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.

Sarouan wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
If you're okay with triple layered hit quality good for you. Remember it next time you "cancel" a critical hit after it's already inflicted damage.

The article never said it works like that, though. It's your assumption it would.

Yes I'm literally assuming what the rulebook quotes literally posted on Warhammer Community say.

This is a rule quote :




This is an explanation, not a rule quote :

Critical Hit Rules, as the name implies, are only applied to critical successes. The long-las’ MW3 (short for Mortal Wounds 3) rule, for instance, inflicts three automatic wounds for every critical hit rolled before the unfortunate target has any chance to prevent them. This rule reflects the devastating effect of a spectacular sniper shot that perfectly targets a gap in enemy armour.

Rule quotes are litteral copy-and-pastes from the rulebook. Explanations aren't. Can't tell the difference ? Suits yourself.

By the way, the explanation never said the automatic 3 wounds are an addition.



Anyway, we'll see the close combat rules tomorrow.

Oh nice spot, you at least get to shrug the mortal wounds inflicted by critical hits you can't save with critical saves that can save critical hits.

I'm not sure the article makes all aspects of this shooting mechanism clear. For one, what good does a critical save do against a regular hit? Does it also cancel out 2 regular hits? Also, in the case of the long las sniper rifle, do the 3 mortal wounds get added to all the other damage, or is it still just a 3 wound damage per shot? The way it's worded, its unclear to me whether a critical long las hit deals 3 mortal wounds + 3 regular, critical hit tier wounds, or just 3 wounds which you cannot try to save against.

In any case, this isn't relieving info to me regarding the decreased lethality of the new system. If a sniper can output a max of 12 wounds per turn, and an ork boy has more than 12, there is no way to "headshot frag". The battelfields will be full of wounded operatives, and the only way to take down one reliably in one turn will be to concentrate fire from several operatives against a single model.

That tidbit about a veteran never having to modify their APL tells me that indeed, some sort of supression mechanic will be onboard. You will probably be able to reduce a target's AP expenditure by pinning them with weapons fire (unless he's a veteran specialist or has other comparable tactics/abilities, that is)

Sarouan wrote:
Are you, though ? Someone talked about their own veteran guards with shotguns, but he didn't say they were kriegers.

Here, the box GW sells will be specifically kriegers. I actually don't remember the Death Korps of Krieg list allowing to have shotguns on their equivalent veteran guards.

In the new Kill Team, the Kreiger models are being sold as Veteran Guardsmen, a distinct entity, it seems, from Imperial Guard.

Given no model/no rule, this is likely because the Krieger box has more specific options that the Cadian and Catachan boxes do not, as a result they get different rules. As such, as they don't have shotguns, there's a good chance that their rules won't allow for it.

They could be more open than that, but again, predicting based upon existing patterns/behaviours.

So we are in agreement GW made it so needlessly unintuitive and stupid, so we buy their overpriced gauges to make it slightly stupid, right?

I said it yesterday, but these rules seem to be going out of their way to violate KISS.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
So we are in agreement GW made it so needlessly unintuitive and stupid, so we buy their overpriced gauges to make it slightly stupid, right?

If you are capable of memorising what the 4 shapes correspond to, you don't really need the gauge. I understand some people might not like the choice, but is it all really that complicated?

Vorian wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
So we are in agreement GW made it so needlessly unintuitive and stupid, so we buy their overpriced gauges to make it slightly stupid, right?

If you are capable of memorising what the 4 shapes correspond to, you don't really need the gauge. I understand some people might not like the choice, but is it all really that complicated?

I'm not saying GW is competent enough to make it so people buy the gauge, i'm merely saying that this was clearly the intention. Make up a problem then sell the solution.

I kind of want to see what a Krak Missile's damage potential will be in this new edition. If it's not going to be possible to oneshot kill an operative with a Krak Missile, I'm sticking to KT1

Imagine a SM veteran specialist in Terminator armour.. I bet he's going to be nigh on unkillable

So ranged combat is resolved like Warhammer: Underworlds? Except with the ability to stop crits with double normal hits. Not loving that they've expanded the crit system that always screwed me

Rihgu wrote:
So ranged combat is resolved like Warhammer: Underworlds? Except with the ability to stop crits with double normal hits. Not loving that they've expanded the crit system that always screwed me

And megacrits that can't be stopped by crit saves

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Rihgu wrote:
So ranged combat is resolved like Warhammer: Underworlds? Except with the ability to stop crits with double normal hits. Not loving that they've expanded the crit system that always screwed me

And megacrits that can't be stopped by crit saves

That part seems fine? Some people are painting it out to try to make it seem like it's some terribly confusing thing. It's not like it is officially referred to as a "mega critical hit". It's just a rider. I like that they have special rules on normal attacks and critical hits. I'm sure there will be weapons with like 1MW on normal hits.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

Vorian wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
So we are in agreement GW made it so needlessly unintuitive and stupid, so we buy their overpriced gauges to make it slightly stupid, right?

