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.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Transhuman doesn't make much sense with Marines

With squats, maybe, but it should be hardcoded rule on every single primaris model. Especially now that they lost their +1 W advantage. The whole point of 2/3 of their implants is to make the host more durable, it's pants on head stupid rules don't reflect this

Aecus Decimus wrote:
If you want to represent durability against small arms fire give them FNP 5+ against weapons with strength 6 or less.

That's not how GW does it now. After complains about too many rolls in 8th, GW drastically cut on sources of secondary rolls, replacing say reroll 1s auras with +1 to hit/wound and shifting from FNP to +1 T or +1 W or Transhuman or similar rules. Their whole goal is less rolling, and if rule does achieve similar results with some workaround (like the Krieg one) then the player is supposed to accept that bit was abstracted as they no longer make crunch forcibly 100% fluffy, just end result of it.

 Irbis wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Transhuman doesn't make much sense with Marines

With squats, maybe, but it should be hardcoded rule on every single primaris model. Especially now that they lost their +1 W advantage. The whole point of 2/3 of their implants is to make the host more durable, it's pants on head stupid rules don't reflect this

Nooope......still stupid. I don't care how many extra organs Cawl sticks in them, when they get shot in the face with a melta.....they're slag and ashes. And when that dreadnought's chainfist hits, there's suddenly two marines, instead of one, and all of those extra organs are just decorating the scenery.

Strength = 2×Toughness or more = Instant Death. That's what a sensible ruleset does.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Transhuman doesn't make much sense with Marines

With squats, maybe, but it should be hardcoded rule on every single primaris model. Especially now that they lost their +1 W advantage. The whole point of 2/3 of their implants is to make the host more durable, it's pants on head stupid rules don't reflect this

Nooope......still stupid. I don't care how many extra organs Cawl sticks in them, when they get shot in the face with a melta.....they're slag and ashes. And when that dreadnought's chainfist hits, there's suddenly two marines, instead of one, and all of those extra organs are just decorating the scenery.

Strength = 2×Toughness or more = Instant Death. That's what a sensible ruleset does.

Only if the opposite is also true, T > Sx2 meaning no wounding no matter what.

Sounds fine to me.

So the account OK_entrepreneur3004 has been deleted on Reddit. Bummer, that's one less channel to get accurate rumours now.

 xttz wrote:

 necrontyrOG wrote:
Looks like the Reddit rumor guy deleted his account.

Turns out all the veteran squads were all gone... to find him

People discarding accounts on reddit is regularly done for various reasons, and not getting caught leaking company internals is quite a good reason for that.

It's also possible that fake information gets published to certain circles within a company (like chaos bikes) to narrow down who might be leaking stuff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Transhuman doesn't make much sense with Marines

With squats, maybe, but it should be hardcoded rule on every single primaris model. Especially now that they lost their +1 W advantage. The whole point of 2/3 of their implants is to make the host more durable, it's pants on head stupid rules don't reflect this

Nooope......still stupid. I don't care how many extra organs Cawl sticks in them, when they get shot in the face with a melta.....they're slag and ashes. And when that dreadnought's chainfist hits, there's suddenly two marines, instead of one, and all of those extra organs are just decorating the scenery.

Strength = 2×Toughness or more = Instant Death. That's what a sensible ruleset does.

You are confusing strength with damage. Instant death has no place in a ruleset which defines how much damage a weapon does. Terminators don't explode into red mist because a goff runtherd poked them with a grot prod.

If you failed your wound roll, you simply did not hit a marine in the face and that chainfist glanced the marine at best.

People also need to understand that most stratagems do not represent fluff, but are merely given flavorful names, just like all those bespoke rules. Unless you genuinely think that primaris marines get a vox call from chapter command to use their extra organs and just lie down and die otherwise, you should absolutely not be complaining about the math of a stratagem.

 Jidmah wrote:

You are confusing strength with damage. Instant death has no place in a ruleset which defines how much damage a weapon does. Terminators don't explode into red mist because a goff runtherd poked them with a grot prod.

Don't forget that this is your personal opinion. Instant death at S>=2*T used to be a thing in past editions. Admitedly under different circumstances (less mutliwound models, less damage in the weapon profiles etc), but still. It has every right to "belong" in a ruleset as any other rule, even if you personally disagree.

 GiToRaZor wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

You are confusing strength with damage. Instant death has no place in a ruleset which defines how much damage a weapon does. Terminators don't explode into red mist because a goff runtherd poked them with a grot prod.

