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.

When it come to shooting, elite Human is equal to Space Marine level. Sister even have Power Armor. They do lack the overall melee training of an Astartes, but they are some of the finest human warriors around.

Spoletta wrote:
3+ is marine level. Stormtroopers are not marine level.

3+ is base Marine level shooting, and near-peak human level shooting. Having Scions/Sisters at BS3+ seems perfectly normal.

Moreover, there's more to "Marine level" than just their ballistic skill. Sisters/Scions aren't T4.

There's also the limitations of the D6 system. If you want to show that Storm Troopers/Kasrkin/Sisters are better at shooting than Guardsmen, they go to 3+.

ERJAK wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
.
The Exorcist isn't bad, but it also very much ISN'T ANTI-TANK. Being S10, Ap-2 and having a D6 shot roll means that it's going to be good at killing terminators or heavy intercessors. Anything bigger than that, it just doesn't have the punch for.

Outside of insane spike rolls (which, while very funny, aren't something you can build a list around) something like a land raider is going to laugh off an Exorcist before popping it like a balloon.

Again, this doesn't mean the FACTION won't be good. It's just irritating that we've seen all but ONE of our ranged weapons and none of them are any good at hurting vehicles.

They're not as far removed as you want to represent. I know the below is unlikely for a few reasons, but never the less:

3 prisms into a t10 medium vehicle does ~18 damage. If we assume 1 unit of retributors = 1 prism in points (we honestly don't know, I suspect they'll be cheaper), 24 multi melta shots after moving, at max range is 14 damage. Get into melta range that's 22 damage, I know it's apples to oranges, but stop whining. They can deal with vehicles fine but through weight of fire.

How did you get to 'I know it's apples to oranges' and not realize the rest of what you said made for a stupid comparison? Like...that's a giant neon sign that you're not correct.

Because unlike your complaints I'm very aware we have no context of points or even full core rules. We don't even know what a unit of retributors looks like. Point still stands that when you can drop 8+ melta shots for likely less than the cost of most tanks, you're not missing out on anti-vehicle at all.

A lot of the complaining about "faction X is OP, they just got a better version of faction Y's ability", and other similar arguments may age like milk once we see the points. Maybe those Guardians that some people are complaining about (with their AP-1 Shuriken guns) are going to cost a lot of points and therefore will reduce the overall amount of "stuff" Aeldari lists will have. We just don't know yet, so quit yer whinin' everybody!

 Jidmah wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 The Red Hobbit wrote:
Have we seen confirmation Blast will operate the same in 10th?

It scales with unit size now, giving extra attacks for every 5 above 5 (if that makes sense) rather than flat non-scaling numbers.

Where did you get the above 5 part from?

People that played the demo at WHF told us.

Source?

None of the reports I read say a thing about "above 5", some even explicitly say otherwise.

Back to this. Leaks started appearing. Wording is "add 1 to attack characteristic for every 5 model(rounding down).

So vs 5 guys 1extra shot. Vs 11 2 extra shot etc.

Ford drivers with their rules leaks: https://imgur.com/a/yuLGn5n

Nabbed from B&C via TrawlingCleaner

So...challenges are back, albeit in the form of a stratagem. Not too thrilled about that.

Otherwise from those notes, looks like we now know blast starts at 5 exactly - as though part of the text is cut off, their example of hitting an enemy unit with 11 models involved a +2 to the hit. So 5+ = +1 hit, 10+ = +2 hits.

Popping Smoke, Tank Shock (which took me a read or two through to understand), and Grenades are stratagems...

Precision only lets you target characters specifically in a unit, so you cannot use it to snipe special weapons.

Wound allocation is still target player picks, but you must take wounds on already wounded models first. Exception is attached characters, who only are hit by attacks if the rest of the unit is downed or they are hit by Precision weapons.

Stop the presses!

The example data sheet is for a Tactical Squad. Now it's just an example, but contains the following text:

"1 weapon from the Combi-Weapon list"

Now, again, it's just an example sheet, but why would one need a combi-weapon list if all combi-weapons were generic?


That's a bit of good news...

Also the US Tacoma Open is using 10th ed for its GT in July with stores starting to confirm a 24th June release date.

Shout out to those who were vehemently debating that 24th June was likely, they wouldnt wait that long and being adamant it would be available for the Kansas open.

All this blast upset makes me wish they'd just bring templates back. They have had to continue manufacturing them for their other games anyway so why not? They're fun. Cue a load of people explaining why templates are the devil, I guess

Billicus wrote:
All this blast upset makes me wish they'd just bring templates back. They have had to continue manufacturing them for their other games anyway so why not? They're fun. Cue a load of people explaining why templates are the devil, I guess

Templates are okay as long as you're playing in a relaxed way and don't get fixated about optimal model placement and such, but boy do they stark to suck in hardcore environment where you'll have multiple arguments about them every shooting phase and moving units takes ages because every distance between models has to be optimized...

