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.

Yeah. People disliked having their vehicles taken out by a single lucky anti-tank attack, and other people disliked being unable to hurt parking lots with S3 (and S4 shooting) attacks. So GW made killing vehicles more of a steady process that all units can contribute towards rather than a binary all-or-nothing affair.

It seems like 10th wants to back off on letting S3 and S4 contribute as meaningfully, so I guess we'll see how that shakes out.

Honestly I just want instant death type things back. Like a power klaw used to be able to carve open like any tank very reliably as well as just insta popping almost anything you’d run it into.

One thing to remember with the heightened Vehicle Strength and lowered AP values, is that in the coming edition that there's nothing (that we know of so far) that will limit your ability to take an armored list besides the rule of 3, and the requirement to take a character. Which means you could, in theory, just take a techmarine, shove him and maybe a retinue in a rhino/razorback/Land-raider and then fill out everything else with just vehicles. Obviously, this presumably means objective play will be harder, but how much does that matter unless the enemy spams AT?

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:
One thing to remember with the heightened Vehicle Strength and lowered AP values, is that in the coming edition that there's nothing (that we know of so far) that will limit your ability to take an armored list besides the rule of 3, and the requirement to take a character. Which means you could, in theory, just take a techmarine, shove him and maybe a retinue in a rhino/razorback/Land-raider and then fill out everything else with just vehicles. Obviously, this presumably means objective play will be harder, but how much does that matter unless the enemy spams AT?

We have not seen any dedicated anti-tank units yet, specifically not their special rules; there might be dedicated anti-tank squad leaders that stick a juicy ability on the whole unit, or tank-hunter units with nasty abilities that counter much of the increased survivability. We have already seen that one tyranid skill that rolls out army-wide bonuses against specific enemies if you need it, counters like this might exist for other forces as well. Other than that, you'd still need things that can hold obejctives, and most tanks seem to be limited to OC in the single digits, while units of infantry seem to bring 20 or more in some cases.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Yeah. People disliked having their vehicles taken out by a single lucky anti-tank attack, and other people disliked being unable to hurt parking lots with S3 (and S4 shooting) attacks. So GW made killing vehicles more of a steady process that all units can contribute towards rather than a binary all-or-nothing affair.

It seems like 10th wants to back off on letting S3 and S4 contribute as meaningfully, so I guess we'll see how that shakes out.

That is all well and good, till armies start spaming vehicles or GW creates armies that neither have mass weapons fire, nor a large number of efficient anti tank weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tsagualsa 809431 11519727 wrote:

We have not seen any dedicated anti-tank units yet, specifically not their special rules; there might be dedicated anti-tank squad leaders that stick a juicy ability on the whole unit, or tank-hunter units with nasty abilities that counter much of the increased survivability. We have already seen that one tyranid skill that rolls out army-wide bonuses against specific enemies if you need it, counters like this might exist for other forces as well. Other than that, you'd still need things that can hold obejctives, and most tanks seem to be limited to OC in the single digits, while units of infantry seem to bring 20 or more in some cases.

The problem is wtih GW history in writing rules. Will there be efficient anti tank units? I am sure, at worse after an early edition nerf to all good armies consisting of waves of vehicles. The problem with the special rules and counter mechanics is that all armies, in the game have to get them. Otherwise with GW push to use more vehicles, each army that can't deal with them, will end up very unfun to play with.

People worry about marine stuff, because that is what was shown to us. But what if a 9+MC tyranid army is valid? Or if an ork army can wall off entire parts of the table witch cheap, and now more resilient vehicles, while also running a wave of OC 2 models to swarm objectives?

 Wyldhunt wrote:
It seems like 10th wants to back off on letting S3 and S4 contribute as meaningfully, so I guess we'll see how that shakes out.

How exactly are they doing that? Increased Toughness doesn't help if everything still wounds on a 6.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
Honestly I just want instant death type things back. Like a power klaw used to be able to carve open like any tank very reliably as well as just insta popping almost anything you’d run it into.

