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.

A worry I have looking at the new gaunt datasheet. Judging from their guns still being way strong for basic gak guns (for 3rd-7th edition sensibilities) and D still being an integral part of weapon statlines, I worry that they're not rolling back the absurd killyness and 10th continues with the pointless arms race of buffing Damage and buffing Wounds at the same time. Heresy really hit the sweet spot here I think with Marines on 1W, Termies on 2-3W, all weapons on 1 damage with the old instant death rules in effect. Shame if 40k stuck with D2 everywhere and the necessary W prolifaration that goes with it.

As annoying as his video's are... Valrak has a very very very legit source. Not 100% perfect, but calling it roughly 80% so far in advance means he's probably the number 1 source of high quality rumours now.... Someone is punishing us for our sins to make him so esteemed...

I don't have an issue with that. S5 and 4 is fine the issue is when AP and damage get out of hand like they have in 9th. All those guns are AP0 and D1. S5 and 4 with no AP and 1 damage is fine IMO.

What does OC mean? Apparently that's a new stat?

Not sure that I like the accuracy stats being part of the weapon now. So the weapon is what shoots now, independent of the user?
Then again, it would make applying modifiers easier; instead of saying "this powerklaw has a -1 one to hit" you can just say "this powerklaw hits on a 5+", so I suppose that was their thought process.

Also, no points or power levels on the sheet? With all of that empty space? Great, more flipping to the back of the book

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
What does OC mean? Apparently that's a new stat?

Not sure that I like the accuracy stats being part of the weapon now. So the weapon is what shoots now, independent of the user?
Then again, it would make applying modifiers easier; instead of saying "this powerklaw has a -1 one to hit" you can just say "this powerklaw hits on a 5+", so I suppose that was their thought process.

Also, no points or power levels on the sheet? With all of that empty space? Great, more flipping to the back of the book

Oc is objective control. Their value individually when hold8ng objectives


Points will be in a pdf their said, no point putting them on the datasheet, if they will be adjusted with balance updates.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
What does OC mean? Apparently that's a new stat?

Not sure that I like the accuracy stats being part of the weapon now. So the weapon is what shoots now, independent of the user?
Then again, it would make applying modifiers easier; instead of saying "this powerklaw has a -1 one to hit" you can just say "this powerklaw hits on a 5+", so I suppose that was their thought process.

Also, no points or power levels on the sheet? With all of that empty space? Great, more flipping to the back of the book

OC is objective control, unclear at the moment how that works exactly.

The hit rolls etc. being on the weapon now might allow them to do stuff like 'Spray and Pray' vs. targeted shooting in the future, or have sweeps vs. powerful attacks in melee with different hit rolls easier than doing it with crutchy special rules, so that's a plus in my opinion. It sure is bad for memorizing though.

As for the empty space: i guess a lot of units are much more complicated than gaunts, with more options and special stuff, so there might not be too much free space really.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
What does OC mean? Apparently that's a new stat?

Not sure that I like the accuracy stats being part of the weapon now. So the weapon is what shoots now, independent of the user?
Then again, it would make applying modifiers easier; instead of saying "this powerklaw has a -1 one to hit" you can just say "this powerklaw hits on a 5+", so I suppose that was their thought process.

Also, no points or power levels on the sheet? With all of that empty space? Great, more flipping to the back of the book

OC is Objective Control, which replaces the old "this model counts as 2 models for objective secured" style rules. Might be a better way to balance things like Knights on a per-unit basis.

Not including points and power levels makes sense if you consider these datasheets will be sold as card decks for ingame referencing. In theory this means more 'permanent' printed rules, with any kind of later balance updates being focused on the materials you use to build your list before a game.

 xttz wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
What does OC mean? Apparently that's a new stat?

Not sure that I like the accuracy stats being part of the weapon now. So the weapon is what shoots now, independent of the user?
Then again, it would make applying modifiers easier; instead of saying "this powerklaw has a -1 one to hit" you can just say "this powerklaw hits on a 5+", so I suppose that was their thought process.

Also, no points or power levels on the sheet? With all of that empty space? Great, more flipping to the back of the book

OC is Objective Control, which replaces the old "this model counts as 2 models for objective secured" style rules. Might be a better way to balance things like Knights on a per-unit basis.

Not including points and power levels makes sense if you consider these datasheets will be sold as card decks for ingame referencing. In theory this means more 'permanent' printed rules, with any kind of later balance updates being focused on the materials you use to build your list before a game.

Pro-Move would be to make these cards/sheets laminated so you can do modifications with a wipeable marker. Also useful for marking degrading profiles. Thats an easy fix to do at home though.

A blank spot where you could write points/PL in something non-permanent would be a nice touch

 lord_blackfang wrote:
A blank spot where you could write points/PL in something non-permanent would be a nice touch

Gods I'd love GW to actually open a 3rd edition codex and realise that they CAN put points, stats, abilities and more all on ONE stat page instead of scattershot through the whole codex.

