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.

Tsagualsa wrote:

 The Red Hobbit wrote:

Fully agreed, I like modeling axes and swords and thus prefer they have the same profile when my squad rams into another squad. Hammers, Claws and Fist are another story of course.

There's a place for granularity between sword, axe and maul but I think its best reserved for specialist games like Kill Team.

With their new model of having different offensive profiles for the same weapon on different datasheets, they can theoretically decide this on a per-case basis, i.e. for e.g. Wolf Guard or Deathwatch they can have the weapons make a difference, while it does not matter for a rabble of cultists or other chaff like that. It's not the optimal solution for memorization, but it exists. No clue if they'll use it though, at least not yet.

Since they're new kits and visually very distinct, I'd be surprised if Sacresant Mauls/Halberds and Paragon Clubs/Swords didn't keep their separate profiles. They'll be fairly simple sheets anyway.

 p5freak wrote:
Marines basically get an autodelete ability each turn, great gamedesign GW.

It actually IS great gamedesign, because this pretty much rewards building (!)balanced(!) lists instead of the common "build around the powercreep buffed up fotm meta unit and fill up with chaff"-style lists the game is currently plagued with!

Two units of buffed up Obliterators with four units of bare-naked cultist are much more vulnerable at "receiving" Oath every turn than, for example, six units of reasonably equiped Legionares, because the first list is basically left with the chaff after two turns of "autodeleting" while the second still has 2/3 of its fighting capabilties...

From a game balance viewpoint Marines are also the perfect army for this kind of rule because
a) they are prominent enough that you cannot simply ignore that rule in a tournament / take all comers environment
b) they dont have really cheap chaff units themselves which would "over benefit" from full rerolls (as full rerolls get relatively better, the weaker the base is, it is applied to)

Aash wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Aash wrote:
I also think it looks like a fake. Although not guaranteed, the terminator datasheet gave the impression that power fist aren’t unwieldy any more (admittedly this could be specific to terminators) and the death guard datasheet shows WS 4+ for the Power Fist.

It would just mean terminators ignore unwieldly, as they should.

I doubt this because the chainfist is still unwieldy, but yes it is possible.

The Assault Cannon and Cyclone ML also dont seem to have any penalty for being fired on the move (straight up 3+ to hit, just like those Stormbolters, with no word of "heavy" or the like on the weapon profile).
Could be either because Terminators getting the old "relentless"-USR (which they lost in 8/9th) baked in their profile OR because the hit penalty for moving and shooting heavy weapons is completely gone.

 Asmodai wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:

 The Red Hobbit wrote:

Fully agreed, I like modeling axes and swords and thus prefer they have the same profile when my squad rams into another squad. Hammers, Claws and Fist are another story of course.
There's a place for granularity between sword, axe and maul but I think its best reserved for specialist games like Kill Team.

With their new model of having different offensive profiles for the same weapon on different datasheets, they can theoretically decide this on a per-case basis, i.e. for e.g. Wolf Guard or Deathwatch they can have the weapons make a difference, while it does not matter for a rabble of cultists or other chaff like that. It's not the optimal solution for memorization, but it exists. No clue if they'll use it though, at least not yet.

Since they're new kits and visually very distinct, I'd be surprised if Sacresant Mauls/Halberds and Paragon Clubs/Swords didn't keep their separate profiles. They'll be fairly simple sheets anyway.

Same goes for basically all Grey Knight units where swords/halberds/falchions have always been different profiles and where the kit is specifically designed to have a choice in building.
I think the decide-on-per-case-basis is the most likely.

highwind01 wrote:

Same goes for basically all Grey Knight units where swords/halberds/falchions have always been different profiles...

Always since 5th edition...

highwind01 wrote:

The Assault Cannon and Cyclone ML also dont seem to have any penalty for being fired on the move (straight up 3+ to hit, just like those Stormbolters, with no word of "heavy" or the like on the weapon profile).
Could be either because Terminators getting the old "relentless"-USR (which they lost in 8/9th) baked in their profile OR because the hit penalty for moving and shooting heavy weapons is completely gone.