They have that, it's called 'every competitively viable weapon in 9th edition'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
It seems like 10th wants to back off on letting S3 and S4 contribute as meaningfully, so I guess we'll see how that shakes out.

How exactly are they doing that? Increased Toughness doesn't help if everything still wounds on a 6.

It would if you were better at math.

Or are you generally just that worried about 90 intercessors shooting at a rhino?

ERJAK wrote:

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
Honestly I just want instant death type things back. Like a power klaw used to be able to carve open like any tank very reliably as well as just insta popping almost anything you’d run it into.

They have that, it's called 'every competitively viable weapon in 9th edition'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
It seems like 10th wants to back off on letting S3 and S4 contribute as meaningfully, so I guess we'll see how that shakes out.

How exactly are they doing that? Increased Toughness doesn't help if everything still wounds on a 6.

It would if you were better at math.

Or are you generally just that worried about 90 intercessors shooting at a rhino?

From the arguments made, it seemed pretty clear its a verisimilitude/conceptual issue, not a maths one. That it's conceptually dumb to have the ability to damage a tank with S3, regardless of how unlikely it is to do anything.

Oh I'd forgotten why I put you on ignore, ERJAK. Thanks for the lesson...

 Hellebore wrote:
From the arguments made, it seemed pretty clear its a verisimilitude/conceptual issue, not a maths one. That it's conceptually dumb to have the ability to damage a tank with S3, regardless of how unlikely it is to do anything.

Thank you for understanding what I was trying to convey rather than just jumping into a thread looking for a fight like some people.

And yes: I don't care that this particular event has a low mathematical probability. I care that it can happen in the first place.

ERJAK wrote:

Or are you generally just that worried about 90 intercessors shooting at a rhino?

I was vehicle hunting with Termagaunts armed with Devourers for a while. Against Custodes in particular it was far more efficient to shoot some of their vehicles with Devourers instead of targeting their infantry. That was a pretty irritating state of affairs.

Thankfully GW "addressed it" by totally nerfing Devourers. . . Thanks GW! /sarcasm

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Oh I'd forgotten why I put you on ignore, ERJAK. Thanks for the lesson...

Yeah I dunno why ERJAK feels a need to be a jackass about toy soldiers, but it's not a good look.

Really re: S3/4 damaging tanks, it sounds like some people are trying to have it both ways: That it's good for lasguns and bolters to be able to contribute to taking out vehicles so they're not totally useless at it, but also that you'd need a hundred Intercessors or whatever so they're functionally useless at it. Well, which is it? Are they capable of inflicting enough damage to be a credible threat, or are they so irrelevant that it's not worth getting worked up over? If you need dedicated anti-tank weapons to take the first 9 wounds off a Rhino and then an entire squad rapid firing can chip off the last, it doesn't really seem all that different from just needing anti-tank weapons to do it- the entire output of a 10-man Intercessor squad is equivalent to rolling a '4' instead of a '3' for lascannon damage, and if you're down to your basic rifles you're screwed under either ruleset.

I don't have strong feelings about it one way or the other because from a gameplay perspective it ultimately doesn't matter whether small arms can technically hurt tanks, they're still useless at it. I just question the premise that it was an improvement to gameplay on the basis that small arms can now 'meaningfully' contribute to killing vehicles. It sounds like placebo more than anything else.

Quite a while back, after we got sick of 4th Edition and laughed at 5th Edition, we tried our hand at our own set of rules. Part of that was a set of terrain rules that allowed building destruction. They were fine, except that in the initial version you could weapons that weren't strictly "anti-tank" weapons causing damage to vehicles. It let to situations where targets, or even individual models, would take pot-shots at empty buildings by 'fishing for 6's'. We later changed it so you needed weapons that would be suited towards taking out structures (Meltas, Ordnance weapons) to stop idle squads wasting ammo on buildings.

