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.

The 'Battle of Oghram' subsite is now live and has some background stuff and information:

https://warhammer40000.com/battleforoghram/

 Sasori wrote:

As for the USRs, the only ones I've seen that has popped up a few times are reroll X when someone is on an objective, and sticky objectives. Let's see how common those actually are before we say that GW is failing at it.

Is sticky objectives what we're calling that for the next 3 years?

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Sasori wrote:

As for the USRs, the only ones I've seen that has popped up a few times are reroll X when someone is on an objective, and sticky objectives. Let's see how common those actually are before we say that GW is failing at it.

Is sticky objectives what we're calling that for the next 3 years?

It’s what people have been calling it for awhile, so I assume it’ll continue.

The rule I’m surprised they didn’t cover in the main book is defining units/single models below starting strength. They define half strength in the rulebook, but so many sheets we’ve seen have had to each define starting strength.

Shadow Walker wrote:

 Skywave wrote:


I'm fine with that. I have melee warriors and shooty warriors already, so they'll have their own datasheet

Unless you have Warriors with Deathspitters and Swords, and the latter are for cc ones only, and suddenly you have illegal loadout

The 2 Tyranid Warrior datasheets will be interesting to see. I expect they will have different abilities to enhance ranged or close combat. The question is the weapons.

Will Ranged Biomorph Warriors have melee weapon options or be limited to “melee biomoph” with a unified stat block?

Will Melee Biomoph Warriors get some sort of Extra Attacks rule for their 2 sets of melee weapons? Will they be uniform or based on the two sets selected?

GW has an opportunity to make this split shine or splat.

AduroT wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Sasori wrote:

As for the USRs, the only ones I've seen that has popped up a few times are reroll X when someone is on an objective, and sticky objectives. Let's see how common those actually are before we say that GW is failing at it.

Is sticky objectives what we're calling that for the next 3 years?

It’s what people have been calling it for awhile, so I assume it’ll continue.

The rule I’m surprised they didn’t cover in the main book is defining units/single models below starting strength. They define half strength in the rulebook, but so many sheets we’ve seen have had to each define starting strength.

I get the feeling the Core Book was off to print before they settled on using Below Starting Strength as a rule hook. I’m sure it will make it into 11th Edition

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Sasori wrote:

As for the USRs, the only ones I've seen that has popped up a few times are reroll X when someone is on an objective, and sticky objectives. Let's see how common those actually are before we say that GW is failing at it.

Is sticky objectives what we're calling that for the next 3 years?

At least it makes sense and is descriptive. We spend all 7th calling meta-formations “decurions” just because Necrons got theirs first.

Uh, anyone see anything about tanks not being ableto drive up walls?

No. I haven’t notice that.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Uh, anyone see anything about tanks not being ableto drive up walls?

What you haven't seen the Batman movie where he drives the Batmobile up the side of a building?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Why couldn't the "Biologis" part of the Apothecary be an optional upgrade, meaning that you could have non-Gravis Apothecaries Biologis?

To be fair, he is carrying huge analyzer box that can be only lifted by SM in gravis or terminator plate, and since there are no termie apothecaries (besides two snowflake chapters), gravis only it is.

If anything, if there is something dumb here, it's the fact the saws on this model don't count as chainfist-y weapons other apothecaries have, or if GW really intended it to be buffer only character, the fact you can't replace analyzer thing with narthecium to have regular gravis apothecary who can add some melee punch to gravis squads (which would be really welcome seeing usual imbecile writer sabotaging primaris failed to give all non-aggressor gravis any melee options, when all SM players have lots of spare TDA weapons that go on gravis perfectly)

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
What's not well constructed is the arbitrary separation of certain abilities based on small things like what type of armour someone is wearing. Librarian in Power Armour gets Power X, but Librarian in Terminator Armour gets Power Y, but Primaris Librarian gets Power Z!

Why?

That was not only true in past editions (see phobos librarian getting their own obscuration domain that worked better with sneaky playstyle phobos want to do), but even if it was not, in the edition where characters have defined subsection of units they support you logically want the buffs they give to support said units. Terminator librarian would like power buffing ++ saves, but it would be utterly useless for phobos or squatmarine one. Phobos can buff infiltration or cover saves, something that would be useless to terminators, so on, so on. Do you really want them to have size-zero-fits-absolutely-no-one samey powers?

