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.

 Insectum7 wrote:


Like the Marine codex. . with it's Marines, it's Marines +.5, Marines +1, Marines +2 and even Marines -1?

Which is something about Marines the vast majority roll their eyes at and disagree with.

Or you could just add more Marines and pump up the extent of the Marine +1 heirarchy without degrading the units below it. . . . Centurions come to mind.

The idea that Necrons had to be degraded to "make room for more options" is completely unfounded.

Again, how many people consider centurions etc a good design choice? You're right they could have introduced more canoptek etc units to expand stat ranges and roles. But they didn't, they kept the necrons the core factor of the necron army. They also haven't degraded the necron army, they've degraded warriors, immortals haven't really changed much.

I'd argue that Necrons are less unique now than they were before. They're sorta more like Robot Eldar now. Better-than-Marine-core-troop, with such a unique rule as Phase Out, coupled with their specific strengths and weaknesses, made them far more unique as a faction than they are now.

When your argument for the army having evolved differently is "but do it like marines instead", it doesn't differentiate them. A warrior was a marine that got back up, was slower in melee and had bolters with a special rule. We're clearly not going to agree on this, but as you respect the older editions way more than where the game is now, at least you can keep playing those rules.

I see a lot about leadership and if warriors got worse or better posts, but only a few about the new reanimation protocols.

At first look they feel a lot worse. After an opponent destroys some models I usually get some of them back, even when rolling for Skorpekhs. Now you might get 1 wound back on one of them? Offcourse you used to have a chance of gettting nothing back and now you always get at least 1 wound, but on average it feels like you got a lot more back with the old reanimation protocols. To really know I first have to play a few games, but the feeling right now isn't too good about the reanimations, certainly because it looks like living metal is gone now.

MorglumNecksnapper wrote:
I see a lot about leadership and if warriors got worse or better posts, but only a few about the new reanimation protocols.

At first look they feel a lot worse. After an opponent destroys some models I usually get some of them back, even when rolling for Skorpekhs. Now you might get 1 wound back on one of them? Offcourse you used to have a chance of gettting nothing back and now you always get at least 1 wound, but on average it feels like you got a lot more back with the old reanimation protocols. To really know I first have to play a few games, but the feeling right now isn't too good about the reanimations, certainly because it looks like living metal is gone now.

In a less lethal game (in theory) you will lose fewer so need to resurrect fewer.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

At a time when Necrons had barely any units, so it wasn't as much of an impact beyond "oh I might not want to spend all my points on Paraihs and Monoliths".
If Phase Out existed now, it would actively discourage use of many new units that wouldn't be true Necrons (vehicles and canopteks) at worst, and make people feel forced to spend more of their points than they'd otherwise want to on big blocks of infantry compared to more elite units like Lychguard, Deathmarks, Tomb Blades, all the diffeent variant Destroyers that exist these days, etc.

I call BS on this as well, since the Necron keyword could be applied to a greater number of units than it is now. Don't forget that Wraiths used to be Necrons and not Canoptek constructs.

Don't forget they added a new Destroyer unit based on the Wraiths of old ?‍♀️

Dudeface wrote:

MorglumNecksnapper wrote:
I see a lot about leadership and if warriors got worse or better posts, but only a few about the new reanimation protocols.

At first look they feel a lot worse. After an opponent destroys some models I usually get some of them back, even when rolling for Skorpekhs. Now you might get 1 wound back on one of them? Offcourse you used to have a chance of gettting nothing back and now you always get at least 1 wound, but on average it feels like you got a lot more back with the old reanimation protocols. To really know I first have to play a few games, but the feeling right now isn't too good about the reanimations, certainly because it looks like living metal is gone now.

In a less lethal game (in theory) you will lose fewer so need to resurrect fewer.

This RP technically aims to more of a tide approach and less to a block approach. You should send one unit forward, have it take damage and go behind cover while other units go forward. Then the units after a couple of turns get back into the fight. It kinds of ties better with the necron flavor than just the feel no pain like effect it had previously, but its usefulness depends on a lot on how easy it will be to completely wipe out the unit.

Dudeface wrote:

Breton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Breton wrote:

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".

You're right, a critical wound is an existentialist concept that, once fully understood, allows you to better foreshadow probability via the quantum plane.

Or, it's a term for "wounds on X defaulting to 6" and you're complicating the everything feth out of an obvious concept in some vain effort to become a leading philosopher of our time.

Or you're just making adhoms out of personal animus or embarassment. Wondering how they're going to implement a new mechanic that appears to replace at least two previous ones in the design of a toy soldiers game isn't all that philosophical.

Honestly no embarrassment at all, what mechanics do you think it replaces? As a hint, it doesn't replace anything.

Well just off the top of my head, I've already wondered if it would be part of a replacement for Smite Spam from Thousand Sons, and Poison for Drukhari among others. Anti-X causes critical wounds. It could easily be pushed into a sniper mechanic which was already similar to poison.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
Warriors have historically been MEQ units and it is only recently that their profile has been chipped away at until they're more comparable to the chaff of other factions

That's not strictly true.

Sv4+ Necrons have been around for 12 years. They were MEQs for 9 years. So, historically, Necron Warriors have been T4 Sv4+ for longer than they were T4 Sv3+ (and before that, in 2nd Ed, they were something different altogether).

Just sayin'... *shrugs*

 Lord Damocles wrote:
It's funny that only now, 10 editions in, Chaos Marines being killed by their own weapons is apparently a well known thing

Sadly, they like to fix things that aren't broke. Once upon a time, they gave you a set of rules to make a "modern" fallen chapter from the SM Codex that included overheating plasma, or one of the Legions that had the "good" plasma.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:
Necrons look much better this time round from that limited snapshot.

Reanimation Protocols sounds like it could be first up for the nerf-bat. Warp the Warriors to the Monolith on the objective, get D3+3 wounds back. Everything and their sister gets their own apothecary every turn in an edition they're trying to tone down lethality in might be a bit of a tough balance to strike early on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Surely it wouldn't be "mixed" if there's a character joined to the unit. Their Leadership would just be the character's leadership until that character died (or left, even assuming characters can leave units).

I think I saw it mentioned that they're locked into the unit they join at Deployment - can't leave, can't join something else even if the rest of the original unit is dead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 kurhanik wrote:
Mildly curious if they are changing wound allocation again. Reanimation protocols specifically notes the possibility of having multiple wounded models in a unit.

It actually doesn't.
It says to first fully heal all wounded models, then revive dead models with one wound, and if there's any RP points left heal that revived model.
So if you have three RP points for a unit of 2 dead destroyers and one destroyer on 2 wound, you would first fully heal the wounded destroyer with 1 point and revive one of them with 2 points.

??




Automatically Appended Next Post:
I wonder if characters will still count as a separate unit when joined for this purpose. As noted in the article -- everything heals. Overlords, Monoliths, etc.

Isn't it currently possible but extremely highly unlikely to have that happen now? Some sort of scenario where you're not able to choose wound allocation, and forced allocation goes to a non-wounded model? Its probably somewhere in the You Make Da Call forum.

 alextroy wrote:
Time to call out the elephant in the room. Necron Warriors are crap so that you actually get an army of varied models to play with. Think about how small a Necron army would be if we had:

Necron Warriors - Intercessors with Reanimation Protocols
Immortals - Even better Necron Warriors with a much more badass gun
Deathmarks - Even better Necron Warriors with nasty sniper rifle
Lychguard - Assault Terminators with Reanimation Protocols

And I could go on and on. Get ready to field 1/3 less models in you Necron Armies so that you too can live what other have derisively called the Space Marine Power Fantasy. The only problem is that your army will look nothing like the unstoppable tide of silver that gives Guardsmen nightmares. Instead, it will be the small elite force of Necrons, even smaller that the Space Marines.

I am still confused as to why elite troops are wholly unacceptable for Necrons because their range was expanded, yet SMs, whose range was expanded far more, got to have stronger troops as a result.

