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.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
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.

Yea I agree the character heavy angle seems fluffy, but it could be difficult to manage - especially for newer players. Whether or not they can strike a good balance on points for units to be effective without characters is a big iffy question.

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

Just wait for Monday's IG reveal where they will go full on DoW. I am fairly certain that they will push for orders being substituted with Characters that activate a choice every command phase, that in turn only affects the unit they joined. Who knows, the commissar might even get the choice to blame a trooper and then the squad gets to reroll ld checks for a turn.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 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.

Because 9th has a weapon list and GW wanted to distinguish different talons on different models and given their penchant to target some weapons with stratagems it would be suitable to avoid unintended interactions - in my mind,. And now we have bespoke weapons on datasheets so the exact same thing can happen - except it won't be on a list - it will be on the datasheet, but now we don't really have to worry about strats.

That is not the same thing as this and the problem seems to stem from you thinking I'm just defending GW when you know I'm a person with my own agency, thoughts, and feelings. Just because I happen to align with them most of the time doesn't mean I'm defending them. One particular reason I am devotee of Tzeentch is because I embrace change - as a programmer and a person - staying ahead of the curve is crucial. So, yes, I will more readily adapt to new things that come out. I will rarely ever be incredulous about a change, because I WILL look at it from all sides and if I can't form a clear conclusion...out comes the math and analysis.

Could they have made the chainaxe do something funky? Maybe, but I kind of think that's a dynamic for characters and not squad mooks.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 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?

Because melee weapons lack a range aspect meaning one less layer of design space to make them more distinct? You can't have a power fist that does more damage while closer vs a heavy chain axe that does less but at twice the range when all melee weapons are 1" range.

 GiToRaZor wrote:

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

Just wait for Monday's IG reveal where they will go full on DoW. I am fairly certain that they will push for orders being substituted with Characters that activate a choice every command phase, that in turn only affects the unit they joined. Who knows, the commissar might even get the choice to blame a trooper and then the squad gets to reroll ld checks for a turn.

I don't think characters with orders will join units or, if they do, they'll do auras like Abby. Commissars will join and give a battleshock reroll ( or similar ) and some buff.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 GiToRaZor wrote:

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

Just wait for Monday's IG reveal where they will go full on DoW. I am fairly certain that they will push for orders being substituted with Characters that activate a choice every command phase, that in turn only affects the unit they joined. Who knows, the commissar might even get the choice to blame a trooper and then the squad gets to reroll ld checks for a turn.

I don't think characters with orders will join units or, if they do, they'll do auras like Abby. Commissars will join and give a battleshock reroll ( or similar ) and some buff.

We do already know that orders exist in some form from the transport article:

Oh joy of joys. Because if there was one thing I really wanted, it was for Necrons to be Tomb Kings even harder.

Sigh.

Personally, my interest will probably hinge on character costs. If Crypteks and Lords and 25-25pts, like they were back in 5th, it'll probably be okay.

However, if every unit needs a 70+pt character to not be arse, then I'm really not seeing the appeal.

I would add, too, that giving characters buffs that are only necessary to counter the wholly unnecessary nerfs you gave the units is a huge Richard-relocation.

Oh wow, two articles to catch up on.

CSM having a dark pact ability that makes Leadership useful is quite fun, I'm looking forward to using that. Also nice to see Bolters are base 2 shots.

New reanimation protocols seems alright. Monolith with 8OC sounds fun. Not sure how I feel about the classic Gauss reaper being AP0. I'm heavily in favor of chopping AP down across the board, but Necrons were the one faction where AP-1 wouldn't have bothered me, I suppose they have Lethal Hits base instead.

I suspect those with the answer will be heartily sick of having to repeat themselves again for the hard of understanding. But.

What do Lethal Hits do again? Are they auto-wound?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I suspect those with the answer will be heartily sick of having to repeat themselves again for the hard of understanding. But.

What do Lethal Hits do again? Are they auto-wound?

Lethal Hits are Critical Hits automatically wound.

So, normally, 6s to-hit bypass the wound step. But if an ability gives you Critical Hits on lower than a 6, those would auto-wound too.

Sweet, thank you!

OK not too shabby, depending on points. Whilst 4+ to hit is disappointing, I’m happy to reserve overall judgement until we get an idea of what our characters can bring to that table.

 The Red Hobbit wrote:
Oh wow, two articles to catch up on.

CSM having a dark pact ability that makes Leadership useful is quite fun, I'm looking forward to using that. Also nice to see Bolters are base 2 shots.

