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.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
What did you call it then? Ignore covers been around few editioes.

When the Heavy Flamer profile was shown, HBMC was commenting about it being pointless to have Ignores Cover as its own thing distinct from Torrent - I pointed out it might appear on non-Flamer weapons, though I was initially thinking things like Mortars might get it. Still, the Shuriken Cannon shows what I was talking about, that's all.

That was weird anyway, since torrent was a recurring rule across several editions, being able to project spray templates 12" (or 18"?) from the flame cannon (or whichever). It had no interaction with ignore cover, beyond 'you can do it from further away')
Not sure what torrent will do without templates, but the odds that it interacts with ignore cover were pretty low.

Possibly overwatch auto-hits/auto-hits in general

Autohit makes most sense. Alternatively flamers don'' autohit anymore

The change to Heavy seems.......weird.

tneva82 wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
What did you call it then? Ignore covers been around few editioes.

When the Heavy Flamer profile was shown, HBMC was commenting about it being pointless to have Ignores Cover as its own thing distinct from Torrent - I pointed out it might appear on non-Flamer weapons, though I was initially thinking things like Mortars might get it. Still, the Shuriken Cannon shows what I was talking about, that's all.

That was weird anyway, since torrent was a recurring rule across several editions, being able to project spray templates 12" (or 18"?) from the flame cannon (or whichever). It had no interaction with ignore cover, beyond 'you can do it from further away')
Not sure what torrent will do without templates, but the odds that it interacts with ignore cover were pretty low.

Possibly overwatch auto-hits/auto-hits in general

Autohit makes most sense. Alternatively flamers don'' autohit anymore

The Terminator's Heavy Flamer has a BS of "N/A", so autohit seems extremely likely.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Come on now. It's a bit much to complain about bolter proliferation and then turn around and fret that you no longer have the same previous function.

It's a matter of degree. It's one thing to say that there's too much bloat - there are 48 different types of bolter - and then watch them just hurl that pendulum to the other side.

Like I said before, there are so many different types of bolter that all serve a similar or overlapping or almost identical purpose (Boltstorm Gauntlets and Autoboltstorm Gauntlets. Bolters and Assault Bolters and Special Issue Bolters. Bolt Carbines, Master-Crafted Instigator Bolt Carbines, Master-Crafted Occulus Bolt Carbines and a Special Issue Bolt Carbines!) and I think that the three weapons Intercessors could get was perhaps the least egregious of all the endless Bolter nonsense.

Ultimately I'm unsure how I feel about this specific change.

[EDIT]: Thinking about it more, I think that the combined Bolt Rifle profile doesn't really remove the (limited) variety that Intercessors had. It lessens the individual elements (fewer shots, lower range, etc.) but at the same time replaces variety with versatility, and that I think is probably ok. What's more, with the reduction in range, I feel that we might see Heavy Intercessors keep their extended range (but also get a similar consolidation), and that might give them a distinct niche over regular Intercessors as being one of the few bolter gunline units that can still reach out and touch you.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
The change to Heavy seems.......weird.

It allows them to give Heavy weapons a different BS to a unit's other weapons if they want (4+ vs 3+, for example) and still get the same result we have now, or be more nuanced and represent more stable, specialised platforms with regular BS who can then get the bonus. Given how many things currently ignore the Heavy penalty anyway I think it's a pretty good change.

 Asmodai wrote:
The Terminator's Heavy Flamer has a BS of "N/A", so autohit seems extremely likely.

Or they could automatically miss.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Asmodai wrote:
The Terminator's Heavy Flamer has a BS of "N/A", so autohit seems extremely likely.

Or they could automatically miss.

I have some Necromunda dice that do that.

Slipspace wrote:
It allows them to give Heavy weapons a different BS to a unit's other weapons if they want (4+ vs 3+, for example) and still get the same result we have now, or be more nuanced and represent more stable, specialised platforms with regular BS who can then get the bonus. Given how many things currently ignore the Heavy penalty anyway I think it's a pretty good change.

That's a really good point. Putting aside the "people remember bonuses, not penalties" side of things, it actually removes the necessity for a lot of special rules. You don't need Havoc or Retributors with "move and fire heavy" rules if their standard BS is the same as the rest of the squad.

Meanwhile you could have a Tactical Squad Lascannon have a default BS of 4+, and which becomes 3+ if he stands still. So by using the weapon in its intended method you get a bonus, rather than getting a penalty when you don't.

Of course a Tac Squad Lascannon could be 3+, meaning that suddenly heavy weapon troopers get a boost, but who knows? We need to see the sheet first.

The biggest benefit of switching heavy weapons from a penalty to a bonus, is that if they keep the cap on penalties at -1, you don't get to ignore dense cover simply cause you were not aiming in the first place.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Melta is not a D6 weapon. It has advantages.

I mean, the one example we have of a previewed MELTA weapon so far is a d6 damage weapon for half its range. It's only more reliable than that within half range.

Is that too swingy for an AT weapon? We'll see - need a larger sample size to call it. The Hunter-Killer on the Rhino is also d6 damage, though.

Heavy on things like Dreadnoughts would also make for some more decisions- move to get closer/ melee range, or sit still as a firing platform?

Aggressors got a massive nerf, their auto boltstorm gauntlets are only 3 shots.

Well I am getting bit excited by this bit:

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

 p5freak wrote:
Aggressors got a massive nerf, their auto boltstorm gauntlets are only 3 shots.

Yes, but we dont know the units rules. They could bring back fires twice.

Slipspace wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
The change to Heavy seems.......weird.

