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.

I don't know how I feel about a daemon primarch having the same number of wounds as a Trygon but with better saves...


EDIT: Although the Carnifex may end up getting over 12 wounds, I think they were referring to the Trygons and Mawlocs when they said "Biggest Tyranid Monsters" so I changed it to Trygon

Q: What happens to command squads now?
A: Hey Robert,
Command Squads work as they always have - a great unit to accompany your commander to battle.

Well... no. They can stand near one another. The IC isn't really leading the squad though.

But they can still do all the stuff they did in 7th... shoot, fight and protect the IC.

So?

 Quarterdime wrote:
I don't know how I feel about a daemon primarch having the same number of wounds as a Carnifex but with better saves...

Did it bother you when the imperial knight had the same av as a predator just with a better save (and hp)?

RoninXiC wrote:
But they can still do all the stuff they did in 7th... shoot, fight and protect the IC.

So?

They can do all the stuff they did in 7th edition... unless the enemy walks around them. At which point they become irrelevant.

 Quarterdime wrote:
I don't know how I feel about a daemon primarch having the same number of wounds as a Carnifex but with better saves...

Where have they said the Wounds of a daemon primarch or of a Carnifex?

And personally, I think that a Daemon Primarch totally should have more wounds and a better save than a Carnifex. They are like the... the most OP thing in all of the 40k game besides Warlords Titans and C'than shards, maybe.

 insaniak wrote:

RoninXiC wrote:
But they can still do all the stuff they did in 7th... shoot, fight and protect the IC.

So?

They can do all the stuff they did in 7th edition... unless the enemy walks around them. At which point they become irrelevant.

isnt that a positive tick on the box for making the game more tactical?

 Quarterdime wrote:
I don't know how I feel about a daemon primarch having the same number of wounds as a Carnifex but with better saves...

I agree, no way a bog standard Carnifex should be even with an eternal being of slaughter and malice.

 davou wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

RoninXiC wrote:
But they can still do all the stuff they did in 7th... shoot, fight and protect the IC.

So?

They can do all the stuff they did in 7th edition... unless the enemy walks around them. At which point they become irrelevant.

isnt that a positive tick on the box for making the game more tactical?

No, is bad desing and unrealistic

 davou wrote:


isnt that a positive tick on the box for making the game more tactical?

No, it's a tick on the box for making the game about micromanaging unit placement to screen the unit from sight so that you can snipe the character. The whole point of joining characters to units was to stop them being picked out. Remove that, and bodyguards are essentially useless, unless they have a protective 'bubble' effect.

I totally expect the typical "If this units is at 3" or lower than the Hyve Tyrant, in a roll of 2+ every wound or mortal wound is passed to this unit", to the Tyrant Guard, for example. In AoS you have some units with that rules, like the little abomination that goes with Sayl the Idontremember.

 insaniak wrote:

 davou wrote:


isnt that a positive tick on the box for making the game more tactical?

No, it's a tick on the box for making the game about micromanaging unit placement to screen the unit from sight so that you can snipe the character. The whole point of joining characters to units was to stop them being picked out. Remove that, and bodyguards are essentially useless, unless they have a protective 'bubble' effect.

ohhhh, okay then....

 Galas wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Tyel wrote:
While it feels alien is there any reason why transports carrying two small squads would break the game?

It's a points-for-effect issue.

A transport vehicle is effectively some extra protection and an enhanced movement for a given points investment. So when you pay, say, 50 points for a transport, you're paying 50 points to give a unit the ability to move faster and gain some protection from enemy shooting.

If you can put two units in that one transport, all of a sudden you're paying the same points cost, but two separate units are benefiting from it at the same time... something that in the current system you would need to pay twice for.


Of course, in the current game where armies potentially have access to an entire free motorpool, that seems somewhat of an irrelevant point... but it's something that should be considered in the game design.

Then, they should made the vehicle exploding more deadly to the units inside, to made it a more risk-management decission.

Put all your eggs in one basket, style of thing.
And, having less transports just makes to your opponent more easy to stop your army. They only need to kill one transport to make two of your units lose it, for example.

Will vehicule still explode in 8th edition ?