I have the same feelings around squads just unloading their small arms at a Land Raider or Baneblade because "Might as well!". As position and manoeuvre has been reduced time and time again in 40k, it has created situations where the rules don't match with "reality". I mean, back in the day small arms like bolt guns and whatnot could damage a Leman Russ or Wave Serpent... it they got behind the tank! If you wanted to pepper your small arms into a vehicle in the hope of causing some minor damage, or get a lucky hit through, you had to work at it. You couldn't just lazily throw a few squad's worth of guns at a tank 'cause it was in range.

Now there are no armour facings, and anything can wound anything on a 6. That doesn't scale well, because it means Mr. Laspitol can wound Mr. Warlord Titan, and no matter how mathematically improbable that is, I don't think it should be possible in the first place.

^Agree with both posts above. But busy so can't contribute further atm.

In the real world you can, in fact, inconvenience tanks with small arms fire (i.e. ST 3 and 4 attacks). At the very least you can force their commanders back inside the vehicle, and you can also blind or distract the crew by firing at vision slits. In 1940 German general Erwin Rommel even defeated a French counterattack by firing a flare pistol at attack French tanks, which thought the flares were tracer rounds for German anti-tank guns.

If we think of "wounds" as also representing the loss of morale or the spread of confusion within the target unit then it's not utterly ridiculous that small arms can wound a tank. While I'm not unsympathetic to criticisms of the relative realism of the rule, it's not totally absurd given the level of abstraction that 40K works at.

And once upon a time this was represented by damage conditions - Shaken and Stunned.

And whilst it might be the most extreme example possible, just because you might be able to do it to a vehicle, I don't think that a Laspistol should ever be able to "inconvenience" a Titan.

About stuff like instant death, I'd rather not have it come back unless we're talking an extreme discrepancy in a unit's toughness versus a weapon's strength, and the same goes with sweeping advance. The latter especially seems to be a feel-bad mechanic.

H.B.M.C. wrote:And whilst it might be the most extreme example possible, just because you might be able to do it to a vehicle, I don't think that a Laspistol should ever be able to "inconvenience" a Titan.

What about those epic moments when a single laser manages to take down the Titan's last wound and the reactor goes critical, annihilating half the units on the table?

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
About stuff like instant death, I'd rather not have it come back unless we're talking an extreme discrepancy in a unit's toughness versus a weapon's strength, and the same goes with sweeping advance. The latter especially seems to be a feel-bad mechanic.

It was the lack of scaling that made those into "feels bad" moment.

I think back to when "Strength D" was introduced in Apocalypse. It always bothered me as that would have been better served as a weapon special rule, but the strength value kept, because just killing whatever just didn't seem to make much sense. I also think that they set the ceiling for what was "Strenght D" far too low, but that's a separate debate. Sweeping Advances had the same thing. Got super lucky and a lone Grot could chase down a full unit of Chosen Terminators. That certainly feels bad.

That's why we need good comparative and scaling mechanics, and not limitess rules (like any strength can wound any toughness!). Instant Death works fine as a mechanic as long as it scales correctly, rather than having weapons that cause "Instant Death". Beyond that you'd have to use the keyword system, and use it sparingly for weapons that realistically shouldn't be in a game of this scale (ie. Volcano Cannons have 'Instant Death' against units with the 'Infantry, Swarms, Bike or Cavalry' keywords, as an out-of-thin-air example).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And once upon a time this was represented by damage conditions - Shaken and Stunned.

And whilst it might be the most extreme example possible, just because you might be able to do it to a vehicle, I don't think that a Laspistol should ever be able to "inconvenience" a Titan.

I've got no skin in the game over small arms fire damaging tanks- I don't care one way or another.

But I hated that damage chart. At the height of vehicle fragility in 9th, I still felt like vehicles had a better chance than in some editions- one-shotting was far more common in AV systems, because as soon as the armour was penetrated even once, it lead to a chance of instant death. And even if it wasn't instant death, it could make your vehicle totally useless with one shot.

I'd say that's not an argument against the chart per se, but rather the severity of the chart (which got worse, as time went on).