Don't forget that this is your personal opinion. Instant death at S>=2*T used to be a thing in past editions. Admitedly under different circumstances (less mutliwound models, less damage in the weapon profiles etc), but still. It has every right to "belong" in a ruleset as any other rule, even if you personally disagree.

I think what he’s saying is that if you have a variable damage mechanic then you don’t need “instant death” as a rule because a lascannon can do enough wounds to kill characters and multi wound models anyway. And that makes sense as a design, not just opinion. Instant death only existed because all weapons had a damage stat of 1 in old editions.

Yeah, if weapons can take more than one wound there's no need for a general instant death rule, unless it's some special snowflake weapon effect.

 GiToRaZor wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

You are confusing strength with damage. Instant death has no place in a ruleset which defines how much damage a weapon does. Terminators don't explode into red mist because a goff runtherd poked them with a grot prod.

Don't forget that this is your personal opinion. Instant death at S>=2*T used to be a thing in past editions. Admitedly under different circumstances (less mutliwound models, less damage in the weapon profiles etc), but still. It has every right to "belong" in a ruleset as any other rule, even if you personally disagree.

Not really. The stat that decides how deadly a weapon is in 8th and 9th is damage, not strength. The melta melts a marine it hits because it does d6+2 damage, not because of S8. The dreadnaught fist crushes a marine because of 3 damage, not because of S12. That is a fact, not an opinion.
In older editions it used to be strength because damage did not exist, and it didn't really work well and caused eternal warrior to creep everywhere and most multi-wound characters and units without EW were considered useless.

As pointed out, a goff runtherd with a shockprod can easily be S8, which would be sufficient to instant-death a chapter master. That objectively makes no sense, neither from a balance nor from a lore point of view.

 Jidmah wrote:


Not really. The stat that decides how deadly a weapon is in 8th and 9th is damage, not strength. The melta melts a marine it hits because it does d6+2 damage, not because of S8. The dreadnaught fist crushes a marine because of 3 damage, not because of S12. That is a fact, not an opinion.
In older editions it used to be strength because damage did not exist, and it didn't really work well and caused eternal warrior to creep everywhere and most multi-wound characters and units without EW were considered useless.

As pointed out, a goff runtherd with a shockprod can easily be S8, which would be sufficient to instant-death a chapter master. That objectively makes no sense, neither from a balance nor from a lore point of view.

Of course you are entitled to your own opinion. I see it differently though, we could easily add the rules mentioned above: S>=T*2: Instant Kill, T>=2*S: no wounding possible. And what would change? Some diagrams and statistical models. That is objective truth. Every Stat, every special rule is in the end just a factor for a very (I would say too) complex calculation to decide if you manage to wound/kill a model or not. Everything else is just made up believe, that is usually supported by a sentence like "this is supposed to reflect..." But does it though? If a Lasrifle can potentionally wound a titan, does S then really reflect if a weapon is Strong enough to punch through the Armour? And why is Armour reflected in both T and then Armour roll? So T is just the structural integrity of something? Why does it not degrade then? And why does a shield only work if the Armour is not better at protection? Should not every additional layer improve chances of survival? And what about 5+++, another role to represent how tough the target is. I can keep on with examples for hours. 40K is very far away from being free of contradictions.

Or to put it in other words, 10th edition might as well come out and say: "We reintroduce Instant death. This rule is supposed to show that a weapon can be so powerful, it will just outright destroy smaller targets. We still keep the damage charactaristic though, in order to reflect the damage that it does to targets that are not outright destroyed".

And then the rule is there and that is it. Independent of your personal feelings if it has a right to exist. You might than say, "but the runtherd is inconsistent!" and people will tell you: "so was lasrifles wounding titans last edition". Because at the end of the day, 40K will always be full of inconstent rules.

So any news about Imperial Guard, or is this a how weapons work in the rules thread?

 GiToRaZor wrote:
Of course you are entitled to your own opinion. I see it differently though, we could easily add the rules mentioned above: S>=T*2: Instant Kill, T>=2*S: no wounding possible. And what would change? Some diagrams and statistical models. That is objective truth.

The objective truth is that instant death could potentially increase damage of a single shot by tenfold or more. There is no way to balance that, and therefore it has no place in this game anymore.

Everything else is just made up believe, that is usually supported by a sentence like "this is supposed to reflect..." But does it though? If a Lasrifle can potentionally wound a titan, does S then really reflect if a weapon is Strong enough to punch through the Armour? And why is Armour reflected in both T and then Armour roll? So T is just the structural integrity of something? Why does it not degrade then? And why does a shield only work if the Armour is not better at protection? Should not every additional layer improve chances of survival? And what about 5+++, another role to represent how tough the target is. I can keep on with examples for hours. 40K is very far away from being free of contradictions.

