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.

 JNAProductions wrote:
What is the issue with USRs?

They make the game more dense when you are getting started. They also lock the factions in. Going "bespoke" allows the designers to tailor the rules to each unit/faction.

With 9th they've gone back towards USRs somewhat with faction-specific rules that all units can access with the keyword. I think it is a good compromise. They have also kept certain language the same.

Has anybody actually been confused by the unit/faction special rules? I ask my opponent at the start of the game: "Do you have anything that can come in from Reserve?" He can then say "Yes - they have to outside 9" from you." When we see GSC in 9th maybe they will have a different mechanic - the designers can make one since each Codex stands alone.

I only play factions for which I have the Codex, so having to look in my Codex for rules is not a problem.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
What is the issue with USRs?

They make the game more dense when you are getting started. They also lock the factions in. Going "bespoke" allows the designers to tailor the rules to each unit/faction.

With 9th they've gone back towards USRs somewhat with faction-specific rules that all units can access with the keyword. I think it is a good compromise. They have also kept certain language the same.

Has anybody actually been confused by the unit/faction special rules? I ask my opponent at the start of the game: "Do you have anything that can come in from Reserve?" He can then say "Yes - they have to outside 9" from you." When we see GSC in 9th maybe they will have a different mechanic - the designers can make one since each Codex stands alone.

I only play factions for which I have the Codex, so having to look in my Codex for rules is not a problem.

What about a rule being listed in the rulebook AND your Codex makes the game harder, or less accessible?
What about having standardized language across rules makes the game harder, or less accessible?

 JNAProductions wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
What is the issue with USRs?

They make the game more dense when you are getting started. They also lock the factions in. Going "bespoke" allows the designers to tailor the rules to each unit/faction.

With 9th they've gone back towards USRs somewhat with faction-specific rules that all units can access with the keyword. I think it is a good compromise. They have also kept certain language the same.

Has anybody actually been confused by the unit/faction special rules? I ask my opponent at the start of the game: "Do you have anything that can come in from Reserve?" He can then say "Yes - they have to outside 9" from you." When we see GSC in 9th maybe they will have a different mechanic - the designers can make one since each Codex stands alone.

I only play factions for which I have the Codex, so having to look in my Codex for rules is not a problem.

What about a rule being listed in the rulebook AND your Codex makes the game harder, or less accessible?
What about having standardized language across rules makes the game harder, or less accessible?

You are adding to the BRB. You don't need USRs in the BRB if you have Special Rules in Codexes, datasheets. I find it fun when people (including Youtube Batrepers) complain that the game is getting more complex due to the special rules/Stratagems etc when there is an Open Play portion where you can just play with the Core Rules.

As for language, in my post you quoted I mentioned they have been keeping certain language the same. So you get some de facto USRs in terms of effect on the tabletop without having a section of URS in the BRB.

Could they take it another step back in 10th by adding a small selection of USRs that they intend to leave unmodified for each Codex (or else they are not Universal)? Sure. I just don't think that there is really confusion over the Codex and Datasheet special rules. Does the game come to halt when I say "My Deathwing will Teleport Strike here and my Inceptors will Death from Above over there."

There can be confusion/gotcha moments around Stratagems.

I think the problem is that instead of feel no pain (x) we have disgustingly resilient, the flesh is weak, power from pain, and heaven knows how many other things that often do the exact same thing, and by rules as written means that each was at one point technically a different roll from a different rule thtpat made the game play incredibly clunky, which you simply did not deal with in 7th because every army pulled the majority of their special rules from a standardized list in the brb. This tends to be a problem with the majority of rules and the place for armies to demonstrate unique rules that were not represented in the brb was the codex.

TBF PFP doesn't just give an extra save and that save is invuln not a FNP sort of save like DR or Apothecary aura.

 bullyboy wrote:
yes, it does.

These are Black Templars, I expect if they get in assault with my unit, it's going to hurt. I knew that going into the game, like I know that Iron Hands will have different strengths too that are not geared around assault.

So... how do you feel about the army-wide 5+ invulnerable save (and transhuman on 1-2) that Templars can just have now? Does it make the Iron Hand's 'different strengths' feel relevant?


----
And just internally to the supplement, it certainly kicks the pants of some of the other BT options. I'd definitely take '+3 to move once per game on the first turn IF the enemy has psykers and reroll 1s to wound psykers' instead, over army wide defensive buffs. Those are certainly equivalent.
Yeah, sure you betcha.

