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.

Which ones have we seen both sides of so far?
- SM Land Raider
- CSM Legionaries
- Necron Monolith
- IG Cadian Shock Troops

Can't recall if we saw any more in earlier previews, but we've gotten 4 out of the FF articles so far.

I'm very glad SoB are keeping Acts of Faith. I maintain it was one of the best designed mechanics in 9th.

Shame about the customisation, though.

 Dysartes wrote:
I'm with Dudeface on this one, when it comes to poison - I'm expecting to see both ANTI-INFANTRY X and ANTI-MONSTER Y, where X and Y may not be the same value.

Not sure why you think that would be a garbage way of representing the weapon type, vipoid.

The concept works fine. The resulting weapon does not (see below to save me explaining things twice).

Dudeface wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Voss wrote:

 SarisKhan wrote:
. I do wonder what GW will do with Poisoned weapons, though.

Poison weapons seem fairly straightforward.
I'd venture this as the baseline
Splinter Rifle [Rapid Fire, Anti-Infantry 4+, Anti-Monster 5+] 24" range, A1, BS3+, S3, Ap0, D1.
or
Splinter Rifle [Anti-Infantry 4+, Anti-Monster 5+] 18" range, A2, BS3+, S3, Ap0, D1

In other words, they'll be utter garbage and exist only to remind DE of their NPC status.

Whats wrong with those? I suspect they'll go to 2 shots no rapid fire though personally.

You have a weapon with no AP, D1, no bonus to rate of fire, which wounds it's optimum targets on a 4+ at best.

Do you not see why this is a terrible weapon?


Let me put it another way. In 5th edition, Poison weapons (which wounded both infantry and monsters on a 4+) were okay. Not great, not OP, just okay. They were good against monsters and bikers, average against T4, and bad against vehicles and low-toughness infantry.

Back then, Marines had 1 wound. 9 Kabalites could expect to kill a single Marine at long range, or 2 at close range. Now Marines have doubled in wounds, whilst Kabalites have neither halved in cost, nor gained twice as many shots. Even taking relative costs into account, Kabalites have seen their firepower halve in effectiveness against the most common infantry in the game.

Now look at monsters. Back then, a Carnifex had just 4 wounds and a 3+ save. It took 36 Kabalites (18 in rapid-fire range) to bring one down. Now it has 9 wounds and a 2+ save. It now takes 162 Kabalites (81 in rapid-fire range) to bring one down. Again, monsters have seen dramatic increases in wounds, yet poison - the weapon that's supposed to be effective against them - has seen no improvement to the poison value, to AP, or to damage.

And you want to make it even worse. You think getting 648pts of Kabalites into rapid-fire range to kill a single Carnifex is far too good value. No, it needs to take 972pts of Kablites in rapid-fire range to down a Carnifex.

What is the point of this weapon? What is its purpose beyond cementing DE as an NPC faction?


Sorry for the rant but I am so completely sick of Poison as a concept. It was a neat idea in 5th but all it has done since is hang around the neck of the army like a lead weight, because GW designers refuse to make it remotely good against any target, yet at the same time refuse to replace it with anything else.

Vipoid, take a breather, we litterally have zero info on drukhari so far...

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Vipoid, take a breather, we litterally have zero info on drukhari so far...

a) I was responding to the proposed rules for their poison weapons. You can literally see the chain of posts if you bothered reading it.

b) Can you point me to some evidence that would encourage optimism on my part? Because if not, I will extrapolate from past data and assume that GW will half-arse it like they have in the past 4 editions.

 vipoid wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Voss wrote:

 SarisKhan wrote:
. I do wonder what GW will do with Poisoned weapons, though.

Poison weapons seem fairly straightforward.
I'd venture this as the baseline
Splinter Rifle [Rapid Fire, Anti-Infantry 4+, Anti-Monster 5+] 24" range, A1, BS3+, S3, Ap0, D1.
or
Splinter Rifle [Anti-Infantry 4+, Anti-Monster 5+] 18" range, A2, BS3+, S3, Ap0, D1

In other words, they'll be utter garbage and exist only to remind DE of their NPC status.

Whats wrong with those? I suspect they'll go to 2 shots no rapid fire though personally.

You have a weapon with no AP, D1, no bonus to rate of fire, which wounds it's optimum targets on a 4+ at best.

Do you not see why this is a terrible weapon?


