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.

Breton wrote:
I've also read several editions that didn't call a 6 automatically wounding a critical wound. It was still just a basic wound. Even Poison wounds (which is what it feels like Anti-X is trying to empulate/replace only dealt regular wounds not critical wounds. They have created a third category of wounds that may or may not be significant. But if its not significant why did they create it?

I'm unsure where it is confusing for you so I'll restate.

6s to wound happen to be critical wounds. A critical wound is always a success. Other effects can make other rolls a critical wound. Other rules can trigger off a critical wound.

Here's a made up scenario.

A terminator with a chainfist has devastating wounds.

That terminator rolls to wound against T10, which would normally require a 5+, but since they have Anti-Vehicle 3+ a roll of a 3 is a critical wound and it succeeds. Devastating wounds triggers off a critical wound so instead of moving to saves the attack is converted into mortal wounds.

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:
I'm a little out of the loop in regards to the new system of army building, particularly with all the mentions of the Gladius Strike Force. Could someone explain?

Nowadays each army is from both a Faction (i.e. Space Marines) and a Detachment (i.e. Gladius Strike Force). Your Faction determines your Faction ability, which for Space Marines is 'Oath of Moment'. Your Detachment determines what Enhancements and Stratagems you can take, and gives you a Detachment ability, which for the Gladius Strike Force is Combat Doctrines.

Thus, any Space Marine force will always have Oath of the Moomins, but the Detachment abilities, Enhancements and Stratagems vary depending on the Detachment you chose.

Apparently, at release, every Faction will only get one Detachment to start out, but the Codexes will bring more.

So in the Marine book you could have say, the Gladius Strike Force, the Rapier Hunter Force and the Venator Kill Squad, replacing the FOC we now have?

Yeah, the general idea seems to be that Detachments can (but must not necessarily) come with all sorts of restrictions, but give you theme-appropriate Stratagems and things as a reward. There is no real FOC anymore, just the rule of three, and needing at least one character.

If you were around during the Demi Company etc editions. Its been a while I think it was 6th or 7th, and eventually degenerated into a particularly vitriolic Pay-To-Play scandal of sorts where people who bought a boxed set on the website got a very potent Detachment rule that was only "available" in that boxed set - I forget what it was called - Gladius or Skyhammer or some such. But that's the building paradigm a lot of folks are expecting a version of.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 p5freak wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

3 termies, 6 razorbacks, and bobby are 1500 at present. You'll probably be required to fill those transports so that's the remaining points. That gives you 9 assault cannons, which gives 14.4 MW from damn near your entire army -- if you can get them all within 24" of the first target.

Its unlikely that razorbacks keep their asscannons, its not on the sprue, and will most likely not be a weapon option. Gladiator reaper now have 24 shots with a twin heavy onslaught gatling canon, which will probably get 12 shots and twin linked. Redemptors have 12+6 shots with heavy and normal asscannon.

They've allowed it for far too long to take it away now. Too many people will have bought a vehicle upgrade sprue for the Ass Can turret. They've done that level of stupid before, but they're pretty careful about it now.

Slipspace wrote:
The Rupture Cannon is actually slightly worse than its current incarnation. It's lost a shot and the S18 is just the adjustment for the increased T on monsters and vehicles, which keeps it in line with where it is now. 2d6 damage is nice, but the Laser Destroyer's D6+4 is better for consistency. It's still a great gun, but I think we need to recalibrate our expectations for S values on these weapons in 10th.

Agreed. 2D6 is stupid.

The "average" roll is going to be roughly the same. Losing the shot is the really "painful" part.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Breton wrote:
I've also read several editions that didn't call a 6 automatically wounding a critical wound. It was still just a basic wound. Even Poison wounds (which is what it feels like Anti-X is trying to empulate/replace only dealt regular wounds not critical wounds. They have created a third category of wounds that may or may not be significant. But if its not significant why did they create it?

I'm unsure where it is confusing for you so I'll restate.

6s to wound happen to be critical wounds. A critical wound is always a success. Other effects can make other rolls a critical wound. Other rules can trigger off a critical wound.

Here's a made up scenario.

A terminator with a chainfist has devastating wounds.

That terminator rolls to wound against T10, which would normally require a 5+, but since they have Anti-Vehicle 3+ a roll of a 3 is a critical wound and it succeeds. Devastating wounds triggers off a critical wound so instead of moving to saves the attack is converted into mortal wounds.

Yeah, your snark aside - That's pretty much the part they've leaked. Few people are truly as stupid as you're trying to imply here. And again that doesn't explain what a Critical Wound is. I'm pretty sure I didn't ask how to create one, but that I wanted to look and see what happened because of one

One of the first things I'm looking for is what a Critical Wound is vs a Mortal Wound.

