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.

 Spreelock wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Spreelock wrote:
The wording on a hit roll is because basic rules support "slow rolling", a one die at the time, but most players prefer fast dice rolling, meaning rolling multiple dice at the time. This thing has been around entire 9th edition, and its nothing new.

Can you give any examples? I don't think it has anything to do with 'slow rolling,' just a limit on rerolls.
Cawl's ability is 'each time a model makes an attack, re-roll a hit roll of 1' but that's an entirely different wording that rerolls all applicable rolls.

I'm not going to start the debate on this topic, because it has been discussed the whole 8th and 9th edition. Feel free to check any FAQ related to 9th edition rulebook, and if you still disagree, we can wait for 10th edition faqs released shortly after the new book arrives. I'm sure it will address this topic again.

Thing is there's wording each time makes an attack. That's reroll any 1's that gives to all due to slow roll.

Gw already managea to do 2 wordings for same effect?

Tsagualsa wrote:

They mention that stuff based on the Castraferrum chassis, like e.g. the Librarian Dreadnought is not going away, but i guess that's only a matter of time until they get around to replacing them. I sure hope they leave Bjorn alone...

I'm sure sooner or later we'll see a nostalgic plastic boxnaught kit made for HH, with 40k rules again.

 xttz wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:

They mention that stuff based on the Castraferrum chassis, like e.g. the Librarian Dreadnought is not going away, but i guess that's only a matter of time until they get around to replacing them. I sure hope they leave Bjorn alone...

I'm sure sooner or later we'll see a nostalgic plastic boxnaught kit made for HH, with 40k rules again.

Probably. They could easily update it by increasing the size slightly while adding a bit of detail, but keeping the general boxy look and proportions.

Technically, they could even do Bjorn that way; he got 'naughted shortly after the Heresy (on a galactic scale, it was a couple of decades iirc.) but i don't think anyone would complain.

Tsagualsa wrote:
They mention that stuff based on the Castraferrum chassis, like e.g. the Librarian Dreadnought is not going away, but i guess that's only a matter of time until they get around to replacing them. I sure hope they leave Bjorn alone...

Yeah I know, but it's just sad when one of your fav things in 40k of all time - I love Dreadnoughts, of all shapes and sizes* - finally reaches the end of its life.



*Except Murderfang because, seriously, how could anyone like Murderfang?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
The battle cannon should have had a single value. At 36”, how often are you not going to be in RF range on the smaller table sizes recommended? Again, not seeing the simple here when it’s mostly a moot scenario.

It can come up. And the weapon doesn't have to fully apply to the table size at 2K. It's a unit that shouldn't really exist at this scale.

It's literally been Knight fluff since the beginning of their creation that this is the scale they're supposed to be working at.

Necronmaniac05 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Necronmaniac05 wrote:
Getting slightly concerned at the volume of [anti X] weapons we're seeing that also have [Devastating Wounds]. That thunder oil harpoon is hitting on 2+ possibly re rolling 1s and wounding monsters and vehicles on a 4+ possibly re rolling ones at which point it just does 12 damage.

So much for vehicles getting tougher.

It's on a 600+ point model unit now, if they get priced more due to the increases then are you really that concerned?

It currently hits on 2's possibly rerolling 1's, S16 AP-6 D10+3MW.

If we're honest the bit that doesn't make much sense is the anti key words since it'll rarely need them beyond as a means to slap mortal wounds out more reliably.

I mean maybe I just find zero interaction rules boring. You roll your dice, then I'll just pick my models up. What fun that is.

Give them anti X OR give them devastating wounds. If a gun is already s20 odd why give them both anyway?

Because it's a single shot 18" range gun on a platform that costs 1/3 of an army, it enables it a good chance to actually do what it's supposed to instead of allow it to bounce off invulns often. This is the design space issue with big all or nothing weapons, I understand your post and your feelings on the topic, but taking it rationally it might actually land that twice per game and is one weapon shared between 2 armies. It might force you to pick up 3 dreads/transports a game if it's lucky.

