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.

Well, now that all Bolt rifle profiles have been combined I now have several Lieutenants and Captains that are useless.

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

...except it doesn't show that at all - as has been pointed out, I don't think they've ever been twin-linked as a standard storm bolter.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Well, now that all Bolt rifle profiles have been combined I now have several Lieutenants and Captains that are useless.

But they will theoretically get their own version of that gun with a different profile potentially with different name?

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

Does it though? I mean, it has never been twin-linked to begin with. I'd understand the frustration with a razorback loadout or a wave serpent one, but not really Storm Bolters as Storm Bolters have never been twin-linked.

Sheesh. After reading all these ridiculously over wordy 40k tidbits and the base changes in TOW. That's a load of money I'll save in books for 2 rule systems. Maybe ToW v2 and 40k v11 in around 3 more years may interest me.

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

Luckily easy to determine. Read datasheet.

So far this looks great. Thank God they condensed all the different bolt rifles, more of that please. No way we need almost fifty different kinds of bolter and now I can model them however and have a little variety in looks withought having to roll 10 different profiles for a single unit.

Hope they do the same with hellblasters.

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

I think the phrase "devastating wounds weapon" is weird. Why not just call it a "devastator weapon" to bring it in line with other terms like assault weapon and heavy weapon?

 Breotan wrote:

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

I think the phrase "devastating wounds weapon" is weird. Why not just call it a "devastator weapon" to bring it in line with other terms like assault weapon and heavy weapon?

It's an ability [Devastating Wounds]. Devastating means causes mortal wounds. Wounds means it happens on critical wounds. So then there can be an analogue [Devastating Hits], which would be the same, but for critical hits.

Plus calling it "Devastating Wounds" instead of "Devastating" makes it easier to remember what it does, since you know that it's a rule that modifies wounds. If you're running your game on keywords it's generally a good idea to use keywords that are easy to remember.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Well, now that all Bolt rifle profiles have been combined I now have several Lieutenants and Captains that are useless.

Because of their boltguns? If their bolt gu un was what you were bringing them for, heads up, they were already useless.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
Sheesh. After reading all these ridiculously over wordy 40k tidbits and the base changes in TOW. That's a load of money I'll save in books for 2 rule systems. Maybe ToW v2 and 40k v11 in around 3 more years may interest me.

Cool story, bro.

Backfield Lt used for buffing shooting didn't need a Power Sword, and playing UM meant a MC Stalker was pretty nifty.

There are definitely some good ideas here but the names of these special rules are asinine.

Instead of 'Devastating Wounds', why not call it 'Lethal Wounds'? Then you have a synonym of 'Mortal'.

Bring back jam dice.

 vipoid wrote:
There are definitely some good ideas here but the names of these special rules are asinine.

Instead of 'Devastating Wounds', why not call it 'Lethal Wounds'? Then you have a synonym of 'Mortal'.

Lethal Hits automatically Wound on a Critical Hit. They therefore need a different adjective to avoid you thinking Lethal Wounds automatically Wound on a Critical Wound.

Voss wrote:

 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.

Definitely typo, they’ve already fixed it.

 alextroy wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
There are definitely some good ideas here but the names of these special rules are asinine.

Instead of 'Devastating Wounds', why not call it 'Lethal Wounds'? Then you have a synonym of 'Mortal'.

Lethal Hits automatically Wound on a Critical Hit. They therefore need a different adjective to avoid you thinking Lethal Wounds automatically Wound on a Critical Wound.

Yeah, and they should have used a different adjective for the hits one.

 vipoid wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
There are definitely some good ideas here but the names of these special rules are asinine.

Instead of 'Devastating Wounds', why not call it 'Lethal Wounds'? Then you have a synonym of 'Mortal'.

Lethal Hits automatically Wound on a Critical Hit. They therefore need a different adjective to avoid you thinking Lethal Wounds automatically Wound on a Critical Wound.

Yeah, and they should have used a different adjective for the hits one.

I'm not saying you are wrong, but Devastating sounds more impressive than Lethal regardless of the actual definitions of the words.

 alextroy wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
There are definitely some good ideas here but the names of these special rules are asinine.

Instead of 'Devastating Wounds', why not call it 'Lethal Wounds'? Then you have a synonym of 'Mortal'.

Lethal Hits automatically Wound on a Critical Hit. They therefore need a different adjective to avoid you thinking Lethal Wounds automatically Wound on a Critical Wound.

Yeah, and they should have used a different adjective for the hits one.

I'm not saying you are wrong, but Devastating sounds more impressive than Lethal regardless of the actual definitions of the words.

The issue is it's also a lot more vague. We seem to already have half a dozen USRs that are just random adjectives that give no useful clues as to what they actually do.

Thank goodness the super minor differences between the dozens of bolt rifle profiles are being condensed.

I dig the new Heavy and Assault rules for bolt rifles, and I'm sure we'll see other sorts of things come of this. For example, a Heavy Bolter will likely have a base BS of 4+, but due to the Heavy rule will hit on 3's if you stand still. It's a way of keeping the same result from the previous editions without applying a negative...

Which of course means that if they keep the same 'non stacking debuffs', you could still get hit with a -1 and be back to 4's to hit even if you stand still.

It's the same result, just worded differently.

 vipoid wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
There are definitely some good ideas here but the names of these special rules are asinine.

Instead of 'Devastating Wounds', why not call it 'Lethal Wounds'? Then you have a synonym of 'Mortal'.

