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.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
Is it possible that the combiweapon consolidation is for the combat patrol level rules?

It's more likely that the previewed combi weapon was just the boltgun section of the combi, after all why else would it hit on a 4+ (like when you fire both parts of a combi), and otherwise just be a boltgun with some rules tagged on. I also find it hard to believe that combi's are getting the accursed weapon treatment, when 2 new units in the launch box are being given combi weapons as one of their main features (and the apparent preview is objectively worse than just about any other gun option you could take).

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Yet you made that argument and stripped any nuance out of it that others will grant for combis.

Firstly, please stop bringing up power weapons. I'm not talking about power weapons. I nave never been talking about power weapons in this discussion of 10th consolitaion.

Now, with that out of the way, the argument I've seen here (and elsewhere) is that there's not enough difference between a giant chainaxe and a power fist to warrant having them is different weapons, and this is further expanded upon by saying that just changing a stat here or there (a pip of AP, the strength of each attack, the damage) just isn't enough. To this I say:

1. It was never a problem prior to this - I have literally never heard someone here complain that big chainaxes and powerfists aren't the same weapon - so why is it suddenly such a good idea now? Why is something that was seen as normal before now seen as "bloat"? Some of it, I suspect, is "Because GW said so!". In other words, because GW has made the change, and many people are just eager to accept whatever GW says as the gospel truth. I suspect if the Necron weapons had been merged into a single profile, there would be people here defending that right now. I mean, think of what happened with board sizes, and how quickly people fell into lock-step with that.

2. 10th has a suite of universal/weapon special rules that would allow you represent the differences between types of weapons beyond simple changes to Strength, AP and Damage. I actually agree that on a larger scale you could make the argument that it would be simpler to have them share a profile, and that reducing like weapons to a single profile takes some of the cognitive load off the players*, but the avenues for having weapons with a different niche using the universal/weapon special rules that are built into this edition of the game means you don't have to do that. It means you can be creative. You don't have to squish everything towards the middle. You can keep variety, flavour and choice by using the rules inherent to the game. They have no problem handing these rules out like candy to other weapon types, so why not these?

3. And what about just simple fun? Power Fists have been an iconic weapon of 40k since it started. Now some units just have "generic heavy close combat weapon". Isn't that just boring?

*But then I seem to remember you, Daed, being totally ok with the 14 various varieties of Scything Talons that came with the current 'Nid Codex. Do you fall into the "Because GW said so!" category I mentioned above?

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
Is it possible that the combiweapon consolidation is for the combat patrol level rules?

I think it's more likely that we're completely wrong about combi-weapons and we just haven't been shown a full profile. At least that's what I hope is the case. Me being wrong here is a good result for everyone. You don't want me to be right about this.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Ew.

Reanimation Protocols doesn't scale at all with damage taken; and a 'main focus' of the detachment is characters.

Hmm, perhaps this is was Gene meant about Warriors being weaker?

Certainly they'll rez fewer models during the turn, but I think most people were eventually able to work around that. Certainly this makes them weaker if the volume of fire coming at them isn't reduced and I think this is where the characters come in, but we'll have to wait and see how those all interact.

So Necron article.
- You will always regain D3 wounds. This is an ok change. Yes, you can't bring back as many models as before but you will always get something back, even your multi-wound models which didn't benefit that much from the previous version.
Question is though how it works with multi-wound units.
I lose two destroyers. That unit regains 3 wounds. Do I put two destroyers back, one with 2 wounds and one with one wound, or do I put one back with 3 wounds? It isn't clear.

- You're going to want Warriors in your list now for objectives. Not only do they regenerate more from RP, but they are guaranteed to have 3 reanimated if you sit them on an objective, and Crypteks, Reanimators and Ghost Arks will most likely be able to buff them further

- It seems gauss loses a bit of AP and gains the Lethal Hits rule instead. I don't know what Lethal Hits does (mortal wounds on a 6 to wound was it?) so I don't know how strong it is.

