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.

AoS has points but they have always functioned like PL. A given unit of 10 Dudesmen cost X points, regardless of the options they take. You can take 20 dudesmen for 2X points, but any number from 11-19 will also cost you 2X.

If a unit has multiple weapon options with varying effectiveness they may be split in separate entries, like '10 Dudesmen with Skullbloodiers -- X points' and '10 Dudesmen with Bloodskullinizers -- Y points'.

June 24th is the best estimate for a release date

Didnt see in this thread where the prediction for the 24th was. Valrak predicted pre-order on the 10th of June (10th on the 10th) with a 2 week pre-order period. That would also put release on the 24th.

There is an event on June 24th:


https://gameconcanada.com/

It's a new event in Canada, but Games Workshop seems to have a big presence. First time doing something like that in Canada that big. Maybe they were looking for an event that corresponded with kick off? Anyone know anything about it?

I don't see it mentioned (at a quick skim, so I might've missed it) but the Chainfist rules specifically mention Critical Wounds as well as an Anti-X mechanic which feeds into them.

That rings similar to the "glancing and critical" stuff from the messy 50 page "leak", lending more credence that it was a messy extraction of some older concepts.

 morganfreeman wrote:
I don't see it mentioned (at a quick skim, so I might've missed it) but the Chainfist rules specifically mention Critical Wounds as well as an Anti-X mechanic which feeds into them.

That rings similar to the "glancing and critical" stuff from the messy 50 page "leak", lending more credence that it was a messy extraction of some older concepts.

It's the 'automatically wounds on a 6+' rule, now applied to anything with that rule. ie if you roll a 6 it's a critical wound (auto wound regardless of Toughness). But you can get a weapon that auto wounds on any other number (like poison).

So the chainfist autowounds all vehicles on a 3+ regardless of their Toughness, while all attacks auto wound on a 6+.

 Hellebore wrote:

 morganfreeman wrote:
I don't see it mentioned (at a quick skim, so I might've missed it) but the Chainfist rules specifically mention Critical Wounds as well as an Anti-X mechanic which feeds into them.

That rings similar to the "glancing and critical" stuff from the messy 50 page "leak", lending more credence that it was a messy extraction of some older concepts.

It's the 'automatically wounds on a 6+' rule, now applied to anything with that rule. ie if you roll a 6 it's a critical wound (auto wound regardless of Toughness). But you can get a weapon that auto wounds on any other number (like poison).

So the chainfist autowounds all vehicles on a 3+ regardless of their Toughness, while all attacks auto wound on a 6+.

Fair. That probably means that rule on the Assault Cannon is the new version of Rending.

cody.d. wrote:

 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.

I don't want to be that guy, but we don't have the whole picture yet. The data card gave nothing in the way of points and upgrades.

Or even unit composition.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Or even unit composition.

Bingo. And chances are, like GW usually does, they'll screw up. However let's wait for the official screwup and just speculate what they MIGHT do right LOL

I'm at that stage of wargaming where, apart from the 'discount' on buying items individually, I don't know if this box will be for me.

I rarely game and, having a half company of Terminators (a lot coming from the Black Reach White Dwarf issue) and not particularly being into Tyranids, I'm waiting to see what the full contents are.

I guess it will depend on really selling me on having some Terminators bigger than my current models and the cost of the rulebook by itself.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

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

Squad leaders do more than just have +1 attack.

The average squad leader model does exactly 3 things:

+1 Leadership

+1 Attack

The option to take melee and/or better equipment than other squad members

In many squads these can be handled by baking the additional leadership into the unit and improving the melee weapons only available to the squad leader. For other squads, the design team will need to work a bit harder. This was not an issue for the Terminator Squad where the squad leader is the only one with Power Weapon and Storm Bolter and historically had the same stats as the other squad members.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
'10 Dudesmen with Skullbloodiers -- X points' and '10 Dudesmen with Bloodskullinizers -- Y points'.

This is the 40k rumour thread, not the real-actual-leaked-upcoming-AoS-units thread James' lawyers will be in touch shortly I imagine.

 alextroy wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

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

Squad leaders do more than just have +1 attack.

