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.

Thanks, I already hate it.

Why? Why are they making a beer and pretzels "historical game" more and more complicated?

Nostalgia bait but getting it wrong.

I dont know many people following this IRL but the only one hyped for extras stats is the guy who cant finish a 1k 40k game in 3 hours due to having to over check and explain everything. They dont understand why I am less keen.....

I play a mix of shooty and stabby with my Imperial Fists. I can finish 1500 points games in the time limit at events, but rarely finish 2000+ games in the time limit. I don't need this crap.

Those don't really feel like rules for a game at the scale current HH or 40k are at.

They might look more at home on a 2nd ed 40k game at 1.500 points... where you'd field three characters, two vehicles and like 3 combat squads and where everything was much more "zoomed in".

Thing is... even there? Even there, in 2nd ed 40k, they did away with those extra traits for a reason. They take away more than they give.

Our group all said the same thing. It's totally cool for Necromunda where at most it's 12 models and there's a lot of interaction with doors and consoles and gubbins.
But when I'm dropping 80 infantry, 10 tanks and an assortment of other stuff (big games + Militia), I don't need 4 leadership stats to know my squishy meatshields are running when 2/3rds get mulched by a squad of Despoilers.

I am a big fan over having a few more stats over a bunch of special rules for everything, but it remains to be seen if these are particularly useful ones that differentiate units enough to avoid those, rather than being nostalgia bait.

My favourite is tech thralls who are immune to suppression as they've been lobotomised and programmed not to flinch. But mysteriously run away in fear very easily.

Dudeface wrote:
My favourite is tech thralls who are immune to suppression as they've been lobotomised and programmed not to flinch. But mysteriously run away in fear very easily.

Tech Thralls are also now T5, apparently.

I'm more interested in how the damage stat for weapons is gonna work now. They showed some profiles like Vulkan, who still has 7 wounds. I would hope a single saturnine powerfist attack can't drop half his wounds (they showed the profile for it and it does 3 damage). Considering a Saturnine terminator probably has 2 attacks with an extra on the charge, a single model would be able to cause 9 damage if all his attacks hit. That is assuming each failed save yields the full damage amount. Does this damage spread beyond a single target? Do you roll a save for each point of damage? None of it sounds better than how the game has played so far.

They've also got the Centurion listed as I1 and the Sergeant as A1, so I'm guessing they're mistakes.

 kronk wrote:
Thanks, I already hate it.
Why? Why are they making a beer and pretzels "historical game" more and more complicated?

because this is what they think a beer and pretzels historical game
something you play without ever caring to finish it or what the outcome is but having as many "cinematic moments" as possible created by RPG like rules as the players care about every single model on the table

you know, it is the players fault to take more than 20 models for game that is written to work with 10/s

 Gert wrote:
Our group all said the same thing. It's totally cool for Necromunda where at most it's 12 models and there's a lot of interaction with doors and consoles and gubbins.
But when I'm dropping 80 infantry, 10 tanks and an assortment of other stuff (big games + Militia), I don't need 4 leadership stats to know my squishy meatshields are running when 2/3rds get mulched by a squad of Despoilers.

Even marine armies reach that point easily.
This is rather stupid, we also haven't seen vehicles rules as of yet.

 Gert wrote:
Our group all said the same thing. It's totally cool for Necromunda where at most it's 12 models and there's a lot of interaction with doors and consoles and gubbins.
But when I'm dropping 80 infantry, 10 tanks and an assortment of other stuff (big games + Militia), I don't need 4 leadership stats to know my squishy meatshields are running when 2/3rds get mulched by a squad of Despoilers.

12 units of 1 model vs 12 units of 10 models isn't a difference in this instance. This is the one area where scale basically doesn't matter, because it isn't like all 10 models are making a check - just one model. And we already have a check like this, but now it is a better narrative reflection of the units. A flat high leadership was never a good way to handle it, though I understand why they simplified it previously.

The constant refrain is "Heresy is a narrative game!" and as soon as GW adds a level of granularity to give dimensions to the vast array of units in the game that don't have a ton of difference (so many Marines), people complain. Wild.

I actually liked the article's description and it was exactly what I had envisioned it being. Now there is some tactical and strategic depth to taking units, especially if we get missions/objectives that lean into it.

12 units of 10 models is a difference though. Because when you come to move or position them you're moving 12 models not 1.

Dudeface wrote:
My favourite is tech thralls who are immune to suppression as they've been lobotomised and programmed not to flinch. But mysteriously run away in fear very easily.

Yep, makes about as much sense as Charonite Ogryns being exceptionally stupid AND hopped up on combat drugs, but having impeccable discipline and leadership ability. I get what they were going for, but maybe leadership isnt the right term.

