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.

Slipspace wrote:
Which seems like a reasonable approximation of the lightning claw rules, so I'm not sure what the problem is.

Makes them less special. And seems to leave Power Fists, Chainfists and Thunder Hammers as the only different special HTH weapons outside of "Power Weapons". Now any melee weapon can be lightning claws just by having two of them. Ho hum.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


connected to the same mounting point for ranged weapons
two of the same melee weapon for melee weapons

Aggressors already break your first tenet.

i'd argue that infantry is a single mounting point tbh


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Makes them less special

how? its just a name, you can still call them "lightning claws" if you want

Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Every time they buff the toughness of a vehicle without changing the Wound Chart, they are just making small arms more and more efficient relative to AT guns.

Oh no, rhinos are T9! My lasguns are afraid. I bet Baneblades are even T-15. Lascannons wound on 5s with one shot? Ha! Bolters are better.

Didn't realise you'd seen all the rules already.

Sorry, I thought the thread was discussing the previews. If you would prefer to wait until the full rules release to discuss them, you could always ask for the thread to be locked.

Methinks you're being purposefully obtuse. There's a different between discussing the previews and making things up, crying about the sky falling down, and then discussing that.

You're making assumptions, and it's bringing down the quality of discussion. As other users have demonstrated, you can discuss things without making assumptions and complaining about them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
Which seems like a reasonable approximation of the lightning claw rules, so I'm not sure what the problem is.

Makes them less special. And seems to leave Power Fists, Chainfists and Thunder Hammers as the only different special HTH weapons outside of "Power Weapons". Now any melee weapon can be lightning claws just by having two of them. Ho hum.

Do you know what the stats for Lightning Claws are? Do you know if power swords will have the same offensive profile as a single lightning claw?

No, I thought not.

Yet again, a brilliant example of an absolute statement, given without knowing the actual situation.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
Which seems like a reasonable approximation of the lightning claw rules, so I'm not sure what the problem is.

Makes them less special. And seems to leave Power Fists, Chainfists and Thunder Hammers as the only different special HTH weapons outside of "Power Weapons". Now any melee weapon can be lightning claws just by having two of them. Ho hum.

How does maintaining the rules for them make them les special? Remember, we're getting weapon profiles per unit now, so there's no requirement for one unit's pair of CC weapons to be treated like a pair of lightning claws if GW don't think that's appropriate. Where it is appropriate, they can do so.

It's entirely possible we'll see a wide range of different Power Weapon profiles, depending on the wielders. I'd prefer that over the endless flip-flopping between whichever option out of swords and axes happens to be best at the time.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Do you know what the stats for Lightning Claws are? Do you know if power swords will have the same offensive profile as a single lightning claw?

It's called an educated guess and pattern recognition. It really isn't that complicated, but let me break it down for you rather than level insults like you just did:

1. We've seen "Power Weapon" be presented as a weapon type, rather than "Power Sword". From this we can reasonably infer that Mauls/Axes/Swords are being consolidated into a single profile.
2. Then we look at Chosen, who have already had all but Fists consolidated into "Accursed Weapons", which includes lightning claws.
3. And then we see that Twin-Linked now applies to melee weapons, and the rule it provides is the rule that Lightning Claws have had since 3rd Edition.

Therefore it is reasonable to assume that what happened with Accursed Weapons for Chaos Marines will be applied to Power Weapon varieties with Loyalist Marines. And as Lightning Claws ceased to be a separate entry with them, and the new twin-linked rules confer the benefit that lightning claws have enjoyed for literal decades, it makes sense to take an educated guess that lightning claws are now just twin linked power weapons rather than their own specific separate weapon.

Doesn't mean that is actually going to be the case, but this is how discussions work where people take what we know and speculate based upon known facts.

Get it?

Twin-linked has come all the way back around to 2nd ed rules, lol.

Consolidating thr Bolt Rifle is smart. It actually starts to make Intercessors competetive with Tactical Squads.

Melta rifles are strength 9, meaning they wound Rhinos only twice as well as bolters or lasguns.

