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.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Yea honestly who ever pulled their sarge first and took a LD hit?

Min size Devastator Squads.

Touché, but other than that what have the Romans ever done for us?!

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
They've doubled down on their toughness fetish.

I will be interested to see how 'speed defence' is represented in this version, because there are no basic mechanics capable of representing it.

Are all eldar going to get a 4+ reflexes save or something?

Because they aren't tough and tough is all gw seems to care about...

That was said on the reveal stream that they've gone past the artificial ceiling of T8

Theyve done that while not upping the strength of weapons, which means your elves now get to be tankier too (i assume anything wraith will be t8+, vypers will probably go up to T6-7, etc.)

I can't see them giving eldar infantry T4 though, not the same as a space marine GASP!

So they're still T3 W1 Sv3/4+ which makes them fragile regardless.

Well, they are introducing reactions as a major mechanic of the edition. Could be plenty of "Fire and Fade" type stuff for speedy fragile factions like Eldar.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
Well, they are introducing reactions as a major mechanic of the edition. Could be plenty of "Fire and Fade" type stuff for speedy fragile factions like Eldar.

Oooh, that makes sense. Eldar might be really slippery until you get close enough. Should be interesting to see how it all comes out.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
Well, they are introducing reactions as a major mechanic of the edition. Could be plenty of "Fire and Fade" type stuff for speedy fragile factions like Eldar.

Yes that's a potential. I might be mistaken but I thought that reactions weren't going to be super common. HH has a very restrictive use of reactions for example.

I mean I'd love to see the eldar make dodge reactions against incoming fire, but I'm skeptical that it will be anything but one unit a round getting it.

 Hellebore wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
Well, they are introducing reactions as a major mechanic of the edition. Could be plenty of "Fire and Fade" type stuff for speedy fragile factions like Eldar.

Yes that's a potential. I might be mistaken but I thought that reactions weren't going to be super common. HH has a very restrictive use of reactions for example.

I mean I'd love to see the eldar make dodge reactions against incoming fire, but I'm skeptical that it will be anything but one unit a round getting it.

So far we've seen no indications that only one unit per phase can react as in HH, and the verbiage on the Termagant ability makes it sound like every unit with a reaction ability will be able to use it once per turn.

 catbarf wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
Well, they are introducing reactions as a major mechanic of the edition. Could be plenty of "Fire and Fade" type stuff for speedy fragile factions like Eldar.

Yes that's a potential. I might be mistaken but I thought that reactions weren't going to be super common. HH has a very restrictive use of reactions for example.

I mean I'd love to see the eldar make dodge reactions against incoming fire, but I'm skeptical that it will be anything but one unit a round getting it.

So far we've seen no indications that only one unit per phase can react as in HH, and the verbiage on the Termagant ability makes it sound like every unit with a reaction ability will be able to use it once per turn.

Looking forward to the delve into these then.

I like the terminator 'reaction' interplay.

Your opponent makes all their moves and you can go for an ambush dumping the terminators behind cover, but possibly within a move and charge distance on your turn instead of the usual dump them and only get to shoot and gamble a charge. The opponent has the ability to get close and shut the beacon down essentially so either it becomes a no-go zone or they chance an advance roll.

The placement of this thing is going to be difficult to get right. Also, it looks like you can't trade beacons. The wording makes it so that they can't use a beacon placed by a second termie unit -- if I'm reading it correctly.

I think Rapid Fire is a missed opportunity to simplify things. Something like this would be better:

Storm bolter [Rapid Fire] 12"/24" 4/2 3+ 4 0 1

You could even remove [Rapid Fire] from the line. Even if its a universal rule people may need to flip to find the rapid fire blurb when they could have explicitly put more on the card.

It is funny that you believe your bit is simpler.

Rapid Fire is simply +X at half range. That's it.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Yea honestly who ever pulled their sarge first and took a LD hit? The LD differential was almost pointless for the way the rules worked.

Those who would lose heavy weapon.

Any guesses what devastating wounds will do?

Also we get a hint at what Oath of Moment does; you select a single enemy unit per turn.

