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.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
I think psychic is going to be the biggest disappointment in 10th.

It is so far for me. Psychic feels more like a drawback than an advantage.

And even when it's not a drawback, it's so fething boring. So unbelievably boring, which is my general critique about all of these rules. Holy hell, 8th indexhammer had more to it than this IMO.

And yeah, the melta back-and-forth is hilarious. An expensive, short range weapon needs to be better into its intended targets than this; you can back it up with "hAnDhElD" all you want but that never stopped melta (or plasma) before. The kool aid drinkers need to either pick a better battle or come up with a better argument.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
I think psychic is going to be the biggest disappointment in 10th.

It is so far for me. Psychic feels more like a drawback than an advantage.

And even when it's not a drawback, it's so fething boring. So unbelievably boring, which is my general critique about all of these rules. Holy hell, 8th indexhammer had more to it than this IMO.

And yeah, the melta back-and-forth is hilarious. An expensive, short range weapon needs to be better into its intended targets than this; you can back it up with "hAnDhElD" all you want but that never stopped melta (or plasma) before. The kool aid drinkers need to either pick a better battle or come up with a better argument.

Is it expensive?

that never stopped melta (or plasma) before

Hence the point of this edition and why this particular sentiment is completely irrelevant.

A Lascannon kills a Rhino in 6 shots. How many Melta shots should it take at long range?

Holy hell, 8th indexhammer had more to it than this IMO.

...no it didn't.

Wait what is that bloodcrusher ability. Roll a d6 for every model and on 4+ it takes d3 mortals. So 10 guardsmen -> 10 dice -> 5d3 mortals so on average 10 mortals? Huh?

Nvm its the count of the bloodcrushers.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Tyel wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Deathshroud Sweep seems redundant unless there's some combo. It’s the same damage into say Guardsmen.

4 attacks
4/6 wounds plus 8/3 hits
4/6 plus 40/18 wounds
52/18 or 2.89 dead GEQ

6 attacks
1 wound plus 4 hits
1 plus 8/3 wounds
22/9 failed saves
2.44 dead GEQ

Sweep is WORSE against GEQ.

You'd wound on 2s with sweep cos of the -1T Aura.

Ah, right.
So they are the same.

That's even worse than the usual math GW rules writers are usually capable of LMAO
Usually said sweep profiles are supposed to double attacks, not just add two.

Looks like the farseer on a bike has the Mounted keyword but no infantry keyword. That's disappointing.

 The Red Hobbit wrote:
Looks like the farseer on a bike has the Mounted keyword but no infantry. That's disappointing.

Well…this sort of thing could be awkward for Drukhari.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

And yeah, the melta back-and-forth is hilarious. An expensive, short range weapon needs to be better into its intended targets than this; you can back it up with "hAnDhElD" all you want but that never stopped melta (or plasma) before. The kool aid drinkers need to either pick a better battle or come up with a better argument.

Is it expensive?

Looking through 4 editions of SM codex, Meltas have had a points cost of ~66% of a lascannon (if the las is 15, the Melta is generally 10). Multi-meltas have had an equal or slightly lower cost (closer to 80%) of a lascannon, with one edition where they were bizarrely more expensive (4th, IIRC). It's worth noting that, with these price points, meltas targetting vehicles were slightly weaker than a lascannon when able to fire at all (1 less point of strength) and significantly more dangerous when firing at half range to trigger their Melta rule. Meaning that GW believed that meltas, even with a significantly higher reward, needed to be cheaper than the ubiqitious lascannon to actually be worth said risk.

10th ed looks to up-ends this balance by making the lascannon have even less risk (easier to use in relation to lascannons in something like 4th), while the melta is simultaneously higher risk and lower reward.

Now obviously we don't know the points costs of meltas and lascannons (or their respective carriers) in the new edition. But unless meltas are priced equivalent to old school flamers (5 pts when a lascannon was 20 or more), there's no point in using them or units who depend on them when you could bring the lascannon as a similarly priced, but safer and more reliable, option.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
I think psychic is going to be the biggest disappointment in 10th.

It is so far for me. Psychic feels more like a drawback than an advantage.

And even when it's not a drawback, it's so fething boring. So unbelievably boring, which is my general critique about all of these rules. Holy hell, 8th indexhammer had more to it than this IMO.

The psychic rules really aren't very inspired, are they?

IMO GW have gone way overboard on the whole 'characters joining squads' thing. One of the nice things about psykers was that they could support different units around them as needed. But now most of them just apply a passive buff to a single squad, which they're stuck in for the entirety of the game.