- Command Protocols are a lot easier to follow now. Before it was a bit convoluted and required a bit of book keeping.

- Monolith seems useful now. Eternity Gate is once again useful, as it has unlimited range like in earlier editions.

- Warriors are less accurate. That is bad. But given how tanky they can be it's probably fair

- Doomsday cannon got a huge buff. You are now guaranteed to have at least 2 shots, it hits at S15 with guaranteed 4 damage and gains devastating wounds when stationary.

- Protocol of the Hungry Void was once a command protocol, iirc, and is now a strat. This is fine.

Overall, new Necrons seem pretty decent and straightforward.
I didn't like how 9th ed RP was useless on multi-wound models and I though Command Protocols were convoluted, so its nice that they "fixed" that.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
If all combi-weapons have the same profile as the one we saw for Librarians, that would be a step backwards. There's a difference between a nuanced, considered position and your "all consolidation bad!" kneejerk reactions to every single WHC article though.

Except it's not kneejerk. I've explained my reasons why. You just refuse to listen.

Consider that there is a difference between 'refuse to listen' and 'don't agree,' and every kneejerk reaction after simply makes it easier to disagree and start disregarding your stance entirely.

CthuluIsSpy wrote: Question is though how it works with multi-wound units.
I lose two destroyers. That unit regains 3 wounds. Do I put two destroyers back, one with 2 wounds and one with one wound, or do I put one back with 3 wounds? It isn't clear.

It is clear, they're ordered 'if clauses': for the first wound, you don't have a wounded model, so you put a model back. Second wound, you have a wounded model, so it heals. Third wound, you still have a wounded model, so it heals again.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

I lose two destroyers. That unit regains 3 wounds. Do I put two destroyers back, one with 2 wounds and one with one wound, or do I put one back with 3 wounds? It isn't clear.

It's exceedingly clear. If you have any wounded models, you heal them first. If you have wounds left, you bring back a model on a single wound then start healing it back up.

In you example, you've lost two Destroyers. Assuming you rolled 3 Wounds and there's no remaining wounded Destroyers, you return one with one wound then start the process again from the top. You know have a wounded Destroyer and thus heal a wound. Repeat again and heal it another Wound.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Now, with that out of the way, the argument I've seen here (and elsewhere) is that there's not enough difference between a giant chainaxe and a power fist to warrant having them is different weapons

If youre talking about the heavy chainaxe, it only got introduced in 9th, no?

And it being S8 -4 2 vs S8 -3 2 really doesnt make a difference enough to warrant a separate profile.
And not every weapon needs to be represented 1-to-1 by the rules, having "Heavy melee weapon" means we can use whatever we want that fits our force better thematically. You can still call it a chainaxe or powerfist or thunderhammer if you want.

There's also a missions article, for those that are interested.

Can someone quickly dumb this down for me, as I ignored 9th missions completely and mostly played Open War:



Why do they have that caveat for the last turn? Why not just having scoring always take place at the end of a player turn?

Voss wrote:
Consider that there is a difference between 'refuse to listen' and 'don't agree,' and every kneejerk reaction after simply makes it easier to disagree and disregard your stance entirely.

That would make sense if people took any time to engage with what I'm saying. The most I get from people here is "Nu-uh! And shut up about it!". And Daed acuses me of removing nuance. Pure comedy!

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
So Necron article.
- You will always regain D3 wounds. This is an ok change. Yes, you can't bring back as many models as before but you will always get something back, even your multi-wound models which didn't benefit that much from the previous version.
Question is though how it works with multi-wound units.
I lose two destroyers. That unit regains 3 wounds. Do I put two destroyers back, one with 2 wounds and one with one wound, or do I put one back with 3 wounds? It isn't clear.

