Games Workshop - Shadow War Armageddon-cranes and new terrain pg 135

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.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Also, not seeing Ammo stats for the weapons?

**H.B.M.C.**

Could be a mashup.

You roll to hit, I roll to hit, hits cancel one another out, remainder roll To Wound, etc.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Could also just be an effect of poorly chosen short hand notes?

**Vorian**

It looks to be much simpler, as an entry game should be I guess - so ammo is probably gone

An interesting bit about the equipment, but power armour being a lot weaker will come as quite the surprise to young 'uns

The notes would have to be pretty poorly chosen, I don't see how it could make sense in an unaltered Necromunda combat system.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

If 'highest dice plus WS' is defined as your combat score, then it makes more sense.

**Vorian**

But what would an "attack roll" be?

In a Mordheim type system you'd have an attack roll for each attack with a to hit value. For an old Necromunda system I can't think of anything

**nou**

Vorian wrote:

An interesting bit about the equipment, but power armour being a lot weaker will come as quite the surprise to young 'uns

This is one of the main reasons I expect a lot of whining at this game by post-3rd ed era SM players, second one being the old to hit modifiers making them hitting Harlequins running from behind cover on 7+

**Mymearan**

Vorian wrote:
But what would an "attack roll" be?

In a Mordheim type system you'd have an attack roll for each attack with a to hit value. For an old Necromunda system I can't think of anything

The "attack roll" would be the roll that is defined in the Necromunda rulebook as an "attack dice roll". Orks would get +1 to each of their attack dice in this case. Note that it says "attack rollS" as in multiple dice.

**Mr Morden**

zedmeister wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:

You're not misremembering. Each player would roll as many D6's as they had attacks, find their highest score, and add their Weapon Skill to it. If they charged, +1. For every 6 they rolled after the first, +1. For every 1 the opponent rolled, +1.

Compare scores, the difference = how many hits the winner got. Roll to wound, save, etc.

Initiative on draws. Proper draw on equal Initiative I think.

Made combat very decisive. You could win by considerable amounts (like Genestealers!!!), and get in tons of hits, practically guaranteeing an Out of Action result.

It was fine in one-on-one situations, and even worked with one-on-many situations because of the gang up rules (never get ganged up on by Genestealers!), but once you had 2-on-2 everything went to hell.

Don't forget Parry forcing an opponent to re-roll.

Ah, that reminds me of the good old 40k 2nd edition combat phase and a particular 3 way fight of howling banshees, chaos marines and a few daemons fighting it out. Took about 20 minutes to resolve that one but it pretty much decided the battle Good times.

Ahhh Parry - My Escher girls loved to wield swords

**nou**

Mymearan wrote:
Vorian wrote:
But what would an "attack roll" be?

In a Mordheim type system you'd have an attack roll for each attack with a to hit value. For an old Necromunda system I can't think of anything

The "attack roll" would be the roll that is defined in the Necromunda rulebook as an "attack dice roll". Orks would get +1 to each of their attack dice in this case. Note that it says "attack rollS" as in multiple dice.

Like in "every '5' counts as '6'" +1 to each dice? That would most certainly be new introduction to Necromunda mechanics and I highly doubt it is proper interpretation.

**Mymearan**

nou wrote:
Mymearan wrote:
Vorian wrote:
But what would an "attack roll" be?

In a Mordheim type system you'd have an attack roll for each attack with a to hit value. For an old Necromunda system I can't think of anything

The "attack roll" would be the roll that is defined in the Necromunda rulebook as an "attack dice roll". Orks would get +1 to each of their attack dice in this case. Note that it says "attack rollS" as in multiple dice.

Like in "every '5' counts as '6'" +1 to each dice? That would most certainly be new introduction to Necromunda mechanics and I highly doubt it is proper interpretation.

It would be nothing more than a new way of saying "+1 to combat score". It could very well be shorthand for "+1 to your highest dice" as well, or they simply renamed "combat score" to "attack roll". The reason it says "rollS" would be that you can make multiple attack rolls if you fight multiple opponents. Don't know why you would doubt it, much less highly! We'll see very soon I suppose.

**Captain Joystick**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I think many players will be dreading the Breacher's Pulse Shotgun things?

Unlikely, since Breachers aren't Pathfinders.

Unless there's been some information to the contrary, I expect the Tau's existing pathfinder options of pulse carbines, ion rifles, and rail rifles will be all they get. Maybe something to account for the really cool drones that come in that box.

**Vorian**

But there isn't anything defined as that (admittedly I'm only looking at the community edition)

It talks about AN attack dice roll, being the roll of an attack dice - but that is not an "attack roll" and it's not THE attack dice roll.

Combat score bring renamed to attack roll doesn't make sense because, as you say, it's rollS

I'm sure we shall see soon enough, maybe it's something innocuous and it's all the same. I'm putting my money on the Mordheimesque system though

**Mymearan**

Vorian wrote:
But there isn't anything defined as that (admittedly I'm only looking at the community edition)

It talks about an attack dice roll, being the roll of an attack dice - but that is not an attack roll.