Well its attached to the Assault Cannon so I'm guess Devastating will either be Exploding 6s or or something that has an easier time wounding against targets with poor Armor Saves.

Could just be 6s to hit auto wound?

Given 6s to wound are called critical wounds and auto succeed, there's some logic to that

Probably just rending (6s to wound ignore armor, or something)

 Hellebore wrote:
Could just be 6s to hit auto wound?

Given 6s to wound are called critical wounds and auto succeed, there's some logic to that

I guess it's a variant of exploding dice, since the wording 'Devastating Wounds' implies there are other 'Devastating' things, or it could just be called 'Devastating'. My guess is that there are some 'Devastating Hits' on other weapons.

So just to clarify, anti-vehicle 3+ just means it always wounds vehicles on a 3+ at minimum, right?

Maybe they'll give Gauss some anti-vehicle rule. They seem to be porting / adapting a lot of rules that were present in earlier editions, so maybe gauss will get some of it's flavour back after it's 8th ed better penetration gimmick was poached by bolt rifles.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
So just to clarify, anti-vehicle 3+ just means it always wounds vehicles on a 3+ at minimum, right?

Yes. Which is particularly interesting, because the S8 of Chainfists will probably be normally wounding Rhinos on 4s and Vindicators on 5s. That makes the Chainfist AV3+ a standout tool to deal with those profiles.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
So just to clarify, anti-vehicle 3+ just means it always wounds vehicles on a 3+ at minimum, right?

Yes. Which is particularly interesting, because the S8 of Chainfists will probably be normally wounding Rhinos on 4s and Vindicators on 5s. That makes the Chainfist AV3+ a standout tool to deal with those profiles.

If they are increasing toughness values across the board, the anti-x rule may indeed be pretty useful.
I wouldn't be surprised if Dark Eldar poison get both the anti-infantry and anti-monster rules.

Ooh. Good point. I wonder how they'll handle that without it getting too cluttered.

 KingGarland wrote:
Any guesses what devastating wounds will do?

Also we get a hint at what Oath of Moment does; you select a single enemy unit per turn.

Maybe double damage on a roll of a 6 to wound?
Or it could be the new rending.

it should, but the preview is written in a strange way (at least for me a non native speaker), as:

"produce a critical wound (guaranteed success, normally achieved by rolling an unmodified 6) on any wound roll that matches or beats the specific score regardless of toughness"

this just reads much more complicated than needed as a simple, "always wounds Keyword units on X regardless of toughness" would be the same (unless there is something else and that text is needed to keep things different)

 kodos wrote:
it should, but the preview is written in a strange way (at least for me a non native speaker), as:

"produce a critical wound (guaranteed success, normally achieved by rolling an unmodified 6) on any wound roll that matches or beats the specific score regardless of toughness"

this just reads much more complicated than needed as a simple, "always wounds Keyword units on X regardless of toughness" would be the same (unless there is something else and that text is needed to keep things different)

If it's "always wounds on x regardless of toughness", then some smart-arse can just say "it says always wound on a 4+ regardless of toughness, therefore this S6 weapon that would normally wound a T3 target on a 2+ wounds it on a 4+ instead".
Hence the requirement for a "at minimum" or "at worse" clause rather than "always".

What they wrote does seem awkward, but it does make sense if you break it down;
There's a mechanic called critical wounds (apparently).
Critical wounds are guaranteed successes.
This rule guarantees a success (referred to as a critical wound) if you roll equal to or above the listed value.

I believe that there is more to the critical wounds.

Some of the leaks did talk about this, just in a different way.

According to those, critical wounds normally have no additional effects, but there are rules tied to them.

Devastating wounds could be one of such rules.

There's rules associated with units, currently, that trigger on Wound rolls of 6s.