That’s almost certainly I’m their way of handling relentless in the current edition. Weapon profiles on a unit to unit basis removes the requirement for relentless as a rule; you can just have terminators hitting on 3+ with heavies, where as standard nooks with the same weapon also get it with the “heavy” tag.

 morganfreeman wrote:

highwind01 wrote:

The Assault Cannon and Cyclone ML also dont seem to have any penalty for being fired on the move (straight up 3+ to hit, just like those Stormbolters, with no word of "heavy" or the like on the weapon profile).
Could be either because Terminators getting the old "relentless"-USR (which they lost in 8/9th) baked in their profile OR because the hit penalty for moving and shooting heavy weapons is completely gone.

That’s almost certainly I’m their way of handling relentless in the current edition. Weapon profiles on a unit to unit basis removes the requirement for relentless as a rule; you can just have terminators hitting on 3+ with heavies, where as standard nooks with the same weapon also get it with the “heavy” tag.

I suspect they won’t use the “heavy” type at all, instead just make these weapons have BS one worse than normal for their unit as appropriate. This way they can still use to hit modifiers (from cover for example) in conjunction with heavy weapon penalties, but also keep the to the principle that modifiers don’t stack more than plus or minus 1.

That’s The Lion up for pre-order next week.

Guess I’m getting Farsight and The Lion on the 22nd, then probably parking myself in the pub to read both.

Aash wrote:

 morganfreeman wrote:

highwind01 wrote:

The Assault Cannon and Cyclone ML also dont seem to have any penalty for being fired on the move (straight up 3+ to hit, just like those Stormbolters, with no word of "heavy" or the like on the weapon profile).
Could be either because Terminators getting the old "relentless"-USR (which they lost in 8/9th) baked in their profile OR because the hit penalty for moving and shooting heavy weapons is completely gone.

That’s almost certainly I’m their way of handling relentless in the current edition. Weapon profiles on a unit to unit basis removes the requirement for relentless as a rule; you can just have terminators hitting on 3+ with heavies, where as standard nooks with the same weapon also get it with the “heavy” tag.

I suspect they won’t use the “heavy” type at all, instead just make these weapons have BS one worse than normal for their unit as appropriate. This way they can still use to hit modifiers (from cover for example) in conjunction with heavy weapon penalties, but also keep the to the principle that modifiers don’t stack more than plus or minus 1.

I can't imagine them doing that. It simply makes not sense to have heavy weapons be less accurate to allow you to make them less accurate. If that made sense, they would do the same thing to Assault Weapons, which they didn't based on the Termagant datasheet.

If they want the penalty for Assault and Heavy weapons to stack with terrain rules, they merely need to construct the rules in a way to allow that, not make the weapons worst when neither rule would apply.

 morganfreeman wrote:

highwind01 wrote:

The Assault Cannon and Cyclone ML also dont seem to have any penalty for being fired on the move (straight up 3+ to hit, just like those Stormbolters, with no word of "heavy" or the like on the weapon profile).
Could be either because Terminators getting the old "relentless"-USR (which they lost in 8/9th) baked in their profile OR because the hit penalty for moving and shooting heavy weapons is completely gone.

That’s almost certainly I’m their way of handling relentless in the current edition. Weapon profiles on a unit to unit basis removes the requirement for relentless as a rule; you can just have terminators hitting on 3+ with heavies, where as standard nooks with the same weapon also get it with the “heavy” tag.

They should've just given Terminators WS/BS2+ instead of making them hit with an Assault Cannon just as accurately as a Storm Bolter while on the move.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

They should've just given Terminators WS/BS2+ instead of making them hit with an Assault Cannon just as accurately as a Storm Bolter while on the move.

