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.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Have to admit when I got down to Guilliman's profile I couldn't remember the difference between Devastating Wounds and Lethal Hits.

It took me a moment, too, but we haven't been playing since we learned about them.

Devastating wounds is; 6s to wound turn your damage into mortal wounds.
Lethal Hits is; 6s to hit auto-wound.
Sustained hits is; Exploding 6s to hit. (extra hit)

 Dysartes wrote:
"Oath of Moment" would say Hi, unless that's a detachment ability.

It is. That's the Detachment Ability of the generic SM Detachment.

At least from what's previewed, there aren't that many to remember:

Universal Special Rules

Aircraft – Just a keyword?

Benefit of Cover – Add 1 to saving throws vs. attack. Models with a Save characteristic of 3+ or better cannot have Benefit of Cover against attacks with AP 0.

Deadly Demise X – Roll a die when model dies, on a 6, do X mortal wounds to “nearby” units.

Deep Strike – Enter battlefield from reserves?

Feel No Pain X+ – Ignore wound on die roll of X+.

Firing Deck X – X embarked models can fire while embarked.

Leader – Can join specified squads.

Lone Operative – Cannot be targeted by enemies more than 12” away (may be limited to when nearby specified units or unit types).

Towering – Doesn’t benefit from LoS blocking from ruins and woods?


Weapon Rules

Anti-[KW] X+ - Automatically does Critical Wound to [Key Word] on Wound roll of X+.

Assault – Unit can fire Assault weapons after advancing.

Blast – +1 Attack for every 5 models in target unit.

Devastating Wounds – Deal Mortal Wounds instead on Critical Wounds.

Hazardous – Kills/inflicts mortal wounds on shooter on roll of 1.

Heavy - +1 to hit if Remained Stationary this turn.

Ignores Cover – ignores [the benefits of] cover?

Lethal Hits – Critical Hits automatically wound.

Melta X – Increase damage by X when within ½ range.

One Shot – Bearer can only shoot this weapon once per battle.

Pistol – Can fire in while in engagement range of enemy unit?

Precision – Sniper on characters or individual models in unit???

Psychic – Just keyword?

Rapid Fire X - When targeting unit within ½ range, increase attack characteristic by X.

Sustained Hits X – Critical Hits generate X additional hits.

Torrent – Attacks automatically hit target.

Twin-Linked – Reroll wound rolls.



Most will probably be second nature after a few games.

Not a fan of GW keeping the silly number of attacks on big models. 21 attacks for a single model just feels unnecessary.

There's definitely still a learning curve when it comes to the USRs, but I don't think it'll take long to get used to them. It looks like there'll be a fairly small set of ones that are very common.

Breton wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
"Oath of Moment" would say Hi, unless that's a detachment ability.

It is. That's the Detachment Ability of the generic SM Detachment.

No, its the faction ability. Doctrines are the detachment ability (rule).

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/05/02/warhammer-40000-faction-focus-space-marines-2/

The Detachment rule for the Gladius Task Force is Combat Doctrines, which gives players the choice of three powerful disciplines to focus on at the start of their Command phase. These can really turn the tide at a critical moment.

and while re-rolls to hit and wound are much rarer now, Space Marines have more access to reflect their elite status – chiefly through the Oath of Moment faction ability.

So the Space Wolf Rut, the Blood Angel Bloodletting and Dark Angel Secrets detachments (real names pending) will all have Oath of Moment but not Doctrines.

Slipspace wrote:
Not a fan of GW keeping the silly number of attacks on big models. 21 attacks for a single model just feels unnecessary.

There's definitely still a learning curve when it comes to the USRs, but I don't think it'll take long to get used to them. It looks like there'll be a fairly small set of ones that are very common.

I very much doubt he'll be swinging both of those.

Breton wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
"Oath of Moment" would say Hi, unless that's a detachment ability.

It is. That's the Detachment Ability of the generic SM Detachment.

No. Oath is faction ability(hint being it's listed as faction ability in card). All marines regardless of detachment gets it.

Faction: oath of moment.

Can't be clearer than that.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
Not a fan of GW keeping the silly number of attacks on big models. 21 attacks for a single model just feels unnecessary.

