targets

They got better, but not as better as the Lascannon they were shorter range versions of which went to S12 D6+1 or whatever.

If you mean Terminators can't embark on a Rhino etc, I expected that.

No. No one was even considering terminators, gravis or jump packs in rhinos- that was expected by everyone.

I'm saying the primaris restrictions on vehicles still exist for rhinos, razorbacks and impulsors:

Phobos and Tacticus keywords (so Intercessors, Sternguard, Reivers, Incursors and that other I-word) can't board rhinos or razorbacks.
And impulsors are limited to only phobos and tacticus, so old marines still can't board them.


Its particularly annoying for Sternguard, because they created a situation where you can use old marine models for them, but they can't be joined by old marine characters or ride in old marine transports.

EightFoldPath wrote:
Super Frag Desolation Squads are in fact 10d6 + 10 + 40 + 10d3 + 40 = 145 shots on average into a 20 man unit of Guard.

Citizen, it turns out in fact GW were not aware of the potential of their own rules.

Yeah, its kind of crazy.

I'm also a bit mystified by the rise of "this unit can shoot through walls!" ("the penalty for indirect fire is -1 to hit and the target gains cover.")
But uh... these guys are actually really good at shooting through walls so, uh, give them +1 to hit and ignores cover. As a treat.

They've learnt nothing and forgotten nothing.

Voss wrote:

If you mean Terminators can't embark on a Rhino etc, I expected that.

No. No one was even considering terminators, gravis or jump packs in rhinos- that was expected by everyone.

I'm saying the primaris restrictions on vehicles still exist for rhinos, razorbacks and impulsors:

Phobos and Tacticus keywords (so Intercessors, Sternguard, Reivers, Incursors and that other I-word) can't board rhinos or razorbacks.
And impulsors are limited to only phobos and tacticus, so old marines still can't board them.

Wow.

Minus a couple of exceptions,* Space Marine transports no longer care whether a Primaris unit is riding in the back or not.

* The Rhino, Razorback, and Impulsor are still specialised for certain squad types, and many larger models like Terminators and Gravis-armoured Space Marines still have their own restrictions.

Was this there before?

Geez, if I were going to start trolling I'd paint up the rest of my 30 metal Sniper Scouts.

Stormraven can't be damaged by D1 weapons. I wonder if that will last.

From the WarCom article?

Some of it was. I don't think they called out the rhino, razorback and impulsor when first posted.

Terminators & Gravis were, but no one was particularly surprised or concerned by that.

Tyel wrote:

EightFoldPath wrote:
Super Frag Desolation Squads are in fact 10d6 + 10 + 40 + 10d3 + 40 = 145 shots on average into a 20 man unit of Guard.

Citizen, it turns out in fact GW were not aware of the potential of their own rules.

Yeah, its kind of crazy.

I'm also a bit mystified by the rise of "this unit can shoot through walls!" ("the penalty for indirect fire is -1 to hit and the target gains cover.")
But uh... these guys are actually really good at shooting through walls so, uh, give them +1 to hit and ignores cover. As a treat.

They've learnt nothing and forgotten nothing.

To be fair to GW, the complete ignoring of the indirect "penalty" only applies to 10d3 + 40 + d6 + 4 shots (67.5) on the unit, which is a very reasonable amount of indirect shooting.

And the condition to gain this rule is very challenging, by requiring your ignore line of sight shooting unit to stand still it really forces a tough decision on to the player.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Geez, if I were going to start trolling I'd paint up the rest of my 30 metal Sniper Scouts.

Stormraven can't be damaged by D1 weapons. I wonder if that will last.

Yeah, I believe that came up with a Death Guard stratagem as well. There doesn't seem to be a 'minimum of 1 clause' anywhere, and there needs to be.
Redemptor Dreadnought has the same rule.

Breton wrote:

Voss wrote:

If you mean Terminators can't embark on a Rhino etc, I expected that.

No. No one was even considering terminators, gravis or jump packs in rhinos- that was expected by everyone.

I'm saying the primaris restrictions on vehicles still exist for rhinos, razorbacks and impulsors:

Phobos and Tacticus keywords (so Intercessors, Sternguard, Reivers, Incursors and that other I-word) can't board rhinos or razorbacks.
And impulsors are limited to only phobos and tacticus, so old marines still can't board them.

Wow.

