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.

So use 2 when you need to NOT when you dont

AND if you are going to have all that wasted space why only spell out one rule - the most fething obvious one of all


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Folks above answered that.

Two sets of info. One for list assembly on one side. One for in-game info on the other.

Landraider is a relatively straight forward unit. Other units have more weapons and/or options, rules etc, taking up more space.

Just…admit you didn’t bother reading the article, would you?

No I didn't read the articel I conjured the ifnormatuon out of my fething head FFS

 oni wrote:
One side for army building.
One side for game play.

Seems reasonable.

However, I'm still really curious to see a unit that has 15+ weapon options. I think these cards will be cringe worthy.

We’ve seen Intercessors with rapidly cut down bolt rifle variety. I’m struggling to find the relevant image at the moment though. But basically the Bolt Rifle is a Bolt Rifle, with three shooting profiles, and you apply whichever you want turn to turn.

So Heavy Intercessors should be super cut down, probably to Heavy Bolt Rifle and Heavy Heavy Bolter or whatever they’re called.

Surely when they said reducing the re-roll and AP/lethality, they didn't meant for Marines for sure Some bottom of the barrel guns and units lost some AP, but the big ones sure did not!

Also Guilliman with T9 is crazy. With Gravis heading to be T6 by reading the article, makes me wonder what the Nids larger models would be. Would be interesting to see them nbot following up with the increase on the same level, as is tradition. Apparently we are getting a similar faction previous daily starting now, so hopefully we'll see good stuff tomorrow.

 Mr Morden wrote:
As I fething said - WHY use two cards when 1 is needed - Expain WHY it needs to be on 2 sides

Because other units will need a lot more space for weapon options and special rules on the front and will fill the space the land Raider card leaves empty. Land Raider has 5 ranged and one melee weapons that use 7 lines. Say a devastator squad with 6 heavy weapons that need 8 lines, bolters, sergeants combiweapon, 3 pistol options or storm bolter, and 3 to 5 melee options depending on how they merge some. Getting close to 20 lines.

 Mr Morden wrote:
As I fething said - WHY use two cards when 1 is needed - Expain WHY it needs to be on 2 sides

Do you struggle with books, with all the page turning involved? Surely those should just use tiny enough type to fit it all on one page?

Do you struggle with English - although obviously not with making stupid comparisons.

It is a design choice. Simple as, if they put all the info on one side it could get cluttered for some units, so keeping it in this format across the board means that some unit will look like they could fit everything on one side, where as other won't.

This way it keeps it clean and consistent.

 Mr Morden wrote:
So use 2 when you need to NOT when you dont


No I didn't read the articel I conjured the ifnormatuon out of my fething head FFS

So cards should vary in style wildly? Term standardization ring a bell?

And good that you are at least honest.

 oni wrote:

- Definitely not seeing the expected reduction in AP they keep touting.

AP reductions are there. The bigger changes are in S & T.

Do note that the Heavy Onslaught and the MM both lost 6" of range. The Onslaught lost it's AP1. The strength of the HLD makes me think the Repulsors are going up in points.

- 10th edition will still be an overflowing landfill of stratagems. It's not six per faction it's six per detachment. If a faction has four detachments to choose from, that's still 24 stratagems that you need to know.

No, you need to know 6, because that's all you can bring. You don't need to go hunting in your book - they'll all be right on the 2 pager.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 oni wrote:

- Definitely not seeing the expected reduction in AP they keep touting.

AP reductions are there. The bigger changes are in S & T.

Do note that the Heavy Onslaught and the MM both lost 6" of range. The Onslaught lost it's AP1. The strength of the HLD makes me think the Repulsors are going up in points.

- 10th edition will still be an overflowing landfill of stratagems. It's not six per faction it's six per detachment. If a faction has four detachments to choose from, that's still 24 stratagems that you need to know.

No, you need to know 6, because that's all you can bring. You don't need to go hunting in your book - they'll all be right on the 2 pager.

Also if a faction gets 4 detachments i'd expect there to be at least some overlap in stratagems.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
As I fething said - WHY use two cards when 1 is needed - Expain WHY it needs to be on 2 sides

Because other units will need a lot more space for weapon options and special rules on the front and will fill the space the land Raider card leaves empty. Land Raider has 5 ranged and one melee weapons that use 7 lines. Say a devastator squad with 6 heavy weapons that need 8 lines, bolters, sergeants combiweapon, 3 pistol options or storm bolter, and 3 to 5 melee options depending on how they merge some. Getting close to 20 lines.

