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.

I've noticed that there are no sergeants listed on the Intercessor and Terminator datasheets. That's odd.

I doubt that squad leaders are completely gone from the rules, but then I wonder, how are they incorporated in the new format?

For the special characters and unique units couldn't you just give them a special rule like "exemplars (death kittens)" which means that such units can only be taken with units without an exemplars rule or units that share the part between brackets.

I know that I formulated it horribly but I'm way too tired to correct it. And besides, it's probably still more solid rules writing than GW often does.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

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?

Getting Terminators right has been a challenge that several editions of 40k failed at, but that profile looks about right-ish. So far, we have only seen squad-level medium to heavy weapons, and it looks like a single crack missile still has a good chance of killing a Terminator outright, but is not guaranteed to, which seems more or less fluff-accurate for a walking tank. We'll have to see how truly heavy weapons look in this edition to make a final statement, or 'classic' Terminator-killers like Plasma Guns.

As for TH+SS Termies, i guess they'll get very resilient against a single chosen enemy, but weaker against hordes. At worst, they'll have a case of 'new thing overdone' and have a wound/damage cap per phase or sth. like that.

 Stormonu wrote:
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.

Yeah if there is room I would add those.

Of course, if they use the back of the card to put rules rather than (IMHO) useless pretty pictures then the cards can put summaries there. Or something else.

Pictures can still be very important for people new to an army or new to the game itself. I think visual references like that should never be overlooked. But I agree you don't have to have the entire card covered in pictures, you can easily have half a picture and then have more rules details.

Or just don't be afraid to give some models 2 cards. Warmachine did that for many of their models and they were using much smaller cards.

GW talks about simplifying and streamlining. I don't see how moving ws and bs to the weapon profile does that.

The weapon profile isn't static so it doesn't seem to actually simplify anything to me.

My takeaway?

Sv Mods look to be down across the board. Yes we’re seeing just a sliver of all of the weapons in 40K, but when a Powerfist and Chainfist is a “mere” -2, that’s strongly suggestive armour is going to be better this edition. So Unit Wipes are going to be something you really need to work at.

That’s gonna make a decent difference for all sorts of armies.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

punisher357 wrote:
GW talks about simplifying and streamlining. I don't see how moving ws and bs to the weapon profile does that.

The weapon profile isn't static so it doesn't seem to actually simplify anything to me.

It’s One Less Modifier To Stack, which is one less thing to keep track of.

We’ll need to see the wider picture, but one less thing to keep track of is still welcome.

punisher357 wrote:
GW talks about simplifying and streamlining. I don't see how moving ws and bs to the weapon profile does that.

The weapon profile isn't static so it doesn't seem to actually simplify anything to me.

My chainfist is unwieldy so I need to read that special rule, check my WS, and apply the modifier then depending on whether or not modifiers stack I might apply another modifier ( ignoring they they now ignore modifiers )....or I can just check my WS.

Or take a datasheet for the Gladiator. Instead of reading this:



I can simply look at the weapon and see that it is BS2 and my other weapons are BS3.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
My takeaway?

Sv Mods look to be down across the board. Yes we’re seeing just a sliver of all of the weapons in 40K, but when a Powerfist and Chainfist is a “mere” -2, that’s strongly suggestive armour is going to be better this edition. So Unit Wipes are going to be something you really need to work at.

That’s gonna make a decent difference for all sorts of armies.

The trouble is that volume needs to go down too, because Daemons and Harlies don't care about AP drops. With the SB double tapping to just 12" it seems like they might be tackling that, too. It's certainly going to be quite a lot of changes and honestly I just want to play.

Stormbolters still get two shots at 24”, doubling to 4 within Rapid Fire range.

No idea if that helps any.

Seeing both Chainfist and Powerfist reduced to -2 AP, does seem to indicate that the lethality has been toned down a few notches... which was needed.

Toughness 5, 3 Wounds, and 2+ save that always saves on a 4+ is going to be a tough nut to crack.

The different WS values for the Chainfist and Powerfist are an elegant way to factor in cumbersome weapons. Looking forward to seeing similar applied to BS weapons.

The data sheet is also very tidy, and well designed... which is nice to see.

Maybe 10th will redem 40k over the mess that was 8th/9th? Time will tell.

 SarisKhan wrote:
I've noticed that there are no sergeants listed on the Intercessor and Terminator datasheets. That's odd.

I doubt that squad leaders are completely gone from the rules, but then I wonder, how are they incorporated in the new format?

Those with melee weapons (like a chainsword or whatever) will get their own attacks line with the usual extra strike over their squad-mates.

Mind you this seems like an abbreviated datasheet. No, X models can equip x wargear. Just a sample of what the unit is equipped with. No information if a fist is more costly than a sword. Which matters cause at the moment you're paying 1 attack for a way better profile. Outside of looking cool I can't see a reason to take a sword.

I suspect all that information will be elsewhere rather than on the datasheet/card. Think of a MFM that includes unit construction guidelines along with points values.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Yeah, I have no idea what HBMC is complaining about. This is literally what people, including him, have been wanting. And really? Spray?

I'm using an example from the 40k RPGs, a game that started using "Flame" as the basic concept, but realised after a while that not all weapons like that actually shot flame, so changed the rule to "Spray".

 alextroy wrote:
I suspect all that information will be elsewhere rather than on the datasheet/card. Think of a MFM that includes unit construction guidelines along with points values.

Yeah a quick little reference card sorta thing? I wonder how long till GW shows us a proper datasheet, let us compare between the two.

 Dysartes wrote:
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.