 Sim-Life wrote:
While we're on the subject, does anyone actually use the "randomly roll 2" part of abilities that allow you to have two random ones or choose a single one?

I always roll for my exalted greater demons (Lord of change and Keeper of secrets). The options are good enough that even getting a dud one isnt the end of the world

 JNAProductions wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
What is the issue with USRs?

They make the game more dense when you are getting started. They also lock the factions in. Going "bespoke" allows the designers to tailor the rules to each unit/faction.

With 9th they've gone back towards USRs somewhat with faction-specific rules that all units can access with the keyword. I think it is a good compromise. They have also kept certain language the same.

Has anybody actually been confused by the unit/faction special rules? I ask my opponent at the start of the game: "Do you have anything that can come in from Reserve?" He can then say "Yes - they have to outside 9" from you." When we see GSC in 9th maybe they will have a different mechanic - the designers can make one since each Codex stands alone.

I only play factions for which I have the Codex, so having to look in my Codex for rules is not a problem.

What about a rule being listed in the rulebook AND your Codex makes the game harder, or less accessible?
What about having standardized language across rules makes the game harder, or less accessible?

Standardized langue across rules would be a massive improvement. But cross referencing 5-10 special rules for each datasheet can be a pain. I already hate to do it with the armywide special rules, and it took me really a long time to memorize all the SW special rules that aren't full described under units' datasheets.

I really like choosing WL traits, it tickles the nugget of me that wants some narrative a little and it tickles the part of me that doesn't want the trash WL trait a great deal. I think I'm ambivalent about random WL traits vs no WL traits. Buying WL traits and relics means that it's just basically just another wargear piece, you cannot spam it, but that's the only thing that sets it apart. It being a separate mechanic following different rules makes it special I think. Besides, you cannot accurately point relics for every character unless you give each character a single relic choice, it'd be too much of a hassle. Keeping them all around 1CP of value and then adjusting the magnitude of their effects or giving them downsides to balance them is best I think.

 Sim-Life wrote:
While we're on the subject, does anyone actually use the "randomly roll 2" part of abilities that allow you to have two random ones or choose a single one?

Yeah, I love mine, I think it's an excellent mechanic for units that are meant to be out of control. It's a bit much if you have more than 3 units with it though, especially if you also have bonus upgrades like extra relics, WL traits, etc.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Has anybody actually been confused by the unit/faction special rules? I ask my opponent at the start of the game: "Do you have anything that can come in from Reserve?" He can then say "Yes - they have to outside 9" from you." When we see GSC in 9th maybe they will have a different mechanic - the designers can make one since each Codex stands alone.

Everyone I've played with calls it deep strike and I call it deep strike when I teach newbies, it's not confusing. I think that's a justification for changing the name to deep strike, not a justification to leave things as they are because if you did call the rule by its name and you did read out the rule instead of just saying it's a reinforcement thing 9", then it'd be confusing and annoying. It's like the 4th edition CSM codex, it was barebones and the developer expected players to create their own homebrew to make it fun to play with, we shouldn't have to come up with our own terms for the mechanics in the game or write homebrew to play a codex, it's messy and unprofessional.

 Blackie wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
What is the issue with USRs?

They make the game more dense when you are getting started. They also lock the factions in. Going "bespoke" allows the designers to tailor the rules to each unit/faction.

With 9th they've gone back towards USRs somewhat with faction-specific rules that all units can access with the keyword. I think it is a good compromise. They have also kept certain language the same.

Has anybody actually been confused by the unit/faction special rules? I ask my opponent at the start of the game: "Do you have anything that can come in from Reserve?" He can then say "Yes - they have to outside 9" from you." When we see GSC in 9th maybe they will have a different mechanic - the designers can make one since each Codex stands alone.

I only play factions for which I have the Codex, so having to look in my Codex for rules is not a problem.

What about a rule being listed in the rulebook AND your Codex makes the game harder, or less accessible?
What about having standardized language across rules makes the game harder, or less accessible?

Standardized langue across rules would be a massive improvement. But cross referencing 5-10 special rules for each datasheet can be a pain. I already hate to do it with the armywide special rules, and it took me really a long time to memorize all the SW special rules that aren't full described under units' datasheets.