Why yes, yes I did. So perhaps myself and the people pointing out Critical Wounds are potentially somewhat special and it would be nice to look up what they mean aren't as stupid as the people who keep trying to explain the part we've already seen and we are NOT asking/wondering about. Is there any part left that's confusing to you?

Critical wound is a wound that is successful regardless of S vs T. Its on 6s normally, but rules like [Anti-X] can adjust the number.

Mortal wound doesn't allow saves of any kind. That's the difference.

Breton wrote:

Spoiler:

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:
I'm a little out of the loop in regards to the new system of army building, particularly with all the mentions of the Gladius Strike Force. Could someone explain?

Nowadays each army is from both a Faction (i.e. Space Marines) and a Detachment (i.e. Gladius Strike Force). Your Faction determines your Faction ability, which for Space Marines is 'Oath of Moment'. Your Detachment determines what Enhancements and Stratagems you can take, and gives you a Detachment ability, which for the Gladius Strike Force is Combat Doctrines.

Thus, any Space Marine force will always have Oath of the Moomins, but the Detachment abilities, Enhancements and Stratagems vary depending on the Detachment you chose.

Apparently, at release, every Faction will only get one Detachment to start out, but the Codexes will bring more.

So in the Marine book you could have say, the Gladius Strike Force, the Rapier Hunter Force and the Venator Kill Squad, replacing the FOC we now have?

Yeah, the general idea seems to be that Detachments can (but must not necessarily) come with all sorts of restrictions, but give you theme-appropriate Stratagems and things as a reward. There is no real FOC anymore, just the rule of three, and needing at least one character.

If you were around during the Demi Company etc editions. Its been a while I think it was 6th or 7th, and eventually degenerated into a particularly vitriolic Pay-To-Play scandal of sorts where people who bought a boxed set on the website got a very potent Detachment rule that was only "available" in that boxed set - I forget what it was called - Gladius or Skyhammer or some such. But that's the building paradigm a lot of folks are expecting a version of.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 p5freak wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

3 termies, 6 razorbacks, and bobby are 1500 at present. You'll probably be required to fill those transports so that's the remaining points. That gives you 9 assault cannons, which gives 14.4 MW from damn near your entire army -- if you can get them all within 24" of the first target.

Its unlikely that razorbacks keep their asscannons, its not on the sprue, and will most likely not be a weapon option. Gladiator reaper now have 24 shots with a twin heavy onslaught gatling canon, which will probably get 12 shots and twin linked. Redemptors have 12+6 shots with heavy and normal asscannon.

They've allowed it for far too long to take it away now. Too many people will have bought a vehicle upgrade sprue for the Ass Can turret. They've done that level of stupid before, but they're pretty careful about it now.

Slipspace wrote:
The Rupture Cannon is actually slightly worse than its current incarnation. It's lost a shot and the S18 is just the adjustment for the increased T on monsters and vehicles, which keeps it in line with where it is now. 2d6 damage is nice, but the Laser Destroyer's D6+4 is better for consistency. It's still a great gun, but I think we need to recalibrate our expectations for S values on these weapons in 10th.

Agreed. 2D6 is stupid.

The "average" roll is going to be roughly the same. Losing the shot is the really "painful" part.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Breton wrote:
I've also read several editions that didn't call a 6 automatically wounding a critical wound. It was still just a basic wound. Even Poison wounds (which is what it feels like Anti-X is trying to empulate/replace only dealt regular wounds not critical wounds. They have created a third category of wounds that may or may not be significant. But if its not significant why did they create it?

I'm unsure where it is confusing for you so I'll restate.

6s to wound happen to be critical wounds. A critical wound is always a success. Other effects can make other rolls a critical wound. Other rules can trigger off a critical wound.

Here's a made up scenario.

A terminator with a chainfist has devastating wounds.

That terminator rolls to wound against T10, which would normally require a 5+, but since they have Anti-Vehicle 3+ a roll of a 3 is a critical wound and it succeeds. Devastating wounds triggers off a critical wound so instead of moving to saves the attack is converted into mortal wounds.

Yeah, your snark aside - That's pretty much the part they've leaked. Few people are truly as stupid as you're trying to imply here. And again that doesn't explain what a Critical Wound is. I'm pretty sure I didn't ask how to create one, but that I wanted to look and see what happened because of one

One of the first things I'm looking for is what a Critical Wound is vs a Mortal Wound.

