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:

 Overread wrote:
I think it should depend on the unit inside the transport. Group of Guardsmen should basically almost all die; meanwhile your lord general should have a much greater chance of surviving a blown up transport.

Which is my point. "Remove model" doesn't scale, so whilst you or I might think that Guardsmen should be blasted to pieces, the same shouldn't be said for a bunch of Terminators, or MANZ, or whatever. Which is why using systems that already exist within the games (the Mortal Wound system being a great leveller, as it impacts everyone in the same way and there are only a few ways to avoid it) would be a far better solution than "Lolz ur Captain just died on a 6!".

This. 'Remove model' style rules are hard to impossible to correctly balance in point-based systems, lead to swingy results where too much rests on a very small number of dice rolls, and lead to large swathes of rules and units being either unusable outright (at least for their intended purpose) or being 'fixed' later on via quasi-mandatory upgrades (escape hatches etc.) or pointless special rules that mitigate the risk. We had this problem in the past with the instant death treshold, and with the confusion around various 'slain outright' or 'remove model' powers and items. The key experience from it is 'Things that circumvent most of any given central mechanism of the game are unfun, impossible to price correctly, lead to rule unclarity and make everybody have a bad time'.

 Platuan4th wrote:

I agree, hence my statement aimed at what I was replying to: that GW means for Marine characters to always be up front. Clearly GW disagrees with that assessment and started giving Primaris Officers backfield weapons to keep them backfield and commanding while giving them additional melee characters to take that role.

The issue here is that the GW model design team with the GW rules team are two different groups with different priorities. The former may think that a marine leader with a rifle is a neat idea and design a model for it quite some time before the rules are written. However between 8th and 9th the rules team have blocked character aura effects from the vast majority of their heavy support and backfield units:

All tanks & aircraft
Centurions
Devastators
Thunderfires & firestrikes

Under 9th Lt's can still buff ranged dreadnoughts, but now even they look to be going away in 10th. That (perhaps) leaves just 3-man Eliminators and a few flavours of Intercessor squads if used with heavy bolt weapon options. That's probably the bare minimum needed to support and still sell character models designed several years ago.

Would you agree that actively removing over 90% of the backfield uses for marine characters indicates a strong preference for where on the table they think marine characters should be, and who they should be leading?

Slipspace wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
Do with think character Wounds will stay the same or go down this edition?

It already feels pretty weird for an infantry guy to have 70% of the wounds of a tank, but the amount of damage output currently requires that kind of buffer.

If most special attacks top out at 2 damage and -2AP, then hopefully we won't need 7W marine characters....

Given powerfists and chainfists are D2 AP-2 and are historically considered pretty powerful, and characters can't be targeted unless they're alone or the closest unit, I'm hoping we go back to a slightly lower set of wounds.

Ie

Marine 2W
Terminator 3W
lieutenant 3W
Captain 4W
termie captain 5W

guardsman 1W
Lieutenant 2W
Captain/commissar 3W
Colonel/lord commissar 4W

guardian 1W
warlock/exarch 3W
Autarch/farseer 4W


Something like that

I'd be surprised to see them go down. Maybe some characters will get an adjustment of 1 wound but in general I'd expect most character stats to be the same as they are now. I wouldn't mind seeing some of the 6W and 7W characters lose a Wound though. Vehicles are getting much tougher so, relatively speaking, characters are becoming weaker than they currently are. GW seem to want a less lethal game so it would make sense to keep defensive stats where they are and rein in the offense a litte, which the previews seem to be showing so far.

Characters will likely stay around the same, since damage doesn't seem to be going down. My big curiosity is how things like bikers and cavalry will go toughness wise.

Very relevant stuff from GW's twitter, concerning datasheets and the rhino specifically:

Deathwatch Kill Teams still very much exist in the new edition.

https://twitter.com/warhammer/status/1646557661863739401

Question: There's no info on the type or amount of units or models the vehicle can transport anymore? Can Primaris go in a Rhino now? Can you have more than 10 models? Where is the carry info? I thought all of the data we need was supposed to be on the warscrolls ... err Unit cards or w/e.

Answer: This is not the full card. We will show you all the information later!

https://twitter.com/warhammer/status/1646802540279783424

We'll have a full article on transports soon!

https://twitter.com/warhammer/status/1646809443533832194

 Platuan4th wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
Maybe they should stop giving them Marksman Rifles as an option if they didn't want Captains and Lts in the backfield.

They should increase the amount of ranged weapon options. The fact that some Primaris characters can get decent ranged weapons is a good thing. Not every character needs to be charging into combat.

I agree, hence my statement aimed at what I was replying to: that GW means for Marine characters to always be up front. Clearly GW disagrees with that assessment and started giving Primaris Officers backfield weapons to keep them backfield and commanding while giving them additional melee characters to take that role.

I didn't realise 24" range rifles counts as backfield now, like all the basic marine infantry they lead.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
Maybe they should stop giving them Marksman Rifles as an option if they didn't want Captains and Lts in the backfield.

They should increase the amount of ranged weapon options. The fact that some Primaris characters can get decent ranged weapons is a good thing. Not every character needs to be charging into combat.

I agree, hence my statement aimed at what I was replying to: that GW means for Marine characters to always be up front. Clearly GW disagrees with that assessment and started giving Primaris Officers backfield weapons to keep them backfield and commanding while giving them additional melee characters to take that role.

I didn't realise 24" range rifles counts as backfield now, like all the basic marine infantry they lead.

Stalker Bolt Rifles are 36" Heavy 1, my man. Also, the "basic" Primaris bolt weapon is 30" range, has been for 6 years now.

The Bolt Rifle may have a 30", but it is also a Rapid Fire Weapon. You are not intended to use it from just under 30", but from within 15". Only three weapons available to Captains and Lieutenants are intended for long range use. The rest are for close to mid ranged shooting.

As for the subject of Wounds, I don't expect them to go down. It would have the effect of negating some of the work being done to reduce the deadliness of the game.

My bad, I keep forgetting they upped the expected range of basic marine guns when they released Primaris.
Forgive my auto bolt rifle ways.

Weapon rules article:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/14/weapons-rules-are-fun-and-flexible-in-the-new-warhammer-40000/

The Primaris boltgun zoo is gone, hurray!

This flexibility is perfect for representing auto and stalker bolt rifles, which are now streamlined into the same weapon profile. All Intercessors just have bolt rifles, which you can build with whatever scopes or magazines you please.

And 'Devastating Wounds' is devastating:

Most important thing from this article

Next up, we answer the age-old question – why shouldn’t Aggressors get to ride in a Land Raider?

Interesting tease about Aggressors in a Land Raider there at the end.

I really like that terminator paint scheme.

Hopefully mortal wounds are relatively more limited, and we dont end up in the wounds -> wound caps -> ignore wound caps arms race again.

Wait, twin linked is reroll wounds now? That feels unnatural. I can kinda see the fluff reasoning, but it was reroll hits for such a long time.

Interesting, seems like the only reason to not Advance with a unit with Bolt Rifles when moving is if - for some reason - any other model in the unit is equipped with a different weapon or (assumedly) if you're planning on charging afterwards.

EDIT: Also wow I totally glossed over Heavy conferring a bonus rather than a malus. Very interesting.

 Scottywan82 wrote:
Interesting tease about Aggressors in a Land Raider there at the end.

Also interesting tease that the Railgun will be Strength 20, and not even be the strongest weapon around... which implies that there is still stuff we don't know about S/T relations, because there is not much reason to have values above 20 if semi-Titan war machines peter out at and around Toughness 14.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Interesting, seems like the only reason to not Advance with a unit with Bolt Rifles is if - for some reason - any other model in the unit is equipped with a different weapon or (assumedly) if you're planning on charging afterwards.

Want +1 to hit?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Scottywan82 wrote:
Interesting tease about Aggressors in a Land Raider there at the end.

Also interesting tease that the Railgun will be Strength 20, and not even be the strongest weapon around... which implies that there is still stuff we don't know about S/T relations, because there is not much reason to have values above 20 if semi-Titan war machines peter out at and around Toughness 14.

24 wounds repulsor at 2+ for one.

tneva82 wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Interesting, seems like the only reason to not Advance with a unit with Bolt Rifles is if - for some reason - any other model in the unit is equipped with a different weapon or (assumedly) if you're planning on charging afterwards.

Want +1 to hit?

Yeah my bad I meant "no reason not to Advance when moving" and totally left off the last part

I mean if there's T14 stuff, you might as well have an S28 gun however silly this may be.

So bolt rifles got the accursed weapon treatment AND drop to 24" range. I guess that answers the question about Lieutenants hanging too far back

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Scottywan82 wrote:
Interesting tease about Aggressors in a Land Raider there at the end.

Also interesting tease that the Railgun will be Strength 20, and not even be the strongest weapon around... which implies that there is still stuff we don't know about S/T relations, because there is not much reason to have values above 20 if semi-Titan war machines peter out at and around Toughness 14.

There's a few non-titan candidates for S20+ weapons in 10e. The Stormsurge is currently S16 compared to the current railgun's S14, while there's also the S16 volcano lance and S18 volcano cannon in Imperial forces.

Talk about a pendulum swing.

"There are too many types of Bolter!"
"Ok, well now there's one and it does what every type did but combined!"
"That's... that's not what we meant."
"Simple not simplistic! WOOOO!"

Overall the examples given seem reasonable. Assault can shoot after Advancing. Heavy can take aim for +1 To Hit. Devastating Wounds gets MW on 6's To Hit. Sustained Hits gets you bonus hits. Twin Linked is a re-roll To Wound... which is a bit boring, and will take getting used to on melee weapons, but whatever. Only one that's a bit off is the Melta. The damage seems very swingy, and no one liked super-swingy weapons in 8th, which is why so many Dd3s became D2.

Of course the verbiage drives me nuts. "Devastating Wounds" and "Sustained Hits". Why not just "Devastating" and "Sustained".

And then there's the needless legalese repetition:

"Weapons with [Assault] in their profile are known as Assault weapons."
"Weapons with [Heavy] in their profile are known as Heavy weapons."
"Weapons with [Devastating Wounds] in their profile are known as Devastating Wounds weapons."
"Weapons with [Melta X] in their profile are known as Melta weapons."
"Weapons with [Sustained Hits] in their profile are known as Sustained Hits weapons."
"Weapons with [Twin-Linked] in their profile are known as Twin-Linked weapons."

I can only presume they pay their writers by the word...

WarCom wrote:... while the Hammerhead’s infamous railgun soars to Strength 20.**

** Would you believe this isn’t even the strongest gun around?

Well I should fething hope not. There are Titan-scale weapons in the game after all. #Justice4Shadowsword.

If a rail gun is at S20, Turbolasers will probably be the same, while Volcano weapons will likely range from S24 to S32 depending on size.

tneva82 wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Interesting, seems like the only reason to not Advance with a unit with Bolt Rifles is if - for some reason - any other model in the unit is equipped with a different weapon or (assumedly) if you're planning on charging afterwards.

Want +1 to hit?

I think the comparison was between normal movement and advancing. Assault no longer gives -1 to hit

I don't mind devestating wounds as such, long as its relatively minor or rare.

Back in the old days rending did the same on basically most things which lacked an invun (which was a LOT less back then short of Daemons!)

Oh yeah... the Bolt Rifle range has gone down.

And now what you model them as doesn't matter, which is an interesting development, to say the least.

And the Devastating Wounds does present a scaling issue. If everything can still wound everything on a 6, then Devastating Weapons can cause MW to everything, regardless of what it is. They are just as effective against Grots as they are against Warlord Titans.

 Matrindur wrote:
I think the comparison was between normal movement and advancing. Assault no longer gives -1 to hit

Which gives me hope that of their special rules, White Scars will keep the "Assault & Charge" part.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:


Of course the verbiage drives me nuts. "Devastating Wounds" and "Sustained Hits". Why not just "Devastating" and "Sustained".

And then there's the needless legalese repetition:

"Weapons with [Assault] in their profile are known as Assault weapons."
"Weapons with [Heavy] in their profile are known as Heavy weapons."
"Weapons with [Devastating Wounds] in their profile are known as Devastating Wounds weapons."
"Weapons with [Melta X] in their profile are known as Melta weapons."
"Weapons with [Sustained Hits] in their profile are known as Sustained Hits weapons."
"Weapons with [Twin-Linked] in their profile are known as Twin-Linked weapons."

I can only presume they pay their writers by the word...

Because Devastating wound triggers off the wound roll, and sustained hits trigger off the hit roll. More intuitive name for the rule. There are also Critical hits and Critical Wounds. Shortening that to just Critical would make it unclear.

It's a bit wordy, but a result of giving variable keywords to weapons. Melta 1, 2, or 4 are all Melta weapons, so a rule like say ceramite plating that says "Melta weapons dont get the bonus damage" doesn't have to specify all the possible values. You wanted GW to do more with keywords, this is just a way to do so and account for rules lawyers.

 Gir Spirit Bane wrote:
I don't mind devestating wounds as such, long as its relatively minor or rare.

Back in the old days rending did the same on basically most things which lacked an invun (which was a LOT less back then short of Daemons!)

I'm not terribly impressed with it, if I'm understanding it right.
Devastating procs on Critical Wounds, not Critical Hits.
So an assault cannon hits an average of 4 times, and likely (against T4 or T5) does around 2-3 wounds, with one of those maybe being mortal. Essentially, every other turn per assault cannon, you're likely to slip past a single save.


Glad to see bolt rifles collapse into a single wave-form. That's an unabashed victory for the edition.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:


Of course the verbiage drives me nuts. "Devastating Wounds" and "Sustained Hits". Why not just "Devastating" and "Sustained".

And then there's the needless legalese repetition:

"Weapons with [Assault] in their profile are known as Assault weapons."
"Weapons with [Heavy] in their profile are known as Heavy weapons."
"Weapons with [Devastating Wounds] in their profile are known as Devastating Wounds weapons."
"Weapons with [Melta X] in their profile are known as Melta weapons."
"Weapons with [Sustained Hits] in their profile are known as Sustained Hits weapons."
"Weapons with [Twin-Linked] in their profile are known as Twin-Linked weapons."

I can only presume they pay their writers by the word...

Because Devastating wound triggers off the wound roll, and sustained hits trigger off the hit roll. More intuitive name for the rule. There are also Critical hits and Critical Wounds. Shortening that to just Critical would make it unclear.

It's a bit wordy, but a result of giving variable keywords to weapons. Melta 1, 2, or 4 are all Melta weapons, so a rule like say ceramite plating that says "Melta weapons dont get the bonus damage" doesn't have to specify all the possible values. You wanted GW to do more with keywords, this is just a way to do so and account for rules lawyers.

These vignettes also look like explanatory text from a rulebook or booklet that would not be repeated later on - it's okay to be a bit wordy once to make everything absolutely crystal clear, using only the keywords later on. You have to explain stuff like this for new players or people returning after a longer hiatus...

Tsagualsa wrote:

It's odd that the Aggressor Powerfist keys off of BS while the Terminator ones used WS - unless that's just a typo.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
Because Devastating wound triggers off the wound roll, and sustained hits trigger off the hit roll. More intuitive name for the rule. There are also Critical hits and Critical Wounds. Shortening that to just Critical would make it unclear.

And Heavy triggers off of not moving... should that be in its name? Heavy Stationary?

They're unnecessary words.

And who said anything about shortening anything to "Critical".

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
Melta 1, 2, or 4 are all Melta weapons, so a rule like say ceramite plating that says "Melta weapons dont get the bonus damage" doesn't have to specify all the possible values.

Would it need to? You could just say "Melta weapons don't... etc." or even "Melta X weapons don't...".

"Melta weapons mean Melta weapons, so when we say Melta weapons in rules we're referring to Melta weapons!"

Thanks Xzibit-40k! Do you want to run over that again? I don't think you said 'Melta' enough times for it to lose all meaning.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
You wanted GW to do more with keywords, this is just a way to do so and account for rules lawyers.

There's been a problem with needlessly over-worded rules since the start of 8th. This trend is continuing. It's needless.

So...assault type weapons no longer inflict a -1 hit penalty when you advance it seems.
This is great for Orks.

Tsagualsa wrote:
You have to explain stuff like this for new players or people returning after a longer hiatus...

You think people have to be told that a weapon with "Twin-Linked" next to it is a Twin-Linked weapon? I'd've thought the name gave it away.

"Oh, it says Twin-Linked. Let me look up that weapon rule." Why is further definition required?