- You're going to want Warriors in your list now for objectives. Not only do they regenerate more from RP, but they are guaranteed to have 3 reanimated if you sit them on an objective, and Crypteks, Reanimators and Ghost Arks will most likely be able to buff them further

- It seems gauss loses a bit of AP and gains the Lethal Hits rule instead. I don't know what Lethal Hits does (mortal wounds on a 6 to wound was it?) so I don't know how strong it is.

- Command Protocols are a lot easier to follow now. Before it was a bit convoluted and required a bit of book keeping.

- Monolith seems useful now. Eternity Gate is once again useful, as it has unlimited range like in earlier editions.

- Warriors are less accurate. That is bad. But given how tanky they can be it's probably fair

- Doomsday cannon got a huge buff. You are now guaranteed to have at least 2 shots, it hits at S15 with guaranteed 4 damage and gains devastating wounds when stationary.

- Protocol of the Hungry Void was once a command protocol, iirc, and is now a strat. This is fine.

Overall, new Necrons seem pretty decent and straightforward.
I didn't like how 9th ed RP was useless on multi-wound models and I though Command Protocols were convoluted, so its nice that they "fixed" that.

going on a limb here, my guess is the BS of 4+ on warriors is to encourage you to use character leaders to boost it back to 3+ on units you wish to be dealing damage with, and leaving the leaderless units as simple "mass" with a more limited ability to act but useful for guarding the rear, screening out deep strike, etc.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
If youre talking about the heavy chainaxe, it only got introduced in 9th, no?

If that's material to the discussion, then yes.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
And it being S8 -4 2 vs S8 -3 2 really doesnt make a difference enough to warrant a separate profile. And not every weapon needs to be represented 1-to-1 by the rules, having "Heavy melee weapon" means we can use whatever we want that fits our force better thematically. You can still call it a chainaxe or powerfist or thunderhammer if you want.

I literally just addressed that in the post you quoted. Or did you just stop reading after that sentence and hit "reply"?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Why do they have that caveat for the last turn? Why not just having scoring always take place at the end of a player turn?

It gives the person going last a final chance to move on to objectives and score points instead of that last turn being useless with regards to mission.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Why do they have that caveat for the last turn? Why not just having scoring always take place at the end of a player turn?

if they didnt, playing the last turn would be useless since scoring would happen at its start.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

I lose two destroyers. That unit regains 3 wounds. Do I put two destroyers back, one with 2 wounds and one with one wound, or do I put one back with 3 wounds? It isn't clear.

It's exceedingly clear. If you have any wounded models, you heal them first. If you have wounds left, you bring back a model on a single wound then start healing it back up.

In you example, you've lost two Destroyers. Assuming you rolled 3 Wounds and there's no remaining wounded Destroyers, you return one with one wound then start the process again from the top. You know have a wounded Destroyer and thus heal a wound. Repeat again and heal it another Wound.

Ah, so you check the conditions for each wound you regain then? I figured that might have been the case, but I wasn't sure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

xerxeskingofking wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
So Necron article.
- You will always regain D3 wounds. This is an ok change. Yes, you can't bring back as many models as before but you will always get something back, even your multi-wound models which didn't benefit that much from the previous version.
Question is though how it works with multi-wound units.
I lose two destroyers. That unit regains 3 wounds. Do I put two destroyers back, one with 2 wounds and one with one wound, or do I put one back with 3 wounds? It isn't clear.

- You're going to want Warriors in your list now for objectives. Not only do they regenerate more from RP, but they are guaranteed to have 3 reanimated if you sit them on an objective, and Crypteks, Reanimators and Ghost Arks will most likely be able to buff them further

- It seems gauss loses a bit of AP and gains the Lethal Hits rule instead. I don't know what Lethal Hits does (mortal wounds on a 6 to wound was it?) so I don't know how strong it is.

- Command Protocols are a lot easier to follow now. Before it was a bit convoluted and required a bit of book keeping.

- Monolith seems useful now. Eternity Gate is once again useful, as it has unlimited range like in earlier editions.

