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.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


because all those differences shouldn't actually matter at the scale of 40k.

the "only" impact the sergeant truly has is an expanded weapon option. A sergeant simply isnt special enough compared to the other dudes in a squad to warrant giving him different stats

Maybe not to you, or in your opinion. But since it's been done since every single version of the game going all the way back to rogue trader, I'd say it matters to the game designers and a good chunk of the player base.

Maybe we'll get to see and example of a card for a complex unit soon.

Show me the card for any of the Deathwatch Kill Teams. Then I'll be impressed.

Sarges may just get a separate datasheet and slot into the unit in some way with rules that allow for the best LD score to be used. That would mean that the options are just 'sliced' in a different way, and you'd need a mechanism for something like that anyway unless all sorts of squad-level independent and support characters like Apothecaries, Lieutenants etc. now work completely different. It would also allow for stuff like Veteran Seargants, Deathwatch vets, Wolfguard etc. without wasting a lot of space for endless repetitions of the same information, as you would only need the relevant army list entry once.

No way Sergeants will be a separate Datasheet in a “reduce complexity” edition. We just haven’t seen a relevant Datasheet. WarCom will post more before long and we’ll soon see the solutions chosen.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
because all those differences shouldn't actually matter at the scale of 40k.

Says who? And based on what criteria?


----


How bland do you want 40k to be?

says me, based on the fact that a model-per-model differentiation is better for skirmish games, where wargames like 40k should treat the game on a unit-per-unit basis. Its obviously subjective and obviously your opinion can differ, i should've been more clear in my original comment .

and i don't want 40k to be bland, i personally don't think that making the sarge different adds much to the game.

To me the interesting part of the game is positioning, target priority, baiting my opponent more than being able to say that my Sargeant will shoot his plasma pistol to do 0.01% more damage on average than a regular boltgun (obviously not the exact stat)



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
No way Sergeants will be a separate Datasheet in a “reduce complexity” edition. We just haven’t seen a relevant Datasheet. WarCom will post more before long and we’ll soon see the solutions chosen.

pretty much this, picking gaunts as the reveal datasheet was a bad move IMO since it leaves too much to the imagination, Tactical marines or Intercessors (or whatever theyre called after being merged into one datasheet) would have been better

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

To me the interesting part of the game is positioning, target priority, baiting my opponent more than being able to say that my Sargeant will shoot his plasma pistol to do 0.01% more damage on average than a regular boltgun (obviously not the exact stat)

And that tends to be when people stop playing or play something else. For much of its history 40k has been complicated with list building, rules, etc. But the gameplay wasn't very complex (chess is the classic example of bland units, complex gameplay). GW has assumes (according to various designers) that complicated stuff tends to appeal its seems to younger players with time to mull over optimisation, complex stuff to older people who can figure it out but don't have more than an odd evening to play. I seem to remember Jervis going on about leaving chrome in games to foster player engagement.

If GW is going for complex and not complicated, will be interesting to see if their assumptions are still correct.

I expect that unit leaders will be a separate line on the unit datasheet, much like the Ripper Swarm on the video version of the Termegant datasheet.

I also expect their melee effectiveness will be via their melee weapons rather than some bonus rule. Either they will have “Intercessor Stg Chainsword” which is better than “Astartes Chainsword” used by the rest of the squad, or it will be thr fancy powersword that makes them better.

I look forward to 40k turning into AOS.

Choose your definitely very different weapon:

WS3+ A3 S4 AP-1 D1
WS4+ A4 S4 AP-1 D1
WS4+ A2 S4 AP-1 D2
WS5+ A6 S4 AP-1 D1

Something I noticed on the data sheet for the termagants that is interesting is that nowhere on the data sheet does it state a battlefield role (which is not surprising as it seems they are allowing a more open building process), but the data sheet also doesn't say "battle line" or any other indication that this data sheet would be equivalent to a "troops" battle field role. And it is doubtful that termagants would not be "battle line" if in fact that was a designation on a data sheet.

The reason I raise this is because it makes it interesting that the one sheet "army rules" might outline which units are "battle line" or not. So instead of having a faction like "Ultra Marines" or "Black Legion" which just allow access to the whole codex with traditional troops as "battle line", GW could offer "army rules" for more specialized formations like 1st company, Abadon's body guard, etc. which would then make terminators "battle line" and maybe restrict access to other units. I think some people have been discussing this possiblity already of formation like "army rule" but I think the termagants data sheet really supports that this is the way that they are going.

Just a thought.

 vipoid wrote:
I look forward to 40k turning into AOS.

Choose your definitely very different weapon:

WS3+ A3 S4 AP-1 D1
WS4+ A4 S4 AP-1 D1
WS4+ A2 S4 AP-1 D2
WS5+ A6 S4 AP-1 D1

Except with different types, ranges, USRs just from what we see on the data sheet shown.

Its disapoinitng that they already have elements that are not spelled out on the sheet so for instance the Synapse ability is named but not spelled out.

But maybe there is a "Army/Faction" card for this.

Its possibly a step in the right direction but more sheets will be needed to give us any real insight into if its any good, intuiative, etc

 Mr Morden wrote:
Its disapoinitng that they already have elements that are not spelled out on the sheet so for instance the Synapse ability is named but not spelled out.

