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.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 ph34r wrote:
This "12 attacks, bogged down by gaunts" scenario is, in a hypothetical world where Angron doesn't have access to the 3x attack rolls per attack stat weapon profile?

Yes, that’s right.

Or that Angry Ron (the Angriest of all Rons, and in my experience most Rons are pretty furious) is faster than them, and presumably thanks to wings can just hop on over them.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
What makes it a 10th Ed book?

Reduced warlord traits, stratagems being cut in half, thematic army of renown included in the codex.

Dudeface wrote:
Reduced warlord traits, stratagems being cut in half, thematic army of renown included in the codex.

GW change horses mid-race multiple times during an edition. This doesn't necessarily mean anything.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Reduced warlord traits, stratagems being cut in half, thematic army of renown included in the codex.

GW change horses mid-race multiple times during an edition. This doesn't necessarily mean anything.

Yeah, it's probably just a super lazy release.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Reduced warlord traits, stratagems being cut in half, thematic army of renown included in the codex.

GW change horses mid-race multiple times during an edition. This doesn't necessarily mean anything.

99% of rumors this year turned out to be true but this rumor is a step too far I agree.

Same sourcey sauce again:

Helbrutes +1S +1A
Terminators +1S +1A
Heldrake unchanged
Forgefiend unchanged
Maulerfiend unchanged

Dudeface wrote:
Same sourcey sauce again:

Helbrutes +1S +1A
Terminators +1S +1A
Heldrake unchanged
Forgefiend unchanged
Maulerfiend unchanged

I wasn't going to go Termies... but this may change my mind...

 choppinboard wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Reduced warlord traits, stratagems being cut in half, thematic army of renown included in the codex.

GW change horses mid-race multiple times during an edition. This doesn't necessarily mean anything.

99% of rumors this year turned out to be true but this rumor is a step too far I agree.

The rumoured rules may be true, but "It's a 10th Edition Book" isn't part of that.

 choppinboard wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Same sourcey sauce again:

Helbrutes +1S +1A
Terminators +1S +1A
Heldrake unchanged
Forgefiend unchanged
Maulerfiend unchanged

I wasn't going to go Termies... but this may change my mind...

Why? They'd just be worse Creations of Bile LOL

 alextroy wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Yes, a single model with 12 attacks that hit on a 2+ is going to be bogged down by Gaunts.

Were you serious typing that out?

I'd gladly spend 210 points (30 Gants) to bog down Angron for a turn or two.

12 attacks, hitting on a 2+
10 hits, wounding on a 2+
50/6 or 25/3 wounds, no saves (unless they get an invuln, which I'm pretty sure they can)
It'd take him three rounds of combat to chew his way out on a good day.

Not to mention, Gants are usually gonna be ObSec. Do that on an objective, and Angron's stuck there doing around 60 points of damage per turn while losing on Victory Points.

Why would he choose 12 attacks though when he can choose 36? (39 if he gets we traits).

Do you often delibertely plck worst choice just for lolz?

The point of the post was that Angron needs the 3 Hit Rolls per attack Option so that he won't get tied down by 30 Gaunts.

Which just highlights one of the major problems with GW's game design approach.

The option to tie down a big scary close combat monster should exist. It's infuriating that GW keeps handing out these split profiles so players don't actually have to think about that they're doing or make meaningful decisions. Angron can Fly and is extremely fast. If your opponent manages to charge him with 20 Gaunts to tie him down you absolutely should be punished for that. Instead you get this big expensive model that is basically non-interactive in the Fight phase because, as the opponent, you have no options for dealing with it due to the split profile.

Slipspace wrote:
The option to tie down a big scary close combat monster should exist.

And it does, for many big scary monsters. I don't have a problem with the occasional ones - especially very important and seriously demi-god style characters, like Daemon Primarchs - not having much trouble with chaff.

The idea that Angron can just cut his way through all the little people milling at his giant daemonic feet seems highly thematic to me.

Slipspace wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Yes, a single model with 12 attacks that hit on a 2+ is going to be bogged down by Gaunts.

Were you serious typing that out?

I'd gladly spend 210 points (30 Gants) to bog down Angron for a turn or two.

12 attacks, hitting on a 2+
10 hits, wounding on a 2+
50/6 or 25/3 wounds, no saves (unless they get an invuln, which I'm pretty sure they can)
It'd take him three rounds of combat to chew his way out on a good day.

