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.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

The sooner someone competent vaporizes the pile of cheese Phil Kelly piled on them for the last five editions, the better. If they go back to 4th edition statlines (and having actual drawbacks, like Wraith units being strong but needing a support unit instead of being an army of Gorgonzola dispensers with zero weaknesses) I will feel optimistic about this edition for the pretty much first time...

lolwut? Wraiths have been the weaker part of the codex for a while now...

Yep, and they weren't exactly being taken when they had to have a support nearby to function.

Well for him marines need to roflstomp everything despite rolling 1's or it's op

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Genuinely wondering how useful the Rad Bombardment will be.

It goes off in the first Battleround for the big impact. And after that, only units within their deployment zone are at risk

Against stuff like Tau, where we might reasonably expect some units to setup and remain relatively static, it should be tasty.

But then, there’s now less benefit to remaining Stationary with Heavy Weapons. So even standardly static stuff, like Railgun Broadsides have less reason to stand around like a Lemon.

Vanguard are pretty useful though. -1 OC to enemies with 3” could entirely prevent scoring.

Hmmm. Yessir, I think I like it.

The Bombardment vs. Daemons is weird; yeah it encourages them to do exactly what they wanted to do in the first place but also it hits them exactly where they’re supposed to be safest. Not sure if it’s a counter or not…

 alextroy wrote:

 nordsturmking wrote:
Wtf who came up with that Rad-Bombardment rule? With MSU Eldar the whole army is battle-shocked or half dead or did I miss something XD

How dare GW make rules that discourage MSU and footslogging your entire army!

Now I agree this is a boring detachment ability and the first we've seen that straight out does damage to the opponent, but it is certainly interesting in it's impact on the game.

Rules that dictate play styles for your opponent is poor rules writing. All ways should be viable and this mechanic is punishing one style more than another. This is especially true for armies with a high point per model who are also playing MSU.
I will have to look at what battleshock will do to armies turn 1 and how to get out of that state for turn 2 onwards.

The 2nd part of the rad bombardment is the only bit that's really worrying. Most players will just decide between whether or not they care about being battleshocked or not and take the gamble on any units that need to use strats or their OC value on the first turn. Some of the initial damage taken is going to be offset by being more resilient to blast weapons anyway, losing one model from a 5 or 10 strong unit before the shooting phase will take an edge off a lot of units packing multiple blast weapons.

 Insularum wrote:
The 2nd part of the rad bombardment is the only bit that's really worrying. Most players will just decide between whether or not they care about being battleshocked or not and take the gamble on any units that need to use strats or their OC value on the first turn. Some of the initial damage taken is going to be offset by being more resilient to blast weapons anyway, losing one model from a 5 or 10 strong unit before the shooting phase will take an edge off a lot of units packing multiple blast weapons.

you mean the "1 mortal on a 3+ on every round pas the first" part? I honestly can't see it being super impactful tbh

Hmmm yea this stuff looks strong but encourages boring gameplay.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Hmmm yea this stuff looks strong but encourages boring gameplay.

forcing you to move out of your DZ is boring gameplay?

Wow not a fan of the 5+ save.

 bullyboy wrote:

Rules that dictate play styles for your opponent is poor rules writing. All ways should be viable and this mechanic is punishing one style more than another. This is especially true for armies with a high point per model who are also playing MSU.

...
what?

Blast weapons punish hordes, anti-tank weapons punish vehicles, once upon a time skyfire punished aircraft.
Admittedly it is annoying when such rules are built into faction and/or detachment rules, but mechanics punishing different types of army differently is kinda a basic part of rules writing.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/05/15/unleash-the-shadow-in-the-warp-with-the-neurotyrant/

Second article of today.

Khahandran wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/05/15/unleash-the-shadow-in-the-warp-with-the-neurotyrant/

Second article of today.

So the Neurotyrants two little buddies are tokens for its Synapse ability.