The worst part of blast templates is when they drift. No one ever agrees exactly which way that arrow is pointing.

Tsagualsa wrote:

Billicus wrote:
All this blast upset makes me wish they'd just bring templates back. They have had to continue manufacturing them for their other games anyway so why not? They're fun. Cue a load of people explaining why templates are the devil, I guess

Templates are okay as long as you're playing in a relaxed way and don't get fixated about optimal model placement and such, but boy do they stark to suck in hardcore environment where you'll have multiple arguments about them every shooting phase and moving units takes ages because every distance between models has to be optimized...

It also depends alot on the terrain in use, which can physically restrict where models can be placed. I remember being happy waayy back when city fight first came out, just because it made where models physically sat amongst ruins etc much less important.

 Dawnbringer wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:

Billicus wrote:
All this blast upset makes me wish they'd just bring templates back. They have had to continue manufacturing them for their other games anyway so why not? They're fun. Cue a load of people explaining why templates are the devil, I guess

Templates are okay as long as you're playing in a relaxed way and don't get fixated about optimal model placement and such, but boy do they stark to suck in hardcore environment where you'll have multiple arguments about them every shooting phase and moving units takes ages because every distance between models has to be optimized...

It also depends alot on the terrain in use, which can physically restrict where models can be placed. I remember being happy waayy back when city fight first came out, just because it made where models physically sat amongst ruins etc much less important.

Indeed - individual model placement and template-related shenanigans is/was a relic of the more role-playing-like times of 2nd edition, when doing a charge of a single assault squad with hand flamers and grenades could easily get you through a rainy sunday afternoon between jumppack scatter and mishap tables, grenades with persistent (and sometimes drifting) templates and firing each flamer with a template and the possibility of setting models on fire, which involved further rolls...

Billicus wrote:
All this blast upset makes me wish they'd just bring templates back. They have had to continue manufacturing them for their other games anyway so why not? They're fun. Cue a load of people explaining why templates are the devil, I guess

Templates aren't the devil. Like most things GW does, the idea is fine, but the implementation of that idea is what leaves everyone frustrated. So having templates and blast markers is fine. Scattering every single blast marker individually is a tedious waste of time.

That said, I don't miss playing against people who measure out the distance between every model every turn after every move.

And that said, they could still bring back flamer templates. Those were fun.

Blast markers were a way to weaponise parallax to destroy friendships. I'm glad they are gone, and I was a pie-plate loving Guard armoured company player.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Billicus wrote:
All this blast upset makes me wish they'd just bring templates back. They have had to continue manufacturing them for their other games anyway so why not? They're fun. Cue a load of people explaining why templates are the devil, I guess

Templates aren't the devil. Like most things GW does, the idea is fine, but the implementation of that idea is what leaves everyone frustrated. So having templates and blast markers is fine. Scattering every single blast marker individually is a tedious waste of time.

That said, I don't miss playing against people who measure out the distance between every model every turn after every move.

And that said, they could still bring back flamer templates. Those were fun.

It’s the micro-management of unit spacing which turned me off blast templates. I absolutely understand and agree with why people did it, but man did it make their movement phase or consolidation move drag like a seal’s nipsy.

The current blast rules aren't great but they work.

The thing I don't like about them is that you roll to hit with each part of the blast, which is nonsensical to me. The ability for the blast to strike people is based on physics not the shooters accuracy.

It really should be a single to hit roll that inflicts X hits. You can monkey with the hit roll to reflect the glancing strike if you want:

Blast (X)
Roll to hit. If you succeed roll X wound rolls. If you fail, roll 1/2x wound rolls. If you roll a 1 roll no wound rolls. If you roll a 6, roll 2X wound rolls.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Stop the presses!

The example data sheet is for a Tactical Squad. Now it's just an example, but contains the following text:

"1 weapon from the Combi-Weapon list"

Now, again, it's just an example sheet, but why would one need a combi-weapon list if all combi-weapons were generic?


That's a bit of good news...

Don't get too excited. That datasheet example also includes a Rites of Battle aura that allows re-roll 1s and is different to the Rites of Battle aura we've seen on the Terminator Captain. It wouldn't surprise me if this datasheet was from a non-finalised version of the game.

Slipspace wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Stop the presses!

The example data sheet is for a Tactical Squad. Now it's just an example, but contains the following text:

"1 weapon from the Combi-Weapon list"

Now, again, it's just an example sheet, but why would one need a combi-weapon list if all combi-weapons were generic?


That's a bit of good news...

Don't get too excited. That datasheet example also includes a Rites of Battle aura that allows re-roll 1s and is different to the Rites of Battle aura we've seen on the Terminator Captain. It wouldn't surprise me if this datasheet was from a non-finalised version of the game.

