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.

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
At this point is hateful assault or whatever going to be a deal breaker for anyone ? I know for me it isn't. I would say that it does feel odd that they'd keep the volleys but not the assault/assaulted part why keep one and not the other ?

DG is pretty much the perfect place to ditch it. There just aren't that many 'actual marine' units in the codex, so they can just tweak attacks (or melee weapons, with the Deathshroud) on an individual basis, and then not worry about the effect on all the vehicles and daemon engines. Guns they can't really do that with.
I won't be surprised if it comes back for Chaos Marines, and vanishes again for Thousand Sons.

And yes, 'bespoke, but exactly the same' is just corporate buzzword paradigm trash. Complexity with no payoff.
Though it isn't just Evil versions. That Codex Marines put deployment rules in a sidebar and include three differently named but the same versions of 'deep strike' is just galling. Concealed positions is at least slightly different, and combat squads is a completely unrelated rule, but DFA, Outflank and Teleport Strike are all the same thing.

I do see your point, but at the same time the different names add flavour.

Obviously this is reductio ad absurdum, but why have fusion v melta, or power klaws v power fists. Chaos has daemonic saves and loyalists have iron halos.

As to your first question, no not at all. I think it would be nice to have intercessors and plague marines with the same number of attacks, but I think the whole codex gaining an attack seems a bit much.

Obviously this is reductio ad absurdum, but why have fusion v melta, or power klaws v power fists.

Well... the game did just fine without all that for multiple editions.

When orks started using shootas instead of boltguns (for example), they legitimately had a different profile so needed a separate name.

Abaddon303 wrote:
I do see your point, but at the same time the different names add flavour.

Obviously this is reductio ad absurdum, but why have fusion v melta, or power klaws v power fists. Chaos has daemonic saves and loyalists have iron halos.

As to your first question, no not at all. I think it would be nice to have intercessors and plague marines with the same number of attacks, but I think the whole codex gaining an attack seems a bit much.

My point is just yes, have different fluff reasons for the things. However when they do the same thing, just say it and have all the fluff you want for why it happens that way. Like when i started things that came down anywhere on the board and scattered was just deep strike, didn't matter why they did it, came from underground, teleported, fell from the sky, fell off an apple cart, etc. It was just deep strike and if I said " Hey these units are deep striking later " They all instantly knew what was happening with them, how they did it didn't matter outside of a fluff talk of why they could do that.

Now they teleport, come from golden light, were there all along, crawl from the earth, appear in a stinky cloud, etc, etc with strange names that if you say them people often give you a look like you are speaking madness until you explain. " They're just coming in over 9 inches away. " It's just irritating is all.

Well considering fusion was just melta they handled that by it having the melta rule. Power Klaws were just power fists on Orks, it wasn't hard to keep track of all the weapons and all someone had to say was " So what is a fusion gun ? " " Oh it's a melta.." " Oh, ok, sounds good whats its range ? " Etc, it flowed better and didn't have difference just to make it different for no real in game benefit outside your opponent needing to ask you over and over what your weapons did.

 AngryAngel80 wrote:


I will say I really do hate the name changes, why not just be the same as the loyalists ? Is shock assault not " evil " enough ? Name change for name change sake is so stupid and makes some of the bad factions feel like Dr Evils in disguise. As well it would be easier for newer players and old vets aside to keep them all in mind if shared abilities had the same names for remembering them.

"Man, if only we had some sort of USR dictionary that was defined and understood by everyone who played the game so anytime they looked at a unit entry, they could tell immediately what it did. Wouldn't that be something?" he said, 5th Edition'lly.


Edit: FWIW, this was sarcasm directed at GW, not the above poster. I think 5th Edition was the easiest and most fluid edition. 9th has come close, but it will forever perplex me why they felt the need to get rid of USRs and then make the rules have many interations of the same rule with different names.

 puma713 wrote:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:


I will say I really do hate the name changes, why not just be the same as the loyalists ? Is shock assault not " evil " enough ? Name change for name change sake is so stupid and makes some of the bad factions feel like Dr Evils in disguise. As well it would be easier for newer players and old vets aside to keep them all in mind if shared abilities had the same names for remembering them.

"Man, if only we had some sort of USR dictionary that was defined and understood by everyone who played the game so anytime they looked at a unit entry, they could tell immediately what it did. Wouldn't that be something?" he said, 5th Edition'lly.


Edit: FWIW, this was sarcasm directed at GW, not the above poster. I think 5th Edition was the easiest and most fluid edition. 9th has come close, but it will forever perplex me why they felt the need to get rid of USRs and then make the rules have many interations of the same rule with different names.

I picked up the implication and appreciated it. Yeah, weren't those the days when we could easily understand a unit upon casual examination ?

Abaddon303 wrote:
I do see your point, but at the same time the different names add flavour.