Giving -1 to the Shadow in the Warp Battleshock tests improves the math on it significantly.

 Asmodai wrote:
[

Giving -1 to the Shadow in the Warp Battleshock tests improves the math on it significantly.

That could be really useful when SIW is used in the right moment.

 Tyran wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

Rules that dictate play styles for your opponent is poor rules writing. All ways should be viable and this mechanic is punishing one style more than another. This is especially true for armies with a high point per model who are also playing MSU.

...
what?

Blast weapons punish hordes, anti-tank weapons punish vehicles, once upon a time skyfire punished aircraft.
Admittedly it is annoying when such rules are built into faction and/or detachment rules, but mechanics punishing different types of army differently is kinda a basic part of rules writing.

Not even the same thing unless my army rule specifically stated that all weapons count as blast.

 bullyboy wrote:


Not even the same thing unless my army rule specifically stated that all weapons count as blast.

its just "forcing" you to move out of your DZ, and even if you stay in it, its unreliable anyway.

 bullyboy wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

Rules that dictate play styles for your opponent is poor rules writing. All ways should be viable and this mechanic is punishing one style more than another. This is especially true for armies with a high point per model who are also playing MSU.

...
what?

Blast weapons punish hordes, anti-tank weapons punish vehicles, once upon a time skyfire punished aircraft.
Admittedly it is annoying when such rules are built into faction and/or detachment rules, but mechanics punishing different types of army differently is kinda a basic part of rules writing.

Not even the same thing unless my army rule specifically stated that all weapons count as blast.

It's a detachment rule, not an army rule. They also have an army rule that gives them a benefit when targeting units in their enemies deployment zones, this actively encourages their opponent to move out their deployment zone stripping them of their own benefit. It's actually fairly well conceived and gives admech excellent board/primary control. The opposing play can easily opt to fail battleshock and avoid the MW if they wish, move out the deployment zone which they will need to largely anyway, or simply ensure they're bulky enough to absorb the wounds as/when they come in. It gives both players new decisions to make and I don't feel it punishes anything too much out of context beyond a MSU firebase who is interactive as a brick anyway

 kurhanik wrote:
Huh, did the BS and saves on skitarii get worse or am I remembering incorrectly?

The Vanguard went from a 4+ to a 5+ for saves and from 3+ to 4+ on BS. The invulnerable save stayed the same.

IF we're lucky? They're trying to showcase the difference between the Vanguard(the close-in fighters who are considered so expendable they're tossed into the Rad-Corps and used to pilot the Onagers in a sealed compartment that's baked in radiation and other Not Good For You things, while being treated as plug+play items) and Rangers(the long-range specialists).

If we're super-duper-duper lucky, the rumors of an upgrade frame for Skitarii will plan out and we'll get Veteran Skitarii Rangers/Vanguard as a unit.

I'm not sure how I feel about this, but its a case of we know precious little so not much to really work with. Obviously the saves got worse because of the whole army wide AP reduction ability which would be way too strong if the baseline was a 4+ save, same probably with an army wide boost to armor penetration on a 3+ to hit. Still, it seems like (from this singular data point), that the units have lost some of their luster in order to slap their former ability/make their new ability less broken on the army wide rule.

Frankly, they lost a big bit of their luster long before now.

I think the save change is a reaction to the squad size change that 9E brought(we went from 10 models max to 20) and to help further differentiate the "elite" Skitarii(Serberys and Pteraxii) from the "rank and file" (Rangers and Vanguard).


I personally would have liked to see more information about the Onagers and how Canticles work. It looks like Canticles are moving to being tied to the Techpriests, and if so? I'm ecstatic for that change!

Did anyone notice that there was no mention of Cult units nor anything shown of them at all? Weird.

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:
Did anyone notice that there was no mention of Cult units nor anything shown of them at all? Weird.

