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.

Making all bolters just bolters is a huge improvement. Thank god. It was an obvious example of something that really added very little to the game other than complexity for it's own sake.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

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?

So an Assault Cannon gets to fire after Advancing, and a Heavy Flamer gets +1 to hit if the holder doesn't move? If a Deathwatch veteran is charged, he didnt move so that Heavy Thunder Hammer is +1 to hit too?

 Asmodai wrote:

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

I suspect typo.
I find it weirder that its 4+ when powerfists on terminators are 3+

And twin linked rerolling to-wound rather than rerolling to-hit is going to take a bit of mental revision.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

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?

Yes, because if they didn't we'd get the rules lawyers claiming there's no definition of what a Melta weapon is. Even if we ignore that pretty ridiculous scenario, it's good rules writing to define these concepts somewhere in your rules, so you can refer to them later on. It means you can write "all Twin-Linked weapons" instead of "all weapons with the Twin-Linked ability" and have the terms properly defined.

At this point it seems like you're just nitpicking every last detail, to be honest.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

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?

So an Assault Cannon gets to fire after Advancing, and a Heavy Flamer gets +1 to hit if the holder doesn't move? If a Deathwatch veteran is charged, he didnt move so that Heavy Thunder Hammer is +1 to hit too?

Does the Thunder hammer have the 'heavy' special rule? Pretty sure they haven't shown a datasheet for it.

 The Phazer wrote:
Making all bolters just bolters is a huge improvement. Thank god. It was an obvious example of something that really added very little to the game other than complexity for it's own sake.

One might argue that it was adding variety to a unit that had none (Intercessors aren't like Tac Squads - their options are next to nil).

I mean, looking over the list of bolt weapons currently in 40k - there are 48, 52 if we include Combi-Grav/Melta/Flamer/Plas as separate weapons - I'm not sure that the real problem was the presence of Bolt Rifles, Auto-Bolt Rifles and Stalker-Bolt rifles as separate entities.

I'd more say it was the fact that we had Boltstorm Gauntlets and Autoboltstorm Gauntlets, Bolters and Assault Bolters and Special Issue Bolters. And also a Bolt Carbine, Master-Crafted Instigator Bolt Carbine, Master-Crafted Instigator Bolt Carbine and a Special Issue Bolt Carbine all at the same time. Or why Deathwatch Bolters had to be separate from regular bolters (the ammo should be core to the units when using bolt weapons rather than having them as a completely different type of weapon). And then twin versions of some of those.

The changes will resolve some of these (like the twin-linked ones), but perhaps total consolidation is not the answer.

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

Most Ork weapons are Dakka now, not Assault.

Hopefully all the other myriad bolter variants (carbines, marksmen, occulus etc) also get collapsed into just being a generic boltgun, with at most a unit level ability if they have an extra fancy targeter or something.

Assault cannon actually looks worth considering for probably the first time since 2nd edition which is cool, hopefully the heavy flamer also gets a simple but appropriate ability from torrent other than just auto hits.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

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

Most Ork weapons are Dakka now, not Assault.

Making a shoota "attacks 2, rapid fire 1, assault" could be a thing now.

So 4 melta rifles vs 4 asscan against a rhino...
And vs a Repulsor...
And if we have OoM on the targets...Rhino...
...Repulsor...


So Melta maintains the AT edge, but barely -- unless it's in half range then it still dominates. This is melta rifle vs asscan, which probably isn't a great comparison. I'm guessing MM will still have 2 shots, which would make MM far better even if it's wounding on 5s/6s.

The Razorback Asscan will likely be twin-linked, so it really gains no benefit into OoM and would be worse than a single asscan.

Interesting.

ERJAK wrote:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

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?

So an Assault Cannon gets to fire after Advancing, and a Heavy Flamer gets +1 to hit if the holder doesn't move? If a Deathwatch veteran is charged, he didnt move so that Heavy Thunder Hammer is +1 to hit too?

Does the Thunder hammer have the 'heavy' special rule? Pretty sure they haven't shown a datasheet for it.

Heavy Thunder Hammer is a Deathwatch specific weapon.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
So an Assault Cannon gets to fire after Advancing, and a Heavy Flamer gets +1 to hit if the holder doesn't move? If a Deathwatch veteran is charged, he didnt move so that Heavy Thunder Hammer is +1 to hit too?

Those are the names of the weapons, not the special rules. The special rules are defined next to the weapon.

I mean, you're really arguing that something called a Heavy Flamer has the "Heavy" weapon ability (or might get misinterpreted as such) because of what it's called? Weapon abilities are determined by the ability names in brackets. We can see that in the pictures clear as day:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

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

Most Ork weapons are Dakka now, not Assault.

Who knows if dakka will continue to exist in 3 months.

Slipspace wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

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?

Yes, because if they didn't we'd get the rules lawyers claiming there's no definition of what a Melta weapon is. Even if we ignore that pretty ridiculous scenario, it's good rules writing to define these concepts somewhere in your rules, so you can refer to them later on. It means you can write "all Twin-Linked weapons" instead of "all weapons with the Twin-Linked ability" and have the terms properly defined.

At this point it seems like you're just nitpicking every last detail, to be honest.

I mean, right now there are long list in some codexes that define which weapons and relics count as what weapon type for the purpose of other rules, makes sense to keyword that wherever possible... avoid long lists, use (defined) keywords.

You also have to look at future proofing. They can’t go back to separate weapon stats now as they’ve basically told Johnny he can model his marines with any bolt weapon he likes, doesn’t matter. No going back on that now without a lot of negative feedback.

Also, better get use to melta only wounding vehicles on 5s now!! My guess is the lascannon will make a big comeback this edition.

Dudeface wrote:
Who knows if dakka will continue to exist in 3 months.

Dakka's been around for years.

Tsagualsa wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

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?

Yes, because if they didn't we'd get the rules lawyers claiming there's no definition of what a Melta weapon is. Even if we ignore that pretty ridiculous scenario, it's good rules writing to define these concepts somewhere in your rules, so you can refer to them later on. It means you can write "all Twin-Linked weapons" instead of "all weapons with the Twin-Linked ability" and have the terms properly defined.

At this point it seems like you're just nitpicking every last detail, to be honest.

I mean, right now there are long list in some codexes that define which weapons and relics count as what weapon type for the purpose of other rules, makes sense to keyword that wherever possible... avoid long lists, use (defined) keywords.

It's a literal copy paste of the Star Wars Legion system

 Insularum wrote:
Hopefully all the other myriad bolter variants (carbines, marksmen, occulus etc) also get collapsed into just being a generic boltgun, with at most a unit level ability if they have an extra fancy targeter or something.

Assault cannon actually looks worth considering for probably the first time since 2nd edition which is cool, hopefully the heavy flamer also gets a simple but appropriate ability from torrent other than just auto hits.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

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

Most Ork weapons are Dakka now, not Assault.

Making a shoota "attacks 2, rapid fire 1, assault" could be a thing now.

I could see that. I would therefore love to see Big Shootas as Attacks 2, Rapid Fire, Assault, Heavy

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

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

Most Ork weapons are Dakka now, not Assault.

Doubtful dakka remains as rapid fire covers it.

Previous dakka 5/3 can be 3 shot rapid fire 2.

Could be assault as well as buff for orks.

As is unless they give it something new dakka weapons shouldn't exist any more than multiple ways to deep strike with own name for rule.

I like what I'm seeing here. Increasing the range of S and T values in the game as well the weapon abilities will hopefully enable them to make weapons unique and interesting without the need to just make them silly. A Railgun should be cool because it's S20 AP -4 and Dam. 6 or something. Not because the designers felt S10 wasn't cool enough so lol it ignores inv. Saves AND it's AP -6 AND it does D6 + 4 damage AND it inflicts additional mortal wounds.

ERJAK wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

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?

Yes, because if they didn't we'd get the rules lawyers claiming there's no definition of what a Melta weapon is. Even if we ignore that pretty ridiculous scenario, it's good rules writing to define these concepts somewhere in your rules, so you can refer to them later on. It means you can write "all Twin-Linked weapons" instead of "all weapons with the Twin-Linked ability" and have the terms properly defined.

At this point it seems like you're just nitpicking every last detail, to be honest.

I mean, right now there are long list in some codexes that define which weapons and relics count as what weapon type for the purpose of other rules, makes sense to keyword that wherever possible... avoid long lists, use (defined) keywords.

It's a literal copy paste of the Star Wars Legion system

That's mostly down to the so-called Anna Karenina principle: there are a many unique ways to be wrong, but only a few ways to do something right.

Heavy conferring a positive instead of a negative.

Calling it now, 10th is for Orks

 Insularum wrote:
Heavy conferring a positive instead of a negative.

Calling it now, 10th is for Orks

It's a great way to avoid putting penalties on an already penalized faction. It could make them way more consistent and easier to balance internally.

Marines now hit on a 2+ when stationary with 2 shot AP-1 basic weapons. Kind of silly but ok, we haven't seen what the other factions can do.

Apparently rapid fire is just gone, they haven't shown but did show Assault and Heavy, so I'm assuming that RF is just gone from the game and former RF weapons will have the Assault and Heavy traits.

Which unless they give "pure" assault and heavy weapons something extra, former RF weapons are generally going to be better than their pure assault / heavy counter parts, as they get both of those rules with no drawbacks.

 Insularum wrote:
Heavy conferring a positive instead of a negative.

It was Jervis who said probably over 2 decades ago that people are more likely to remember rules that benefit their army than those that don't. Seems to track here.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Marines now hit on a 2+ when stationary with 2 shot AP-1 basic weapons.

But not at 36" anymore, so that's nice.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Marines now hit on a 2+ when stationary with 2 shot AP-1 basic weapons. Kind of silly but ok, we haven't seen what the other factions can do.

Apparently rapid fire is just gone, they haven't shown but did show Assault and Heavy, so I'm assuming that RF is just gone from the game and former RF weapons will have the Assault and Heavy traits.

No, rapid fire still exists. I think you just missed it from previous articles. https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/04/just-how-tough-are-terminators-in-the-new-edition-of-warhammer-40000/

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Apparently rapid fire is just gone, they haven't shown but did show Assault and Heavy, so I'm assuming that RF is just gone from the game and former RF weapons will have the Assault and Heavy traits.

The Storm Bolters on the Terminator card have Rapid Fire.

 Grimskul wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Marines now hit on a 2+ when stationary with 2 shot AP-1 basic weapons. Kind of silly but ok, we haven't seen what the other factions can do.

Apparently rapid fire is just gone, they haven't shown but did show Assault and Heavy, so I'm assuming that RF is just gone from the game and former RF weapons will have the Assault and Heavy traits.

No, rapid fire still exists. I think you just missed it from previous articles. https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/04/just-how-tough-are-terminators-in-the-new-edition-of-warhammer-40000/

Ah yes, so I did. It was in the Terminator article.
Kind of weird that they put it there instead of the weapon article, but ok.
So rapid fire is just double shots at half-range. Fair enough.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Marines now hit on a 2+ when stationary with 2 shot AP-1 basic weapons. Kind of silly but ok, we haven't seen what the other factions can do.

Apparently rapid fire is just gone, they haven't shown but did show Assault and Heavy, so I'm assuming that RF is just gone from the game and former RF weapons will have the Assault and Heavy traits.

Which unless they give "pure" assault and heavy weapons something extra, former RF weapons are generally going to be better than their pure assault / heavy counter parts, as they get both of those rules with no drawbacks.

Rapid Fire still exists. I suspect the 2-shot Bolt Rifles are to emulate the current Bolter Drill rules, that gives SM 2 shots with RF bolters most of the time. It's a pretty good solution IMO.

tneva82 wrote:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

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

Most Ork weapons are Dakka now, not Assault.

Doubtful dakka remains as rapid fire covers it.

Previous dakka 5/3 can be 3 shot rapid fire 2.

Could be assault as well as buff for orks.

As is unless they give it something new dakka weapons shouldn't exist any more than multiple ways to deep strike with own name for rule.

I suspect that Dakka will be replaced with Assault, Sustained Fire X.
Seems to be the right approach.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

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

Most Ork weapons are Dakka now, not Assault.

Doubtful dakka remains as rapid fire covers it.

Previous dakka 5/3 can be 3 shot rapid fire 2.

Could be assault as well as buff for orks.

As is unless they give it something new dakka weapons shouldn't exist any more than multiple ways to deep strike with own name for rule.

I suspect that Dakka will be replaced with Assault, Sustained Fire X.
Seems to be the right approach.

Or even with Assault, Rapid Fire (X), Sustained Fire (Y) with appropriate values for X and Y, which would somewhat model the orks having problems with hitting the broad side of a barn, but still be dangerous due to sheer volume of fire on shorter ranges.