The average squad leader model does exactly 3 things:

+1 Leadership

+1 Attack

The option to take melee and/or better equipment than other squad members

In many squads these can be handled by baking the additional leadership into the unit and improving the melee weapons only available to the squad leader. For other squads, the design team will need to work a bit harder. This was not an issue for the Terminator Squad where the squad leader is the only one with Power Weapon and Storm Bolter and historically had the same stats as the other squad members.

Yes those squad 'champions' like exarchs, nobz and sorcerer's tend to have other different stats like wounds so either need a separate profile or special rule, or will get squashed into sergeant categories.

You could have a rule with ablative wounds like 'ignore the first X number of wounds the unit takes in battle' to reflect that.


On the other hand is personally like to see a return to exarch characters where they are more like lieutenants, but you can take up to 1 per aspect squad. I've never liked the crappy sergeants they became.

I'm just glad that Terminators don't have 3 different flavours of Storm Bolter in their profile. Hopefully the new Datacards will tackle the 50 Shades of Bolter that Marines alone already produced.

Regarding the Datacards, I'm looking forward to the one for basic IG squads, so far every edition had a small seizure at the description of Heavy Weapon Teams. But then they might pull the plug this time and discontinue this legacy.

I like the new Stratagem Cards. They seem to have understood that rules need to be short and organised, especially when they are on top. Kill Team could learn something there still, when it comes to clarity. I hope all of them will fit in this format.

Did Terminators ever have more than one type of Storm Bolter?

 Hellebore wrote:
I've never liked the crappy sergeants they became.

They've been squad leaders for far longer than they were ever separate characters.

It'd be like complaining that you don't like the "new" lead singer for AC/DC, even though he took over from the original guy over 40 years ago and the original guy was only the lead singer for 6 years.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
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?

Because their role is to erupt out and break the enemy resistance, not jump down and hunker on an objective and do nothing, why waste valuable elite warriors on objective sitting when they're there to break the enemy?

Also it gives Intercessors and other troops a better battlefield role of objective holders and stops the Terminators just outshining them in all aspects.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Did Terminators ever have more than one type of Storm Bolter?

 Hellebore wrote:
I've never liked the crappy sergeants they became.

They've been squad leaders for far longer than they were ever separate characters.

It'd be like complaining that you don't like the "new" lead singer for AC/DC, even though he took over from the original guy over 40 years ago and the original guy was only the lead singer for 6 years.

Tbf you've been mourning for the 3.5 CSM Codex and its options/ focus on legions far longer than it existed as well

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Did Terminators ever have more than one type of Storm Bolter?

Not that I would know, but a 2020 release would have certainly had Stalker Storm Bolter, Heavy Storm Bolter and *rolls dice* Vengence Storm Bolters. All with a little meaningless bit attached so that you would have to buy the box 3 times. Also with a slightly different statline of course.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Did Terminators ever have more than one type of Storm Bolter?

 Hellebore wrote:
I've never liked the crappy sergeants they became.

They've been squad leaders for far longer than they were ever separate characters.

It'd be like complaining that you don't like the "new" lead singer for AC/DC, even though he took over from the original guy over 40 years ago and the original guy was only the lead singer for 6 years.

And squats were extinct for longer than they existed... until they weren't.

Nothing wrong with hoping GW decide to go back to a previous editions depiction of something.

They did it to greater Daemons and the avatar. The bloodthirster was a crap representation longer than it was awesome until it wasn't.

But they never changed what the Bloodthirster/other GDs/Avatar was. They just gave 'em gakky rules.

 Gir Spirit Bane wrote:
Because their role is to erupt out and break the enemy resistance, not jump down and hunker on an objective and do nothing, why waste valuable elite warriors on objective sitting when they're there to break the enemy?

One of the most famous actions taken by Terminators in the history of 40k is their defending of the Ultramarines homeworld.

 Gir Spirit Bane wrote:
Also it gives Intercessors and other troops a better battlefield role of objective holders and stops the Terminators just outshining them in all aspects.

Seems artificially done.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Tbf you've been mourning for the 3.5 CSM Codex and its options/ focus on legions far longer than it existed as well

Nice try, but Codex CSM keeps getting re-written. It's quite a bit different.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Seems artificially done.

