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.

Justyn wrote:

Wow, so Death Company with jump packs must have raided all the power fists and thunder hammers from Vanguard Veterans and Wolf Guard...

Yeah I will just run Grey BA. F@#K GW.

A bigger FU to GW would be telling them you're not going to purchase anything until they fix these issues. None y'all will do that though because plastic crack.

 Valkyrie wrote:
Noted Bjorn halves any incoming damage, but no rounding clarification is mentioned. Would expect this to be FAQ'ed along with the -1D question. Doubt even p5 would try to pull the whole "you've taken 0.5 wounds" argument.

I would default to standard mathematical rounding rules, so 0.5 is rounded up.

 Trickstick wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:
Noted Bjorn halves any incoming damage, but no rounding clarification is mentioned. Would expect this to be FAQ'ed along with the -1D question. Doubt even p5 would try to pull the whole "you've taken 0.5 wounds" argument.

I would default to standard mathematical rounding rules, so 0.5 is rounded up.

And on top of that 'to a minimum of one' has a lot of precedent in Warhammer.

A bigger FU to GW would be telling them you're not going to purchase anything until they fix these issues. None y'all will do that though because plastic crack.

Eh, I cannot currently purchase less than zero.

I assume there is no interaction between Lethal Hits and Devastating wounds? That is Lethal hits are normal wounds not critical wounds?

Dudeface wrote:
It'd be a real shame if you couldn't read them for free online or simply ask to read them right?

The point being that the game is not simpler if I have to remember several hundred opposing datasheets or scroll through a several hundred page PDF for every model constantly.

If anything the attempts to simplify it have increased the cognitive load, not decreased it.

 Grimskul wrote:
You can tell the amount of datasheets is getting to the GW rules writers, because the Wulfen have the same stats for their generic weapons as they do for their hammer, even though the hammer only as 4 attacks compared to the 6 for their claws and other melee weapons.

Nah that one makes sense.

I just don't see the point of taking Fenrisian Wolves unless they're dirt cheap. Also it would be nice if units with Extra Attacks that have the same profile as the unit's normal weapon would have the same WS. Like why make TWC roll two different blocks of dice? It seems like a relatively small buff that would be a big quality of life change.

 The Phazer wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
It'd be a real shame if you couldn't read them for free online or simply ask to read them right?

The point being that the game is not simpler if I have to remember several hundred opposing datasheets or scroll through a several hundred page PDF for every model constantly.

If anything the attempts to simplify it have increased the cognitive load, not decreased it.

thats just false.

having the same amount of total rules in a book but having them on the datasheet instead of scattered between multiple pages of unorganized stratagems/relics/traits/spells is a much lighter cognitive load.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
having the same amount of total rules in a book but having them on the datasheet instead of scattered between multiple pages of unorganized stratagems/relics/traits/spells is a much lighter cognitive load.

I think the main advantage is you just need the cards you need, not the whole thing. So you could just be carrying the dozen cards for your particular army. I guess this hurts your ability to look up random things when out, but you could use the digital version as a backup I guess.

There are thousands of units in the game.

There is no way to make that something you can remember. At best it can be made something that is easier to reference.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 The Phazer wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
It'd be a real shame if you couldn't read them for free online or simply ask to read them right?

The point being that the game is not simpler if I have to remember several hundred opposing datasheets or scroll through a several hundred page PDF for every model constantly.

If anything the attempts to simplify it have increased the cognitive load, not decreased it.

thats just false.

having the same amount of total rules in a book but having them on the datasheet instead of scattered between multiple pages of unorganized stratagems/relics/traits/spells is a much lighter cognitive load.

It's a subconscious bias I think, if you've played for many editions and had the humble bolter simply be a cumulative profile/set of changes over the year and you easily apply that to other stuff then yes the new rules probably take a bit more learning. If you are able to park that or are new and can simple read and absorb things at face value, then this is significantly better. Sternguard having different guns with different rules to a tac marine > same bolter as 50% of the game but with 6/7 different rules or bits of unique wargear to get to the same place.

 Tyran wrote:
There are thousands of units in the game.

