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.

They mentioned in a preview but I believe they misspoke. It should be 1st rank is within 1" while second rank is base to base contact with 1st rank.

Base to base contact with the first rank is a whole can of worms considering there is no official base sizing.

Who knows, GW might surprise us and start making the Titans and equivalents in plastic as a made-to-order type thing. A Git can dream

A git can dream indeed

 Afrodactyl wrote:
Who knows, GW might surprise us and start making the Titans and equivalents in plastic as a made-to-order type thing. A Git can dream

No offense intended what so ever I just have a hard time understanding why someone want a model the size of a kid in a minature war game?

Is it just a modeling thing like Big stompy robot? The idea of transporting then moving that huge cumbersome thing around just sounds troublesome.

Is it to see your opponents face when you pull out somthing large enough to beat him to death and set it on the table a cross from him(actually this does sound pretty funny).

Just curious.

Well. Warhammer, while being an actual game is also a miniature hobby. Many people just have large models for the sake of it. Most that even own the gargantuan squiggoth dont play with them, and if they do, not very often.

I have a gargantuan squiggoth, not because i assumed it would rock anyones world, but because it was awesome looking, and i fell in love with it, when i saw it for the first time during Dawn of war 1. I have used it maybe 2 times during the entirety of 9th.

So yea when you pull out a big large stompy model that usually never sees play, you know you're in for a fun game.

Boosykes wrote:

 Afrodactyl wrote:
Who knows, GW might surprise us and start making the Titans and equivalents in plastic as a made-to-order type thing. A Git can dream

No offense intended what so ever I just have a hard time understanding why someone want a model the size of a kid in a minature war game?

Is it just a modeling thing like Big stompy robot? The idea of transporting then moving that huge cumbersome thing around just sounds troublesome.

Is it to see your opponents face when you pull out somthing large enough to beat him to death and set it on the table a cross from him(actually this does sound pretty funny).

Just curious.

I'd never take it anywhere, as you said it would be a huge pain to transport. It would only ever see use in a display board or games at my house.

For me it's more that I get to make dinosaur noises while stomping it around the board and be silly the entire time. The childlike glee in getting to play with a giant monster figure.

And as others have said, when the giant model comes out everyone knows you're not taking yourself too seriously and you're just in it for a good time.

The gargantuan squiggoth model is pretty much indestructible anyways, the worst thing that could happen when transporting it is having it crush other models.

I'm with Beardedragon though, I got it because I liked the model, and I only ever play it for silly games for narrative reasons. It has not place in competitive play.

Thank you for sharing. That does sound kinda fun, and sometime I can be way too serious.

 The Red Hobbit wrote:
They mentioned in a preview but I believe they misspoke. It should be 1st rank is within 1" while second rank is base to base contact with 1st rank.

Base to base contact with the first rank is a whole can of worms considering there is no official base sizing.

Why go for i believe's when we can check what rules say.

When a unit makes its melee attacks, only models in that unit
that are either within Engagement Range of an enemy unit, or
in base-to-base contact with another model from their own
unit that is itself in base-to-base contact with an enemy unit,
can fight.

So if first rank is within 1" but not in b2b only 1st rank fights. 2nd rank can't attack.

If 1st rank is b2b it attacks and 2nd rank b2b with 1st rank fights.

Boosykes wrote:

 Afrodactyl wrote:
Who knows, GW might surprise us and start making the Titans and equivalents in plastic as a made-to-order type thing. A Git can dream

No offense intended what so ever I just have a hard time understanding why someone want a model the size of a kid in a minature war game?

My Warhound is hardly the size of a child.

Because sometimes you want to play a game with the really big stuff involved.

The WOW factor. Because having them on the table draws the attention of other people (especially those who don't already play the game) at the shop/convention/gaming event.

Beardedragon wrote:
wait what? im reading the core rules now and it says you are in engagement range when you are within 1" of an enemy model. I thought they previously said you had to base contact?

Now the second row of dudes have to be in base with your models that are in engagement though so less dudes will attack outside of your engagement range models.

Also is anyone else getting slightly concerned at the sheer amount of things that have devastating wounds so far? That Eldar D cannon is…kinda good 😅

I am a little wary over the amount of mortal wounds that seem to be prevalent across certain units and armies, since I thought was part of the problem from last edition was that mortal wounds were too common place alongside high damage, high AP weaponry. We haven't seen points costs yet so hopefully they come at some sort of premium.

I just kind of wanted to mention that marines seem to have 3 attacks base, 4 attacks with a chainsword. That goes for standard CSM legionaries, Intercessors.

Beast snaggas have 2 attacks base, 3 attacks with a choppa.

The old ork advantage in close combat appears to have gone by the wayside.

I kind of wonder how effective these units are really going to be.

ccs wrote:

Boosykes wrote:

 Afrodactyl wrote:
Who knows, GW might surprise us and start making the Titans and equivalents in plastic as a made-to-order type thing. A Git can dream

No offense intended what so ever I just have a hard time understanding why someone want a model the size of a kid in a minature war game?

