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:

 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.

Considering both Sponsons have a Twin Lascannon on them, I'm not sure where your confusion comes from

Seriously, that should be self evident from the model for which you spent time writing out your list and selecting before the game. If it isn't, they will have done a bad job assigning weapons to the model.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 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.

You may be thinking a little too realistically about this. A real world leader wouldn't be seen near the battlefield, that's part of 40ks charm. It's this weird mishmash of scifi and medieval knights where a king or leader might run across a battlefield to stab someone. Rather than sit in a bunker telling people to tell people to tell other people to shoot at the enemy.

In game I'd prefer a character to join a unit providing buffs to just that unit. It feels better for both balance, gameplay and the like. If a character needs to affect units at a distance they can get those rules, we've already seen the ork mek get a point and click buff for a unit nearby it.

 alextroy wrote:
Considering both Sponsons have a Twin Lascannon on them, I'm not sure where your confusion comes from

They're not called Twin-Lascannons though, are they? They're called "Godhammer Lascannons", and it is reasonable to assume that that could represent both weapons. Then there's an actual Twin-Linked Heavy Bolter that does have the Twin-Linked rule.

 alextroy wrote:
Seriously, that should be self evident from the model for which you spent time writing out your list and selecting before the game. If it isn't, they will have done a bad job assigning weapons to the model.

And it should be self-evident from looking at units card what it's default weapons are immediately.

Not everyone playing this game is familiar with every aspect of it. There are a lot of new players, and a lot of kids. And even for people who are familiar, and own so many Land Raiders that they once purchased one by accident (true story), I still had to do a double take because I wasn't sure under these new rules if "Godhammer Lascannon" represented a single sponson, or the entire weapon system, because the card does not specify, except on the back, which seems weird to me, given how the basic default armaments of a unit have been pretty front-and-centre in every edition of the game thus far.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Mate - I fething "moaned" because they could obviously fit all the information on ONE fething side - do you actually get that? Or is to much to fething ask for EH??????

holy gak youre annoying to read, this is litterally the best way to deal with it, you want a standardized layout, no matter if its an option-less unit or a unit that can take every option in the game. Stop complaining ffs

Nothing about what Morden is saying is unreasonable.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Nothing about what Morden is saying is unreasonable.

1) their approach was atrocious
2) where do you put the extra info if it's a sheet like bobbys?

How much extra info does Guilliman need? He has no options. Or transport capacity (I would hope).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
How much extra info does Guilliman need? He has no options. Or transport capacity (I would hope).

I've read enough stories about halfling assassins to know it's not safe to make those kinds of assumptions.

 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.

First one stops deathstar problem resurfacing.

Second ensures more control on what buffs unit can get. As different buffs are valued differently based on unit it applies but point costs don't change helps with balance. Alternatives are imbalance or different cost depending which unit character is attached(and if multiple characters in units was possible cost of characters should change based on what other characters are in unit...)

Whether you consider that positive depends on do you care about balance or not.

I suspect that the cards we are seeing so far have been dummied down. By that I mean there’s way too much empty space and that could mean GW blanked it out for now so not to spoil something OR give away info on the new edition. I certainly hope they don’t have huge blank areas on these giant index cards. If the cards could be halved in size & save paper, GW is going to hear from environmentalists for sure! 🤣

No One Important wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
How much extra info does Guilliman need? He has no options. Or transport capacity (I would hope).

I've read enough stories about halfling assassins to know it's not safe to make those kinds of assumptions.

I think they were more implying that a unit like a primarch would in theory be fairly complex. We have seen his datasheet and it does look like it fits without need for extra room.

tneva82 wrote:
Whether you consider that positive depends on do you care about balance or not.

Implying that the only reason to care about this is because you don't care about balance is too simplistic a take.

There are a lot of thematic reasons for certain characters to lead certain unit types, and if they've taken a like-with-like approach that kind of destroys that. No more Terminators leading Power Armour squads. Emperor's Champion can only be friends with folks in Mk.X Tacticus armour. And so on.

If the fear is giving buffs to units that should have them (and let's face it, they really mean Centurions for the most part here...), then the lists should be restrictive, not permissive. And they should make use of keywords!

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
How much extra info does Guilliman need? He has no options. Or transport capacity (I would hope).

So because guilliman doesn't need no unit needs?

Surely you aren't suggesting forgetting standardised layout like total noob or worst incompetent designer right? Surely not that?

tneva82 wrote:
So because guilliman doesn't need no unit needs?

Didn't say that.

tneva82 wrote:
Surely you aren't suggesting forgetting standardised layout like total noob or worst incompetent designer right? Surely not that?

Didn't say that either.

When you're ready to respond to the things I've said, let me know. I'll be waiting.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Nothing about what Morden is saying is unreasonable.

1) their approach was atrocious
2) where do you put the extra info if it's a sheet like bobbys?

H.B.M.C. is right though on the layout, there's no reason intercessors couldn't seemingly spread it across one side, then simply use the 2 sided approach for units with more words involved. On the other hand a standardised "you know what will be on each side" isn't a terrible driving force for their choices.

I would agree that the approach to the point was terrible as well.

So have layout differ between units?

Just like what newbie would do

tneva82 wrote:
So have layout differ between units?

Just like what newbie would do

Pick up card, look at it, see everything you need is on it, if not turn it over? I'm getting more and more concerned for the level of common sense in this community.

One side is for list building, one side is for gameplay. Arguing that it would be better if you had to flip only some of the deck over to switch between the two is a pretty... noob move as some would say.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
One side is for list building, one side is for gameplay.