- Warriors are less accurate. That is bad. But given how tanky they can be it's probably fair

- Doomsday cannon got a huge buff. You are now guaranteed to have at least 2 shots, it hits at S15 with guaranteed 4 damage and gains devastating wounds when stationary.

- Protocol of the Hungry Void was once a command protocol, iirc, and is now a strat. This is fine.

Overall, new Necrons seem pretty decent and straightforward.
I didn't like how 9th ed RP was useless on multi-wound models and I though Command Protocols were convoluted, so its nice that they "fixed" that.

going on a limb here, my guess is the BS of 4+ on warriors is to encourage you to use character leaders to boost it back to 3+ on units you wish to be dealing damage with, and leaving the leaderless units as simple "mass" with a more limited ability to act but useful for guarding the rear, screening out deep strike, etc.

That makes sense, Command Protocols do give a +1 to hit now and it seems they want to encourage necron players to field more characters.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
That would make sense if people took any time to engage with what I'm saying. The most I get from people here is "Nu-uh! And shut up about it!". And Daed acuses me of removing nuance. Pure comedy!

what lol? We've told you our stance on it, and you've just attacked and branded us consolidationists, or said gak like "you fell for the GW marketing" and you keep posting overly negative comments about the reveals

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Ah, so you check the conditions for each wound you regain then? I figured that might have been the case, but I wasn't sure.

If it helps, think of it like IF/THEN style coding.

I was thinking that works more like a do/while loop (as you are checking it for each iteration), but that can have if/then as well so...yeah checks out.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
if they didnt, playing the last turn would be useless since scoring would happen at its start.

*clears throat loudly*

Then why not just having scoring always take place at the end of a player turn?

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
what lol? We've told you our stance on it, and you've just attacked and branded us consolidationists, or said gak like "you fell for the GW marketing" and you keep posting overly negative comments about the reveals

And here is yet another post of you talking about me rather than the points I've raised. Ever plan on addressing those?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
So Necron article.
- You will always regain D3 wounds. This is an ok change. Yes, you can't bring back as many models as before but you will always get something back, even your multi-wound models which didn't benefit that much from the previous version.
Question is though how it works with multi-wound units.
I lose two destroyers. That unit regains 3 wounds. Do I put two destroyers back, one with 2 wounds and one with one wound, or do I put one back with 3 wounds? It isn't clear.

It actually is clear, it just goes about it in a convoluted way.

If you roll 3, you got 3 'reanimation points' to spend. You check if all models in the unit have their starting wounds. If not, you spend a reanimation point and heal a wound on a model. If yes, you check if the unit is at starting strength. If yes, the sequence ends and points remaining are wasted. If not, you bring back one model with 1 wound, again spending a point. Now you start from the beginning, see that you now have a model with less than their starting wounds, spend points to fill that back up and so on. You only ever can get a model back if all existing models have full wounds.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
if they didnt, playing the last turn would be useless since scoring would happen at its start.

*cough*

Then why not just having scoring always take place at the end of a player turn?

Because that doesn't allow your opponent the chance to push you off points before you score from that turn's actions.

 Platuan4th wrote:
Because that doesn't allow your opponent the chance to push you off points before you score from that turn's actions.

In the first turn? Ok. Gotcha.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
if they didnt, playing the last turn would be useless since scoring would happen at its start.

*clears throat loudly*

Then why not just having scoring always take place at the end of a player turn?

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
what lol? We've told you our stance on it, and you've just attacked and branded us consolidationists, or said gak like "you fell for the GW marketing" and you keep posting overly negative comments about the reveals

And here is yet another post of you talking about me rather than the points I've raised. Ever plan on addressing those?

It takes a mo to get your head around, but it's a balance thing.

Scoring in command phase means you cant just do a thing and get instant gratification - you need to take an objective and hold it throughout your opponents turn.