They do more damage past the wound... but lol.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Melta rifles are strength 9, meaning they wound Rhinos only twice as well as bolters or lasguns.

They do more damage past the wound... but lol.

Rhinos in particular are T9, so Meltas wound them thrice as well.

But your points stands for a lot of other vehicles.

Sure, there is an AP-4 after the wound roll...

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Melta rifles are strength 9, meaning they wound Rhinos only twice as well as bolters or lasguns.

They do more damage past the wound... but lol.

Yeah, the Wound chart is still pants. I hope they address it, but atm it looks like they're just trying to tackle it with keywords, which GW has a bit of a spotty history with.

If both units are moving at 18":

Bolt rifle scores: 0.11 wounds against a Rhino
Melta rifle scores 0.77 wounds against a Rhino.

Make of that what you will. Melta does improve if stationary or at half range.

Edit: sorry, T12 like a gladiator in the math. It's better for the meltas against the rhino, I think it even breaks 1 wound.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
If both units are moving at 18":

Bolt rifle scores: 0.11 wounds against a Rhino
Melta rifle scores 0.77 wounds against a Rhino.

Make of that what you will. Melta does improve if stationary or at half range.

Edit: sorry, T12 like a gladiator in the math. It's better for the meltas against the rhino, I think it even breaks 1 wound.

Right, so 5 Intercessors will do 0.55.
3 Eradicators will do 3.5

Or in other words - 636% better - 1000% better ( literally ) in half range, but who's counting?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
If both units are moving at 18":

Bolt rifle scores: 0.11 wounds against a Rhino
Melta rifle scores 0.77 wounds against a Rhino.

Make of that what you will. Melta does improve if stationary or at half range.

Edit: sorry, T12 like a gladiator in the math. It's better for the meltas against the rhino, I think it even breaks 1 wound.

Right, so 5 Intercessors will do 0.55.
3 Eradicators will do 3.5

Or in other words - 636% better - 1000% better ( literally ) in half range, but who's counting?

Yep, and as we know, the usual antitank weapon is only 6 times* better at killing enemy tanks than a man with a sharp bayonet, and that isn't absurd at all and certainly wouldn't make tanks obsolete overnight in a setting.

*10 times at half range!

(And all this right near a thread asking if you can play "in character"... )

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And that's how Lightning Claws will be Jervis'd.

"One Chosen may replace his Bolter and Accursed Weapon with a Twin-Linked Accursed Weapon."

Seems sensible; I hope you're right.

 Crimson wrote:
Seems sensible; I hope you're right.

You say sensible. I say boring.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Twin-linked has come all the way back around to 2nd ed rules, lol.

Not really. It's been 2 hits in 1, reroll hits, double the shots before. Now it's new thing. Unless RT had reroll to wounds

For most of its life, a Lightning Claw was little more than a Power Weapon that rerolled to wound. What is the tragedy of it going back to exactly that?

And I highly doubt there will be a weapon called Twin-Linked Accursed Weapon. If the Lightning Claw is different from the other weapons, it will be Lightning Claw [Twin-Linked] other weapon rules.

 alextroy wrote:
For most of its life, a Lightning Claw was little more than a Power Weapon that rerolled to wound. What is the tragedy of it going back to exactly that?

It's not "going back to that". It's already that, but now it's rules aren't unique to it.

 alextroy wrote:
And I highly doubt there will be a weapon called Twin-Linked Accursed Weapon. If the Lightning Claw is different from the other weapons, it will be Lightning Claw [Twin-Linked] other weapon rules.

Twin-Linked is just two of the same weapon. So, yes, it is unlikely that it will be called Twin-Linked Accursed Weapon*, but it'll be something along the lines of "A model with two accursed weapons gains the twin-linked rule in melee".



*And not just because "Twin-Linked" is in the weapon rules now rather than the name...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
For most of its life, a Lightning Claw was little more than a Power Weapon that rerolled to wound. What is the tragedy of it going back to exactly that?

It's not "going back to that". It's already that, but now it's rules aren't unique to it.

 alextroy wrote:
And I highly doubt there will be a weapon called Twin-Linked Accursed Weapon. If the Lightning Claw is different from the other weapons, it will be Lightning Claw [Twin-Linked] other weapon rules.

