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.

If there were ways to interact between units beyond just killing them or being killed, then it doesn't matter if things can't be hurt - because you can degrade their performance in other ways.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I don't think you need to price weapons for incidental damage at all.

The fact that 10 lasgun hits do as much damage to a T8+ target as 10 boltgun hits doesn't really matter in game when both have a good chance to do nothing.

I think the issue is more that you get weird effects at the top.
An S8 gun for instance is the same into T9, T10, T12 and T14. Being T12 over T10 only matters if there's going to be a reasonable amount of S10/11/12 attacks. If there isn't, its not obvious its a worthwhile "upgrade" assuming you are paying anything meaningful for it.

Weapons Rules Are Fun and Flexible in the New Warhammer 40,000

Oh wow. Condensed bolters...

And that's a clever way to handle heavy. I guess they can list AT weapons as BS4 and then add 1 for stationary instead of BS3 and -1 for moving.

Importantly, heavy weapons, unless some get a separate Move or Fire, just got mobile.

And that's how Lightning Claws will be Jervis'd.

"One Chosen may replace his Bolter and Accursed Weapon with a Twin-Linked Accursed Weapon."

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And that's how Lightning Claws will be Jervis'd.

"One Chosen may replace his Bolter and Accursed Weapon with a Twin-Linked Accursed Weapon."

fine with me, its mechanically the same thing

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And that's how Lightning Claws will be Jervis'd.

"One Chosen may replace his Bolter and Accursed Weapon with a Twin-Linked Accursed Weapon."

Which seems like a reasonable approximation of the lightning claw rules, so I'm not sure what the problem is.

Slipspace wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And that's how Lightning Claws will be Jervis'd.

"One Chosen may replace his Bolter and Accursed Weapon with a Twin-Linked Accursed Weapon."

Which seems like a reasonable approximation of the lightning claw rules, so I'm not sure what the problem is.

Seems to be each article requires some weird complaint.

Slipspace wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And that's how Lightning Claws will be Jervis'd.

"One Chosen may replace his Bolter and Accursed Weapon with a Twin-Linked Accursed Weapon."

Which seems like a reasonable approximation of the lightning claw rules, so I'm not sure what the problem is.

The problem is that there's just no pleasing some people. At this point, complaining about Warhammer is an entirely separate hobby from Warhammer

Tsagualsa wrote:
The problem is that there's just no pleasing some people. At this point, complaining about Warhammer is an entirely separate hobby from Warhammer

Always has been.

Twinlinked changes seem like potentially a dramatic nerf. Although we saw the Termagant Spinefists got 2 shots. So maybe there will be some compensation there for certain units.

Before any special rules etc, its interesting to think how Aggressors have gone from potentially having 12 shots from their gauntlets, to 6, and now to 3.

Good.

Though rerolls not good. But at least tones down lethality

I'm honestly shocked that they're consolidating bolters.

In fact, giving bolt rifles the ability to advance-and-shoot and the ability to stay still for greater accuracy gives them tactical flexibility, which is perfectly fitting for Marines.

It's... unexpectedly reasonable.

Funnily enough codifies what people been doing anyway and expands it into ingame bonus

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

xerxeskingofking wrote:
I mean, using small arms or light autocannons to damage view ports, annetenas, fire control sensors, etc, is something we see in the real world. Not everything on a tank is bulletproof, and "buttoning up" a tank to limit its situational awareness, focus its attention away form the flanking AT system, or generally cuase problems with it.

Do troopers regularly, when bereft of other targets, decide to empty their mags into armoured vehicles? Do whole squads line up and just unload on things that they can't appreciably damage?

Considering a Las gun is often equated to a 50Cal and bolters are essentially RPGs I don't know why you wouldn't shoot at armor if you are out active targets. Lots of components on tanks can be damaged by rounds of this size and depending on the armor level of certain vehicles you can punch through certain areas. Considering enough las weapons concentration will begin to superheat and melt/weaken armor it gives even more reason to shoot at armor if you don't have a better target.

Tyel wrote:

Before any special rules etc, its interesting to think how Aggressors have gone from potentially having 12 shots from their gauntlets, to 6, and now to 3.

If it reduces the number of shots per unit from the ludicrous 72 of 8th edition to 18 now, that seems like a good change. I hope they reduce the rate of fire of more weapons in line with this change.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
Funnily enough codifies what people been doing anyway and expands it into ingame bonus

Yeah, it's an interesting modification to the "no model, no rules" and "has a model so must have rules" approach GW have taken in 9th. It's a good hybrid of consolidation and flexibility.

Asmodios wrote:
Considering a Las gun is often equated to a 50Cal and bolters are essentially RPGs I don't know why you wouldn't shoot at armor if you are out active targets. Lots of components on tanks can be damaged by rounds of this size and depending on the armor level of certain vehicles you can punch through certain areas. Considering enough las weapons concentration will begin to superheat and melt/weaken armor it gives even more reason to shoot at armor if you don't have a better target.

'Lasguns are .50s and bolters are RPGs' is more a meme than actual fluff. It's the same kind of cherry-picking of throwaway lines to conclude that a Leman Russ has a combat speed of 80mph, and is so tough that contemporary anti-tank weapons wouldn't even dent it (which rather works against the idea that lasguns and bolters would be effective).