There is no way to make that something you can remember. At best it can be made something that is easier to reference.

Having standardized and visually distinct gear do wildly different things depending on which datasheet you use for models is just bad game design though. As it stands, what a given set of e.g. lightning claws does is anyone's guess if you do not know the specific datasheet.

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
There are thousands of units in the game.

There is no way to make that something you can remember. At best it can be made something that is easier to reference.

Having standardized and visually distinct gear do wildly different things depending on which datasheet you use for models is just bad game design though. As it stands, what a given set of e.g. lightning claws does is anyone's guess if you do not know the specific datasheet.

That isn't an issue for a large part of the game, you need to know what a unit does, even if you standardised the basic weaponry against 4-5 units you still need to learn what the unit actually has for profile, rules, additional abilities or loadouts and potential uses/roles. Checking the weapon profile isn't a big leap extra whilst you're there and doesn't take much to submit to memory extra.

"What profile and rules do those have, what are they armed with" - done

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
There are thousands of units in the game.

There is no way to make that something you can remember. At best it can be made something that is easier to reference.

Having standardized and visually distinct gear do wildly different things depending on which datasheet you use for models is just bad game design though. As it stands, what a given set of e.g. lightning claws does is anyone's guess if you do not know the specific datasheet.

They seem to be a melee twin-linked ap-2 D1 weapon, that part is consistent across all iterations I could find in the Marine index.

The actual number of attacks, WS+ and strength will vary from datasheet to datasheet, but that always has been true as WS+, A and S have always been datasheet dependent.

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
There are thousands of units in the game.

There is no way to make that something you can remember. At best it can be made something that is easier to reference.

Having standardized and visually distinct gear do wildly different things depending on which datasheet you use for models is just bad game design though. As it stands, what a given set of e.g. lightning claws does is anyone's guess if you do not know the specific datasheet.

That's the part that really burns me on these changes. They make things so much harder. Harder to finagle existing units, harder to remember what those units do or their weapon stats. It feels so needlessly arbitrary. Like the worst possible midpoint between how 40K was and something like OPR.

So anybody want to explain to me why the Close Combat Weapon in Kill Team Cassius has AP-2, but the Long Vigil Melee Weapon only has AP-1 ???

That's the part that really burns me on these changes. They make things so much harder. Harder to finagle existing units, harder to remember what those units do or their weapon stats. It feels so needlessly arbitrary. Like the worst possible midpoint between how 40K was and something like OPR.

I think the worst part is that every single unit needs its own damn unique special rule. Every single unit. Why? What the gak is the point of that. Isn't the difference between stats and weapons enough for some units. Why do all the SM captains need different special rules.... Now I need to memorize 6000 new special rules. Sure they are all on the datacards, but really... who is going to have every single card spread out over the table every time they play.

Then there is the nonsense like VV, TWC etc losing all access to special weapons, but Sanguinary Guard and Death Company get to keep access to real CC weapons. Is there a huge disconnect between writers at GW? Or does someone in the studio just like BA more?

Dudeface wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
There are thousands of units in the game.

There is no way to make that something you can remember. At best it can be made something that is easier to reference.

Having standardized and visually distinct gear do wildly different things depending on which datasheet you use for models is just bad game design though. As it stands, what a given set of e.g. lightning claws does is anyone's guess if you do not know the specific datasheet.

That isn't an issue for a large part of the game, you need to know what a unit does, even if you standardised the basic weaponry against 4-5 units you still need to learn what the unit actually has for profile, rules, additional abilities or loadouts and potential uses/roles. Checking the weapon profile isn't a big leap extra whilst you're there and doesn't take much to submit to memory extra.

"What profile and rules do those have, what are they armed with" - done

I mostly agree with you (especially on generic units), but it's not quite that easy. Under new index rules, Deathwatch Proteus Killteam can have the same physical component have different rules dependant on who the piece is glued to:

DW Vet with big hammer - that's a heavy thunder hammer
DW Van Vet with same big hammer in same unit - that's a long vigil melee weapon

WYSIWYG was a rule for quite a while, it's a big change to swap that out for "it isn't what you see, it's what the card says"

Im usually not one to complain at GW but looking at the DW index... Nerfs to all kill teams and that is even if you can till use youre previous unit builds at all. And the errors. Never thought Id use the phrase but they will have to sit out the edition on the shelf.

