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.

I’m still not understanding from a “simplifying” the game perspective why wind riders (using as an example only) need to have a rule to reroll wounds, even if it was a USR They’re fast units with good firepower, that should be enough utility by itself in a well balanced game. Did they need a special rule on top?

This is the bare bones basic game, and you know where GW will go with this as the edition continues. Special rule on top of special rule And if you believe they won’t do that, then I’m not sure where you’ve been the past 20 years.

So far, a lot of the simplification looked quite good, but I’m now seeing them geedubbing it already on initial release.

 bullyboy wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
Ok, just going to come out and say it. Yes, stratagems were way over abused in 9th, but does every unit really have to have its own special rule? Just looking at the data sheets and most of the rules are simply arbitrary. I don’t see how this is simplifying the game if I have to ask my opponent what the special rule is of every unit I encounter to avoid “gotcha” moments.

Read the cards before the game. Done.

Warmachine players are already used to this, it is very handy.

9th…. Read the strats before the game. Done.
So basically the same.
I just don’t see why every unit needs a special rule. A wind rider unit is a fast unit of guardians with cannons. Does it need to have a reroll wound mechanic for targeting closer models, and a better rule if they’re on the objective? Less rerolls…… sure, geedubs.

Big difference. Stratagems were a lot, could be used by multiple units and were in a book.

These are 1 per unit, only for that unit and laid there in big cards over the table. Believe me, I played with a lot more rules per unit with a system like this for years. It is very easy.

Spoletta wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
Ok, just going to come out and say it. Yes, stratagems were way over abused in 9th, but does every unit really have to have its own special rule? Just looking at the data sheets and most of the rules are simply arbitrary. I don’t see how this is simplifying the game if I have to ask my opponent what the special rule is of every unit I encounter to avoid “gotcha” moments.

Read the cards before the game. Done.

Warmachine players are already used to this, it is very handy.

9th…. Read the strats before the game. Done.
So basically the same.
I just don’t see why every unit needs a special rule. A wind rider unit is a fast unit of guardians with cannons. Does it need to have a reroll wound mechanic for targeting closer models, and a better rule if they’re on the objective? Less rerolls…… sure, geedubs.

Big difference. Stratagems were a lot, could be used by multiple units and were in a book.

These are 1 per unit, only for that unit and laid there in big cards over the table. Believe me, I played with a lot more rules per unit with a system like this for years. It is very easy.

Easy, but completely unnecessary IMHO. Give elite units special rules, not all units.

Avatar of Khaine

 cuda1179 wrote:
About Contemptor Dreadnoughts: Had GW just put all the odd weapon upgrade in Legends, I'd have been 100 percent on board with them. Removing them from the 40k codex entirely is just silly. The basic fist with multimelta/ assault cannon model was introduced in a 40k starter set. They should keep that.

Makes me afraid for the Custodes now.

They specifically called out the Custodes for keeping their dreads, I also wouldn't be surprised if we see them moved to plastic soon as well.

Leman Russ

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 Shadow Walker wrote:
Deathstrike

That seems underwhelming for some reason.

D1 feels low.

 Shadow Walker wrote:
Avatar of Khaine

Everyone say Hi to the new Knight meta

 AduroT wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 Shadow Walker wrote:
Deathstrike

That seems underwhelming for some reason.

D1 feels low.

It bypasses so many rules by not targeting though. And it can hit multiple units. At first glance I didn't like it, but i feel there are rule interactions out there where it is very useful.

Is there any Monster or vehicle out there that as Toughness 26?
or are those rules just gimmicks to make sure that it sounds good with S24?

 kodos wrote:
Is there any Monster or vehicle out there that as Toughness 26?
or are those rules just gimmicks to make sure that it sounds good with S24?

S2 wounds t12(like land raider) on 2+.

Oh if it's for harpoon at wounds primarch etc on 2+(huillimann). Anti-x ensures 4+ results in mortals.

Warp Spiders

That avatar looks strong.

 cuda1179 wrote:
About Contemptor Dreadnoughts: Had GW just put all the odd weapon upgrade in Legends, I'd have been 100 percent on board with them. Removing them from the 40k codex entirely is just silly. The basic fist with multimelta/ assault cannon model was introduced in a 40k starter set. They should keep that.

Makes me afraid for the Custodes now.

