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.

Spoletta wrote:
So your argument fails.

tneva82 wrote:
So your argument fails.

Both of you? Oh well. Not my fault if you didn't understand my point.

Insularum did. He got it in one: I wouldn't make the distinction. I wouldn't have the restriction. I don't feel it's necessary.

Spoletta wrote:
You couldn't do same effect with keywords.

If you don't understand the basics of what I'm saying - that using pre-existing mechanics, such as the keyword system, is inherently better than creating entirely new mechanics for essentially the same purpose - then really why am I bothering talking to you?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

He got it in one: I wouldn't make the distinction. I wouldn't have the restriction. I don't feel it's necessary.

The risk is that by trying to increase choice this way you actually end up creating a situation where there is no real choice, as one option is no brainer superior.

Personally I think it is good thing that they just plainly forbid potentially OP combos, even though it might be somewhat gamey.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
So your argument fails.

tneva82 wrote:
So your argument fails.

Both of you? Oh well. Not my fault if you didn't understand my point.

Insularum did. He got it in one: I wouldn't make the distinction. I wouldn't have the restriction. I don't feel it's necessary.

Spoletta wrote:
You couldn't do same effect with keywords.

If you don't understand the basics of what I'm saying - that using pre-existing mechanics, such as the keyword system, is inherently better than creating entirely new mechanics for essentially the same purpose - then really why am I bothering talking to you?

Sorry, but you are making no sense and are failing at basic logic understanding.

Problem: You are in A and want to reach B. You have to select a path.

GW proposes a path.
You propose a different path because in your opinion it is better.
People make you notice that your path ends in C not in B.
You argue that C is better than B anyway, so it doesn't matter.

Question for you. Would you consider that a correct solution to the problem?

 Crimson wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

He got it in one: I wouldn't make the distinction. I wouldn't have the restriction. I don't feel it's necessary.

The risk is that by trying to increase choice this way you actually end up creating a situation where there is no real choice, as one option is no brainer superior.

Personally I think it is good thing that they just plainly forbid potentially OP combos, even though it might be somewhat gamey.

I don't think this rule is impactful enough to continue arguing over - at the end of the day even if it is flawed it is looking like an improvement. Some general points though on why, even without being that invested to care enough, I tend to fall on HBMC's side of this:
1. Narrative - the way this is laid out, a Primaris officer has no authority over Firstborn (and vice-versa), and if you wear the wrong t-shirt you can't join a unit (who would Dante attach to by the way? Suppressors are currently the only Primaris power armour jump pack unit). This feels silly.
2. Player unfriendly - if you want to have options to attach characters, you need to buy all the character models with their minute differences in equipment. I like buying the models I like not the ones I need as dictated by rigid rules.
3. Balance - I have the opposite thoughts to you Crimson, if you reduce options people will converge on the best of what is left rather than try out different things. With the rules seen so far, missile marines are best played by spamming them and using the faction ability for all the rerolls, a big cheap frontline unit like Intercessors would be a better place to stick your Lt.

To recap, new rule better than old rule, could easily be even better though.

Spoletta wrote:
Sorry, but you are making no sense and are failing at basic logic understanding.

I see that nothing I say will convince you, and just further repeating why it's better to use existing rule systems (like Keywords) than it is to invent whole new ones (a list of attachable units repeated over and over for each character) is a waste of time, so I'm not even going to try.

 Crimson wrote:
The risk is that by trying to increase choice this way you actually end up creating a situation where there is no real choice, as one option is no brainer superior.

But that's not a failing of using the keyword system. That would be a failing of the rule when combined with a specific unit.

More importantly, is it a no-brainer choice? We don't even know what Compensators are going to do in 10th. Who's to say that, due to the way GW writes rules, that they won't end up being utter trash that no one takes. Then we're left with a character who might have helped save a terrible unit, but he can't join it because of some random arbitrary restriction that didn't need to exist in the first place if GW had just used an existing system that they have, for three editions in a row, failed to use in any meaningful way.

 Crimson wrote:
Personally I think it is good thing that they just plainly forbid potentially OP combos, even though it might be somewhat gamey.

I think it's naive to assume that:

1. There won't be OP combos.
2. That GW has any real clue what is, isn't, could be or could not be an OP combo. This is the 10th time they've tried making 40k. Their track record ain't great, especially when you consider that they rarely fix problems but instead just throw them away and create whole new systems as if nothing will go wrong, just as long as we trust them this time around!