I'm sure we shall see soon enough

That's true, if you assume the Shadow War rules are an identical, word for word copy of the Necromunda rules. But I find the likelihood that either

a) the "combat score" or the "attack dice roll" is now called the "attack roll" or
b) This sheet was written by a GW staffer who didn't bother to check the exact wording in the rule book

to be higher than the likelihood that they changed the HTH rules.

edit: As for "rollS", see my comment above, if you fight multiple opponent you get a separate combat score against each opponent. Renaming "combat score" to "attack roll" would also be consistent with GWs modern games, for example a "to hit roll" is always a "to hit roll", it's not separated into "to hit roll" and "hit score" after modifiers.

**Vorian**

Perhaps so. Though renaming the combat score to attack rolls is counter intuitive given that the roll is only part of the calculation - and that you get +1 for charging anyway, so you should write "an additional +1 when charging"

Obviously this is me applying my own logic, so it might not be the case.

Kill team's HtH system would be basically identical to Mordheim though wouldn't it?

**nou**

Mymearan wrote:
nou wrote:
Mymearan wrote:
Vorian wrote:
But what would an "attack roll" be?

In a Mordheim type system you'd have an attack roll for each attack with a to hit value. For an old Necromunda system I can't think of anything

The "attack roll" would be the roll that is defined in the Necromunda rulebook as an "attack dice roll". Orks would get +1 to each of their attack dice in this case. Note that it says "attack rollS" as in multiple dice.

Like in "every '5' counts as '6'" +1 to each dice? That would most certainly be new introduction to Necromunda mechanics and I highly doubt it is proper interpretation.

It would be nothing more than a new way of saying "+1 to combat score". It could very well be shorthand for "+1 to your highest dice" as well, or they simply renamed "combat score" to "attack roll". The reason it says "rollS" would be that you can make multiple attack rolls if you fight multiple opponents. Don't know why you would doubt it, much less highly! We'll see very soon I suppose.

No, because "'5' counts as '6'" generate higher chance for critical hits on many dice. +1 to your highest dice makes no sense at all in 2nd ed mechanics, because you cannot simply say '6' couns as '7', because multiple 6's matter. And I doubt it, because all those straightforward statements, that this is Necromudna rulebook rules ported on 40K factions... For me this shorthand is most probably +1 attack dice when charging, which is less than +1 to combat score and makes sense as a faction wide rule.

**lord_blackfang**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
It occurs to me that these rules would give us the first official (or as official as one can get in 2017) 2nd Ed rules for Tau weaponry.

Worryingly, ASM are so far absent from leaked profiles...

**Not-not-kenny**

I do wonder how much this not-Necromunda with 40K models is because of the INQ28/Inquisimunda crowd.

Also this could just be intended as a gateway to SG's future actual Necromunda remake.

**Alendrel**

lord_blackfang wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
It occurs to me that these rules would give us the first official (or as official as one can get in 2017) 2nd Ed rules for Tau weaponry.

Worryingly, ASM are so far absent from leaked profiles...

The Nob's power klaw on the demo roster has "Save: -3".

**Ragnar69**

lord_blackfang wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
It occurs to me that these rules would give us the first official (or as official as one can get in 2017) 2nd Ed rules for Tau weaponry.

Worryingly, ASM are so far absent from leaked profiles...

I don't think assault marines will ever be included. First, it doesn't make much sense fluffwise to deploy them in ceiled areas. Second, as there is no ceiling on the tabletop they have too much of an advantage over footsloggers.

**Mr Morden**

Ragnar69 wrote:
lord_blackfang wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
It occurs to me that these rules would give us the first official (or as official as one can get in 2017) 2nd Ed rules for Tau weaponry.

Worryingly, ASM are so far absent from leaked profiles...

I don't think assault marines will ever be included. First, it doesn't make much sense fluffwise to deploy them in ceiled areas. Second, as there is no ceiling on the tabletop they have too much of an advantage over footsloggers.

I think he means armour save modifiers

**NewTruthNeomaxim**

To those mentioning the lack of ammo mechanics... the leaked page from the GSC roster showed that "ammo" was one of the tables from which money/pts/whatever can be spent.

**Vorian**

That will be different shotgun shells etc, we were talking about having to take an ammo roll to see of you run out of ammunition. Bolt weapons would run out unless you rolled a 6 for example (you have to test when you roll a 6 to hit)

**BrookM**

IIRC one could always purchase reloads for their weapons, to ignore that first botched roll.

**Vorian**

Yup, there's various skills and tech that can affect it - but given there's no ammo roll stat for shootas it could possibly not be in shadow wars

**Neronoxx**

Vorian wrote:
Yup, there's various skills and tech that can affect it - but given there's no ammo roll stat for shootas it could possibly not be in shadow wars

While I like having limited ammo, I never liked the idea of having random limited ammo, so i won't miss that rule if it's gone.

**BrookM**

It's still early days, it may be in, it may be out, as it may favour certain assault heavy factions more than others. Though unlike some tatty gang, the forces involved in this game will overall have a better supply chain. Though it would be hilarious for some random Marines to run out of ammo after two rounds of shooting.

**JohnnyHell**

Ammo rolls represented poorly-equipped gangers instead of drilled and prepped soldiers. It wouldn't surprise me if they weren't present in SW:A.

**Mymearan**

Even Eldar weapons could jam in 2nd ed so why not

**Ghaz**

I can see it as an option, with certain armies being able to reroll failed rolls.