The first plastic Contemptor was introduced in a special horus heresy game box, not a 40k starter. And because they had it in plastic they decided to included it in the next following codex (with rather lackluster rules) together with the cathaphractii and tartaros terminator patterns, partly because there was no plastic Horus Heresy range at the time and they probably didnt know what to do with the models.
However, I agree its sad not to have access to contemptors in 40k

 cuda1179 wrote:
About Contemptor Dreadnoughts: Had GW just put all the odd weapon upgrade in Legends, I'd have been 100 percent on board with them. Removing them from the 40k codex entirely is just silly. The basic fist with multimelta/ assault cannon model was introduced in a 40k starter set. They should keep that.

Makes me afraid for the Custodes now.

The contemptor was introduced in the Battle of Calth box, not a 40K starter.

Heavy Weapon Team

Did we already see the Sternguard datasheet? Where was it shown they get anti-inf and dev wounds?

 bullyboy wrote:
Ok, just going to come out and say it. Yes, stratagems were way over abused in 9th, but does every unit really have to have its own special rule? Just looking at the data sheets and most of the rules are simply arbitrary. I don’t see how this is simplifying the game if I have to ask my opponent what the special rule is of every unit I encounter to avoid “gotcha” moments.

I don't know how many unique datasheets will be typical each game, but I feel like it will be fairly straight forward to look them over pretty quickly. Like trade cards during deployment and look them over between drops. At some point you'll institutionalize the information. There are also enough that are quite common like sticky objectives that simplifies it - codexes notwithstanding.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 xttz wrote:

 Shadow Walker wrote:
Avatar of Khaine

Everyone say Hi to the new Knight meta

Not really. The Avatar is probably the most beastly unit seen so far. He can grab Fortune from a Farseer for -1 to wound. That same Farseer can spike him a 6 on his Fate Die to grant a 6 so he then has D3+1 S16 AP4 D6+2 shots.

He also halves the damage characteristic so the mortal wounds that the harpoon will produce will at most be 6.

EDIT: This seems like it is not correct since he halves when allocated and allocate happens after the wound roll, which has already turned it into mortal wounds.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Walker wrote:
Heavy Weapon Team

I really enjoy the overwatch synergy.

Mortal wounds work the same way as in 9th (page 23 of 10th edition core rules). They happen one at a time, so any 'half damage' rules do not affect them because they're halving each wound separately and they round back to 1. So the avatar takes full damage against mortal wounds.

Also, allocating attacks are after the wound roll. So they become mortals before the avatar's special ability takes effect.

Mchagen wrote:
Mortal wounds work the same way as in 9th (page 23 of 10th edition core rules). They happen one at a time, so any 'half damage' rules do not affect them because they're halving each wound separately and they round back to 1. So the avatar takes full damage against mortal wounds.

Thanks - I edited my post. To be precise - Avatar halves on allocation. Allocation happens after the wound roll, which has already made it MW.

Yes, I edited that extra proviso in to my post nearly the same time you changed your post.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Not really. The Avatar is probably the most beastly unit seen so far. He can grab Fortune from a Farseer for -1 to wound.

This doesn't work either as ANTI triggers on unmodified rolls.

Really need to find someone at my local club with an Avatar so I can try this out. Would really help shake the dust off my Valiant.

 xttz wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Not really. The Avatar is probably the most beastly unit seen so far. He can grab Fortune from a Farseer for -1 to wound.

This doesn't work either as ANTI triggers on unmodified rolls.

Really need to find someone at my local club with an Avatar so I can try this out. Would really help shake the dust off my Valiant.

Sorry, yea. I didn't mean to imply it would stop anti, but it's definitely in the avatar's favor in general. I'm really curious how many points he'll land on now.

 bullyboy wrote:
I’m still not understanding from a “simplifying” the game perspective why wind riders (using as an example only) need to have a rule to reroll wounds, even if it was a USR They’re fast units with good firepower, that should be enough utility by itself in a well balanced game. Did they need a special rule on top?

This is the bare bones basic game, and you know where GW will go with this as the edition continues. Special rule on top of special rule And if you believe they won’t do that, then I’m not sure where you’ve been the past 20 years.

So far, a lot of the simplification looked quite good, but I’m now seeing them geedubbing it already on initial release.

So you think the DEFAULT of the game should be Normal monsters/Vanilla creatures?

K.

ERJAK wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
I’m still not understanding from a “simplifying” the game perspective why wind riders (using as an example only) need to have a rule to reroll wounds, even if it was a USR They’re fast units with good firepower, that should be enough utility by itself in a well balanced game. Did they need a special rule on top?

This is the bare bones basic game, and you know where GW will go with this as the edition continues. Special rule on top of special rule And if you believe they won’t do that, then I’m not sure where you’ve been the past 20 years.