Not to mention, Gants are usually gonna be ObSec. Do that on an objective, and Angron's stuck there doing around 60 points of damage per turn while losing on Victory Points.

Why would he choose 12 attacks though when he can choose 36? (39 if he gets we traits).

Do you often delibertely plck worst choice just for lolz?

The point of the post was that Angron needs the 3 Hit Rolls per attack Option so that he won't get tied down by 30 Gaunts.

Which just highlights one of the major problems with GW's game design approach.

The option to tie down a big scary close combat monster should exist. It's infuriating that GW keeps handing out these split profiles so players don't actually have to think about that they're doing or make meaningful decisions. Angron can Fly and is extremely fast. If your opponent manages to charge him with 20 Gaunts to tie him down you absolutely should be punished for that. Instead you get this big expensive model that is basically non-interactive in the Fight phase because, as the opponent, you have no options for dealing with it due to the split profile.

GWs game 'design' is in a weird spot where they are artificially hampered by restrictions that are not fundamentally part of the game per se - they want to sell models, and many models at that, so one of the core assumptions that can not be challenged at all is that one model needs to be represent something meaningful on the table, and that the relative position of single models means something, and soon. And a lot of problems directly derive from that. Some editions ago, when we still had templates for blast weapons and flamers, a lot of the various FAQ und rules articles went on and on, in endless detail, about what exactly counts as being touched by a template, how and when you had to check for unit cohesion, what exactly counted for 'contact' for close combat, how exactly single models as part as a unit needed to pile on into close combat and stuff like that. Still a lot of rules baggage, e.g. questions about area terrain and such, directly results from that ironclad principle of single models being the fundamental 'unit' game pieces are measured in. They took some steps to walk away from that, like the removal of templates, or larger models having degrading profiles, but the fundamental flaw is still there. It worked well enough for the times of 2nd edition, when each side had a couple dozen models at most, you could take your time to place templates and units, transports and such were a rare occurence and the atmosphere in general was more friendly, but with increasing army sizes and the presence of a lot of 'non-standard' units, the rule system really starts to crack around the edges and their weird workarounds are coming under more and more strain.

Slipspace wrote:
Which just highlights one of the major problems with GW's game design approach.

The option to tie down a big scary close combat monster should exist. It's infuriating that GW keeps handing out these split profiles so players don't actually have to think about that they're doing or make meaningful decisions. Angron can Fly and is extremely fast. If your opponent manages to charge him with 20 Gaunts to tie him down you absolutely should be punished for that. Instead you get this big expensive model that is basically non-interactive in the Fight phase because, as the opponent, you have no options for dealing with it due to the split profile.

It's just a symptom of the game catering for such a wide scale, from gaunts up to bio-titans. It would be a bigger issue if centrepiece units were too easily tied down and made useless by 'gamey' interactions like just drowning them in expendable chaff.

Two weapon profiles is a decent solution. If anyone in 40k can carve through tanks or guardsmen with equal ease it should be Angron.

 xttz wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
Which just highlights one of the major problems with GW's game design approach.

The option to tie down a big scary close combat monster should exist. It's infuriating that GW keeps handing out these split profiles so players don't actually have to think about that they're doing or make meaningful decisions. Angron can Fly and is extremely fast. If your opponent manages to charge him with 20 Gaunts to tie him down you absolutely should be punished for that. Instead you get this big expensive model that is basically non-interactive in the Fight phase because, as the opponent, you have no options for dealing with it due to the split profile.

It's just a symptom of the game catering for such a wide scale, from gaunts up to bio-titans. It would be a bigger issue if centrepiece units were too easily tied down and made useless by 'gamey' interactions like just drowning them in expendable chaff.

Two weapon profiles is a decent solution. If anyone in 40k can carve through tanks or guardsmen with equal ease it should be Angron.

On a battlefield where e.g. a single guardsman or an individual chaos cultist has to mean something as a game piece even stuff like a Custodes stretches 'fluff accuracy' to the limit, and on the other hand on a battlefield where things like Angron or Titans can be meaninfully challenged and are not just some unstoppable force of nature a single guardsman should be almost irrelevant. It's just a fundamental mismatch of scale and scope. But people want Angron, and people want the single guardsman being meaningful.

 xttz wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
Which just highlights one of the major problems with GW's game design approach.