Surely if we follow the logic of Necrons, SM troops should all have 1 wound, WS4+/BS4+, 4+ saves, and maybe get +1 to hit if a Chaplain or Lieutenant joins them?

Somehow I don't think that would result in SM players here rejoicing that they can field more units and that more design space was opened as a result.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
"It's a new edition so all the prior buffs to Marines and nerfs to non-Marines no longer count, even though the new rules are building on those same buffs and nerfs."

More like, "Marines were ass for most of 9th edition even with their buffed stats, what exactly are you whining about?"

Ah yes, Marines were ass for most of 9th...which is why they have something ridiculous like 218 tournament placings this edition....you know...more than any other faction by a country mile.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Bruh, they lost LD value AND their hit value, on top of having a worse RP. What are you talking about?

Does this make them bad? That's going to depend on points and the new meta but base stats aren't the only thing that makes a unit good or bad.

That whistling sound you hear is the point flying violently over your head. Necron players are upset that Warriors went from being Marine equivalents to chaff and Immortals went from Marines +1 (+2 in my opinion) to weaker than Marines over the space of 6-7 editions. Argue fluff to your hearts content, argue points to your hearts content, at least understand why they are upset.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Feel free to call me whatever you want. I lament the loss of a faction I used to love. What continues to be relevant is how the trend may simply continue, and it's not just Necrons that get effected.

It's fun trying to have these discussions with people who buy into whatever GW says hook, line and sinker, instantly believing that new = better.

As opposed to people who think that anything that isn't what they liked 30 years ago is bad.

Where have I seen that dynamic before....

And to think all I had the audacity to do is disagree with the premise of a weird chart. feth me, right?

Because you weren't disagreeing with the chart, you were interpreting it in a manor in which it was clearly not meant to be interpreted. Arguing for the sake of arguing. The graph shows the downward trajectory of Necron Warriors/immortals when compared against Marines in a point for point basis. Saying "Ah yes but the core rules have changed" in no way invalidates the graph or makes it a "Weird chart" you just choose to interpret it a completely different way just to make a contradictory retort.

 Tyran wrote:
Sure, but everyone is being nerfed in that way.

Marines lost ATSKNF, Synapse is no longer immunity, vehicles and monsters have to take break tests now.
There is a blatant design intent that everyone has to care about LD.

I'll bet you a Morkanaut that it won't impact Marines as much as most everyone else. And i'll go even further and bet that Factions like Orkz who cared a lot about LD this edition will still have issues with it.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

Have you read the other posts in this thread at all

Warriors have historically been MEQ units and it is only recently that their profile has been chipped away at until they're more comparable to the chaff of other factions

Necrons already have a chaff swarm unit, that's what the canoptek scarab swarm is.

I know 8th and I know 9th. And 8th was a design paradigma shift. Being unhappy about undead style egyptian necron is similar to not accepting the design paradigma of primaris being a thing. One can of course do it, but one day GW is going to removed all old marine rule set models. In fact necron have it better then marines. Because necron lore stayed more or less the same. While primaris lore has more then a few head scratchers, even after 2 editions of GW writing the lore for them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:


I am still confused as to why elite troops are wholly unacceptable for Necrons because their range was expanded, yet SMs, whose range was expanded far more, got to have stronger troops as a result.

Surely if we follow the logic of Necrons, SM troops should all have 1 wound, WS4+/BS4+, 4+ saves, and maybe get +1 to hit if a Chaplain or Lieutenant joins them?

Somehow I don't think that would result in SM players here rejoicing that they can field more units and that more design space was opened as a result.

Because unless a space marine troop option is one of three things. Ultra cheap, like scout once were, has some very good special rule, one which matters for the given rule set and meta or borders or crosses the line of being an actual elite choice, the space marine player does not have a free slot for such a troop option, in his army. Marine units have to be stronger, because they don't the speed, the fire power etc to beat all other armies, save for those short time at the end of an edition, Otherwise marine armies turn in to car parks, get focused in to a build missed by GW or they share the fate of glorious marine armies like the Imperial Fists, where even getting buffed doctrines and 200-250pts free doesn't help them with reaching 35% win rates.