There's definitely still a learning curve when it comes to the USRs, but I don't think it'll take long to get used to them. It looks like there'll be a fairly small set of ones that are very common.

I very much doubt he'll be swinging both of those.

I'm not so sure. We've seen other weapons with the "each time you attack choose one" text and this doesn't have it. There may be a general rule to prevent use of more than 1 CC weapon, I suppose. In that case 14 attacks is still too many for my liking, but that ship has clearly sailed.

Slipspace wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
Not a fan of GW keeping the silly number of attacks on big models. 21 attacks for a single model just feels unnecessary.

There's definitely still a learning curve when it comes to the USRs, but I don't think it'll take long to get used to them. It looks like there'll be a fairly small set of ones that are very common.

I very much doubt he'll be swinging both of those.

I'm not so sure. We've seen other weapons with the "each time you attack choose one" text and this doesn't have it. There may be a general rule to prevent use of more than 1 CC weapon, I suppose. In that case 14 attacks is still too many for my liking, but that ship has clearly sailed.

That's for ranged weapons. The rules will say 'choose one weapon' to fight in melee. The reason it's different is because a model can shoot many ranged weapons whereas melee can officially be just one.

Slipspace wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
Not a fan of GW keeping the silly number of attacks on big models. 21 attacks for a single model just feels unnecessary.

There's definitely still a learning curve when it comes to the USRs, but I don't think it'll take long to get used to them. It looks like there'll be a fairly small set of ones that are very common.

I very much doubt he'll be swinging both of those.

I'm not so sure. We've seen other weapons with the "each time you attack choose one" text and this doesn't have it. There may be a general rule to prevent use of more than 1 CC weapon, I suppose. In that case 14 attacks is still too many for my liking, but that ship has clearly sailed.

Conversely it sort of felt like Gman wasn't really up to much by the end of the edition though, if they put their metaphorical best foot forwards and decide day 1 that Primarchs are to be fighters to be afraid of, with a price tag to boot, I'm ok with that. It's something I want to see all the factions get a little of in honesty, why shouldn't the Avatar of Kahine be a 500pt monstrosity who shurgs off fire and eats marines for breakfast even in a realm of reduced lethality?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


That's for ranged weapons. The rules will say 'choose one weapon' to fight in melee. The reason it's different is because a model can shoot many ranged weapons whereas melee can officially be just one.

That doesn't seem quite right, there are plenty of melee weapons in 9th that provided additional attacks.

Unless we get an USR for additional attacks.

 Tyran wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


That's for ranged weapons. The rules will say 'choose one weapon' to fight in melee. The reason it's different is because a model can shoot many ranged weapons whereas melee can officially be just one.

That doesn't seem quite right, there are plenty of melee weapons in 9th that provided additional attacks.

Unless we get an USR for additional attacks.

There were, his weapons aren't shown to be either of those. The extra attacks in 9th are from the model carrying them and granted outside of normal allowances, via an additional rule on the gear. Currently no reason to assume he gets to use both as you can't technically use more than 1 now.

 Tyran wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


That's for ranged weapons. The rules will say 'choose one weapon' to fight in melee. The reason it's different is because a model can shoot many ranged weapons whereas melee can officially be just one.

That doesn't seem quite right, there are plenty of melee weapons in 9th that provided additional attacks.

Unless we get an USR for additional attacks.

We don't need either, anymore. The weapon profile can just be set to however many attacks they want it to be.

Voss wrote:

We don't need either, anymore. The weapon profile can just be set to however many attacks they want it to be.

Let me make use an example: A Carnifex with scything talons, crushing claws and bone mace.
Currently that means 5 crushing claws attacks, +2 scything talons attacks and +1 (and only one) bone mace attack.

If it can only use one weapon, the whole thing falls apart. So it either needs to be able to use multiple weapons or an "additional attacks" USR (specially for the bone mace that was never meant to be a primary melee weapon).

 Tyran wrote:

Voss wrote:

We don't need either, anymore. The weapon profile can just be set to however many attacks they want it to be.

Let me make use an example: A Carnifex with scything talons, crushing claws and bone mace.
Currently that means 5 crushing claws attacks, +2 scything talons attacks and +1 (and only one) bone mace attack.