Ah. The secret there is not to have bloat. 5-10 special rules per datasheet is insanity. 0-2 is much more reasonable and makes for significantly better game design.
That isn't a USR problem at all, just the writers mustering some self-control rather than 'kitchen-sinking' every single unit.

0-2?

I'm looking at characters like Ghazghkull and Makari and they both have 5 (6 if we consider Waaagh! which we still don't know why it was listed in every datasheet). Snikrot has 7, the Deffkilla Watrike and the Warboss on Squigosaur, which aren't even named characters, has 6 and 5.

Non characters units can have several special rules as well: Kommandos have 5, all the buggies have 5 or even 6. So do Deffkoptas.

The new Kill/Hunta Rig has 6, so do a couple of the planes. The other planes have 5.

Two is the amount standard troops has.

Let's not even talk about SW: characters typically have 6, while troops have 3. But one of those rules (Angels of Death) is actually 4 special rules. So even a standard troop squad has 6 special rules to remember and a character has 9. Spread among two books and at least 3 different places: unit's datasheet, special rules for SW in the SW supplement and special rules for SM in the SM codex.

Bloat is already insane, and referencing already a huge pain.

 Blackie wrote:
0-2?

I'm looking at characters like Ghazghkull and Makari and they both have 5 (6 if we consider Waaagh! which we still don't know why it was listed in every datasheet). Snikrot has 7, the Deffkilla Watrike and the Warboss on Squigosaur, which aren't even named characters, has 6 and 5.

Non characters units can have several special rules as well: Kommandos have 5, all the buggies have 5 or even 6. So do Deffkoptas.

The new Kill/Hunta Rig has 6, so do a couple of the planes. The other planes have 5.

Two is the amount standard troops has.

Let's not even talk about SW: characters typically have 6, while troops have 3. But one of those rules (Angels of Death) is actually 4 special rules. So even a standard troop squad has 6 special rules to remember and a character has 9. Spread among two books and at least 3 different places: unit's datasheet, special rules for SW in the SW supplement and special rules for SM in the SM codex.

Bloat is already insane, and referencing already a huge pain.

Yes? I'm not sure what you're arguing. I'm saying they should stop having so many special rules and go back to basics (like older editions).
So instead of 5+, like your examples, they should set most of the special rules bloat on fire and go back to 0-2 special rules being normal. On baseline units, 0 is perfectly acceptable, there isn't any reason to have any.

Voss wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
0-2?

I'm looking at characters like Ghazghkull and Makari and they both have 5 (6 if we consider Waaagh! which we still don't know why it was listed in every datasheet). Snikrot has 7, the Deffkilla Watrike and the Warboss on Squigosaur, which aren't even named characters, has 6 and 5.

Non characters units can have several special rules as well: Kommandos have 5, all the buggies have 5 or even 6. So do Deffkoptas.

The new Kill/Hunta Rig has 6, so do a couple of the planes. The other planes have 5.

Two is the amount standard troops has.

Let's not even talk about SW: characters typically have 6, while troops have 3. But one of those rules (Angels of Death) is actually 4 special rules. So even a standard troop squad has 6 special rules to remember and a character has 9. Spread among two books and at least 3 different places: unit's datasheet, special rules for SW in the SW supplement and special rules for SM in the SM codex.

Bloat is already insane, and referencing already a huge pain.

Yes? I'm not sure what you're arguing. I'm saying they should stop having so many special rules and go back to basics (like older editions).
So instead of 5+, like your examples, they should set most of the special rules bloat on fire and go back to 0-2 special rules being normal. On baseline units, 0 is perfectly acceptable, there isn't any reason to have any.

I think his point is that 0-2 special rules isn't enough for characters, I don't know if he's misunderstood your point or deliberately misinterpreting it to strengthen his point.

Voss wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
0-2?

I'm looking at characters like Ghazghkull and Makari and they both have 5 (6 if we consider Waaagh! which we still don't know why it was listed in every datasheet). Snikrot has 7, the Deffkilla Watrike and the Warboss on Squigosaur, which aren't even named characters, has 6 and 5.

Non characters units can have several special rules as well: Kommandos have 5, all the buggies have 5 or even 6. So do Deffkoptas.

The new Kill/Hunta Rig has 6, so do a couple of the planes. The other planes have 5.

Two is the amount standard troops has.