Is it just me or does Guilliman look a lot like a young Kurt Russell in this video

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Is it just me or does Guilliman look a lot like a young Kurt Russell in this video

It's the nose that does it. Although i think his stare is more Joaquin Phoenix in 'Gladiator':

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
What does OC mean? Apparently that's a new stat?

Not sure that I like the accuracy stats being part of the weapon now. So the weapon is what shoots now, independent of the user?
Then again, it would make applying modifiers easier; instead of saying "this powerklaw has a -1 one to hit" you can just say "this powerklaw hits on a 5+", so I suppose that was their thought process.

Also, no points or power levels on the sheet? With all of that empty space? Great, more flipping to the back of the book

They’ll keep doing points PDFs as is the current norm.

And yes, to hit stat per line is to negate need for sums.

Tsagualsa wrote:

 xttz wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
What does OC mean? Apparently that's a new stat?

Not sure that I like the accuracy stats being part of the weapon now. So the weapon is what shoots now, independent of the user?
Then again, it would make applying modifiers easier; instead of saying "this powerklaw has a -1 one to hit" you can just say "this powerklaw hits on a 5+", so I suppose that was their thought process.

Also, no points or power levels on the sheet? With all of that empty space? Great, more flipping to the back of the book

OC is Objective Control, which replaces the old "this model counts as 2 models for objective secured" style rules. Might be a better way to balance things like Knights on a per-unit basis.

Not including points and power levels makes sense if you consider these datasheets will be sold as card decks for ingame referencing. In theory this means more 'permanent' printed rules, with any kind of later balance updates being focused on the materials you use to build your list before a game.

Pro-Move would be to make these cards/sheets laminated so you can do modifications with a wipeable marker. Also useful for marking degrading profiles. Thats an easy fix to do at home though.

I could imagine GW doing these datasheets like they do Warscrolls in AoS. Thatmeans you'll buy a pack of unit cards and can laminate them to your heart's content.

 Eldarsif wrote:


I could imagine GW doing these datasheets like they do Warscrolls in AoS. Thatmeans you'll buy a pack of unit cards and can laminate them to your heart's content.

They said that's exactly how it will work already. You can either download the PDF or buy the army cards to get your 10th rules and that new cards will come when the Codex(replacing the PDF) is released

Tsagualsa wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
What does OC mean? Apparently that's a new stat?

Not sure that I like the accuracy stats being part of the weapon now. So the weapon is what shoots now, independent of the user?
Then again, it would make applying modifiers easier; instead of saying "this powerklaw has a -1 one to hit" you can just say "this powerklaw hits on a 5+", so I suppose that was their thought process.

Also, no points or power levels on the sheet? With all of that empty space? Great, more flipping to the back of the book

OC is objective control, unclear at the moment how that works exactly.

The hit rolls etc. being on the weapon now might allow them to do stuff like 'Spray and Pray' vs. targeted shooting in the future, or have sweeps vs. powerful attacks in melee with different hit rolls easier than doing it with crutchy special rules, so that's a plus in my opinion. It sure is bad for memorizing though.

As for the empty space: i guess a lot of units are much more complicated than gaunts, with more options and special stuff, so there might not be too much free space really.

My guess is that OC will be a simple way to check when objectives are contested. For example if my troops have OC 8 while your Terminators have OC 3 then I control the objective.

I think the WS per weapon will work out a lot more cleanly for weapons with dual profile sweep / powerful as you mentioned. I hadn't considered having multiple options for ranged weapons, perhaps we'll see space marines have two profiles for their bolters, one for controlled bursts against elite units and one for full auto against hordes of greenskins.

 The Red Hobbit wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
What does OC mean? Apparently that's a new stat?

Not sure that I like the accuracy stats being part of the weapon now. So the weapon is what shoots now, independent of the user?
Then again, it would make applying modifiers easier; instead of saying "this powerklaw has a -1 one to hit" you can just say "this powerklaw hits on a 5+", so I suppose that was their thought process.

Also, no points or power levels on the sheet? With all of that empty space? Great, more flipping to the back of the book

OC is objective control, unclear at the moment how that works exactly.

The hit rolls etc. being on the weapon now might allow them to do stuff like 'Spray and Pray' vs. targeted shooting in the future, or have sweeps vs. powerful attacks in melee with different hit rolls easier than doing it with crutchy special rules, so that's a plus in my opinion. It sure is bad for memorizing though.

As for the empty space: i guess a lot of units are much more complicated than gaunts, with more options and special stuff, so there might not be too much free space really.

My guess is that OC will be a simple way to check when objectives are contested. For example if my troops have OC 8 while your Terminators have OC 3 then I control the objective.

I think the WS per weapon will work out a lot more cleanly for weapons with dual profile sweep / powerful as you mentioned. I hadn't considered having multiple options for ranged weapons, perhaps we'll see space marines have two profiles for their bolters, one for controlled bursts against elite units and one for full auto against hordes of greenskins.

