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.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
Yeah I really don't see a problem with making it so you have to field a terminator lord to go with your terminators.

Only characters in Terminator armour ever fight with Terminators? You can't ever have a Captain/Chaplain/Librarian that fights with them in power armour?

And I have a problem with anything that reduces player choice, especially for arbitrary reasons.

"Guy without terminator armor does everything the guy with terminator armor does, but is cheaper because you don't have to pay for the terminator armor" is also a reduction in player choice. This is a scenario I ended up at many times in 8th actually, taking a jump pack lord to go with my terminators instead of a terminator lord for that exact reason. Didn't feel great about it personally.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
On one hand less choice is bad. On the other stricter permissions on what is allowed makes for less ambiguity and unintended consequences. It also makes it a lot easier to reinforce themes and limit the effects of soup without having to do it at the faction/detachment level. Take Dark Eldar. No need for complicated realspace raid rules if the Archon, Succubus, and Haemonculous are limited to joining their respective Kabal, Cult, and Coven units. Just take units as desired in a list.

I can see where you're coming from, but I think there would have been a better solution than having a list of joinable units for every character that can join units. I would have done something that GW consistently fail at using half the damned time: Keywords!

It's far easier to say that a Primaris Lieutenant can join any unit with the 'Primaris' and 'Infantry' keywords, but not those with the 'Jump', 'Character', 'Phobos' or 'Gravis' keywords. Now you don't have to list every unit they can join individually and actually use the build-in identifiers that GW have put into the game on every dataslate.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
"Guy without terminator armor does everything the guy with terminator armor does, but is cheaper because you don't have to pay for the terminator armor" is also a reduction in player choice.

No it's not. You made that choice. You chose to take a cheaper option. With the way the character joining rules have been presented to us so far you wouldn't have this choice. You'd just have one character (or type of character) that can join a specific type of unit.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
This is a scenario I ended up at many times in 8th actually, taking a jump pack lord to go with my terminators instead of a terminator lord for that exact reason. Didn't feel great about it personally.

Ok great, but that's not a reduction in choice. That's the personal feeling you had after making a choice, not the end result of not having that choice in the first place.

Choosing between A and B when they do the exact same thing but A just does it better is not a choice. Is it not desirable for characters to have distinct roles and be suited for different armies?

and now instead of choosing between A and B, the Codex tells you that you must use B because A does everything better but is not of the same armour type

You still use the jump pack character with jump pack units. Now both characters have their place in the army, though not necessarily in the same list. I really don't understand why matching your characters with the units they are most appropriate to is causing such a fuss, though I guess I am a Necrons/Thousand Sons player.

well, there are thematic reasons:
for Thousand Sons once was the same issue as there was just 1 type of Sorcerer that would lead units, no matter if Terminators (which were rubicae only) or Power Armour, but fluff changed
Iron Hands being famous for not having Terminator units but using the armour for Leaders only
similar as Space Wolves who usually had their Guard as unit leaders rather than dedicated Terminator units

but things change over time, not that bad but given that 40k is all about the fluff and the models it is not good either

other point is gameplay reasons
here we don't know much yet, but in general it means that only certain units will get certain buffs
or every unit gets a matching Character choice which would mean even more bloat as the different Lt versions would be all the same except for the units they can join

EviscerationPlague wrote:


Hey Dudeface how's that interaction with a Captain + the new Artificer Armor when attached to any squad? Is it SUPER CONFUSING?

Yes. We don't know how wound allocation works so mixed armour saves and toughness needs clearing up. I'm sure once they explain it'll be simple.

I'm still waiting for you to explain the issue that could arise from interaction of a fly model in a terminator unit and how rules that affect fly models should impact them, since it's apparently simple.

But hey, ignoring difficult questions and flinging mud to try and create some LOL problem is par for the course.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

What's additional? JUMP and TERMINATOR are already things and aren't just being added.

Ok. What keyword lets lietnaunt to join the units he now can but not the missile primaris? What common keyword is shared between units but not on missile guys?

We would end up bunch of keywords to join especially if detachments have own sets. This unit can be used with units A B C D in detachment 1, in detachment 2 it's B D E F, then in detachment 3 it's units T, R, S, Y. And you need already 3 keywords to cover these combos.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shakalooloo wrote:
Why would a jump pack guy want to lead a squad of foot-sloggers anyway, slowing him down? That would be like having an infantry wizard joining a unit of knights in WFB. There are things you could do, that no-one would ever want to do anyway.

Depending on rule interaction...yes they might.

Why would close range assault unit want to join backfield long range shooting unit?

Because suddenly the shooting unit can move and shoot at impunity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Right now, most of the discussion is simply "inventing a problem".

Most of the discussion is discussing the implications and limitations of the system. How did you not realise that?