It's not that surprising, the trend for the majority of the faction focus articles is to showcase:

- a battleline unit
- detachment or faction rules
- the faction's supreme commander or HQ profile
- 1 strat
- vehicle or monster weapon profile

And then they usually want them to overlap with each other in terms of the same type of unit or subfaction type. I assume it might be possible for the Kataphron units to be battleline but given the focus on infantry I'm not surprised they focused more on Skitarii.

That rad bombardment rule sounds terrible.
Not because its weak or too strong, but because there's no counterplay.
As soon as the game starts the Ad Mech's opponent starts taking damage or gets shaken. By the wording, you don't even have a chance to move units out of way.
And then afterwords you start taking damage on a 3+. That's not going to feel good to play against.

errr am i the only one who is impressed by the arc rifle and rad carabines?

mortalwounding (d3) vehicles on hitrolls of 4+ for the rifle
and the rad will autowound infantry with 4+ to hit

seems pretty strong, guessing poison will work similiar?

EDIT:
also the rad auro seems also pretty nice.. 3" of -1 OC (hopefully this doesnt stack)

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
That rad bombardment rule sounds terrible.
Not because its weak or too strong, but because there's no counterplay.
As soon as the game starts the Ad Mech's opponent starts taking damage or gets shaken. By the wording, you don't even have a chance to move units out of way.
And then afterwords you start taking damage on a 3+. That's not going to feel good to play against.

The arbitrary feel to it bugs me the most. OK, turn 1 just ignore it and accept no strats (because battleshock), and set up gunline units so they can move .0001" past the line on turn 1, and cease caring.
Maybe have something expendable stay in to capture objectives on turn 2 (especially if you have units that make objectives sticky). Assuming DZ objectives exist and depending on how objectives are set up, have them close enough to the edge of the deployment zone that you can capture them anyway.


Its a game designer's decree that they just don't like players camping their deployment zones (badwrongfun way to play!), but watered down enough that it doesn't matter that much.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
That rad bombardment rule sounds terrible.
Not because its weak or too strong, but because there's no counterplay.
As soon as the game starts the Ad Mech's opponent starts taking damage or gets shaken. By the wording, you don't even have a chance to move units out of way.
And then afterwords you start taking damage on a 3+. That's not going to feel good to play against.

What's the counterplay to shadow in the warp? You have choices here. Stay in the DZ at your own peril.

 Grimskul wrote:

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:
Did anyone notice that there was no mention of Cult units nor anything shown of them at all? Weird.

It's not that surprising, the trend for the majority of the faction focus articles is to showcase:

- a battleline unit
- detachment or faction rules
- the faction's supreme commander or HQ profile
- 1 strat
- vehicle or monster weapon profile

And then they usually want them to overlap with each other in terms of the same type of unit or subfaction type. I assume it might be possible for the Kataphron units to be battleline but given the focus on infantry I'm not surprised they focused more on Skitarii.

They could easily have had the melee focus be on Electropriests. I didn't even see a Cult Mech unit in the pictures of anything. Just an odd choice by GW not to at least show off the full faction.

I don't think it has any wider implications, necessarily, but... who knows.

RedNoak wrote:
errr am i the only one who is impressed by the arc rifle and rad carabines?

mortalwounding (d3) vehicles on hitrolls of 4+ for the rifle
and the rad will autowound infantry with 4+ to hit

seems pretty strong, guessing poison will work similiar?

That isn't how anti-X works. That functions on the wound roll, not the hit roll.
(see this article: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/04/just-how-tough-are-terminators-in-the-new-edition-of-warhammer-40000/)

d3 or 2d3 mortals at half range against vehicles isn't terrible, but it depends on how many arc rifles a unit can take (1 or 2 at most is my guess, probably 1 per 10, since iirc that's whats in the box)

the carbine just wounds on a 4+ against all infantry, and has pretty much feth all utility otherwise. that's... fine with 3 attacks. But you gotta get those squishy fools within range in the first place.
Its nasty in mirror matches or against orks. It gets washed away pretty quickly with 4+ (sometimes 3+), 4+ and then 3+ armor saves)

Voss wrote:

The arbitrary feel to it bugs me the most. OK, turn 1 just ignore it and accept no strats (because battleshock), and set up gunline units so they can move .0001" past the line on turn 1, and cease caring.
Maybe have something expendable stay in to capture objectives on turn 2 (especially if you have units that make objectives sticky). Assuming DZ objectives exist and depending on how objectives are set up, have them close enough to the edge of the deployment zone that you can capture them anyway.