That's been a trait of Terminator armor since Rogue Trader. That's kind of the point of the armor.

highwind01 wrote:
The Assault Cannon and Cyclone ML also dont seem to have any penalty for being fired on the move (straight up 3+ to hit, just like those Stormbolters, with no word of "heavy" or the like on the weapon profile).
Could be either because Terminators getting the old "relentless"-USR (which they lost in 8/9th) baked in their profile OR because the hit penalty for moving and shooting heavy weapons is completely gone.

I really hope the latter isn't the case - the weapon types need to be more restrictive than they have been recently to force actual decision-making, not have even less drawbacks.

And now we even have a "typeless" weapon type which could be used for basic weapons which don't need (dis)advantages applying to them.

 morganfreeman wrote:

highwind01 wrote:

The Assault Cannon and Cyclone ML also dont seem to have any penalty for being fired on the move (straight up 3+ to hit, just like those Stormbolters, with no word of "heavy" or the like on the weapon profile).
Could be either because Terminators getting the old "relentless"-USR (which they lost in 8/9th) baked in their profile OR because the hit penalty for moving and shooting heavy weapons is completely gone.

That’s almost certainly I’m their way of handling relentless in the current edition. Weapon profiles on a unit to unit basis removes the requirement for relentless as a rule; you can just have terminators hitting on 3+ with heavies, where as standard nooks with the same weapon also get it with the “heavy” tag.

I think so, too - but without seeing atleast one other "not-normaly-relentless"-heavy-weapon-profile we wont know
I would definitely prefer to have "no rule" on a datasheet than having "two rules" (heavy and relentless) which basically neutralize each other

 Lord Damocles wrote:

highwind01 wrote:

Same goes for basically all Grey Knight units where swords/halberds/falchions have always been different profiles...

Always since 5th edition...

The current kit (which I specifically mentioned in that very sentence, but which your quotation left away for no reason) didnt exist before 5th edition.
Grey Knights as a full faction with an own codex didnt exist before 5th edition.

highwind01 wrote:

 morganfreeman wrote:

highwind01 wrote:

The Assault Cannon and Cyclone ML also dont seem to have any penalty for being fired on the move (straight up 3+ to hit, just like those Stormbolters, with no word of "heavy" or the like on the weapon profile).
Could be either because Terminators getting the old "relentless"-USR (which they lost in 8/9th) baked in their profile OR because the hit penalty for moving and shooting heavy weapons is completely gone.

That’s almost certainly I’m their way of handling relentless in the current edition. Weapon profiles on a unit to unit basis removes the requirement for relentless as a rule; you can just have terminators hitting on 3+ with heavies, where as standard nooks with the same weapon also get it with the “heavy” tag.

I think so, too - but without seeing atleast one other "not-normaly-relentless"-heavy-weapon-profile we wont know
I would definitely prefer to have "no rule" on a datasheet than having "two rules" (heavy and relentless) which basically neutralize each other

 Lord Damocles wrote:

highwind01 wrote:

Same goes for basically all Grey Knight units where swords/halberds/falchions have always been different profiles...

Always since 5th edition...

The current kit (which I specifically mentioned in that very sentence, but which your quotation left away for no reason) didnt exist before 5th edition.
Grey Knights as a full faction with an own codex didnt exist before 5th edition.

Grey Knights was a full faction with their own codex back in 3rd. Yes is was shared with Inquisition, but so was their 5th Ed book.

3rd Ed was when they first got power armoured marines, their current look, and most of their units and heavy weapons.

And swords and halberds in 3rd had the same stats.

AcTuAlLy, Power Armour Grey Knights were a unit option in Rogue Trader.

I’ll need to check the archives when I can be arsed, as whilst they didn’t get models, I don’t think they had any special equipment,

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
AcTuAlLy, Power Armour Grey Knights were a unit option in Rogue Trader.