It will probably also used for stuff like automated defense guns on warmachines, drone-controlled T'au guns, grot guns on ork contraptions, Power of the Machine spirit and stuff like that. It also allows representing stuff like special targeters on the main gun rather elegantly.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Not sure that I like the accuracy stats being part of the weapon now. So the weapon is what shoots now, independent of the user?
Then again, it would make applying modifiers easier; instead of saying "this powerklaw has a -1 one to hit" you can just say "this powerklaw hits on a 5+", so I suppose that was their thought process.

Well for Tyranids having the weapon shoot independently isn't inaccurate, as they are separate organisms grafted on! But more to the point it is the skill the user has at hitting with that weapon.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
What does OC mean? Apparently that's a new stat?

Not sure that I like the accuracy stats being part of the weapon now. So the weapon is what shoots now, independent of the user?
Then again, it would make applying modifiers easier; instead of saying "this powerklaw has a -1 one to hit" you can just say "this powerklaw hits on a 5+", so I suppose that was their thought process.

Also, no points or power levels on the sheet? With all of that empty space? Great, more flipping to the back of the book

Or weapon on user x hits on y and on another on z.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Not sure that I like the accuracy stats being part of the weapon now. So the weapon is what shoots now, independent of the user?
Then again, it would make applying modifiers easier; instead of saying "this powerklaw has a -1 one to hit" you can just say "this powerklaw hits on a 5+", so I suppose that was their thought process.

Well for Tyranids having the weapon shoot independently isn't inaccurate, as they are separate organisms grafted on! But more to the point it is the skill the user has at hitting with that weapon.

Fleshborer: You point me in that direction right now!
Termagant: Nope.
Fleshborer: Ugh, so unprofessional!

This is why the Ultramarines keep winning, and now we get rules representation. Finally.

Spinefists having a "Twin-Linked" rule gives me hope that universal rules are coming back.

Also having Assault and Pistol? Very interesting.

Cautiously optimistic.

Billicus wrote:
The real beauty of opr grimdark future is alternating activations, which would be great if 40k adopted but I doubt it

They said in the preview that 10th still has phases, which mostly rules out alternating activations.

alextroy wrote:I don't put much stock in GW releasing three new codexes in the 6 months prior to releasing a full reset edition of the game. The last codex (excluding the compilation book Imperial Agents and Codex Supplement Traitor Legions) was 9 months before 8th Edition.

I need to ask for a second helping of crow. It isn't seeming to taste so bad at first bite.

Laughing Man wrote:

Billicus wrote:
The real beauty of opr grimdark future is alternating activations, which would be great if 40k adopted but I doubt it

They said in the preview that 10th still has phases, which mostly rules out alternating activations.

Works just fine in Kill Team, so I don't see the issue.

Which reminds me that these new datasheets look a lot like a Kill Team datasheet.

Ugh, looks like they did away with the FoC and you can just take whatever you want.
Not sure I like that.
Get ready for meme-lists I guess.
"Yo dog, I heard you like Space Wolves, so I put wolves in the only wolves list so you can wolf while you wolf"

Also means that the troops tax is no longer a thing, so it's just going be a list of the best units for each army.
So instead of having to spend, I dunno, 200+ points on immortals, I can just use more destroyers, which pack a punch.

For now. And for some game modes. No doubt competitive-oriented Matched Play will get some kind of comp system before long.

Or they can balance things with points and roles. Troops will likely be a lot cheaper way to get OC value on objectives

OC is way more elegant than the ObSec lockout system and it’s exceptions anyway.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Ugh, looks like they did away with the FoC and you can just take whatever you want.
Not sure I like that.
Get ready for meme-lists I guess.
"Yo dog, I heard you like Space Wolves, so I put wolves in the only wolves list so you can wolf while you wolf"

Also means that the troops tax is no longer a thing, so it's just going be a list of the best units for each army.
So instead of having to spend, I dunno, 200+ points on immortals, I can just use more destroyers, which pack a punch.

We don't have enough info.

We don't know what they mean by 'type'. Can I take 9 redemptor dreadnoughts ( 3 per sheet ) or 3 ( as they are the same type )?
Additionally, BATTLELINE is not a keyword on the Termangant sheet. Therefore, I think we'll see subfactions define their own battleline so that Ravenwing et al are still a thing.

KillerAngel wrote:
Spinefists having a "Twin-Linked" rule gives me hope that universal rules are coming back.

Also having Assault and Pistol? Very interesting.

Cautiously optimistic.

The really interesting thing is the Fleshborer not having a weapon type at all.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

KillerAngel wrote:
Spinefists having a "Twin-Linked" rule gives me hope that universal rules are coming back.

Also having Assault and Pistol? Very interesting.

Cautiously optimistic.

The really interesting thing is the Fleshborer not having a weapon type at all.

The Fleshborer is [Assault] on both datasheet variants, it's the devourer that got no type.