Voss wrote:

 Galas wrote:
The retirement of firstborn commences, then.

A shame. The original Dreads are still my favourite. And the sternguard kit was a great kit with a ton of options.

I can get not liking the aesthetic change, but personally this is how the whole marine range should have been handled- just an understated upscale and update.
Using old sternguard, terminators or dreads in place of the Leviathan versions looks entirely viable.

 GaroRobe wrote:
Why bother with the FW article? So much stuff they listed is already gone, like the ork HQs

I quite like them making it official, rather than quietly retiring kits in the background, out of sight, out of mind.
Transparency is better than eliminating products in the dark and not letting customers know.

My issue is this article just came out but many of the last chance to buy models is are already gone. They even had a separate section detailing models already gone so it’s annoying to try and snag some models only to see that it’s too late

I mean, technically, slowly but surely every dreadnought would turn into a venerable one.

I do hope they might return someday though in HH or something else. The lore even says the Castaferrum pattern was used tactically because it was smaller. I’m one of the few that doesn’t like the big Dreads. Contemptors are my limit.

 GaroRobe wrote:


My issue is this article just came out but many of the last chance to buy models is are already gone. They even had a separate section detailing models already gone so it’s annoying to try and snag some models only to see that it’s too late

That section exists more to let people who own those kits know that they are going to be getting Legends rules for certain.

Yeah, so, anyway, Knights.

I think their main rule is pretty solid... but seems half baked. Like if there were 4 different Oaths to choose from, make the rule a bit meaty. That'd be cool. Otherwise it seems fine, and gives you another objective for your army with a direct impact on the game. I hope other Knight faction rules include an "Honoured" upgrade as well. That's a nice spin on "personal objectives".

The Harpoon is bonkers, and I love it. Also I think that's the first time we've seen anti-monster printed on something.

And holy gak... Rapid Fire D6+3? So that's 2D6+6 (+ whatever Blast may get you) at 36" and below. Yikes...

 xttz wrote:
I'm sure sooner or later we'll see a nostalgic plastic boxnaught kit made for HH, with 40k rules again.

I would not be against this.

And, please, get it right: It would be two nostalgic Boxnought kits, one with a fist, and one for Mortis Pattern.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 xttz wrote:
I'm sure sooner or later we'll see a nostalgic plastic boxnaught kit made for HH, with 40k rules again.

I would not be against this.

And, please, get it right: It would be two nostalgic Boxnought kits, one with a fist, and one for Mortis Pattern.

And the Mortis Pattern will come with alternate front plates and decorative addons

Dudeface wrote:

Necronmaniac05 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Necronmaniac05 wrote:
Getting slightly concerned at the volume of [anti X] weapons we're seeing that also have [Devastating Wounds]. That thunder oil harpoon is hitting on 2+ possibly re rolling 1s and wounding monsters and vehicles on a 4+ possibly re rolling ones at which point it just does 12 damage.

So much for vehicles getting tougher.

It's on a 600+ point model unit now, if they get priced more due to the increases then are you really that concerned?

It currently hits on 2's possibly rerolling 1's, S16 AP-6 D10+3MW.

If we're honest the bit that doesn't make much sense is the anti key words since it'll rarely need them beyond as a means to slap mortal wounds out more reliably.

I mean maybe I just find zero interaction rules boring. You roll your dice, then I'll just pick my models up. What fun that is.

Give them anti X OR give them devastating wounds. If a gun is already s20 odd why give them both anyway?

Because it's a single shot 18" range gun on a platform that costs 1/3 of an army, it enables it a good chance to actually do what it's supposed to instead of allow it to bounce off invulns often. This is the design space issue with big all or nothing weapons, I understand your post and your feelings on the topic, but taking it rationally it might actually land that twice per game and is one weapon shared between 2 armies. It might force you to pick up 3 dreads/transports a game if it's lucky.

