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.

Pistols atm. Assault and pistol is an attempt to make pistols more attractive overall, I think.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:


Agreed completly with all points - if there are going to continue to waste huge amounts of blank space - at the very least put in some lore snippets or quotes etc

disagree, the datasheet should be as clean as possible, with only rules.

them being a standardized size is because they'll sell physical cards as game aids, so it makes sense for all of them to be the same size

They could make them a standard size for cards and stop wasting vast amounts of space by having them standard layout but not standard size in the books - its just laziness

That's a nice clean looking data sheet and I'm looking forward to them having a reduction in cross-referencing as a design goal.

I'm on the fence about the split BS profiles per weapon. On one hand it's quite nice to represent how some weapons are more accurate than others, especially on a platform like a Tank or a Knight which has many different kinds of weapons. On the other hand, when you play large armies there's something quite nice and quick about having a near uniform BS for your army. I guess we'll see smooth it plays.

 The Red Hobbit wrote:
That's a nice clean looking data sheet and I'm looking forward to them having a reduction in cross-referencing as a design goal.

I'm on the fence about the split BS profiles per weapon. On one hand it's quite nice to represent how some weapons are more accurate than others, especially on a platform like a Tank or a Knight which has many different kinds of weapons. On the other hand, when you play large armies there's something quite nice and quick about having a near uniform BS for your army. I guess we'll see smooth it plays.

Agreed, hopefully its reserved for things like sniper rifles being extra accurate even in the hands of a guardsman or stuff like Tau Smart Missile Systems which are homing weapons that can navigate around cover.

Seriously hope proper cover saves makes a return instead of cover just modifying armor saves.

 The Red Hobbit wrote:
That's a nice clean looking data sheet and I'm looking forward to them having a reduction in cross-referencing as a design goal.

I'm on the fence about the split BS profiles per weapon. On one hand it's quite nice to represent how some weapons are more accurate than others, especially on a platform like a Tank or a Knight which has many different kinds of weapons. On the other hand, when you play large armies there's something quite nice and quick about having a near uniform BS for your army. I guess we'll see smooth it plays.

Near uniform BS values are legacy for sake of legacy. It's a good change but GW has to actually take advantage of it (which they likely won't like they did with the new wounding chart).

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Near uniform BS values are legacy for sake of legacy. It's a good change but GW has to actually take advantage of it (which they likely won't like they did with the new wounding chart).

I imagine 90% of the values will be the same. It's going to be more specialized items getting variances.

They are taking advantage of the wounding chart now though. Well, if I heard Brandt right, anyway.

Points for equipment can't survive a system where stats change depending on the weilder.

There can't be a generic cost for a chainsword if it's a murder machine in a primarch's hand.

I suppose you could argue that any str+ or strx melee weapon is already a generic price for a variable power weapon...

But once the edition is in swing, people will forget that the numbers on the weapon profile are derived in part from the weilder's stats, and they'll be screaming about balance all over again.

PenitentJake wrote:
There can't be a generic cost for a chainsword if it's a murder machine in a primarch's hand.

The solution is simple, make the price different. A lascannon is an upgrade for both lasgun Guardsmen and boltgun Space Marines and should cost points.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Near uniform BS values are legacy for sake of legacy. It's a good change but GW has to actually take advantage of it (which they likely won't like they did with the new wounding chart).

I imagine 90% of the values will be the same. It's going to be more specialized items getting variances.

They are taking advantage of the wounding chart now though. Well, if I heard Brandt right, anyway.

Even changing 10% is doing SOMETHING. I'm for that.

We will see if Brandt is correct. I still doubt the ability of GW "rules writers" but I'm willing to be proven wrong just for the sake of being able to play a good game.

PenitentJake wrote:
Points for equipment can't survive a system where stats change depending on the weilder.

There can't be a generic cost for a chainsword if it's a murder machine in a primarch's hand.

I suppose you could argue that any str+ or strx melee weapon is already a generic price for a variable power weapon...

But once the edition is in swing, people will forget that the numbers on the weapon profile are derived in part from the weilder's stats, and they'll be screaming about balance all over again.

I think in most cases these upgrades / side-grades will be free. You'll just go for the one that suits your build more appropriately. They can make a captain swing a chainsword 10 times on a captain ( to make it appealing against a power fist ) and 3 times on a marine without having to have a special chainsword listing for the captain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
We will see if Brandt is correct. I still doubt the ability of GW "rules writers" but I'm willing to be proven wrong just for the sake of being able to play a good game.

GW screws up lots, but if there is anything that I noticed is that they were getting better and more responsive.

I can't imagine things will be perfectly rosy, but 10th is their opportunity to utilize everything they learned since and gives them a clean slate to do the things like taking AP down a notch.

They also made some pretty bold statements so as long as they stick to their word things should hopefully not get quickly out of hand.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
They can make a captain swing a chainsword 10 times on a captain ( to make it appealing against a power fist ) and 3 times on a marine without having to have a special chainsword listing for the captain.

