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.

tneva82 wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
Okay then, let's have Morty be T3 with a 0+ and 90W. That should be plenty tough since apparently none of this matters.

I look forward to Fabius Bile or Urien Rakarth or somebody being T6 and you guys not having any issue with him being tougher than Abaddon.

(Oh no, they probably won't even have rules for Urien Rakarth... )

Ah yes let's have a fit without even full picture. That works.

Or we could be adults and see at least concrete picture before claiming world is ending.

Guess too much to ask.

Reasonable reactions? In this economy?!

I'm eager for tomorrow. I'm curious how the decided to handle faction and detachment rules for Necrons.

I'm hoping the muddled mess of 'command protocols' got left behind.

 Jidmah wrote:

Voss wrote:
I was unaware the 'lore' put a number on his toughness value.

Don't you remember that iconic scene?

Dorn: "Vulkan, what does the scouter say about his power toughness?"
Vulkan "It's over six!" *crushes device*
Dorn: "WHAT?! SIX?!

*ahem*
It’s Darkstrider that has the scouter, not Vulkan. Now he just needs a halfwit sidekick in a crisis suit…

Voss wrote:
I'm eager for tomorrow. I'm curious how the decided to handle faction and detachment rules for Necrons.

I'm hoping the muddled mess of 'command protocols' got left behind.

Fully expecting each character type to have a “command protocol” rule and a faction ability that governs how you use them.
See Ossiarch Bonereapers for inspiration.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
I didn't make anything up and I'm not frustrated. I posited an absurd statline (Morty's) that one could see as balanced or even strong (well, maybe I won't go that far) but out-of-whack with relative norms. Based on the arguments I'm seeing in this thread, most of you would be okay with that if the sum total of what makes up Morty's tankiness makes him, well, tanky.

And fine, maybe Bile's not a great example (though who knows). What if Marneus Calgar is T6 9W? That seems plenty likely. Is that okay?

I'm not upset, you guys just aren't engaging with my arguments.

Maybe having a GUO represented as a substantial amount of flesh rather than super tough flesh wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility given the diseased and sloughing nature of Nurgle and could even be an interesting way to make models like that stand out. Such a change is well beyond reasonable speculation, because there's too much info we don't have to understand if that would be a workable dynamic.

Your "relative norms" are based on your own personal preference and not much else. GW is making a game to represent this universe. You only figure that Nurgle MUST be a super high toughness with a FNP, because that's what made you feel good about that model. GW happened to make Abby T6 in 9th. He was T5 in 8th and T4 for the rest of history, but now -- right now -- suddenly he MUST be T6 or else it all falls apart?

Tigurius is going to be T4. Calgar will be T5. Because those are the toughnesses those particular armors provide for infantry sized models.

Gravis will probably be T6, but then it's a 3+ ( maybe 2+ now ) with no invulnerable. Trade-offs.

 Daedalus81 wrote:


Maybe having a GUO represented as a substantial amount of flesh rather than super tough flesh wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility given the diseased and sloughing nature of Nurgle and could even be an interesting way to make models like that stand out. Such a change is well beyond reasonable speculation, because there's too much info we don't have to understand if that would be a workable dynamic.

Yes, we agree, that would be cool and fitting for Nurgle. But that's what I'm saying - why represent Abaddon's toughness through ablative wounds? What in the fluff is there to justify that like there would be to justify a GUO having tons of wounds but low toughness?

Your "relative norms" are based on your own personal preference and not much else. GW is making a game to represent this universe. You only figure that Nurgle MUST be a super high toughness with a FNP, because that's what made you feel good about that model. GW happened to make Abby T6 in 9th. He was T5 in 8th and T4 for the rest of history, but now -- right now -- suddenly he MUST be T6 or else it all falls apart?

My norms aren't based on my personal preference; I don't really care. In this case, they're based on consistency. We know Guilliman is T9 and a superhuman tank. We know Abaddon is T5, even though I'd also call him... a superhuman tank (though admittedly lesser than Guilliman).

Here's another thought (and admittedly pure speculation). What if Ork Boyz retain T5. Should Abaddon be the same toughness as an Ork Boy?

Abaddon is, fundamentally, a marine in terminator armor. If he wanted to be ultra tough he should have devoted himself to Nurgle rather than playing all four gods.

T5 with 1 or 2 wounds, yea. I imagine MANZ could go to T6. That doesn't mean Boyz are harder to kill than Abaddon, does it?

Abaddon also had phase limited damage when Bobby did not. What's the overall logical justification for something like that?

His relative in-game toughness doesn't cause me any grief. He's fully marked and there are rules we don't have vision to on top of this datasheet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
Abaddon is, fundamentally, a marine in terminator armor. If he wanted to be ultra tough he should have devoted himself to Nurgle rather than playing all four gods.