I’ll need to check the archives when I can be arsed, as whilst they didn’t get models, I don’t think they had any special equipment,

They didn't need models. They were standard space marines in the Ordo Malleus Army List (in Slaves to Darkness) (0-12 tactical squads, 0-4 assault squads, 0-2 devastator squads, standard array of characters, including medics, chaplains and techmarines). They (and Ordo Malleus characters) got immunity to fear caused by mortal chaos followers and +1 to their Cool stat when making fear tests caused by daemons. That's it

They had access to psyk-out grenades and missiles, as far as gear goes. 'Psycannons' (actually a pistol in this incarnation) were a Ordo Malleus Daemonhunter only weapon.

Their fluff was actually the opposite of the current fluff- they had almost NO psykers (extra screening to weed out all but the strongest and most resilient), and their chapter master was always an Inquisitor, not a space marine (though that wasn't entirely unusual at the time).


Not sure what it has to do with 10th edition, though.

Something weird just noticed:

From "How Army Building Works in the New Edition of Warhammer 40,000"
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/03/30/how-army-building-works-in-the-new-edition-of-warhammer-40000/
"4. However, you can include up to six units of each datasheet with the BATTLELINE or DEDICATED TRANSPORT keywords"

The leaked Termagants datasheet does not have "BATTLELINE" on it?!
https://www.belloflostsouls.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/10th-edition-summary-datasheet.jpg
Kinda hard to imagine that Termagants would not be a unit you could spam six of, isnt it?

Lord Zarkov wrote:

Grey Knights was a full faction with their own codex back in 3rd. Yes is was shared with Inquisition, but so was their 5th Ed book.

3rd Ed was when they first got power armoured marines, their current look, and most of their units and heavy weapons.

And swords and halberds in 3rd had the same stats.

No, they did not... there were a few Grey Knight datasheets in the 3rd edition codex "Daemonhunters" but saying that Grey Knights had their own codex with codex Daemonhunters is like saying Death Guard had their own Codex with codex Chaos Space Marines, because it included datasheets for Plague Marines, Nurglings and Greater Unclean Ones.

And again repeating myself: I was specifically speaking of the (current, 5th edition release) kits where you have an actual choice of building with one or the other.
3rd edition Grey Knight models were blister packed metal and did not come with any building choice.

What are you talking about?

You could field pure GK armies in 3rd. You could field pure Death Guard armies in 3rd.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
What are you talking about?
You could field pure GK armies in 3rd. You could field pure Death Guard armies in 3rd.

You could probably field pure Aspect Warriors armies aswell (with the Craftworlds expansion) - but that still didnt make "Aspect Warriors" a full faction with an own codex!

(And without being 100% sure about it, I think you could actually NOT field pure GK armies back then as they were lacking "own" HQ options and only had Inquisitors, which technically arent Grey Knights - but jeah, thats not the point anyways)

highwind01 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
What are you talking about?
You could field pure GK armies in 3rd. You could field pure Death Guard armies in 3rd.

You could probably field pure Aspect Warriors armies aswell (with the Craftworlds expansion) - but that still didnt make "Aspect Warriors" a full faction with an own codex!

(And without being 100% sure about it, I think you could actually NOT field pure GK armies back then as they were lacking "own" HQ options and only had Inquisitors, which technically arent Grey Knights - but jeah, thats not the point anyways)

They had both the Grand Master and Brother-Captain as options for their HQ.

Having seen Oath of Moment I really hope messing with Morale in 10e is genuinely meaningful. Otherwise it sounds like the Tyranid faction rule (Synapse) will be quite a lot worse.

highwind01 wrote:
Something weird just noticed:

From "How Army Building Works in the New Edition of Warhammer 40,000"
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/03/30/how-army-building-works-in-the-new-edition-of-warhammer-40000/
"4. However, you can include up to six units of each datasheet with the BATTLELINE or DEDICATED TRANSPORT keywords"

The leaked Termagants datasheet does not have "BATTLELINE" on it?!
https://www.belloflostsouls.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/10th-edition-summary-datasheet.jpg
Kinda hard to imagine that Termagants would not be a unit you could spam six of, isnt it?

