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.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Why can a guy carrying a heavy weapon shoot better than a tank?

[Also, if a man can carry a lascannon, why does a predator have a lascannon as a main gun?]

Both very good questions.

 Galef wrote:
Even at Max 5 models, I still don't see why everyone is assuming they cannot have ablative wounds.
If you were taking 10 before (5 of which had to have bolters, and likely the Champ too), than why not just split that into 2x 5 with each unit only have 2-3 Heavy weapons?

You're getting the same (or MORE) number of Heavy weapons and can have the same "ratio" of ablative wounds if you want.
3 Heavies to 2 Bolters is a pretty good "sweet-spot" if you are dead set on expendable joes in the unit.

Is it as good as having 4 Heavies in 1 unit surrounded by 5-6 Bolter schmoes? Probably not, but it's not fair to say you cannot have ablative wounds for them at all.

-

They can't take ablative wounds. Stock, the Champ has a Flamer and the Havocs have Heavy Bolters.

I might be wrong on this, though-can someone more up to date on the leaks confirm?

Funny thing is, point for point, the reaper chaincannon is worse than the soulreaper:

Reaper chaincannon: 20 pts, heavy 8, str 5, ap-1, d1.
Soulreaper cannon: 10 pts, Heavy 4, str 5, ap -3, d1.

Both are held by platforms that can move and shoot without penalty.

I've never seen anyone cry about how OP soulreaper is. It's only because you can mass the chaincannons that it becomes scary.

I'm pretty sure the meta will survive the chaincannon madness rather easily.

On the other hand, my autohavocs will now be able to actually shoot once before they die. I call that a win!

 Brother Castor wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Why can a guy carrying a heavy weapon shoot better than a tank?

[Also, if a man can carry a lascannon, why does a predator have a lascannon as a main gun?]

Both very good questions.

The predator has a twin lascannon as a main gun.

5 dudes with 32 S5 AP1 shots do not shoot better than a TC with 40 S5 AP0 shots - in fact the math comes out exactly even.

They shoot better when you add a DA, and a lord, and 3 CP - and just for that one unit. And then they're going to die horribly. It's also not like they can be safely in range of lots of targets turn 1. If they aren't out of LOS they're in deep gak - even in a rhino.

All tanks should be able to fire heavy weapons without penalty and be able to leave combat freely without losing their ability to fire.

Neither of these rules make any sense.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Galef wrote:
Even at Max 5 models, I still don't see why everyone is assuming they cannot have ablative wounds.
If you were taking 10 before (5 of which had to have bolters, and likely the Champ too), than why not just split that into 2x 5 with each unit only have 2-3 Heavy weapons?

You're getting the same (or MORE) number of Heavy weapons and can have the same "ratio" of ablative wounds if you want.
3 Heavies to 2 Bolters is a pretty good "sweet-spot" if you are dead set on expendable joes in the unit.

Is it as good as having 4 Heavies in 1 unit surrounded by 5-6 Bolter schmoes? Probably not, but it's not fair to say you cannot have ablative wounds for them at all.

-

They can't take ablative wounds. Stock, the Champ has a Flamer and the Havocs have Heavy Bolters.

I might be wrong on this, though-can someone more up to date on the leaks confirm?

I actually haven't seen the new datasheet, but the old one, as well as the sheet for Devs if that's relevant, gives all models a Bolter by default.

It would make sense, however to default them to HBs. It's the price they pay for the added bulk to make them T5. Hopefully Devs will follow suit
But even if that's the case, that gives us a reason to keep 1-2 HBs in the unit - it's the cheapest loadout and closest thing to "ablative" wounds.
Or start using Rhinos to hide them

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
All tanks should be able to fire heavy weapons without penalty and be able to leave combat freely without losing their ability to fire.

Neither of these rules make any sense.

I disagree on the first point. In an edition in which moving denied your ability to fire entirely, vehicles ignoring that penalty did make sense.
But in an addition in which moving is only -1 to hit, and vehicles DO NOT have advanced targeting computers, it makes perfect sense for such vehicles to suffer the penalty.
A man using his own legs to move around can readjust his aim far more easily and KEEP that aim than a man compensating for the movement of a large box he is in that may not even be piloted by himself.