See I hated the Glancing Chart, and how a 6 could kill your tank. When we did our own version of the vehicle rules, we wrote it so that the first few results on the glancing table were 'no effect' - you got a glancing hit, well done, but it didn't do anything! The 6 result wasn't "Tank asplode!", but "Roll on the Penetrating Chart". Meant that lucky shots really felt lucky, rather than something that happened too often.

I maintain that there have been numerous mechanics that GW has created over the years that were good ideas, just poorly implemented, and skewed/broken over time (ie. making the damage charge more lethal over time) and that if they spent the time to test and improve those systems rather than just throwing them out and reinventing the wheel time after time after time, the game would be in a much better state, and we wouldn't be entering the 10th (tenth!!!) edition wondering what the hell we're about to get as they're throwing everything out* once again rather than fixing problems.



*Throwing things out isn't always a bad thing, some ideas (the current morale system, for example) aren't worth salvaging and should be done away with wholesale so that they can replace them with something (hopefully) better.

I just wish they had stuck with messing around with model positioning. Stuff like the old morale or tank shock having your models move when you don’t want them to was really interesting, especially when like 85% of 40k’s skill comes from movement.

 Daedalus81 wrote:


What are you on about? Why is it bad for Predators? If Rhinos are T9 and meltas have a harder time wounding them and Predator winds up being T9 then it, too, is more durable than before.

Because Predator TANKS will still be "weaker" than Gladiators. And equal to those "fragile" SPEEDERS. SM should (probably) have two/three TANK statbands, (Transport, Rearmed Transport, LR/Repulsor) and 2ish Speeder Bands.

Why are you assuming Impulsors are T10? They're T7 now. But even if they are the Rhino presumably allows 2 "units" to shoot out with a traditional capacity of 10 where the Impulsors capacity is 6. I'm guessing you're concerned that Predators won't be T10 and that the Impulsor will be tougher than them?

Was that part about "assuming the Weapons platforms built on transport tank chassis sharing a statblock" too subtle for you?

And the gladiator is worse, because it can't fly, even if it's tougher? Is that what you're trying to say?

Potentially, assuming the minor difference in Toughness not being offset by cost-benefit (weapons, special rules etc) I suspect the speeders are right and both the Rhino chassis and the Impulsor Chassis will end up too low which potentially also rolls into the Land Raiders and Repulsors depending on where the weapon strength sweet spots shake out. The only one I've seen so far was a Melta Rifle with S9 - which even hits that Rhino/Rhino Variant/Impulsor/Gladiator stat block. Wound Rhinos on 4, Impulsors on 5.

Knee Jerk reaction to Twin Linking Aggressors (And potentially others - but Aggressors were the only one specifically listed) feels painful. Taking a breath to analyze maybe not. Depends on Points afterwards. I suspect they're being pushed onto the shelf in order to sell new Terminators. But don't be surprised to see Terminators and Stormbolters in general turn into a Twin Linked Bolter. Apply this same paradigm to double Boneswords/Scything Claws/Lightning Claws/and so on. GW isn't good at trickle-down balancing. They rarely go to a second order cause/effect check i.e. First Order: Lethality is too high, so Stormbolters/etc are now twin linked that make half the shots better. Second Order is that now all the high priced stuff with stormbolters/twinlinked talons/whatever they applied the first order to are now putting out half the offense for the same price.

I'm also worried about what they're going to do with Bolter Drill flavor now that bolters are Assault And/Or Heavy but not Rapid Fire.

The Aggressor datasheet isn't even fully revealed and you want to claim it's to sell the new Terminators. We don't even have the stats for their frag launcher, but ignoring that -- Aggressors get 3 shots to 18" with wound rerolls. Terminators get 2 to 24" or 4 to 12" with no rerolls. Aggressors get 3 swings at 4+ but with wound rerolls. Terminators get 3 swings at 3+, but no rerolls. Then throw in the Frag Launchers and whatever ability they get.