So far, a lot of the simplification looked quite good, but I’m now seeing them geedubbing it already on initial release.

So you think the DEFAULT of the game should be Normal monsters/Vanilla creatures?

K.

In a card game, I see your point.
But this is a wargame-a simple statline SHOULD be enough for interesting gameplay. I don't think there's anything wrong with most units having a special rule or two, but a basic unit shouldn't be inherently boring.

ERJAK wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
I’m still not understanding from a “simplifying” the game perspective why wind riders (using as an example only) need to have a rule to reroll wounds, even if it was a USR They’re fast units with good firepower, that should be enough utility by itself in a well balanced game. Did they need a special rule on top?

This is the bare bones basic game, and you know where GW will go with this as the edition continues. Special rule on top of special rule And if you believe they won’t do that, then I’m not sure where you’ve been the past 20 years.

So far, a lot of the simplification looked quite good, but I’m now seeing them geedubbing it already on initial release.

So you think the DEFAULT of the game should be Normal monsters/Vanilla creatures?

K.

Reading sure is not your strong point, is it?
Basic troops don’t need special rules. Every unit currently has a snowflake special rule, which is kinda silly IMHO, and not a direction I’m particularly fond of.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
I’m still not understanding from a “simplifying” the game perspective why wind riders (using as an example only) need to have a rule to reroll wounds, even if it was a USR They’re fast units with good firepower, that should be enough utility by itself in a well balanced game. Did they need a special rule on top?

This is the bare bones basic game, and you know where GW will go with this as the edition continues. Special rule on top of special rule And if you believe they won’t do that, then I’m not sure where you’ve been the past 20 years.

So far, a lot of the simplification looked quite good, but I’m now seeing them geedubbing it already on initial release.

So you think the DEFAULT of the game should be Normal monsters/Vanilla creatures?

K.

In a card game, I see your point.
But this is a wargame-a simple statline SHOULD be enough for interesting gameplay. I don't think there's anything wrong with most units having a special rule or two, but a basic unit shouldn't be inherently boring.

To be fair, I think we are actually playing a card game now, just with some added tokens.

 bullyboy wrote:
To be fair, I think we are actually playing a card game now, just with some added tokens.

Ahhhhh, Bullyboy. Welcome to the Dark Side. Please, come in. We have cookies. And character customization. And functional vehicle rules, no NMNR idiocy, templates, real Blast Weapons, Initiative, opposed WS, etc etc.......

 bullyboy wrote:
I’m still not understanding from a “simplifying” the game perspective why wind riders (using as an example only) need to have a rule to reroll wounds, even if it was a USR They’re fast units with good firepower, that should be enough utility by itself in a well balanced game. Did they need a special rule on top?

This is the bare bones basic game, and you know where GW will go with this as the edition continues. Special rule on top of special rule And if you believe they won’t do that, then I’m not sure where you’ve been the past 20 years.

So far, a lot of the simplification looked quite good, but I’m now seeing them geedubbing it already on initial release.

This new datasheet has less on it than in 9th. At present they always advance 6, rerolls of 1 to hit vs units on objectives, and battle focus. Now they get reroll 1s always / full vs units on objectives. And in this scenario it has half the shots hence the rerolls to wound via twin linked.

I don't think you'd find many supporters of datasheets with no abilities save for characters/a handful of other stuff and it seems kind of strange to have this perspective when it's been a bit of a cornerstone for 40K for a while. Add in that there's no FoC and you'd consign many units to the dust heap if they were to have no utility.

To be fair, I think we are actually playing a card game now, just with some added tokens.

Except in this very example the unit in question is rewarded for acting on an opposing unit in a particular position within 3d space, which reasonably establishes it as wargame.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Mchagen wrote:
Mortal wounds work the same way as in 9th (page 23 of 10th edition core rules). They happen one at a time, so any 'half damage' rules do not affect them because they're halving each wound separately and they round back to 1. So the avatar takes full damage against mortal wounds.

Thanks - I edited my post. To be precise - Avatar halves on allocation. Allocation happens after the wound roll, which has already made it MW.

Are you sure that's how it works?

The attack has a damage characteristic of 12, which is converted to mortal wounds. But it's still one attack with a damage characteristic, each mw isn't a separate attack.

I'm not seeing any rules that says each mw is separate attack. They are worked out individually, but they are produced by a single damage characteristic.

It reads to me like this:

Assign attack to avatar.
Halve attack's damage characteristic
Apply each mw individually to the avatar



The requirement to apply each mw individually doesn't convert that one attack into 12 attacks with a damage of 1 each.