But I'll agree to your second point. It doesn't make sense for vehicles to be "shut down" because some infantry surrounded it.

-

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
All tanks should be able to fire heavy weapons without penalty and be able to leave combat freely without losing their ability to fire.

Neither of these rules make any sense.

40kfaq@gwplc.com

Make your voice heard.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
All tanks should be able to fire heavy weapons without penalty and be able to leave combat freely without losing their ability to fire.

Neither of these rules make any sense.

Yea, I don't know about that. That would certainly kill melee as a viable way to shut up tanks.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
All tanks should be able to fire heavy weapons without penalty and be able to leave combat freely without losing their ability to fire.

Neither of these rules make any sense.

Yea, I don't know about that. That would certainly kill melee as a viable way to shut up tanks.

Size stat. If you're big enough, you can just plow through something, but if they're big enough (relative to your model) you can't.

So Grots (size 2) can't do jack diddly to stop a Leman Russ or Land Raider (size 8), and even a Marine (size 4) is still half their size and so can't stop them. But a Terminator (size 5) is big enough to stop them.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
All tanks should be able to fire heavy weapons without penalty and be able to leave combat freely without losing their ability to fire.

Neither of these rules make any sense.

Yea, I don't know about that. That would certainly kill melee as a viable way to shut up tanks.

Size stat. If you're big enough, you can just plow through something, but if they're big enough (relative to your model) you can't.

So Grots (size 2) can't do jack diddly to stop a Leman Russ or Land Raider (size 8), and even a Marine (size 4) is still half their size and so can't stop them. But a Terminator (size 5) is big enough to stop them.

How many splatted grots does it take to jam up the gears of a battletank I wonder?

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
All tanks should be able to fire heavy weapons without penalty and be able to leave combat freely without losing their ability to fire.

Neither of these rules make any sense.

Yea, I don't know about that. That would certainly kill melee as a viable way to shut up tanks.

Size stat. If you're big enough, you can just plow through something, but if they're big enough (relative to your model) you can't.

So Grots (size 2) can't do jack diddly to stop a Leman Russ or Land Raider (size 8), and even a Marine (size 4) is still half their size and so can't stop them. But a Terminator (size 5) is big enough to stop them.

See I would like to have the attacks of tanks in CC changed to "D3 mortal wounds on a 4+" instead of some arbitrary number of D6 S6 Ap- attacks that are mostly useless. Hitting tanks with swords and axes is silly, det charges and such make a lot more sense, and getting close to a giant tank, even in powered armor should be lethal.

What it is that GW is terrible at remaining consistent for balances' sake while horrifyingly good at skewing balance for the sake of pushing sales.

 skchsan wrote:
What it is that GW is terrible at remaining consistent for balances' sake while horrifyingly good at skewing balance for the sake of pushing sales.

Again, this bizarre claim. If they were skewing balance to push sales, why do so many units release with sub par rules?

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
When Havocs being able to move wins every top table maybe someone will care. Until then they’re a power armoured unit with no ablative wounds. They’ll die to a stiff breeze, no?

Why would they not have any ablative wounds? Current datasheet allows them to be in squads of up to 10.

Overall the unit seems pretty good. The Reaper Chaincannon is an awesome weapon but against a lot of targets it's still worse than a Grav Cannon. Move and Fire is great. I'm wondering if that's going to be given to the loyalists at some point, or if that's considered a balance against the loyalist Signum+Cherub+Stratagems.

He'res hoping Move and Fire is given to Terminators at the same time.

The new datasheet does not allow them to have extra bodies. You get 4 Havocs and a Champ, and they all have weapons beyond your basic bolter.

That's incredibly stupid.

 Stux wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
What it is that GW is terrible at remaining consistent for balances' sake while horrifyingly good at skewing balance for the sake of pushing sales.

Again, this bizarre claim. If they were skewing balance to push sales, why do so many units release with sub par rules?

I suppose they have some conscious left in them.

