Crimson wrote:
Ultimately this character size debate is about arbitrary cutoff point. Such thing previously existed with characters who were MCs. There is always some edge cases that will feel a bit weird either way, in any system where the choice is binary.

I'm interested in seeing how Daemon Princes are handled, they're about the same size as Guilliman.

Vorian wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Vorian wrote:

That's right, it's more an issue with RG and it looks to be a design decision to keep him specifically under 10 wounds so that he can hide.

Warhammer Community wrote:applies to all Characters with a Wounds characteristic of 10 or less, including things that previously might not have benefited from any protection.

Ten or less. It isn't some magic thing that when you hit ten Wounds you suddenly cease getting that protection. 11 is the magic number of when you cease getting protected.

We've been over the whole "Guilliman got 9 Wounds so he can get under the ten wounds for protection!" thing.

Then replace 10 with 11. If they wanted him picked out, they give him 11 wounds.

It's the mechanism they have chosen to decide if a model if able yo be picked out.

greengiant wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

But I have feeling we are talking about different topic. I'm more about that there needs to be SOME sort of protection but are you refering to this situation which can happen with 8th ed? (and which is pretty stupid)

...X....D...............Y

X is enemy unit, D is you, Y is enemy character. You can't shoot at the character because X is closer.

This is what you mean? If yes then yes that IS stupid. Hopefully in practice doesn't play out that often.

Hmm. Good point. I have to agree that this is stupid.

I agree that if your unit is stuck between and you cant move it is stupid. However, wouldn't you simply move your squad from the enemy unit towards the enemy character?

Assuming your unit was not in close combat, but still close enough, you could just move 6". Then you would be anywhere between 8-9" away from the enemy unit. Now assuming you were still closer to that unit, that means the enemy character is still 10+ inches away. It just seems like such a strange scenario, and yes, it would be kind of silly; being that close to an enemy unit would still likely be the bigger (perceived) threat.

 Zewrath wrote:

Mortarion looks (from the leaks) like he's going to be around the same size as Magnus and as shown multiple times in this thread, Magnus is huge and easily dwarfs Girlyman by several magnitudes. IIRC Angron is sometimes described being as big as a lesser titan, in terms of size, and Fulgrim is supposedly a tall several limbed, serpent looking, creature with huge wings.

Claiming that daemon princes are "about the same size as Guilliman" is a postulate made on a hugely misinformed basis.

 Zewrath wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Ultimately this character size debate is about arbitrary cutoff point. Such thing previously existed with characters who were MCs. There is always some edge cases that will feel a bit weird either way, in any system where the choice is binary.

I'm interested in seeing how Daemon Princes are handled, they're about the same size as Guilliman.

???

Mortarion looks (from the leaks) like he's going to be around the same size as Magnus and as shown multiple times in this thread, Magnus is huge and easily dwarfs Girlyman by several magnitudes. IIRC Angron is sometimes described being as big as a lesser titan, in terms of size, and Fulgrim is supposedly a tall several limbed, serpent looking, creature with huge wings.

Claiming that daemon princes are "about the same size as Guilliman" is a postulate made on a hugely misinformed basis.

greengiant wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

But I have feeling we are talking about different topic. I'm more about that there needs to be SOME sort of protection but are you refering to this situation which can happen with 8th ed? (and which is pretty stupid)

...X....D...............Y

X is enemy unit, D is you, Y is enemy character. You can't shoot at the character because X is closer.

This is what you mean? If yes then yes that IS stupid. Hopefully in practice doesn't play out that often.

Hmm. Good point. I have to agree that this is stupid.

I agree that if your unit is stuck between and you cant move it is stupid. However, wouldn't you simply move your squad from the enemy unit towards the enemy character?

Assuming your unit was not in close combat, but still close enough, you could just move 6". Then you would be anywhere between 8-9" away from the enemy unit. Now assuming you were still closer to that unit, that means the enemy character is still 10+ inches away. It just seems like such a strange scenario, and yes, it would be kind of silly; being that close to an enemy unit would still likely be the bigger (perceived) threat.