The whole heirloom weapons thing is making me think VVs will get a new kit like the SVs have.

 General Kroll wrote:
The whole heirloom weapons thing is making me think VVs will get a new kit like the SVs have.

Probably. We've had rumours of a Primaris Jump Pack assault unit for a long time now. (Though I'm expecting the Codex-wave to be Terminator-focused, so the new VV's might not be till the BA book comes out.)

On today's Indexes, DW seem to be the clear winners. With the ability to build them to pump out 70-90MW per shooting phase, I wonder if Eldar D-Cannons will still be the big bad, or if the community will move on to the new craziness.

Sanguinary Priest with JP cant go with Sanguinary Guard...I think I might cry

At least Mephiston is finally a true beast as he always should have been. But even still he can only really go with Assault Intercessors as a good melee unit.

Edit: Sanguinor is also a lot of fun.

Is there a rule restriction where a unit can only allocate attacks to a model they have charged like last edition? If so what a dick move by this guy, love it.

It would be criminal to finally add jump packs and cage them until BA, given how hard they have flanderized Raven Guard into "jump packs!".

 Insularum wrote:

I mostly agree with you (especially on generic units), but it's not quite that easy. Under new index rules, Deathwatch Proteus Killteam can have the same physical component have different rules dependant on who the piece is glued to:

DW Vet with big hammer - that's a heavy thunder hammer
DW Van Vet with same big hammer in same unit - that's a long vigil melee weapon

WYSIWYG was a rule for quite a while, it's a big change to swap that out for "it isn't what you see, it's what the card says"

Agreed. It seems odd for a design team to think that universal special rules help reduce confusion when the same rule appears in multiple datacard, but uniform weapon profiles do NOT reduce confusion, when the exact same model bit has a different profile when it is on a different datacard.

It's still allegedly a miniatures wargame, but the designers are telling us that specific design elements of the model line, have different rules profiles when they appear on different models---AND that other, differing design elements have the SAME rules profile, when they appear on some models, and different rules profiles when they appear on other models.

Obviously, it's not an insurmountable cognitive load, but it's really odd that the design team decides to simplify and rationalize certain rules, then goes out of their way to make sure that same weapon ≠ same rules sometimes and different weapon ≠ different rules sometimes.

If it was just 'we can only fit this much on a datacard', I would be disappointed, but it would be logically consistent. However, they then throw additional weapons on a 'wargear' card anyway. If you're going to do that, why bundle various weapons together?

Also, if simplification is the goal, why refer to power weapons in some places as power weapons, and in other places, as something else? Isn't creating multiple terms for the same thing precisely not simplifying it?

Da Butcha wrote:

 Insularum wrote:

I mostly agree with you (especially on generic units), but it's not quite that easy. Under new index rules, Deathwatch Proteus Killteam can have the same physical component have different rules dependant on who the piece is glued to:

DW Vet with big hammer - that's a heavy thunder hammer
DW Van Vet with same big hammer in same unit - that's a long vigil melee weapon

WYSIWYG was a rule for quite a while, it's a big change to swap that out for "it isn't what you see, it's what the card says"

Agreed. It seems odd for a design team to think that universal special rules help reduce confusion when the same rule appears in multiple datacard, but uniform weapon profiles do NOT reduce confusion, when the exact same model bit has a different profile when it is on a different datacard.

It's still allegedly a miniatures wargame, but the designers are telling us that specific design elements of the model line, have different rules profiles when they appear on different models---AND that other, differing design elements have the SAME rules profile, when they appear on some models, and different rules profiles when they appear on other models.

Obviously, it's not an insurmountable cognitive load, but it's really odd that the design team decides to simplify and rationalize certain rules, then goes out of their way to make sure that same weapon ≠ same rules sometimes and different weapon ≠ different rules sometimes.