If you are capable of memorising what the 4 shapes correspond to, you don't really need the gauge. I understand some people might not like the choice, but is it all really that complicated?

I'm not saying GW is competent enough to make it so people buy the gauge, i'm merely saying that this was clearly the intention. Make up a problem then sell the solution.

If they'd wanted to do that they'd have made them not integer inches.

Seems to me they clearly thought this was an easier way to present rules when movement can be boosted or hindered.

People may well disagree that they've succeeded, but it's hardly a labyrinthine process to convert into numbers and carry on with your tape measure.

I distrust GW in all things, but Mortal Wounds are pretty easy to understand. Just assume it's the simplest intrepretation conceivable and you'll be right with GW rules 90% of the time. And then the other 10% just wait for the FAQ about the rule that's twice as long as the rule.

I'm not sure where the "confusion" with these rules come from - so far they all seem very straightforward to me, and I like them.

I am now interested to see what the medic brings to the table, as I feel they could be essential.

I really don't understand people's complaints about the symbols.

It is either 3Symbol or 3 x (2"). I personally prefer 3Symbol but if you like 3 x (2") better you can still play as such. These are after all simple numbers.

Honestly, it kinda feels like a blind man trying to paint a sunrise by hearsay >_>


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eldarsif wrote:
I really don't understand people's complaints about the symbols.

It is either 3Symbol or 3 x (2"). I personally prefer 3Symbol but if you like 3 x (2") better you can still play as such. These are after all simple numbers.

So make the specific rulers for that, then! Make a Symbol, 2Symbol and 3Symbol rulers, for example. Using the single ruler to count multiples seem like a perfect way to never measure right.

 Albertorius wrote:
Honestly, it kinda feels like a blind man trying to paint a sunrise by hearsay >_>


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eldarsif wrote:
I really don't understand people's complaints about the symbols.

It is either 3Symbol or 3 x (2"). I personally prefer 3Symbol but if you like 3 x (2") better you can still play as such. These are after all simple numbers.

So make the specific rulers for that, then! Make a Symbol, 2Symbol and 3Symbol rulers, for example. Using the single ruler to count multiples seem like a perfect way to never measure right.

You can technically 3D print those if you really wish to or even just use a measuring tape. I really don't see why people are so married to the rulers. I mean, I doubt many here are married to the weird ruler that is included in the Warhammer starting sets, the clear plastic one.

 Eldarsif wrote:
You can technically 3D print those if you really wish to or even just use a measuring tape. I really don't see why people are so married to the rulers. I mean, I doubt many here are married to the weird ruler that is included in the Warhammer starting sets, the clear plastic one.

You can technically 3D print those if you really wish to or even just use a measuring tape, yes. Or use strings cut to size, or whatever else. But it's stupid that GW dcides to use rulers... and then decides to use them in the less useable way possible, a way which will lead to mismeasurements and all kinds of issues.

Because, do you know how could they have avoided it? Using numbers from the start.

Sarouan wrote:
Here, the box GW sells will be specifically kriegers. I actually don't remember the Death Korps of Krieg list allowing to have shotguns on their equivalent veteran guards.

Indeed, though the unit card is just for a generic IG Veteran. It isn't specifically for a Kreig veteran, those are just the models that you get in the box to represent them.

What I would like to have seen was a unit card that was synonymous with a 40k profile; a veteran trooper card with all allowable weapon options, equivalent to what would have been allowed in 40k or the previous KT (not that Veterans were an option. Just worse guys or better guys).

What we could see instead is a unit card for every possible model loadout.. so Veteran Trooper (lasgun), Dakka Veteran Trooper (autogun), Angry Veteran Trooper (shotgun).

But my gut says we won't be getting that either.
Instead, I think we will get the most Warcry-like solution where each faction gets a very limited set of model and weapon options, regardless of what is allowable in the previous KT or 40k. We will see, I guess.