Why yes, yes I did. So perhaps myself and the people pointing out Critical Wounds are potentially somewhat special and it would be nice to look up what they mean aren't as stupid as the people who keep trying to explain the part we've already seen and we are NOT asking/wondering about. Is there any part left that's confusing to you?

Yes, why you're incapable of reading the same articles as everyone else to get the info:

Weapons that shredded through armour on lucky rolls can now share the Devastating Wounds ability instead. This allows them to dish out mortal wounds on a Critical Wound – that’s an unmodified Wound roll of 6.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/14/weapons-rules-are-fun-and-flexible-in-the-new-warhammer-40000/

I got the precise rule and quote from a Google of "critical wounds 40k" in under 10 seconds, stop being lazy and getting angry at others. You're trying to overcomplicate the fact its simply the name for "wounds on unmodified value of X, defaults to 6"

Breton wrote:


Yeah, your snark aside - That's pretty much the part they've leaked. Few people are truly as stupid as you're trying to imply here. And again that doesn't explain what a Critical Wound is. I'm pretty sure I didn't ask how to create one, but that I wanted to look and see what happened because of one

One of the first things I'm looking for is what a Critical Wound is vs a Mortal Wound.

Why yes, yes I did. So perhaps myself and the people pointing out Critical Wounds are potentially somewhat special and it would be nice to look up what they mean aren't as stupid as the people who keep trying to explain the part we've already seen and we are NOT asking/wondering about. Is there any part left that's confusing to you?

Ermm...this is awkward - there was no intentional snark in there. Sorry if it came off that way.

I just am unable to understand what you're confused about.

I always advocated for same working rules to be called the same way. It is way easier to understand and to learn or remember what FnP+5 is then have the same rule called 20 different ways spread over different book.
Do X on a roll of Y, is a great way to make the learning of core mechanic easier for new players. GW could not have made it better.
A critical hit happens when you hit, critical wound happens when you wound. Clear and simple. Now if GW made something crazy and called critical hit the 6s to wound, then stuff could be mildly confusing for new or returning players.

Dudeface wrote:


Yes, why you're incapable of reading the same articles as everyone else to get the info:

What part of "...that wasn't in a teaser..." was too complex for you?

Weapons that shredded through armour on lucky rolls can now share the Devastating Wounds ability instead. This allows them to dish out mortal wounds on a Critical Wound – that’s an unmodified Wound roll of 6.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/14/weapons-rules-are-fun-and-flexible-in-the-new-warhammer-40000/

I got the precise rule and quote from a Google of "critical wounds 40k" in under 10 seconds, stop being lazy and getting angry at others. You're trying to overcomplicate the fact its simply the name for "wounds on unmodified value of X, defaults to 6"

We all got that precise rule from Games Workshop about 3 weeks ago. I don't know about you but I'm really hoping they didn't make two USR's for one gun on one unit.

Breton wrote:


Yeah, your snark aside - That's pretty much the part they've leaked. Few people are truly as stupid as you're trying to imply here. And again that doesn't explain what a Critical Wound is. I'm pretty sure I didn't ask how to create one, but that I wanted to look and see what happened because of one

One of the first things I'm looking for is what a Critical Wound is vs a Mortal Wound.

Why yes, yes I did. So perhaps myself and the people pointing out Critical Wounds are potentially somewhat special and it would be nice to look up what they mean aren't as stupid as the people who keep trying to explain the part we've already seen and we are NOT asking/wondering about. Is there any part left that's confusing to you?

Well. Gw has already told us what critical wound is.

You are of course free to read rulebook once it comes to see what gw told us already

People are trying to save time. There's no point wasting time checking from rulebook what critical wound is as gw was kind enough to tell us.

Breton simply doesn't like 'game relevant terms'.

Critical wounds are game relevant. Some things key off of critical wounds. This means that critical wounds can be modified, altered, ignored, or trigger an additional ability without needing a paragraph in an FAQ to explain that 'Yes X ability does trigger on a 4+ when you have plus 2 to the roll, even though the ability says it only triggers on sixes'.

Breton is simply the type of person who prefers to go to the mechanic and say 'the doodad is wangdoodling the whosiewhatter' instead of 'there's a misfire in the 3rd cylinder'.

Breton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


Yes, why you're incapable of reading the same articles as everyone else to get the info:

What part of "...that wasn't in a teaser..." was too complex for you?

Weapons that shredded through armour on lucky rolls can now share the Devastating Wounds ability instead. This allows them to dish out mortal wounds on a Critical Wound – that’s an unmodified Wound roll of 6.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/14/weapons-rules-are-fun-and-flexible-in-the-new-warhammer-40000/

I got the precise rule and quote from a Google of "critical wounds 40k" in under 10 seconds, stop being lazy and getting angry at others. You're trying to overcomplicate the fact its simply the name for "wounds on unmodified value of X, defaults to 6"

We all got that precise rule from Games Workshop about 3 weeks ago. I don't know about you but I'm really hoping they didn't make two USR's for one gun on one unit.

