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.

 bullyboy wrote:
I’m not digging the format of this at all currently. There’s a lot to unpack on the card, and that’s one card for one unit. How many cards will marines have, the game have? Not to mention this is a card of a unit at start of edition, what do you think cards will look like by mid edition?
Still very skeptical of this direction.

AoS solved it already. Big units with lots of flavah flav are double cards.

Also, Space Marines are a bloody mutant in this game and do not represent a good portion of the factions. They will just get extra cards for their gazillion of units that should have been sunset or moved to a different game like Horus Heresy. Stormcast is currently sitting at nearly 70 warscrolls compared to Space Marines 100.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
So with 10th getting a lot of AoS-inspired rules developments, I am SURE the double-turn defenders will be in soon to sing praises of how much a benefit it would be in 40k

Not really. Turn Order breaks down if you have a lot of shooting(and magic) and 40.000 tends to be a shooting game(and a lot of magic/psychic). Would never work unless 40k goes full on AA.

H.B.M.C. wrote:It still bugs me that they have all these weapon abilities (Devastating Wounds, Blast, Ignores Cover, Torrent, Rapid Fire X, Anti-X (Y), and so on)... but have decided to put them in brackets after the name of the weapon, rather than using the space on the sheet to have them in their own column.

There's also unnecessary verbiage. Just call it "Devastating", just call "Ignores Cover" something like "Spray".

Depending on what Cover does this time around, having Ignores Cover as a distinct ability makes sense - you might well want it on non-flamer-type weapons, after all.

Matt.Kingsley wrote:EDIT: I highly doubt you're going to be able to swap Oath of the Moment with anything else. That'd both go counter to what Games Workshop has said about detachments functionally replacing subfactions and also not make any sense with Fury of the First referencing Oath of the Moment. Plus it would run counter to the whole "you can easily see everything specific to the unit on the datasheet" thing GW is saying - Oath of the Moment is on the datasheet, and some other page in the codex saying "yeah ignore that and replace it" would be highly unintuitive.

Oath of Moment, guys, not Oath of the Moment.

 Vovin wrote:
The fact that chain fists are balanced vs power fists suggests to me that unit upgrades will not cost points in most cases in 10th.

Very likely

There are several ways you can handle the specific Space Marines Chapter issues
1) Free for all: there are no limitations and you can mix the chapters
Advantage: easy to handle, allows crusade armies, there is no need for specific chapter keywords
Disadvantage: allows uncharacterful armies

2a) There can only be one: Chapter specific units have respective chapter keyword. The detachments rules states that if you include a Blood Angel unit, you cannot include Space Wolves, Dark Angels, Ultramarines, etc units.
Advantage: robust, reins in uncharacterful armies, chapter armies can still use different detachments
Disadvantage: rules has to be either rather wordy or has to reintroduce another abstraction layer in defining what a chapter keyword is: something the rules clearly steer away from, you need specific chapter keywords in any case

2b) There can only be one, but depending on the warlord: the chosen chapter depends on the warlord. Since generic characters do not have a chapter keyword, you have to field a special character to unlock the units
Advantage: as above
Disadvantage: as above, you are forced to use special characters

3) Special detachment: You cannot field chapter specific units in the generic detachments.You need a dedicated BA detachment if you want to use BA units. This solution is highly unlikely because that would mean that you cannot use Ultramarines characters in the gladius detachment. And GW couldn't introduce characters for new chapters without printing a whole new detachment alongside.
Advantage: allows both freedom and characterful armies
Disadvantage: goes against the design ethos that you can chose a detachment regardless of your chapter

Other solutions are even more complicated than these. So I think 2a is most likely, with option 1) as a second if the designers want a radical change. 3) is only feasible if the gladius detachment has already Ultramarine support built in.

 Dysartes wrote:

Oath of Moment, guys, not Oath of the Moment.

Might as well get used to it now, you'll be seeing it a lot. The latter works in modern English and the former only has vague meaning to the likes of Arthurian fanfic writers.