The option to tie down a big scary close combat monster should exist. It's infuriating that GW keeps handing out these split profiles so players don't actually have to think about that they're doing or make meaningful decisions. Angron can Fly and is extremely fast. If your opponent manages to charge him with 20 Gaunts to tie him down you absolutely should be punished for that. Instead you get this big expensive model that is basically non-interactive in the Fight phase because, as the opponent, you have no options for dealing with it due to the split profile.

It's just a symptom of the game catering for such a wide scale, from gaunts up to bio-titans. It would be a bigger issue if centrepiece units were too easily tied down and made useless by 'gamey' interactions like just drowning them in expendable chaff.

It's depressing that tying down units with suboptimal targets is seen as gamey now. It's especially depressing when said unit can Fly and has a huge Movement stat so the only realistic way this can happen is by good positional play from the opponent or a mistake from the WE player.

I don't think this is a symptom of the scale of the game. You don't need to have units that can deal with all threats, regardless of how varied the scale of the game is.

Slipspace wrote:

 xttz wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
Which just highlights one of the major problems with GW's game design approach.

The option to tie down a big scary close combat monster should exist. It's infuriating that GW keeps handing out these split profiles so players don't actually have to think about that they're doing or make meaningful decisions. Angron can Fly and is extremely fast. If your opponent manages to charge him with 20 Gaunts to tie him down you absolutely should be punished for that. Instead you get this big expensive model that is basically non-interactive in the Fight phase because, as the opponent, you have no options for dealing with it due to the split profile.

It's just a symptom of the game catering for such a wide scale, from gaunts up to bio-titans. It would be a bigger issue if centrepiece units were too easily tied down and made useless by 'gamey' interactions like just drowning them in expendable chaff.

It's depressing that tying down units with suboptimal targets is seen as gamey now. It's especially depressing when said unit can Fly and has a huge Movement stat so the only realistic way this can happen is by good positional play from the opponent or a mistake from the WE player.

I don't think this is a symptom of the scale of the game. You don't need to have units that can deal with all threats, regardless of how varied the scale of the game is.

I think deal with all threats is a tricky string these days as well. In the world of everything can hurt everything, that should be enough imo that 30 gaunts theoretically can grind down a knight or whatever that not every army should have a hard answer for everything as well (looking at you old US meta of 1850 or 1999+1 games). I'm personally of the mind that being able to play the objectives better and/or being able to bog stuff down to a degree is a viable strategy and should be respected.

If you can successfully feed Angron an infantry squad a turn or something similar, he's no choice but to dramatically overkill his target and not really contribute much, that is and should be a valid tactic the same way deliberately trying to feed him a unit he can't kill in 1 turn. That's just less possible with near 40 attacks.

Same source as before is saying

Bezerkers have 5A and 5 STR baked into their profiles so they get 6A and 6 STR on the charge

Cataphract wrote:
Same source as before is saying

Bezerkers have 5A and 5 STR baked into their profiles so they get 6A and 6 STR on the charge

Aint that how they are now?

Yeah I think they got that in the White Dwarf rules that came along with the CSM codex

I've always felt that damage overspill should be universal but a weapon can never deal more damage than the wounds characteristic of the target. A lot cleaner mechanically and avoids unfun situations where d3s need to be rolled individually for 2-wound model units, FNP is an issue, etc.

Melee weapons, on the other hand, should IMO have full spillover UNLESS the profile says otherwise. Because yeah, when Angron swings that axe more than one gaunt is going to die.

Totally not to keep the thread alive or anything...

But with Zerks rumored to move D6 when shot at, plus the heroic intervention strat, plus the fight on death strat: are YOU (the reader) leaning towards 5 man MSU squads or 10 man ROLL TIDE squads?

I find myself leaning towards MSU for the tithe and just because It would look awesome honestly. They're killy enough but with the added bonus of an always on six + D6 inch melee threat range they will be super annoying to deal with. "OK, you killed this unit of five, I've got three more within six inches of the mid objectives. Also: Angron's back so have fun with that."

 choppinboard wrote:
Totally not to keep the thread alive or anything...

But with Zerks rumored to move D6 when shot at, plus the heroic intervention strat, plus the fight on death strat: are YOU (the reader) leaning towards 5 man MSU squads or 10 man ROLL TIDE squads?