He is marked Nurgle at the end of the day and as noted above -- we don't know the rules, but we do know they do something. And that could easily be +1T rendering this whole exercise totally pointless.

“Chaos Space Marines are hungry for power and destruction, and that’s what inspired their Army Rule – Dark Pacts,” explains Robin from the Warhammer Design Studio. “With them, the Chaos Space Marines are granted a boon of power, but such power comes at a price… The Slaves to Darkness Detachment further explores this relationship between the Heretic Astartes and the Chaos Gods, granting your forces different powers depending on their patron deity.”

 Daedalus81 wrote:

He is marked Nurgle at the end of the day and as noted above -- we don't know the rules, but we do know they do something. And that could easily be +1T rendering this whole exercise totally pointless.

“Chaos Space Marines are hungry for power and destruction, and that’s what inspired their Army Rule – Dark Pacts,” explains Robin from the Warhammer Design Studio. “With them, the Chaos Space Marines are granted a boon of power, but such power comes at a price… The Slaves to Darkness Detachment further explores this relationship between the Heretic Astartes and the Chaos Gods, granting your forces different powers depending on their patron deity.”

Yeah, you do have me there

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
HAHAHAHAHAHA

Look at that fething mess of the datasheet for Legionaires. GW legit didn't learn anything from 9th, and y'all said that something like Combi-Weapons being consolidated would help make things simple and less convoluted!

HAHAHAHAHAHA

The datasheet is pretty simple tho..?
And the consolidation on it makes it actually parseable, imagine if all the melee weapons were standalone options like before instead of the consolidated version now

Yes you're quite right. Chainsword, Power Weapon X and Y, Power Fist and Chainaxe takes up so much room WHEN THEY DON'T EVEN INCLUDE ALL THE WEAPON STATS AVAILABLE ANYWAY ON THE CARD.

Well looking back over the last 4 years we've seen:

close combat weapon
chainsword
chainaxe
power sword
power maul
power axe
power fist
chain fist
lightning claw
(include the eviscerator thingy here)

Become:
close combat weapon
chainsword
accursed weapon
Heavy melee weapon

So a 60% reduction of rules options but no reduction in modelling options. That is 100% simpler, more condensed and easier to balance and invalidates nothing apart from maybe twin LC on the champ?

We haven't though. Chainfists are still a separate entry as we can see from the Loyalist Scum datasheet. As well, there's nothing wrong with two different Power Weapon entries. Yeah we don't need separate entries for Mauls and Lances, but what didn't the profiles for Swords and Axes cover?
The sheet is still a mess with arbitrary restrictions, which bodes ill for the Plague Marine datasheet not getting a proper cleanup. So much for the Legions that don't follow the rules, huh?

Well considering we only have 1 type of profile left, why do we have chainfists still?

Not Online!!! wrote:
Well considering we only have 1 type of profile left, why do we have chainfists still?

Because GW throws darts at a board and people here support it for the sake of supporting it.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Well considering we only have 1 type of profile left, why do we have chainfists still?

Because GW throws darts at a board and people here support it for the sake of supporting it.

i was cynical, but pretty much.

Chainfists are unique, they are specifically an anti-vehicle weapon.

Something interesting about this preview is that the Dark Obscuration stratagem might give a small window in how the Death Guard might play.

Not Online!!! wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Well considering we only have 1 type of profile left, why do we have chainfists still?

Because GW throws darts at a board and people here support it for the sake of supporting it.

i was cynical, but pretty much.

Just the same as some people will gak on things for the sakes of it. They left the chainfist on terminators I assume because they wanted to leave them the option to punch tanks better, whereas they don't care for chaos marine champions doing so. They're going to apply things as they want, where they want as usual.

Dudeface wrote:


Just the same as some people will gak on things for the sakes of it. They left the chainfist on terminators I assume because they wanted to leave them the option to punch tanks better, whereas they don't care for chaos marine champions doing so. They're going to apply things as they want, where they want as usual.

Aspiring Champions already can't take chainfists, thats nothing new?

They couldn't in 8th either
They couldn't in 7th either

idk about before that because i wasnt playing back then and waha doesnt have data for it

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


Just the same as some people will gak on things for the sakes of it. They left the chainfist on terminators I assume because they wanted to leave them the option to punch tanks better, whereas they don't care for chaos marine champions doing so. They're going to apply things as they want, where they want as usual.

Aspiring Champions already can't take chainfists, thats nothing new?

They couldn't in 8th either
They couldn't in 7th either

idk about before that because i wasnt playing back then and waha doesnt have data for it

They could at some point historically unless my memory is on the way out. Might be a little too far back to be relevant in honesty.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Well considering we only have 1 type of profile left, why do we have chainfists still?

Because GW throws darts at a board and people here support it for the sake of supporting it.