I wonder if the unwieldly penalty for the power fist will be applied to non-terminator models. Maybe even with an additional -1 for chainfists on non-termis. Look out, Navy Breachers!

The reason for the type brackets behind the name is clearly because of the available space. Combining the variable-length columns into one saves a lot of space: Worst case (columns 1) + Worst case(column 2) >= Worst case(column1 +column2)

Voss wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

Oath of Moment, guys, not Oath of the Moment.

Might as well get used to it now, you'll be seeing it a lot. The latter works in modern English and the former only has vague meaning to the likes of Arthurian fanfic writers.

The lack of distinction between the two made it as far as Amazon product listings:

Garro: Oath of the Moment (The Horus Heresy) Audio CD

https://www.amazon.de/Garro-Oath-Moment-Horus-Heresy/dp/184416845X

You'll probably not gonna win this one.

Also, from now on i'll call it 'Oath of Moomins', because i can.

I just wonder what "Torrent" does on Heavy Flamer. Otherwise D6 auto-hit weapon does not have the same impact as frigging assault cannon.

 Vovin wrote:
There are several ways you can handle the specific Space Marines Chapter issues
1) Free for all: there are no limitations and you can mix the chapters
Advantage: easy to handle, allows crusade armies, there is no need for specific chapter keywords
Disadvantage: allows uncharacterful armies

2a) There can only be one: Chapter specific units have respective chapter keyword. The detachments rules states that if you include a Blood Angel unit, you cannot include Space Wolves, Dark Angels, Ultramarines, etc units.
Advantage: robust, reins in uncharacterful armies, chapter armies can still use different detachments
Disadvantage: rules has to be either rather wordy or has to reintroduce another abstraction layer in defining what a chapter keyword is: something the rules clearly steer away from, you need specific chapter keywords in any case

2b) There can only be one, but depending on the warlord: the chosen chapter depends on the warlord. Since generic characters do not have a chapter keyword, you have to field a special character to unlock the units
Advantage: as above
Disadvantage: as above, you are forced to use special characters

3) Special detachment: You cannot field chapter specific units in the generic detachments.You need a dedicated BA detachment if you want to use BA units. This solution is highly unlikely because that would mean that you cannot use Ultramarines characters in the gladius detachment. And GW couldn't introduce characters for new chapters without printing a whole new detachment alongside.
Advantage: allows both freedom and characterful armies
Disadvantage: goes against the design ethos that you can chose a detachment regardless of your chapter

Other solutions are even more complicated than these. So I think 2a is most likely, with option 1) as a second if the designers want a radical change. 3) is only feasible if the gladius detachment has already Ultramarine support built in.

Maybe it will be 'if your WARLORD is BLOOD ANGELS you can take units from the ADEPTUS ASTARTES and BLOOD ANGELS Faction'.

 Sotahullu wrote:
I just wonder what "Torrent" does on Heavy Flamer. Otherwise D6 auto-hit weapon does not have the same impact as frigging assault cannon.

Torrent is probably the auto-hit ability.

 Sotahullu wrote:
I just wonder what "Torrent" does on Heavy Flamer. Otherwise D6 auto-hit weapon does not have the same impact as frigging assault cannon.

Well that depends on cover and overwatch as well, but yea I get that same feeling.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Sotahullu wrote:
I just wonder what "Torrent" does on Heavy Flamer. Otherwise D6 auto-hit weapon does not have the same impact as frigging assault cannon.

Torrent is probably the auto-hit ability.

I initially thought that too, but it seems redundant now that BS is in the weapon profile. The core rules can just say BS N/A means autohit, no need for a special rule/keyword too. But maybe that’s giving GW too much credit.

Fixed the datasheet, what do you think ?

Siegfriedfr wrote:
Fixed the datasheet, what do you think ?

Spoiler:

Eh. I don't like squishing the characteristics into two rows.

Siegfriedfr wrote:
Fixed the datasheet, what do you think ?