And, yes, it still comes down to points. Aggressors are more consistent in damage than Terminators, but Terminators are more durable and have heavy options.

Is your personal animus affecting your reading comprehension?

Taking a breath to analyze maybe not. Depends on Points afterwards. I suspect they're being pushed onto the shelf in order to sell new Terminators.

they're going to spend most of the next two years throwing things against the wall

I think rather what's happening here is you're making up stuff, throwing it against a wall, and using that to justify whatever misplaced angst it is you wish to have.

This whole thing feels like a 'Primaris units are better and I hate it' using made up evidence until you get to Terminators, which you assume must be getting pushed, because they're new.

Right, because thinking the Primaris Speeder is too close in toughness to the Primaris Tank is all about hating Primaris from someone who usually runs full Primaris. Maybe take a minute to unwad your shorts and reread that without injecting animus.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:
So far the only thing I've seen that gives me question is that the melta weapon shown didn't have any bonuses against vehicles and had S9 I think.

Now if we assume it's higher than normal because primaris and they have to get the best stuff, which is evident by the bolt rifle shown being better than normal because I guarantee that the regular bolt is not going to be that good, doesn't that remove the benefit of melta weapons as being anti-tank?

I'm fine with them making small arms less effective against vehicles as long as they understand and remember the entire reason they changed that design in the first place was because it was almost impossible to actually wound vehicles unless you brought dedicated anti-tank. So either they're going to remember that or they're just going to backtrack to how things were years ago and have to change it again later showing they are absolute morons and have learned nothing.

It didn't have Anti-tank before- it had the Melta rule, and it still does. There's now a Melta X rule. I assume that's so that they're as effective against big bad monsters as they are against tanks and dreads, whereas Chain Fists are Anti-Vehicle, while Power Fists lost Unweildy in a different approach.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vict0988 wrote:

Breton wrote:
I don't really remember vehicles (except Dreads - and I could be wrong vehicles were pretty bad and didn't get a lot of play) along with Cents which flows in the same way Termies do - implacable inexorable advance, covering fire until the fist of death is in range kind of thing. Plus the whole Marines sleep with their bolters under their pillows fluff thing.

It was quickly removed from vehicles because of hurricane bolters. Cents took a while longer, they were just way too cheap for what they did. If you actually want Termies and Cents to advance then don't enable them to double-tap at more than half range, because you're giving them an incentive to stay at max range instead of getting within half range. I think Marines sleeping with their bolters is represented by their high BS of 3+, I assume you like the SoB flamer profile buff? To me it clutters the game up too much.

Haven't seen the SOB thing. And I think you have it backwards. Forcing Terminators/etc to choose between shooting all their shots, or moving closer to Punching Range doesn't make them move more than being able to shoot all their shots, AND move into punching range.

The old/current Bolter Drill allowed Terminators to move their 5, and shoot rapid fire full range. What we have so far of the new version still allows most of that, but going back to an Either/Or is what will make them static whenever they get more (effective) shots than punches.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyel wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Agree with Wayniac and Dudeface. Lowered lethality is a good thing. Making small arms less good against vehicles is a valid thing. I just don't want to spend half the game unable to meaningfully hurt my opponent's mechanized skew list because I took a "normal" amount of anti-tank instead of spamming anti-tank. And by extension, I don't want to find myself ignoring half the options in my codex because a skew-heavy meta demands I always take fire dragons over scorpions.

That said, there's still a ton we don't know, and I'm open to change.

The thing is outside the forums, no one was killing vehicles with small arms. So really making vehicles/monsters tougher meant nerfing "anti-tank".

Its still very much in the "wait and see" phase - but I suspect they want to change the idea that almost every boosted up 200 point unit can go smash every other 200 point unit in a turn.

I mean its not as if the 10th edition Terminators won't tear down a 10th Rhino (or Gladiator). Its just that it will take 2-3 fight phases rather than "charge, maybe pop a stratagem to be sure, move on".