Lord Zarkov wrote:

Grey Knights was a full faction with their own codex back in 3rd. Yes is was shared with Inquisition, but so was their 5th Ed book.

3rd Ed was when they first got power armoured marines, their current look, and most of their units and heavy weapons.

And swords and halberds in 3rd had the same stats.

No, they did not... there were a few Grey Knight datasheets in the 3rd edition codex "Daemonhunters" but saying that Grey Knights had their own codex with codex Daemonhunters is like saying Death Guard had their own Codex with codex Chaos Space Marines, because it included datasheets for Plague Marines, Nurglings and Greater Unclean Ones.

And again repeating myself: I was specifically speaking of the (current, 5th edition release) kits where you have an actual choice of building with one or the other.
3rd edition Grey Knight models were blister packed metal and did not come with any building choice.

Most of the current Grey Knight units were in the Daemonhunters book and there were almost as many Inquisition units in the 5th Ed GK book than there were in Daemonhunters (stormtroopers and assassins were the only thing taken out).

Purifiers, interceptors, dreadknights and paladins were new with the plastic kits (and technically librarians, though Grand Masters were as good psykers in 3rd as Librarians in 5th). That’s a pretty standard amount of new units for a 5th Ed Codex release (less than DE or Necrons got for example)

highwind01 wrote:
You could probably field pure Aspect Warriors armies aswell (with the Craftworlds expansion) - but that still didnt make "Aspect Warriors" a full faction with an own codex!

The Craftworlds book let you field Aspect Warrior armies. So, yes, that type of army had a Codex.

highwind01 wrote:
(And without being 100% sure about it, I think you could actually NOT field pure GK armies back then as they were lacking "own" HQ options and only had Inquisitors, which technically arent Grey Knights - but jeah, thats not the point anyways)

They had GK HQ choices.

Really man, stop digging...

In case it hasn't been mentioned yet, from yesterday's preorder preview:

GW wrote:Over at Warhammer Community, our coverage of the new edition of Warhammer 40,000 continues with the reveal of a brand new Tyranid unit and close examinations of how characters and weapons work in the new system.

We should get to see the new unit today. Can't be sure with these things but with that wording I'm guessing it won't be a Lictor. I hope it's a bigger Tyranid, though. I quite like the level of texturing/surface detail GW gave the new Termagants and wouldn't mind seeing how that translates to larger creatures. Maybe even show it in one of the three new unknown hive fleet color schemes as they look pretty neat, but that's probably a bit too greedy.

The leaked Termagants datasheet does not have "BATTLELINE" on it?!

In AoS the Battleline keyword is on the points sheet. Battleline is also heavily mutable as certain units can get Battleline keyword based off your Warlord.

I imagine 40k will do the same.

So in the point sheets the Termagant entry would be something like this if we were in AoS land.
Name - unit size - Points - Battlefield Role
Termagant - 10 - 100 - Battleline

It would make sense if Battleline, unit size, and points costs only matter during list construction to keep it all in one place.

 Geifer wrote:
In case it hasn't been mentioned yet, from yesterday's preorder preview:

GW wrote:Over at Warhammer Community, our coverage of the new edition of Warhammer 40,000 continues with the reveal of a brand new Tyranid unit and close examinations of how characters and weapons work in the new system.

We should get to see the new unit today. Can't be sure with these things but with that wording I'm guessing it won't be a Lictor. I hope it's a bigger Tyranid, though. I quite like the level of texturing/surface detail GW gave the new Termagants and wouldn't mind seeing how that translates to larger creatures. Maybe even show it in one of the three new unknown hive fleet color schemes as they look pretty neat, but that's probably a bit too greedy.

Given it is Easter Monday today, there's a chance such a reveal might get pushed back until tomorrow.