Pretty much guaranteed to, as the Faction ability is listed as 'Angels of Death', while we know the Space Marine Faction Ability to be 'Oath of the Moomins'.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Billicus wrote:
All this blast upset makes me wish they'd just bring templates back. They have had to continue manufacturing them for their other games anyway so why not? They're fun. Cue a load of people explaining why templates are the devil, I guess

Templates aren't the devil. Like most things GW does, the idea is fine, but the implementation of that idea is what leaves everyone frustrated. So having templates and blast markers is fine. Scattering every single blast marker individually is a tedious waste of time.

That said, I don't miss playing against people who measure out the distance between every model every turn after every move.

And that said, they could still bring back flamer templates. Those were fun.

It’s the micro-management of unit spacing which turned me off blast templates. I absolutely understand and agree with why people did it, but man did it make their movement phase or consolidation move drag like a seal’s nipsy.

I'm the person spacing out all my ork infantry because otherwise the same large blast template killed 14 orks instead of 3. For me 4th-7th was very much a game of "double the time it takes to move your units or accept defeat".

There is just no way to avoid this problem, and for that reason alone, I hope templates will never come back.

Eldar look fun, and I may even paint my 2nd to Now project at long last!

Interested in the leaked rules too.

And the rest: https://imgur.com/a/fC0revP

Identifying the leaker, if it’s Staff, shouldn’t be too tricky.

Left hand drive, Ford. Overweight, tanned/dark skin, in a sunny location when the photos were taken.

So not from the U.K.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Billicus wrote:
All this blast upset makes me wish they'd just bring templates back. They have had to continue manufacturing them for their other games anyway so why not? They're fun. Cue a load of people explaining why templates are the devil, I guess

Templates aren't the devil. Like most things GW does, the idea is fine, but the implementation of that idea is what leaves everyone frustrated. So having templates and blast markers is fine. Scattering every single blast marker individually is a tedious waste of time.

That said, I don't miss playing against people who measure out the distance between every model every turn after every move.

And that said, they could still bring back flamer templates. Those were fun.

It’s the micro-management of unit spacing which turned me off blast templates. I absolutely understand and agree with why people did it, but man did it make their movement phase or consolidation move drag like a seal’s nipsy.

I'm the person spacing out all my ork infantry because otherwise the same large blast template killed 14 orks instead of 3. For me 4th-7th was very much a game of "double the time it takes to move your units or accept defeat".

There is just no way to avoid this problem, and for that reason alone, I hope templates will never come back.

Ever considered using trays? Also it wasn't clear cut, spread out meant losing cover potentially. Depending on how the table was set up and if you were allowed to concentrate fire.
So no , from a mechanical standpoint if above would be added in, it would be a better game, to me atleast, since you'd have to chose get cover against small arms and get potentially wiped by Artillery or spread to lower artillery effects but suffer more small arms.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Identifying the leaker, if it’s Staff, shouldn’t be too tricky.

Left hand drive, Ford. Overweight, tanned/dark skin, in a sunny location when the photos were taken.

So not from the U.K.

Also English text version so somewhere GW supplies that to as a primary language, safe to say likely US as a guess.

 Hellebore wrote:
The current blast rules aren't great but they work.

The thing I don't like about them is that you roll to hit with each part of the blast, which is nonsensical to me. The ability for the blast to strike people is based on physics not the shooters accuracy.

It really should be a single to hit roll that inflicts X hits. You can monkey with the hit roll to reflect the glancing strike if you want:

Blast (X)
Roll to hit. If you succeed roll X wound rolls. If you fail, roll 1/2x wound rolls. If you roll a 1 roll no wound rolls. If you roll a 6, roll 2X wound rolls.

Hm. If I were to redo Blast Weapons, I’d reduce the number of attacks they do across the board. Like just one or two attacks for the gun. Then give them Blast X, where each hit gives you X additional hits per five models in the unit. Each miss gives you half X hits per 5.

Don’t want to fall too deep in to the rabbit hole here, but look at the silhouette on the Tactical Squad datasheet. Is it my imagination, or does that kneepad look like it has the Mark X design? Primaris Tactical Marines inbound?

diepotato47 wrote:
Don’t want to fall too deep in to the rabbit hole here, but look at the silhouette on the Tactical Squad datasheet. Is it my imagination, or does that kneepad look like it has the Mark X design? Primaris Tactical Marines inbound?

Those are very much Primaris, but it’s not really a “Tactical Marine” sheet, just a generic example sheet.

diepotato47 wrote:
Don’t want to fall too deep in to the rabbit hole here, but look at the silhouette on the Tactical Squad datasheet. Is it my imagination, or does that kneepad look like it has the Mark X design? Primaris Tactical Marines inbound?

It's just a made up example. The image silhouette is Intercessors, the front of the datasheet features a statline for models and weapons that don't exist anywhere (and 9th edition Captain aura with out of date keywords), and the back of the datasheet is worded like a Tactical squad.