If it can only use one weapon, the whole thing falls apart. So it either needs to be able to use multiple weapons or an "additional attacks" USR (specially for the bone mace that was never meant to be a primary melee weapon).

That whole dynamic can go away. Bone mace could just grant you access to a profile with X number of attacks and if you need to hit something it's not suited for then then you use talons with Y number of attacks.

Midly concerned at the potential lethality shown in these Gladius Task Force rules, obviously still early days in drawing a full picture, but:

Bobby G
3 x Land Raider
3 x 5 Terminator + 1 Character Terminator

Deploy on the line (and I really really hope Gladius Task Force does not have acces to any sort of redeploy 3 units ability).
Win the roll off.
Choose Waaagh Doctrine.
Move Land Raiders 10".
Disembark 3" (check if this exists still or if you just get your normal move out of the Land Raider).
Move 5".
Advance d6".
Charge 2d6".

Average threat range 28.5". (Hope they got rid of any +s to move, advance or charge.)

Opponent either loses turn one if they lose the roll or has to deploy extra deep in their deployment zone. Remember some of the deployment zones have less than 24" between them currently. Another option is a layer of chaff around your valuable units.

If your opponent does let you get three charges off then activate your first terminator unit into you oath of moment target and as we've only seen the Libby Terminator let's assume he is the one attached:
15 Power Fists hitting on 2s re-rolling everything 6s to hit generate 1 extra hit = 17.5 hits.
17.5 hits wounding with S8 with re-rolls to wound AP2 D2.
Libby also contributes 3.56~4.44 S6 AP1 D3.

Kill your target and Oaths applies to the second unit's target and off you go again with the same lethality.

Alternatively put two units into the primary Oath target and one into the secondary Oath target.

Maybe use fight on death (assuming you have the CP) on the third Terminator unit.

It feels like if you are facing a 10th ed Gladius Task Force you will want to hide your entire army in deployment to avoid being shot turn one and then also deploy a bit or a lot back to avoid the turn one charge. That feels exactly like the kind of lethality we currently have where you need blanket obscuring terrain and some sort of turn one charge denial plan to ensure you are still playing when it gets to your first turn. As a result in 9th I often deploy my army without looking at what the other player is doing as 75% of what I'm putting down is going down in the only places they can go if they want to survive.

I also hate that Gladius will have a similar threat range turn 2/3/4 if they don't use the doctrine turn 1, with a lot of the current 9th armies that threaten this, they often drop in threat after the first turn (Blood Angels, World Eaters) as a part of their movement threat is a pre-game move.

"access to rerolls has been made sparse, except for Marines".
"let's hear "Robin" about it."
"Marines are all about annihilating a particular key unit of the opponent army, so that the fight is decided turn 1"

I understand better now. /s

I don’t think they’ve said that units can move after disembarking from a vehicle. I would expect that if the vehicle moved then the disembarking unit will count as having moved once it disembarks.

EightFoldPath wrote:
Midly concerned at the potential lethality shown in these Gladius Task Force rules, obviously still early days in drawing a full picture, but:

Bobby G
3 x Land Raider
3 x 5 Terminator + 1 Character Terminator

Deploy on the line (and I really really hope Gladius Task Force does not have acces to any sort of redeploy 3 units ability).
Win the roll off.
Choose Waaagh Doctrine.
Move Land Raiders 10".
Disembark 3" (check if this exists still or if you just get your normal move out of the Land Raider).
Move 5".
Advance d6".
Charge 2d6".

Average threat range 28.5". (Hope they got rid of any +s to move, advance or charge.)

Had the exact same thought as you, I like Assault ramps but as I got through the doctrines part I was very surprised. That's a whole lot of threat range turn 1 and I have always found Turn 1 charges to be generally unfun. I have two armies that can pull that off but it never feels satisfying to either player in my opinion.

Aash wrote:
I don’t think they’ve said that units can move after disembarking from a vehicle. I would expect that if the vehicle moved then the disembarking unit will count as having moved once it disembarks.

Assault ramp says you can make a normal move after disembarking and then you can charge.

Aash wrote:
I don’t think they’ve said that units can move after disembarking from a vehicle. I would expect that if the vehicle moved then the disembarking unit will count as having moved once it disembarks.