Sorry what part of 10th edition isn't in a teaser? None of it is available for general consumption.

It’s not looking too good for the Sisters army in 10th

- You’ve got big stat boosts to a lot of units like Genestealer doubling wounds, terminator up to T5 and Gravis maybe T6. Sisters aren’t likely to get boosts because they’re humans and I can’t see them leaving that formula unless it’s a Paragon warsuit; which might get a look at. But basically units are continuing to move past the Sisters of Battle profile which is the same as it’s always been whilst a marine has 3 attacks and 2 wounds because reasons. Which would be fine if they were three times as expensive to justify that and they’re never going to do that because either you end up making Sisters too cheap or marines too expensive for what they “should” be.

- I am concerned that if they’re bringing stuff like bonus ballistic skill on Heavy weapons if you stand still that somebody might get the bright idea that “oh that means Sisters shooting multi melta and bolters on two plus most of the time. That won’t do.” They might not. But I could see them making that a thing and giving the power armoured infantry the same ballistic skill as a guardsman. Even if they don’t, it’s increasing the lethality across the board.

- Whilst units are getting tougher the firepower still seems to be there with a lot of rerolls to wounds and ways of dealing out damage. So I don’t see them ending the glass cannon formula the army currently uses.

The bright spots I can see are that tanks on the surface seem to be getting massive boosts in firepower and durability. So I could see the Sisters tanks becoming much more central to the army. Maybe Paragon Warsuits as well because being vehicles they’re more likely to get boosts to durability.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
It’s not looking too good for the Sisters army in 10th

- You’ve got big stat boosts to a lot of units like Genestealer doubling wounds, terminator up to T5 and Gravis maybe T6. Sisters aren’t likely to get boosts because they’re humans and I can’t see them leaving that formula unless it’s a Paragon warsuit; which might get a look at. But basically units are continuing to move past the Sisters of Battle profile which is the same as it’s always been whilst a marine has 3 attacks and 2 wounds because reasons. Which would be fine if they were three times as expensive to justify that and they’re never going to do that because either you end up making Sisters too cheap or marines too expensive for what they “should” be.

- I am concerned that if they’re bringing stuff like bonus ballistic skill on Heavy weapons if you stand still that somebody might get the bright idea that “oh that means Sisters shooting multi melta and bolters on two plus most of the time. That won’t do.” They might not. But I could see them making that a thing and giving the power armoured infantry the same ballistic skill as a guardsman. Even if they don’t, it’s increasing the lethality across the board.

- Whilst units are getting tougher the firepower still seems to be there with a lot of rerolls to wounds and ways of dealing out damage. So I don’t see them ending the glass cannon formula the army currently uses.

The bright spots I can see are that tanks on the surface seem to be getting massive boosts in firepower and durability. So I could see the Sisters tanks becoming much more central to the army. Maybe Paragon Warsuits as well because being vehicles they’re more likely to get boosts to durability.

I beseech everyone to not make a woe is me post for your faction, like this one, before the 10th Edition Faction Focus article for your faction. Everything in this post is pure speculation. GW may not be grand masters of faction balance, but they are not this bad.

The Sisters of Battle have had basically the same profile since 3rd edition plus an invulnerable save for at least the last two. Whereas with marines, Orks and Tyranids they’ve been consistently adding wounds, adding attacks, boosting toughness and not properly increasing points to reflect it. If Intercessors are going to be thirty points a model and you tell marines players their 1k army is now 1.5k fine but they’re never going to do that.

If it’s not a tank or a mech it ain’t getting boosted.

Yeah, be great if people stopped suggesting they need BS3 and 4 plus armour. That is an idea people regularly put forward even though marines have had all their other profiles boosted to absurd levels. Like an intercessor has a comparable profile to a centurion in Horus heresy now.

The previews of the marines and Tyranids shows lethality isn’t going anywhere. So Sisters are going to carry on paying a premium for armour you might as well not have because shooting kills you anyway.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
Like an intercessor has a comparable profile to a centurion in Horus heresy now.

Disingenuous comparison, considering it's literally two different systems. Are you going to complain Captains in 9th have more wounds than one in 30k?

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
Like an intercessor has a comparable profile to a centurion in Horus heresy now.

Disingenuous comparison, considering it's literally two different systems. Are you going to complain Captains in 9th have more wounds than one in 30k?