Twin-Linked is just two of the same weapon. So, yes, it is unlikely that it will be called Twin-Linked Accursed Weapon*, but it'll be something along the lines of "A model with two accursed weapons gains the twin-linked rule in melee".

*And not just because "Twin-Linked" is in the weapon rules now rather than the name...

I... I don't really get your complaint.
Other weapons being able to reroll wounds doesn't make Lightning Claws less good, especially when the unit that has TL Powerfists (Aggressors) has no Lightning Claw option.

Can you articulate why this is such a big deal?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Yep, and as we know, the usual antitank weapon is only 6 times* better at killing enemy tanks than a man with a sharp bayonet, and that isn't absurd at all and certainly wouldn't make tanks obsolete overnight in a setting.

*10 times at half range!

(And all this right near a thread asking if you can play "in character"... )

That's an order of magnitude.

When those marines bolter a single wound off the melta have finished off the Rhino. And that's probably with the best small arms profile available in the game.

But let's give them Lethal Hits and OoM in a squad of 10.

20 * .306 * .5 = 3.1 // fishing for 6s
20 * .582 * .167 * .5 = 1

4.1 in total

The points for that squad can easily fit 5 eradicators under current points. And under OoM --

5 * .888 * .75 * 3.5 = 11.7 to 18.3

So, you COULD go all Intercessor and focus down a single Rhino with a scant 735 points or you could do it with 225. I dunno.

Meltaguns usually wounding on 5+ does weird me out, but if this is an edition where stacked AP is going away, then being able to ignore armor saves altogether could be pretty powerful. D6+2 damage is also nothing to sneeze at if they're reining in lethality across the board.

Basically I'm thinking that most things are going to be wounding tanks on 5s and 6s, but it'll be the AP and damage that make the difference.

I also want to point out that having twin-linked re-roll to wound actually makes it a lot more impactful than re-roll to hit for most armies. If you're succeeding on a 3+, then a re-roll is just a 33% bonus. At 4+ it's 50%, at 5+ it's 67%, and at 6+ it's 83%, or just shy of doubling your performance anyways.

The corollary there is that you'll get the most benefit when shooting things just outside your normal performance envelope, too tough to be an ideal matchup for your given weapon.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


connected to the same mounting point for ranged weapons
two of the same melee weapon for melee weapons

Aggressors already break your first tenet.

i'd argue that infantry is a single mounting point tbh

Twin-linked has historically been about two of the same weapon mounted side by side for redundancy into a single target. Arms and thus arm mounted weapons allow multiple targets to be selected.

tneva82 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Twin-linked has come all the way back around to 2nd ed rules, lol.

Not really. It's been 2 hits in 1, reroll hits, double the shots before. Now it's new thing. Unless RT had reroll to wounds

I was seeing the analogy that TL is back to the single die to hit, then effecting Wound results. Although yes, in 2nd you just rolled both Wound dice rather than a reroll.

Technically you are correct, whuch is the best kind of correct.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
For most of its life, a Lightning Claw was little more than a Power Weapon that rerolled to wound. What is the tragedy of it going back to exactly that?

It's not "going back to that". It's already that, but now it's rules aren't unique to it.

Yeah I gotta say I'm overall ok with the change here. This is just one of those consolidation efforts where different people draw the line in different places. Maybe some people like 50 types of bolters too (but they're wrong to do so )

The thing I like about it is that I don't like the look of LCs on Power Armored troopers, and it looks like now I can just use two Power Swords instead. That's nice.

If you are on the "I hate small arms can hurt tanks" then presumably the great concern is going to be Termagants with Spinefists with Hyper Aggression for lethal hits.

If you could get 60 into 12" (they aren't exactly rapid at M6" but you could advance) that's...

120*1/6*1/3=6.666 wounds.
120*1/3*11/36*1/3=4.07.
Total: 10.74 wounds
So you'd expect to kill a Rhino. But a slightly hot roll, you are popping the Gladiator too and putting a big dent in a Repulsor.