I really don't know what would be so difficult or inelegant about only allowing deployment rules (like Deep Strike) to function when all members of the squad have that rule. Seems less arbitrary than "This Captain can only join X, and Y, but never Z!!!".

Is the problem deployment rule though?

OR that the buffs characters provide vary vastly between units so if you can give in freely it has funny habit of breaking game balance. In unit A rule might not be that big deal but then in unit B it breaks the balance. This been seen in GW games multiple times.

As GW hasn't figured out that they need to vary cost of character based on unit they buff...

I just gave up honestly.

Let people play Dungeons and Marines.

This was the easy way out if they wanted to keep the game balance under control, prevent unwanted interactions and future proof for further addition of units down the line.

For sure they want to restrict combinations which would result in different movement or toughness profiles, since those would be a mess to manage rule wise. But as already noted, they also don't want HQs in some units, like desolators. This is probably their new concept of <CORE>.

tneva82 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

What's additional? JUMP and TERMINATOR are already things and aren't just being added.

Ok. What keyword lets lietnaunt to join the units he now can but not the missile primaris? What common keyword is shared between units but not on missile guys?

It's probably the Character keyword and rules that allow the Lt. to join the squads. Just a guess.

Also Hellblasters are listed and there's two Redacted units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
Yeah I really don't see a problem with making it so you have to field a terminator lord to go with your terminators.

Only characters in Terminator armour ever fight with Terminators? You can't ever have a Captain/Chaplain/Librarian that fights with them in power armour?

And I have a problem with anything that reduces player choice, especially for arbitrary reasons.

"Guy without terminator armor does everything the guy with terminator armor does, but is cheaper because you don't have to pay for the terminator armor" is also a reduction in player choice. This is a scenario I ended up at many times in 8th actually, taking a jump pack lord to go with my terminators instead of a terminator lord for that exact reason. Didn't feel great about it personally.

Then you could've taken the Terminator Lord if you felt bad LOL

You obviously didn't.

The redacted units will be the flamer guys and the primaris sternguard from the trailer. Missile guys are intentionally excluded.

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:


Hey Dudeface how's that interaction with a Captain + the new Artificer Armor when attached to any squad? Is it SUPER CONFUSING?

Yes. We don't know how wound allocation works so mixed armour saves and toughness needs clearing up. I'm sure once they explain it'll be simple.

I'm still waiting for you to explain the issue that could arise from interaction of a fly model in a terminator unit and how rules that affect fly models should impact them, since it's apparently simple.

But hey, ignoring difficult questions and flinging mud to try and create some LOL problem is par for the course.

I already tackled this, you just chose to ignore via "but you don't know". They're writing the damn game, it shouldn't be hard to guess what interactions might be bad.

But then again, apparently the lot of you thought the one particular Terminator Captain granting Slow and Purposeful to Devastators was "unintended" and some game warping mechanic so I don't trust you to come up with an answer for your painfully obvious question.

I can give you a tip: Deathwatch had this literal interaction with their basic troop and it has caused zero issues.

Yeah, honestly, if you’ve followed deathwatch at all (though most haven’t, given our fall from the grace of 8th edition’s attention bomb) you get a few interesting quirks but mixed types of infantry, termis, bikers, and jump packs end up working just fine. Limitations don’t really make sense honestly and any issues are just going to be dependent on the context of the game. Let me take a bike commander with an infantry squad for an auto 6” advance, that’s pretty fun.

Unrelated, but sorta fearful for orks morale wise. Armies only seem to be getting one rule to define them and orks kinda usually get 2+, one for charging good, one for moralling good, and with 8th, shooting not as gak. I don’t think we can expect to get a mob rule ability on every unit that needs it or expect two army wide rules because gw is being dumb about the level of simplicity they want.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:

Unrelated, but sorta fearful for orks morale wise. Armies only seem to be getting one rule to define them and orks kinda usually get 2+, one for charging good, one for moralling good, and with 8th, shooting not as gak. I don’t think we can expect to get a mob rule ability on every unit that needs it or expect two army wide rules because gw is being dumb about the level of simplicity they want.

Wouldn't be surprised to see one of those rules (probably charging) as the global faction trait, while a Mob Rule effect to reduce battleshock goes onto the 'default' Ork detachment.

Then in the codex, Mob Rule is replaced with another trait if you pick more focused detachment types like speed freeks or dread mob.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
Yeah, honestly, if you’ve followed deathwatch at all (though most haven’t, given our fall from the grace of 8th edition’s attention bomb) you get a few interesting quirks but mixed types of infantry, termis, bikers, and jump packs end up working just fine. Limitations don’t really make sense honestly and any issues are just going to be dependent on the context of the game. Let me take a bike commander with an infantry squad for an auto 6” advance, that’s pretty fun.