Minus a couple of exceptions,* Space Marine transports no longer care whether a Primaris unit is riding in the back or not.

* The Rhino, Razorback, and Impulsor are still specialised for certain squad types, and many larger models like Terminators and Gravis-armoured Space Marines still have their own restrictions.

Was this there before?

Yes, this footnote was in the original article at its release date.

EightFoldPath wrote:
Weee-Wooo. Weeeee-Wooooo. Weee-Wooo. Weeeee-Wooooo.

Hi, Officer Eight from the BS Police here. Citizen we've detected a strong smell of S in this area and we came to investigate.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Spoiler:

EightFoldPath wrote:
I still want to see the Blast rule written down just to make sure we aren't missing something, if it is:
1~5 models (which includes lone models like vehicles): +1 attack
6~10: +2
11~15: +3
It feels off.

It gets wonky as soon as you give every model in a 5 man or 10 man unit a blast weapon. Examples from 9th - Einhyr Hearthguard, Warp Spiders. 10 Warp Spiders as written in 9th but with 10th Blast rule would get 10d6 + 40 shots (75 average) into a 20 man unit of Guard and possibly + 10 if you attach a Leader model to push the unit from 16~20 to 21~25.

It gets really wild if you can dual wield blast weapons (and have them not be twin linked). Examples from 9th - Desolation Squad, Crisis Suits with AFB. 10 Desolation Squad as written in 9th but with 10th Blast rule and Super Frag as their main weapon would get 10d3 + 30 + 40 + 10d3 + 40 (150 average) into a 20 man unit of Guard and possibly + 20 if you attach a Leader model.

Of course, we've not seen those units yet. I'm mainly interested to see if they spotted the problem and found a fix. I think if Blast works as we think, you could even have a compelling 1 shot weapon with Blast on a 10 man squad.

CSM, Necrons and IG have all looked a bit undercooked to me. My (conspiracy) theory is:
- That Space Marines and Tyranids are getting their codex rules previewed.
- Everyone else will have their index rules previewed.
- This leaves room for GW to add another 20% to the later codexes to sell them.

You're jumping the gun on this when the grenade launcher went from D6 to D3. They're aware of the potential. Inceptors abused the hell out of the old rule and now will likely be twin linked instead.

Super Frag Desolation Squads are in fact 10d6 + 10 + 40 + 10d3 + 40 = 145 shots on average into a 20 man unit of Guard.

Citizen, it turns out in fact GW were not aware of the potential of their own rules.

Until next time!

Weee-Wooo. Weeeee-Wooooo. Weee-Wooo. Weeeee-Wooooo.

And yet Inceptors lost D3 and Blast and got twin-linked, but you got me! I'm glad you held on to that so strongly. Do you feel better now?

 Insectum7 wrote:

Voss wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Hammer of Wrath on Assault Marines needs to be clearer, it's easy to interpret it as "roll for each model in the enemy unit".

Imagine a 5 man Assault Squad hitting a 20 strong unit of Termagants and rolling 20 dice, each killing a Gant on a 4+.

This=own, that=enemy. For once gw been consistent on terms for long long time.

That's fair, but it still looks to be easily misinterpretable.

Eh.
'When this unit charges, roll dice for each model in this unit' seems hard to misinterpret.

Sure. But I had to read it twice and give it a think. Maybe I'm dumb. But I won't be alone in that

I see it like video game testing (which I'm more proffessionally familiar with than proofreading), where you witness players do mind boggling things. I just wonder if there were a non-legalese way to be clearer.

Ah. I come from the other direction, and the only form of protection from dumb misreadings is the route of library and museum signage, and write everything at the 5th grade reading level (~10 years old, for non-US folks). And even that doesn't stop people.

What works is basically peer pressuring folks who read it wrong (and especially the ones who want to willfully misinterpret things) with the collective understanding of everyone else.

All well and good, but I bet there's a clearer way write it. Like "roll a dice for each model in the charging unit, on a 4+ yada yada yada"

And then do something similar but slightly different wording for every rule that deals with own or enemy unit.

tneva82 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Voss wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Hammer of Wrath on Assault Marines needs to be clearer, it's easy to interpret it as "roll for each model in the enemy unit".

Imagine a 5 man Assault Squad hitting a 20 strong unit of Termagants and rolling 20 dice, each killing a Gant on a 4+.

This=own, that=enemy. For once gw been consistent on terms for long long time.