Let's not even talk about SW: characters typically have 6, while troops have 3. But one of those rules (Angels of Death) is actually 4 special rules. So even a standard troop squad has 6 special rules to remember and a character has 9. Spread among two books and at least 3 different places: unit's datasheet, special rules for SW in the SW supplement and special rules for SM in the SM codex.

Bloat is already insane, and referencing already a huge pain.

Yes? I'm not sure what you're arguing. I'm saying they should stop having so many special rules and go back to basics (like older editions).
So instead of 5+, like your examples, they should set most of the special rules bloat on fire and go back to 0-2 special rules being normal. On baseline units, 0 is perfectly acceptable, there isn't any reason to have any.

You talk about going back to older editions but your 0-2 limit indicates that you're severely underestimating how many special rules units tended to have in past editions.

I don't see that many. Just the Retinue rule encapsulated under "character"

 vipoid wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
0-2?

I'm looking at characters like Ghazghkull and Makari and they both have 5 (6 if we consider Waaagh! which we still don't know why it was listed in every datasheet). Snikrot has 7, the Deffkilla Watrike and the Warboss on Squigosaur, which aren't even named characters, has 6 and 5.

Non characters units can have several special rules as well: Kommandos have 5, all the buggies have 5 or even 6. So do Deffkoptas.

The new Kill/Hunta Rig has 6, so do a couple of the planes. The other planes have 5.

Two is the amount standard troops has.

Let's not even talk about SW: characters typically have 6, while troops have 3. But one of those rules (Angels of Death) is actually 4 special rules. So even a standard troop squad has 6 special rules to remember and a character has 9. Spread among two books and at least 3 different places: unit's datasheet, special rules for SW in the SW supplement and special rules for SM in the SM codex.

Bloat is already insane, and referencing already a huge pain.

Yes? I'm not sure what you're arguing. I'm saying they should stop having so many special rules and go back to basics (like older editions).
So instead of 5+, like your examples, they should set most of the special rules bloat on fire and go back to 0-2 special rules being normal. On baseline units, 0 is perfectly acceptable, there isn't any reason to have any.

You talk about going back to older editions but your 0-2 limit indicates that you're severely underestimating how many special rules units tended to have in past editions.

Past is unspecific. Do you mean 2nd or 6th? The former was very low on USRs and the latter had a lot.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I don't see that many. Just the Retinue rule encapsulated under "character"

Most units only had a few, some had none. Others had quite a lot.

Almost all 4e daemon units had 5-6 rules by default. Factions like wolves and DE started at 3. Scout-style units adding 3-4 on average, Terminators added about half a dozen. It was a mixed bag.

 Strg Alt wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
0-2?

I'm looking at characters like Ghazghkull and Makari and they both have 5 (6 if we consider Waaagh! which we still don't know why it was listed in every datasheet). Snikrot has 7, the Deffkilla Watrike and the Warboss on Squigosaur, which aren't even named characters, has 6 and 5.

Non characters units can have several special rules as well: Kommandos have 5, all the buggies have 5 or even 6. So do Deffkoptas.

The new Kill/Hunta Rig has 6, so do a couple of the planes. The other planes have 5.

Two is the amount standard troops has.

Let's not even talk about SW: characters typically have 6, while troops have 3. But one of those rules (Angels of Death) is actually 4 special rules. So even a standard troop squad has 6 special rules to remember and a character has 9. Spread among two books and at least 3 different places: unit's datasheet, special rules for SW in the SW supplement and special rules for SM in the SM codex.

Bloat is already insane, and referencing already a huge pain.

Yes? I'm not sure what you're arguing. I'm saying they should stop having so many special rules and go back to basics (like older editions).
So instead of 5+, like your examples, they should set most of the special rules bloat on fire and go back to 0-2 special rules being normal. On baseline units, 0 is perfectly acceptable, there isn't any reason to have any.

You talk about going back to older editions but your 0-2 limit indicates that you're severely underestimating how many special rules units tended to have in past editions.

Past is unspecific. Do you mean 2nd or 6th? The former was very low on USRs and the latter had a lot.

I think we need to discern between army-wide special rules vs. Unit rules. If a whole army has a few, no biggie. But once units themselves start stacking multiples on top of that obviously it gets stupid-complicated quickly.