Yeah. At least as far as I can see you'll get the 10" move from the Land Raider, disembark then a 2D6 charge. That's a bit fast, but not guaranteed first turn charge unless you let them.

edit: covered

My reading is that the "normal move" means the Land Raider?

EightFoldPath wrote:
Bobby G
3 x Land Raider
3 x 5 Terminator + 1 Character Terminator

This is about 1800 points at present if you mean to have a leader in each termie unit. Could easily become 2K. This leaves Bobby completely exposed as he is only covered by INFANTRY.

( And there's some presumed interactions )

I'll echo the reading that the Land Raider can make a Normal Move and the disembarking unit can still charge, but the unit that disembarked cannot (as far as we know for now) then make a move of their own besides charging.

Aash wrote:
I don’t think they’ve said that units can move after disembarking from a vehicle. I would expect that if the vehicle moved then the disembarking unit will count as having moved once it disembarks.

Assault ramp says you can make a normal move after disembarking and then you can charge.

Aash wrote:

Assault Ramp: Each time a unit disembarks from this model after it has made a Normal move, that unit is still eligible to declare a charge this turn.

Right. Text in red is referring to the land raider. Text in green is referring to disembarked unit.

3 Land Raiders is obviously the lazy first concept of an army. Like we saw with the recent Dark Angels Terminators and all chapters Desolators dominance, sure you could take 30, but the top players were taking 10~15 and occasionally 20 to leave room for other things.

Like I said, we'll have to see if there is a penny drop moment later where you find out a common 9th rule has evaporated.

I'm trying to remember for 9th's release. Did they tease rule after rule which looked bad for melee armies and then at the last minute revealed overwatch no longer being for every unit?

Although, for anyone who thinks that the early anti melee internet takes were wrong, the base rules in 9th were quite pro shooting which is why they've nerfed shooting armies/rules so often. Flyers were a shooting problem. Ignore line of sight was a shooting problem. AdMech when they first released were a shooting problem. Ork Freebooterz a shooting problem. Votann a shooting problem. Tyranid Macleptors sort of a shooting problem. Craftworld Hail of Doom a shooting problem. Harlequin Voidweavers a shooting problem. Tzeentch Flamers a shooting problem. Kasrkin a shooting problem.

And later 9th edition codexes are like, 5 attacks per melee model and 9" base move, sounds totally reasonable! 28 points Possessed, yep even at that price it turns out they might actually be overpointed!

The reason 9th edition terrain recommendations are "ok, block out the entire board with obscuring ruins" isn't because the base melee rules are too strong.

 Daedalus81 wrote:


That whole dynamic can go away. Bone mace could just grant you access to a profile with X number of attacks and if you need to hit something it's not suited for then then you use talons with Y number of attacks.

Tell me you know nothing about Tyranids without telling me you know nothing about Tyranids.

Bone mace is tail weapon, it is only meant to give 1 attack, it has always only given one attack. It is mean to be a secondary melee weapon, not a primary weapon.

But anyway, I guess the whole thing can be solved by the Carnifex's and similar Tyranid's profiles having bestoke rules for extra melee weapons, although probably not the most elegant solution.

No, I get that. I don't know how it's going to be handled - I'm just guessing.

 Tyran wrote:

Voss wrote:

We don't need either, anymore. The weapon profile can just be set to however many attacks they want it to be.

Let me make use an example: A Carnifex with scything talons, crushing claws and bone mace.
Currently that means 5 crushing claws attacks, +2 scything talons attacks and +1 (and only one) bone mace attack.

If it can only use one weapon, the whole thing falls apart. So it either needs to be able to use multiple weapons or an "additional attacks" USR (specially for the bone mace that was never meant to be a primary melee weapon).

Yes, that's the current way things are done. Its not the way things MUST be done.

An alternate method: If you put Crushing Claws on a carnifex, you obviously value the high strength attacks, rather than more attacks with double scythe (which we can see on the Screamer-Killer). So you subsume (and abstract) the other stuff into more attacks with the claws. So give it 6 or 7 crushing claw attacks instead of 5 and nothing else. [Adjust those numbers for whatever a reasonable amount of attacks is in 10th, though # of attacks is looking like its going to be high still)