Let me put it another way. In 5th edition, Poison weapons (which wounded both infantry and monsters on a 4+) were okay. Not great, not OP, just okay. They were good against monsters and bikers, average against T4, and bad against vehicles and low-toughness infantry.

Back then, Marines had 1 wound. 9 Kabalites could expect to kill a single Marine at long range, or 2 at close range. Now Marines have doubled in wounds, whilst Kabalites have neither halved in cost, nor gained twice as many shots. Even taking relative costs into account, Kabalites have seen their firepower halve in effectiveness against the most common infantry in the game.

Now look at monsters. Back then, a Carnifex had just 4 wounds and a 3+ save. It took 36 Kabalites (18 in rapid-fire range) to bring one down. Now it has 9 wounds and a 2+ save. It now takes 162 Kabalites (81 in rapid-fire range) to bring one down. Again, monsters have seen dramatic increases in wounds, yet poison - the weapon that's supposed to be effective against them - has seen no improvement to the poison value, to AP, or to damage.

And you want to make it even worse. You think getting 648pts of Kabalites into rapid-fire range to kill a single Carnifex is far too good value. No, it needs to take 972pts of Kablites in rapid-fire range to down a Carnifex.

What is the point of this weapon? What is its purpose beyond cementing DE as an NPC faction?

Sorry for the rant but I am so completely sick of Poison as a concept. It was a neat idea in 5th but all it has done since is hang around the neck of the army like a lead weight, because GW designers refuse to make it remotely good against any target, yet at the same time refuse to replace it with anything else.

I'm not sure what they can do though tbh, it's basically a sisters bolter +1, you're in the same boat as a lot of armies small arms are. They could make it a s4 ap- weapon and you're worse off. I do understand what you're saying but I don't know what the answer is and I suspect you're going to find that profile a lot more common this edition.

Small arms on battleline/troop units aren't meant to be cheerfully deleting MEQ and monstrous creatures. Poisoned 4+ is different without being universally better, it is just a bit of faction flavour.

Billicus wrote:
Small arms on battleline/troop units aren't meant to be cheerfully deleting MEQ and monstrous creatures. Poisoned 4+ is different without being universally better, it is just a bit of faction flavour.

Do you consider an entire squad firing to take down a single MEQ "cheerfully deleting"?

In one turn of shooting? 100%. Few battleline units can. Oh, unless you mean a single meq *model*, in which case no, I guess you could hope for better but they're perhaps not in the best place balance wise at the moment

For the people interested in useless online drama:

Valrak is now in his livestream, saying that trusted sources have confirmed to him that he is now '100% blacklisted by Games Workshop' and that they are contacting third-party wargaming-related companies and asking them not to work with him...

That seems somewhat unlikely to me, as on the one hand that is bordering on illegal depending on the precise wording of that request, and on the other they literally gave him a content creator pass and preferential treatment just two weeks ago.

Billicus wrote:
In one turn of shooting? 100%. Few battleline units can. Oh, unless you mean a single meq *model*, in which case no, I guess you could hope for better but they're perhaps not in the best place balance wise at the moment

Yes, I meant one model.

Because it took 9 Splinter Rifle shots to kill a MEQ in 7th edition.
Now that they doubled in wounds, it takes 18. (36 if they have cover, for now.)

If this is true, it's hilarious.

 Dysartes wrote:
If this is true, it's hilarious.

If it isn't he might be opening himself up for a lawsuit by claiming it to be so...

Billicus wrote:
Small arms on battleline/troop units aren't meant to be cheerfully deleting MEQ and monstrous creatures. Poisoned 4+ is different without being universally better, it is just a bit of faction flavour.

Ah yes, I guess I'd better turn to my elite troops, who also have poison. Or my melee, which is more poison. Or my special weapons, which are yet more poison. or my Heavy weapons, which are (you'll never believe this) yet more fething poison.

And I don't mean 'poison with much better profiles', I mean 'the same AP0 D1 4+ profile with slightly more shots'.

Can you maybe see why poison weapons being arse is a bit of an issue?

 bullyboy wrote:
I know Votann is tomorrow but I’m really looking forward to seeing either an aeldari focus or one of the offshoot marine chapters to see how they differ. Knights will also be an interesting focus.

I hope for TS or GK on Friday. Give us an idea of psyker heavy armies.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Billicus wrote:
Small arms on battleline/troop units aren't meant to be cheerfully deleting MEQ and monstrous creatures. Poisoned 4+ is different without being universally better, it is just a bit of faction flavour.