That's fair, but it still looks to be easily misinterpretable.

Eh.
'When this unit charges, roll dice for each model in this unit' seems hard to misinterpret.

Sure. But I had to read it twice and give it a think. Maybe I'm dumb. But I won't be alone in that

I see it like video game testing (which I'm more proffessionally familiar with than proofreading), where you witness players do mind boggling things. I just wonder if there were a non-legalese way to be clearer.

Ah. I come from the other direction, and the only form of protection from dumb misreadings is the route of library and museum signage, and write everything at the 5th grade reading level (~10 years old, for non-US folks). And even that doesn't stop people.

What works is basically peer pressuring folks who read it wrong (and especially the ones who want to willfully misinterpret things) with the collective understanding of everyone else.

All well and good, but I bet there's a clearer way write it. Like "roll a dice for each model in the charging unit, on a 4+ yada yada yada"

And then do something similar but slightly different wording for every rule that deals with own or enemy unit.

If the argument is "GW couldn't have possibly made it clearer", well I'm just not going to agree.

Breton wrote:

Voss wrote:

If you mean Terminators can't embark on a Rhino etc, I expected that.

No. No one was even considering terminators, gravis or jump packs in rhinos- that was expected by everyone.

I'm saying the primaris restrictions on vehicles still exist for rhinos, razorbacks and impulsors:

Phobos and Tacticus keywords (so Intercessors, Sternguard, Reivers, Incursors and that other I-word) can't board rhinos or razorbacks.
And impulsors are limited to only phobos and tacticus, so old marines still can't board them.

Wow.

Minus a couple of exceptions,* Space Marine transports no longer care whether a Primaris unit is riding in the back or not.

* The Rhino, Razorback, and Impulsor are still specialised for certain squad types, and many larger models like Terminators and Gravis-armoured Space Marines still have their own restrictions.

Was this there before?

Yes. When article came up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Voss wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Hammer of Wrath on Assault Marines needs to be clearer, it's easy to interpret it as "roll for each model in the enemy unit".

Imagine a 5 man Assault Squad hitting a 20 strong unit of Termagants and rolling 20 dice, each killing a Gant on a 4+.

This=own, that=enemy. For once gw been consistent on terms for long long time.

That's fair, but it still looks to be easily misinterpretable.

Eh.
'When this unit charges, roll dice for each model in this unit' seems hard to misinterpret.

Sure. But I had to read it twice and give it a think. Maybe I'm dumb. But I won't be alone in that

I see it like video game testing (which I'm more proffessionally familiar with than proofreading), where you witness players do mind boggling things. I just wonder if there were a non-legalese way to be clearer.

Ah. I come from the other direction, and the only form of protection from dumb misreadings is the route of library and museum signage, and write everything at the 5th grade reading level (~10 years old, for non-US folks). And even that doesn't stop people.

What works is basically peer pressuring folks who read it wrong (and especially the ones who want to willfully misinterpret things) with the collective understanding of everyone else.

All well and good, but I bet there's a clearer way write it. Like "roll a dice for each model in the charging unit, on a 4+ yada yada yada"

And then do something similar but slightly different wording for every rule that deals with own or enemy unit.

If the argument is "GW couldn't have possibly made it clearer", well I'm just not going to agree.

Well question is do we want consistent terminology in rules for unit doing effect and target or unique bespoke almost same but still different rule for practically every rule?

Why after years it's problem now to have consistent terms?

Insectum7 wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Hammer of Wrath on Assault Marines needs to be clearer, it's easy to interpret it as "roll for each model in the enemy unit".

Imagine a 5 man Assault Squad hitting a 20 strong unit of Termagants and rolling 20 dice, each killing a Gant on a 4+.

This=own, that=enemy. For once gw been consistent on terms for long long time.

That's fair, but it still looks to be easily misinterpretable.

Eh.
'When this unit charges, roll dice for each model in this unit' seems hard to misinterpret.

Sure. But I had to read it twice and give it a think. Maybe I'm dumb. But I won't be alone in that

I see it like video game testing (which I'm more proffessionally familiar with than proofreading), where you witness players do mind boggling things. I just wonder if there were a non-legalese way to be clearer.