Without a selection of units with interlocking strengths and weaknesses, every army will always be just the most efficient unit in maximum allowable numbers. If it seems artificial, it's because it is a game.

In any case, you take territory with armour, and hold it with infantry. Works fine for me.

OC is fine, the concept is copied straight from Kings of War. Line units have high OC, monsters and warmachines have low OC.

Since apparently you multiply a unit's OC by model count, at least 3 Terminators will now be able to take an objective from 1 Grot, which was not the case in previous ObSec reliant editions.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
OC is fine, the concept is copied straight from Kings of War. Line units have high OC, monsters and warmachines have low OC.

Since apparently you multiply a unit's OC by model count, at least 3 Terminators will now be able to take an objective from 1 Grot, which was not the case in previous ObSec reliant editions.

Sometimes 'for gameplay reasons' is a perfectly valid answer.

Guess hbmc had problem with obsec as well and troops should lose over objectives just by terminators/other elite units just by walking on it.

 His Master's Voice wrote:
In any case, you take territory with armour, and hold it with infantry. Works fine for me.

Terminators are infantry, though. And "it's a game" is a cop-out, IMO.

Terminators should be excellent at holding objectives. They're slow moving massively armoured infantry. I have as much of a problem with them being bad at holding objectives as I would a unit of bikes being really good at holding objectives.

I think they have to be careful about making line infantry really good at holding objectives and everything else terrible at it. Being big doesn't suddenly make you bad at holding ground.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
OC is fine, the concept is copied straight from Kings of War. Line units have high OC, monsters and warmachines have low OC.

Since apparently you multiply a unit's OC by model count, at least 3 Terminators will now be able to take an objective from 1 Grot, which was not the case in previous ObSec reliant editions.

I think OC sounds like a good and scalable mechanic that eliminates the all-or-nothing nature of "ObSec" and means that you can claim objectives by literally piling lots of things onto an objective.

I just question why Terminators would be worse at it than, say, Intercessors.

tneva82 wrote:
Guess hbmc had problem with obsec as well and troops should lose over objectives just by terminators/other elite units just by walking on it.

If you're going to try and put words in my mouth, at least be coherent first.

If we're discounting "game reasons" as explanation enough, then you can think of it as the elite troops not being the ones who dig in on an objective.

Terminators are the ones who assault something and move on, essentially like a tank today.

"Troop" equivalents are like the bog standard infantry sitting in trenches in an area they want to hold.

Not really, the Terminators are those designed to stand on an objective and hold it until reinforcment shows up
Tac Marines are the ones that can to everything
and Assault Troops are the ones that assault something and move on

that those things are changed for game play reasons is ok to a point, but than again we have the same problem since forever
that the rules and the fluff are not related or even do the opposite

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
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?

Because ultimately this is a game where GW hopes that each and every unit has a unique role. In short, everything in wargame is artificial. Comes with the territory.

You could also argue that they are not bad at it but that Intercessors are just better at it because they have field gear or whatever. You could also argue that in the new datasheet Intercessors are not necessarily better at holding objectives. The ones that outlive the other with more OC is the one that truly holds the objective.

If I was looking to be an apologist for an abstract rule like OC I'd consider the following:

It inversely represents the relative value of a unit on the battlefield.

Ie terminators are few and strategically valuable, so they are 'expensive' to keep stationary on an objective instead of performing frontal assaults.

Tactical marines are more common and less valuable, making them less of a strategic burden to leave on garrison/guard duty.



Thus OC is actually SV "Strategic Value" with an inverse metric.

So, Terminators are the ones who assault an objective and hold it until the troops that then occupy it arrive, who then occupy it to hold it long term.

That's what I said.

 Eldarsif wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
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?

Because ultimately this is a game where GW hopes that each and every unit has a unique role. In short, everything in wargame is artificial. Comes with the territory.

You could also argue that they are not bad at it but that Intercessors are just better at it because they have field gear or whatever.

There might also be specific Terminator-only detachments that allow you to play stuff like the 1st company and have abilities that give them additional OC in some way.