Its a game designers decree that they just don't like players camping their deployment zones (badwrongfun way to play!), but watered down enough that it doesn't matter that much.

This presumes that the position outside your DZ is 1) a place your big guns want to be, 2) you aren't opening yourself up to backfield issues, 3) your DZ objectives are sticky, and 4) you have no secondary missions in that area.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Voss wrote:

The arbitrary feel to it bugs me the most. OK, turn 1 just ignore it and accept no strats (because battleshock), and set up gunline units so they can move .0001" past the line on turn 1, and cease caring.
Maybe have something expendable stay in to capture objectives on turn 2 (especially if you have units that make objectives sticky). Assuming DZ objectives exist and depending on how objectives are set up, have them close enough to the edge of the deployment zone that you can capture them anyway.


Its a game designers decree that they just don't like players camping their deployment zones (badwrongfun way to play!), but watered down enough that it doesn't matter that much.

This presumes that the position outside your DZ is 1) a place your big guns want to be, 2) you aren't opening yourself up to backfield issues, 3) your DZ objectives are sticky, and 4) you have no secondary missions in that area.

yes? Well, apart from 3, which I absolutely spell out so I'm not presuming.

But you have a measure of control over secondary missions, and what backfield issues are you worried about specifically (especially against AdMech)? Its not like you can't go in there if you need to.
Positioning big guns is an issue no matter what, and depends entirely on terrain setup in the first place.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Voss wrote:

The arbitrary feel to it bugs me the most. OK, turn 1 just ignore it and accept no strats (because battleshock), and set up gunline units so they can move .0001" past the line on turn 1, and cease caring.
Maybe have something expendable stay in to capture objectives on turn 2 (especially if you have units that make objectives sticky). Assuming DZ objectives exist and depending on how objectives are set up, have them close enough to the edge of the deployment zone that you can capture them anyway.


Its a game designers decree that they just don't like players camping their deployment zones (badwrongfun way to play!), but watered down enough that it doesn't matter that much.

This presumes that the position outside your DZ is 1) a place your big guns want to be, 2) you aren't opening yourself up to backfield issues, 3) your DZ objectives are sticky, and 4) you have no secondary missions in that area.

remind me again, how does the mission structure look sofar?

Also the no counterplay argument still stands. FFS the old tide over pre vraks list for R&H did it better and that bought an offmap artillery strike which then you had to roll for like reserves and required to be dropped in on a point a model with vox could see and ate a whole heavy support slot. this is just ehhh, it's not even good.

Depends on how reserves come onto the board. I suspect they'll be free given the CP reductions so AdMech putting stuff in reserves is impetus to keep the squishier stuff safe. There's also raiders and sterylizors ready to jump into any holes.

Ultimately there are so many datasheets we aren't seeing that how the army comes together is still a bit of a mystery.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
That rad bombardment rule sounds terrible.
Not because its weak or too strong, but because there's no counterplay.
As soon as the game starts the Ad Mech's opponent starts taking damage or gets shaken. By the wording, you don't even have a chance to move units out of way.
And then afterwords you start taking damage on a 3+. That's not going to feel good to play against.

the counterplay is :

Take the battleshock
Bring transports
Deepstrike stuff
Forward deploy
Bring units that don't mind losing a model every round
and most importantly : do the math as to what the average damage is going to be and realise that its negligible