Unrelated, but sorta fearful for orks morale wise. Armies only seem to be getting one rule to define them and orks kinda usually get 2+, one for charging good, one for moralling good, and with 8th, shooting not as gak. I don’t think we can expect to get a mob rule ability on every unit that needs it or expect two army wide rules because gw is being dumb about the level of simplicity they want.

Yeah, if I recall correctly it's: Proteus (Veterans, Vanguard Vets, Termies, bikes), Fortis (Mk.x Primaris and Primaris Bikes), Indomitor (Gravis Primaris), Spectrus (Phobos), and while not a kill team the Veteran bikers can bring an Attack Bike.

In regards to deepstrike, how it works for the Proteus kill team is that while Vanguard vets can't deep strike unless their combat-squad all has jump packs (though they can still ignore terrain and move 12" allowing some funny shenanigans), bikes can't turbo-boost unless they're in a combat squad either, and Termie teleports are the same way, however they do allow you to buy Teleport Homers which effects the whole unit.

What i'm more interested in is about how they'll handle the wargear. The standard vet alone has 37 different wargear options (38 on the sarge), let alone the bike, Termie, and vanguard vet options. With how much space even one item takes, will they be willing to use multiple cards?

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:


Hey Dudeface how's that interaction with a Captain + the new Artificer Armor when attached to any squad? Is it SUPER CONFUSING?

Yes. We don't know how wound allocation works so mixed armour saves and toughness needs clearing up. I'm sure once they explain it'll be simple.

I'm still waiting for you to explain the issue that could arise from interaction of a fly model in a terminator unit and how rules that affect fly models should impact them, since it's apparently simple.

But hey, ignoring difficult questions and flinging mud to try and create some LOL problem is par for the course.

I already tackled this, you just chose to ignore via "but you don't know". They're writing the damn game, it shouldn't be hard to guess what interactions might be bad.

But then again, apparently the lot of you thought the one particular Terminator Captain granting Slow and Purposeful to Devastators was "unintended" and some game warping mechanic so I don't trust you to come up with an answer for your painfully obvious question.

I can give you a tip: Deathwatch had this literal interaction with their basic troop and it has caused zero issues.

And we're back to the number 1 "GW are dumb incompetent rules writers of a trash game" advocate telling us GW can expertly dodge unusual combinations of rules, they're crafting succinct and well written combinations of abilities and units, plus they already have competent rules in place.

I expect to see fewer complaints from you in the future.

For what it's worth, how do abilities that interact with fly work for the deathwatch squads? Do fighters etc get +1 to hit against the full deathwatch squad? Would this be an acceptable compromise for HQ's adjoining the terminators?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:
Proteus kill team is that while Vanguard vets can't deep strike unless their combat-squad all has jump packs (though they can still ignore terrain and move 12" allowing some funny shenanigans), bikes can't turbo-boost unless they're in a combat squad either, and Termie teleports are the same way, however they do allow you to buy Teleport Homers which effects the whole unit.

So to clarify 4 terminators and a jump van vet can't deepstrike together natively without special gear?

Don’t believe they can deepstrike like that no, and I don’t know with the wargear. From what I’ve heard from people in the loop wargear is probably going to be costed near the same with few exceptions, which probably invalidates most of the options for deathwatch vets. Also I’d say that the vanguard vet probably wouldn’t trigger that ability to target things with fly.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
Don’t believe they can deepstrike like that no, and I don’t know with the wargear. From what I’ve heard from people in the loop wargear is probably going to be costed near the same with few exceptions, which probably invalidates most of the options for deathwatch vets. Also I’d say that the vanguard vet probably wouldn’t trigger that ability to target things with fly.

Why would it not though? The wargear entry for the jump pack is to grant fly and 12" move, so by extension the unit will have the fly keyword as a chunk of the existing unit has it.

But glad you cleared up that the current solved simple delivery method doesn't work as suggested.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
Yeah I really don't see a problem with making it so you have to field a terminator lord to go with your terminators. Deep Strike is just one potential issue

It's a non-issue, but y'all are eating it up like GW is genius.

Now we're just aware that abilities provided by some characters could be good in their assigned units and potentially REALLY good in units they're not supposed to be in.

Limiting what units get what buffs can matter and these limitations open up possibilities for more interesting interactions that just the same thing over and over again.

Will any of that happen? No idea.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kodos wrote:
and now instead of choosing between A and B, the Codex tells you that you must use B because A does everything better but is not of the same armour type

Let's imagine a scenario where the Primaris LT and Grav Primaris LT both provide Lethal Hits. One is cheaper. You will almost always choose the cheaper version to upgrade the unit.