The repulsor has like 10 different weapons before you count upgrades and options.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 oni wrote:

- Definitely not seeing the expected reduction in AP they keep touting.

AP reductions are there. The bigger changes are in S & T.

Do note that the Heavy Onslaught and the MM both lost 6" of range. The Onslaught lost it's AP1. The strength of the HLD makes me think the Repulsors are going up in points.

- 10th edition will still be an overflowing landfill of stratagems. It's not six per faction it's six per detachment. If a faction has four detachments to choose from, that's still 24 stratagems that you need to know.

No, you need to know 6, because that's all you can bring. You don't need to go hunting in your book - they'll all be right on the 2 pager.

That one's funny. It's like being worried about not knowing Tyranid stratagems in an Orkz vs Guard match.

 oni wrote:
So far...

The Good:
- Characters joining units (again) but limited to one and restricting what units. Fantastic!

I fail to see why either of those are positives.

 vipoid wrote:

 oni wrote:
So far...

The Good:
- Characters joining units (again) but limited to one and restricting what units. Fantastic!

I fail to see why either of those are positives.

No more deathstars and GW has tighter control on specific interactions. Both are positive.

 vipoid wrote:

 oni wrote:
So far...

The Good:
- Characters joining units (again) but limited to one and restricting what units. Fantastic!

I fail to see why either of those are positives.

Limiting options means you are much less likely to run into unintended and overpowering synergies. Character A may have an ability that is fine with Units X, Y, and Z but is broken on Unit W. If Character A cannot joint Unit W, then it isn't a problem.

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 oni wrote:
So far...

The Good:
- Characters joining units (again) but limited to one and restricting what units. Fantastic!

I fail to see why either of those are positives.

No more deathstars and GW has tighter control on specific interactions. Both are positive.

The biggest positive from 8th to 9th, besides the AP system, was the change to characters not only buffing a single unit because it actually made them LEADERS of the damn army.

That didn't make them leaders, that made them dice mechanics.
It was wretched, with lots of unintended interactions and consequences, like Primarchs and chapter masters baby-sitting artillery parks.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

The biggest positive from 8th to 9th, besides the AP system, was the change to characters not only buffing a single unit because it actually made them LEADERS of the damn army.

It isn't really practical.

Auras are impossible to cost appropriately. If you're going to make abilities single target then you might as well have them join the unit.

That way the character actually participates on the front line instead of running away to the next unit and you can greatly simplify character protection.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
It's a double-sided or fold-out card in all likelihood. AoS has a few of them for big monsters/heroes.

So rather than having ALL the infomation on one side...lets make you cosntantly flip

I honestly get the feeling you just want to complain for the sake of complaining. I mean, cool, you do you I guess.

What a weird thing to complain about. "Relevant to the game rules" on one side and "relevant to list building" rules on the other is how I'd do it.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

The biggest positive from 8th to 9th, besides the AP system, was the change to characters not only buffing a single unit because it actually made them LEADERS of the damn army.

It isn't really practical.

Auras are impossible to cost appropriately. If you're going to make abilities single target then you might as well have them join the unit.

That way the character actually participates on the front line instead of running away to the next unit and you can greatly simplify character protection.

I agree. The problem with aura buffs that affect all is that it can mean the entire army gets balanced against that single aura. So if you skip it you are throttling your army.

Common problem in Blades of Khorne in 2.0 where every HQ(around 15+) had a somewhat unique buff.

I for one am not unhappy to see the death of the "Era of Auras", as I called it back in 8th.

Just wish GW's solution to aura-spam wasn't so fething binary...

 vipoid wrote:
I fail to see why either of those are positives.

Limiting to one reduces potential "Death Star" opportunities, as others have said.

I don't agree with the restrictions on who can join what units though, a bit like I don't like how psychic powers are now locked to specific types of psykers.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
What a weird thing to complain about. "Relevant to the game rules" on one side and "relevant to list building" rules on the other is how I'd do it.

What the model is equipped with and it's transport capacity is only relevant to list building?

Overall, the point being made is that there's so much "free real estate" on that card that it's not clear why it needs to be double-sided in the first place.

The model's wargear is on both sides of the page so that's irrelevant. Transport capacity only matters in list building if it's true that you assign transports to specific squads. I'll note that the front side of the Guilliman card is completely full so it's not like every card is gonna have a bunch of empty space, this is a consequence of every card needing to be the same size.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Overall, the point being made is that there's so much "free real estate" on that card that it's not clear why it needs to be double-sided in the first place.

