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.

So 8d6 will generate a minimum of 2 sets of doubles every round, meaning that at worst they will all be +2" move and 6+ feel no pain every turn.

Im a bit tired to do math atm but angron comes back what ~13% of the time needing 3+ 6's on 8 dice

i wonder if celestine will still be restricted to 1 res or go back to reviving multiple times

New rule buried right at the end of the WE article. Units disembarking from destroyed transport are automatically battle shocked.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
One of the biggest causes of USR bloat was them giving USR to rules only 2-3 units in the game had.

And one of the biggest way to stop escalating rules bloat is to plan your USRs out in advance so that things like this don't happen.

Moreover, failure to apply USRs isn't a failure of the USR system. It's a failure of the people using the USR system.

not every rule needs to be an USR in an USR system

True, but this feels like a rule that is going to be common enough to warrant it.

On the same subject, I notice there's yet another instance of "for the purposes of this ability if a unit has a Starting Strength of 1 it is considered below starting strength if at has lost at least 1 wound". That really needed to be in the core rules given that this has now come up at least 4 or 5 times in the previews so far.

Well, if Orks and Drukhari get to avoid that from their Open-topped transports that would be some bonus to having the rule.

(Or at least allow them to test against Battleshock.)

AdMech Focus is next.

 Souleater wrote:
Well, if Orks and Drukhari get to avoid that from their Open-topped transports that would be some bonus to having the rule.

(Or at least allow them to test against Battleshock.)

IMHO Orks should get something like the old Countin' 'eadz rule - when they would be battleshocked and fulfill some condition (on unit size or whatever) they Waaagh! instead.

 Hellebore wrote:
So 8d6 will generate a minimum of 2 sets of doubles every round, meaning that at worst they will all be +2" move and 6+ feel no pain every turn.

That isn't necessarily true. For instance:

1
2
3, 3, 3
4
5
6

A single double, from among a set of 8 dice.

Blood Surge looks fun as hell. Go ahead! Shoot me!

 MinMax wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
So 8d6 will generate a minimum of 2 sets of doubles every round, meaning that at worst they will all be +2" move and 6+ feel no pain every turn.

That isn't necessarily true. For instance:

1
2
3, 3, 3
4
5
6

A single double, from among a set of 8 dice.

So they will at minimum generate 1 double? That looks like the only way to prevent more than 1 double though. Any other dice could come up with a double.

But I don't know the probability of getting 123456 and rolling a double on the 7th and 8th dice. It would be pretty small rhough

 MinMax wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
So 8d6 will generate a minimum of 2 sets of doubles every round, meaning that at worst they will all be +2" move and 6+ feel no pain every turn.

That isn't necessarily true. For instance:

1
2
3, 3, 3
4
5
6

A single double, from among a set of 8 dice.

I like that objective control can get you a reroll. World Eaters are truly playing murder yahtzee.

 MinMax wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
So 8d6 will generate a minimum of 2 sets of doubles every round, meaning that at worst they will all be +2" move and 6+ feel no pain every turn.

That isn't necessarily true. For instance:

1
2
3, 3, 3
4
5
6

A single double, from among a set of 8 dice.

Unless you go by Crib rules, in which case its three doubles.

Yo dawg we heard you like Yahtzee so we put Warcry in your 40k so you can roll while you roll

No but seriously, mechanically it looks good to me. All the powers are good, it's impossible to completely whiff, it can't backfire like vanilla CSM. You'll just get a different challenge on how to get the most of it every turn.

If they're giving rerolls for icons on objectives, it stands to reason that there will be other ways to manipulate the blessings rolls each turn as well. Perhaps from the detachment bonus or character enhancements.

 xttz wrote:
If they're giving rerolls for icons on objectives, it stands to reason that there will be other ways to manipulate the blessings rolls each turn as well. Perhaps from the detachment bonus or character enhancements.

Yeah, it's almost guaranteed that there will be things like rewards for killing characters or whatever, either as re-rolls or by having additional 6s to put in the pool or something like that.

 Hellebore wrote:
So they will at minimum generate 1 double?

Minimum of 2 doubles or 1 triple, which unlocks the better abilities. Still, either minimum is extremely unlikely seeing the unit you want to spam grants rerolls. I just hope the writers avoided the urge to make the system leaky enough to make triple 6 all but guaranteed somehow.

Also I like how WE have S5 chain weapons for no reason when SM and CSM still have S4 ones. Man, 10th didn't even started yet but Custodes lawyer sending all stat infringement C&D is already buried in cases. Less lethality? Where?

