New Datasheet design

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.

**xerxeskingofking**

Kanluwen wrote:
Battleline isn't a keyword in AoS. At least not one that appears on the warscrolls.

It's a Battlefield Role that gets granted via army organization.

ok, so 10e might work the same, then? I dont play AOS, so my understanding is a little limited, was i correct with the idea of battleline being granted to some units in relation to warlord/character choice? or am i totally misunderstanding it?

**alextroy**

AOS assigns some units to always be Battleline, but others become Battleline based on the choice of General or Army.

In 40K terms, Tactical Marine may always be battleline but Terminators may also be battleline if your General is a Captain/Chapter Master in Terminator Armor.

**Karol**

And then GW can change it every seson to make people buy more stuff. Like heavy or elite infantry ? Well this seson is all about tanks, so buy some. Next sesons punishes armies for taking tanks, but promotes the tanking of a ton of chaff. Then for all armies or some armies, GW could print out rules for ally, support etc. This seson is anti big vehicles, don't be sad knight player, just run 500-700pts in navy breachers or beastman, and at least you won't be losing against the mid tier armies. In theory at least.

People would have to buy stuff not a an edition or half to year schedul, but rather adopt their armies every quarter. Unless of course GW graces them with a perfect codex that works all the time, no matter what seson it is.

**vipoid**

I do appreciate that GW have apparently taken on board the suggestion I made a couple of years back to make 'assault', 'pistol' etc. weapon abilities, rather than mutually-exclusive categories that every weapon has to fall into.

**JNAProductions**

vipoid wrote:
I do appreciate that GW have apparently taken on board the suggestion I made a couple of years back to make 'assault', 'pistol' etc. weapon abilities, rather than mutually-exclusive categories that every weapon has to fall into.

Yeah, it's a good idea.

Can't wait for a weapon to be Pistol, Heavy, Assault, AND Rapid Fire!

**Karol**

That will probably be something like the "heavy bolter" pistol on a scout dreadnought.

**Voss**

JNAProductions wrote:
vipoid wrote:
I do appreciate that GW have apparently taken on board the suggestion I made a couple of years back to make 'assault', 'pistol' etc. weapon abilities, rather than mutually-exclusive categories that every weapon has to fall into.
Yeah, it's a good idea.

Can't wait for a weapon to be Pistol, Heavy, Assault, AND Rapid Fire!

I'd expect heavy and assault to be exclusive.

Rapid Fire they should just ditch. They've been writing exceptions around it for far too many years now. They need to just put on their designer pants and pick the numbers that fit what they want the weapon to do.

**JNAProductions**

Voss wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
vipoid wrote:
I do appreciate that GW have apparently taken on board the suggestion I made a couple of years back to make 'assault', 'pistol' etc. weapon abilities, rather than mutually-exclusive categories that every weapon has to fall into.
Yeah, it's a good idea.

Can't wait for a weapon to be Pistol, Heavy, Assault, AND Rapid Fire!

I'd expect heavy and assault to be exclusive.

Rapid Fire they should just ditch. They've been writing exceptions around it for far too many years now. They need to just put on their designer pants and pick the numbers that fit what they want the weapon to do.

Heavy is currently move and shoot with a penalty.
Assault is Advance and shoot with a penalty.
You could have both-fire with a -1 after moving, -2 after advancing.

**Tyel**

Wouldn't be surprised if they just ditched Heavy as a criteria.

I realise its a jump - but direction of travel.
"If you move you can't shoot."
"If you move you hit on 6s."
"If you move its -1 to hit."
"If you move its -1 to hit but only for infantry."
"Just nah, its fine."

Assault may well be "you can advance and shoot normally".

**Doohicky**

Putting the weapon type in individual profiles gives a new potential.
A Lascannon could be listed as Heavy on an infantry and assault on a dread for example.

Do I think they will do that? no... but the potential is there.

**vipoid**

Voss wrote:
Rapid Fire they should just ditch. They've been writing exceptions around it for far too many years now. They need to just put on their designer pants and pick the numbers that fit what they want the weapon to do.

I think Rapid Fire was fine when it was a largely detrimental ability.

The old idea seemed to be that Rapid Fire weapons could only fire at full effectiveness at half range, and models with them couldn't assault after firing.

Contrast that with Assault weapons, which fired at full effectiveness at any range, and models could fire them and still assault.

But then in 8th, things basically flipped. Now models can assault no matter what weapon they fire. Moreover, Rapid Fire seems more like a bonus than a detriment - with most weapons seeming to fire normally at long range (often with 2-3 shots at least) and then get extra shots at close range.