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.

Dudeface wrote:
So maybe it shouldn't be called intelligence then.

Don't look at me, I didn't write those rules

Games Workshop wrote:Intelligence is used when interacting with technology.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Games Workshop wrote:Intelligence is used when interacting with technology.

Yes, the name is incorrect and it's kind of prejudice really. You're not stupid just because you can't use some types of technology.

My assumption was that a Dreadnought is a hellish existence, and suffering does make you less intelligent as it taxes your mental resources.

 Tyran wrote:
My assumption was that a Dreadnought is a hellish existence, and suffering does make you less intelligent as it taxes your mental resources.

Gosh thank god it doesn't affect the other 3 mental stats then

This feels like a bit of nitpicky complaint, doesn't it?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
This feels like a bit of nitpicky complaint, doesn't it?

I mean when it's incredibly easy to turn it into an insult, could be derogatory to some people and could simply be handled by calling it something more relatable to what it is I.e. "tech skills". Not really no.

It'd be like if saturnine were canonically called fat instead of bulky.

I mean the debuff to intelligence is apparently going to be called "off with their fingers" since that's what it means.

This is a also really dumb complaint, but why is the special rule for the Inversion Beamer called Conversion? What does that leave for the Conversion Beamer?

Unrelated, this dread has "exchange" in its weapon options, so huzzah for that at least.

given that most people still see HH as a narritive focused game, names of appetites that break immersion or make no sense for the narritive are a problem

 Dryaktylus wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
I get it has an invul of 4... but when 6 meltas reliably can put down a 340 pts model...

How so? 6 shots, 4 hit (3+), 2 wound (4+), 1 is negated (4++).

Plus:

What’s more, the Saturnine boasts a thermal diffraction field that reduces the strength of weapons with the Las, Plasma, Melta and Flame traits.

Also, that has to be within 6” of Meltas.

Any Dread or Tank left within 6” strike range of a Meltagun is gonna be in trouble.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 The Power Cosmic wrote:
This is a also really dumb complaint, but why is the special rule for the Inversion Beamer called Conversion? What does that leave for the Conversion Beamer?

Unrelated, this dread has "exchange" in its weapon options, so huzzah for that at least.

Same broad family. Not sure what Conversion will actually do, but it seems Inversion Beamers are just Conversion Beamers where someone’s reversed the polarity of the neutron flow.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Same broad family. Not sure what Conversion will actually do, but it seems Inversion Beamers are just Conversion Beamers where someone’s reversed the polarity of the neutron flow.

Most evidently. Iirc old-school conversion weapons had boosted stats when they and their target both remained stationary, maybe it's related to that.

On a semi-related note, i dig that the saturnine stuff shares some of the subtle (for GW, anyway) nods towards Necron design language that's seen in the Mechanicum range, it's not too glaringly obvious but ties the whole setting together in a way that just (wait for it...) clicks for me.

Well we can see from the other weapon info, Inversion Beamers have Heavy (RA), so +1 S when fired from stationary.

So presumably, Conversion will do something different?

Given lore wise they convert matter to energy, and the greater the mass the more devastating the effect, it might be a bonus to knacking Dreads and Vehicles?

Conversion isn't a rule, it's a trait. A keywrd based on its in-universe method of operation. It just tells you which section of the Armoury the weapon is in and if any special defenses work against it.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Conversion isn't a rule, it's a trait. A keywrd based on its in-universe method of operation. It just tells you which section of the Armoury the weapon is in and if any special defenses work against it.

So similar to Las/Flame/Melta/Plasma being referenced in what the Thermal diffraction field does?

 Dysartes wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Conversion isn't a rule, it's a trait. A keywrd based on its in-universe method of operation. It just tells you which section of the Armoury the weapon is in and if any special defenses work against it.

So similar to Las/Flame/Melta/Plasma being referenced in what the Thermal diffraction field does?

Yes. The concept already exists in 2.0 but it's not spelled out in the profiles. Each section just says "the weapons below are all considered "x" weapons for rules that affect "x" and so you get stupid referencing problems because the Neutron Beam is under Las Weapons but a Lascutter is under Exotic Weapons and you have absolutely no way to find that out except by reading the entire armoury. Now the profile tells you the weapon type and this opens up room to hopefully list them alphabetically.

I think that's one of the changes I've been pushing for in 40k since keywords started becoming a thing.

Is it just me, or can anyone else picture the Saturnine Dread fitted with a huge feth-off Assault Cannon on each arm?

There's just something about the silhouette seems to support it - maybe could be used to represent an M.41 "lower tech" variant, where some of the knowledge for the hi-tech weapons has been lost?