It's S26, AP -6 hitting on 2s re rolling 1s and wounding even without anti X on 3s re rolling 1s. Please explain how that is not good enough to enable it to do what it needs to? Especially now inv. saves are capped at 4+. It already ignores any basic armour saves completely even in cover. At T12, W22 with a 3+/5++ it's plenty tough enough to get multiple shots off with that gun before it is killed (if it gets killed). There is simply no need for it and it's the complete opposite of 'we made vehicles tougher'.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:
They mention that stuff based on the Castraferrum chassis, like e.g. the Librarian Dreadnought is not going away, but i guess that's only a matter of time until they get around to replacing them. I sure hope they leave Bjorn alone...

Yeah I know, but it's just sad when one of your fav things in 40k of all time - I love Dreadnoughts, of all shapes and sizes* - finally reaches the end of its life.



*Except Murderfang because, seriously, how could anyone like Murderfang?

My first draft of that post contained a jab at 'much-beloved Murderfang', but then i opted for acting like it didn't exist instead Make of that what you will

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/05/18/the-gunslinger-dreadnought-moseys-into-town-for-a-shoot-out-with-the-tyranids/

Necronmaniac05 wrote:

It's S26, AP -6 hitting on 2s re rolling 1s and wounding even without anti X on 3s re rolling 1s. Please explain how that is not good enough to enable it to do what it needs to? Especially now inv. saves are capped at 4+. It already ignores any basic armour saves completely even in cover. At T12, W22 with a 3+/5++ it's plenty tough enough to get multiple shots off with that gun before it is killed (if it gets killed). There is simply no need for it and it's the complete opposite of 'we made vehicles tougher'.

It's ONE model, thats a third of your points (assuming it keeps the same points as right now). Litterally just screen your big vehicles from its 26" effective range (assuming it keeps its current 8" move).

Its 100% still gonna be a gak model

 Shadow Walker wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/05/18/the-gunslinger-dreadnought-moseys-into-town-for-a-shoot-out-with-the-tyranids/

'Gunslinger Dread' sounds so much better than 'Ballsiticatusexpalidocious'

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Necronmaniac05 wrote:

It's S26, AP -6 hitting on 2s re rolling 1s and wounding even without anti X on 3s re rolling 1s. Please explain how that is not good enough to enable it to do what it needs to? Especially now inv. saves are capped at 4+. It already ignores any basic armour saves completely even in cover. At T12, W22 with a 3+/5++ it's plenty tough enough to get multiple shots off with that gun before it is killed (if it gets killed). There is simply no need for it and it's the complete opposite of 'we made vehicles tougher'.

It's ONE model, thats a third of your points (assuming it keeps the same points as right now). Litterally just screen your big vehicles from its 26" effective range (assuming it keeps its current 8" move).

Its 100% still gonna be a gak model

This ^^^ if it does a big number of damage once, maybe twice a game and you get to laugh it off with a 4+ invuln, what exactly does it serve purpose wise? In reality you're lucky if that harpoon kills a land raider all game. With vehicles getting tougher it might get more than 2 rounds in now though, who knows.

 bullyboy wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
Simplified, not simple.
Bullsh*t not horsesh*t

These new weapon rules are far worse than previously, adding all the various sustained, devastating, etc key words to them. You should look at a weapon and quickly be able to know how many shots or guts it will get.

I guess I don't understand your concern. They seem pretty straightforward to me.

The knight battle cannon does D6 +3 shots (so between 4 and 9). Within 36” (ie most of the time) it does 2D6 +6 shots (so between 8 and 18). If an enemy unit has 5 to 9 models (most of the time they will), add 1 (don’t remember if this is shots or hits after shots), 10 - 14 models add 1, etc. so you have this big range of values but the most common will be 2D6+6+1. In a “simplified” game, just leave it at 2D6 +6 shots or just give the damn weapon 10 shots and be done with it. And who knows if a specific knight is going to add sustained, or devastating on top of these numbers.