Example: I take six units, each with 2 of their own bespoke special rules, and that makes 12 on top of 2-3 army-wide rules.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
0-2?

I'm looking at characters like Ghazghkull and Makari and they both have 5 (6 if we consider Waaagh! which we still don't know why it was listed in every datasheet). Snikrot has 7, the Deffkilla Watrike and the Warboss on Squigosaur, which aren't even named characters, has 6 and 5.

Non characters units can have several special rules as well: Kommandos have 5, all the buggies have 5 or even 6. So do Deffkoptas.

The new Kill/Hunta Rig has 6, so do a couple of the planes. The other planes have 5.

Two is the amount standard troops has.

Let's not even talk about SW: characters typically have 6, while troops have 3. But one of those rules (Angels of Death) is actually 4 special rules. So even a standard troop squad has 6 special rules to remember and a character has 9. Spread among two books and at least 3 different places: unit's datasheet, special rules for SW in the SW supplement and special rules for SM in the SM codex.

Bloat is already insane, and referencing already a huge pain.

Yes? I'm not sure what you're arguing. I'm saying they should stop having so many special rules and go back to basics (like older editions).
So instead of 5+, like your examples, they should set most of the special rules bloat on fire and go back to 0-2 special rules being normal. On baseline units, 0 is perfectly acceptable, there isn't any reason to have any.

You talk about going back to older editions but your 0-2 limit indicates that you're severely underestimating how many special rules units tended to have in past editions.

Past is unspecific. Do you mean 2nd or 6th? The former was very low on USRs and the latter had a lot.

I think we need to discern between army-wide special rules vs. Unit rules. If a whole army has a few, no biggie. But once units themselves start stacking multiples on top of that obviously it gets stupid-complicated quickly.

Example: I take six units, each with 2 of their own bespoke special rules, and that makes 12 on top of 2-3 army-wide rules.

I think another issue to consider is the way phases work in 40k, where you are effectively acting with each unit several times over a turn.

Where as something like warmachine you are usually focused on a single unit with at most a few support units at a time. Enabling more to be done on a unit as the design space can be more focused.

Infinity is also similar, you are often focusing in on a single unit with responding units being a more Co Op burden of thought.

40k also has a lot of dice rolling, which for me personally is just so tiring mentally.
Even if it’s basic math, it’s just a lot of rolling for often lucky a avg result and taking a lot from any push and pull the dice should have for excitement.
Often each roll having a bunch of new things have to be aware of.

Apple fox wrote:


40k also has a lot of dice rolling, which for me personally is just so tiring mentally.
Even if it’s basic math, it’s just a lot of rolling for often lucky a avg result and taking a lot from any push and pull the dice should have for excitement.
Often each roll having a bunch of new things have to be aware of.

Yeah, volume of dice and abilities that turn the game into the game of averages or even the game of "full house!" are something that ruin the whole experience. IMHO that's the biggest disappointment of 9th edition of 40k, I would prefer a more random game with less dice rolling and close to no way to alter the result of the dice.

 JNAProductions wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
What is the issue with USRs?

They make the game more dense when you are getting started. They also lock the factions in. Going "bespoke" allows the designers to tailor the rules to each unit/faction.

With 9th they've gone back towards USRs somewhat with faction-specific rules that all units can access with the keyword. I think it is a good compromise. They have also kept certain language the same.

Has anybody actually been confused by the unit/faction special rules? I ask my opponent at the start of the game: "Do you have anything that can come in from Reserve?" He can then say "Yes - they have to outside 9" from you." When we see GSC in 9th maybe they will have a different mechanic - the designers can make one since each Codex stands alone.

I only play factions for which I have the Codex, so having to look in my Codex for rules is not a problem.

What about a rule being listed in the rulebook AND your Codex makes the game harder, or less accessible?
What about having standardized language across rules makes the game harder, or less accessible?

I fear you are giving GW some crazy ideas. With your approach they can actually start making updated Rulebooks every year to update the USR listings. Quite genius actually, being able to charge yearly for a new rulebook(and a yearly mission book so money all around). That's almost guaranteed money every year and us, the customers, will be poorer for it. However, we will pay it smiling as usual.

More rules on top of rules on top of rules on top of rules. Now even Guard have Transhuman and All Is Dust:



So, like the OP said: Does this Enhance Your Game Experience?

looking forwards to 2+ armor saves on guardsmen! (but only cadians)

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
More rules on top of rules on top of rules on top of rules. Now even Guard have Transhuman and All Is Dust:



So, like the OP said: Does this Enhance Your Game Experience?