I wouldn't go that far. Say 5 Terminators, 1 Power Sword, 2 Chain Fists, 2 Power Fists. (Though given what we've seen so far I wouldn't be surprised to see 4-5 Chainfists - 3+ vs 4+ with a +1 Oath of Moment, Strats and potential character leadership) FOF/OOM alone turns chainfists into powerfists with Anti-Vehicle 3+. Anyone expect that to be one of the first Updates? 12 attacks, 9-10ish hits, and 5-9ish 5+ Saves vs D2 (The swing is Anti Vehicle3+) And that's going to be before whatever we can do to a Critical Wound or what ELSE a "Critical Wound" means or might mean. And that's not a bad thing. Terminators that get into punching range of a Rhino should mess it up in short order - they have to work to do it or you have to have really dropped the ball. Teleport is (apparently) still not within 9 - and all that follows 16-20ish shots and 3+ish storm bolter wounds plus an Assault Cannon or Cyclone. And not assuming there's some form of Shock Assault (potentially a Strat as I don't see a reference section on the data sheet)

Sadly we don't see a couple of the datasheets I'm particularly interested in - Assault Marines (Chain Swords and Eviscerators), Outriders (their Ginsu special rule), Eliminators/Scouts (Sniper rifles, las fusils), Terminator Assault Squads (especially the 2LC).

Most of what we've seen is just rearranging the deck chairs on a cruise ship that may or may not be the Titanic. BS/WS/(Melee A) moved to the weapon and not the unit stat line. A little rewording to deal with that here and there. We've seen a little stat tweaking. The change to 8th losing +1A for two weapons, and +1A for charging was extremely hard on Assault Marines for example (they gave Chainswords +1A, and added Shock Assault to try and patch it) and Assault Marines were again almost to actually viable. Who knows how many steps back we're going to take.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:
One thing to remember with the heightened Vehicle Strength and lowered AP values, is that in the coming edition that there's nothing (that we know of so far) that will limit your ability to take an armored list besides the rule of 3, and the requirement to take a character. Which means you could, in theory, just take a techmarine, shove him and maybe a retinue in a rhino/razorback/Land-raider and then fill out everything else with just vehicles. Obviously, this presumably means objective play will be harder, but how much does that matter unless the enemy spams AT?

I have a few theme lists I try and make every edition:

Spear of Macragge (Tanks, Chronus, etc)
Double Wing (Death and Raven working together)
Iyanden Wraith Host

Just to see how well it supports the atypical but fluff lists.

And with the new Objective Controlled stuff it may not be as hard as it was. I suspect ObSec/ObCon is as messed up as always with 5 Grots beating 4 Intercessors, but we'll see.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Yeah. People disliked having their vehicles taken out by a single lucky anti-tank attack, and other people disliked being unable to hurt parking lots with S3 (and S4 shooting) attacks. So GW made killing vehicles more of a steady process that all units can contribute towards rather than a binary all-or-nothing affair.

It seems like 10th wants to back off on letting S3 and S4 contribute as meaningfully, so I guess we'll see how that shakes out.

That is all well and good, till armies start spaming vehicles or GW creates armies that neither have mass weapons fire, nor a large number of efficient anti tank weapons.

Meh. That's a concept a number of people on here don't understand. Mostly because they probably had a hate on for the army used as an example. Partly because it takes more than a surface look. And it fluctuates around various different "sweet spots" in points tiers.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tsagualsa 809431 11519727 wrote:

We have not seen any dedicated anti-tank units yet, specifically not their special rules; there might be dedicated anti-tank squad leaders that stick a juicy ability on the whole unit, or tank-hunter units with nasty abilities that counter much of the increased survivability. We have already seen that one tyranid skill that rolls out army-wide bonuses against specific enemies if you need it, counters like this might exist for other forces as well. Other than that, you'd still need things that can hold obejctives, and most tanks seem to be limited to OC in the single digits, while units of infantry seem to bring 20 or more in some cases.