Obviously this is reductio ad absurdum, but why have fusion v melta, or power klaws v power fists. Chaos has daemonic saves and loyalists have iron halos.

The analogy wouldn't be not having a special rule, it would be something like this:

Teleport Strike: This unit may Deep Strike.


If daemonic and iron halos worked like deep strike rules currently do each dataslate would be like:

Iron Halo: When this model would make a save roll, it may elect to use its Iron Halo instead. Roll a d6, on a 4+ the wound is deflected and no damage from that wound is allocated, exactly as if this model had passed a save roll. The Iron Halo may not be used against mortal wounds.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Abaddon303 wrote:
I do see your point, but at the same time the different names add flavour.

Obviously this is reductio ad absurdum, but why have fusion v melta, or power klaws v power fists. Chaos has daemonic saves and loyalists have iron halos.

The analogy wouldn't be not having a special rule, it would be something like this:

Teleport Strike: This unit may Deep Strike.


If daemonic and iron halos worked like deep strike rules currently do each dataslate would be like:

Iron Halo: When this model would make a save roll, it may elect to use its Iron Halo instead. Roll a d6, on a 4+ the wound is deflected and no damage from that wound is allocated, exactly as if this model had passed a save roll. The Iron Halo may not be used against mortal wounds.

Well okay that's something I could probably get behind. I started at the beginning of 8th so I'm unfamiliar with the concept of universal basic rules.

I would say I don't think it's that big an issue right now tho, generally if somebody tells me about an unfamiliar rule I can recognise it's equivalent and quickly understand how it works.

I'd also say that rules are generally not that wildly different to the point that you can recognise when something isn't right. So when an opponent tells me his unit is gonna emerge from his space Badger hole 7 inches from my unit I'd ask for clarity because it seems to not follow the basic principles of the game.

Yes but, wouldn't it be easier if there was a basic rule that could be easily referenced even if they kept all the names ? Like you get your Tellyporta, and it gives a unit deep strike. Deep strike is the keyword and it does this. Then you don't need to tell people, hey they are in a tellyporta, you can say hey these guys are coming in with deep strike. As opposed to explain what the rule does and then you need to think oh its just like what this unit does. It's still saving time if its known right out the gate.

If you only started around the start of 8th you wouldn't have the frame of reference some players do, like I started around the beginning of 3rd. Not saying that to deride you for being a relative new adopter of the game, we all were new at some point but to say you'd need to really have played it the other way to see how much more of a pain this new way is. This current way is really the only way you have known for the games roll out.

GW went "bespoke" happy when AoS came around, and this infected 8th, to the point where we have repetitive special rules (sometimes duplicated on the same datasheet), and pages and pages of waste space explaining the same thing over and over again.

A system of USRs would alleviate this considerably, and cut down on the amount of time GW has to waste copying things over and over again. Moreover, the less instances there are of a rule, the less chance there is of making a mistake and it cuts down on the amount of time require to correct errors.

Combined with the Keyword system, you could make things very easy. Even something as simple as Aura (X). What is that? You look up the USR for 'Aura', and you see that Auras affect units with the "Core" keyword within a distance in inches indicated by the number in parentheses. You wouldn't need to constantly restate that.

Yeap, simplify but deepen would be wonderful. If that makes sense to anyone.

Which is why I wouldn't mind the loss of shock assault for DG if it gives just a static +1 attack. For starters I don't need to keep track of what combat round it is and constant to me is better than situational. It's also one less rule with a bespoke name I need to remember and tell someone then explain.

Though I don't get why loyalists keep it and other chaos marines, that part feels bad.

GW couldn’t even keep USRs straight. Anyone remember Zealot?
Zealot: this model has Fearless and Hate.

angryboy2k wrote:
GW couldn’t even keep USRs straight. Anyone remember Zealot?
Zealot: this model has Fearless and Hate.

I'll take that over the 4 slightly different versions of True Grit we had by the end of 3rd Ed.

Yes but I'd say and saw most players got things perfectly well with it. Zealot was one of those rare exceptions and that was mostly because it hardly ever came up, at least in most of the games I played.

Some rules, used very rarely but for a few units no one saw were always an issue. Like artillery was rarely used or understood for a long time. Citing another game system, ask a Magic player about banding, watch their head explode. One of the first rules in the game but needlessly and strangely complex. I did love me some banding though but then..I do like to watch the world burn.

I've been reading 8th/9th rules online, and it's exhausting. Bespokeapalooza. Writing every. Single. Rule out. Few to no formulas. <keywords> that don't need to <exist> for good gameplay. Yeesh.

Astartes Chainswords, for example. Firstly, tacking "Astartes" onto the name is not helpful- It's in the marine codex, no duh it's a marine chainsword. Guard chainswords are different? Oh no! How will players ever communicate? "My Comissar makes X attacks" "Ok." Then there's "When the bearer of an ASTARTES CHAINSWORD makes an attack, it makes one additional attack with that weapon. Gross.