They can't though- look at the card design.

Lets say you've got your Chainsword weilding assault intercessors with 2a each, but your Sarge has 3a.

The a characteristic used to belong to the dude, so there was a stat line for the troops and a statline for the sarge.

Now a belongs to the weapon, so to represent the same effect, you need two chainsword lines- one Chainsword Marine (2a), one Chainsword Sarge (3a).

PenitentJake wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
They can make a captain swing a chainsword 10 times on a captain ( to make it appealing against a power fist ) and 3 times on a marine without having to have a special chainsword listing for the captain.

They can't though- look at the card design.

Lets say you've got your Chainsword weilding assault intercessors with 2a each, but your Sarge has 3a.

The a characteristic used to belong to the dude, so there was a stat line for the troops and a statline for the sarge.

Now a belongs to the weapon, so to represent the same effect, you need two chainsword lines- one Chainsword Marine (2a), one Chainsword Sarge (3a).

or you just don't need the extra attack on the sarge anyway.

oh and they totally can. AoS does it by adding

CHAMPION: 1 model in this unit can be a Sargeant. Add 1 to the Attacks characteristic of that model’s melee weapons.

PenitentJake wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
They can make a captain swing a chainsword 10 times on a captain ( to make it appealing against a power fist ) and 3 times on a marine without having to have a special chainsword listing for the captain.

They can't though- look at the card design.

Lets say you've got your Chainsword weilding assault intercessors with 2a each, but your Sarge has 3a.

The a characteristic used to belong to the dude, so there was a stat line for the troops and a statline for the sarge.

Now a belongs to the weapon, so to represent the same effect, you need two chainsword lines- one Chainsword Marine (2a), one Chainsword Sarge (3a).

What you'll get is what Sigmar has. A little section on the data sheet that says something like "One model may be/is a (fill in word for squad leader/champ/etc). Add 1 to that models chainsword attacks #."

 Dysartes wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
• Weapons having their own Attack and Strength instead of a + modifier reduces redundancy, as does removing the "Type" column. Do we really need the word "Melee" listed twice for each melee weapon?

I'm going to disagree on you - sort of - with the Type column. While there's possibly not a need for a Type column now, are you really going to claim that "Things in brackets after the weapon name" is better presentation than repurposing the Type column into a Keyword column for weapons? Looking at you (sigh) Termagant Spinefists and Fleshborer.

I suppose I'll need to see what a cluttered datasheet like the Heavy Intercessor Squad looks like in the new system.

I really like what I see! Anything that can help streamline the game is good for me. One of the reasons I don't play as much as I would like is the time commitment, especially on weekdays. Anything that smooths the experience from list building to turns is a welcome change.

I know some people have already complained about the "lack of tactical depth" when really that should come from mission packs before anything else. The inclusion of reactions, even if limited, should definitely make the game more dynamic in general (crud, if I move over there his guys can do X). With the simplified datasheet format, we also have a way to avoid "gotchas!" by having it all on there. One of the things I love about games like Xwing is that you have the ship card and upgrade card right there in front of you and all info is easily accessible.

So according to the new Data sheet, how many are in a squad? This picture raises more questions than it answers. Just put all the relevant info on a single page. How hard is that?

ccs wrote:
What you'll get is what Sigmar has. A little section on the data sheet that says something like "One model may be/is a (fill in word for squad leader/champ/etc). Add 1 to that models chainsword attacks #."

Seems really clunky.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

ccs wrote:
What you'll get is what Sigmar has. A little section on the data sheet that says something like "One model may be/is a (fill in word for squad leader/champ/etc). Add 1 to that models chainsword attacks #."

Seems really clunky.

Its not clunky considering there are other rules attached with your unit having a champion or not in AoS.

And its better than just having 2 rows of stats because one dude is different IMO

Is it though?

Generally speaking "Sergeant" style models provided better leadership as well, and if the Sergeant was killed early (for whatever reason), there would be a penalty to the unit as the Sergeant wouldn't be there. Do you want a further line that says "As long as the Sergeant is alive, subtract one from the unit's Leadership score"? "Sergeants" could also have wildly different stats if the designers wanted to, greater amounts of wounds, better abilities, more durability, different armour saves, and all sorts of things (Exarchs and Nobz spring to mind). Why limit that design space?

Seems like having a simple and clean numerical representation of what a "Sergeant" (or "Unit Character") at the top of the sheet is a hell of a lot cleaner and certainly more elegant than "And this model gets +1A with this weapon, and if he's alive then the unit also gets -1Ld, and he also has a 2+ save, and...".

They want to simplify things, and they're already adding exceptions to sheets and (weapon rule, other weapon rule) next to the names of guns rather than just having a column for those rules.