But maybe there is a "Army/Faction" card for this.

Its possibly a step in the right direction but more sheets will be needed to give us any real insight into if its any good, intuiative, etc

They're going back to a USR model specifically so they don't need to spell out every rule on every sheet. Instead you just learn what your unit's keywords do and then can understand what units do at a glance without reading through a paragraph that might be similar to but not the same as what other similar units have.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Its disapoinitng that they already have elements that are not spelled out on the sheet so for instance the Synapse ability is named but not spelled out.

But maybe there is a "Army/Faction" card for this.

Its possibly a step in the right direction but more sheets will be needed to give us any real insight into if its any good, intuiative, etc

That’s no different to now, Synapse is in army rules. Now army rules will only be a double page spread so no flicking back and forth, which is a win.

And you shouldn't be reprinting those sorts of rules over and over again.

Repetition leads to mistakes. Repetition leads to mistakes. Repetition leads to mistakes. Repetion leas to mistake. Repetion leas to mistakess. Reptiles leato miss takes.

 vipoid wrote:
I look forward to 40k turning into AOS.

Choose your definitely very different weapon:

WS3+ A3 S4 AP-1 D1
WS4+ A4 S4 AP-1 D1
WS4+ A2 S4 AP-1 D2
WS5+ A6 S4 AP-1 D1

More like Kill Team than AOS. Meaningful differences could be made to make more choices compelling and somewhat equal, like:

Laspistol (Assault, Pistol) R 12 A 2 BS 4+ S 3 AP 0 W 1

Bolt Pistol (Pistol) R 12 A 2 BS 4+ S4 AP 0 W 1

Plasma Pistol (Gets Hot, Pistol) R 12 A 1 BS 4+ S 7 AP -3 W 1

I think I'm fine with the new DS design. Love USRs finally returning. Not really happy about less relics and seemingly no battlefield roles..?

Is it true theres no force organization now or am I misremembering?

dominuschao wrote:
I think I'm fine with the new DS design. Love USRs finally returning. Not really happy about less relics and seemingly no battlefield roles..?

Is it true theres no force organization now or am I misremembering?

Wcommunity seems to imply no org chart out of "troops". Just take 3 of any, 6 if troops.

Ah thats where I saw it, thank you.

Call me a non-visual learner but I can't get everything from this page at a glance. Say what you will about 8th and 9ths data sheets, but they were able to tell you everything about the unit in question at a glance. One page, maybe 2-3 units. Everything. Now I need this page for the base stats, another page to explain the various USRs, a third page to explain the keywords, and possibly a forth page to tell me squad sizes, limitations for equipment, and cost per unit/model?

HOW IS THIS BETTER? It's literally like they had Stevie Wonder in charge of it.

Right, because your Custodes had their Katah written in the sheets.
And the subfaction traits.
And Warlord Traits and Relics, for characters.

All I'm saying it just Cut and Paste Wahapedia and be done with it. Unit rules, stats, cost and squad sizes, all in one box. Done.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Call me a non-visual learner but I can't get everything from this page at a glance. Say what you will about 8th and 9ths data sheets, but they were able to tell you everything about the unit in question at a glance. One page, maybe 2-3 units. Everything. Now I need this page for the base stats, another page to explain the various USRs, a third page to explain the keywords, and possibly a forth page to tell me squad sizes, limitations for equipment, and cost per unit/model?

HOW IS THIS BETTER? It's literally like they had Stevie Wonder in charge of it.

Once you learn what Twin-Linked does how often will you need to look it up? The same goes for Synapse, Assault, and the other keywords on the sheet. The thing with USRs and their keywords is that you can learn what they do and apply them to multiple unit entries versus needing to read a paragraph or two of rules for each unit.

Funny you mention that. Because how often does GW completely flip the script on their rule interpretations? I'll give you a hint, there is an over-used forum called YMDC in this place, where people debate the meaning of words like "is" and "Bolter". Because GW can't write English more gooderer.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Call me a non-visual learner but I can't get everything from this page at a glance. Say what you will about 8th and 9ths data sheets, but they were able to tell you everything about the unit in question at a glance. One page, maybe 2-3 units. Everything. Now I need this page for the base stats, another page to explain the various USRs, a third page to explain the keywords, and possibly a forth page to tell me squad sizes, limitations for equipment, and cost per unit/model?

HOW IS THIS BETTER? It's literally like they had Stevie Wonder in charge of it.

Let's break it down:
"Now I need this page for the base stats" - Already the case with 9th.
"another page to explain the various USRs" - Already the case with 9th. Most datasheets have "Blah rule (pg 52)"
"a third page to explain the keywords" - Already the case with 9th. You have stratagems, army restrictions, etc that essentially "explain the keywords".
"and possibly a forth page to tell me squad sizes" - Already the case with 9th, see the Munitorum Field Manual. There were a few example where the squad sizes differ than the printed codices. Fenrisian Wolves is one example.
"limitations for equipment" - I will cede this one, but when building your squad it's a check once and forget. Not something you need during a game. I would anticipate it to be in the same place as unit / weapon costs, but it's a wait and see.
"and cost per unit/model" - Already the case with 9th, see the Munitorum Field Manual.