It makes perfect sense when you understand that numbers are abstractions and not exact measurements for what happens in the highly inconsistent lore.
A lasgun shot has a 1.38% chance of wounding a reaver titan.
During a Waaagh! Ghazghkull Thrakka has a 81.02% chance of causing instant death to a 70 wound reaver titan with every. single. attack. That's a 99.9932% chance to kill almost every single model in the game unless it has some way of not being hit by a S16 AP-5 attack.
"Both are problematic" is just whataboutsim.

Two question:
Do you think that S16 should cause instant death to titans with 50-70 wounds? Like, to five of them in a single round of combat?
Do you think that this is the same magnitude as a titan losing 2-3 wounds of the course of a game from small arms fire?

If you answer those questions truthfully, you see how idiotic comparing these two cases is.

 Jidmah wrote:

Two question:
Do you think that S16 should cause instant death to titans with 50-70 wounds? Like, to five of them in a single round of combat?
Do you think that this is the same magnitude as a titan losing 2-3 wounds of the course of a game from small arms fire?

If you answer those questions truthfully, you see how idiotic comparing these two cases is.

We're in "if you give a moose a muffin" territory. The response is going to be "well, titans shouldn't have toughness values and should have AV values" and eventually the discussion spirals into how the 8th edition re-design was the bane of existence and everything should be 3rd edition rules still.

Rather than poisoning the well, let's see if there isn't a really simple way to solve this:

Instant Death: If a weapon's Strength is twice (or higher) than the target's Toughness, and the target has the Infantry Keyword, then a failed save will result in the model being removed a casualty regardless of how many Wounds it has, or the Damage of the weapon.

Use the keywords! It's why they're there!

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Rather than poisoning the well, let's see if there isn't a really simple way to solve this:

Instant Death: If a weapon's Strength is twice (or higher) than the target's Toughness, and the target has the Infantry Keyword, then a failed save will result in the model being removed a casualty regardless of how many Wounds it has, or the Damage of the weapon.

Use the keywords! It's why they're there!

Why add another layer of special rules when the damage stat was designed to replace it to begin with? And why clog up the Guard thread with this discussion?

On the actual topic, we know about a bunch of Cadian kits, heard of Kreig and possibly Catachan ones as well. Any chance Traitor guard will get a couple kits later, maybe a supplement?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Rather than poisoning the well, let's see if there isn't a really simple way to solve this:

Instant Death: If a weapon's Strength is twice (or higher) than the target's Toughness, and the target has the Infantry Keyword, then a failed save will result in the model being removed a casualty regardless of how many Wounds it has, or the Damage of the weapon.

Use the keywords! It's why they're there!

Suddenly, scarabs and warbikers survive getting shot by a d-scythe but chapter masters and warbosses don't. I totally can see GW implement a rule like that.

Instant death is a bad rule and should never, ever return. If you want to a gun to ker-splat infantry put the right amount of damage on it.

General Hobbs wrote:


So any news about Imperial Guard, or is this a how weapons work in the rules thread?

Like a true guardsman, despite knowing you're not likely to stop anything on your own, you still hold the line and try to bring the thread back on topic. Don't worry though, you're not alone. I'll stand with you. Now to fish for 6's.


What's the best way to keep an eye out for new rumors? Do y'all just google astra militarum rumors regularly or is it more of a case of checking a bunch of different places (discord servers, reddit, youtube, etc.)?

B&C and the 40k subreddits are the best way to track rumors, if you regularly check youtube, auspex tactics makes videos about pretty much every rumor.

Rumor mongers have left dakka long ago, you only get second hand knowledge here from dakkanauts who frequent other communities.

DeadliestIdiot wrote:

General Hobbs wrote:


So any news about Imperial Guard, or is this a how weapons work in the rules thread?

Like a true guardsman, despite knowing you're not likely to stop anything on your own, you still hold the line and try to bring the thread back on topic. Don't worry though, you're not alone. I'll stand with you. Now to fish for 6's.


What's the best way to keep an eye out for new rumors? Do y'all just google astra militarum rumors regularly or is it more of a case of checking a bunch of different places (discord servers, reddit, youtube, etc.)?

Discord is the go-to place these days. There's a whole bunch of different 40k-related servers, many of which are faction specific. Finding an astra militarum server is a safe bet, while the GSC server tends to get a lot of reliable 40k rumours in general.