Why create a system where the need for overly verbose exceptions and caveats are inherent to the sheet when you can avoid that right from the start?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Why create a system where the need for overly verbose exceptions and caveats are inherent to the sheet when you can avoid that right from the start?

because all those differences shouldn't actually matter at the scale of 40k.

the "only" impact the sergeant truly has is an expanded weapon option. A sergeant simply isnt special enough compared to the other dudes in a squad to warrant giving him different stats

Not to be a party pooper but I sort of wish they showed us a tac marine sheet.

So far it looks clean sure, but these are hormagaunts so it's to be expected that it'll look simple some games you don't even use their weapons, just have them catch bullets to the face.

But even one weapon has 3 special rules/catagories. We shall see what fancier weapons will look like, a titan weapon for example.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
because all those differences shouldn't actually matter at the scale of 40k.

Says who? And based on what criteria?

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
the "only" impact the sergeant truly has is an expanded weapon option. A sergeant simply isnt special enough compared to the other dudes in a squad to warrant giving him different stats

Except it has been the case in every edition prior to this.

They've already stripped away virtually all weapon and wargear options, they're about to rip out most of the relics from the game. Now you want to remove even different stats for unit characters?

How bland do you want 40k to be?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
because all those differences shouldn't actually matter at the scale of 40k.

Says who? And based on what criteria?

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
the "only" impact the sergeant truly has is an expanded weapon option. A sergeant simply isnt special enough compared to the other dudes in a squad to warrant giving him different stats

Except it has been the case in every edition prior to this.

They've already stripped away virtually all weapon and wargear options, they're about to rip out most of the relics from the game. Now you want to remove even different stats for unit characters?

How bland do you want 40k to be?

Don't lie to us like we've never played the game before. No one outside of the absolute most casual narrative games EVER took sergeant weapons since like 5th edition. Don't play pretend like it was some huge flavor booster because it's absolutely bullgak.

Being able to cripple your army by wasting 100+pts on sergeant plasma pistols and sergeant power weapons does not flavor make.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:So according to the new Data sheet, how many are in a squad? This picture raises more questions than it answers. Just put all the relevant info on a single page. How hard is that?

They will likely go the AoS route and put the unit sizes in a separate part of the codex with point costs.

ERJAK wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
because all those differences shouldn't actually matter at the scale of 40k.

Says who? And based on what criteria?

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
the "only" impact the sergeant truly has is an expanded weapon option. A sergeant simply isnt special enough compared to the other dudes in a squad to warrant giving him different stats

Except it has been the case in every edition prior to this.

They've already stripped away virtually all weapon and wargear options, they're about to rip out most of the relics from the game. Now you want to remove even different stats for unit characters?

How bland do you want 40k to be?

Don't lie to us like we've never played the game before. No one outside of the absolute most casual narrative games EVER took sergeant weapons since like 5th edition. Don't play pretend like it was some huge flavor booster because it's absolutely bullgak.

Being able to cripple your army by wasting 100+pts on sergeant plasma pistols and sergeant power weapons does not flavor make.

Only bad players are crippled by spending those points.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
How bland do you want 40k to be?

From what I've been seeing from a number of people since at least the start of 8th? Think the worst canned Cream of Chicken soup you ever did have...

ERJAK wrote:
Don't lie to us like we've never played the game before. No one outside of the absolute most casual narrative games EVER took sergeant weapons since like 5th edition. Don't play pretend like it was some huge flavor booster because it's absolutely bullgak.

You never took a power fist on a Sergeant? A combi-weapon to lead a squad?

I'm sorry, who's the one who's lying?

ERJAK wrote:
Being able to cripple your army by wasting 100+pts on sergeant plasma pistols and sergeant power weapons does not flavor make.

You are literally the first person in the history of the entire fething universe that I've heard say that taking weapons on Sergeants would "cripple" an army. What a absolute crock!

ERJAK wrote:

Don't lie to us like we've never played the game before.

I wonder how cringy it would be if someone was to look at your post history, check out the threads you've started with army lists, and see that every single one of them includes combi-weapons on sergeants.

I wonder...

ERJAK wrote:
Don't lie to us like we've never played the game before. No one outside of the absolute most casual narrative games EVER took sergeant weapons since like 5th edition. Don't play pretend like it was some huge flavor booster because it's absolutely bullgak.

Being able to cripple your army by wasting 100+pts on sergeant plasma pistols and sergeant power weapons does not flavor make.

The 7th edition lists you posted to this very site suggest that you're full of it.

ERJAK wrote:
Don't lie to us like we've never played the game before. No one outside of the absolute most casual narrative games EVER took sergeant weapons since like 5th edition. Don't play pretend like it was some huge flavor booster because it's absolutely bullgak.

Being able to cripple your army by wasting 100+pts on sergeant plasma pistols and sergeant power weapons does not flavor make.

TIL craftworld eldar are a casual narrative faction.