This way, both players have a built in advantage:
Go first, alpha strike (uncontested 1st shots at opponent)
Go second, have the final say on missions (uncontested final turn of scoring)

So it both protects against "First Turn Wins", but also means there's a point to the final turn as the person going last can have a "final push" to make claw a victory back. Alrighty. That makes sense. Thanks.

And speaking of things that make sense:



Now that's enticing. These missions have gambits, but this here is a gamble. Makes mission objectives themselves more interactive and with a greater degree of player choice, especially when - from everything we've been told - CP don't exactly grow on trees in 10th.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
if they didnt, playing the last turn would be useless since scoring would happen at its start.

*clears throat loudly*

Then why not just having scoring always take place at the end of a player turn?

So there is counterplay, otherwise fast armies can just zoom on an objective with sacrificial units i guess, and to incentivise people to bring resilient units since they have to last one turn


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
what lol? We've told you our stance on it, and you've just attacked and branded us consolidationists, or said gak like "you fell for the GW marketing" and you keep posting overly negative comments about the reveals

And here is yet another post of you talking about me rather than the points I've raised. Ever plan on addressing those?

Look man, i'm done, you're going on the ignore list after this post.
I HAVE talked about the points you raised MULTIPLE times....

since you apparently missed these posts here's a recap :

IN MY OPINION :
-Power weapons didnt have enough variety between them to warrant different stats
-Heavy melee weapons either
-At the scale that 40k takes place, putting weapons into broad roles is better than having every single option be a unique profile with specific rules for it
-IF combi weapons are really all consolidated like on the librarian datasheet, it sucks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I was thinking that works more like a do/while loop (as you are checking it for each iteration), but that can have if/then as well so...yeah checks out.

int reanimationPoints = roll(d3) while ( reanimationPoints > 0 ) { if(Unit.IsDamaged()){ Unit.Heal(1); } else{ Unit.Revive(1); } reanimationPoints--; }

Yeah, something like that

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
-Power weapons didnt have enough variety between them to warrant different stats

I don't necessarily disagree, but at the same time I don't see why you can't have different weapons just because it's fun to have different weapons. Lightning Claws are the one thing I think should be separated out, but whatever...

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
-Heavy melee weapons either

Heavy melee weapons are the ones where I think they should, because I don't think that all heavy melee weapons should do the same thing.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
-At the scale that 40k takes place, putting weapons into broad roles is better than having every single option be a unique profile with specific rules for it

But where is that line? At what point does something deserve a unique profile compared to other weapons that don't?

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Look man, i'm done, you're going on the ignore list after this post.

*shrugs* Your loss.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Ew.

Reanimation Protocols doesn't scale at all with damage taken; and a 'main focus' of the detachment is characters.

Hmm, perhaps this is was Gene meant about Warriors being weaker?

Certainly they'll rez fewer models during the turn, but I think most people were eventually able to work around that. Certainly this makes them weaker if the volume of fire coming at them isn't reduced and I think this is where the characters come in, but we'll have to wait and see how those all interact.

Sorry, not necessarily the rez thing (that feels like a sidegrade that could turn out to be better or worse depending on army comp). I meant the Warriors hitting on 4s; I'm not a fan of that at all. Characters joining units mitigate that but as others have said, I just don't like the idea of an effective Crons list being that character heavy. YMMV though, it's personal preference.

Yeah, I'm not too keen on the characters focus either.
They're really pushing the dynastic aspect and I'm not a fan.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Firstly, please stop bringing up power weapons. I'm not talking about power weapons. I nave never been talking about power weapons in this discussion of 10th consolitaion.

Now, with that out of the way, the argument I've seen here (and elsewhere) is that there's not enough difference between a giant chainaxe and a power fist to warrant having them is different weapons, and this is further expanded upon by saying that just changing a stat here or there (a pip of AP, the strength of each attack, the damage) just isn't enough. To this I say:

1. It was never a problem prior to this - I have literally never heard someone here complain that big chainaxes and powerfists aren't the same weapon - so why is it suddenly such a good idea now? Why is something that was seen as normal before now seen as "bloat"? Some of it, I suspect, is "Because GW said so!". In other words, because GW has made the change, and many people are just eager to accept whatever GW says as the gospel truth. I suspect if the Necron weapons had been merged into a single profile, there would be people here defending that right now. I mean, think of what happened with board sizes, and how quickly people fell into lock-step with that.