Hey, look at that. The first person to raise a good counter-point. I hadn't thought of that.

 SarisKhan wrote:
I've noticed that there are no sergeants listed on the Intercessor and Terminator datasheets. That's odd.

Worrying is the word I'd use.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
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.

Hey, look at that. The first person to raise a good counter-point. I hadn't thought of that.

 SarisKhan wrote:
I've noticed that there are no sergeants listed on the Intercessor and Terminator datasheets. That's odd.

Worrying is the word I'd use.

Also raises questions on what units with more unique leaders would have. An ork unit as an example has a bigger, chunkier Nob leading it. Will they no longer have a profile to reflect it?

Will there be abilities that let you allocate wounds to specific models? Like trying to use snipers to kill a heavy weapon wielding model.

Why are slow and massively armoured warriors with good short-ranged firepower and excellent close combat output that can appear wherever you need bad at holding objectives?

edit whoops

cody.d. wrote:

Also raises questions on what units with more unique leaders would have. An ork unit as an example has bigger, chunkier Nob leading it. Will they no longer have a profile to reflect it?

Will there be abilities that let you allocate wounds to specific models? Like trying to use snipers to kill a heavy weapon wielding model.

In the case of space marines it seems to be part of a general streamlining. The +1 attack is built into the power weapon profile, and they might have decided that listing two different leadership values within the same unit is superfluous when all the other stats are the same. I expect the wargear options for terminators will list something like "one model must be equipped with a power weapon" while all the other models have power/chainfists.

Ork Boyz units with a Nob will more likely still list two profiles as they're more distinct, having different wound values.

 xttz wrote:

cody.d. wrote:

Also raises questions on what units with more unique leaders would have. An ork unit as an example has bigger, chunkier Nob leading it. Will they no longer have a profile to reflect it?

Will there be abilities that let you allocate wounds to specific models? Like trying to use snipers to kill a heavy weapon wielding model.

In the case of space marines it seems to be part of a general streamlining. The +1 attack is built into the power weapon profile, and they might have decided that listing two different leadership values within the same unit is superfluous when all the other stats are the same. I expect the wargear options for terminators will list something like "one model must be equipped with a power weapon" while all the other models have power/chainfists.

Ork Boyz units with a Nob will more likely still list two profiles as they're more distinct, having different wound values.

I hope so. They've spent the last 20 years turning Exarchs from mighty marine captain equivalents to anemic sergeant wannabes, it would add insult to injury if they just removed them entirely.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
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.

Hey, look at that. The first person to raise a good counter-point. I hadn't thought of that.

You haven't thought that other weapons have had Ignore Cover rules before?

I don't see how they can rewrite the game to just ignore Exarchs/Nobz/Sergeants.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I don't see how they can rewrite the game to just ignore Exarchs/Nobz/Sergeants.

So far we've seen 2 marine units without any sergeant mechanics (excepting the termie power weapon having more attacks).

If banshees follow the terminator design, they will have one profile and a list of exarch weapons with more attacks than the standard, but nothing else. It took ages to get a semblance of the original exarchs with multiple wounds, it will be a shame for them to disappear again.

However there is the termagant profile that has rippers in it and thus has 2 profiles, so it's possible that's what will happen with 'unit characters' which are what nobz, exarchs, sorcerers etc are. Sergeants have mainly been Ld/A bonuses, rather than whole statline changes.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I don't see how they can rewrite the game to just ignore Exarchs/Nobz/Sergeants.

Model with the better close combat weapon has an extra attack? That's not exactly hard.
Unit leadership makes just as much sense as avoiding removing one particular model to keep it up a pip.

Being a leader means being better at punching people in the face is a really weird legacy mechanic. But it isn't really important.

I find it interesting they're talking about simplifying, giving nice and easy to read unit cards etc. yet they're not bothering with Power Levels. I assume PL were super handy for just throwing a list together to roll dice in a friendly game. I know I would have wanted to use them if I actually had the chance to get into 9th, as opposed to agonising over a list for fifteen minutes.

 RustyNumber wrote:
I find it interesting they're talking about simplifying, giving nice and easy to read unit cards etc. yet they're not bothering with Power Levels. I assume PL were super handy for just throwing a list together to roll dice in a friendly game. I know I would have wanted to use them if I actually had the chance to get into 9th, as opposed to agonising over a list for fifteen minutes.

Well they kind of threw that out by making all wargear free. The only real point of PL was it didn't go into the finer detail of varying wargear. 10 marines naked being the same cost as 10 kitted out with all the toys as far as PL was concerned.

 RustyNumber wrote:
I find it interesting they're talking about simplifying, giving nice and easy to read unit cards etc. yet they're not bothering with Power Levels. I assume PL were super handy for just throwing a list together to roll dice in a friendly game. I know I would have wanted to use them if I actually had the chance to get into 9th, as opposed to agonising over a list for fifteen minutes.

I suspect they've found that keeping two separate accounting systems up to date just isn't worth the extra effort.

Signs are pointing to the idea that they'll keep the 9e trend and just not cost most wargear and weapons, so it makes differentiating the two systems extra pointless. 9I don't think they're going to do a very good job with this, as the chainfist vs powerfist is a obviously an attempt at a sidegrade, but I don't see much point in having terminators try to Benny Hill after tanks to punch them to death. Being universally worse against everything isn't a worthwhile exchange for situational punching power )

Voss wrote:
Model with the better close combat weapon has an extra attack?

Squad leaders do more than just have +1 attack.

Voss wrote:
That's not exactly hard.

When you don't try, sure.