New reanimation protocols seems alright. Monolith with 8OC sounds fun. Not sure how I feel about the classic Gauss reaper being AP0. I'm heavily in favor of chopping AP down across the board, but Necrons were the one faction where AP-1 wouldn't have bothered me, I suppose they have Lethal Hits base instead.

Flayers are AP0.
Reapers are AP-1. Which is still a step down from AP-2, but with lethal hits they could still be nasty.

Yeah I just prefer classic Reapers over Flayers (Flayers also beat them with S5 as well). While I think it over more I suppose lethal hits makes more sense for Gauss small arms since its frequently shown vaporizing people, not necessarily heavy armor or vehicles.

What are 'classic reapers'? The gauss reaper has only been around for a single edition.

Warriors with ballistic 4+ and lethal hits wound as often or better against toughness 4 or toughness 5+ (respectively) compared to bs 3+ with no special rule. They'll wound less against T3. Their bs with lethal hits is actually an improvement against most armies.

The ap loss in necron warrior small arms weapons was expected. The leadership drop is bad--maybe they'll make necron units more character dependent for that as well.

It is likely that Necrons will need characters to get the most out of them. Warriors will need Command Protocols to get back up to BS3+ and it is likely that necron characters will have very good LD scores. Maybe something like 5+ or even 4+.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
It is likely that Necrons will need characters to get the most out of them. Warriors will need Command Protocols to get back up to BS3+ and it is likely that necron characters will have very good LD scores. Maybe something like 5+ or even 4+.

That kinda makes sense, but I hope there are some cheap characters so you don't have to devote an 80+ point character to make a 120 point Warrior squad better.

Voss wrote:
What are 'classic reapers'? The gauss reaper has only been around for a single edition.

Ugh, got my terminology backwards, for some reason I was thinking the reaper was the original while the flayer was the new one.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
It is likely that Necrons will need characters to get the most out of them. Warriors will need Command Protocols to get back up to BS3+ and it is likely that necron characters will have very good LD scores. Maybe something like 5+ or even 4+.

That kinda makes sense, but I hope there are some cheap characters so you don't have to devote an 80+ point character to make a 120 point Warrior squad better.

That's probably what lords and wardens will be for. Which is great because right now there isn't really any point in taking them.

Leadership changes are iffy. The examples we've seen aren't consistent enough to say that characters will improve unit leadership.

And since leadership for warriors and monolith are the same, it suggests that's a pretty consistent score for the faction

Libby and terminators are both 6+, swarmlord and genestealers are both 7+ (though gants and screamer killer are 8+). Abby and Bobby are 5+, but they're faction bosses.

---
One other thing that stands out for warriors is that bolters are now just 2A, and don't have rapid fire. That flayers kept rapid fire on a 1A weapon means that's negative trait by comparison.

 The Red Hobbit wrote:

Voss wrote:
What are 'classic reapers'? The gauss reaper has only been around for a single edition.

Ugh, got my terminology backwards, for some reason I was thinking the reaper was the original while the flayer was the new one.

Fair enough. GW naming schemes aren't exactly descriptive.

Voss wrote:
Leadership changes are iffy. The examples we've seen aren't consistent enough to say that characters will improve unit leadership.

And since leadership for warriors and monolith are the same, it suggests that's a pretty consistent score for the faction

Libby and terminators are both 6+, swarmlord and genestealers are both 7+ (though gants and screamer killer are 8+). Abby and Bobby are 5+, but they're faction bosses.

---
One other thing that stands out for warriors is that bolters are now just 2A, and don't have rapid fire. That flayers kept rapid fire on a 1A weapon means that's negative trait by comparison.

Flayers have lethal hits though, so that's kind of a trade off.
But yeah, I was suprised to see boltguns receive an outright buff like that. Not sure I like that.

I was honestly hoping that rapid fire would just die as a concept.

Its been hobbling on with a lot of system patches (for space marines and non-infantry in general) and weird quirks for a while now. Combined with smaller battlefields, there's a question of the value of it.

It made some sense when they were trying to prevent shoot and charge, but that's long gone.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Voss wrote:
Leadership changes are iffy. The examples we've seen aren't consistent enough to say that characters will improve unit leadership.

And since leadership for warriors and monolith are the same, it suggests that's a pretty consistent score for the faction

Libby and terminators are both 6+, swarmlord and genestealers are both 7+ (though gants and screamer killer are 8+). Abby and Bobby are 5+, but they're faction bosses.

---
One other thing that stands out for warriors is that bolters are now just 2A, and don't have rapid fire. That flayers kept rapid fire on a 1A weapon means that's negative trait by comparison.