Do you consider an entire squad firing to take down a single MEQ "cheerfully deleting"?

If it helps, compared to new intercessors, assuming splinter rifles don't change and based on todays points the following are true:

At 24" 176 pts of kabalites do 2.4 wounds to intercessors, 1.2 to terminators.
At 12" they do 4.8 to intercessors and 2.4 to terminators.

180 points of new bolt rifles there are a few high and low points. At 24" the kabalites are better at killing terminators in cover (1.2 vs 0.92 if stationary). They lose vs intercessors even if they move and cover is involved at 24" (1.2 vs 2.2), but inside of 12" they beat bolt rifles regardless of circumstances into terminators/intercessors.

I can see poison (x) being a weapon key word, and x being a bonus you get to the roll to wound against Infantry and Monsters.

Splinter Rifles may be.
Poison (1), R24" A2, S4 Ap0 D1

 vipoid wrote:

Now look at monsters. Back then, a Carnifex had just 4 wounds and a 3+ save. It took 36 Kabalites (18 in rapid-fire range) to bring one down. Now it has 9 wounds and a 2+ save. It now takes 162 Kabalites (81 in rapid-fire range) to bring one down. Again, monsters have seen dramatic increases in wounds, yet poison - the weapon that's supposed to be effective against them - has seen no improvement to the poison value, to AP, or to damage.

And you want to make it even worse. You think getting 648pts of Kabalites into rapid-fire range to kill a single Carnifex is far too good value. No, it needs to take 972pts of Kablites in rapid-fire range to down a Carnifex.

What is the point of this weapon? What is its purpose beyond cementing DE as an NPC faction?


Sorry for the rant but I am so completely sick of Poison as a concept. It was a neat idea in 5th but all it has done since is hang around the neck of the army like a lead weight, because GW designers refuse to make it remotely good against any target, yet at the same time refuse to replace it with anything else.

Sorry but 5th edition Carnifexes were trash and 144pts of basic troops killing a 160pts monster was ridiculous. If you argument is that DE should make Tyranids unplayable, then you have a bad argument.
If you want to kill monsters you have dark lances that you should be taking anyway if you want to have a TAC list.

I think Poison will either be replaced by or a collective rule for Anti Infantry 3/4+ and Anti Monster 5+

 Tyran wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Now look at monsters. Back then, a Carnifex had just 4 wounds and a 3+ save. It took 36 Kabalites (18 in rapid-fire range) to bring one down. Now it has 9 wounds and a 2+ save. It now takes 162 Kabalites (81 in rapid-fire range) to bring one down. Again, monsters have seen dramatic increases in wounds, yet poison - the weapon that's supposed to be effective against them - has seen no improvement to the poison value, to AP, or to damage.

And you want to make it even worse. You think getting 648pts of Kabalites into rapid-fire range to kill a single Carnifex is far too good value. No, it needs to take 972pts of Kablites in rapid-fire range to down a Carnifex.

What is the point of this weapon? What is its purpose beyond cementing DE as an NPC faction?


Sorry for the rant but I am so completely sick of Poison as a concept. It was a neat idea in 5th but all it has done since is hang around the neck of the army like a lead weight, because GW designers refuse to make it remotely good against any target, yet at the same time refuse to replace it with anything else.

Sorry but 5th edition Carnifexes were trash and 144pts of basic troops killing a 160pts monster was ridiculous. If you argument is that DE should make Tyranids unplayable, then you have a bad argument.
If you want to kill monsters you have dark lances that you should be taking anyway if you want to have a TAC list.

I think that with their current stack of rules, they have better options than throwing the baby out with the bathwater - they can make the majority of poison weapons anti-infantry and keep anti-monster for dedicated monster-killers. There's no need to conflate the two, and it's easily justified in the fluff by saying that the more potent stuff is needed to make a difference against the sheer bulk of most monsters. Everybody gets 'always wound on 6' anyway, no need to play into that degenerate development even more. At some point, max volume of the cheapest gun you can find starts to become the default answer to anything, and nobody wants that.

You also could do some manner of hybrid system, like Anti-infantry 4+, lethal hits. The auto-wounds on 6s to hit, and 4+ to wound against infantry should cover both bases.

 Carnage43 wrote:
You also could do some manner of hybrid system, like Anti-infantry 4+, lethal hits. The auto-wounds on 6s to hit, and 4+ to wound against infantry should cover both bases.