 Galas wrote:

 Quarterdime wrote:
I don't know how I feel about a daemon primarch having the same number of wounds as a Carnifex but with better saves...

Where have they said the Wounds of a daemon primarch or of a Carnifex?

And personally, I think that a Daemon Primarch totally should have more wounds and a better save than a Carnifex. They are like the... the most OP thing in all of the 40k game besides Warlords Titans and C'than shards, maybe.

on the Large Models update: "The largest Tyranid monsters now have over a dozen wounds"

Come to think of it, that probably refers to the Trygon instead of the Carnifex. I'll edit that comment.

On the 10 wound effectiveness cliff, which is a real problem, perhaps the solution is to have very few characters in the 9 - 12 wound range. Of course, this depends upon GW not abusing the digital change in survivability at 10 wounds, but a disciplined game designer could keep the number of 9 - 12 wound characters to a minimum.

As for the choice of 10 wounds, it may have been the case in playtesting that 10 wounds is really the point at which a unit needs to be vulnerable to weapons fire, less it dominate too much in the close combat phase. In that case, if the independently targetable characteristic was a keyword, it would still be applied to all characters with > 10 wounds, as they would be overpowered otherwise.

Somebody with experience would have to mathhammer it out, but it could be that a unit with > 10 wounds is vastly more survivable in reasonable Close Combat phases.

 Lobukia wrote:

 Quarterdime wrote:
I don't know how I feel about a daemon primarch having the same number of wounds as a Carnifex but with better saves...

I agree, no way a bog standard Carnifex should be even with an eternal being of slaughter and malice.

What about a Trygon?

Vindicares are going to be true-to-fluff and seriously nasty with those sniper rules. Illic Nightspear might get a boost, too.

 Robin5t wrote:
Vindicares are going to be true-to-fluff and seriously nasty with those sniper rules. Illic Nightspear might get a boost, too.

Good. Otherwise they need to cost about half as many points as they do now. Hopefully their ammo lays down multiple wounds on a target. There is no reason someone should be able to walk away from a Vindicare's sniper hit unless they are an absolute beast.

My guess is that units like Command Squads, Honour Guard, Tyrant Guard, etc just make it so that if they are within a certain distance of a character that you can't target the character with shooting attacks, even if they are closer.

 Galas wrote:

 davou wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

RoninXiC wrote:
But they can still do all the stuff they did in 7th... shoot, fight and protect the IC.

So?

They can do all the stuff they did in 7th edition... unless the enemy walks around them. At which point they become irrelevant.

isnt that a positive tick on the box for making the game more tactical?

No, is bad desing and unrealistic

I don't think it's bad design and definitely not unrealistic, I walk towards a group of people in pretty sure I can choose which one I put a bullet in and for everyone else of the group to dive in front of the bullet would need hobbit movie dwarfs cleaning and stacking plates levels of precision to stop, yeah bodyguards are trained to dive in front of bullets but it might be a bit hard when the shooter is closer to the target than the guy taking the dive. Just my thoughts on it anyway.

 insaniak wrote:

RoninXiC wrote:
But they can still do all the stuff they did in 7th... shoot, fight and protect the IC.

So?

They can do all the stuff they did in 7th edition... unless the enemy walks around them. At which point they become irrelevant.

Which is more realistic, thought you were all for that?

Personally I'll like to all the mechanical things to explode when they die, yes. And even maybe biological ones. A Carnifex exploding in a ball of acid-like blood. What not to love.

 Quarterdime wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:

 Quarterdime wrote:
I don't know how I feel about a daemon primarch having the same number of wounds as a Carnifex but with better saves...

I agree, no way a bog standard Carnifex should be even with an eternal being of slaughter and malice.

What about a Trygon?

Not even close too. I know it sucks but for now, I think that Daemon Primarchs are, at least in the fluff level, the most OP things in the entire game we can play now.

 Mantle wrote:

I don't think it's bad design and definitely not unrealistic, I walk towards a group of people in pretty sure I can choose which one I put a bullet in and for everyone else of the group to dive in front of the bullet would need hobbit movie dwarfs cleaning and stacking plates levels of precision to stop, yeah bodyguards are trained to dive in front of bullets but it might be a bit hard when the shooter is closer to the target than the guy taking the dive. Just my thoughts on it anyway.

