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.

 vipoid wrote:
What does GW have against printing Invulnerable Saves on the statline?

"We put the model's toughness, saves and wounds on the top-left of the page, so that they're all together and easy to see at a glance . . . except for the Invulnerable Save which we instead put on the bottom-right of the page, as far from the other stats as possible."

I would say because it isn't a common item shared among all cards and prevents confusion, I guess.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
What does GW have against printing Invulnerable Saves on the statline?

"We put the model's toughness, saves and wounds on the top-left of the page, so that they're all together and easy to see at a glance . . . except for the Invulnerable Save which we instead put on the bottom-right of the page, as far from the other stats as possible."

I would say because it isn't a common item shared among all cards and prevents confusion, I guess.

If i'd had to guess i'd say it is because the invulnerable save is an additional ability rather than an intrinsic part of an units stats, and probably more easily modified by other stuff. I still think we'll see stuff like cards/chits/whatever that you put on or over certain parts of the unit card to denote special wargear and such, and that the position in that column of the profile has something to do with it. We do already know that there are 'Enhancements', maybe that's their name for that.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Ah, right. It's probably like the accursed weapons - things without a ton of distance between each other.

Apparently I was a weirdo for liking accursed weapons/3rd ed power weapons, but today I'm a happy chappy.

Additional ability or not, giving it the exact same style as header text (the Ranged Weapons, Melee Weapons, and Abilities blocks) is poor visual design.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
USRS WITH X!!

Should be more of them. Deep Strike should be scalable.

Dudeface wrote:
Apparently I was a weirdo for liking accursed weapons/3rd ed power weapons, but today I'm a happy chappy.

Accursed weapons went too far, removing even Lightning Claws from units.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Should be more of them. Deep Strike should be scalable.

Yea it will be interesting to see how messy they get with GSC and the like.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
USRS WITH X!!

Should be more of them. Deep Strike should be scalable.

Unfortunately this seems unlikely as Deep Strike is listed in the Terminator abilities beside “Core” and doesn’t have a number beside it.

 nordsturmking wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/04/just-how-tough-are-terminators-in-the-new-edition-of-warhammer-40000/
so termis have T5 now... i really hope custodes will have T6 other wise this is a fething joke

I think GW wants to increase the overall range of Toughness values for the game (capping everything at T8 for a while was a terrible decision IMO) but they are going to do it very gingerly given the backlack after Orks went to T5. That said I predict we'll see a handful of units get +1 T across the factions. I'm guessing Custodes will be T5 but Custodes Termies will be T6. Meganobs and similar may also get bumped up to T6 as well.

 vipoid wrote:
What does GW have against printing Invulnerable Saves on the statline?

"We put the model's toughness, saves and wounds on the top-left of the page, so that they're all together and easy to see at a glance . . . except for the Invulnerable Save which we instead put on the bottom-right of the page, as far from the other stats as possible."

Yeah that's an easy slam dunk they missed. Putting 4++ as the next column would have saved them a ton of space instead of printing Invul on every data card.

So...

All rules on the card...

Except:

Blast
Anti-vehicle
Ignores Cover
Torrent
Devastating Wounds
... and the Rapid Ingress strat
... oh, and of course Deepstrike and Oath of Moment

Oh, and there are no indications of how many of each weapon you're allowed to take- so I guess that's a Cyclone, an Assault Cannon and a Power Fist for everyone?

Now of course, I'm being a bit facetious here- obviously a lot of the missing rules will be USRs... But will they be on the two page spread, or will they be in the dex, or will they be in the BRB... or some combination of the above?

Also, as noted by others, this profile doesn't include Assault Terminator weapons like Claws and Hammers, so consolidationist weep- there will continue to be at least two datacards for Terminators and likely another for Relic termies.

Regardless of where the USRs go, if a quick-reference sheet isn't provided they'll be on a fan-made one within about two hours of the game releasing.

Defining out every single keyword rule was never going to happen in the first place. They're just extending the system already established by keywords like Rapid Fire and Blast. If there's a more complete datasheet in the codex then that might contain full text for USRs, but the unit reference card should not. That's what your USR quick-reference sheet is for (see above).

Same deal with unit construction. Not relevant ingame, shouldn't be on the unit card. How many weapons the unit can pick and what they cost goes in the codex. Once you hit the table that's no longer relevant.

Really so far the only thing that gives me pause is that poor presentation of invulnerable saves. Everything else seems fine. I especially like the separation between Core, Faction, and unit-specific rules.

PenitentJake wrote:
So...

All rules on the card...

Except:

Blast
Anti-vehicle
Ignores Cover
Torrent
Devastating Wounds
... and the Rapid Ingress strat
... oh, and of course Deepstrike and Oath of Moment

Oh, and there are no indications of how many of each weapon you're allowed to take- so I guess that's a Cyclone, an Assault Cannon and a Power Fist for everyone?