Spoiler:

You broke fury of the first by making it non-optional, as by your wording you also have to ignore positive modifiers

Looks ok. I would probably make the invuln a small box and put n/a in it when it doesn't apply.

...I wonder if the invulnerable save is were it is because the 50 pager might be right about some things, but just really poorly translated. Then we would see various similar defensive abilities appear in that area like the 'Evade' concept.

We have already seen terms used like Enchancements and now Critical Wounds. The similarity is almost too close to ignore. I wonder if Devastating Wounds is 'every wound is a critical wound' and that either doubles the wounds or increases damage.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Maybe it will be 'if your WARLORD is BLOOD ANGELS you can take units from the ADEPTUS ASTARTES and BLOOD ANGELS Faction'.

That would almost certainly mean, that several different factions can take the same detachment. And that every chapter that has its own charcters/units including Ultramarines is its own faction and hence needs its own datacards. I think this is highly unlikely. There will be only a ADEPTUS ASTARTES faction at least for the codex abiding chapters and then all the problems with souping Ultramarines,WhiteScars,Salamanders,etc. remain.

Tsagualsa wrote:

Siegfriedfr wrote:
Fixed the datasheet, what do you think ?

Spoiler:

You broke fury of the first by making it non-optional, as by your wording you also have to ignore positive modifiers

Intentional

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Looks ok. I would probably make the invuln a small box and put n/a in it when it doesn't apply.

...I wonder if the invulnerable save is were it is because the 50 pager might be right about some things, but just really poorly translated. Then we would see various similar defensive abilities appear in that area like the 'Evade' concept.

We have already seen terms used like Enchancements and now Critical Wounds. The similarity is almost too close to ignore. I wonder if Devastating Wounds is 'every wound is a critical wound' and that either doubles the wounds or increases damage.

We do already know that a 'Critical Wound' is just a new term for the old 'natural 6s always succeed', it's in the second footnote of today's article. It does not mention anything beyond that. The skill 'Critical Wound X+' just means that a X or higher auto-wounds, so practically it works like e.g. poison in older editions.

Siegfriedfr wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:

Siegfriedfr wrote:
Fixed the datasheet, what do you think ?

Spoiler:

You broke fury of the first by making it non-optional, as by your wording you also have to ignore positive modifiers

Intentional

That seems... Kinda bad.

Like, I get removing their +1 to-hit native ability. But if there's a Chaplain Litany (like there is now) or whatever other buff that gives a Marine unit +1 to-hit, why wouldn't it work on Terminators?

 JNAProductions wrote:

Siegfriedfr wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:

Siegfriedfr wrote:
Fixed the datasheet, what do you think ?

Spoiler:

You broke fury of the first by making it non-optional, as by your wording you also have to ignore positive modifiers

Intentional

That seems... Kinda bad.

Like, I get removing their +1 to-hit native ability. But if there's a Chaplain Litany (like there is now) or whatever other buff that gives a Marine unit +1 to-hit, why wouldn't it work on Terminators?

Let's focus on the layout and not the rules, i removed this controversial bit

Invulnerable Save is a special ability, thus it makes sense being where it is on the datasheet.

I dig it. GW did fairly well with this as it reads like an AoS warscroll, and those are pretty solid.

 Vovin wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Maybe it will be 'if your WARLORD is BLOOD ANGELS you can take units from the ADEPTUS ASTARTES and BLOOD ANGELS Faction'.

That would almost certainly mean, that several different factions can take the same detachment. And that every chapter that has its own charcters/units including Ultramarines is its own faction and hence needs its own datacards. I think this is highly unlikely. There will be only a ADEPTUS ASTARTES faction at least for the codex abiding chapters and then all the problems with souping Ultramarines,WhiteScars,Salamanders,etc. remain.

Not sure why you think that.