The differences make the intercessor better. Your weapons skill is set so you always hit on 3 plus. You give that intercessor a decent close combat weapon and you have a solid melee unit.

Giving all your infantry double wounds and triple the attacks is way more impactful than your character having one or three more wounds than a Praetor. That’s true in both systems.

If they’re so different why do Sisters have the same profile they’ve had since 3rd edition?

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
It’s not looking too good for the Sisters army in 10th

- You’ve got big stat boosts to a lot of units like Genestealer doubling wounds, terminator up to T5 and Gravis maybe T6. Sisters aren’t likely to get boosts because they’re humans and I can’t see them leaving that formula unless it’s a Paragon warsuit; which might get a look at. But basically units are continuing to move past the Sisters of Battle profile which is the same as it’s always been whilst a marine has 3 attacks and 2 wounds because reasons. Which would be fine if they were three times as expensive to justify that and they’re never going to do that because either you end up making Sisters too cheap or marines too expensive for what they “should” be.

- I am concerned that if they’re bringing stuff like bonus ballistic skill on Heavy weapons if you stand still that somebody might get the bright idea that “oh that means Sisters shooting multi melta and bolters on two plus most of the time. That won’t do.” They might not. But I could see them making that a thing and giving the power armoured infantry the same ballistic skill as a guardsman. Even if they don’t, it’s increasing the lethality across the board.

- Whilst units are getting tougher the firepower still seems to be there with a lot of rerolls to wounds and ways of dealing out damage. So I don’t see them ending the glass cannon formula the army currently uses.

The bright spots I can see are that tanks on the surface seem to be getting massive boosts in firepower and durability. So I could see the Sisters tanks becoming much more central to the army. Maybe Paragon Warsuits as well because being vehicles they’re more likely to get boosts to durability.

as a fellow sisters player i have my own concerns but like others have said withholding the doom/gloom until our faction focus will give us some hint at what we are dealing with.

@Totalwar1402

So first let me say that your concerns are valid, and that I'm a bit nervous too... However, I'm not as worried as you seem to be, and I tend be worried about different things.

So let's do this, fellow servant of the Emperor:

The thing that I think it's most important for everyone to keep in mind before they panic too hard as that GW laid the boots to AP on the basic arms of massed infantry, which is one of the biggest drivers of lethality in 9th. It's a particularly a big deal for those with 3+ Armour Saves, because we're actually going to GET 3+ saves vs. every infantry model that isn't armed with a special or heavy weapon, and those who are armed with those weapons aren't going to waste their shots on infantry, cuz vehicles got 'ARD!

Next: If there was ever an edition where they were going to get Exorcists, Castigators and Immolators right, this is it. Oh, and let's talk about our Rhino. Firing points for Melta-weilding Doms which let the Rhino get a Scout move. Oh, and if you min your Doms? Attach both a Canoness and a Palatine to the unit to buff the Melta shots. Oh yeah... And are you ready for this:

With the knowledge that we're getting an Agents dex, and that of all the Agents units, Arbites alone have the capacity to build THREE units from a KT box, I am predicting the return of the Repressor. You remember... The thing with not 2 firing points, but six? The vehicle which almost singlehandedly kept the faction alive for a decade and a half of ZERO support.

Now look, obviously that's speculation... But so are a lot of the things that we fear.

Also: You're right to think that Paragons are going to be the fists of the Emperor's holy rage... But don't forget about their Penitent sisters and brothers. Mortifiers and PE's are poised to get a glow up too. And don't rule out plastic DCA's and Crusaders because (again) Imperial Agents crossover.

Now that I've attempted to raise your spirits, let me flip the switch and tell you about MY fear, which ironically also has the capacity to be our greatest weapon: Acts of Faith.

I'm really hoping that AoF are going to be our core army rule so that it persists regardless of detachment. I also hope it's a small set of fixed abilities- 3 at most- and you choose one to be active every turn, or once per game or whatever (similar to new doctrines). Of course specific AoF could just as easily be linked to units or detachments. I like that a lot less, but it could work if it was done well.

Either way, AoF are the biggest unanswered question for Sisters, and arguably the most important. If GW gets it right, we could be very happy. If GW gets it wrong, it will be devastating.