Now of course, I'm being a bit facetious here- obviously a lot of the missing rules will be USRs... But will they be on the two page spread, or will they be in the dex, or will they be in the BRB... or some combination of the above?

Also, as noted by others, this profile doesn't include Assault Terminator weapons like Claws and Hammers, so consolidationist weep- there will continue to be at least two datacards for Terminators and likely another for Relic termies.

We also know that stuff like doctrines you can pick&choose from also exists and is linked to detachments, so there are already rules that are not on the card, but on your detachment sheet or whatever it is called.

SOoo... There are now at least 4 different types of wounds?

Wounds (normal S vs. T)
Critical wounds (auto-wound <Keyword> on X+)
Devastating wounds (?)
Mortal wounds (ignores Sv. and Invulnerable Sv.)

WTF!?!?

 oni wrote:
SOoo... There are now at least 4 different types of wounds?

Wounds
Critical wounds
Devastating wounds
Mortal wounds

WTF!?!?

No. Critical wounds just means an auto-success on a predefined roll, and 'Devastating Wounds' is supposedly something like the different varieties of 'Rending' in past editions.

If I had to guess a Critical Wound is a 6, so the usual rolling a 6 wounds the target regardless of your puny strength. Some abilities like Anti change that to a 3+ for instance.

Devastating Wounds is a keyword, perhaps it is exploding 6s when wounding which would make sense for an assault cannon.

And yeah MW

Tsagualsa wrote:

 oni wrote:
SOoo... There are now at least 4 different types of wounds?

Wounds
Critical wounds
Devastating wounds
Mortal wounds

WTF!?!?

No. Critical wounds just means an auto-success on a predefined roll, and 'Devastating Wounds' is supposedly something like the different varieties of 'Rending' in past editions.

No?

Wounds (normal S vs. T)
Critical wounds (auto-wound <Keyword> on X+)
Devastating wounds (?)
Mortal wounds (ignores Sv. and Invulnerable Sv.)

Looks like 4 to me.

 oni wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:

 oni wrote:
SOoo... There are now at least 4 different types of wounds?

Wounds
Critical wounds
Devastating wounds
Mortal wounds

WTF!?!?

No. Critical wounds just means an auto-success on a predefined roll, and 'Devastating Wounds' is supposedly something like the different varieties of 'Rending' in past editions.

No?

Wounds (normal S vs. T)
Critical wounds (auto-wound <Keyword> on X+)
Devastating wounds (?)
Mortal wounds (ignores Sv. and Invulnerable Sv.)

Looks like 4 to me.

It's not 'Types of Wounds', it's 'Abilities that have Wound somewhere in the name'.

I guess this is a system so you can have things proc off "critical wounds". But it does feel like adding complexity when as written it seems to be trying for "this anti-X weapon (3+) will always wound X on at least a 3+".

Tyel wrote:
I guess this is a system so you can have things proc off "critical wounds". But it does feel like adding complexity when as written it seems to be trying for "this anti-X weapon (3+) will always wound X on at least a 3+".

Yeah, it feels more complex when you see it for the first time, but all it really does is codify stuff that we have already, albeit under many different names. 'Poison' abilities, the Vindicares manifold anti-character abilities etc. all work more or less off this system, so it makes sense to give it a more structured base and hammer everything into this mould

Tsagualsa wrote:

 oni wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:

 oni wrote:
SOoo... There are now at least 4 different types of wounds?

Wounds
Critical wounds
Devastating wounds
Mortal wounds

WTF!?!?

No. Critical wounds just means an auto-success on a predefined roll, and 'Devastating Wounds' is supposedly something like the different varieties of 'Rending' in past editions.

No?

Wounds (normal S vs. T)
Critical wounds (auto-wound <Keyword> on X+)
Devastating wounds (?)
Mortal wounds (ignores Sv. and Invulnerable Sv.)

Looks like 4 to me.

It's not 'Types of Wounds', it's 'Abilities that have Wound somewhere in the name'.

So, in the current edition you make no distinction between 'wounds' and 'mortal wounds'? Effectively meaning that wounds with stipulations don't count as their own thing? Seems to me that you're getting the 'cause' twisted with the 'result'.

PenitentJake wrote:
So...

All rules on the card...

Except:

Blast
Anti-vehicle
Ignores Cover
Torrent
Devastating Wounds
... and the Rapid Ingress strat
... oh, and of course Deepstrike and Oath of Moment

Oh, and there are no indications of how many of each weapon you're allowed to take- so I guess that's a Cyclone, an Assault Cannon and a Power Fist for everyone?