It's bad design and unrealistic because it hinges the ability to target a unit or not on a purely arbitrary keyword, rather than on any physical attribute of the target.

I can target a Guardsman standing out in the middle of a paddock... but I can't target the Commander standing 3 inches to his left, for no reason other than to save needing to have rules covering mixed units.


A better option straight off the top of my head would have been for them to just prohibit characters from being targeted if they are within 'x' distance of a unit (2 or 3", preferably), rather than worrying about who is closer. That would allow characters to lead from the front again, and would give the semblance of them being joined to the unit without needing a page of rules covering joining and leaving.,

 insaniak wrote:

 davou wrote:


isnt that a positive tick on the box for making the game more tactical?

No, it's a tick on the box for making the game about micromanaging unit placement to screen the unit from sight so that you can snipe the character.

So it's basically double standards when applied to man sized models rather than big vehicles?

Good.

 insaniak wrote:

 Mantle wrote:

I don't think it's bad design and definitely not unrealistic, I walk towards a group of people in pretty sure I can choose which one I put a bullet in and for everyone else of the group to dive in front of the bullet would need hobbit movie dwarfs cleaning and stacking plates levels of precision to stop, yeah bodyguards are trained to dive in front of bullets but it might be a bit hard when the shooter is closer to the target than the guy taking the dive. Just my thoughts on it anyway.

It's bad design and unrealistic because it hinges the ability to target a unit or not on a purely arbitrary keyword, rather than on any physical attribute of the target.

I can target a Guardsman standing out in the middle of a paddock... but I can't target the Commander standing 3 inches to his left, for no reason other than to save needing to have rules covering mixed units.


A better option straight off the top of my head would have been for them to just prohibit characters from being targeted if they are within 'x' distance of a unit (2 or 3", preferably), rather than worrying about who is closer. That would allow characters to lead from the front again, and would give the semblance of them being joined to the unit without needing a page of rules covering joining and leaving.,

Wait, you actually WANT your characters to lead from the front?

ERJAK wrote:

Which is more realistic, thought you were all for that?

"Ok, men, we're here to protect the Lord Solar. Everyone in a line over here!"

"But, sarge, that unit of Havocs over there is circling around us... they'll have a clear shot at the Lord Solar from there!"

"Damnit... and we just moved over here. Can't change our formation until after they've taken their shot. Cross your fingers and hope they're bad shots, lads! We'll run over there in front of him when they're done!"



Yup, totally more realistic.

Man, first people were mad that Roboute was a MC and could be shot up on his way over, and now people are mad that they gave him (and everyone else) survivability... smh

 andysonic1 wrote:
Wait, you actually WANT your characters to lead from the front?

Yes...?

I play Orks. Characters need to be out in front where they can be assured of getting into combat. It's also more fluffy than having them lurking around at the back.

40K is essentially a fantasy game in space. Generals tend to be loud and ostentatious... For most races, characters are more likely to be found either right at the forefront of the charge, or standing up somewhere prominent waving and shouting in an inspiring fashion. The introduction of 6th ed's 'casualties from the front' casualty removal killed that stone cold dead.

Well, unless your character was the guy with the invulnerable save...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Q: What happens to command squads now?
A: Hey Robert,
Command Squads work as they always have - a great unit to accompany your commander to battle.

Well... no. They can stand near one another. The IC isn't really leading the squad though.

Strange when I accompany the misses to town or out for dinner we tend to just be near each other? If I want to lead people around at work we kind just stand near each other and move about no one gets inside any ones skin or anything there's no need for formal attachments. It's really just the same. It's all in your mind who's leading who what and how. The only thing you can not do that you could before is extend the coherency of a unit by being in the middle if its stretched out in a line, which is no big loss. You can still have a group of any infantry bubbled around and just as close as before to what ever characters you want. And units like hive guards, command squads, honour guard etc are likely to get unique rules to interact with the correct characters.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Man, first people were mad that Roboute was a MC and could be shot up on his way over, and now people are mad that they gave him (and everyone else) survivability... smh

Yeah... it's almost like different people have different opinions...

There's no reason why you can't sit an IC in the middle of a unit, that way you can circumvent their position to get at the IC.