Maybe GW sometimes just don't want people to play certain armies, and would rather funel them in to playing more specific stuff. So they may release a unit or even whole army with bad rules, just so people that already own those armies buy something new and new people don't pick up the unit or army, because of how bad it is. And if they do it anyway, it is a win/win for GW as they are pushing stuff off shelfs.

 Insectum7 wrote:


That's incredibly stupid.

Sort of? They are tougher and get to move and shoot, so, ablative wounds aren't as necessary, but you also can't sneak in half assed units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
Maybe GW sometimes just don't want people to play certain armies, and would rather funel them in to playing more specific stuff. So they may release a unit or even whole army with bad rules, just so people that already own those armies buy something new and new people don't pick up the unit or army, because of how bad it is. And if they do it anyway, it is a win/win for GW as they are pushing stuff off shelfs.

I can't. I just can't. Do people even listen to themselves anymore?

 JNAProductions wrote:

They can't take ablative wounds. Stock, the Champ has a Flamer and the Havocs have Heavy Bolters.

I might be wrong on this, though-can someone more up to date on the leaks confirm?

 Galef wrote:

It would make sense, however to default them to HBs. It's the price they pay for the added bulk to make them T5.

Wait a minute, whaaaat? No extra bodies in the unit, obligatory heavy weapons, Sergeant defaulting to Flamer, T5. . . what is going on here?

 Insectum7 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

They can't take ablative wounds. Stock, the Champ has a Flamer and the Havocs have Heavy Bolters.

I might be wrong on this, though-can someone more up to date on the leaks confirm?

 Galef wrote:

It would make sense, however to default them to HBs. It's the price they pay for the added bulk to make them T5.

Wait a minute, whaaaat? No extra bodies in the unit, obligatory heavy weapons, Sergeant defaulting to Flamer, T5. . . what is going on here?

Well, they are heavy support options. Having them running around like they're standard marines was weird.

I will be staying with my autohavocs. For 5 more points per unit, my guys now have +1 toughness and can hide on the first turn of the game out of LoS. I call that a super win.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:


That's incredibly stupid.

Sort of? They are tougher and get to move and shoot, so, ablative wounds aren't as necessary, but you also can't sneak in half assed units.

Link to leaked datasheets?

 Insectum7 wrote:


Wait a minute, whaaaat? No extra bodies in the unit, obligatory heavy weapons, Sergeant defaulting to Flamer, T5. . . what is going on here?

No bolters in kit = no bolters in rules.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 MinscS2 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
All I know is I am psyched for this. 5 Havocs with 4 of the new rotor cannon is 32 24" S5 AP -1 shots that you can make with +1 to hit (Dark Apostle's prayer), and re-roll 1s or all fails (lord/abby), and even +1 to wound (VOTLW).

And you can double that with Endless Cacophony to 64 shots.

Get fethed, hordes.

"Hordes"?

That combo will do 25,92 wounds after saves to MEQ's, 15,55 wounds to Leman Russ-EQ's.

The correct term would be "Get fethed, everyone."

Very tasty indeed.

Which also means you guys KNOW that when the Slaanesh/Noise Marine book hits, they won't have access to it; I can hear the howls of pain already.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
The predator has a twin lascannon as a main gun.

So does a dreadnought, but both have -1 to hit if they move, despite stabilisation systems.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
5 dudes with 32 S5 AP1 shots do not shoot better

I think the OP meant shoot better in the sense of not having -1 to hit after moving...

I believe that the new data sheet has them start with heavy weapons. I don't think you have he option to have any bolter guys.

I don't understand the question? What is wrong with my train of thought?

Store space costs money , as is making mulds for stuff. Didn't GW scrap their WFB with a ton of models, just because they didn't want people to play it and wanted people to pick up their new game? It is only natural that GW doesn't want people just to stop playing and leave never buying any stuff anymore. So funeling people in to buying new stuff, seems like a good idea for a model company. The whole soup idea seems to be build for it . Why shouldn't GW prioritise one army or unit over another one.

