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.

 ZergSmasher wrote:
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!

I agree.

Aeldari have historically been a somewhat elite glass cannon. They have never been a horde army yet Guardian Defenders are so weak right now that you can technically run almost as many Defenders as you can boyz.

 Insularum wrote:
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the datasheet features a statline for models and weapons that don't exist anywhere (and 9th edition Captain aura with out of date keywords), and the back of the datasheet is worded like a Tactical squad.

It's a legendary deep striking Intercessor Captain Tactical Squad!

Okay, where is the caveat that you cannot deepstrike turn 1. It's listed in Strategic Reserves, but not mentioned in the Reserves section.

This old chestnut.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Okay, where is the caveat that you cannot deepstrike turn 1. It's listed in Strategic Reserves, but not mentioned in the Reserves section.

This old chestnut.

Likely to be in the mission rules, like now

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Okay, where is the caveat that you cannot deepstrike turn 1. It's listed in Strategic Reserves, but not mentioned in the Reserves section.

This old chestnut.

The fact the Rapid Ingress strar has a restriction about not being able to use it during a Battle Round in which the unit couldn't normally arrive from Reserves implies that SOMEWHERE the rule exist preventing turn 1 Deep strike

-

 Galef wrote:

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Okay, where is the caveat that you cannot deepstrike turn 1. It's listed in Strategic Reserves, but not mentioned in the Reserves section.

This old chestnut.

The fact the Rapid Ingress strar has a restriction about not being able to use it during a Battle Round in which the unit couldn't normally arrive from Reserves implies that SOMEWHERE the rule exist preventing turn 1 Deep strike

-

Strategic Reserves have a rule that says not on turn on, but other Reserves like Deep Strike don’t show that in what we’ve got.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Okay, where is the caveat that you cannot deepstrike turn 1. It's listed in Strategic Reserves, but not mentioned in the Reserves section.

This old chestnut.

Probably in the Matched Play / Crusade / Boarding Patrol mission packs - same as it is now.

The 'making Blast weapons work properly without templates' problem is simple. You give those weapons a Blast (x) rule, and if a Blast attack hits the target suffers x hits instead of one; but x is capped by the number of models in the unit. You then generally give said weapons only small numbers of actual shots, and if you desperately want some random variance you can put D3, D6, D6+3 or whatever as the value for x. There, now unit size is relevant to effectiveness and the weapon behaves in a thematic fashion, but without relying on random numbers of shots (which makes no sense) or arbitrary model count cutoff points (which also makes no sense and can be gamed more easily).
Other, better games figured this out years ago; it's almost funny that GW remain in the 'banging rocks together' stage of rules design.

As an aside, what bright spark thought spreading USR's throughout the book was a good idea?

 MalusCalibur wrote:

As an aside, what bright spark thought spreading USR's throughout the book was a good idea?

I'd wager there's a summary page, or at least I hope so, but if they're in the section they're relevant to that seems OK?

 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...

In context of the Vanguard datasheet it makes sense. They didn't want Vanguard to do well in melee ( presumably ) and they didn't want the characters shown so far to have an outstanding ranged weapon. So they cut them down.

So, hopefully that's the case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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.

Real life explosions are random number generators big time. You can be next to one and dodge shrapnel entirely while some guy 150' away draws the short straw.

Huh. The grenades strat is... not terrible. Its basically ~3 mortal wounds on any target.

I also like shifting heroic intervention to a strat. That ability got very silly for certain factions.


[Precision] does less than I thought it would. I figured it would be a general 'attacker picks target model' (to get rid of special weapons or sergeants) but its only for picking out characters.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/05/17/warhammer-40000-faction-focus-death-guard-2/

Voss wrote:
Huh. The grenades strat is... not terrible. Its basically ~3 mortal wounds on any target.

I also like shifting heroic intervention to a strat. That ability got very silly for certain factions.

Smoke is great, too. Cover and -1.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Voss wrote:
Huh. The grenades strat is... not terrible. Its basically ~3 mortal wounds on any target.

I also like shifting heroic intervention to a strat. That ability got very silly for certain factions.

Smoke is great, too. Cover and -1.

Plus you get to do it reactively, and it doesn't impact your shooting.

problem with this sort of thing as a strat, especially when such are limited by how many can be done per turn is that it basically doesn't scale with game size, becoming more powerful in smaller games and basically irrelevant in larger ones

not saying its better than on the actual profiles or army wide, just that there needs to be a way of scaling it

 Shadow Walker wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/05/17/warhammer-40000-faction-focus-death-guard-2/

No -1 damage anymore. The Plaguecaster seems like a more interesting psyker than the Warseer.

 Shadow Walker wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/05/17/warhammer-40000-faction-focus-death-guard-2/

This is the first one I've seen and gone "they look they'll be a problem" pending further context.

* Bringing a whole new meaning to the term “sticky objectives”. Gross.

Dudeface wrote:

 Shadow Walker wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/05/17/warhammer-40000-faction-focus-death-guard-2/

This is the first one I've seen and gone "they look they'll be a problem" pending further context.

Edit: nevermind. Misread it

 Shadow Walker wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/05/17/warhammer-40000-faction-focus-death-guard-2/

Why does the contagion range include empty circles with no additional information? (Yes, I know its a visual representation. But it doesn't show anything)

The FF feels undercut by the rules leak. But it also seems... dull? Tougher, yeah, toughness penalty yeah, roll for 6s a lot. \shrug


I decided to go look at [Hazardous], because I couldn't figure out how it worked with a torrent weapon (the plaguecaster). Its an extra die roll! For each hazardous weapon fired, afterwards roll a d6, on a 1, a model is destroyed [takes 3 MW if character, monster or vehicle]

Voss wrote:
Why does the contagion range include empty circles with no additional information? (Yes, I know its a visual representation. But it doesn't show anything)

That would be the base size of whatever is giving off the contagion.

 Trickstick wrote:

Voss wrote:
Why does the contagion range include empty circles with no additional information? (Yes, I know its a visual representation. But it doesn't show anything)

That would be the base size of whatever is giving off the contagion.

It... isn't. The only thing that changes is the radius. Which is the contagion range. Which is the number identical to the other number.
It feels like they ended up with a short rules sheet and added in a picture to fill space.

 Trickstick wrote:

Voss wrote:
Why does the contagion range include empty circles with no additional information? (Yes, I know its a visual representation. But it doesn't show anything)

That would be the base size of whatever is giving off the contagion.

It does seem kind of pointless though. We already know how auras work so why do they feel the need to have a diagram for this specific one?

Overall there are a lot of changes here. Looks like everything gets Lethal Hits to represent plague weapons and Terminators are back to 4" move but up to T6, which makes sense given regular Terminators are T5 now. Reducing Toughness is pretty powerful as an army rule.

So Imperial Knights tomorrow. I was hoping for Orks.

I'm liking a lot of what I see with the Death Guard, but I'm bothered by seeing no Disgusting Resilience.

Imperial Knights next.

 Shadow Walker wrote:
So Imperial Knights tomorrow. I was hoping for Orks.

Same. They're basically the foundation 'enemy faction' for 40k so it really matters how they turn out. The Johnny-come-lately subfactions can wait for the big lads.

And IK tomorrow likely means chaos knights friday. (I'm a little surprised they aren't one article)

Love most of the Death Guard changes, hated some.

Not a fan of Blightlord Terminators going back to 4" as it means they move like molasses. However, it is made up by the fact that DG now has sticky objectives so they can move more freely around and don't have to sit around and babysit an objective.
Termies going to T6 is also really nice, and that both sword and axe is just one weapon now is excellent. It means the pool of eligible termies that I own almost doubled.

The overall changes to the malignant plaguecaster are nice, but does kind of remove him from the old "he can do whatever needs to be done" role I had him in. Pestilient fallout looks good on paper, but since it requires shooting and hitting with a pistol its usability lowers somewhat, since pistols have only 12" range.

The big thing is the mortar. D6+3 shots means min 4 shots and average 6 shots, and forcing battleshock on units can play a key role in how the game works. If the rest of the profile of the Plagueburst Crawler is good I can easily imagine fielding 2-3 in a force.

 Shadow Walker wrote:
So Imperial Knights tomorrow. I was hoping for Orks.

Specifically not chaos knights, despite them sharing datacards.

Its a bad version of sticky objectives. It only becomes sticky and infected in your command phase. Sticky control is lost at the start or end of any turn. No -1D, -1" move...

Yikes.