IRL you're never going to hard-kill an MBT with small arms but a mission kill with crew-served weapons might be doable. 40K just doesn't have any distinction between a mission kill and a hard kill, so being able to knock out a Rhino with 180 lasgun hits is the compromise. Not a big deal mechanically I can understand disliking that abstraction.

Slipspace wrote:

Tyel wrote:

Before any special rules etc, its interesting to think how Aggressors have gone from potentially having 12 shots from their gauntlets, to 6, and now to 3.

If it reduces the number of shots per unit from the ludicrous 72 of 8th edition to 18 now, that seems like a good change. I hope they reduce the rate of fire of more weapons in line with this change.

I'm getting the distinct impression that they're handing out abilities that trigger on certain values in lieu of just more shots or more damage. More 6s to hit that turn into multiple hits, more hits that auto-wound, more wounds converting to mortal wounds. It's easier to layer as buffs and reduces the number of dice needed to achieve a result.

I do dislike the return of twin-linked.

GW never was particularly consistent about which guns got Twin-linked and which guns were just two guns.

E.g the Tyranid Harpy had twin-linked cannons, but a Hierodule had 2 cannons.

 Tyran wrote:
I do dislike the return of twin-linked.

GW never was particularly consistent about which guns got Twin-linked and which guns were just two guns.

E.g the Tyranid Harpy had twin-linked cannons, but a Hierodule had 2 cannons.

FW vs GW rules in that case, hopefully we dont get these inconsistencies in 10th

Asmodios wrote:
...Considering a Las gun is often equated to a 50Cal and bolters are essentially RPGs I don't know why you wouldn't shoot at armor if you are out active targets. Lots of components on tanks can be damaged by rounds of this size and depending on the armor level of certain vehicles you can punch through certain areas. Considering enough las weapons concentration will begin to superheat and melt/weaken armor it gives even more reason to shoot at armor if you don't have a better target.

If you exist in a universe in which these are things that exist in large quantities as small arms why would you not build your tank to stand up to small arms?

I can't recall any other instance of such a thing. If the guns are right next to each other they're twin-linked. And in this system it looks as if you're double-fisting the same weapon -- twin-linked.

The Hexmark will probably get 3 twin-linked.

Can’t wait until we a see the Assault Heavy Poison Dakka Rapidfire Rending shootin machine of death on the table.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I can't recall any other instance of such a thing. If the guns are right next to each other they're twin-linked. And in this system it looks as if you're double-fisting the same weapon -- twin-linked.

The Hexmark will probably get 3 twin-linked.

But for example will a predator with lascannon sponsons get 2 lascannons or a twin-linked one?

Will a carnifex with 2 devourers get 2 devourers or a twin-linked one?

What exactly is being "next to each other"?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
...Considering a Las gun is often equated to a 50Cal and bolters are essentially RPGs I don't know why you wouldn't shoot at armor if you are out active targets. Lots of components on tanks can be damaged by rounds of this size and depending on the armor level of certain vehicles you can punch through certain areas. Considering enough las weapons concentration will begin to superheat and melt/weaken armor it gives even more reason to shoot at armor if you don't have a better target.

If you exist in a universe in which these are things that exist in large quantities as small arms why would you not build your tank to stand up to small arms?

They do stand up to small arms…. Simply not high concentration of small arms much like many APCs/vehicles today. There is always a trade off between armor and functionality. A storm speeder could have tons and tons of steel welded to every surface making it take hundreds of thousands of las guns to ever penetrate though… but then if wouldn’t function as anything other then a paper weight and infantry would simply leave it immobile and ignore it. Same thing with a tank. You could take of treads and sensors so there really isn’t anything a bolt gun could hurt… then you are sitting still unable to see what’s going on and the space marine is gonna walk up and strap a melta bomb to you.

 Tyran wrote:


But for example will a predator with lascannon sponsons get 2 lascannons or a twin-linked one?

twin-linked turret, standalone sponsons

 Tyran wrote:


Will a carnifex with 2 devourers get 2 devourers or a twin-linked one?

isnt it two twin-linked devourers that they can take already?

 Tyran wrote:

What exactly is being "next to each other"?

connected to the same mounting point for ranged weapons
two of the same melee weapon for melee weapons

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


connected to the same mounting point for ranged weapons
two of the same melee weapon for melee weapons

Aggressors already break your first tenet.

Tau are in similar boat in which crisis suits can have up to three weapons and commanders up to 4 IIRC.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

isnt it two twin-linked devourers that they can take already?

They can take up to four devourers.

 Tyran wrote:
Tau are in similar boat in which crisis suits can have up to three weapons and commanders up to 4 IIRC.

Tau were always a bit of a weird one though, as they could pay 2x for two weapons, or around 1.5x for a single twin-linked one IIRC. Perhaps that may be a new option?

On a bit of a tangent, do we know if all the FW units will be updated as well? Got a Stormhammer, Warhound and Reaver just gathering dust at the moment, hoping 10th may breathe some new life into them.

I guess ultimately it doesn't matter. If something has too many shots without twin-linked it will likely get twin-linked like the new Redemptor with the MM. Everything will be on the datasheet anyway.

 Valkyrie wrote:

On a bit of a tangent, do we know if all the FW units will be updated as well? Got a Stormhammer, Warhound and Reaver just gathering dust at the moment, hoping 10th may breathe some new life into them.

They've confirmed FW models will be getting datasheets. "All the FW units" covers some pretty obscure stuff, but anything that has rules currently should be safe.