 Albertorius wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
You can technically 3D print those if you really wish to or even just use a measuring tape. I really don't see why people are so married to the rulers. I mean, I doubt many here are married to the weird ruler that is included in the Warhammer starting sets, the clear plastic one.

You can technically 3D print those if you really wish to or even just use a measuring tape, yes. Or use strings cut to size, or whatever else. But it's stupid that GW dcides to use rulers... and then decides to use them in the less useable way possible, a way which will lead to mismeasurements and all kinds of issues.

Because, do you know how could they have avoided it? Using numbers from the start.

So you like the 3 x (2") marking system better? Even if they use symbols you can still get accurate measurements as the length of the symbols was explicitly stated in the article. There is literally nothing that forces you to use the measuring rulers that come with the boxes. That appears to be more of an imposition you have applied to yourself.

Instead, I think we will get the most Warcry-like solution where each faction gets a very limited set of model and weapon options, regardless of what is allowable in the previous KT or 40k. We will see, I guess.

I really hope not. My biggest fear is that we won't get a book containing all entries like in previous KT and the datasheets are either divided among multiple books or in datasheet blister packs(like in Warcry on release).

 Siygess wrote:
What I would like to have seen was a unit card that was synonymous with a 40k profile; a veteran trooper card with all allowable weapon options, equivalent to what would have been allowed in 40k or the previous KT (not that Veterans were an option. Just worse guys or better guys).

What we could see instead is a unit card for every possible model loadout.. so Veteran Trooper (lasgun), Dakka Veteran Trooper (autogun), Angry Veteran Trooper (shotgun).

But my gut says we won't be getting that either.
Instead, I think we will get the most Warcry-like solution where each faction gets a very limited set of model and weapon options, regardless of what is allowable in the previous KT or 40k. We will see, I guess.

I seem to recall seeing, when Adam flipped through the book on-stream, that some of the Krieg datacards had some pretty extensive weapon lists.

What I suspect is that what we've been previewed is the "front-line" basic trooper, who by dint of that GA2 that hasn't been talked about, is constrained by the rules to a basic weapon setup. I don't think each weapon loadout is going to get its own datacard, but I think that when we do see the Veteran Guardsman Gunner (or whatever it's called), it'll have a broad selection of weapons.

This is essentially saying you can't equip your comms specialist with a meltagun. Trooper Veterans have some quality that makes it valuable to game balance to limit their options. (Again, I'm betting it's the GA2 -- if I had to guess it means you can activate two Trooper Veterans at a time. Getting to do that with two Long Las equipped models at a time would be MUCH more powerful, for example)

Kaffis wrote:

I seem to recall seeing, when Adam flipped through the book on-stream, that some of the Krieg datacards had some pretty extensive weapon lists.

What I suspect is that what we've been previewed is the "front-line" basic trooper, who by dint of that GA2 that hasn't been talked about, is constrained by the rules to a basic weapon setup. I don't think each weapon loadout is going to get its own datacard, but I think that when we do see the Veteran Guardsman Gunner (or whatever it's called), it'll have a broad selection of weapons.

This is essentially saying you can't equip your comms specialist with a meltagun. Trooper Veterans have some quality that makes it valuable to game balance to limit their options. (Again, I'm betting it's the GA2 -- if I had to guess it means you can activate two Trooper Veterans at a time. Getting to do that with two Long Las equipped models at a time would be MUCH more powerful, for example)

I'm so glad you brought this up, because you made me think to go back to the video!

00:49:42 is when we get to see that stuff. It's in the "Octarius" booklet, not the main book. It looks like it is because it is a premade Kill Team with a bit of wiggle room for weapon choices on the Gunner Veteran, Sergeant, and Confidant.

The profiles are:
Trooper Veteran(as we've seen)
Sniper Veteran(Long-Las only plus a Bayonet)
Sergeant Veteran(Laspistol, Chainsword, Boltgun, Bolt Pistol, Plasma Pistol, Power Sword, or Bayonet)
Gunner Veteran(Flamer, Grenade Launcher, Plasma Gun, Meltagun, Bayonet)
Confidant Veteran(same options as Sergeant Veteran--also has a 2nd in Command rule)
Zealot Veteran(same as Trooper Veteran)
Medic Veteran(same as Trooper Veteran)
Demolitions Veteran(same as Trooper Veteran--but also explosives!)
Comms Veteran(same as TV)
Hardened Veteran(same as TV--plus weapon profile for bionic arm)
Bruiser Veteran(same as TV--plus the club!)
Spotter Veteran(same as TV--plus an artillery barrage!)