The unit list is made up of unit keywords. You just want them to use more generalized keywords instead.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
The unit list is made up of unit keywords. You just want them to use more generalized keywords instead.

Congrats. You're technically correct - the best type of correct - but you're still ignoring my core points:

1. These limitations are arbitrary.
2. They create a situation that limits player choice, often nonsensically (X character can't ever join Y unit).
3. They don't make use of the Keyword system, certainly not in any meaninful way (yes, each unit type has its unit name as a keyword... but that's hardly using the keyword system in the way that makes it have purpose, as it's indistinguishable from just listing the units individually).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
The unit list is made up of unit keywords. You just want them to use more generalized keywords instead.

Congrats. You're technically correct - the best type of correct - but you're still ignoring my core points:

1. These limitations are arbitrary.
2. They create a situation that limits player choice, often nonsensically (X character can't ever join Y unit).
3. They don't make use of the Keyword system, certainly not in any meaninful way (yes, each unit type has its unit name as a keyword... but that's hardly using the keyword system in the way that makes it have purpose, as it's indistinguishable from just listing the units individually).

1. Generally, it looks like Terminator characters join terminator units, Tacticus with the same, Jump characters with Jump units, Phobos with phobos. Some exculsions may be arbitrary yes, but have game balance reasons.
2. Sometimes limits and drawbacks are necessary for balance of flavor reasons.
3. Keywords are a useful system to quickly group similar units. But just because the system it there doesn't mean it is always the optimal tool. Its cleaner and more granular to make a list of the 6 units a primaris lieutenant can join than try to say they can join primaris units, but only those without character, fly, biker, gravis, phobos, oh and also missile dudes and crusader squads since they dont share any useful keywords. We have seen one character. Some may be more or less limited in what they can join.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/13/bring-justice-to-warhammer-40000-with-free-rules-for-the-adeptus-arbites/

Today's 10th ed preview is buried in the second half of the Arbites article.

Agents of the Imperium will be getting a full faction preview.

You can add 1 retinue and 1 character unit for each 1000 point increment. No detachment abilities or enhancements for them, but they don't cost you any either.

Free/Dreadblade Knights will use their own ally system and not count against the limit.

 Asmodai wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/13/bring-justice-to-warhammer-40000-with-free-rules-for-the-adeptus-arbites/

Today's 10th ed preview is buried in the second half of the Arbites article.

Agents of the Imperium will be getting a full faction preview.

You can add 1 retinue and 1 character unit for each 1000 point increment. No detachment abilities or enhancements for them, but they don't cost you any either.

Free/Dreadblade Knights will use their own ally system and not count against the limit.

Also for people that specifically feared about Acolytes losing their bodyguarding abilities, seems like it is future-proofed for 10th in this pdf.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
That they chose to use a list of specific unit keywords instead of a less granular collective keyword?

Here is an example of them using something that exists in the rules for something greater:



I've long since wondered why the game sizes they created weren't used a whole hell of a lot for other parts of the game. I even thought that perhaps limiting the use of Strats based on game size (ie. you have Core Strats + X amount of Codex strats, up to the limit of the game size as defined by the rules) rather than just dumping 47 strats on each player and saying "go". Putting a bit of choice into Strategems... or, dare I say it, putting a bit of strategy into Stratagems.

No obviously that's largely unnecessary given the massive reductions of Strats in 10th, but here is them using battle size for the purposes of allied units. That's a massive win, IMO. That's taking existing systems and expanding it for greater use and meaning.

So yes, more granularity is a better option. Given who you're talking to I'd've thought that obvious.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
The unit list is made up of unit keywords. You just want them to use more generalized keywords instead.

Congrats. You're technically correct - the best type of correct - but you're still ignoring my core point.

That they chose to use a list of specific unit keywords instead of a less granular collective keyword?

There's a very simple solution to this dilemma that can be achieved in just four steps!