 Overread wrote:
12 units of 10 models is a difference though. Because when you come to move or position them you're moving 12 models not 1.

More importantly those 12 units can range from single model, to three, to ten, or thirty and can all have characters attached that can modify these stats further not to mentioned Psychic powers, wargear, or Reactions.

I'm okay with the advanced stats, I mean it's not actually complicated even after some beer. I want to see other rule stuff to build an opinion.

Depending on how damage works out, a single Saturnine Terminator could theoretically kill Vulkan in one round.

Of course, I could be wrong.

 Gert wrote:
Depending on how damage works out, a single Saturnine Terminator could theoretically kill Vulkan in one round.

Of course, I could be wrong.

There was a mention of damage being more effective against vehicles and dreadnoughts, so could be a thing where it's only used against specific targets.

Damage vs Primarchs is the sort of rules minutae I wouldn't worry about without context (yet)

Primarchs could easily have "only takes 1 wound per attack" or whatever - hey, it adds narrative granularity!

But the 4 mental stats are obnoxious. We already see this nonsensical overlap and contradiction between Leadership and Cool (pretty sure it's the same gak in Necromunda) while the other two are niche enough they should just be special rules on the maybe a dozen models across the entire game where they will be meaningfully different from a Tactical Marine.

And if we have separate stats to defend against the panic of losing combat and the panic of being shot at, wouldn't it make more sense to first have Toughness vs swords and Toughness vs bullets?

If they are smart they are going to use cool for morale test and leadership for regroup tests, that would give some design space in which you can have units that are hard to break but hard to rally if they break (or the opposite which seems fluffy for skirmisher units).

They can even bring back targeting LD checks to give LD even more to do.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
We already see this nonsensical overlap and contradiction between Leadership and Cool (pretty sure it's the same gak in Necromunda) while the other two are niche enough they should just be special rules on the maybe a dozen models across the entire game where they will be meaningfully different from a Tactical Marine.

And if we have separate stats to defend against the panic of losing combat and the panic of being shot at, wouldn't it make more sense to first have Toughness vs swords and Toughness vs bullets?

Yeah, how weird would it be if we had seperate stats for how accurate something was at range, and how accurate it was in melee! /s

I mean, Tactical Marines are just as accurate in melee as they are at shooting.

So not what's being compared there, Smudge.

Granularity for the sake of nostalgia or disguising it as an attempt at narrative isn't the same level as having different stats for shooting and combat.

The preview already pretty much makes it appear as 90% of the units in the game will have the same number for the 3 new stats and maybe a different number for leadership.

Therefore it's a perfect thing to rework into just two stats in three years to legitimize a new edition .

I do ask how much more complex this actually is?

Sure, at first we’ll find ourselves “wait, do I take that against my Cl or my WP”. At least in the early days.

And we’re yet to find out what a Fail might cause - though that seems to be coming tomorrow.

But they’re all just 2D6, roll lower than stat.

If that’s adding significant time to your game? I dunno what to say.

 Gert wrote:
So not what's being compared there, Smudge.

Granularity for the sake of nostalgia or disguising it as an attempt at narrative isn't the same level as having different stats for shooting and combat.

I'm just matching the same energy that blackfang displayed and putting that into context. I'm making no defence for nostalgia baiting, but pretending like 30k doesn't have similar stats which could also be considered redundant isn't a fair argument.

Which stats do you have in mind?

 Overread wrote:
12 units of 10 models is a difference though. Because when you come to move or position them you're moving 12 models not 1.

Mostly irrelevant for these specific stats that are being complained about. You also shoot more, attack more, take up more space. However, it is still one test being made no matter the model count. So the complaint about it being too much for a game larger than skirmish level just doesn't add up. Now if every gun had to make an ammo check? Sure. If every model could be knocked down? Sure. Certainly some individual levels of detail don't fit this scale, but these new stats aren't it.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

If that’s adding significant time to your game? I dunno what to say.

It's not as simple as you're making it. Let's not be disingenuous here. I don't play often, but I can rattle off WS/BS/S/T/I/Ld and so forth on all of my units. fairly well. I might get a Ld wrong, but I'm within one point. I've played since 5th edition and those are all pretty much the same.

This is 3 or 4 new things. Are they going to be the same for most Space Marines? I would hope so, but I don't really know that they are. If so, that's not hard to eventually remember, but it doesn't change that there are 3 new stats and I use them for different checks. When do I roll against each stat? I will guarantee that I will have to read the rule the first several times each game when the check(s) comes up. Why on earth would they add this, which is to me, needless complexity. Nostalgia? No thanks.