It allows them to give Heavy weapons a different BS to a unit's other weapons if they want (4+ vs 3+, for example) and still get the same result we have now, or be more nuanced and represent more stable, specialised platforms with regular BS who can then get the bonus. Given how many things currently ignore the Heavy penalty anyway I think it's a pretty good change.

The CML on the Terminators lacks Heavy and they go at BS3 so I imagine a Lascannon will be BS4 on a marine pushing to BS3 when stationary.

Incentivizing the bonus makes for more engaging decisions by the player, I think -- especially since it says 'attacking model's unit'.

 Sotahullu wrote:
Well I am getting bit excited by this bit:

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

Bigger question- Why shouldn't Bladeguard get to ride in a Drop Pod?

It would be extremely backwards to bring back fires twice after halving their number of attacks.

The game desperately needs less overgunned units

 p5freak wrote:
Aggressors got a massive nerf, their auto boltstorm gauntlets are only 3 shots.

They'll still have their launchers. A single model producing 6 shots with decent melee isn't bad. We're just conditioned to think it's bad for 9th metrics. The only problem I see is that you'll have to roll the launchers separately if they are also not twin-linked ( which they could be, conceivably ).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tyran wrote:
It would be extremely backwards to bring back fires twice after halving their number of attacks.

Agree - I think they would just make it 6 shots if they wanted to achieve that, but they'll have an ability...I'm so curious to see everything and so horribly impatient.

I also realized that storm bolters are not twin-linked.

Yeah who gets to be Twin-linked and who gets double shots is going to be extremely arbitrary.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
The CML on the Terminators lacks Heavy and they go at BS3 so I imagine a Lascannon will be BS4 on a marine pushing to BS3 when stationary.

That right there is a further reduction in rules.

Sure, you could make a "Relentless" USR that means units are always treated as stationary for the purposes of firing Heavy Weapons and getting the bonus... but individual weapons have their own BS on sheets now, meaning that rule isn't necessary.

USRs are a fantastic tool for any game, but creating a base system that actually eliminates the need for a number of otherwise "obvious" USRs? That's even better!

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

 Sotahullu wrote:
Well I am getting bit excited by this bit:

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

Bigger question- Why shouldn't Bladeguard get to ride in a Drop Pod?

Yes, it is time for orbital drop. Make Primaris the Angels of Death they should be!

Slipspace wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
The change to Heavy seems.......weird.

It allows them to give Heavy weapons a different BS to a unit's other weapons if they want (4+ vs 3+, for example) and still get the same result we have now, or be more nuanced and represent more stable, specialised platforms with regular BS who can then get the bonus. Given how many things currently ignore the Heavy penalty anyway I think it's a pretty good change.

That's true. We haven't seen the Heavy profile for something that wouldn't be "relentless" in nature.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I just had an epiphany

Notice that the Aggressors, with two Power Fists, get TL (which acts as old Shred).

Lightning Claws are likely going to be gone and a single Lightning Claw would be just a regular Power Weapon until you get two.

 Asmodai wrote:


The Terminator's Heavy Flamer has a BS of "N/A", so autohit seems extremely likely.

Oh righto. Auto hit could be indeed just by N/A BS and torrent is something else alltogether. Forgot that the BS was N/A.

So in theory torrent COULD be still something else than autohit.

 Tyran wrote:
I also realized that storm bolters are not twin-linked.

Yeah who gets to be Twin-linked and who gets double shots is going to be extremely arbitrary.

Maybe, but with the goal of reducing lethality, I can imagine a general split of low # shot weapons staying effectively twin, like lascannons, while high shot weapons being reduced and given twin linked, like twin assault cannons or hurricane bolters. Not sure which side of the line say a twin heavy bolter would land.

Dropping some of the ridiculous weapons like twin heavy onslaught cannons from 24ish shots to 12 with twin linked would be a buff for most horde units.

The heavy being bonus rather than minus feels weird thematically. Why on earth is guy more accurate standing still than moving with lascannon than storm bolter?

OTOH I can see it from fun point of view. Minuses are more of feel bad generally than bonuses and especially screw low BS armies less than bonuses help. 5+ BS loses half the accuracy while 3+ loses only 25% with -1 to hit. And +1 only helps 50% rather than 25% 3+ has. So for once moving and shooting isn't screwing up orks totally.

Thematically feels weird but from game point of view I can see some sense in it. So not against it.

Going away from modifiers as a penalty/bonus or away from d6 would be better but good luck with either of those.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
I also realized that storm bolters are not twin-linked.

Yeah who gets to be Twin-linked and who gets double shots is going to be extremely arbitrary.

Maybe, but with the goal of reducing lethality, I can imagine a general split of low # shot weapons staying effectively twin, like lascannons, while high shot weapons being reduced and given twin linked, like twin assault cannons or hurricane bolters. Not sure which side of the line say a twin heavy bolter would land.

Dropping some of the ridiculous weapons like twin heavy onslaught cannons from 24ish shots to 12 with twin linked would be a buff for most horde units.

And then we have spinefists that get twin-linked but also kept the double shots.

So why are people so concerned about Storm bolter not being twin-linked? I checked some of the old books and they used to be Assault 2(5th Dark Angel) before moving into Rapid Fire 2.

 Tyran wrote:
I also realized that storm bolters are not twin-linked.

Yeah who gets to be Twin-linked and who gets double shots is going to be extremely arbitrary.

Storm Bolters were never Twin-Linked. That was Combi-Bolters and that's how they used to differentiate the two.

Not concerned per se, but rather to show that what gets twin-linked is going to be very arbitrary.