Equally, they could've set the post up for a scheduled publish while people were in the office last week, so who knows?

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
It would make sense if Battleline, unit size, and points costs only matter during list construction to keep it all in one place.

Or they could be on the Detachment rules page, to allow for one unit to play different roles in different armies. Like the old “Bikes become Troops” vibe.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Geifer wrote:
In case it hasn't been mentioned yet, from yesterday's preorder preview:

GW wrote:Over at Warhammer Community, our coverage of the new edition of Warhammer 40,000 continues with the reveal of a brand new Tyranid unit and close examinations of how characters and weapons work in the new system.

We should get to see the new unit today. Can't be sure with these things but with that wording I'm guessing it won't be a Lictor. I hope it's a bigger Tyranid, though. I quite like the level of texturing/surface detail GW gave the new Termagants and wouldn't mind seeing how that translates to larger creatures. Maybe even show it in one of the three new unknown hive fleet color schemes as they look pretty neat, but that's probably a bit too greedy.

Given it is Easter Monday today, there's a chance such a reveal might get pushed back until tomorrow.

Equally, they could've set the post up for a scheduled publish while people were in the office last week, so who knows?

They could also have the website managed by someone residing in the blasted hellscapes of either Scotland or the United States, where Easter Monday is not a bank/federal holiday.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Geifer wrote:
In case it hasn't been mentioned yet, from yesterday's preorder preview:

GW wrote:Over at Warhammer Community, our coverage of the new edition of Warhammer 40,000 continues with the reveal of a brand new Tyranid unit and close examinations of how characters and weapons work in the new system.

We should get to see the new unit today. Can't be sure with these things but with that wording I'm guessing it won't be a Lictor. I hope it's a bigger Tyranid, though. I quite like the level of texturing/surface detail GW gave the new Termagants and wouldn't mind seeing how that translates to larger creatures. Maybe even show it in one of the three new unknown hive fleet color schemes as they look pretty neat, but that's probably a bit too greedy.

Given it is Easter Monday today, there's a chance such a reveal might get pushed back until tomorrow.

Equally, they could've set the post up for a scheduled publish while people were in the office last week, so who knows?

It's possible, I guess. I don't know why they'd push back a model reveal, though. They've done holiday reveals before, at least on Christmas.

 Geifer wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Geifer wrote:
In case it hasn't been mentioned yet, from yesterday's preorder preview:

GW wrote:Over at Warhammer Community, our coverage of the new edition of Warhammer 40,000 continues with the reveal of a brand new Tyranid unit and close examinations of how characters and weapons work in the new system.

We should get to see the new unit today. Can't be sure with these things but with that wording I'm guessing it won't be a Lictor. I hope it's a bigger Tyranid, though. I quite like the level of texturing/surface detail GW gave the new Termagants and wouldn't mind seeing how that translates to larger creatures. Maybe even show it in one of the three new unknown hive fleet color schemes as they look pretty neat, but that's probably a bit too greedy.

Given it is Easter Monday today, there's a chance such a reveal might get pushed back until tomorrow.

Equally, they could've set the post up for a scheduled publish while people were in the office last week, so who knows?

It's possible, I guess. I don't know why they'd push back a model reveal, though. They've done holiday reveals before, at least on Christmas.

It's absolutely no problem to set this stuff up in advance when you use any CMS that is from the current century, which they do Also, Easter is a good reason to do a 'easter egg' sneak peek / small reveal, i don't see a reason why they'd do nothing instead when they have a lot of stuff they'd show anyway in the very near future.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
On the in-universe application? 2nd Ed made it clear they required specific training in their correct use. Not just thrusting, but blocking, parrying, slashing - and when to use each. And indeed how not to spike oneself right in the cod’s during a particularly exuberant bout of fisticuffs.

As a treat for listening to my wibbling, here’s my favourite art of said exuberant bouts of fisticuffs.

Spoiler: