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.

Slipspace wrote:
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.

Why would having a range of different options be "bad design"?

Slipspace wrote:
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.

I'd argue that they haven't streamlined it, because rather than just using a system that already exists within the structure of the rules (keywords) they now have to have it list what each character can join on a dataslate-by-dataslate basis.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
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.

Why would having a range of different options be "bad design"?

Slipspace wrote:
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.

I'd argue that they haven't streamlined it, because rather than just using a system that already exists within the structure of the rules (keywords) they now have to have it list what each character can join on a dataslate-by-dataslate basis.

A lot of this is in the context on Marines though, if you were to specify which units a tyranid prime can join by keyword, it might as well be a list anyway. Actually come to think of it the desolators would likely share the keyword combo required for the Lt atm, so they've done this to purely exclude them as an example. Likewise what keywords would you use? Primaris + intercessor, hellblaster, bladeguard etc? Which is nearly just the list anyway.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

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?

That's entirely dependent on if you want the straight rules vs paying for hitting harder on that particular model. That's very much good design.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

 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.

The model has the keyword, not the unit. This is still not rocket science. I legit cannot grasp how any of you played 3rd-7th if this is confusing to you.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

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?

That's entirely dependent on if you want the straight rules vs paying for hitting harder on that particular model. That's very much good design.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

 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.

The model has the keyword, not the unit. This is still not rocket science. I legit cannot grasp how any of you played 3rd-7th if this is confusing to you.

The model grants the keyword to the unit. As you are a very empassioned chaos player, you should know this from the dark commune.

Further to that I started playing in 3rd, I'm well aware some USR's did or did not transfer to the attached units and vice versa, as we have already covered in this very topic.

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

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?

That's entirely dependent on if you want the straight rules vs paying for hitting harder on that particular model. That's very much good design.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

 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.

The model has the keyword, not the unit. This is still not rocket science. I legit cannot grasp how any of you played 3rd-7th if this is confusing to you.

The model grants the keyword to the unit. As you are a very empassioned chaos player, you should know this from the dark commune.

I've not seen anyone touch that datasheet sheet once. Hell, I don't even know what it comprises of.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Spoiler:

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

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?

That's entirely dependent on if you want the straight rules vs paying for hitting harder on that particular model. That's very much good design.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

 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.

The model has the keyword, not the unit. This is still not rocket science. I legit cannot grasp how any of you played 3rd-7th if this is confusing to you.

The model grants the keyword to the unit. As you are a very empassioned chaos player, you should know this from the dark commune.

I've not seen anyone touch that datasheet sheet once. Hell, I don't even know what it comprises of.

There's a psyker, a banner guy and cultist leader with 2 body guards all as 1 unit. As the psyker is a psyker and the cultist leader is a character, the entire unit benefits from look out sir and counts as a psyker as long as the relevant model is alive, because the keywords are applying to the unit, despite coming from specific models in the unit.

So yes, in 9th if you add a jump pack captain to a unit of Terminators, the unit is able to be targeted for fly relevant rules. Since that's not rocket science I'm sure you knew that though.

No new rumors today?

Alrighty then.

Dudeface wrote:


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?

No, as the keywords are different. Death from above and Teleport strike are different keywords and thereby function differently. Not unless you buy the teleport homer that specifically mention the whole unit. However, that may change as they’re beinging back the Deep Strike USR, meaning they could do so that way.

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


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?

No, as the keywords are different. Death from above and Teleport strike are different keywords and thereby function differently. Not unless you buy the teleport homer that specifically mention the whole unit. However, that may change as they’re beinging back the Deep Strike USR, meaning they could do so that way.

Again, that's why USR work so well.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
That's entirely dependent on if you want the straight rules vs paying for hitting harder on that particular model. That's very much good design.

That's likely still going to be a binary decision.

A Captain in different armors gets an extra wound and sometimes an extra pip of T. The basic Primaris Captain can have a plasma pistol and PF, which will be no worse than a PF on Gravis. Not to mention the DA Primaris Captain can have a PF and Special Issue Bolt Carbine. All for 25 points less ( at present ).

That whole datasheet is a hot mess, but I doubt you're going to see that change.

I have no idea what will differentiate the LT and the expected LT in Gravis / whatever, but you're likely to encounter similar dynamics.And then you have to consider what might the other LTs do? Could the Phobos LT provide a pre-game normal move to the unit he's in? Would that be an appropriate thing to give to any unit?

It's entirely possible that GW starts indexes with each type all having the same ability and at that point it "wouldn't matter" unless they wanted design space for later when codexes got released. A careful regimented approach is going to be better long term than slapshod 'do what you want' with no further consideration.

GW's decision to not allow missile daddies to have access to Lethal Hits through this mechanic is almost certainly a deliberate decision, because it'd be too much.