Chainsword:

S: User

A: +1

AP: -1

Psychic powers are even worse........


Automatically Appended Next Post:

angryboy2k wrote:
GW couldn’t even keep USRs straight. Anyone remember Zealot?
Zealot: this model has Fearless and Hate.

"GW can't do anything right, so you are not allowed to discuss improvements to their games!"

You picked an outlier to prove your point.... Zealot should have been two rules, yes. Buuuuut.....

Gets Hot
Sniper
Stealth
Infiltrate
Scout
Deep Strike
Fleet

Etc. etc. etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
Yes but I'd say and saw most players got things perfectly well with it. Zealot was one of those rare exceptions and that was mostly because it hardly ever came up, at least in most of the games I played.

Some rules, used very rarely but for a few units no one saw were always an issue. Like artillery was rarely used or understood for a long time. Citing another game system, ask a Magic player about banding, watch their head explode. One of the first rules in the game but needlessly and strangely complex. I did love me some banding though but then..I do like to watch the world burn.

Banding ftw!

angryboy2k wrote:
GW couldn’t even keep USRs straight. Anyone remember Zealot?
Zealot: this model has Fearless and Hate.

Zealot actually made it so that a Character having it would give Hatred to the unit it was attached to. Regular Hatred didn't do that.

So it super specific as a fringe case and maybe Hatred should've just been conferred for a whole unit for simplicity sake, but that's not what happened.

A better USR of old to hate on would have been Missile Lock.

To my knowledge it was only given to like 1 unit that couldn't even make use of it

I don't even remember what that did

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I don't even remember what that did

One Use Only weapons only scatter 1d6"

Yes, they did really need USRs for some things and others, like missile lock, less so.

 puma713 wrote:

 Castozor wrote:

Just give me back Felthius and the easy2build PM's, at least those had value for beginners and people wanting to expand their DG further.

Watch them make the Orb of Dessication really good, actually, driving Felthius' value through the roof.

Here’s hoping.
Then I can sell this Felthius box for a pretty penny..

I actually wonder what the LoC's aura is going to be, now that Nurgle's Gift has moved to a higher calling.

 Jidmah wrote:
I actually wonder what the LoC's aura is going to be, now that Nurgle's Gift has moved to a higher calling.

I'm curious as well, I tended to just proxy him as a term armor lord in the games I used him. Though I am very happy for the stat and ability changes to chaos lords and such. I hope the LoC is good on his own now. I'll add however I get some may have loved him all this time but he just wasn't as useful to me as the re roll 1's on the lord for a support character and beatstick of having the lord and DP as opposed to the LoC.

I loved when he got the re-roll aura stratagem, maybe he just gets that. As a support character, his weapons and extra resilience actually makes a difference, since people go after him to take out his force multiplication.

 Jidmah wrote:
I actually wonder what the LoC's aura is going to be, now that Nurgle's Gift has moved to a higher calling.

I was wondering, too.
I had the thought they might ditch the chaos lord entirely and give the LOC reroll ones, but apparently that's not the case.
Maybe some aura for termis only while the Chaos lord has an aura for Core? Or, since he's still called lord of Contagion, he might increase the range or the turn number of contagions, too. We can only guess at this point.

The lack of USRs in the last couple of editions has been a major factor in my switching to F28: War Always Changes, for my 40K gaming. It's like a streamlined 5th, with some hints of 6th, and somewhat simplified Infinity-style reactions, and rules for all your 40K factions...

I am mostly just in this thread to see if there's some new models for my Sickness Enclave list.

I think we can all agree that deep strike and feel no pain need to come back as terms.

Combined with Plague Weapons’ ability to re-roll wound rolls of 1, your Core units will have an easier time than ever inflicting a barrage of wounds that bypass the flimsy armour of the Corpse-Emperor’s teeming masses. If dishing out mortal wounds is on the cards, their peerless ability to direct artillery fire allows them to reduce the cost of the Blight Bombardment Stratagem by 1CP.

As recipients of one of the Mantles of Corruption, Lords of Virulence are graced by the hand of Mortarion himself, the chosen son of Nurgle, and elevated above their peers to represent the lethal contagions of their spiritual grandfather’s garden. Flanked by thunderous war machines and the deadly legions of the Death Guard, few can withstand the furious torrent of their combined firepower.

Trash rules as usual: we've had many ranged armies with this Warlord trait that was far less limited and nobody took it anyway but now they're making a character whose only purpose is this exact same rule (and 1 CP discount on a trash Stratagem anyway).

So the vehicle buff character isn't. That solves the mystery of how a 5" move character would support vehicles.

Also a kick in the nuts that the ol putrifier/bombardment combo is gone and replaced with a bad orbital strike?