Now of course, I'm being a bit facetious here- obviously a lot of the missing rules will be USRs... But will they be on the two page spread, or will they be in the dex, or will they be in the BRB... or some combination of the above?

Also, as noted by others, this profile doesn't include Assault Terminator weapons like Claws and Hammers, so consolidationist weep- there will continue to be at least two datacards for Terminators and likely another for Relic termies.

There's a none-zero chance this is the card for the unit in the launch box and that the multi-part kit covers assault variant weapons as well.

 oni wrote:

So, in the current edition you make no distinction between 'wounds' and 'mortal wounds'? Effectively meaning that wounds with stipulations don't count as their own thing? Seems to me that you're getting the 'cause' twisted with the 'result'.

The main rules make a distinction between "Wounds" and "Mortal Wounds". "Critical Wounds" and "Devastating Wounds" are special rules that still depend on the standard "Wounds" mechanic, they're not a new type of wound. Do you think every modifier or auto-wound ability in 9th is a different type of wound, too?

 Platuan4th wrote:

 oni wrote:

So, in the current edition you make no distinction between 'wounds' and 'mortal wounds'? Effectively meaning that wounds with stipulations don't count as their own thing? Seems to me that you're getting the 'cause' twisted with the 'result'.

The main rules make a distinction between "Wounds" and "Mortal Wounds". "Critical Wounds" and "Devastating Wounds" are special rules that still depend on the standard "Wounds" mechanic, they're not a new type of wound. Do you think every modifier or auto-wound ability in 9th is a different type of wound, too?

Yea, it feels like a weird hair to split.

 The Red Hobbit wrote:

 nordsturmking wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/04/just-how-tough-are-terminators-in-the-new-edition-of-warhammer-40000/
so termis have T5 now... i really hope custodes will have T6 other wise this is a fething joke

I think GW wants to increase the overall range of Toughness values for the game (capping everything at T8 for a while was a terrible decision IMO) but they are going to do it very gingerly given the backlack after Orks went to T5. That said I predict we'll see a handful of units get +1 T across the factions. I'm guessing Custodes will be T5 but Custodes Termies will be T6. Meganobs and similar may also get bumped up to T6 as well.

If they don't bump them to T6 or do something to make them tougher, a SM termi will be no different from a custodes which would suck. The termi will even hin on 2+ with the ability.

 The Red Hobbit wrote:
If I had to guess a Critical Wound is a 6, so the usual rolling a 6 wounds the target regardless of your puny strength. Some abilities like Anti change that to a 3+ for instance.

That is exactly what the article says.

 oni wrote:


So, in the current edition you make no distinction between 'wounds' and 'mortal wounds'? Effectively meaning that wounds with stipulations don't count as their own thing? Seems to me that you're getting the 'cause' twisted with the 'result'.

Mortal wound ignores save & inv. Critical wound doesn't.

Better if instead of anti-vehicle 3+ it reads automatically wounds vehicles on 3+?

Another thing to note: there’s no separate entries or modifiers for a sergeant model. Right now a Termie sarge has +1 to attack and leadership.

It’s possible this is a terminator and/or veteran unit only thing.

It’s also seems likely that sergeant and equivalent models won’t exist rules wise. They’ll likely be called out as “a single model can be armed with…” if that guess is true.

TreeStewges wrote:
Another thing to note: there’s no separate entries or modifiers for a sergeant model. Right now a Termie sarge has +1 to attack and leadership.

It’s possible this is a terminator and/or veteran unit only thing.

It’s also seems likely that sergeant and equivalent models won’t exist rules wise. They’ll likely be called out as “a single model can be armed with…” if that guess is true.

Good catch - I didn't even think of that. Weird.

Termies are pretty non-descript with loadouts, so it will be interesting to see a unit with a more official sergeant.

TreeStewges wrote:
Another thing to note: there’s no separate entries or modifiers for a sergeant model. Right now a Termie sarge has +1 to attack and leadership.

Note that the Power Sword has 4 Attacks vs the 3 Attacks of the other weapons. The LD is probably baked in. The Sergeant is probably mentioned in the section where you pay for the squad size and loadout.

 Platuan4th wrote:

TreeStewges wrote:
Another thing to note: there’s no separate entries or modifiers for a sergeant model. Right now a Termie sarge has +1 to attack and leadership.

Note that the Power Sword has 4 Attacks vs the 3 Attacks of the other weapons. The LD is probably baked in. The Sergeant is probably mentioned in the section where you pay for the squad size and loadout.

Ack. I always thought that power sword was replaceable, but I guess it isn't. I'm too used to assault termies. So I wonder how they'll handle those datasheets.

So, after a little work in Photoshop, the max. number of weapon profiles that will fit onto a card is 15. Only 14 will fit if the note tag is needed (i.e. choose a profile tag).