 Zewrath wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Ultimately this character size debate is about arbitrary cutoff point. Such thing previously existed with characters who were MCs. There is always some edge cases that will feel a bit weird either way, in any system where the choice is binary.

I'm interested in seeing how Daemon Princes are handled, they're about the same size as Guilliman.

???

Mortarion looks (from the leaks) like he's going to be around the same size as Magnus and as shown multiple times in this thread, Magnus is huge and easily dwarfs Girlyman by several magnitudes. IIRC Angron is sometimes described being as big as a lesser titan, in terms of size, and Fulgrim is supposedly a tall several limbed, serpent looking, creature with huge wings.

Claiming that daemon princes are "about the same size as Guilliman" is a postulate made on a hugely misinformed basis.

Yonasu wrote:

It's not a very strange scenario, You have drop pods landing behind gunlines all the time, all of which you must kill before you can target the lone captain walking up the field. It feels like a side in these discussion dont really understand how it will play out. There will be many times you will try to target characters a foot away and be denied since you have a landraider over on the side 11" away. Characters will be overprotected and it will be gamed to hell and back :(

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Moreover, I'd really appreciate it if some people here could drop the attitude that if it's in the new 40K rules then it must be perfect. The degradation thing is a perfect example. A few of us have offered ideas that would allow this to be a simple over-arching rule, whereas GW have gone for the, in our opinion, utterly unnecessary (and more prone to error) 'bespoke' method of giving every unit its own unique table. Rather than debating the merits of either side, quite a few people here just scream at us for being 'haters' consider the new rules perfect just because they're not 7th Ed.

Daedalus81 wrote:

greengiant wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

But I have feeling we are talking about different topic. I'm more about that there needs to be SOME sort of protection but are you refering to this situation which can happen with 8th ed? (and which is pretty stupid)

...X....D...............Y

X is enemy unit, D is you, Y is enemy character. You can't shoot at the character because X is closer.

This is what you mean? If yes then yes that IS stupid. Hopefully in practice doesn't play out that often.

Hmm. Good point. I have to agree that this is stupid.

I agree that if your unit is stuck between and you cant move it is stupid. However, wouldn't you simply move your squad from the enemy unit towards the enemy character?

Assuming your unit was not in close combat, but still close enough, you could just move 6". Then you would be anywhere between 8-9" away from the enemy unit. Now assuming you were still closer to that unit, that means the enemy character is still 10+ inches away. It just seems like such a strange scenario, and yes, it would be kind of silly; being that close to an enemy unit would still likely be the bigger (perceived) threat.

Unfortunately I think that will be a possibility otherwise you have to set a bunch of the conditions to the rule and in the mindset of keeping things slim I don't think they would.

I can see people taking advantage of this using fast units.

Daedalus81 wrote:

Yonasu wrote:

It's not a very strange scenario, You have drop pods landing behind gunlines all the time, all of which you must kill before you can target the lone captain walking up the field. It feels like a side in these discussion dont really understand how it will play out. There will be many times you will try to target characters a foot away and be denied since you have a landraider over on the side 11" away. Characters will be overprotected and it will be gamed to hell and back :(

Yep this may be something that we need to push GW on if it becomes problematic.

Yellabelly wrote:


I'd be surprised if the "cover" doesn't require the character to be within so many inches of a friendly unit to activate it. They also stated that characters have an "aura" effect and standing a character on its own would be both risky and limiting the characters benefits. Can't see it being a big issues myself.

 Nicorex wrote:
You guys are starting your Primarch size discussion on the wrong footing.
This is 30K Rob on a 40mm base, the size he should be.

You seem to forget that the 40K Rob is inturned in a semi-dread like suit that is much larger than his original suit of armor.

 Nicorex wrote:

You seem to forget that the 40K Rob is inturned in a semi-dread like suit that is much larger than his original suit of armor.

 Nicorex wrote:
You guys are starting your Primarch size discussion on the wrong footing.
This is 30K Rob on a 40mm base, the size he should be.


You seem to forget that the 40K Rob is inturned in a semi-dread like suit that is much larger than his original suit of armor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Now here is Morty in comparison to a base marine.