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Spoiler:

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

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?

That's entirely dependent on if you want the straight rules vs paying for hitting harder on that particular model. That's very much good design.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

 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.

The model has the keyword, not the unit. This is still not rocket science. I legit cannot grasp how any of you played 3rd-7th if this is confusing to you.

The model grants the keyword to the unit. As you are a very empassioned chaos player, you should know this from the dark commune.

I've not seen anyone touch that datasheet sheet once. Hell, I don't even know what it comprises of.

There's a psyker, a banner guy and cultist leader with 2 body guards all as 1 unit. As the psyker is a psyker and the cultist leader is a character, the entire unit benefits from look out sir and counts as a psyker as long as the relevant model is alive, because the keywords are applying to the unit, despite coming from specific models in the unit.

So yes, in 9th if you add a jump pack captain to a unit of Terminators, the unit is able to be targeted for fly relevant rules. Since that's not rocket science I'm sure you knew that though.

Oh, I thought you were talking about one dude in there having FLY so I was confused.

Thats legit pretty easy, but you have to keep in mind the unit itself is acting like a singular HQ model and is benefitting from target protection. The rules were written for this edition, but it isn't like we haven't had similar loadouts happen before. Largely, core rules have stated before what counts as a Psyker unit.

Bam, pretty easy. Psyker dies, no longer a psyker unit.

 Eldarsif wrote:
No new rumors today?

Alrighty then.

Nah the folks in this thread would rather derail it with yet another silly argument and make assumptions about how characters work based on only a single datasheet. That and GW is drip-feeding us information so slowly it's hard to get new things to talk about.

Not having a go at anyone specific, I'm just as frustrated as everyone else at how little info we're getting.

 ZergSmasher wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
No new rumors today?

Alrighty then.

Nah the folks in this thread would rather derail it with yet another silly argument and make assumptions about how characters work based on only a single datasheet. That and GW is drip-feeding us information so slowly it's hard to get new things to talk about.

Not having a go at anyone specific, I'm just as frustrated as everyone else at how little info we're getting.

It's kind of all we have to talk about at present.

We're still like 2 months out and GW has to stretch details quite a ways.

Well we've less than a month for the rules and boxed set reveal.

 Overread wrote:
Well we've less than a month for the rules and boxed set reveal.

Two and a bit weeks no? Thought there was an event on the 28th/29th that would have the box set available for play testing?

 Carnage43 wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Well we've less than a month for the rules and boxed set reveal.

Two and a bit weeks no? Thought there was an event on the 28th/29th that would have the box set available for play testing?

April 29th is the first day of Warhammerfest, which will presumably include mucho revealo for all sorts of games, and will definitely have 10th edition for demo games.

 Eldarsif wrote:
No new rumors today?

Alrighty then.

We didn't get any last Wednesday either, so probably safe to assume Wednesdays won't have anything. Maybe things will change after WarhammerFest and release gets closer.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Spoiler:

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

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?

That's entirely dependent on if you want the straight rules vs paying for hitting harder on that particular model. That's very much good design.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

 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.

The model has the keyword, not the unit. This is still not rocket science. I legit cannot grasp how any of you played 3rd-7th if this is confusing to you.

The model grants the keyword to the unit. As you are a very empassioned chaos player, you should know this from the dark commune.

I've not seen anyone touch that datasheet sheet once. Hell, I don't even know what it comprises of.

There's a psyker, a banner guy and cultist leader with 2 body guards all as 1 unit. As the psyker is a psyker and the cultist leader is a character, the entire unit benefits from look out sir and counts as a psyker as long as the relevant model is alive, because the keywords are applying to the unit, despite coming from specific models in the unit.

So yes, in 9th if you add a jump pack captain to a unit of Terminators, the unit is able to be targeted for fly relevant rules. Since that's not rocket science I'm sure you knew that though.

Oh, I thought you were talking about one dude in there having FLY so I was confused.

Thats legit pretty easy, but you have to keep in mind the unit itself is acting like a singular HQ model and is benefitting from target protection. The rules were written for this edition, but it isn't like we haven't had similar loadouts happen before. Largely, core rules have stated before what counts as a Psyker unit.

Bam, pretty easy. Psyker dies, no longer a psyker unit.

You know what's even easier? Not combining stuff like that in the first place.

ERJAK wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Spoiler:

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

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?

That's entirely dependent on if you want the straight rules vs paying for hitting harder on that particular model. That's very much good design.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

 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.

The model has the keyword, not the unit. This is still not rocket science. I legit cannot grasp how any of you played 3rd-7th if this is confusing to you.

The model grants the keyword to the unit. As you are a very empassioned chaos player, you should know this from the dark commune.