My Warhound is hardly the size of a child.

Because sometimes you want to play a game with the really big stuff involved.

The WOW factor. Because having them on the table draws the attention of other people (especially those who don't already play the game) at the shop/convention/gaming event.

Of course warhound and titans is basically automatic loss.

Problem with that big models is they break scale too bad. Either it's autoloss or it's silly cheap causing balance problems of it's own invalidating certain armies(like knights) as it needs to be silly point efficient to stand a chance.

Warhound mto is doa though. It would cost so much gw wants to sell them hard. Expect rather 700pts with silly firepower to make sure gw sells enough.

 TedNugent wrote:
I just kind of wanted to mention that marines seem to have 3 attacks base, 4 attacks with a chainsword. That goes for standard CSM legionaries, Intercessors.

Beast snaggas have 2 attacks base, 3 attacks with a choppa.

The old ork advantage in close combat appears to have gone by the wayside.

I kind of wonder how effective these units are really going to be.

Not that I like it, but it has been that way for all of 9th?

 Jidmah wrote:

 TedNugent wrote:
I just kind of wanted to mention that marines seem to have 3 attacks base, 4 attacks with a chainsword. That goes for standard CSM legionaries, Intercessors.

Beast snaggas have 2 attacks base, 3 attacks with a choppa.

The old ork advantage in close combat appears to have gone by the wayside.

I kind of wonder how effective these units are really going to be.

Not that I like it, but it has been that way for all of 9th?

Intercessors are 2 Attacks base, +1 on the charge/getting charged, +1 if they have a Chainsword.

 Grimskul wrote:
I am a little wary over the amount of mortal wounds that seem to be prevalent across certain units and armies, since I thought was part of the problem from last edition was that mortal wounds were too common place alongside high damage, high AP weaponry. We haven't seen points costs yet so hopefully they come at some sort of premium.

I think the big difference between 9th and 10th in that regard is that outside of some special cases (Typhus' destroyer hive or haywire weapons, for example) you cannot reliably cause mortal wounds. Devastating Wounds is the most common way to cause Mortal wounds outside of deadly demise and that usually requires you to roll sixes. The statistics on that are very swingy, so while assault terminators with TH might evaporate a whole unit of MANz if they roll a lot of sixes, they might as well roll none at all and bounce of their 4+ armor save. Using those kind of weaons to fish for MWs is high risk, high reward which isn't always the best play to do, especially if you are trying to trade with a unit.

I mean, Primaris have got 3 attacks with a close combat weapon now, 4 with a chainsword, so it's regardless of charging/first turn of combat. That's just the flat out unmodified number of attacks.

It's kind of strange to say this, but orks don't really have that many attacks any more.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Intercessors are 2 Attacks base, +1 on the charge/getting charged, +1 if they have a Chainsword.

So, how often did you fight marines with orks for longer than one turn?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TedNugent wrote:
I mean, Primaris have got 3 attacks with a close combat weapon now, 4 with a chainsword, so it's regardless of charging/first turn of combat. That's just the flat out unmodified number of attacks.

It's kind of strange to say this, but orks don't really have that many attacks any more.

True, but my point was that this has been the case for a long time now. The difference between shock assault and an unconditional +1A is marginal at best.

 Jidmah wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Intercessors are 2 Attacks base, +1 on the charge/getting charged, +1 if they have a Chainsword.

So, how often did you fight marines with orks for longer than one turn?

The question I kind of had is, uh....what if they charge you. They can actually do an unfriendly amount of damage in close combat, especially if it's a marine unit that is in any way geared for close combat.

For example, sword brethren are walking around with 5 chainsword attacks. I feel like that would kinda vaporize many units of orks.

 Jidmah wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Intercessors are 2 Attacks base, +1 on the charge/getting charged, +1 if they have a Chainsword.

So, how often did you fight marines with orks for longer than one turn?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TedNugent wrote:
I mean, Primaris have got 3 attacks with a close combat weapon now, 4 with a chainsword, so it's regardless of charging/first turn of combat. That's just the flat out unmodified number of attacks.

It's kind of strange to say this, but orks don't really have that many attacks any more.

True, but my point was that this has been the case for a long time now. The difference between shock assault and an unconditional +1A is marginal at best.

I think the main difference is that a Tactical or an ordinary Intercessor doesn't have AP on their attacks.
Sergeants and Assault Intercessors will, and against Orks or other lightly armored models the difference between AP0 and AP-1 is minimal, but against hardier targets that point of AP helps a lot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TedNugent wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Intercessors are 2 Attacks base, +1 on the charge/getting charged, +1 if they have a Chainsword.

So, how often did you fight marines with orks for longer than one turn?

The question I kind of had is, uh....what if they charge you. They can actually do an unfriendly amount of damage in close combat, especially if it's a marine unit that is in any way geared for close combat.