That's what those "critical wounds" would be affecting in all likelihood.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

If it's "always wounds on x regardless of toughness", then some smart-arse can just say "it says always wound on a 4+ regardless of toughness, therefore this S6 weapon that would normally wound a T3 target on a 2+ wounds it on a 4+ instead".
Hence the requirement for a "at minimum" or "at worse" clause rather than "always"..

but this is also what they wrote, a Chainfist will wound on 3+, if there is a rare case that a vehicle would be wounded by normal attack with 2+, the Chainfist will still produce a critical hit on 3+

so as written, there must be more to the "critical wound" otherwise it is just a complicated sentence for nothing
(as: "Anti <Keyword> X+: Critical Wound on a wound roll of X+ against <Keyword> units" is enough)

Spoletta wrote:
I believe that there is more to the critical wounds.

Some of the leaks did talk about this, just in a different way.

According to those, critical wounds normally have no additional effects, but there are rules tied to them.

Devastating wounds could be one of such rules.

Nah, that's nonsense, the 50pager did a whole convoluted system where some rolls were 'glances' that counted as half-wounds and could be added up and 'criticals' were double-wounds, without even getting into that stuff about evade traits and defense traits and weapon traits and whatnot. So far, we've not seen any of this, and all signs point to it not existing at all.

The term 'critical' in itself is a staple of the genre that exists in practically all RPGs and a lot of wargames, vaguely alluding to it being a thing in a new ruleset is just a semi-informed guess and should not get you any points. It being on natural 6s also is sort of a no-brainer in a D6-based system that had 'natural 6s always succeed' before.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
So just to clarify, anti-vehicle 3+ just means it always wounds vehicles on a 3+ at minimum, right?

Yes. Which is particularly interesting, because the S8 of Chainfists will probably be normally wounding Rhinos on 4s and Vindicators on 5s. That makes the Chainfist AV3+ a standout tool to deal with those profiles.

If they are increasing toughness values across the board, the anti-x rule may indeed be pretty useful.
I wouldn't be surprised if Dark Eldar poison get both the anti-infantry and anti-monster rules.

Well the current rules are pigswill so I agree they'll probably stay that way.

Tsagualsa wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
I believe that there is more to the critical wounds.

Some of the leaks did talk about this, just in a different way.

According to those, critical wounds normally have no additional effects, but there are rules tied to them.

Devastating wounds could be one of such rules.

Nah, that's nonsense, the 50pager did a whole convoluted system where some rolls were 'glances' that counted as half-wounds and could be added up and 'criticals' were double-wounds, without even getting into that stuff about evade traits and defense traits and weapon traits and whatnot. So far, we've not seen any of this, and all signs point to it not existing at all.

The term 'critical' in itself is a staple of the genre that exists in practically all RPGs and a lot of wargames, vaguely alluding to it being a thing in a new ruleset is just a semi-informed guess and should not get you any points. It being on natural 6s also is sort of a no-brainer in a D6-based system that had 'natural 6s always succeed' before.

That 50pager definitely isn't going to strike many hits, but he was right on the new datasheet format and on the concept of No factions, Only detachments.

Spoletta wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
I believe that there is more to the critical wounds.

Some of the leaks did talk about this, just in a different way.

According to those, critical wounds normally have no additional effects, but there are rules tied to them.

Devastating wounds could be one of such rules.

Nah, that's nonsense, the 50pager did a whole convoluted system where some rolls were 'glances' that counted as half-wounds and could be added up and 'criticals' were double-wounds, without even getting into that stuff about evade traits and defense traits and weapon traits and whatnot. So far, we've not seen any of this, and all signs point to it not existing at all.

The term 'critical' in itself is a staple of the genre that exists in practically all RPGs and a lot of wargames, vaguely alluding to it being a thing in a new ruleset is just a semi-informed guess and should not get you any points. It being on natural 6s also is sort of a no-brainer in a D6-based system that had 'natural 6s always succeed' before.

That 50pager definitely isn't going to strike many hits, but he was right on the new datasheet format and on the concept of No factions, Only detachments.

He was 'right' on the datasheet thing in as far as that the design changed, which is an unimpressive guess, and wrong in many, many specific things about it, like Initiative returning, no mention of OC, Invulnerable saves listed in the profile on top, again that stuff with traits etc., the datasheet being organized by phases, troop datasheets etc. having 'enhancement slots' and many more.

He got the detachment stuff right-ish though, have to give him that.