That's all I could see before Troke closed the book. It looks like there aren't shotguns...or if there are, it might be on a different unit we haven't seen yet. Sorry, Siygess!

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Rihgu wrote:
So ranged combat is resolved like Warhammer: Underworlds? Except with the ability to stop crits with double normal hits. Not loving that they've expanded the crit system that always screwed me

And megacrits that can't be stopped by crit saves

Just read the article and read it this way:

Critical Hit = Can only be saved by Critical Save or two normal ones

Critical Hit with Long-Las = Gives 3 Mortal Wounds you can't prevent with your normal saves. In addition it gives another 3 damage if you don't make a save as explained before.

 Eldarsif wrote:
So you like the 3 x (2") marking system better?

Depends on if it really is 3x(2") or Star Wars style front to back which means 3x(2" + base). Those are very much two different things, especially with the variety of base sizes infantry use. Anyone not using the template is either going to short themselves or have to math out the base differences for each increment.

 Eldarsif wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
You can technically 3D print those if you really wish to or even just use a measuring tape. I really don't see why people are so married to the rulers. I mean, I doubt many here are married to the weird ruler that is included in the Warhammer starting sets, the clear plastic one.

You can technically 3D print those if you really wish to or even just use a measuring tape, yes. Or use strings cut to size, or whatever else. But it's stupid that GW dcides to use rulers... and then decides to use them in the less useable way possible, a way which will lead to mismeasurements and all kinds of issues.

Because, do you know how could they have avoided it? Using numbers from the start.

So you like the 3 x (2") marking system better? Even if they use symbols you can still get accurate measurements as the length of the symbols was explicitly stated in the article. There is literally nothing that forces you to use the measuring rulers that come with the boxes. That appears to be more of an imposition you have applied to yourself.

Not necesarily... they could just have used a 6 too .

But if they're going to use bespoke rulers, and bespoke symbols for those rulers, I would have preferred if they used them properly. Namely, a ruler for a measurement. This [number][symbol] is the worst of both worlds. If you're already using something like that, probably a full set of movement templates a la X-Wing would have been a better idea.

I would guess, given how the mathhammer works out with the damage, that there's going to be some kind of rule for 'heavy' weapons that take 2AP rather than 1AP to fire, similar to Necromunda, and the Long-Las is one of those weapons.

It does something like 3x-4x the normal damage of a lasgun, so I would suspect you dont get to fire it if you move and it takes your whole turn.

I also suspect that when we see the whole rulebook, the WHC article as it often does will have fethed up the interpretation of the MW rule, and MW will basically just be 'crits are not stoppable, it does this much damage to you when it crits.'

Not necesarily... they could just have used a 6 too .

But they stated in the article that a 3 Circle isn't always a 6 because when the model gets wounded it will drop down to 2Circle(and further depending on factors I guess). This seems to be the ruling that most people are either overlooking or misunderstanding. The reason for the 3 x (2") system is to add granularity to injury effects and terrains and other features. This means that if an Aeldari loses an XSymbol they have the potential to lose out in similar proportions to a guardsman instead of a -2" or whatever that punishes a slower moving individual proportionally more than a fast moving one.

I mean, they could have done a 2"/3 and then have in the ruling to reduce division factor by 1 and then add a whole paragraph what they mean about division factor. Maybe I just play enough boardgames, but the current proposed system sounds very straightforward.

My guess is that the loss in movement is there to replace the -1 to hit the old system had and was rather infuriating. At least with a slow moving soldier you still have firepower to fall upon unless it is pistols/flamers, especially with the change to a universal range on most guns. I wonder if Shuriken Catapults will be limited in range.

But if they're going to use bespoke rulers, and bespoke symbols for those rulers, I would have preferred if they used them properly. Namely, a ruler for a measurement. This [number][symbol] is the worst of both worlds. If you're already using something like that, probably a full set of movement templates a la X-Wing would have been a better idea.

Difference is that the X-Wing rulers are a bit more than just a measure of length but also turning speed and whatnot and are there to simplify something that would be unpleasant to measure out with a measuring tape. I would also iterate that nothing in the ruleset forces you to use these rulers. Literally nothing.

I see primarily people are still butthurt about having to memorize four shapes with primary colors. I will return tomorrow.