Ah, ok. You would like more consistent results rather than having such a wide range of possibilities. I think it demonstrates the scale problem pretty well in that regard since you wouldn't want that on a bigger table.

 Shadow Walker wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/05/18/the-gunslinger-dreadnought-moseys-into-town-for-a-shoot-out-with-the-tyranids/

The Ballistus Dread has almost the exact same proportions as the old metal DA dread if you cut off the thighs and attach the knees directly to the hips.

 Platuan4th wrote:
It's literally been Knight fluff since the beginning of their creation that this is the scale they're supposed to be working at.

Sorry I should say mechanically. It makes sense for them to be there for 40K.

I do wonder if there will be a "proper" kit with more weapon options. I do hope so.

Necronmaniac05 wrote:

It's S26, AP -6 hitting on 2s re rolling 1s and wounding even without anti X on 3s re rolling 1s. Please explain how that is not good enough to enable it to do what it needs to? Especially now inv. saves are capped at 4+. It already ignores any basic armour saves completely even in cover. At T12, W22 with a 3+/5++ it's plenty tough enough to get multiple shots off with that gun before it is killed (if it gets killed). There is simply no need for it and it's the complete opposite of 'we made vehicles tougher'.

Flip a coin 100 times and note the results. It doesn't go heads, tails, heads, tails, etc, right? There's often a streak to it. HHH T H TT H TTT. That's the odds of this weapon getting through a 4++. In essence you put it down to a coin flip. Devastating Wounds takes it out of being strictly a flip, because coin flipping such an expensive model can easily result in you NEVER scoring any damage.

With quite a bit of new information since the last I posted this...

The Good:
- Melee returns to base-to-base contact.
- Overwatch stratagem. Opens up the usage and gives some counterplay.
- Characters joining units but limited to one and restricting what units they can join.
- Character targeting complexities and oddities seem to be fixed using the Leader and Lone Operative rules.
- Transports are seemingly usable again.
- The mission generation deck looks promising.
- Cannot end your move on top of an objective (allegedly, from demo games at Fest)


The Bad:
- There is no reduction in rerolling dice. With what we've seen, rerolls are more present than ever. GW lied.
- There are going to be several added dice rolls throughout the game which will add up on the time clock.
- There has not been any meaningful reduction in AP. Again, GW lied.
- Removing psychic disciplines for fixed psychic abilities. This was already tried in past editions, and it was disliked.
- Rules bloat is still present. With what we've seen, there has not been a meaningful reduction in quantity of rules. Things have merely been shifted around to give a false impression there are less rules. Maybe once we can start playing we'll find that despite there still being rules bloat things are more harmonious and it will not be an issue - maybe.


The Ugly (or GW being disingenuous)
- The OC stat is good at face value and will seemingly make morale more meaningful, but this stat is going to be like AP - only good as long as GW can keep it under control.
- Terrain... We still don't have the full picture, but we're currently led to believe that all terrain is little more than a +1 to Sv. While this makes terrain rules less burdensome, it's a bit too simplistic.
- Army creation... Another one that's still not fully known, but the elimination of bitfield roles and a FOC make this contentious at best until we can know more.
- 10th edition still looks like it will be an overflowing landfill of stratagems. It's not six per faction it's six per detachment and factions will have multiple detachments. So, while fewer will be available to use in any given game, the overall amount will still be too damn many. To add to this, we still do not know if army creation will allow for multiple detachments.

 oni wrote:
- There has not been any meaningful reduction in AP. Again, GW lied.

I'm not sure how you can say that? There are so many things that have had their AP reduced.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Necronmaniac05 wrote:

It's S26, AP -6 hitting on 2s re rolling 1s and wounding even without anti X on 3s re rolling 1s. Please explain how that is not good enough to enable it to do what it needs to? Especially now inv. saves are capped at 4+. It already ignores any basic armour saves completely even in cover. At T12, W22 with a 3+/5++ it's plenty tough enough to get multiple shots off with that gun before it is killed (if it gets killed). There is simply no need for it and it's the complete opposite of 'we made vehicles tougher'.