Anti-X plus anything can create a lot of interesting combinations, as Anti-X triggers critical wounds on the lower roll. Anti-infantry 4+, Devastating Wounds for example would deal mortal wounds on a 4+ against infantry, and on a 6+ against anything else. You can think up all sorts of evil poisons that way.

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Carnage43 wrote:
You also could do some manner of hybrid system, like Anti-infantry 4+, lethal hits. The auto-wounds on 6s to hit, and 4+ to wound against infantry should cover both bases.

Anti-X plus anything can create a lot of interesting combinations, as Anti-X triggers critical wounds on the lower roll. Anti-infantry 4+, Devastating Wounds for example would deal mortal wounds on a 4+ against infantry, and on a 6+ against anything else. You can think up all sorts of evil poisons that way.

Yeah, that's neat isn't it? Could see a lot of the admech weapons being keyword soup

It might not be as simple as simple as making poison weapons anti-infantry and -monster, I'm sure one of the articles mentioned a "mounted" keyword, so this might need to be covered too. There's also the possibility of a swarms keyword for snotlings/nurglings/rippers as well as a beasts keyword, but these seem less likely since the benefit of cover rules only referred to infantry for specific terrain rules.

I wonder if ANTI-NOT-A-VEHICLE is an option

 Dysartes wrote:
I wonder if ANTI-NOT-A-VEHICLE is an option

You jest, but they could just make "poison" an ability that makes 4+ a critical wound against anything that doesn't have the vehicle keyword, but its pretty inelegant after introducing the anti-X rule.

Aash wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
I wonder if ANTI-NOT-A-VEHICLE is an option

You jest, but they could just make "poison" an ability that makes 4+ a critical wound against anything that doesn't have the vehicle keyword, but its pretty inelegant after introducing the anti-X rule.

I feel [ANTI-X] is for weapons designed to kill a specific type of unit. For something like poison, which should work against a wide range of unit types but NOT vehicles, making a [POISON] ability makes far more sense. Especially since there's infantry, monsters, bikers, cavalry, "MOUNTED", etc...

 Tyran wrote:

Sorry but 5th edition Carnifexes were trash and 144pts of basic troops killing a 160pts monster was ridiculous. If you argument is that DE should make Tyranids unplayable, then you have a bad argument.
If you want to kill monsters you have dark lances that you should be taking anyway if you want to have a TAC list.

Again, if you want poison weapons to be absolute arse against everything - which you clearly do - why does this mechanic need to be a thing?

Please note that I'm not asking for Poison to be brilliant against everything. I'm asking for DE to not be stuck with a faction-defining mechanic that's utter crap and which eats up all the design space for their non-darklight weapons.

You know how other races are allowed weapons with different profiles? Rather than the exact same profile but with your choice of Pistol, Assault, Rapid Fire or Heavy. I'd actually much prefer that. I want to see poison ditched and replaced by a mechanic that isn't gak by design.

 Shakalooloo wrote:
No plasma pistol or combi-weapon stats for the Battle Sister Superior, so presumably most of the 'character kit' will be on the Armoury card?

Or no longer an option

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

Aash wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
I wonder if ANTI-NOT-A-VEHICLE is an option

You jest, but they could just make "poison" an ability that makes 4+ a critical wound against anything that doesn't have the vehicle keyword, but its pretty inelegant after introducing the anti-X rule.

I feel [ANTI-X] is for weapons designed to kill a specific type of unit. For something like poison, which should work against a wide range of unit types but NOT vehicles, making a [POISON] ability makes far more sense. Especially since there's infantry, monsters, bikers, cavalry, "MOUNTED", etc...

Yeah, I could very easily see a Poison rule that has something like two values POISON X,X with the Values corresponding to something like Infantry for the first, and everything but infantry/Vehicles for the second or some other kind of combination.

Makes it simple and easy to reference.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Shakalooloo wrote:
No plasma pistol or combi-weapon stats for the Battle Sister Superior, so presumably most of the 'character kit' will be on the Armoury card?

Or no longer an option

That seems unlikely, since its in the box and 'what's in the box!' is GW mantra these days.
On the other hand, Sisters don't have many weapons, so an armory card just for essentially sergeant gear feels weird. Especially since the melee stuff is on the battle sisters card.
I guess they may have felt the condemnor boltgun and combi-weapons are common to all the sister's squads, so just plunked them together, but couldn't do that with melee weapons since (hopefully) Celestians aren't swinging at WS 4+.