Is that good design?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
The redacted units will be the flamer guys and the primaris sternguard from the trailer. Missile guys are intentionally excluded.

The list is even in alphabetical order so even by that they are not in. There's no reason for GW to have redacted an already released unit and honestly lethal hits on that unit would be a bit much.

One way to get characters safely to anything is say movement, toughness and save as per unit, no special rule from wargear(fly etc) from character applies.

Better?

Just basically make the character an invisible buff piece that only counts for unit size, making attacks, and blast (if it remains) and it should work out

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Let's imagine a scenario where the Primaris LT and Grav Primaris LT both provide Lethal Hits. One is cheaper. You will almost always choose the cheaper version to upgrade the unit.

Is that good design?

The "bad design" part of your conundrum is making two different units give out the same rule, rather than making them different and therefore giving you a choice between abilities (that, presumably, would not stack).

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:

What i'm more interested in is about how they'll handle the wargear. The standard vet alone has 37 different wargear options (38 on the sarge), let alone the bike, Termie, and vanguard vet options. With how much space even one item takes, will they be willing to use multiple cards?

They'll probably get the Accursed Weapon treatment for a bunch of those weapons. Or maybe the Deathwatch datacards will be released in paperback format...

You can’t really accursed weapons away a combi plasma from a combi flamer, I can see the power weapons (minus the maul maybe?) being consolidated but like the entire gimmick of deathwatch was sheer versatility through wargear, killteams, and special ammo.

A lot of this "mix and match" problem could be solved with the simple rule that "Only if all members of a unit have a keyword will that keyword function for the unit."

That way if 1 member of a unit has X rule but the others don't then the unit doesn't benefit from rule X. Likewise if all but one member of a unit have Rule X then once that other figure is taken out of the unit the unit can take advantage of Rule X.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Let's imagine a scenario where the Primaris LT and Grav Primaris LT both provide Lethal Hits. One is cheaper. You will almost always choose the cheaper version to upgrade the unit.

Is that good design?

The "bad design" part of your conundrum is making two different units give out the same rule, rather than making them different and therefore giving you a choice between abilities (that, presumably, would not stack).

It could also be argued that having half a dozen Lieutenants, all with different buffs depending on their armour type, is bad design. You seem to be confusing trade-offs in the design process with bad design.

There are quite a lot of ways GW could have designed the character/squad interaction rules. I don't think the one they've chosen is necessarily better or worse than any other, though it does seem to have some good benefits as far as ease of maintaining balance and streamlining the rules writing process since they don't need to consider every last interaction of different equipment in different units.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
You can’t really accursed weapons away a combi plasma from a combi flamer, I can see the power weapons (minus the maul maybe?) being consolidated but like the entire gimmick of deathwatch was sheer versatility through wargear, killteams, and special ammo.

Exactly, you can’t “accursed weapons” all heavy weapons, including frag cannon and infernus heavy bolter, all special weapons, all combi weapons, fists, hammers, power weapons - yes. What about special issue ammo for their regular bolters? Would suck to remove that iconic piece of war gear, and I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t want to combine it so that it does D2 and wounds non vehicle/titanic on a 2+ or +1 to wound.
Going to be interesting to see how they handle it.

Honestly yeah, it should just be like, a Primaris lieutenant has access to the full array of weapons, and then can choose to be in skimpy armor, normal armor, or heavy armor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 bullyboy wrote:

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
You can’t really accursed weapons away a combi plasma from a combi flamer, I can see the power weapons (minus the maul maybe?) being consolidated but like the entire gimmick of deathwatch was sheer versatility through wargear, killteams, and special ammo.

Exactly, you can’t “accursed weapons” all heavy weapons, including frag cannon and infernus heavy bolter, all special weapons, all combi weapons, fists, hammers, power weapons - yes. What about special issue ammo for their regular bolters? Would suck to remove that iconic piece of war gear, and I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t want to combine it so that it does D2 and wounds non vehicle/titanic on a 2+ or +1 to wound.
Going to be interesting to see how they handle it.

And gonna be honest, my bet is that they won’t. Some designer in 8th really liked deathwatch and threw us quite a few bones, but with 9th just merging us into the main codex and forcing Primaris down our throats we’re kinda just becoming another marine chapter instead of the inquisitorial badasses that we should be.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Let's imagine a scenario where the Primaris LT and Grav Primaris LT both provide Lethal Hits. One is cheaper. You will almost always choose the cheaper version to upgrade the unit.
Is that good design?

standard GW game design
having multiple units that all to the same, and one being the obvious best option, while another one making the most sense of you care about fluff
so there is one option for the WAAC guys and one option for the Narrative people, and everything else is bloat

it would be good game design if those buffs were unit upgrades in the first place rather than going the way of adding the buff were characters that can only join certain units before the game and never leave them