Flip a coin 100 times and note the results. It doesn't go heads, tails, heads, tails, etc, right? There's often a streak to it. HHH T H TT H TTT. That's the odds of this weapon getting through a 4++. In essence you put it down to a coin flip. Devastating Wounds takes it out of being strictly a flip, because coin flipping such an expensive model can easily result in you NEVER scoring any damage.

That makes no sense. Statistically it goes through a 4++ 50% of the time which is perfectly fine. You know its absolutely OK for models (even 600pt models) to be capable of, gasp, not hitting or even, gasp, not wounding OR, heaven forbid, my model might actually get a SAVE against it that I might actually pass? This is a dice game and yeah sometimes the dice don't go your way but that is the game.

I don't care what its range is or how many shots it has what I am saying is: Rules which basically ignore chunks of the game and/or my armies rules or abilities are boring and poor games design.

 oni wrote:
With quite a bit of new information since the last I posted this...

The Good:
- Melee returns to base-to-base contact. Not quite, for extended rows of combatants only
- Overwatch stratagem. Opens up the usage and gives some counterplay.
- Characters joining units but limited to one and restricting what units they can join.
- Character targeting complexities and oddities seem to be fixed using the Leader and Lone Operative rules.
- Transports are seemingly usable again.
- The mission generation deck looks promising.
- Cannot end your move on top of an objective (allegedly, from demo games at Fest)


The Bad:
- There is no reduction in rerolling dice. With what we've seen, rerolls are more present than ever. GW lied. This is flatly wrong
- There are going to be several added dice rolls throughout the game which will add up on the time clock. For some armies, but those aren't new concepts
- There has not been any meaningful reduction in AP. Again, GW lied. This is flatly wrong
- Removing psychic disciplines for fixed psychic abilities. This was already tried in past editions, and it was disliked.
- Rules bloat is still present. With what we've seen, there has not been a meaningful reduction in quantity of rules. Things have merely been shifted around to give a false impression there are less rules. Maybe once we can start playing we'll find that despite there still being rules bloat things are more harmonious and it will not be an issue - maybe. I'd argue that there are many just as many rules but they're far more accessible and easier to manage


The Ugly (or GW being disingenuous)
- The OC stat is good at face value and will seemingly make morale more meaningful, but this stat is going to be like AP - only good as long as GW can keep it under control.Why/how is this GW being disingenuous?
- Terrain... We still don't have the full picture, but we're currently led to believe that all terrain is little more than a +1 to Sv. While this makes terrain rules less burdensome, it's a bit too simplistic.Why/how is this GW being disingenuous?
- Army creation... Another one that's still not fully known, but the elimination of bitfield roles and a FOC make this contentious at best until we can know more.Why/how is this contentious and we p[retty much know what to expect short term now
- 10th edition still looks like it will be an overflowing landfill of stratagems. It's not six per faction it's six per detachment and factions will have multiple detachments. So, while fewer will be available to use in any given game, the overall amount will still be too damn many. To add to this, we still do not know if army creation will allow for multiple detachments.They've repeatedly stated it's 1 detachment, of which you gain 6 strats. If you have 100 other detachments, those 600 strats are literally inaccessible and irrelevant to you and your opponent. Most armies can have 6 detachments and still have fewer strats than they have now

Comments in red


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Necronmaniac05 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Necronmaniac05 wrote:

It's S26, AP -6 hitting on 2s re rolling 1s and wounding even without anti X on 3s re rolling 1s. Please explain how that is not good enough to enable it to do what it needs to? Especially now inv. saves are capped at 4+. It already ignores any basic armour saves completely even in cover. At T12, W22 with a 3+/5++ it's plenty tough enough to get multiple shots off with that gun before it is killed (if it gets killed). There is simply no need for it and it's the complete opposite of 'we made vehicles tougher'.