Another of my disappointments are the changes to psychic abilities, and its impact on our inherent Deny the Witch ability. Now that psychic abilities are datacard rules, I think Deny is gone. I don't know what the equivalent mechanic will be, and once again, if they get it right it could really hum. But if they get it wrong, it's going to hurt.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
It’s not looking too good for the Sisters army in 10th

- You’ve got big stat boosts to a lot of units like Genestealer doubling wounds, terminator up to T5 and Gravis maybe T6. Sisters aren’t likely to get boosts because they’re humans and I can’t see them leaving that formula unless it’s a Paragon warsuit; which might get a look at. But basically units are continuing to move past the Sisters of Battle profile which is the same as it’s always been whilst a marine has 3 attacks and 2 wounds because reasons. Which would be fine if they were three times as expensive to justify that and they’re never going to do that because either you end up making Sisters too cheap or marines too expensive for what they “should” be.

- I am concerned that if they’re bringing stuff like bonus ballistic skill on Heavy weapons if you stand still that somebody might get the bright idea that “oh that means Sisters shooting multi melta and bolters on two plus most of the time. That won’t do.” They might not. But I could see them making that a thing and giving the power armoured infantry the same ballistic skill as a guardsman. Even if they don’t, it’s increasing the lethality across the board.

- Whilst units are getting tougher the firepower still seems to be there with a lot of rerolls to wounds and ways of dealing out damage. So I don’t see them ending the glass cannon formula the army currently uses.

The bright spots I can see are that tanks on the surface seem to be getting massive boosts in firepower and durability. So I could see the Sisters tanks becoming much more central to the army. Maybe Paragon Warsuits as well because being vehicles they’re more likely to get boosts to durability.

bruh, you CANNOT be serious right now lmao

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
Like an intercessor has a comparable profile to a centurion in Horus heresy now.

Disingenuous comparison, considering it's literally two different systems. Are you going to complain Captains in 9th have more wounds than one in 30k?

The differences make the intercessor better. Your weapons skill is set so you always hit on 3 plus.

And the equivalent in 40k, Lts, hit in melee on a 2+. So do the Captains all the time.

You really don't have a point.

 alextroy wrote:
I beseech everyone to not make a woe is me post for your faction, like this one, before the 10th Edition Faction Focus article for your faction. Everything in this post is pure speculation. GW may not be grand masters of faction balance, but they are not this bad.

Cannot echo this sentiment enough, even nids/marines don't know how the bulk of their army are going to look or function, we also haven't seen all of the missions or core rules at this point.

You're allowed to make a "woe is me" post if you made heavy use of Combi-Weapons in your army.

tneva82 wrote:

Breton wrote:


Yeah, your snark aside - That's pretty much the part they've leaked. Few people are truly as stupid as you're trying to imply here. And again that doesn't explain what a Critical Wound is. I'm pretty sure I didn't ask how to create one, but that I wanted to look and see what happened because of one

One of the first things I'm looking for is what a Critical Wound is vs a Mortal Wound.

Why yes, yes I did. So perhaps myself and the people pointing out Critical Wounds are potentially somewhat special and it would be nice to look up what they mean aren't as stupid as the people who keep trying to explain the part we've already seen and we are NOT asking/wondering about. Is there any part left that's confusing to you?

Well. Gw has already told us what critical wound is.

You are of course free to read rulebook once it comes to see what gw told us already

People are trying to save time. There's no point wasting time checking from rulebook what critical wound is as gw was kind enough to tell us.

So you're saying there's nothing else anywhere that will interact with or otherwise involve "critical wound"? They just made it for that one Assault Cannon on that one Terminator? Why exactly do we need a rulebook if GW has already told us everything that will be in the rulebook?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:
Breton simply doesn't like 'game relevant terms'.

Erjak lies about what people have said to make it easier to "win" an argument other people aren't making.

Critical wounds are game relevant. Some things key off of critical wounds. This means that critical wounds can be modified, altered, ignored, or trigger an additional ability without needing a paragraph in an FAQ to explain that 'Yes X ability does trigger on a 4+ when you have plus 2 to the roll, even though the ability says it only triggers on sixes'.

Breton is simply the type of person who prefers to go to the mechanic and say 'the doodad is wangdoodling the whosiewhatter' instead of 'there's a misfire in the 3rd cylinder'.

That last lie was particularly wild and off topic. What does doodad whatever you just made up have to do with wondering what other interactions Critical Wounds is going to have?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:


Sorry what part of 10th edition isn't in a teaser? None of it is available for general consumption.

The part I'm wondering about? Like where I mentioned the first things I'm going to check out when I get a rule book?

Breton wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Breton wrote:


Yeah, your snark aside - That's pretty much the part they've leaked. Few people are truly as stupid as you're trying to imply here. And again that doesn't explain what a Critical Wound is. I'm pretty sure I didn't ask how to create one, but that I wanted to look and see what happened because of one

One of the first things I'm looking for is what a Critical Wound is vs a Mortal Wound.