Not all cards will have as much free space. Might as well just keep it standard so you don't have different cards giving information in different places.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

The biggest positive from 8th to 9th, besides the AP system, was the change to characters not only buffing a single unit because it actually made them LEADERS of the damn army.

It isn't really practical.

Auras are impossible to cost appropriately

Incorrect. Nobody wastes rerolls for things like Scouts or Gaunts or the small stuff unless yiure some fluffbunny that doesn'tcare about interactions like that anyway. If you're not assuming you're buffing a higher end unit, that's a problem already. GW tried this with how CORE works in the Marine codex, but then it leads to silly stiff like Centurions suddenly being unable to take orders.

So MAYBE you need to price Captains slightly higher because of that. It doesn't affect casual players because they'll take the Captain anyway and deck them out however they want.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Incorrect. Nobody wastes rerolls for things like Scouts or Gaunts or the small stuff unless yiure some fluffbunny that doesn'tcare about interactions like that anyway. If you're not assuming you're buffing a higher end unit, that's a problem already. GW tried this with how CORE works in the Marine codex, but then it leads to silly stiff like Centurions suddenly being unable to take orders.

So MAYBE you need to price Captains slightly higher because of that. It doesn't affect casual players because they'll take the Captain anyway and deck them out however they want.

Volkite Contemptors say hi. As long as there are points there will always be units that benefit more from such a thing than others.

It just makes characters into these static models that barely interact with the game outside rerolls and it tends to tie units together into blobs.

It didn't do that for all armies, because I cared more about spells than anything else, but that's rare.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
What the model is equipped with and it's transport capacity is only relevant to list building?

Overall, the point being made is that there's so much "free real estate" on that card that it's not clear why it needs to be double-sided in the first place.

The given purpose with the cards, from GW, had been ease of reference during the game.
Keeping the rules that are referenced during the game on one side, and separating out other text, is a design that is in line with that purpose.

Wargear options, for instance, is only relevant before the game.And while the question of whether a given unit can embark on a transport or not may be relevant during some games, it’s not relevant nearly as often as statlines or abilities.

The quesiont of real estate is simply a question of relevance and focused design.
One may agree with that design or not, but it is at least in line with the stated intent

The side also lists what the unit is armed with, which wasn't immediately clear when looking at the side with just the weapon profiles.

Now if the points costs were on the card as well, then we might be talking...

Preferably the model can serve as a referent as to what, of the listed options, the unit is armed with.
Otherwise the army roster, at least, should.

Wargear and Points can shift pretty dramatically (Immortals exchanging every Gauss Blaster in the squad for a tesla carbine, Points Values changing every 3 months, for instance). So, unless the cards are interactive in some way, having them printed on the ease-of-reference-side is kind of a hard sell (would make sense if they were digital, though!)

What you unit in play is armed with will be self evident given the models on the table.

 alextroy wrote:
What you unit in play is armed with will be self evident given the models on the table.

I saw a single Lascannon profile with two shots and didn't know if that represented both guns, or a single sponson.

To put another way: Basic information like what default weaponry a unit has should be one of the first things you see on a card. It's not just a component of list building.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Incorrect. Nobody wastes rerolls for things like Scouts or Gaunts or the small stuff unless yiure some fluffbunny that doesn'tcare about interactions like that anyway. If you're not assuming you're buffing a higher end unit, that's a problem already. GW tried this with how CORE works in the Marine codex, but then it leads to silly stiff like Centurions suddenly being unable to take orders.

So MAYBE you need to price Captains slightly higher because of that. It doesn't affect casual players because they'll take the Captain anyway and deck them out however they want.

Volkite Contemptors say hi. As long as there are points there will always be units that benefit more from such a thing than others.

It just makes characters into these static models that barely interact with the game outside rerolls and it tends to tie units together into blobs.

Yeah, the units that are more expensive and have more guns/attacks tend to benefit more, no gak. I already said that. Centurions are obviously not the only example.

Also a lot of armies already only use static models even when they don't affect much. You thunk Guard Commanders move around all the time giving orders or are they somewhat hunched in place? You think Crisis Commanders just stopped moving because they stopped being attached to a unit? You're complaining about a particular play style of an army in general yet don't want to acknowledge where else it affects or never did.

I like that it's possible to have Commanders that sit at the back commanding their troops. That was something I liked about auras (one of the few things).

Not every leader has to be at the tip of the spear. Nor should they.