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.

 Hellebore wrote:
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.

I really like that explanation.

Tsagualsa wrote:

 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.

Could very well be. Both DG Termies and DW termies get objective secured thanks to their rules(so a +1 to OC or something in 10th edition terms if translated).

Why are people perplexed by troops being better at holding objectives like it was a new thing? This is not a new concept, only the expression of the concept has changed.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/05/try-out-the-new-edition-of-warhammer-40000-at-the-upcoming-kansas-city-open/

GW are still running 10th Ed demo games at the beginning of June, so 10th won’t be launching before that, making 24th June seem more likely than ever as the release date.

Crimson wrote:Why are people perplexed by troops being better at holding objectives like it was a new thing? This is not a new concept, only the expression of the concept has changed.

Yeah, it's a mostly 'gamist' rule that primarily serves to make troops useful, and by necessity abstracts from the fluff in some way, but we accept much larger deviations already for the sake of having an interesting game, so i'll guess we'll manage.

Aash wrote:https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/05/try-out-the-new-edition-of-warhammer-40000-at-the-upcoming-kansas-city-open/

GW are still running 10th Ed demo games at the beginning of June, so 10th won’t be launching before that, making 24th June seem more likely than ever as the release date.

The current thread title poses a lot of questions already answered by the current thread title

 Hellebore wrote:

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.

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.

Same, it would be nice to have Exarchs be like Warlocks where they don't take up a force org slot when they are paired with their Aspect, likewise for sorcerer's.

 Hellebore wrote:
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.

Great explanation. Exalted.

Interesting that the Moroch terrain has a new paint job there. Maybe suggests there isn't any terrain in the box/massive amounts of new terrain coming at launch?

I wouldn't be too upset at that, the 40k terrain range is very good at this point when you can buy it...

There never was terrain in the starters since the crashed shuttle in 2004?

 lord_blackfang wrote:
There never was terrain in the starters since the crashed shuttle in 2004?

All the 9th edition Recuit/Elite/Command starters included terrain (even if it was just the box lid). The Indomitus launch box didn't - though it wasn't marketed as a starter.set.

I'm sure the new starters will be out by Christmas and include some terrain - though there's no indications yet if it'll be new or old stuff repackaged.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
There never was terrain in the starters since the crashed shuttle in 2004?

Damned shame that. Always fun to get new terrain.

 Crimson wrote:
Why are people perplexed by troops being better at holding objectives like it was a new thing? This is not a new concept, only the expression of the concept has changed.

Because it's an arbitrary distinction.

OC seems like a good system, but good systems can be implemented poorly, and GW are experts at implementing great ideas in a method that leaves you jaw on the floor with disbelief.

I cannot wait to see the datasheet for Deathwatch Veterans, it’s going to look like a CVS receipt. There are currently 28 weapon options for that datasheet, lol. Good luck simplifying that (because you can’t as customizable options is exactly what Deathwatch does)
You are literally going to have a Deathwatch veteran card and a separate weapons of the Deathwatch card (maybe one for ranged and one for melee)

or there won't be any and Deathwatch veterans are just regular Marines with the Deathwatch Detachment rules

 kodos wrote:
or there won't be any and Deathwatch veterans are just regular Marines with the Deathwatch Detachment rules

So GW would be willing to invalidate an entire faction and the way it’s built/played/sold? Have you seen the Deathwatch sprue?

Or the weapons can be abstracted like on that highly controversial CSM unit that time.

 bullyboy wrote:

 kodos wrote:
or there won't be any and Deathwatch veterans are just regular Marines with the Deathwatch Detachment rules

So GW would be willing to invalidate an entire faction and the way it’s built/played/sold?

would not be the first time, specially for Deathwatch
and you have seen what has happened to CSM?

"each DW Marine is equipped with a DW special weapon that regardless of shape and size has the same rules" is something GW would do, simply because they can

The most iconic deployment of terminators has been in Space Hulk where they are there to breach and clear. Terminators don't generally wait for the fight to come to them. They're deployed for a specific purpose.

At the end of the day balance is still balance.

 kodos wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

 kodos wrote:
or there won't be any and Deathwatch veterans are just regular Marines with the Deathwatch Detachment rules

So GW would be willing to invalidate an entire faction and the way it’s built/played/sold?

would not be the first time, specially for Deathwatch
and you have seen what has happened to CSM?