Why yes, yes I did. So perhaps myself and the people pointing out Critical Wounds are potentially somewhat special and it would be nice to look up what they mean aren't as stupid as the people who keep trying to explain the part we've already seen and we are NOT asking/wondering about. Is there any part left that's confusing to you?

Well. Gw has already told us what critical wound is.

You are of course free to read rulebook once it comes to see what gw told us already

People are trying to save time. There's no point wasting time checking from rulebook what critical wound is as gw was kind enough to tell us.

So you're saying there's nothing else anywhere that will interact with or otherwise involve "critical wound"? They just made it for that one Assault Cannon on that one Terminator? Why exactly do we need a rulebook if GW has already told us everything that will be in the rulebook?

Critical wounds are really simple. They are a type of wound that happens on a roll of 6 to wound and on their own they don't seem to do anything else. Other weapons and special rules will interact with them on a case-by-case basis and because we have this term those rules don't need to write out, "when this weapon rolls a 6 to wound" a million times.

 Canadian 5th wrote:


Critical wounds are really simple. They are a type of wound that happens on a roll of 6 to wound and on their own they don't seem to do anything else. Other weapons and special rules will interact with them on a case-by-case basis and because we have this term those rules don't need to write out, "when this weapon rolls a 6 to wound" a million times.

Yeah at no point has anyone asked how to make a critical wound - that has been explained in the teasers. For yet another time what I - and I'm guessing the others were talking about - are those "other weapons and special rules" are that will interact with them. They made an entirely new category of wounds - some of us have noticed that and think that just MIGHT mean its going to be a potentially central mechanic a large number of factions, combos, builds and themes could run through.

They could also add a new save type that doesn't work against critical wounds.

Breton wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:


Critical wounds are really simple. They are a type of wound that happens on a roll of 6 to wound and on their own they don't seem to do anything else. Other weapons and special rules will interact with them on a case-by-case basis and because we have this term those rules don't need to write out, "when this weapon rolls a 6 to wound" a million times.

Yeah at no point has anyone asked how to make a critical wound - that has been explained in the teasers. For yet another time what I - and I'm guessing the others were talking about - are those "other weapons and special rules" are that will interact with them. They made an entirely new category of wounds - some of us have noticed that and think that just MIGHT mean its going to be a potentially central mechanic a large number of factions, combos, builds and themes could run through.

But your original point was:

Breton wrote:

Weapon Rules

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

One of the first things I'm looking for is what a Critical Wound is vs a Mortal Wound.

So it's not shocking that a multitude of people then explained.... what a Critical Wound is. You did not mention a rulebook, or it not being in a teaser. At this point a wound is a mechanism to apply damage, critical wounds is simply an abbreviation for a mechanism to accomplish a successful wound. Suggesting it's a term they can use to utilise in interactions with other stuff is fairly obvious to everyone, as is that they're unrelated to mortal wounds which is a different manner of applying the damage.

Critical Hits start out as unmodified 6s to hit always count as a successful hit.

Critical Wounds start out as unmodified 6s to wound always count as a successful wound.

Other than always counting as a success Criticals do nothing else other than empower USRs, so far we have seen 3 USRs they empower and there may be more.

Sustained Hits X means you get an extra X hits per critical hit.

Devastating Wounds means you do mortal wounds per critical wound.

Lethal Hits means you automatically wound on a critical hit. (Speculation it may also count as a critical wound but I hope not. Alternatively there may be a USR called Cruddace Hits that automatically wounds on a critical hit and also counts as a critical wound, he will of course pair this with Devastating Wounds all the time, so they may just call it Devastating Cruddaces and combine the rules to save space).

Speculation, there may be a USR that turns a critical wound into two wounds rather than bypassing saves like Devastating Wounds.

In addition to the benefits of a critical hit/wound, we have also seen a USR which modifies what a critical hit/wound can be.

Anti X modifies what a critical wound is, changing it from an unmodified 6 to an unmodified X.

Speculation, there will be a USR lets call it Breton X that modifies a critical hit from an unmodified 6 to an unmodified X.

Further speculation, I think PSYCHIC is in effect a damage type like other games would use COLD, FIRE, PIERCING, SLASHING, etc, I don't think critical hits or wounds will be consider a damage type where people get more or less resistance to it. I am interested to see if there is any other damage type than PSYCHIC but I can't quite work out what it will be. I also wonder if PSYCHIC might be the only damage type to get +damage (in say Thousand Sons to counter the resistance we've already seen).