The problem is wtih GW history in writing rules. Will there be efficient anti tank units? I am sure, at worse after an early edition nerf to all good armies consisting of waves of vehicles. The problem with the special rules and counter mechanics is that all armies, in the game have to get them. Otherwise with GW push to use more vehicles, each army that can't deal with them, will end up very unfun to play with.

People worry about marine stuff, because that is what was shown to us. But what if a 9+MC tyranid army is valid? Or if an ork army can wall off entire parts of the table witch cheap, and now more resilient vehicles, while also running a wave of OC 2 models to swarm objectives?

Oh there are definitely a lot of non-marine things to worry about that you can pickup on looking at the Marine things that were released. Angels of Death (and its sub rules) is (probably) gone. Do we think Hive Mind, Instinctive Behavior etc are also gone? Poisoned Weapons are now probably Anti-(Not-Vehicle?) but Power From Pain, Mob Rule. Strands of Fate, 'Ere We Go, The CSM variants of Angels of Death (Hateful Assault, Savage Volleys, etc), Canticles, and so on.

With that said, a 9 MC Nid army should be viable-ish in various points bands. And the teasers suggest they're going to "encourage" Nids into little bug hordes though the actual faction rule they posted suggests they may have one of the best with a multiple choice Side-board style rule. https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/07/faction-rules-are-leaner-and-cleaner-in-the-new-edition-of-warhammer-40000/


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
It seems like 10th wants to back off on letting S3 and S4 contribute as meaningfully, so I guess we'll see how that shakes out.

How exactly are they doing that? Increased Toughness doesn't help if everything still wounds on a 6.

To a limited extend - they also reduced AP/Save Mods (tho mostly on higher S weapons), AOC is a strat (for Marines)

Edit to Add: What everyone's missing is how they changed leaders. The SM Lieutenant now gives 6s to hit Auto Wound to everyone in the squad he joins. I don't care what S my attacks are, I care how many I can pack in and reroll. Everything is now a third edition Terminator. I'm not going to waste a plasma cannon on a Terminator, that's what 2,000 lasguns are for.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
About stuff like instant death, I'd rather not have it come back unless we're talking an extreme discrepancy in a unit's toughness versus a weapon's strength, and the same goes with sweeping advance. The latter especially seems to be a feel-bad mechanic.

It was the lack of scaling that made those into "feels bad" moment.

I think back to when "Strength D" was introduced in Apocalypse. It always bothered me as that would have been better served as a weapon special rule, but the strength value kept, because just killing whatever just didn't seem to make much sense. I also think that they set the ceiling for what was "Strenght D" far too low, but that's a separate debate. Sweeping Advances had the same thing. Got super lucky and a lone Grot could chase down a full unit of Chosen Terminators. That certainly feels bad.

That's why we need good comparative and scaling mechanics, and not limitess rules (like any strength can wound any toughness!). Instant Death works fine as a mechanic as long as it scales correctly, rather than having weapons that cause "Instant Death". Beyond that you'd have to use the keyword system, and use it sparingly for weapons that realistically shouldn't be in a game of this scale (ie. Volcano Cannons have 'Instant Death' against units with the 'Infantry, Swarms, Bike or Cavalry' keywords, as an out-of-thin-air example).

It could be as simple as continuing the logic of the current wound 'chart' one step further and have triple-toughness+ strength values auto-wound and one-third-toughness- weapons never wound; that would mean that the most ubiquitous smallarm would end up useless against T 9/10 (depending on the exakt wording) and T 12/13 respectively, and that seems a desireable cutoff for many reasons. In practice it would mean that unboosted lasguns cap out at light vehicles and skimmers, while bolters can threaten anything up to IFVs and light tanks.

I'd be totally fine with that. That would also somewhat reduce unnecessary dice rolling.

Breton wrote:

And with the new Objective Controlled stuff it may not be as hard as it was. I suspect ObSec/ObCon is as messed up as always with 5 Grots beating 4 Intercessors, but we'll see.

I suspect that Grots will be OC 1 regardless of them being troops. Still means three would beat one Intercessor though.