1. All marine units get a new keyword to indicate their type; MK X, PHOBOS, GRAVIS, BIKER, TERMINATOR, etc
2. A selection of space marine units get a keyword to denote them being the most commonly represented line units. It would include things like Intercessors & Terminators, but not Desolators & Eradicators. We could name this hypothetical new keyword 'CORE'.
3. Instead of a list of units, a MK X leader can be attached to a CORE MK X unit, while a GRAVIS leader can be attached to GRAVIS CORE.
4. This is the most important step. 40k players spend the next three years arguing that CORE was applied to the right / wrong units until 11th edition appears.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
The unit list is made up of unit keywords. You just want them to use more generalized keywords instead.

Congrats. You're technically correct - the best type of correct - but you're still ignoring my core points:

1. These limitations are arbitrary.
2. They create a situation that limits player choice, often nonsensically (X character can't ever join Y unit).
3. They don't make use of the Keyword system, certainly not in any meaninful way (yes, each unit type has its unit name as a keyword... but that's hardly using the keyword system in the way that makes it have purpose, as it's indistinguishable from just listing the units individually).

1. Generally, it looks like Terminator characters join terminator units, Tacticus with the same, Jump characters with Jump units, Phobos with phobos. Some exculsions may be arbitrary yes, but have game balance reasons.

Okay so what's the balance reason a Primaris Lt. can't join a Devastator Squad with Plasma Cannons but Hellblasters are fine?

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
The unit list is made up of unit keywords. You just want them to use more generalized keywords instead.

Congrats. You're technically correct - the best type of correct - but you're still ignoring my core points:

1. These limitations are arbitrary.
2. They create a situation that limits player choice, often nonsensically (X character can't ever join Y unit).
3. They don't make use of the Keyword system, certainly not in any meaninful way (yes, each unit type has its unit name as a keyword... but that's hardly using the keyword system in the way that makes it have purpose, as it's indistinguishable from just listing the units individually).

1. Generally, it looks like Terminator characters join terminator units, Tacticus with the same, Jump characters with Jump units, Phobos with phobos. Some exculsions may be arbitrary yes, but have game balance reasons.

Okay so what's the balance reason a Primaris Lt. can't join a Devastator Squad with Plasma Cannons but Hellblasters are fine?

Short version, to give firstborn Lieutenants a purpose to exist.

 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.

Errm. Desolators can produce 9 S4 shots - some without LOS - against a 6 model unit. That's a prime target for Lethal Hits ( if Blast remains similarly worded ) on a unit that will produce 90 shots.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
The unit list is made up of unit keywords. You just want them to use more generalized keywords instead.

Congrats. You're technically correct - the best type of correct - but you're still ignoring my core points:

1. These limitations are arbitrary.
2. They create a situation that limits player choice, often nonsensically (X character can't ever join Y unit).
3. They don't make use of the Keyword system, certainly not in any meaninful way (yes, each unit type has its unit name as a keyword... but that's hardly using the keyword system in the way that makes it have purpose, as it's indistinguishable from just listing the units individually).

1. Generally, it looks like Terminator characters join terminator units, Tacticus with the same, Jump characters with Jump units, Phobos with phobos. Some exculsions may be arbitrary yes, but have game balance reasons.

Okay so what's the balance reason a Primaris Lt. can't join a Devastator Squad with Plasma Cannons but Hellblasters are fine?

In this case it's a fluff-based reason - the armour types don't match. I'm pretty sure MajorWesJanson was separating out the two potential reasons - the primary restriction is based on armour types and there may be additional restrictions beyond that for balance reasons. We literally have a single rule for a single model at this point so we have no way of judging what the balance implications are of letting a Primaris Lt join, say, Desolators, especially if Captains can join those units as well. It may also be the case that a Firstborn Lt can join Devastators if you want that effect.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Okay so what's the balance reason a Primaris Lt. can't join a Devastator Squad with Plasma Cannons but Hellblasters are fine?

Because Devs can take Grav Cannons. Also, the HPI is one shot while a PC is D3 Blast. Devs and Desolators with a LT would be a bad idea, imo.

The promised vehicle article:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/13/vehicles-are-even-tougher-in-the-new-edition-of-warhammer-40000
Key takeaways:

- general increase in toughness on all vehicles (for example a Rhino now being T9, with Stompas cited as being T14)
- degradation in profile only on some vehicles, and on many it's just a WS/BS reduction once they're below 1/3 of starting wounds

 Daedalus81 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Okay so what's the balance reason a Primaris Lt. can't join a Devastator Squad with Plasma Cannons but Hellblasters are fine?