If you could charge a unit in afterwards and got 30 swings (probably not possible I'd guess) you'd almost certainly contribute a couple more wounds and so bag the Gladiator.

Then again, the whole point of the hyper-aggression adaptation is to let Tyranid small arms hurt tanks.

I'm not really concerned with Tryanids evolved to destroy vehicles actually destroying vehicles

Now if we assume that Meltaguns are S9 (per the Melta Rifle), we are looking at vehicles being more resistant to Melta, which isn't a tragedy. I just hope that vehicle mounted AT is better than the man-portable units. It would be nice if the various turret versions of weapons on tanks were better at killing tanks. There is a reason we fight tanks with tanks, not RPGs.

Tyel wrote:
If you are on the "I hate small arms can hurt tanks" then presumably the great concern is going to be Termagants with Spinefists with Hyper Aggression for lethal hits.

If you could get 60 into 12" (they aren't exactly rapid at M6" but you could advance) that's...

120*1/6*1/3=6.666 wounds.
120*1/3*11/36*1/3=4.07.
Total: 10.74 wounds
So you'd expect to kill a Rhino. But a slightly hot roll, you are popping the Gladiator too and putting a big dent in a Repulsor.

If you could charge a unit in afterwards and got 30 swings (probably not possible I'd guess) you'd almost certainly contribute a couple more wounds and so bag the Gladiator.

AKA it isn't a big deal despite the people not having moved on from the awful AV system.

 catbarf wrote:
Meltaguns usually wounding on 5+ does weird me out, but if this is an edition where stacked AP is going away, then being able to ignore armor saves altogether could be pretty powerful. D6+2 damage is also nothing to sneeze at if they're reining in lethality across the board.

Basically I'm thinking that most things are going to be wounding tanks on 5s and 6s, but it'll be the AP and damage that make the difference.

I also want to point out that having twin-linked re-roll to wound actually makes it a lot more impactful than re-roll to hit for most armies. If you're succeeding on a 3+, then a re-roll is just a 33% bonus. At 4+ it's 50%, at 5+ it's 67%, and at 6+ it's 83%, or just shy of doubling your performance anyways.

The corollary there is that you'll get the most benefit when shooting things just outside your normal performance envelope, too tough to be an ideal matchup for your given weapon.

Meltas wounding on 5s gives Lascannons room to be anti-tank without needing a special rule, which I like.

Looking back on Termagant weapons -- spinefists are the standout, but getting 10 T3 5+ models within 12" of something can be a feat. They can run and gun, which helps. The devourer is the safe pick with good range and output. And in last place is the Fleshborer, which has a wounding edge, but I think S5 may not be useful enough and I don't think Assault can save that gun unless mobility is crucial -- that does give them the longest reach by 3 to 4" ( assuming run is a D6 still ) , but the scenarios where that matters will be few and subject to the dice gods.

( wounds caused by 10 of each weapon )

I sort of wonder (on the back of Aggressors) whether the fact Spinefists get 2 shots is a typo.

If you halve the numbers you get a very similar number to a Fleshborer - and say Devourers could be an extra point or something.

I think it's appropriate for such a short range and model density. It's the Fleshborer that needs help. Obviously we're still missing a lot of info so who knows, but I doubt there will be anything to sort it out.

Or you could be right and it should be 1 and I'm just not looking at it right.

I think 10th should be a great edition given the contents and quality of the complaints so far. The current recurring sore points:

- USRs having a few too many words in their definition
- USRs having too many characters in the name
- The currently unrevealed to-wound chart, but in it's absence let's bash the existing one
- Weapons with similar profiles potentially getting consolidated being boring (notably by the same people complaining about bolter variants)
- Some complaints about the lack of auras after 2 editions of people complaining about wombo combo auras


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I think it's appropriate for such a short range and model density. It's the Fleshborer that needs help. Obviously we're still missing a lot of info so who knows, but I doubt there will be anything to sort it out.

Or you could be right and it should be 1 and I'm just not looking at it right.

Fleshborer will have price & range on it's side if the devourer is a paid-for upgrade.