 KingGarland wrote:

Breton wrote:

And with the new Objective Controlled stuff it may not be as hard as it was. I suspect ObSec/ObCon is as messed up as always with 5 Grots beating 4 Intercessors, but we'll see.

I suspect that Grots will be OC 1 regardless of them being troops. Still means three would beat one Intercessor though.

The mental image of an intercessor chasing three grots in a wack-a-mole is quite entertaining

I think grots should just go back to like toughness 2, but get oc2 in return. Though I’d like it more if they got some rules to really prompt using them as a bunch of bodies, maybe like a 7” move or something?, inbuilt grot shields maybe

 KingGarland wrote:

Breton wrote:

And with the new Objective Controlled stuff it may not be as hard as it was. I suspect ObSec/ObCon is as messed up as always with 5 Grots beating 4 Intercessors, but we'll see.

I suspect that Grots will be OC 1 regardless of them being troops. Still means three would beat one Intercessor though.

That's getting into the range of believable.

WIth Two grots vs one Intercessor, its like trying to outrun the bear jokes i.e. "I don't have to outrun the bear, I have to outrun you.". With three there's a gang up on him potential.

I could easily see that happening with 'chaff' infantry in general - chaos cultists, conscripts etc could be OC1 while the higher quality troops are OC2, to indicate that these poorly trained troops aren't as good at holding ground as those with proper training. It would be a good way to encourage players not just to use the cheapest possible bodies as objective campers all the time.

Tyel wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Agree with Wayniac and Dudeface. Lowered lethality is a good thing. Making small arms less good against vehicles is a valid thing. I just don't want to spend half the game unable to meaningfully hurt my opponent's mechanized skew list because I took a "normal" amount of anti-tank instead of spamming anti-tank. And by extension, I don't want to find myself ignoring half the options in my codex because a skew-heavy meta demands I always take fire dragons over scorpions.

That said, there's still a ton we don't know, and I'm open to change.

The thing is outside the forums, no one was killing vehicles with small arms. So really making vehicles/monsters tougher meant nerfing "anti-tank".

Its still very much in the "wait and see" phase - but I suspect they want to change the idea that almost every boosted up 200 point unit can go smash every other 200 point unit in a turn.

I mean its not as if the 10th edition Terminators won't tear down a 10th Rhino (or Gladiator). Its just that it will take 2-3 fight phases rather than "charge, maybe pop a stratagem to be sure, move on".

Actually, I had some good games using a 10-man intercessor squad to take out vehicles. Simply put, throwing down 60 s4 shots (Auto bolt rifle + Rapid Fire) at things like Doomsday Arks put a serious dint into it - especially once you get rerolls and AP from doctrine. You are looking at ~10 unsaved wounds, and hot dice can carry you into outright killing. A second smaller squad can often finish it if needed.

Breton wrote:

 KingGarland wrote:

Breton wrote:

And with the new Objective Controlled stuff it may not be as hard as it was. I suspect ObSec/ObCon is as messed up as always with 5 Grots beating 4 Intercessors, but we'll see.

I suspect that Grots will be OC 1 regardless of them being troops. Still means three would beat one Intercessor though.

That's getting into the range of believable.

WIth Two grots vs one Intercessor, its like trying to outrun the bear jokes i.e. "I don't have to outrun the bear, I have to outrun you.". With three there's a gang up on him potential.

Controlling objectives is generally weird under both the current and the future rules (as far as we can tell). If one player has 10 blue space marines at the objective and the other 11 spiky ones, you wouldn't expect either of them to have control over the objective but rather that it's currently contested. In the given example of three (or two) grots and a space marine I don't think any of them would realistically be in control of the objective.

Naturally, it wouldn't work on game terms of you could just deny objectives to your opponent by constantly throwing the last remnants of a unit at the objective so there has to be some sort of compromise. I personally think that it would be best if there was some kind of contested status in between either side controlling it, probably based on outnumbering the other side two to one or something.