I wonder if the AT Warlord Gatling Blasters would fit...?

 Padre wrote:
Is it just me, or can anyone else picture the Saturnine Dread fitted with a huge feth-off Assault Cannon on each arm?

There's just something about the silhouette seems to support it - maybe could be used to represent an M.41 "lower tech" variant, where some of the knowledge for the hi-tech weapons has been lost?

I wonder if the AT Warlord Gatling Blasters would fit...?

Redemptor Gatling would be a better fit, they are larger than AT Warlord weapons. If you want bigger, maybe steal the gatling gun off the stompa kit.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Conversion isn't a rule, it's a trait. A keywrd based on its in-universe method of operation. It just tells you which section of the Armoury the weapon is in and if any special defenses work against it.

Good spot! And yeah, having a weapon’s family on its profile is definitely welcome.

Also encouraging to see some pretty nasty ranged weapons “only” doing 3 or 4 damage per successful unsaved wound. Makes me hope tanks and Dreads will be tough enough to really need focussed fire to destroy them.

One Shotting is funny, but not Every Time.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Conversion isn't a rule, it's a trait. A keywrd based on its in-universe method of operation. It just tells you which section of the Armoury the weapon is in and if any special defenses work against it.

Good spot! And yeah, having a weapon’s family on its profile is definitely welcome.

Also encouraging to see some pretty nasty ranged weapons “only” doing 3 or 4 damage per successful unsaved wound. Makes me hope tanks and Dreads will be tough enough to really need focussed fire to destroy them.

One Shotting is funny, but not Every Time.

For all my criticisms so far I will praise the general lower lethality. There are some 40k-isms showing up such as making everything faster via fewer core penalties i.e. heavy change and rapid fire going that can end up in slowly ramping up lethality, but the vehicle changes and general lack of firepower on the big new shinies is encouraging.

Tanks will also benefit from weapons not being destroyed.

Sure, it’s thematic to have them become ever less combat effective. But….

2.0 had a serious flaw where the first Weapon Destroyed had to be assigned to a Primary Weapon, defined by being above a certain Strength value. Heavy Bolters did not meet that criteria.

Which left things like the Cerberus with essentially Compulosry Lascannon Sponsons. Otherwise, the first Weapon Destroyed ruined its main gun.

Granted that was easily fixed in other ways, but the new system is appealing to me.

Though I do wonder if long term, well experienced players will find the first few games a bit more challenging due to the increased survivability of tanks.

Time will tell of course.

I, too, am somewhat optimistic regarding the damage/resilience balance. The second wave dreadnought guns look pretty nasty tho, so I wonder if the somewhat low lethality we've seen otherwise is just a factor of a specific design decision to make plasma in particular terrible and everything else still could be deadly.

It may be to make Plasma less an obvious jack of all trades weapon.

We know tanks don’t get armour saves. So Plasma being AP4 doesn’t seem to matter against tanks. What does matter is its S and D stat.

And they look….pretty alright against Tanks. At least for now, we’re yet to get a solid idea of AVs and HP averages. Not necessarily good enough that I’d let myself be entirely reliant on them, but decent enough to be back up.

With its AP4 and Breaching greatly lowered now? They’re no longer a go-to Marine deleter. But like their anti-armour capability, still not a bad weapon due to high strength for reliable wounding, and D2 on standard setting, enough to outright kill heavy infantry like most Terminators.

So it does have its niche, from what we’ve seen so far. Whether it’s too niche? Yeah let’s convene again when we’ve seen more and got some games under our belts on that one.

This is rumour control.

End of July.

So man your drop pods...and may the Emperor protect you.

Araknae Platform

https://www.warhammer-community.com/en-gb/articles/hg33jiei/saturnine-araknae-quad-accelerator-kit-focus/

Looks like the weapon sprue is separate from the platform. Could be we may see alternative weapons

Its not though, the weapons are on the same sprue as the central hub unit. The smaller sprue is just the base of the platform and the feet.

A different weapon might not have the same central piece. They might not be all quad-<insert gun here>.

That wraps up our look at the big new kits coming in the Saturnine box set, but don’t fret – there’s still loads more to see from the new edition, with a highly anticipated look at new army building rules coming next week.

We've had one, yes, but what about second army building rules?

 lord_blackfang wrote:

That wraps up our look at the big new kits coming in the Saturnine box set, but don’t fret – there’s still loads more to see from the new edition, with a highly anticipated look at new army building rules coming next week.

We've had one, yes, but what about second army building rules?

Maybe showing off Solar Aux and Mechanicum detachments?

Hopefully some faction specific examples from individual legions & some non-Astartes factions.