Hell, one of my biggest complaints about auras in 8th/9th was that they were passive, always-on abilities. It made them extremely boring because of the complete lack of interactivity. This is no different, we've just fiddled with the scale. Except that we've also made the interactive powers into non-interactive ones, too.

Even putting aside the debate regarding anti-weapon vehicles, I'm struggling to think of any rules or unit abilities that have actually interested me. Maybe the rules for Chaos Daemons? (An army I don't collect.)

Woops. Accidental post.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Asurmen is a bit better than he was before. The overwatch is nice.

Dude, come on. Does his profile look like something befitting such a figure? And again, one of his special rules is the same as the Tallyman's.

The first Phoenix Lord - one of the most legendary immortal figures of Eldar warfare - has the exact same rule as a Plague Marine with an abacus and a scroll.

Asurmen also went down in toughness in an edition where many thing go up.

Wow they're really trying to shut down anyone else having cool uber characters.

Apparently only marines get to be that good now.

Yeah very unimpressed. They tune up primarchs to stupid levels and turn asurmen into crap.

Even Gabriel Seth is better than him which is just sad.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/dLZIlatQJ3qOkGP7.pdf

Was this mentioned? 10th Core Rules are out now. Sorry if it was. So much to dig through.

 The Red Hobbit wrote:
Looks like the farseer on a bike has the Mounted keyword but no infantry keyword. That's disappointing.

Stretching the definition of 'infantry' to include 'not infantry' would have been utterly bizarre.

Voss wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:

Voss wrote:
Not liking these 3++ saves that are turning up on special characters.

Asurmen had 3++, and lost his wound cap. I think that's okay-ish. He has always been pretty vanilla too, i guess they'll eventually redo all the Phoenix Lords as Primarch-level uberdudes with a sack full of 'chose one out of three each turn' abilities - today is not that day.

Eh. Its not any of that. 3++ was just a bugbear for a good long while. I'd hoped to see the back of it forever.

----

Have to admit, seeing that old model on the card made me grimace.

If I were in GW's layout department, I would've advocated for art in place of old models. (especially any that are coming down the pipe 'soon')

No way i love that Asurmen model it is one of mit favorite models.

Asurmen has had A 3++ for a while so that's not new.

But he definitely suffers from 'only marines get cool characters itis'.

They make primarchs insane and turn aspect warrior primarchs into trash. Sounds about right.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Isn't the whole point of them to kill heavily armoured vehicles and monsters at very close range?

Yep. And they clearly forgot that.

So true meltas in 7th and before used to have S8 +2d6 when within half range so an avg of 15 and the highest armor value was 14. Melta was always low number of shots and low range but very high Strength. lascannon was S9 +1d6

I think the melta should have the anti vehicle rule in have range instead of more dmg.

Edit: on the topic of Asurmen did i miss something or is he and 3 other phoenix lords not available anymore?

 morganfreeman wrote:
10th ed looks to up-ends this balance by making the lascannon have even less risk (easier to use in relation to lascannons in something like 4th), while the melta is simultaneously higher risk and lower reward.

I think this perspective is backwards. Lascannons became reliable. Multimeltas got relatively worse by comparison to it's previous incarnation.

Now obviously we don't know the points costs of meltas and lascannons (or their respective carriers) in the new edition. But unless meltas are priced equivalent to old school flamers (5 pts when a lascannon was 20 or more), there's no point in using them or units who depend on them when you could bring the lascannon as a similarly priced, but safer and more reliable, option.

The upgrade cost is irrelevant. It's the entire cost of bringing a weapons platform that matters.

The Hauler gets +1 to wound against vehicles. Do you think melta should get buffed in that context?






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hellebore wrote:
Wow they're really trying to shut down anyone else having cool uber characters.

Apparently only marines get to be that good now.

Yeah very unimpressed. They tune up primarchs to stupid levels and turn asurmen into crap.

Even Gabriel Seth is better than him which is just sad.

I find Asurmen's ability to be far better than Seth. Triumph of St Katherine was quite good last I recalled. We've barely seen any Xenos characters so I don't understand your comparison.

 nordsturmking wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Isn't the whole point of them to kill heavily armoured vehicles and monsters at very close range?

Yep. And they clearly forgot that.

So true meltas in 7th and before used to have S8 +2d6 when within half range so an avg of 15 and the highest armor value was 14. Melta was always low number of shots and low range but very high Strength. lascannon was S9 +1d6

I think the melta should have the anti vehicle rule in have range instead of more dmg.

Edit: on the topic of Asurmen did i miss something or is he and 3 other phoenix lords not available anymore?