Flayers have lethal hits though, so that's kind of a trade off.

Statistically, they're doing worse. Someone on Reddit ran the numbers already

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Voss wrote:
Leadership changes are iffy. The examples we've seen aren't consistent enough to say that characters will improve unit leadership.

And since leadership for warriors and monolith are the same, it suggests that's a pretty consistent score for the faction

Libby and terminators are both 6+, swarmlord and genestealers are both 7+ (though gants and screamer killer are 8+). Abby and Bobby are 5+, but they're faction bosses.

---
One other thing that stands out for warriors is that bolters are now just 2A, and don't have rapid fire. That flayers kept rapid fire on a 1A weapon means that's negative trait by comparison.

Flayers have lethal hits though, so that's kind of a trade off.

Statistically, they're doing worse. Someone on Reddit ran the numbers already

You're looking at:

Old
36 shots
24 hits
T8+, 4 wounds; T5-7, 8 wounds; T4, 12 wounds; T3, 16 wounds

New
36 shots
12 hits plus 6 wounds
T8+, 8 wounds; T5-7, 10 wounds; T4, 12 wounds; T3, 14 wounds

They're equal against T4, worse against T3, and better against anything higher... If you ignore the loss of AP. However, since AP is being reduced pretty much across the board, I think that's reasonable.

Edit: Oh, and if you have a character with them, it's flat out better, of course-same number of hits, but some autowound.

 vipoid wrote:
Oh joy of joys. Because if there was one thing I really wanted, it was for Necrons to be Tomb Kings even harder.

Sigh.

Personally, my interest will probably hinge on character costs. If Crypteks and Lords and 25-25pts, like they were back in 5th, it'll probably be okay.

However, if every unit needs a 70+pt character to not be arse, then I'm really not seeing the appeal.

I would add, too, that giving characters buffs that are only necessary to counter the wholly unnecessary nerfs you gave the units is a huge Richard-relocation.

There are no nerfs. 9th to 10th is apples to oranges and cannot be compared like for like.

Why 36 shots? Warriors tend in be in units of 10-20, so shouldn't it be 20 at long range and 40 at short range?

How does it compare to boltguns, which get 2 attacks up to 24"?

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Voss wrote:
Leadership changes are iffy. The examples we've seen aren't consistent enough to say that characters will improve unit leadership.

And since leadership for warriors and monolith are the same, it suggests that's a pretty consistent score for the faction

Libby and terminators are both 6+, swarmlord and genestealers are both 7+ (though gants and screamer killer are 8+). Abby and Bobby are 5+, but they're faction bosses.

---
One other thing that stands out for warriors is that bolters are now just 2A, and don't have rapid fire. That flayers kept rapid fire on a 1A weapon means that's negative trait by comparison.

Flayers have lethal hits though, so that's kind of a trade off.

Statistically, they're doing worse. Someone on Reddit ran the numbers already

Relative values only matter in apples to apples comparisons which can't happen because A) Massive systemic differences and B) No point values.

ERJAK wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Oh joy of joys. Because if there was one thing I really wanted, it was for Necrons to be Tomb Kings even harder.

Sigh.

Personally, my interest will probably hinge on character costs. If Crypteks and Lords and 25-25pts, like they were back in 5th, it'll probably be okay.

However, if every unit needs a 70+pt character to not be arse, then I'm really not seeing the appeal.

I would add, too, that giving characters buffs that are only necessary to counter the wholly unnecessary nerfs you gave the units is a huge Richard-relocation.

There are no nerfs. 9th to 10th is apples to oranges and cannot be compared like for like.

Yeah... that doesn't work. Humans simply don't function that way.
If Unit A used to do 6.4 wounds to Unit B and now only does 4.3 wounds (numbers made up), people are going to regard that as nerf. No amount of apples or oranges is going to change that perception.

Same with stat lines. If one of the fundamental numbers gets worse (BS, T, etc), people are going to complain. Enough people are simply wired that way.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Why 36 shots? Warriors tend in be in units of 10-20, so shouldn't it be 20 at long range and 40 at short range?

How does it compare to boltguns, which get 2 attacks up to 24"?

Because 36 is 6 squared.
I default to it for comparing relative values, since it’s a d6 system.

If someone with more time/patience on their hands wants to dig through it, Valrak did a live stream tonight where he sad he's physically seen evidence of preorder on 10th June, release on 24th June. He's also got concrete evidence of new scouts vs new striking scorpions, the box after is a flavoured set of Terminators vs genestealers. He might have dropped ore stuff but I didn't have time or patience to listen to it all.