You will see datacards specifically for Tyrranic War Veterans as ULTRAMARINE and Sanguinary as BLOOD ANGELS as an example.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tsagualsa wrote:
We do already know that a 'Critical Wound' is just a new term for the old 'natural 6s always succeed', it's in the second footnote of today's article. It does not mention anything beyond that. The skill 'Critical Wound X+' just means that a X or higher auto-wounds, so practically it works like e.g. poison in older editions.

Oh, right. I got myself turned around based on some other speculative comment I read.

Personally, at the bottom of the card I'd put an abbreviated rule texts for the weapon abilities

Anti-Vehicle: does this
Blast: does this
Rapid Fire: does this
Torrent: does this

I'd also put the Invulnerable save adjacent to the save, with some special symbol or block (or even the old X++) so they're in same place and don't get overlooked.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Looks ok. I would probably make the invuln a small box and put n/a in it when it doesn't apply.

...I wonder if the invulnerable save is were it is because the 50 pager might be right about some things, but just really poorly translated. Then we would see various similar defensive abilities appear in that area like the 'Evade' concept.

We have already seen terms used like Enchancements and now Critical Wounds. The similarity is almost too close to ignore. I wonder if Devastating Wounds is 'every wound is a critical wound' and that either doubles the wounds or increases damage.

What's with the fixation on that 50 page "leak" that already got tons of things wrong?

Also why invent new rules for critical wounds when we already know what it is? Critacal wound=auto wound. Don't roll to wound, just save.

 Sotahullu wrote:
I just wonder what "Torrent" does on Heavy Flamer. Otherwise D6 auto-hit weapon does not have the same impact as frigging assault cannon.

It's a fluffy choice, so you can forge the narrative.

4+ invul.

If there's not something to get around invul in this edition, that's going to be oppressive.

Trying to get through a 4+ invul on t3 1 wound harlequins is already frustrating. Doing that on t5, 3 wound terminators is going to be ridiculous.

I'm predicting that we're going to see things that modify invul saves. Otherwise, we're going to head really quickly into the issue that AoS has: tons and tons and tons of ways to generate mortal wounds, making any kind of armor meaningless.

tneva82 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Looks ok. I would probably make the invuln a small box and put n/a in it when it doesn't apply.

...I wonder if the invulnerable save is were it is because the 50 pager might be right about some things, but just really poorly translated. Then we would see various similar defensive abilities appear in that area like the 'Evade' concept.

We have already seen terms used like Enchancements and now Critical Wounds. The similarity is almost too close to ignore. I wonder if Devastating Wounds is 'every wound is a critical wound' and that either doubles the wounds or increases damage.

What's with the fixation on that 50 page "leak" that already got tons of things wrong?

Also why invent new rules for critical wounds when we already know what it is? Critacal wound=auto wound. Don't roll to wound, just save.

The 50pager got a bit more attention than it realistically deserves because

a) it was apparently given out among rumourmongers pretty freely, and none of them showed their source, so stuff from it popped up in several places piece by piece, which made the impression that real info was leaking out from several sources when it really was just one

b) some people with good track records made vague statements that they heard similar things from their sources, which could either mean that the similarities were so vague that they matched by accident, that their sources got offered the 50pager themselves, or that the sources themselves heard stuff from the 50pager second- or third-handedly and passed that on...

drbored wrote:
4+ invul.

If there's not something to get around invul in this edition, that's going to be oppressive.

Trying to get through a 4+ invul on t3 1 wound harlequins is already frustrating. Doing that on t5, 3 wound terminators is going to be ridiculous.

I'm predicting that we're going to see things that modify invul saves. Otherwise, we're going to head really quickly into the issue that AoS has: tons and tons and tons of ways to generate mortal wounds, making any kind of armor meaningless.

I don't know that it's as much of a problem if the game isn't as lethal overall, right?

The goal might be to get them to half strenth and hope they fail morale causing them to be completely unable to hold the objective.

Harlequins will be interesting, because they're now a lot squishier by comparison, but the terminator bolters no longer go to 24" all the time, so, there could be less volume coming at harlies.

All that said with this 4++ what the hell do the combat and storm shields do?