They may have been 'temporarily' eaten by the range rotation.
I'd expect at least one to hit plastic when the codex happens (2024-2025)

 bullyboy wrote:
Ah, so foot Farseer hands out Fortune and bike mounted has Guide.
I think psychic is going to be the biggest disappointment in 10th.

The psychic ability doing nothing other than turning on other peoples defensive abilities is weird, and not having any selection options on powers at all is annoying - but psychic for this edition will be fine.

For the past few editions where powers were not randomised, people tended to only take the best options from their respective decks. Honestly I would have preferred it to stay that way - but when options are not used are they really options?

In 10th, there is no failure to manifest a power, there is no deny the witch, and there is no perils. Powers are more reliable (although often less lethal), and are far better represented in the options given than some other more egregious streamlining - combi-weapons and half of chaos' good stuff going to legends is far more disappointing than having your best powers split over different models.

Epitome


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insularum wrote:
there is no failure to manifest a power.

Most of them - see epitome, but in those cases it's a pretty strong spell.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wyvern


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hauler


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crushers


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Horrors


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Daemon DP


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Piper


Automatically Appended Next Post:
GUO

 NorthernXY wrote:
Can't believe this place isn't freaking out with the news that a lot of models are no longer allowed to be played in competitive games.

99% of those units were only ever used in casual games. It's not like some army list with a bunch of FW units was getting top 8s in major tournaments. I honestly don't care because of how infrequently they were showing up in games anyway. I will see them exactly as much as I saw them before, not at all in competitive games and sparingly in casual games.

Toofast wrote:

 NorthernXY wrote:
Can't believe this place isn't freaking out with the news that a lot of models are no longer allowed to be played in competitive games.

99% of those units were only ever used in casual games. It's not like some army list with a bunch of FW units was getting top 8s in major tournaments. I honestly don't care because of how infrequently they were showing up in games anyway. I will see them exactly as much as I saw them before, not at all in competitive games and sparingly in casual games.

Some of us are also still reeling from FW removing a huge number of models semi-recently.

Toofast wrote:

 NorthernXY wrote:
Can't believe this place isn't freaking out with the news that a lot of models are no longer allowed to be played in competitive games.

99% of those units were only ever used in casual games. It's not like some army list with a bunch of FW units was getting top 8s in major tournaments. I honestly don't care because of how infrequently they were showing up in games anyway. I will see them exactly as much as I saw them before, not at all in competitive games and sparingly in casual games.

I don't think this is correct. Some people seem to think FW models were all the big crazy things, but there were tons of smaller models that got used pretty frequently. It's true that in the past FW models weren't balanced as appropriately, but it's not a great excuse to dump damn near everything.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Epitome

Spoiler:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insularum wrote:
there is no failure to manifest a power.

Most of them - see epitome, but in those cases it's a pretty strong spell.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wyvern

Spoiler:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hauler

Spoiler:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crushers

Spoiler:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Horrors

Spoiler:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Daemon DP

Spoiler:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Piper

Spoiler:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
GUO

Spoiler:

Whatever our disagreements, I appreciate you going to the trouble of posting all these.

 Daedalus81 wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hellebore wrote:
Wow they're really trying to shut down anyone else having cool uber characters.

Apparently only marines get to be that good now.

Yeah very unimpressed. They tune up primarchs to stupid levels and turn asurmen into crap.

Even Gabriel Seth is better than him which is just sad.

I find Asurmen's ability to be far better than Seth. Triumph of St Katherine was quite good last I recalled. We've barely seen any Xenos characters so I don't understand your comparison.

Because asurmen is the first and most powerful of the Phoenix Lords. If he's crap the rest will be.

He's 10,000 years old and been constantly at war. He's been active with more experience than guilliman and lion combined. There is only one asurmen

There are 1000 chapter masters.and they get replaced every few hundred years. If one rules for 500 years, then each chapter has had 20 since the heresy. 20,000 characters that make the guy who INVENTED the way of war look pathetic.

Seth will be making 9-10 attacks on the charge at s8.

Asurmen shows that they've stripped every single aspect of being a Phoenix lord from them turning them into pretty crappy 'demigods of war' (gw's quote).

While they've buffed marines with t5 temrinator characters, given crazy attacks to minor chapter masters. Primarchs went up to t9 and get massive attacks and strength. While phoenix Lords have been relegated to forgettable nothing characters that disappear from 2 whacks. And ghazghkull was shafted as well, and the patriarch.

Based on the datasheets you've posted (much appreciated by the way) every greater daemon bar the bloodthirster wounds the primarchs on a 5+!