I read it twice as well, so you're not alone. If they wanted to make it foolproof I suppose they could have changed "each model in this unit" to "each model in the attacking unit". I would have said go with "each terminator in this unit" since it's not a USR you don't have to generalize it as "unit" instead of using their name, but in that scenario then it may exclude the leader as well. Plus it'll make it hard to copy paste this non-USR later

Automatically Appended Next Post:

EightFoldPath wrote:Weee-Wooo. Weeeee-Wooooo. Weee-Wooo. Weeeee-Wooooo.

Hi, Officer Eight from the BS Police here. Citizen we've detected a strong smell of S in this area and we came to investigate.

Exalted

Voss wrote:
From the WarCom article?

Some of it was. I don't think they called out the rhino, razorback and impulsor when first posted.

Terminators & Gravis were, but no one was particularly surprised or concerned by that.

By the same token I wonder how often its going to come up:

Phobos Captains can lead Scout Squads - and can't get in the Land Speeder Storm

Sicarius can lead Sternguard.

As can Cassius.

Any guesses on upcoming special characters about to cross the Rubicon?

Those are the only cross over Leader/Units I see on a first pass. Most Primaris Characters also don't have an armor keyword.

Oof. Most Primaris Characters don't have an armor keyword. Or at least the special ones.

Uriel is not Tacticus.
Tiggy.
Khan
Adrax
Shrike is Jump Pack so Phobos doesn't matter here but he doesn't have it.

So we just went from New Recruit Pulpface telling Chapter Master Calgar he can't ride in the Land Raider to New Recruit Scorchcheek McStumpArm telling Chief Librarian Tigurius he can't get in the Impulsor, but the Rhino will take him and Captain Ventris somewhere.

So lets have a laugh at that one, and get back to How Often Will It Matter?

Cross Unit leaders appears to be pretty rare with one scout, and two sternguards plus any of the other SC's I forgot to finish checking, I just saw Vulkan can lead Infernus Squads.

Anybody have their plans upset by not taking Rhinos or Razorbacks?

Maybe some firstborn in an Impulsor for the Shield Dome? Captain + Command Squad? I could see that especially given how lackluster the Rhino and Razorback are.

10 Primaris in a Transport? Drop Pod for cheap, or ride em around in a Stormraven, Land Raider, or Repulsor. I'm not sure I'd put them in a Rhino even if I could, no matter how cheap.

tneva82 wrote:

Well question is do we want consistent terminology in rules for unit doing effect and target or unique bespoke almost same but still different rule for practically every rule?

Why after years it's problem now to have consistent terms?

That's not the question. The question is, can you write a genericized rule that's clearer? To which the answer, I'm going to say, is "yes".

This is the first time I really feel alienated from the game. I hate the layout and the weapon profile changes. Vanguard got the 'chosen' treatment. Tactical marines are now 10 which seems like the opposite of tactical. And yet my impression isn't one of greater balance as the payoff for all this.
It feels less balanced than 9th with less customization, more clunky layout, near equal bloat of complexity (far as memorization). Overall complete meh from me.
I don't even play marines anymore and I'm bummed for marine players.

The lack of Combat Squadding sucks.

Especially when you have a Razorback that only carries 6 models. You can't actually put a Tactical Squad in a Razorback. Well, until four of them have been killed, I guess. :/

Agreed on the bloat and complexity, the complexity is lower than 9th but still higher than I expected. Going through SM, the iconic starter faction, I wasn't expected a unique'ish special ability on every single unit.

I prefer the layout, but it definitely wastes space in a lot of cases.

 Insectum7 wrote:
The lack of Combat Squadding sucks.

Especially when you have a Razorback that only carries 6 models. You can't actually put a Tactical Squad in a Razorback. Well, until four of them have been killed, I guess. :/

They should have done with they did with the Venom and it's puzzling as to why they didn't.

Anybody have their plans upset by not taking Rhinos or Razorbacks?

Only a little. I was planning an entirely classic marine list (almost all HH models, to double dip both games), but was willing to take the new Sternguard and terminators (and dread).

Not being able to put them in a rhino is something of an inconvenience, since the plan was mostly mechanized. In actual play, it probably won't matter much (I won't want them in a vehicle most of the time), but it dings the theme in an unnecessary way.

On the plus side, I actually have more flexibility with tactical and devastator squads than I expected. I wasn't expecting the option to do rhino rush with heavy flamer devastators. Not sure I'd actually do it, but its a thing now, and definitely cool for Salamanders players.

^Yah, Tacs and Devs seem fine other than the inane combi-weapon thing.