Wild speculation, but there might be two USRs that prevent critical hits and wounds for extremely tough units, which would prevent the various empowerment USRs from applying. Even wilder speculation, the to hit and to wound tables might have 7+ to hit/wound at certain points, which means nothing when critical hits and wounds apply, but would if there was a USR which prevented them. So, a Knight at T12 with the prevent critical wounds rule might be unwoundable by S4 and below. Or an fast dodgy unit might prevent critical hits and give -1 to hit potentially pushing a BS6 weapon to always missing (this one is much less likely).

Dudeface wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:


Critical wounds are really simple. They are a type of wound that happens on a roll of 6 to wound and on their own they don't seem to do anything else. Other weapons and special rules will interact with them on a case-by-case basis and because we have this term those rules don't need to write out, "when this weapon rolls a 6 to wound" a million times.

Yeah at no point has anyone asked how to make a critical wound - that has been explained in the teasers. For yet another time what I - and I'm guessing the others were talking about - are those "other weapons and special rules" are that will interact with them. They made an entirely new category of wounds - some of us have noticed that and think that just MIGHT mean its going to be a potentially central mechanic a large number of factions, combos, builds and themes could run through.

But your original point was:

Breton wrote:

Weapon Rules

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

One of the first things I'm looking for is what a Critical Wound is vs a Mortal Wound.

So it's not shocking that a multitude of people then explained.... what a Critical Wound is. You did not mention a rulebook, or it not being in a teaser. At this point a wound is a mechanism to apply damage, critical wounds is simply an abbreviation for a mechanism to accomplish a successful wound. Suggesting it's a term they can use to utilise in interactions with other stuff is fairly obvious to everyone, as is that they're unrelated to mortal wounds which is a different manner of applying the damage.

No, they explained (repeatedly, even after it was pointed out) how to make a critical wound, not what it is. Critical wounds are not unrelated to mortal wounds. In the first place Critical Wounds can become Mortal wounds, in the second place, all wounds are at least tangentially related and are not "unrelated".

 alextroy wrote:
I beseech everyone to not make a woe is me post for your faction, like this one, before the 10th Edition Faction Focus article for your faction. Everything in this post is pure speculation. GW may not be grand masters of faction balance, but they are not this bad.

Right - Nids got a very interesting set of dynamics that no one would have guessed. GW isn't going to pretend Sisters or anyone else don't exist. They have ideas for every army. Maybe TS and GK aren't spell casting nuts, but they'll have something.

EightFoldPath wrote:


Other than always counting as a success Criticals do nothing else other than empower USRs,

As far as we know.

so far we have seen 3 USRs they empower and there may be more.

Sustained Hits X means you get an extra X hits per critical hit.

Devastating Wounds means you do mortal wounds per critical wound.

Lethal Hits means you automatically wound on a critical hit. (Speculation it may also count as a critical wound but I hope not. Alternatively there may be a USR called Cruddace Hits that automatically wounds on a critical hit and also counts as a critical wound, he will of course pair this with Devastating Wounds all the time, so they may just call it Devastating Cruddaces and combine the rules to save space).

That speculation is more likely pipe dreaming. As far as I know in the entire history they've always ruled the other way when things like this came up i.e. Auto-wounds have no To-Wound-Value to trigger Critical wound effects or their similar antecedents in history.

Speculation, there may be a USR that turns a critical wound into two wounds rather than bypassing saves like Devastating Wounds.

In addition to the benefits of a critical hit/wound, we have also seen a USR which modifies what a critical hit/wound can be.

Anti X modifies what a critical wound is, changing it from an unmodified 6 to an unmodified X.

Speculation, there will be a USR lets call it Breton X that modifies a critical hit from an unmodified 6 to an unmodified X.

Further speculation, I think PSYCHIC is in effect a damage type like other games would use COLD, FIRE, PIERCING, SLASHING, etc, I don't think critical hits or wounds will be consider a damage type where people get more or less resistance to it. I am interested to see if there is any other damage type than PSYCHIC but I can't quite work out what it will be. I also wonder if PSYCHIC might be the only damage type to get +damage (in say Thousand Sons to counter the resistance we've already seen).

Wild speculation, but there might be two USRs that prevent critical hits and wounds for extremely tough units, which would prevent the various empowerment USRs from applying. Even wilder speculation, the to hit and to wound tables might have 7+ to hit/wound at certain points, which means nothing when critical hits and wounds apply, but would if there was a USR which prevented them. So, a Knight at T12 with the prevent critical wounds rule might be unwoundable by S4 and below. Or an fast dodgy unit might prevent critical hits and give -1 to hit potentially pushing a BS6 weapon to always missing (this one is much less likely).

And that speculation is a whole lot more of what a critical wound is, than how one makes one.