Dudeface wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You're right: It would make sense for the options to survive, but then I look at the Plague Flail and see that it is a different weapon completely depending on what unit has it and I start to wonder if we get Rending Claws on Genestealers, but "Bio-Melee Weapons" on Tyranid Warriors that mush ScyTals and Rending Claws into one.

Once upon a time Boneswords vanished from 40k and in their place was the more organic less holding-a-sword-ish Scything Talon. Then Boneswords came back. I wonder if they'll be merged once again.

Quite possibly, ultimately they're for the same targets: infantry in melee, a mixed profile of a little ap and d2 on the melee duders then model as you please might tick the box.

You're saying that like it would be a good thing.

HINT - It would not be a good thing.

 Dysartes wrote:

You're saying that like it would be a good thing.

HINT - It would not be a good thing.

according to your opinion

 Dysartes wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You're right: It would make sense for the options to survive, but then I look at the Plague Flail and see that it is a different weapon completely depending on what unit has it and I start to wonder if we get Rending Claws on Genestealers, but "Bio-Melee Weapons" on Tyranid Warriors that mush ScyTals and Rending Claws into one.

Once upon a time Boneswords vanished from 40k and in their place was the more organic less holding-a-sword-ish Scything Talon. Then Boneswords came back. I wonder if they'll be merged once again.

Quite possibly, ultimately they're for the same targets: infantry in melee, a mixed profile of a little ap and d2 on the melee duders then model as you please might tick the box.

You're saying that like it would be a good thing.

HINT - It would not be a good thing.

You're right having a "best melee weapon" option and 3 weapons all sharing a very similar design space is much better. I don't mind either way, but if they're not consolidated they need to be differentiated better. Remind me when the last time you ever saw warriors with 4 scything talons was?

What bugs me about the Apothecary is that his abilities are somewhat non-complimentary - perhaps it is by design? I don't know.

e.g. Lethal Hits is great on Eradicators and likely decent on Heavy Intercessors, but the opportunities for his OC boost to matter from within those units are few and likely only on defense.

In Aggressors I can see him on the front and being a boss holding an objective, but the Lethal Hits don't offer much when their weapons are twin linked.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

In Aggressors I can see him on the front and being a boss holding an objective, but the Lethal Hits don't offer much when their weapons are twin linked.

how so? Isnt lethal hits "crit hits auto wounds"? Thats much better when shooting into high T targets

 Jidmah wrote:

3) GW axing two thirds of the 40k FW range out of nowhere.

Sure, if by "out of nowhere" you mean "gradually over the past several years".

Dudeface wrote:
You're right having a "best melee weapon" option and 3 weapons all sharing a very similar design space is much better.

Why not use the opportunities pretended by a new edition to not have 3 weapons sharing a very similar design space and actually further differentiate them using a combination of changed stats and the new weapon USRs?

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

In Aggressors I can see him on the front and being a boss holding an objective, but the Lethal Hits don't offer much when their weapons are twin linked.

how so? Isnt lethal hits "crit hits auto wounds"? Thats much better when shooting into high T targets

It’s not nothing, but when you are already re-rolling to wound, it’s not as much a boost as adding it to a normal attack

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
You're right having a "best melee weapon" option and 3 weapons all sharing a very similar design space is much better.

Why not use the opportunities pretended by a new edition to not have 3 weapons sharing a very similar design space and actually further differentiate them using a combination of changed stats and the new weapon USRs?

that would be good, three loadouts that are different, equally useful but in different situations against different targets, with the "jack of all trades" weapon worse enough at each its a genuine choice with no real "bad" option, just different and used in different ways

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
You're right having a "best melee weapon" option and 3 weapons all sharing a very similar design space is much better.

Why not use the opportunities pretended by a new edition to not have 3 weapons sharing a very similar design space and actually further differentiate them using a combination of changed stats and the new weapon USRs?

Exactly, all for that

 Daedalus81 wrote:
What bugs me about the Apothecary is that his abilities are somewhat non-complimentary - perhaps it is by design? I don't know.