I've not seen anyone touch that datasheet sheet once. Hell, I don't even know what it comprises of.

There's a psyker, a banner guy and cultist leader with 2 body guards all as 1 unit. As the psyker is a psyker and the cultist leader is a character, the entire unit benefits from look out sir and counts as a psyker as long as the relevant model is alive, because the keywords are applying to the unit, despite coming from specific models in the unit.

So yes, in 9th if you add a jump pack captain to a unit of Terminators, the unit is able to be targeted for fly relevant rules. Since that's not rocket science I'm sure you knew that though.

Oh, I thought you were talking about one dude in there having FLY so I was confused.

Thats legit pretty easy, but you have to keep in mind the unit itself is acting like a singular HQ model and is benefitting from target protection. The rules were written for this edition, but it isn't like we haven't had similar loadouts happen before. Largely, core rules have stated before what counts as a Psyker unit.

Bam, pretty easy. Psyker dies, no longer a psyker unit.

You know what's even easier? Not combining stuff like that in the first place.

This is absolutely insane I'm seeing this on this forum. Have you never attached a Psyker to a unit in 3rd-7th because it was too hard?

 Kothra wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
No new rumors today?

Alrighty then.

We didn't get any last Wednesday either, so probably safe to assume Wednesdays won't have anything. Maybe things will change after WarhammerFest and release gets closer.

Wednesdays tend to be quiet ones on Warhammer Community, as it’s Wh+ new stuff day.

Dudeface wrote:
Likewise what keywords would you use? Primaris + intercessor, hellblaster, bladeguard etc? Which is nearly just the list anyway.

Already covered:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
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 built-in identifiers that GW have put into the game on every dataslate.

It is always better to use the rules you have established over creating new ones when you don't need to.

GW created a keyword system for their game 3 editions ago, and still has yet to take full advantage of what such a system provides.

I suppose I shouldn't point out that this rule does use keywords to identify the units that can be joined.

They just happen to be the unit specific keywords rather than general ones.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Likewise what keywords would you use? Primaris + intercessor, hellblaster, bladeguard etc? Which is nearly just the list anyway.

Already covered:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
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 built-in identifiers that GW have put into the game on every dataslate.

It is always better to use the rules you have established over creating new ones when you don't need to.

GW created a keyword system for their game 3 editions ago, and still has yet to take full advantage of what such a system provides.

How are you going to exclude the desolators?

Dudeface wrote:
How are you going to exclude the desolators?

I wouldn't.

So your argument fails.
You can't argue that something could be done more cleanly in another way and then admit that it would alter the result.

Spoletta wrote:
So your argument fails.
You can't argue that something could be done more cleanly in another way and then admit that it would alter the result.

That's not a failure, it's an "I wouldn't bother making that exclusion".

FWIW, Desolators and similar units would be a bad place to stick your Lt anyway, the fixed dice roll mechanic of auto wounding is more impactful on weapons that struggle to wound, so high strength weapons don't see much benefit (they are already quite likely to pass a wound roll). Did a quick bit of bad maths using current points costs and new Lt ability - Desolators cause more damage per point on their own than if you add a Lt, so you would be better off just adding more Desolators before trying to buff them.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
How are you going to exclude the desolators?

I wouldn't.

So your argument fails. You couldn't do same effect with keywords. Well not without creating multiple keywords just for organizational purposes for each unit. Tactimus Alpha, beta, delta etc Good luck figuring out what they do.

 Insularum wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
So your argument fails.
You can't argue that something could be done more cleanly in another way and then admit that it would alter the result.

That's not a failure, it's an "I wouldn't bother making that exclusion".

FWIW, Desolators and similar units would be a bad place to stick your Lt anyway, the fixed dice roll mechanic of auto wounding is more impactful on weapons that struggle to wound, so high strength weapons don't see much benefit (they are already quite likely to pass a wound roll). Did a quick bit of bad maths using current points costs and new Lt ability - Desolators cause more damage per point on their own than if you add a Lt, so you would be better off just adding more Desolators before trying to buff them.

Shame the current point costs and weapon profiles won't be what's relevant then. The point is gw saw fit to not include auto wounds on a longish range no LoS unit, which seems a sensible choice in honesty.

Outside of that, it is still a failure to comply with the current unit limitations provided without listing units.

Desolators are a heavy hyve guardish unit.


Hyve guards are not CORE.

Makes sense that the same logic is applied to desolators, especially after they proved to be problem guys.

The intention for this restriction list just seems to be a combination of matching the armour type with the current CORE units. Presumably the CORE keyword is going away now though.

What we don't know is if all of the other character units are also effectively restricted to CORE, or if this is limited to Lieutenants and/or Captains. Apothecaries for example may be able to join Desolators, as they're not giving offensive bonuses.