Lethal Hits automatically Wound on a Critical Hit. They therefore need a different adjective to avoid you thinking Lethal Wounds automatically Wound on a Critical Wound.

Yeah, and they should have used a different adjective for the hits one.

I'm not saying you are wrong, but Devastating sounds more impressive than Lethal regardless of the actual definitions of the words.

The issue is it's also a lot more vague. We seem to already have half a dozen USRs that are just random adjectives that give no useful clues as to what they actually do.

Really? I'm following them pretty easily, although I do have years of 40K experience they are playing into. So far, I have noted:

Assault – Fire while Advancing
Heavy – More Accurate when Stationary
Pistol – Unknown (shoot while in Engagement Range?)
Rapid Fire – More Attacks in Half Range
Sustained Hits – Critical Hits cause more Hits

Anti – Critical Wounds on indicated Roll against indicated target
Blast – Unknown (More/minimum Attacks against large units?)
Devastating Wounds – Critical Wounds cause Mortal Wounds
Ignores Cover – Unknown (ignores cover rules?)
Lethal Hits – Critical Hits automatically Wound
Melta – More Damage in Half Range
Torrent – Unknown (Attacks automatically Hit?)

drbored wrote:
Thank goodness the super minor differences between the dozens of bolt rifle profiles are being condensed.

I dig the new Heavy and Assault rules for bolt rifles, and I'm sure we'll see other sorts of things come of this. For example, a Heavy Bolter will likely have a base BS of 4+, but due to the Heavy rule will hit on 3's if you stand still. It's a way of keeping the same result from the previous editions without applying a negative...

Which of course means that if they keep the same 'non stacking debuffs', you could still get hit with a -1 and be back to 4's to hit even if you stand still.

It's the same result, just worded differently.

Apart from examples so far not showing that it would not result in same and would hurt bs4+ units most. Ducy?

I wonder if they will condense the other Primaris weapons as well? I hope they don't, at least for the heaviest versions of their weapons. I'd still prefer different stats for multi meltas on Eradicators, heavy bolters on Heavy Intercessors, and the heavy plasma on Helblasters.

 alextroy wrote:
Lethal Hits automatically Wound on a Critical Hit. They therefore need a different adjective to avoid you thinking Lethal Wounds automatically Wound on a Critical Wound.

If there are Devastating Hits and Devastating Wounds as separate rules, then this'll make sense in the end. If there isn't a 'Hits' and 'Wounds' version of the 'Devastating' rules, then it's unnecessary wording.

That is a valid opinion. I kinda like the inclusion of Hits and Wounds to tell you when they apply in the name even if there is no counterpart for the other rule. I certainly can't contemplate what a Lethal Wounds rule would do based on the rules for Lethal Hits.

Now we just need Lethal Damage to complete the trinity.


(God, imagine if that was some kind of new 'Instant Death' rule? )

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Lethal Hits automatically Wound on a Critical Hit. They therefore need a different adjective to avoid you thinking Lethal Wounds automatically Wound on a Critical Wound.

If there are Devastating Hits and Devastating Wounds as separate rules, then this'll make sense in the end. If there isn't a 'Hits' and 'Wounds' version of the 'Devastating' rules, then it's unnecessary wording.

Explicit clarity trumps the oh-so-horrible burden of having an extra single syllable word attached to a rule name.
With all the filmed games that take place, you can sit and watch people get confused as to whether their special rule applies to hit or wound rolls. This, unequivocally, helps far more than it hurts.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Now we just need Lethal Damage to complete the trinity.


(God, imagine if that was some kind of new 'Instant Death' rule? )

Mork knows I’d love some instant death spewing forth from my power klawz

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Now we just need Lethal Damage to complete the trinity.


(God, imagine if that was some kind of new 'Instant Death' rule? )

Mork knows I’d love some instant death spewing forth from my power klawz

A baseline warboss with just a klaw used to be able to hit strength 11 when stats capped out at 10 (so it didn't do anything), with Ghaz going even higher (IIRC he hit 13?). Even lowly nobz were generally at strength 9.

Here's hoping ork power klawz go back to being insane can openers. Because they frankly deserve it, given what they've had in the past.

Voss wrote:
Explicit clarity trumps the oh-so-horrible burden of having an extra single syllable word attached to a rule name.
With all the filmed games that take place, you can sit and watch people get confused as to whether their special rule applies to hit or wound rolls. This, unequivocally, helps far more than it hurts.

And if you don't know what "Devastating" does, you're going to have to look it up anyway.

God, I look at the weapon abilities in, say, Dark Heresy - a vastly more complex game - and I wonder how some people here would cope with:

Accurate
Balanced
Blast (X)
Concussive (X)
Corrosive
Crippling (X)
Defensive
Felling (X)
Flame
Flexible
Force
Graviton
Hallucinogenic (X)
Haywire (X)
Innacurate
Indirect (X)
Lance
Maximal
Melta
Overheats
Power Field
Primitive (X)
Proven (X)
Razor Sharp (Gasp! Two words!)
Recharge
Reliable
Sanctified
Scatter
Shocking
Smoke (X)
Snare (X)
Spray
Storm
Tearing
Toxic (X)
Twin-Linked
Unbalanced
Unreliable
Unwieldy
Vengeful (X)

Never needed "Devastating Hits" or "Vengeful Wounds" or "Accurate Hits" or anything like that.

Alex is the only one to come up with an explanation for this verbiage: There may be Devastating Hits and Devastating Wounds as two separate rules, in which case, the additional clarification makes perfect sense, and isn't something I originally thought of.