I find myself leaning towards MSU for the tithe and just because It would look awesome honestly. They're killy enough but with the added bonus of an always on six + D6 inch melee threat range they will be super annoying to deal with. "OK, you killed this unit of five, I've got three more within six inches of the mid objectives. Also: Angron's back so have fun with that."

I'm thinking a mix, something like one full-size unit then several MSU zerkers. The codex seems to be full of buffs that can be applied to individual CORE units, so having one large unit that's capable of killing virtually any target seems useful.

Jakhals seem like a better option as expendable tithe units, at about 60% the cost of 5 zerkers

 xttz wrote:

 choppinboard wrote:
Totally not to keep the thread alive or anything...

But with Zerks rumored to move D6 when shot at, plus the heroic intervention strat, plus the fight on death strat: are YOU (the reader) leaning towards 5 man MSU squads or 10 man ROLL TIDE squads?

I find myself leaning towards MSU for the tithe and just because It would look awesome honestly. They're killy enough but with the added bonus of an always on six + D6 inch melee threat range they will be super annoying to deal with. "OK, you killed this unit of five, I've got three more within six inches of the mid objectives. Also: Angron's back so have fun with that."

I'm thinking a mix, something like one full-size unit then several MSU zerkers. The codex seems to be full of buffs that can be applied to individual CORE units, so having one large unit that's capable of killing virtually any target seems useful.

Jakhals seem like a better option as expendable tithe units, at about 60% the cost of 5 zerkers

I don't disagree with you regarding Jakhals but they just seem... confused. Expensive for a backfield objective holder, slow(?) and weak(?) for a spearhead unit. Blades of Khorne could whip their chaff waaaay up the board (not sure anymore but they could when I played them years ago). There's no strat (that we know of) to make them go faster so it has to be on the datasheet if it's anywhere. There's been no rumors about them going faster than regular cultists. Maybe the blood they carry will "stim" them to move faster but more likely it just makes them fight harder.

Usual "the local gw manager said" preorders are the end of Jan, low to no credibility but why not throw it out there.

Dudeface wrote:
Usual "the local gw manager said" preorders are the end of Jan, low to no credibility but why not throw it out there.

We need to get through Slaves to Darkness wide release and Guard wide release first.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Usual "the local gw manager said" preorders are the end of Jan, low to no credibility but why not throw it out there.

We need to get through Slaves to Darkness wide release and Guard wide release first.

Yup, I can't see it happening personally but threw it out as his predictions are usually on point.

 choppinboard wrote:
I don't disagree with you regarding Jakhals but they just seem... confused. Expensive for a backfield objective holder, slow(?) and weak(?) for a spearhead unit. Blades of Khorne could whip their chaff waaaay up the board (not sure anymore but they could when I played them years ago). There's no strat (that we know of) to make them go faster so it has to be on the datasheet if it's anywhere. There's been no rumors about them going faster than regular cultists. Maybe the blood they carry will "stim" them to move faster but more likely it just makes them fight harder.

Honestly I'm not certain how they'll play yet, but I'm expecting to field them in a few games because:

Jakhals seem like they'd do some work once a few blood tithes have been unlocked

One of the playtesters said in Discord that they're good units, certainly the best cultists

There's 20 in the combat patrol lmao

I might try a gimmick tactic where the Jakhals start on the board next to a Rhino. On turn 1 they kill D3 of their own models for +1 strength, allowing them to board the Rhino and leave space for Kharn or a MoE to join in. Meanwhile my berzerkers just hotfoot it because they get the free D6" move and benefit from the juggerlord +2" aura.

Edit: I'm also pretty sure that Jakhals will be one of those troop units whose usefulness will be mainly decided by the faction secondaries available, rather than what's on the datasheet.

Dudeface wrote:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Usual "the local gw manager said" preorders are the end of Jan, low to no credibility but why not throw it out there.

We need to get through Slaves to Darkness wide release and Guard wide release first.

Yup, I can't see it happening personally but threw it out as his predictions are usually on point.

Jjanuary has 4 preorders. 1 for std, one for guard, one for we, 1 spare. Not impossible.

How manny bezereker are you guys going to field in a 1850 point game.

At the moment i only got Kharn because i love the model, and of couse i want the red angel when he comes out.

bezerkers in a rhino or not?

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Usual "the local gw manager said" preorders are the end of Jan, low to no credibility but why not throw it out there.

We need to get through Slaves to Darkness wide release and Guard wide release first.

I mean, there's always the possibility of an army set as the start of preorders...