2. 10th has a suite of universal/weapon special rules that would allow you represent the differences between types of weapons beyond simple changes to Strength, AP and Damage. I actually agree that on a larger scale you could make the argument that it would be simpler to have them share a profile, and that reducing like weapons to a single profile takes some of the cognitive load off the players*, but the avenues for having weapons with a different niche using the universal/weapon special rules that are built into this edition of the game means you don't have to do that. It means you can be creative. You don't have to squish everything towards the middle. You can keep variety, flavour and choice by using the rules inherent to the game. They have no problem handing these rules out like candy to other weapon types, so why not these?

3. And what about just simple fun? Power Fists have been an iconic weapon of 40k since it started. Now some units just have "generic heavy close combat weapon". Isn't that just boring?

*But then I seem to remember you, Daed, being totally ok with the 14 various varieties of Scything Talons that came with the current 'Nid Codex. Do you fall into the "Because GW said so!" category I mentioned above?

Those scything talons weren't talons on the same sheet. Those were just differently named talons, which is pretty much what has happened with the lascannons on the Landraider and Ballistus. But great attempt at a gotcha.

Had Necron warriors been stripped of their weapons then I wouldn't be mad or glad. I would question why Intercessors got a very flexible gun. A gun is entirely different in application on the table. Necron Warriors provide a great example of this. The Reaper clearly gives the strongest profile, but comes in at 12". Flayers are half shots at twice the range with the ability to catch up at 12", but not quite as much.

Here's what they do for wounds - AP excluded. I think it's pretty easy to see how this has an impact on how the units interacts with the battlefield where a power fist / heavy chainaxe....doesn't. You're worried about a name. I'm worried about what's actually interesting. Could they have made a Heavy Chainaxe more interesting? Sure, but it isn't going to change the battlefield as much as a gun as positioning will never matter.

Flayers do have a range advantage over the Reaper, meaning that you can harass the enemy earlier and deal some more wounds, but yes in terms of damage output the reaper is more dangerous. But that's fine, because its a trade off for the range advantage.

Remember that both have lethal hits, meaning that all you need is a 6 to hit and you can bypass the wounding step.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Those scything talons weren't talons on the same sheet. Those were just differently named talons, which is pretty much what has happened with the lascannons on the Landraider and Ballistus. But great attempt at a gotcha.

The question at the time was why do they need so many differently named Talons, especially when some units had Talons that were named after the unit, some had generic talons, and others had talons named after different units altogether. There was no consistency, and it added complication - and, yes, bloat - for no good reason. And you defended it. It's not a "gotcha". It's what happened.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Had Necron warriors been stripped of their weapons then I wouldn't be mad or glad. I would question why Intercessors got a very flexible gun. A gun is entirely different in application on the table. Necron Warriors provide a great example of this. The Reaper clearly gives the strongest profile, but comes in at 12". Flayers are half shots at twice the range with the ability to catch up at 12", but not quite as much.

And why couldn't the same sort of distinction be put in place for heavy chain axes and power fists?

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Here's what they do for wounds - AP excluded. I think it's pretty easy to see how this has an impact on how the units interacts with the battlefield where a power fist / heavy chainaxe....doesn't. You're worried about a name. I'm worried about what's actually interesting. Could they have made a Heavy Chainaxe more interesting? Sure, but it isn't going to change the battlefield as much as a gun as positioning will never matter.

Again, you quote probabilities like it's the be all and end all.

You claim to be worried about what's "actually interesting". I find different weapons with different abilities to be "actually interesting". It's not just a name.