Khahandran wrote:
New rule buried right at the end of the WE article. Units disembarking from destroyed transport are automatically battle shocked.

I guess writers paid attention to last two editions and all the dumb wombo-combos involving blowing up your own transport to disembark in otherwise illegal way. I wonder what other rules got added just to plug past rule abusing tricks?

 Irbis wrote:
.

Also I like how WE have S5 chain weapons for no reason when SM and CSM still have S4 ones. Man, 10th didn't even started yet but Custodes lawyer sending all stat infringement C&D is already buried in cases. Less lethality? Where?

Haven’t WE coming stock with chain axes, which grant an additional point of strength, been a thing basically forever?

 morganfreeman wrote:

 Irbis wrote:
.

Also I like how WE have S5 chain weapons for no reason when SM and CSM still have S4 ones. Man, 10th didn't even started yet but Custodes lawyer sending all stat infringement C&D is already buried in cases. Less lethality? Where?

Haven’t WE coming stock with chain axes, which grant an additional point of strength, been a thing basically forever?

Yes. Berzerkers have been S5 pretty consistently. Sometimes it was through the MoK, sometimes through their weapons, sometimes via their base stats. Making the chain blades S5 isn't really out of the ordinary for them. No idea how this is supposed to infringe on Custodes, especially since we haven't seen the rules for the golden boys yet.

 Irbis wrote:

I guess writers paid attention to last two editions and all the dumb wombo-combos involving blowing up your own transport to disembark in otherwise illegal way. I wonder what other rules got added just to plug past rule abusing tricks?

man, what a gak take lol.

It makes total sense for the unit to be battle-shocked when the transport they were in gets destroyed. Most other wargames i've tried already had that kind of rule in them
Oh and the abuse you're talking about (charging out of a transport that got destroyed in overwatch) was already patched out by not letting models charge if their transport was destroyed that phase

Hum, they didn't reveal any rules related to their detachment, the berzerker warband, still might rules for blood tithe or something else..

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/05/12/these-new-tyranid-gaunts-will-make-ghosts-of-your-enemies/

Today's extra article.

 Spreelock wrote:
Hum, they didn't reveal any rules related to their detachment, the berzerker warband, still might rules for blood tithe or something else..

It’s almost like these articles are all carefully calculated teases, built from the ground up to draw you in and make you want more…

Barb gaunts seem like a nightmare for any melee oriented army.

Neuro gaunts are an interesting take on canon fodder. They’re virtually useless offensively, but being able to position them as additional sources of synapse can encourage enemies to waste shots on them to cut other units off.

 Irbis wrote:

Also I like how WE have S5 chain weapons for no reason when SM and CSM still have S4 ones. Man, 10th didn't even started yet but Custodes lawyer sending all stat infringement C&D is already buried in cases. Less lethality? Where?

Current codex zerkers are s5 base, s6 and 5a on the charge. Less attacks at lower strength is literally less lethality.

Barbs seem like decent shooting, points will be important. Nice little debuff. They don’t look like they will be that rugged, so if they get too irritating, I suspect they will just shot off the table. Against a melee army, but of a hard counter.

Neurogaunts are interesting. They should have a decent footprint on the table, and stretch synapse coverage, but not hard to remove. How does the cost compare to just getting another synapse node in a list?

It might be useful to hide synapse out of sight… otherwise ignore the Neurogaunts and just kill the actual Synapse.

Putting the Barbs down for the first unit to be nerfed. -2 M, -2 advance and -2 charge?

That's a crazy reduction for just getting a hit with a D6 BS4+ gun.

 Souleater wrote:
It might be useful to hide synapse out of sight… otherwise ignore the Neurogaunts and just kill the actual Synapse.

Am i missing something with them? As long as they are in Synapse range once, they gain the Synapse keyword, and from that point on are always in Synapse range of themselves, so they never lose it again, right? So shooting at other Synapse creatures would not un-Synapse the gaunts? I feel like they inteded for it to be losable, but the way that vignette is written it... isn't?

Khahandran wrote:
New rule buried right at the end of the WE article. Units disembarking from destroyed transport are automatically battle shocked.

I... kinda dig that.

Kinda makes taking transports a little safer.

 whembly wrote:

Khahandran wrote:
New rule buried right at the end of the WE article. Units disembarking from destroyed transport are automatically battle shocked.

I... kinda dig that.

Kinda makes taking transports a little safer.

i assume you meant "a little less safe"?