For example, sword brethren are walking around with 5 chainsword attacks. I feel like that would kinda vaporize many units of orks.

Sword Brethren look pretty nuts, given they can add +1 Damage to all their attacks.
The fact that, against W1 models, they can change that to a bonus attack is just the cherry on top.

 TedNugent wrote:
For example, sword brethren are walking around with 5 chainsword attacks. I feel like that would kinda vaporize many units of orks.

Sorry, but did you not play against Templars in 9th? They have 5 attacks *right now*. 3 attacks base, +1 attack from Accept Any Challenge, No Matter the Odds or Shock Assault, +1 extra attack from the astartes chainsword. That's five attacks at S4 with AP-2.

You are about two years late to complain about that now.

Also, feels weird to be salty about Sword Brethren, when they're the special elite unit for BT specifically. Given how poopy they were compared to bladeguard vets in 9th, I'd say it's about damn time they finally have the offensive stats at the very least compared to how bad they were offensively and defensively compared to bladeguard vets baseline.

Just be glad our choppas kept the AP-1, the bigger question is if shootas will be relevant at all this edition. (sadly I doubt it).

The one thing I learned from DG reveals (units almost fully known by now) is
1) GW put some pretty insane buffs on characters. Orks have lots of characters
2) Units will most likely be boring
3) pretty much anything can happen. Daemon Princes, Death Shrouds and MBH got insane abilities out of nowhere. Had they previewed those, DG players would have been singing GW's praises instead of what's going on right now.

tneva82 wrote:

ccs wrote:

Boosykes wrote:

 Afrodactyl wrote:
Who knows, GW might surprise us and start making the Titans and equivalents in plastic as a made-to-order type thing. A Git can dream

No offense intended what so ever I just have a hard time understanding why someone want a model the size of a kid in a minature war game?

My Warhound is hardly the size of a child.

Because sometimes you want to play a game with the really big stuff involved.

The WOW factor. Because having them on the table draws the attention of other people (especially those who don't already play the game) at the shop/convention/gaming event.

Of course warhound and titans is basically automatic loss.

Depends upon the type/size of game you play.
The last game my WH was in was a huge 5k pt per player, multiple players per side affair. I wouldn't say this was it's most glorious outing, but it did alright.
Most of us had some similar large unit + a fair amount of other stuff.
Nobody auto-lost because they'd brought a Titan or such.

 Grimskul wrote:
Also, feels weird to be salty about Sword Brethren, when they're the special elite unit for BT specifically. Given how poopy they were compared to bladeguard vets in 9th, I'd say it's about damn time they finally have the offensive stats at the very least compared to how bad they were offensively and defensively compared to bladeguard vets baseline.

Just be glad our choppas kept the AP-1, the bigger question is if shootas will be relevant at all this edition. (sadly I doubt it).

I think the last time I took my shoota boyz out of the carrying case was for the Shadow War Armageddon specialist game

I'm hoping they throw us a bone on shooting. Let's say Sustained Hits 1 on Shootas, 2 on Big Shootas and something larger on the Snazzwagon/Gorkanaut etc. That'd be a lot of fun every time we roll a 6.

 The Red Hobbit wrote:

 Grimskul wrote:
Also, feels weird to be salty about Sword Brethren, when they're the special elite unit for BT specifically. Given how poopy they were compared to bladeguard vets in 9th, I'd say it's about damn time they finally have the offensive stats at the very least compared to how bad they were offensively and defensively compared to bladeguard vets baseline.

Just be glad our choppas kept the AP-1, the bigger question is if shootas will be relevant at all this edition. (sadly I doubt it).

I think the last time I took my shoota boyz out of the carrying case was for the Shadow War Armageddon specialist game

I'm hoping they throw us a bone on shooting. Let's say Sustained Hits 1 on Shootas, 2 on Big Shootas and something larger on the Snazzwagon/Gorkanaut etc. That'd be a lot of fun every time we roll a 6.

Yeah. I have a bad feeling we're just going to get rapid fire 1, 2A, range 18" S4 AP0 as a statline, but I definitely hope you're right regarding the sustained hits as it would be great to have some form of Dakka Dakka Dakka! again.

I know GW won't do this, but if they had made the new boyz kit more modular and less monopose with full options, it would be nice if we could have a separate shoota boyz and slugga/choppa boyz datasheets so that they can properly have shootas be buffed for ranged combat by the datasheet rules while the choppa boyz datasheet is better suited to being mechanized or getting stuck into close combat.

SUPA-KANNON?

THE Supa-Kannon by FW that was discontinued couple of weeks ago?

= new models for orks again?

Just a quick question about Ghaz. As shocked as we all were about his drop in Toughness is it now feasible that with the infantry keyword he will be eligible to be “healed” by a pain boy?

Possibly, but we won't know till we see what the rules are on the Painboy