"each DW Marine is equipped with a DW special weapon that regardless of shape and size has the same rules" is something GW would do, simply because they can

That isn't a bad thing, it opens up creativity and allows players to build the models as they like with out worrying about weapon effectiveness and whatnot.

It is abstract, and not for those who want a more detailed game, but when we have individual rules for pistols and Titans in the same game, all the while using a D6, something has to give to facilitate game play.

And such a rule would probably increase players for that faction , I love the lore for deathwatch but the amount of rules for one faction is needlessly detailed.

Aash wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/05/try-out-the-new-edition-of-warhammer-40000-at-the-upcoming-kansas-city-open/

GW are still running 10th Ed demo games at the beginning of June, so 10th won’t be launching before that, making 24th June seem more likely than ever as the release date.

2 week pre-order window starting the 10th and release on 24th.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Aash wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/05/try-out-the-new-edition-of-warhammer-40000-at-the-upcoming-kansas-city-open/

GW are still running 10th Ed demo games at the beginning of June, so 10th won’t be launching before that, making 24th June seem more likely than ever as the release date.

2 week pre-order window starting the 10th and release on 24th.

Whaaaaaaaaaaat, they're not just throwing people into 10E games at an event that had set registration dates?

It means literally nothing. Stop pretending it does.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
There never was terrain in the starters since the crashed shuttle in 2004?

Damned shame that. Always fun to get new terrain.

 Crimson wrote:
Why are people perplexed by troops being better at holding objectives like it was a new thing? This is not a new concept, only the expression of the concept has changed.

Because it's an arbitrary distinction.

OC seems like a good system, but good systems can be implemented poorly, and GW are experts at implementing great ideas in a method that leaves you jaw on the floor with disbelief.

Second part. Yes.

The plus side, I guess, is that being a Stat, it can be tweaked and altered going forward on a unit by unit basis.

 clodax66 wrote:
Rapid ingress looks very interesting. You deepstrike at your opponents movement phase. You are able to deepstrike somewhere hidden after you see your opponents moves then in your turn move shoot and charge. I wonder if they are also allowing units to deepstrike in your turn.

You have to place the Teleport Homer at the start of the battle and then that's the only place they can deep strike to, as far as I can tell. I like it, but I also like gambling. And I lose a lot.

 bullyboy wrote:

 kodos wrote:
or there won't be any and Deathwatch veterans are just regular Marines with the Deathwatch Detachment rules

So GW would be willing to invalidate an entire faction and the way it’s built/played/sold? Have you seen the Deathwatch sprue?

The Deathwatch Detachment could also just use only Lieutenants to make up the entire force. There's all your customisation right there and finally justification for all those models.

Snugiraffe wrote:

 clodax66 wrote:
Rapid ingress looks very interesting. You deepstrike at your opponents movement phase. You are able to deepstrike somewhere hidden after you see your opponents moves then in your turn move shoot and charge. I wonder if they are also allowing units to deepstrike in your turn.

You have to place the Teleport Homer at the start of the battle and then that's the only place they can deep strike to, as far as I can tell. I like it, but I also like gambling. And I lose a lot.

I don't get this from the article, at all. The teleport homer allows you to use the 'Rapid Ingress' Stratagem for 0 CP, provided you use it to set up at the homer. Rapid Ingress is a special Deep Strike* that is executed on your opponents turn, and costs 1 CP normally. 'Normal' Deepstrike probably happens in your own turn, in the Reserves part of the movement phase probably.

You can (probably) deepstrike your Terminators normally, you can use 'Rapid Ingress' and pay its 1 CP cost to Deep Strike on your opponent's turn, or you can use the homer to Rapid Ingress for free, but with a predefined location.

* it's a special 'move units from reserves to the battlefield, but it works in conjunction with Deep Strike, which is a special move from reserves...

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Aash wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/05/try-out-the-new-edition-of-warhammer-40000-at-the-upcoming-kansas-city-open/

GW are still running 10th Ed demo games at the beginning of June, so 10th won’t be launching before that, making 24th June seem more likely than ever as the release date.

2 week pre-order window starting the 10th and release on 24th.

Whaaaaaaaaaaat, they're not just throwing people into 10E games at an event that had set registration dates?