Usually any plausible rumour gets shared around several different servers pretty quickly, so you don't need to join that many to see them.

New Question - Since it appears we're getting Kasrkin as a grenedier/heavy infantry type options, does anyone know or care to guess what the rules might be like?

Troops/elites?
2 special weapons? 4 for a full sized squad?
Helguns? Shotguns? Choice?

I ask as the proud owner of a crapton of Adepus Arbites and hope these rules might work for them.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
New Question - Since it appears we're getting Kasrkin as a grenedier/heavy infantry type options, does anyone know or care to guess what the rules might be like?

Troops/elites?
2 special weapons? 4 for a full sized squad?
Helguns? Shotguns? Choice?

I ask as the proud owner of a crapton of Adepus Arbites and hope these rules might work for them.

I have a crap ton of metal Kasrkin and am wondering if I should sell them....the prices are so high now I would never take them to a store to game for fear of theft. I have lost at least 1 squad that way already.

General Hobbs wrote:


I have a crap ton of metal Kasrkin and am wondering if I should sell them....the prices are so high now I would never take them to a store to game for fear of theft. I have lost at least 1 squad that way already.

I'm so sorry to hear that, what a scum bag.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
New Question - Since it appears we're getting Kasrkin as a grenedier/heavy infantry type options, does anyone know or care to guess what the rules might be like?

My guess: Elites, hellguns that are totally different than hot-shot lasguns (probably high RoF lasguns), 2 specials, some kind of movement/shooting ability. Kinda like the Primaris: you get the basic squad (Cadians/Intercessors) and then its totally Elite special snowflake version that has different/better gear and an extra special ability (Kasrkin/Aggressors/Inceptors/whathaveyou).

 Jidmah wrote:
Suddenly, scarabs and warbikers survive getting shot by a d-scythe but chapter masters and warbosses don't. I totally can see GW implement a rule like that.

*sigh* Honestly Jid...

It was an example of how you can solve an issue with the keywords system, something GW doesn't do enough of. Not a final solid rule to end all rules discussion. C'mon man. Of course it left things out, because it was an example of trying to find a solution, rather than just trying to come up with more reasons not to do something, which is all you've done since the concept was first floated here.

Really, this ain't rocket science. Rather than saying something constructive like "Do you think that such a rule should include Swarms and Bikes?" you instead say "Well now bikes are immune whilst this unit isn't and that's stupid!". Rather than coming up with a solution, rather than even attempting to be helpful, you just waved your arms around and screamed about how it wouldn't work.

Honest to God...

 MajorWesJanson wrote:


On the actual topic, we know about a bunch of Cadian kits, heard of Kreig and possibly Catachan ones as well. Any chance Traitor guard will get a couple kits later, maybe a supplement?

I don't think we heard anything about it. If I had to guess, I'd say the best chances are currently a pdf update to the CSM dex for a generic squad, once the Killteam box is split up.

 GiToRaZor wrote:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:


On the actual topic, we know about a bunch of Cadian kits, heard of Kreig and possibly Catachan ones as well. Any chance Traitor guard will get a couple kits later, maybe a supplement?

I don't think we heard anything about it. If I had to guess, I'd say the best chances are currently a pdf update to the CSM dex for a generic squad, once the Killteam box is split up.

Wasn't there something about traitor guard in a rumor in the past several months? I might just be misremembering or have misunderstood...that said, I distinctly remember thinking "oh, I hope they add that to the guard codex as a subfaction (a la brood brothers) instead of just having a one off unit in CSM" I want to say it was in the early days of the CSM rumors, but again, my memory is fuzzy.

Didn't they preview models?

Or was it just a COVID fever dream?

The new cultist kit (IMHO the worst value for money GW has made in some time) has no options for rifles or special weapons. It's possible the Traitor Guard we've seen will just be cultists with different weapon options, rifles but no pistol/CC.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Didn't they preview models?

Or was it just a COVID fever dream?

The new cultist kit (IMHO the worst value for money GW has made in some time) has no options for rifles or special weapons. It's possible the Traitor Guard we've seen will just be cultists with different weapon options, rifles but no pistol/CC.

The Traitor Guard is already out, just locked inside a box

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-NZ/kill-team-moroch-2022-eng

And there's a grand total of absolutely 0 rules for fielding them in CSM armies.

Ah thanks



Yeah, this is a problem. Right now GW does not make Chaos cultists with rifles and special weapons (as far as I know, plenty of other kits that can do the job of course), so these could be used to fill that role. But no rules for their plasma gun and odd ball equipment.