 Zewrath wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Ultimately this character size debate is about arbitrary cutoff point. Such thing previously existed with characters who were MCs. There is always some edge cases that will feel a bit weird either way, in any system where the choice is binary.

I'm interested in seeing how Daemon Princes are handled, they're about the same size as Guilliman.

???

Mortarion looks (from the leaks) like he's going to be around the same size as Magnus and as shown multiple times in this thread, Magnus is huge and easily dwarfs Girlyman by several magnitudes. IIRC Angron is sometimes described being as big as a lesser titan, in terms of size, and Fulgrim is supposedly a tall several limbed, serpent looking, creature with huge wings.

Claiming that daemon princes are "about the same size as Guilliman" is a postulate made on a hugely misinformed basis.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 kronk wrote:


Give 7th edition a clean death and let's being in the new edition. Start fresh. Release a yearly General's Handbook to fix the feth ups that WILL happen to keep it balanced. Let's roll.

Agreed.
It's odd, though, because the common complaint for years has been that each edition has just been another revision to third (making 7th edition more like 3.4 edition). Now that we're getting a genuinely new edition, the common complaint is that it isn't just another revision to third.
I'm not saying the people making the first complaint are the same people making the second complaint, just that the most vocal complaint regarding editions has shifted.

TonyL707 wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

Yonasu wrote:

It's not a very strange scenario, You have drop pods landing behind gunlines all the time, all of which you must kill before you can target the lone captain walking up the field. It feels like a side in these discussion dont really understand how it will play out. There will be many times you will try to target characters a foot away and be denied since you have a landraider over on the side 11" away. Characters will be overprotected and it will be gamed to hell and back :(

Yep this may be something that we need to push GW on if it becomes problematic.

Could easily be limited to units within X" of the character.

Daedalus81 wrote:
And people countered with precisely detailed reasons as to why such a banal rule does not work universally.

Today, we’re taking a look at a few of the simple rules changes in the new rules for weapons, but ones that have some pretty cool in-game effects.

Twin-linked Weapons
If you play Warhammer 40,000 today, you’ll know that there are a lot of twin-linked weapons about. These let you re-roll to hit dice, making them generally quite reliable, but potentially no more deadly than a single weapon. In the new Warhammer 40,000, twin-linked weapons instead get double the number of shots at half range.

This is a massive boost to a lot of units. Many vehicles, in particular, are going to be kicking out ruinous amounts of firepower – your Land Raider, for example, almost doubles in effectiveness. With its twin heavy bolters and now utterly lethal godhammer pattern lascannons, it becomes, quite rightly, one of the most powerful models in the game.

Orks as well, renowned for their habit of twin-linking for “more dakka”, gain a lot of bullets from this change. Just think about the number of shots those Waaagh!-planes will be firing now!



Combi-weapons
Another type of weapon that is changing is the combi-weapon. While in the current edition you can only shoot the “specialist” portion of the gun once, in the new Warhammer 40,000 you can either shoot both all the time, but at a -1 to hit modifier, or choose to just shoot one with no modifier. This is a pretty awesome boost in power for a lot of elite units like Chaos Terminators, Sternguard and Meganobz – no longer just one-hit-wonders with those shooting attacks.



Explosives
Warhammer 40,000 has no shortage of things that go ‘boom’. Whereas once these weapons would have used a template, in the new Warhammer 40,000, these are resolved much faster by just using a random number of shots. This represents either how many warriors are caught in the explosion, or how direct the hit is on a larger single-model target. Otherwise, these work exactly as any other shooting.

Explosives tend to work pretty well now against both numerous infantry and large individual models, but not as well against either as dedicated anti-infantry or anti-tank weapons.



We’ll be back tomorrow, with some news on how Datasheets work.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:
And people countered with precisely detailed reasons as to why such a banal rule does not work universally.

Seeing as though you seem to think it's ok to quote me in your sig in some weird passive aggressive way of insulting me, let me not stoop to your level and instead give you a very simple task which you should be able to readily complete:


Summarise these counter-reasons.


Go. Ball's in your court. Make your case.

 Mymearan wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/10/new-warhammer-40000-weapons-part-2-may10gw-homepage-post-4/