As I am not an Imperial Guard player I can't say it enhances my game experience. It might enhance my friend's experience who actually plays IG, although to be fair the new Transhuman ability should be dubbed "Subhuman" as always fails on 1-2 isn't really Transhuman in the slightest.

 Eldarsif wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
More rules on top of rules on top of rules on top of rules. Now even Guard have Transhuman and All Is Dust:



So, like the OP said: Does this Enhance Your Game Experience?

As I am not an Imperial Guard player I can't say it enhances my game experience. It might enhance my friend's experience who actually plays IG, although to be fair the new Transhuman ability should be dubbed "Subhuman" as always fails on 1-2 isn't really Transhuman in the slightest.

I play IG and it won't enhance my experience at all because I don't play Cadians.

And always fails on a 1-2 literally doubles how durable they are against Strength 6+

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
More rules on top of rules on top of rules on top of rules. Now even Guard have Transhuman and All Is Dust:



So, like the OP said: Does this Enhance Your Game Experience?

As I am not an Imperial Guard player I can't say it enhances my game experience. It might enhance my friend's experience who actually plays IG, although to be fair the new Transhuman ability should be dubbed "Subhuman" as always fails on 1-2 isn't really Transhuman in the slightest.

I play IG and it won't enhance my experience at all because I don't play Cadians.

And always fails on a 1-2 literally doubles how durable they are against Strength 6+

Well, Cadians(or IG) ain't doing so well so doubling their durability against Craftworld weapons isn't really the end of the world. That is before we take into account that this costs CP and only affects a single squad per phase. Does hurt Death Guard more, but again DG haven't had a lot of trouble with IG as of late.

I would have, however, liked that this stratagem was IG sub-faction agnostic. I think the only thing I can agree on is that a lot of codex sub-faction specific stratagems are just a hassle. They can either go overboard(like old Agents of Vect before the nerf) or just not do anything meaningful. So I am all in support of stratagems being agnostic to their respective codex.

It doubles their durability against anything Str 6+, even ignoring the save bonus (so battlecannons, multilasers, manticores, etc).

So really it's a buff to Cadians that nerfs Imperial Guard (noice).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It doubles their durability against anything Str 6+, even ignoring the save bonus (so battlecannons, multilasers, manticores, etc).

So really it's a buff to Cadians that nerfs Imperial Guard (noice).

I mean, if you are aiming Battlecannons at S3 Cadians then I do believe you are playing yourself.

I do agree though that the stratagem should be sub-faction agnostic.

 Eldarsif wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It doubles their durability against anything Str 6+, even ignoring the save bonus (so battlecannons, multilasers, manticores, etc).

So really it's a buff to Cadians that nerfs Imperial Guard (noice).

I mean, if you are aiming Battlecannons at S3 Cadians then I do believe you are playing yourself.

I do agree though that the stratagem should be sub-faction agnostic.

What else would you aim your battlecannon at in an IG infantry army?

If you NEVER fire your battlecannon-cannon class weapons at T3 infantry on principle, I hope I get to play you sometime in the future. It'll be a unique experience to have my infantry not get hoovered up in droves.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It doubles their durability against anything Str 6+, even ignoring the save bonus (so battlecannons, multilasers, manticores, etc).

So really it's a buff to Cadians that nerfs Imperial Guard (noice).

I mean, if you are aiming Battlecannons at S3 Cadians then I do believe you are playing yourself.

I do agree though that the stratagem should be sub-faction agnostic.

What else would you aim your battlecannon at in an IG infantry army?

If you NEVER fire your battlecannon-cannon class weapons at T3 infantry on principle, I hope I get to play you sometime in the future. It'll be a unique experience to have my infantry not get hoovered up in droves.

Who knows, maybe one day we'll get a game and don't know it's us.

I just tend to aim high strength weapon at stuff that really requires high strength stuff like tanks and monsters. Infantry Guardsmen usually just get Poxwalkers in their face along with some Blight Lord Stormbolters. To be fair the only Battlecannon equivalent in my army are Plagueburst Crawlers and I really suck when rolling random shot weapons. The big gun is lucky I can do 2 shots per turn.