Or - you know - chainfists have an actual definable role outside of being plus or minus a pip or strength or AP. Good grief.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Well considering we only have 1 type of profile left, why do we have chainfists still?

Because GW throws darts at a board and people here support it for the sake of supporting it.

Or - you know - chainfists have an actual definable role outside of being plus or minus a pip or strength or AP. Good grief.

So did Power Swords vs Power Axes but you're not trying to defend that change here. You fall for GW's marketing so easily it's almost sad.

Dudeface wrote:
They could at some point historically unless my memory is on the way out. Might be a little too far back to be relevant in honesty.

I've never seen a CSM Champ with chainfist or rules for it.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 RaptorusRex wrote:
My main worry with re: the attachment discussion is that Termie WGPL are a thing of the past. Ah, well.

WGPL?

wolfguard pogo laser?

Wolfguard Pack Leader I think.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

So did Power Swords vs Power Axes but you're not trying to defend that change here. You fall for GW's marketing so easily it's almost sad.

No, they didnt. The power weapons were all "take 5 points and allocate them to S/AP/D" Then you had Thunder hammer/powerfists that were meaningful because they hit an actually relevant level of strength.
Then chainfist that had a relevant level of damage to vehicles and monsters.

If you feel like Swords and Axes had clearly different roles, please, enlighten me.

A few things I haven't seen mentioned yet:
- Boltguns went to 2 shots, no other special rules. I quite like this. Perhaps not 'fluffy' but it makes the gun have a bit more punt on regular troops.
- The squad size is 4-9, so I doubt we have increments of box sizes and can take 6, 7, 8 or 9 models in a squad.
- I don't think we'll see free wargear rolled out universally this edition. The accursed weapon on the champion is better in every way than the chainsword. Weird to have this as a choice if there's no difference on points. GW would be able to, but I'm inclined to think otherwise for now.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
So did Power Swords vs Power Axes but you're not trying to defend that change here. You fall for GW's marketing so easily it's almost sad.

Oh, wow! My power axe lets me wound T5 on 3s! What an amazingly well defined role that matters! Surely it's been shaping the game and we're witnessing a true loss here.

And fething lol at "marketing". How did GW market this to me exactly?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Us3Less wrote:
I don't think we'll see free wargear rolled out universally this edition. The accursed weapon on the champion is better in every way than the chainsword. Weird to have this as a choice if there's no difference on points. GW would be able to, but I'm inclined to think otherwise for now.

Yes, but it isn't out of the realm of possibility unfortunately.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
They could at some point historically unless my memory is on the way out. Might be a little too far back to be relevant in honesty.

I've never seen a CSM Champ with chainfist or rules for it.

I was misremembering, it's in the wargear list for 3.5 but does have a "terminator only" tag.

I still remember the time before Power Swords, Axes, Mauls, and Spears were broken out from just "Power Weapons." The differentiation was kinda cool in concept, but really messed with modeling.

I'm still suspicious that we're seeing a mix of cards that will be in the Indexes and cards that are specifically meant for Combat Patrol. And that the cards for Combat Patrol are little more watered down and maybe don't use some specific wargear names. I don't know, just speculating.

The SM Terminator card lists Power Fist and it has the exact same stat line as the Legionary card.

It's also possible that (likely even) GW didn't proof read. I know GW has never made this kind of error before, but there's a first time for everything.

 oni wrote:
I'm still suspicious that we're seeing a mix of cards that will be in the Indexes and cards that are specifically meant for Combat Patrol. And that the cards for Combat Patrol are little more watered down and maybe don't use some specific wargear names. I don't know, just speculating.

The SM Terminator card lists Power Fist and it has the exact same stat line as the Legionary card.

It's also possible that (likely even) GW didn't proof read. I know GW has never made this kind of error before, but there's a first time for everything.

That would explain a few things, and we do have tangential proof for that in the two previews Termagant sheets, one of which has Rippers and the 'Endless multitude' keyword and one has not.

I'm 100% certain none of the faction previews are CP Datacards.

The only reason Legionaries have a generic heavy weapon is because the weapons that they can take include a powerfist and a heavy chainaxe. Those two weapons were incredibly similar and got combined.

I guess we can assume that every "same role, different breakpoints" weapon is getting consolidated then. Give and take there, I definitely think it's an improvement for modeling taking whatever power weapon you think is cool without worrying about whichever one happens to be best in the current meta. Also means that you can more easily predict the efficacy of models against certain profiles (hey ork player is it cool if I count-as all these power swords as power axes?).

Boltgun with 2 shots standard is pretty cool. I think Loyalists Marines will have the same stat for their Boltguns.

Abbadon seems about right now. He is going to hit hard, while not being unkillable.

Flesh metal guns look great.

Dark pact is brilliant! Very in keeping with Chaos, and has potential to be very nasty!

Can't believe I am excited for 40K!