His shooting buff could work for the units he's part of pretty well. Even Eradicators, which might suffer in 10th due to Melta weapons being left behind in the strength/toughness arms race can benefit a bit.

The only thing that doesn't really work with him is the OC boost. Yes, it could work with Aggressors, but I imagine that'll getting to use that rule will be rather rare.

 Nevelon wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

In Aggressors I can see him on the front and being a boss holding an objective, but the Lethal Hits don't offer much when their weapons are twin linked.

how so? Isnt lethal hits "crit hits auto wounds"? Thats much better when shooting into high T targets

It’s not nothing, but when you are already re-rolling to wound, it’s not as much a boost as adding it to a normal attack

It's less rolls to fish for. Same with the Death Guard granting -1 toughnesson top of lethal wounds. Sure your 6s auto wound, but what about every other hit that needs a roll to wound in the next step? Well, now you have an easier time with that roll.

Have they said what all items will be available alongside Leviathan? Are all the Indexes going to be out on the same day? Able to play full games with all our stuff?

They said all the downloads will be staggered over the preorder period, with Tyranids & Marines getting their full indices later this week.

 AduroT wrote:
Have they said what all items will be available alongside Leviathan? Are all the Indexes going to be out on the same day? Able to play full games with all our stuff?

Download schedule, courtesy of Valrak:

- The entire month of June will be hyping up free products that you can download
- 2nd of June: core rules and quickstart guide
- 5th of June: Leviathan datasheets
- 8th of June: Tyranid datasheets
- 9th of June: SM datasheets
- 12th of June: non-codex SM datasheets
- 13th of June: Chaos SM datasheets
- 14th of June: Imperium datasheets
- 15th of June: Xenos datasheets
- 16th of June: GT packs and points list
- 20th of June: Datasheets for Combat Patrol
- 23rd of June: Boarding Patrol and Crusade material

You can also find that in the OP. As you can see, everything will be released alongside Leviathan, with the exception of the Imperial Armour datasheets (i.e. for everything Forgeworld, despite the name) which is said to release 'shortly' after.

By the time Leviathan hits we'll have all the unit rules and points.

 Sasori wrote:
Yes, I am absolutely want that. A good example is Battle Sisters giving you extra Miracle dice when holding an objective gives you a reason to bring them over just something that can kill better. This actually seems like it will make list building a lot more fun, than trying to cram as much of the most efficient weapon possible into my list.

I would agree with this point.

I think this is a nice way of making troops desirable without them needing to be as good at killing as elites.

My frustration would be that, like so many things in 40k, it's not been implemented remotely consistently.

Sisters of Battle and Eldar Guardians both get abilities that benefit the core mechanic of the army, allowing them to generate extra dice for more elite models to make use of. Awesome.

But then the moment we get to other troop choices, that design philosophy is flushed straight down the toilet. DE Kabalites, for example, don't generate extra Pain Tokens except by killing units (like everything else in the army). So immediately we're back to troop choices needing to be as killy as elites to be worth a damn.

They got sticky objectives though, didn't they?

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

In Aggressors I can see him on the front and being a boss holding an objective, but the Lethal Hits don't offer much when their weapons are twin linked.

how so? Isnt lethal hits "crit hits auto wounds"? Thats much better when shooting into high T targets

It helps certainly. As I think on it - of the top level grantable buffs ( Ignore Cover / Sustained / Lethal ) then Lethal is probably the most useful, but not over the top buff that works for the units he can join. Sustained on Eradicators could be silly especially with OoM. All of the buffs are totally useless to Flamers though, which already have Ignore Cover. What buff can Flamer Aggs even get? Anti-X, I guess?

In terms of efficacy - one shot that hits on 3s and wounds on 5s produces a wound 22% of the time. With TL it's 37%. LH is 33%. LH & TL is 44%. That's the high end though. If you wound on 3s it goes from 59% to 61%. At the same time with toughness creeping up it can be useful.

Vorian wrote:
They got sticky objectives though, didn't they?

Yes kablites did so replace them with plague marines and his point still stands.

Plague marines +1 to leadership rolls when in range of an objective markers.

Vorian wrote:
They got sticky objectives though, didn't they?

Oh yes, I forgot how useful an ability that was for a unit that wants to be flying around in a transport. Definitely not a waste of ink.