If it was just 'we can only fit this much on a datacard', I would be disappointed, but it would be logically consistent. However, they then throw additional weapons on a 'wargear' card anyway. If you're going to do that, why bundle various weapons together?

Also, if simplification is the goal, why refer to power weapons in some places as power weapons, and in other places, as something else? Isn't creating multiple terms for the same thing precisely not simplifying it?

This plays into my theory that i don't think the design team knows the philosophy behind why the community wanted certain changes made, instead making changes sorta kinda like the ones that the playerbase asked for and hoping it does the trick. They, as usual, hit things erratically with a hammer, rather than finding where the screw is and turning it into place.

I don't think anyone was asking for combi-weapons to be a single statline, however they were complaining about intercessor boltguns. People complained about certain options being worthless, and as a solution the design team just made them one statline. *cough* Deathwatch, warriors and Vanguard *cough*

Justyn wrote:

That's the part that really burns me on these changes. They make things so much harder. Harder to finagle existing units, harder to remember what those units do or their weapon stats. It feels so needlessly arbitrary. Like the worst possible midpoint between how 40K was and something like OPR.

I think the worst part is that every single unit needs its own damn unique special rule. Every single unit. Why? What the gak is the point of that. Isn't the difference between stats and weapons enough for some units. Why do all the SM captains need different special rules.... Now I need to memorize 6000 new special rules. Sure they are all on the datacards, but really... who is going to have every single card spread out over the table every time they play.

Then there is the nonsense like VV, TWC etc losing all access to special weapons, but Sanguinary Guard and Death Company get to keep access to real CC weapons. Is there a huge disconnect between writers at GW? Or does someone in the studio just like BA more?

It solidifies BA as the melee specialist army and Space Wolves as tough brawlers. T6 3+/4++ W4 is no joke. Death Company also need that Chaplain around to do mission work.

As for the proliferation of special rules - it provides a level of interesting tactical options. If all the Captains had the ability that gives the Captain DW and extra attacks once per game then you really wouldn't want to use a Captain on a non-melee focused unit, right?

has this been posted?

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:
This plays into my theory that i don't think the design team knows the philosophy behind why the community wanted certain changes made, instead making changes sorta kinda like the ones that the playerbase asked for and hoping it does the trick. They, as usual, hit things erratically with a hammer, rather than finding where the screw is and turning it into place.

I don't think anyone was asking for combi-weapons to be a single statline, however they were complaining about intercessor boltguns. People complained about certain options being worthless, and as a solution the design team just made them one statline. *cough* Deathwatch, warriors and Vanguard *cough*

Combis probably died, because they wanted to do things like the special rule for Sternguard. Sternguard were primarily bolter specialists and it drifted to the special-weapon ranged-specialist we've had for a while. Now it seems like GW wants to make it so you can't build units that take on anything -- at least not without applying some leader buff ( DW strat notwistanding )

Was it the right thing to do? Certainly it's causing a bit of a mess and the transition period will be tough. The game might wind up better off for it...model collections not so much.

Honestly, pretty happy with how DW turned out. Weirdly enough I consider this the least disruptive change we've ever gotten so I'll take that as a win.

The Proteus datasheet in general is a bit of a mess though. Most of it is okay, but the lack of Jump Pack customization feels like a notable oversight. Depends a bit I guess on how the points wind up though.

 nordsturmking wrote:
has this been posted?

Very interesting to see the bikes not be noticably tougher than the mainline troops.

 Shadow Walker wrote:

 xttz wrote:


Neurotyrant and SK share the same sprue and will need to be sold together.

They both could be part of new multipart kits. SC as part of ordinary Carnifex/OOE kit, and Neurotyrant with some yet unknown creature.

They could but far more likely to follow 8&9 ed style and those 2 are the expensive sprues you get from webstore.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Valkyrie wrote:
Noted Bjorn halves any incoming damage, but no rounding clarification is mentioned. Would expect this to be FAQ'ed along with the -1D question. Doubt even p5 would try to pull the whole "you've taken 0.5 wounds" argument.

Are you REALLY sure?-)