Flip a coin 100 times and note the results. It doesn't go heads, tails, heads, tails, etc, right? There's often a streak to it. HHH T H TT H TTT. That's the odds of this weapon getting through a 4++. In essence you put it down to a coin flip. Devastating Wounds takes it out of being strictly a flip, because coin flipping such an expensive model can easily result in you NEVER scoring any damage.

That makes no sense. Statistically it goes through a 4++ 50% of the time which is perfectly fine. You know its absolutely OK for models (even 600pt models) to be capable of, gasp, not hitting or even, gasp, not wounding OR, heaven forbid, my model might actually get a SAVE against it that I might actually pass? This is a dice game and yeah sometimes the dice don't go your way but that is the game.

I don't care what its range is or how many shots it has what I am saying is: Rules which basically ignore chunks of the game and/or my armies rules or abilities are boring and poor games design.

My bringing along a 600 point paperweight to tickle your vehicles, as they proceed to do as they like with a couple of turns free shooting into it before it gets in range isn't a great amount of fun either. I'm sure you'll lament the fact that after 2 turns of waddling it managed to one shot a rhino then die, which is what normally happens to a valiant. The rules are in place to ensure that the knight has a reasonable chance of doing something and being a threat. It's about the enjoyment of both players and your army being able to ignore the opponents because it's an expensive liability isn't fun for either of you. This again loops back to - design issue of lethal one shot weapons.

So big knights if gets to stay alive not Bracketed kills 1 tank with inv in game. Bohoo

 oni wrote:
There is no reduction in rerolling dice. With what we've seen, rerolls are more present than ever. GW lied.

Except that there is. But let's compare when we have all the datasheets out?

- There has not been any meaningful reduction in AP. Again, GW lied.

What's your evidence of this? Because I can give you tons to the contrary.

- Rules bloat is still present. With what we've seen, there has not been a meaningful reduction in quantity of rules. Things have merely been shifted around to give a false impression there are less rules. Maybe once we can start playing we'll find that despite there still being rules bloat things are more harmonious and it will not be an issue - maybe.

The problem was in being able to digest all those rules and hidden interactions. Let's pretend I'm using Abaddon in 9th. He has 3 warlord traits not on his sheet. One of them changes Slaughter or Destruction into Massacre for BL units within 6". Another grants a full wound reroll to one unit. And the third let's him reroll his charges and get +1A. How do I know what Massacre does? Gotta open the book. How do I know any of his traits? Gotta open the book.

I could do that or I could play 10th, look at this sheet, and have everything I need:

- The OC stat is good at face value and will seemingly make morale more meaningful, but this stat is going to be like AP - only good as long as GW can keep it under control.

How does this equate to them being disingenuous? It kind of feels like you threw this in here so you'd have something extra to complain about before it's truly a problem.

- 10th edition still looks like it will be an overflowing landfill of stratagems. It's not six per faction it's six per detachment and factions will have multiple detachments. So, while fewer will be available to use in any given game, the overall amount will still be too damn many. To add to this, we still do not know if army creation will allow for multiple detachments.

Now this is disingenuous. You don't need to understand what stratagems do for detachments that aren't being used. Caring about the other stratagems for Thousand Sons detachments is like caring about stratagems in an Ork detachment - completely irrelevant.

tneva82 wrote:
So big knights if gets to stay alive not Bracketed kills 1 tank with inv in game. Bohoo

*MIGHT* kill 1 tank

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
So big knights if gets to stay alive not Bracketed kills 1 tank with inv in game. Bohoo

*MIGHT* kill 1 tank

Well 5 turns and you can average 33% under average and it will kill 1.

Which　unless relatively price drops A lot not much to cheer about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and not less ap? Most common army in game got basically army wide ap reduction