So the short is, from the perspective of "I can't get everything from this page at a glance", it's not functionally different than what we currently have.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Funny you mention that. Because how often does GW completely flip the script on their rule interpretations? I'll give you a hint, there is an over-used forum called YMDC in this place, where people debate the meaning of words like "is" and "Bolter". Because GW can't write English more gooderer.

you HAVE to be trolling...

people argue what bolters are BECAUSE theres no keyword for it

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Funny you mention that. Because how often does GW completely flip the script on their rule interpretations? I'll give you a hint, there is an over-used forum called YMDC in this place, where people debate the meaning of words like "is" and "Bolter". Because GW can't write English more gooderer.

you HAVE to be trolling...

people argue what bolters are BECAUSE theres no keyword for it

There is also a distinction between what can be reasonably called an unclarity or ambiguity, and nitpicking for the sake of it. A ruleset that starts under the assumption that it first needs to clarifiy what the word 'is' means will end up being unreadable. In contrast, game terms like 'turn', 'unit' or 'bolter' of course need a definition.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Its disapoinitng that they already have elements that are not spelled out on the sheet so for instance the Synapse ability is named but not spelled out.

But maybe there is a "Army/Faction" card for this.

Its possibly a step in the right direction but more sheets will be needed to give us any real insight into if its any good, intuiative, etc

They're going back to a USR model specifically so they don't need to spell out every rule on every sheet. Instead you just learn what your unit's keywords do and then can understand what units do at a glance without reading through a paragraph that might be similar to but not the same as what other similar units have.

Thank goodness for that!

 Canadian 5th wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Call me a non-visual learner but I can't get everything from this page at a glance. Say what you will about 8th and 9ths data sheets, but they were able to tell you everything about the unit in question at a glance. One page, maybe 2-3 units. Everything. Now I need this page for the base stats, another page to explain the various USRs, a third page to explain the keywords, and possibly a forth page to tell me squad sizes, limitations for equipment, and cost per unit/model?

HOW IS THIS BETTER? It's literally like they had Stevie Wonder in charge of it.

Once you learn what Twin-Linked does how often will you need to look it up? The same goes for Synapse, Assault, and the other keywords on the sheet. The thing with USRs and their keywords is that you can learn what they do and apply them to multiple unit entries versus needing to read a paragraph or two of rules for each unit.

Or you do what Magic does and put them on anyway if there is room - look at all that wasted blank space - just put them on a reminder - it costs nothing

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Call me a non-visual learner but I can't get everything from this page at a glance. Say what you will about 8th and 9ths data sheets, but they were able to tell you everything about the unit in question at a glance. One page, maybe 2-3 units. Everything. Now I need this page for the base stats, another page to explain the various USRs, a third page to explain the keywords, and possibly a forth page to tell me squad sizes, limitations for equipment, and cost per unit/model?

HOW IS THIS BETTER? It's literally like they had Stevie Wonder in charge of it.

Once you learn what Twin-Linked does how often will you need to look it up? The same goes for Synapse, Assault, and the other keywords on the sheet. The thing with USRs and their keywords is that you can learn what they do and apply them to multiple unit entries versus needing to read a paragraph or two of rules for each unit.

Or you do what Magic does and put them on anyway if there is room - look at all that wasted blank space - just put them on a reminder - it costs nothing

Even then magic tends to do that only for commons and uncommons leaving rares and mythics without reminder text because who really needs to be reminded what flying or trample does at this point?

 xeen wrote:
Something I noticed on the data sheet for the termagants that is interesting is that nowhere on the data sheet does it state a battlefield role (which is not surprising as it seems they are allowing a more open building process), but the data sheet also doesn't say "battle line" or any other indication that this data sheet would be equivalent to a "troops" battle field role. And it is doubtful that termagants would not be "battle line" if in fact that was a designation on a data sheet.

The reason I raise this is because it makes it interesting that the one sheet "army rules" might outline which units are "battle line" or not. So instead of having a faction like "Ultra Marines" or "Black Legion" which just allow access to the whole codex with traditional troops as "battle line", GW could offer "army rules" for more specialized formations like 1st company, Abadon's body guard, etc. which would then make terminators "battle line" and maybe restrict access to other units. I think some people have been discussing this possiblity already of formation like "army rule" but I think the termagants data sheet really supports that this is the way that they are going.

Just a thought.

my guess is something similar to how AOS does it, where your warlord choice can bestow BATTLELINE to certain units thematically linked.

so, for example, a gravis captain might grant it to units with GRAVIS, a phobos captain might make inflitaitors battleline, etc.

or maybe BATTLELINE is nested inside one of the other keywords (ie nids have an army rule that ENDLESS MULTIUDE units are all BATTLELINE, which is on the army rules page).

or maybe the datasheet we are seeing is a early draft and they just plain forgot to add BATTLELINE to the sheet when drafting it for this presentation.

Battleline isn't a keyword in AoS. At least not one that appears on the warscrolls.

It's a Battlefield Role that gets granted via army organization.