Lets say a unit is popular, but also sold by many second party companies. I doubt GW would want those units or weapon options to be popular. It is better to soft nerf them, and make people pick up something new from GW. And being new always gives GW the edge as other companies require time to sculpt and make new molds for the new "hot" thing. I don't know if sells spike as much in other stores as they do at my store. But if they do, if something is very popular and new it will get picked up by people in the first 3-6 months of it arriving in the store. After that fewer random people pick up something like DA for example. Plus with the CA and FAQ, if something gets pushed out hard by GW, they can nerf if or buff it in a CA/FAQ. This way other companies can never fully keep up with them.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

They can't take ablative wounds. Stock, the Champ has a Flamer and the Havocs have Heavy Bolters.

I might be wrong on this, though-can someone more up to date on the leaks confirm?

 Galef wrote:

It would make sense, however to default them to HBs. It's the price they pay for the added bulk to make them T5.

Wait a minute, whaaaat? No extra bodies in the unit, obligatory heavy weapons, Sergeant defaulting to Flamer, T5. . . what is going on here?

Well, they are heavy support options. Having them running around like they're standard marines was weird.

I will be staying with my autohavocs. For 5 more points per unit, my guys now have +1 toughness and can hide on the first turn of the game out of LoS. I call that a super win.

That's like a whole different new unit. Havocs used to be able to take big squads and a bunch of special weapons if they wanted to. They were basically Devastators with Heavy options, but could take 5 Plasma Guns instead, if they wanted to.

 Insectum7 wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

They can't take ablative wounds. Stock, the Champ has a Flamer and the Havocs have Heavy Bolters.

I might be wrong on this, though-can someone more up to date on the leaks confirm?

 Galef wrote:

It would make sense, however to default them to HBs. It's the price they pay for the added bulk to make them T5.

Wait a minute, whaaaat? No extra bodies in the unit, obligatory heavy weapons, Sergeant defaulting to Flamer, T5. . . what is going on here?

Well, they are heavy support options. Having them running around like they're standard marines was weird.

I will be staying with my autohavocs. For 5 more points per unit, my guys now have +1 toughness and can hide on the first turn of the game out of LoS. I call that a super win.

That's like a whole different new unit. Havocs used to be able to take big squads and a bunch of special weapons if they wanted to. They were basically Devastators with Heavy options, but could take 5 Plasma Guns instead, if they wanted to.

We still have chosen for that. I am all for having different units for different roles if you ask me.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:


Wait a minute, whaaaat? No extra bodies in the unit, obligatory heavy weapons, Sergeant defaulting to Flamer, T5. . . what is going on here?

No bolters in kit = no bolters in rules.

There aren't any bolters in the Marine Devastator kit either. And. . . *gasp*. . . you could add bodies from the Tactical box to the Devastator squad. *hair on fire!*.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

We still have chosen for that. I am all for having different units for different roles if you ask me.

Too many options scare you?

 Brother Castor wrote:

I think the OP meant shoot better in the sense of not having -1 to hit after moving...

No move penalty on TC / LRBT.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:


There aren't any bolters in the Marine Devastator kit either. And. . . *gasp*. . . you could add bodies from the Tactical box to the Devastator squad. *hair on fire!*.

*shrug* I don't write the rules. That's just been the dynamic for quite some time now.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
When Havocs being able to move wins every top table maybe someone will care. Until then they’re a power armoured unit with no ablative wounds. They’ll die to a stiff breeze, no?

Why would they not have any ablative wounds? Current datasheet allows them to be in squads of up to 10.

Overall the unit seems pretty good. The Reaper Chaincannon is an awesome weapon but against a lot of targets it's still worse than a Grav Cannon. Move and Fire is great. I'm wondering if that's going to be given to the loyalists at some point, or if that's considered a balance against the loyalist Signum+Cherub+Stratagems.

He'res hoping Move and Fire is given to Terminators at the same time.

The new datasheet does not allow them to have extra bodies. You get 4 Havocs and a Champ, and they all have weapons beyond your basic bolter.

That's incredibly stupid.

Might blame the new GW logic : if it's not in the box, you can't have it. Because they are too stubborn to sell bits outside of FW, and there is a thriving market for third party bits.

Incidentally, Kromlech already offers space marine arms with miniguns, so you could use those.

Also, less than 24 hours since the news that the chainguns would be 1/box, someone sculpted and posted a suitable proxy to 3d print.