It means literally nothing. Stop pretending it does.

I'm not really sure what you're on about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tsagualsa wrote:

I don't get this from the article, at all. The teleport homer allows you to use the 'Rapid Ingress' Stratagem for 0 CP, provided you use it to set up at the homer. Rapid Ingress is a special Deep Strike* that is executed on your opponents turn, and costs 1 CP normally. 'Normal' Deepstrike probably happens in your own turn, in the Reserves part of the movement phase probably.

You can (probably) deepstrike your Terminators normally, you can use 'Rapid Ingress' and pay its 1 CP cost to Deep Strike on your opponent's turn, or you can use the homer to Rapid Ingress for free, but with a predefined location.

* it's a special 'move units from reserves to the battlefield, but it works in conjunction with Deep Strike, which is a special move from reserves...

Right -- Terminators can :

- use their normal DS on your own turn
- use Rapid Ingress to walk on on the opponent's turn
- use their ability to Ingress as a pseudo DS

Tsagualsa wrote:

Snugiraffe wrote:

 clodax66 wrote:
Rapid ingress looks very interesting. You deepstrike at your opponents movement phase. You are able to deepstrike somewhere hidden after you see your opponents moves then in your turn move shoot and charge. I wonder if they are also allowing units to deepstrike in your turn.

You have to place the Teleport Homer at the start of the battle and then that's the only place they can deep strike to, as far as I can tell. I like it, but I also like gambling. And I lose a lot.

I don't get this from the article, at all. The teleport homer allows you to use the 'Rapid Ingress' Stratagem for 0 CP, provided you use it to set up at the homer. Rapid Ingress is a special Deep Strike* that is executed on your opponents turn, and costs 1 CP normally. 'Normal' Deepstrike probably happens in your own turn, in the Reserves part of the movement phase probably.

You can (probably) deepstrike your Terminators normally, you can use 'Rapid Ingress' and pay its 1 CP cost to Deep Strike on your opponent's turn, or you can use the homer to Rapid Ingress for free, but with a predefined location.

* it's a special 'move units from reserves to the battlefield, but it works in conjunction with Deep Strike, which is a special move from reserves...

Ha! I completely missed that "Core: Deep Strike" bit on the datacard. I thought the only way to use Deep Strike at all was to use the teleport homer. Oooh, I hope Raptors and Warp Talons can use that, too.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
There never was terrain in the starters since the crashed shuttle in 2004?

Damned shame that. Always fun to get new terrain.

 Crimson wrote:
Why are people perplexed by troops being better at holding objectives like it was a new thing? This is not a new concept, only the expression of the concept has changed.

Because it's an arbitrary distinction.

OC seems like a good system, but good systems can be implemented poorly, and GW are experts at implementing great ideas in a method that leaves you jaw on the floor with disbelief.

Second part. Yes.

The plus side, I guess, is that being a Stat, it can be tweaked and altered going forward on a unit by unit basis.

Also keep in mind even a 10 man squad of Terminators couldn't hold an objective over 2 Intercessors/Tacticals. Are Terminators iconic and should have a higher score because of that alone? Maybe? Is them having a lower value fine though? Absolutely.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

I'm not really sure what you're on about.

It's a tournament that has been scheduled for how long?

Them having demos doesn't mean jack. You're letting confirmation bias make you think you actually have a definitive answer as to the release dates.
Warhammerfest, which is April 29th to May 1st, is also having demos.

Does that mean that the preorder will be May 13th?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

I'm not really sure what you're on about.

It's a tournament that has been scheduled for how long?

Them having demos doesn't mean jack. You're letting confirmation bias make you think you actually have a definitive answer as to the release dates.
Warhammerfest, which is April 29th to May 1st, is also having demos.

Does that mean that the preorder will be May 13th?

No it means that the release date rumours still lime up with the kansas event. It means it won't be in people's hands by 4th June. It tells you a lot, it doesn't confirm a release date. You're getting too angry about something irrelevant and you've also been confidently wrong on these sorts of things before.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

I'm not really sure what you're on about.

It's a tournament that has been scheduled for how long?

What's stopping them from having planned it a long time ago and just only announcing it now?

Plague Marine datasheet in the wild. Might be fake, might be not.