Because Devs can take Grav Cannons. Also, the HPI is one shot while a PC is D3 Blast. Devs and Desolators with a LT would be a bad idea, imo.

I'd argue another factor is that the units GW have limited external bonuses for in recent years have been primarily been things that hang around at the back of the field; tanks, devastators, artillery, etc.

They don't want captains & lieutenants hiding at the back of the table. Hellblasters are (typically) more likely to be a mid-board unit like intercessors.

Strangely there is nothing on the Rhino sheet about the actual transport capacity and which units can embark, only the Firing Deck ability for how many can shoot

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 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.

Errm. Desolators can produce 9 S4 shots - some without LOS - against a 6 model unit. That's a prime target for Lethal Hits ( if Blast remains similarly worded ) on a unit that will produce 90 shots.

Yeah that could work out differently, in my rough calcs I went with krak/castellan vs common targets as the most likely version of Desolators I would run. Would still be reliant on large units to shoot at to get blast (which may well be a more common thing in 10th), atm the non-blast output of S4 shots if you're going with frags isn't much different to just taking auto bolt rifle Intercessors though so not sure I'd be particularly bothered.

 Matrindur wrote:
Strangely there is nothing on the Rhino sheet about the actual transport capacity and which units can embark, only the Firing Deck ability for how many can shoot

Maybe, like in editions past, dedicated transports are bought as an upgrade to a specific unit, and can only transport that unit and any attached specialists; thus, any details about that process would be in the army selection section of the book and not on the sheet. Stuff like 'If this unit is 5 models or less, it can have a razorback, if it is 10 models or less it can have a rhino' etc.

That does not mesh well with the 'firing deck' ability that says up to two units may shoot from the vehicle, but that might be either a typo in the article (and the real rule would be 'up to two models may shoot') or be necessary for attached characters also being allowed to shoot.

Man, somebody in the studio is a BIG star wars legion fan based on the new rules formatting.

There's a lot to unpack from today's article, I scoffed a little at the chainfist rules, so used to them wounding vehicles on a 4+ anyway that the critical wound roll thing seemed a little meek, obviously it'll need it conversely.

If the HK missile is S14, what in the Emperor's name will be the Strength value of Lascannons?

 Matrindur wrote:
Strangely there is nothing on the Rhino sheet about the actual transport capacity and which units can embark, only the Firing Deck ability for how many can shoot

And I still see the "Smoke" keyword.

Hmm... seems that Rhinos are better at holding objectives than Terminators. I have to presume that OC is a "per model" thing, otherwise it wouldn't make any sense.

And is this the first direct mention of "mortal wounds" in a 10th preview?

Good writers borrow, the greats steal outright.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
If the HK missile is S14, what in the Emperor's name will be the Strength value of Lascannons?

 Matrindur wrote:
Strangely there is nothing on the Rhino sheet about the actual transport capacity and which units can embark, only the Firing Deck ability for how many can shoot

And I still see the "Smoke" keyword.

Hopefully 15/16 if we extrapolate from HK = kraken missile.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
If the HK missile is S14, what in the Emperor's name will be the Strength value of Lascannons?

 Matrindur wrote:
Strangely there is nothing on the Rhino sheet about the actual transport capacity and which units can embark, only the Firing Deck ability for how many can shoot

And I still see the "Smoke" keyword.

At least the HK-missile seems to be a free upgrade Could have been a stratagem as well.

 Matrindur wrote:
Strangely there is nothing on the Rhino sheet about the actual transport capacity and which units can embark, only the Firing Deck ability for how many can shoot

I wouldn't be shocked if that's an element of the "Dedicated Transport" bit.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Matrindur wrote:
Strangely there is nothing on the Rhino sheet about the actual transport capacity and which units can embark, only the Firing Deck ability for how many can shoot

I wouldn't be shocked if that's an element of the "Dedicated Transport" bit.

I'm sad to admit it, but the more i see of 10th the less i like it, we have seen very little so far but still they seem to be set on repeating all their fundamental mistakes: rules that give you additional rules that give you USRs, weird lawieresque ruleswriting, rules nested several layers deep, micromanagement of individual tanks headlights etc. via 'I suddenly remembered i have got grenades' stratagems and such things...