That's a pretty strong pattern to suggest that they really want marines to have all the uber heroes and everyone else has to suck it up.

 vipoid wrote:
Whatever our disagreements, I appreciate you going to the trouble of posting all these.

Happy to do so! Here's some Kriegers. I'll be putting the rest from the exibition in the thread over at general.

 Hellebore wrote:
Wow they're really trying to shut down anyone else having cool uber characters.

Apparently only marines get to be that good now.

Yeah very unimpressed. They tune up primarchs to stupid levels and turn asurmen into crap.

Even Gabriel Seth is better than him which is just sad.

Less Leth'el Johnson and Reroulle Guilliman

 Hellebore wrote:
Seth will be making 9-10 attacks on the charge at s8.P
Asurmen showP2 that they've stripped every single aspect of being a Phoenix lord from them turning them into pretty crappy 'demigods of war' (gw's quote).

While they've buffed marines with t5 temrinator characters, given crazy attacks to minor chapter masters. Primarchs went up to t9 and get massive attacks and strength. While phoenix Lords have been relegated to forgettable nothing characters that disappear from 2 whacks. And ghazghkull was shafted as well, and the patriarch.

Based on the datasheets you've posted (much appreciated by the way) every greater daemon bar the bloodthirster wounds the primarchs on a 5+!

Those primarchs are difficult to hide it has nothing to do with wanting to make marines better.

Asurmen has 6 S6 AP3 D3 with DW
Seth has 6 S8 AP2 D3 with SH1

Fighting Bobby --

(( 6 * .167 * 2 ) + ( 6 * .666 )) * .333 * .5 * 3 = 3 // Seth
( 6 * .833 * .167 * 3 ) + ( 6 * .833 * .167 * .5 * 3 ) = 3.75 // Asurmen

Fighting 10 Boyz

(( 8 * .167 * 2 ) + ( 8 * .666 )) * .333 * .5 = 5.3 // Seth
( 6 * .833 * .167 * 3 ) + ( 6 * .833 * .5 ) = 5 // Asurmen

At 20 Boyz seth will pull ahead, but Asurmen will be overwatching the crap out of them before then.

I won't really address lore issues, because I personally don't find them important to a good game.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
I think psychic is going to be the biggest disappointment in 10th.

It is so far for me. Psychic feels more like a drawback than an advantage.

And even when it's not a drawback, it's so fething boring. So unbelievably boring, which is my general critique about all of these rules. Holy hell, 8th indexhammer had more to it than this IMO.

And yeah, the melta back-and-forth is hilarious. An expensive, short range weapon needs to be better into its intended targets than this; you can back it up with "hAnDhElD" all you want but that never stopped melta (or plasma) before. The kool aid drinkers need to either pick a better battle or come up with a better argument.

Wasn't this like...universally considered a MAJOR problem of previous editions? That weapons basically deleted their intended targets?

Are you REALLY, HONESTLY going to look us in the eyes and tell us that the game ISN'T LETHAL ENOUGH? AFTER ALL OF 9TH!?!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 morganfreeman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

And yeah, the melta back-and-forth is hilarious. An expensive, short range weapon needs to be better into its intended targets than this; you can back it up with "hAnDhElD" all you want but that never stopped melta (or plasma) before. The kool aid drinkers need to either pick a better battle or come up with a better argument.

Is it expensive?

Looking through 4 editions of SM codex, Meltas have had a points cost of ~66% of a lascannon (if the las is 15, the Melta is generally 10). Multi-meltas have had an equal or slightly lower cost (closer to 80%) of a lascannon, with one edition where they were bizarrely more expensive (4th, IIRC). It's worth noting that, with these price points, meltas targetting vehicles were slightly weaker than a lascannon when able to fire at all (1 less point of strength) and significantly more dangerous when firing at half range to trigger their Melta rule. Meaning that GW believed that meltas, even with a significantly higher reward, needed to be cheaper than the ubiqitious lascannon to actually be worth said risk.

10th ed looks to up-ends this balance by making the lascannon have even less risk (easier to use in relation to lascannons in something like 4th), while the melta is simultaneously higher risk and lower reward.

Now obviously we don't know the points costs of meltas and lascannons (or their respective carriers) in the new edition. But unless meltas are priced equivalent to old school flamers (5 pts when a lascannon was 20 or more), there's no point in using them or units who depend on them when you could bring the lascannon as a similarly priced, but safer and more reliable, option.

Can't bring a lascannon, don't care.

Time to put the violin emoji for your sisters?