And I'd agree with that if that was the case, except that's not what we've seen. Even with the Land Raider example two elements of gameplay - its transport capacity and the tank's basic equipment that comes as standard - are listed on the 'list building' side.

And none of it is necessary given the sheer amounts of blank space on the card.

The argument of leaders being tied to specific squads to avoid deathstars, fails to account that we are talking about gw here. it at most will be relevant until 3-4 codices in and then the inevitably broken codex kickstarting the ol powercreep will break it.

Not Online!!! wrote:
The argument of leaders being tied to specific squads to avoid deathstars, fails to account that we are talking about gw here. it at most will be relevant until 3-4 codices in and then the inevitably broken codex kickstarting the ol powercreep will break it.

I'd almost put money on Space Wolves getting an exception to it right away.

"Units that already have an attached character can also attach up to one Wolfguard Battle Leader."

We have already seen that regular marines get an exception

Question is just if it will stay with 1, or if old Command Squads are coming back

Removed.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
One side is for list building, one side is for gameplay.

And I'd agree with that if that was the case, except that's not what we've seen. Even with the Land Raider example two elements of gameplay - its transport capacity and the tank's basic equipment that comes as standard - are listed on the 'list building' side.

And none of it is necessary given the sheer amounts of blank space on the card.

Do you routinely forget what basic equipment your models are armed with during a game?

Any more straw tneva? Because if you give me anymore i am set for live by selling it to my neighbour farmer.

I made a statement of fact, we ARE talking about GW. We also ALL know that that means rules will be of questionable qualtiy and that limitations through rules in the name of balance are there to be ignored by gw ruleswriters soon after introduction.


At no point did i target the rule as a tool , contrary it would probably work if we weren't talking about gw, but since we already get haves and have nots with exceptions i just see it as what it is, cosmetic pr speak.

This probably rates as a stupid question, but does anyone know what the rough size of these new cards will be? I can imagine that it al being on a trading card sized card would be an absolute disaster for many players because the font would have to be miniscule for instance.

However am very much in favour of as much standardisation as possible. The more standardisation in layout, language, and concepts the easier it is to grasp new things and the more things that are actually special stand out instead of drowning in a sea of specialness.

Other than that, I'm a little concerned about the killing power of models like Guilliman. It seems pretty extreme to have so many attacks, even if only one weapon can be used.

tneva82 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
So have layout differ between units?

Just like what newbie would do

Pick up card, look at it, see everything you need is on it, if not turn it over? I'm getting more and more concerned for the level of common sense in this community.

So you want to spend first time looking at card sort out where's what.

I'm not even surprised at amount of incompetent noob designers here anymore.

Anybody who thinks card layout should vary based on unit shou'dn't be allowed to even suggest how things should be designed.

If you bothered reading the thread I said earlier that the design consistency is a good motivator, which I agree with. I was merely pointing out (some) people are capable of enough free thought to turn a piece of card over under their own initiative rather than being told to do so.

I'm not sure turning a card over to see what's on it is a horrid gatekeeping design tool. Also yes, I am an incompetent game designer and graphic designer, I'm not trained or experienced in either, but I'm smart enough to go "oh my stormraven hasn't got the transport capacity on the front because of the X rules and profiles covering it, wonder if it's on the back?" Same way I'm more than capable of seeing literally everything I need for a Rhino is on the front and if I turn it over once out of curiosity, it becomes immediately apparent why its all on one side.

 Dolnikan wrote:
This probably rates as a stupid question, but does anyone know what the rough size of these new cards will be? I can imagine that it al being on a trading card sized card would be an absolute disaster for many players because the font would have to be miniscule for instance.

However am very much in favour of as much standardisation as possible. The more standardisation in layout, language, and concepts the easier it is to grasp new things and the more things that are actually special stand out instead of drowning in a sea of specialness.

Other than that, I'm a little concerned about the killing power of models like Guilliman. It seems pretty extreme to have so many attacks, even if only one weapon can be used.

You can see them in this picture:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
One side is for list building, one side is for gameplay.

And I'd agree with that if that was the case, except that's not what we've seen. Even with the Land Raider example two elements of gameplay - its transport capacity and the tank's basic equipment that comes as standard - are listed on the 'list building' side.

And none of it is necessary given the sheer amounts of blank space on the card.

Presumably during gameplay you can rely on WYSIWYG to know which guns your model has, and come on, "I routinely forget how many people fit in a Land Raider" is not an argument in good faith.

But basically we're split on what's more intuitive: a consistent layout or less card turning and there's really no way to reconcile how we prefer to read data.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
One side is for list building, one side is for gameplay.

And I'd agree with that if that was the case, except that's not what we've seen. Even with the Land Raider example two elements of gameplay - its transport capacity and the tank's basic equipment that comes as standard - are listed on the 'list building' side.

And none of it is necessary given the sheer amounts of blank space on the card.

Presumably during gameplay you can rely on WYSIWYG to know which guns your model has, and come on, "I routinely forget how many people fit in a Land Raider" is not an argument in good faith.

But basically we're split on what's more intuitive: a consistent layout or less card turning and there's really no way to reconcile how we prefer to read data.

IMO the most likely reason for moving transport capacity to the back is because some transports like Stormravens or Kill Rigs might have too many rules to fit all on one side otherwise.
As it's referenced more often during list building than during games (only really matters when re-embarking something other than the original passengers), it was moved to the back.