But tell you what, if you want to go full historical, lets do it. Necron wariors get their old stats adapted in to 10th ed. Along side the rules they had etc. They can even keep the new stuff they got. We will just bring back Phase Out and I will get my 5th GK rule set, so I can enjoy my army in a state when it was fun to play.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

crazysaneman wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
Having to survive an entire enemy turn to get RP is part of what made the rule so terrible in 8th... Lethality will have to go down a lot for you to see it. I fear the Space Marine matchup in particular.

Reads to me that destroyed units still reanimate because they aren't at their starting strength and all units have to reanimate at the end of your Command phase.

This is the worst copium I've ever seen.

Destroyed units are destroyed. They're not on the field TO reanimate. This ain't something that's going to be erratad.

Couple of things here champ:
First its not copium, I don't care for the changes to my beloved army. No amount of buzzwords are going to make my concerns disappear.
Second show me in the 10e rules where it says destroyed Necron units can't reanimate. Logically they wouldn't but the wording is bad.
Third I never said errata'd, I said elaborated on. With the current information we have available it's a concern. I'm not alone in the concern that poor wording can and will be exploited. Hopefully the core rules will define what is and is not resurrect-able, I'm hopeful but not expecting it.

 Dysartes wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Bruh, they lost LD value AND their hit value, on top of having a worse RP. What are you talking about?

Is it really a worse RP, though? It's certainly a simpler one, with less dice-rolling required, and it seems more useful for multi-wound units than the one in 9th, for example.

You'd think it was more useful at first glance, but you only get it during your Command Phase. That means unit Wipeout over the course of the turn = no rolling, compared to right now where you'd have to kill them all in one attack before rolling.

 vipoid wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Time to call out the elephant in the room. Necron Warriors are crap so that you actually get an army of varied models to play with. Think about how small a Necron army would be if we had:

Necron Warriors - Intercessors with Reanimation Protocols
Immortals - Even better Necron Warriors with a much more badass gun
Deathmarks - Even better Necron Warriors with nasty sniper rifle
Lychguard - Assault Terminators with Reanimation Protocols

And I could go on and on. Get ready to field 1/3 less models in you Necron Armies so that you too can live what other have derisively called the Space Marine Power Fantasy. The only problem is that your army will look nothing like the unstoppable tide of silver that gives Guardsmen nightmares. Instead, it will be the small elite force of Necrons, even smaller that the Space Marines.

I am still confused as to why elite troops are wholly unacceptable for Necrons because their range was expanded, yet SMs, whose range was expanded far more, got to have stronger troops as a result.

Surely if we follow the logic of Necrons, SM troops should all have 1 wound, WS4+/BS4+, 4+ saves, and maybe get +1 to hit if a Chaplain or Lieutenant joins them?

Somehow I don't think that would result in SM players here rejoicing that they can field more units and that more design space was opened as a result.

Because you can't have the faceless silver tide if the basic line trooper is more expensive than a Space Marine. It only worked in the past because the model range was very small and the phase out told you to take lots of Infantry models or lose every game.

When they expanded the range, they also decreased the stats on the Warrior to make it a less expensive model. That allowed for more models on the table, use of the expanded range of models, and the removal of the phase out rule. As noted, that was 12 years ago, over half the lifespan of the Necron army. Those good old days of being a Space Marine plus really were a long time ago.

Breton wrote:
Reanimation Protocols sounds like it could be first up for the nerf-bat. Warp the Warriors to the Monolith on the objective, get D3+3 wounds back. Everything and their sister gets their own apothecary every turn in an edition they're trying to tone down lethality in might be a bit of a tough balance to strike early on.

You must be joking. There's no way lethality has gone down so much that a rule that requires the unit to survive the opponent's entire turn before getting d3 wounds back is broken. I fully expect to have turns where I roll no RP because everything that got shot at died.

Breton wrote:
Well just off the top of my head, I've already wondered if it would be part of a replacement for Smite Spam from Thousand Sons, and Poison for Drukhari among others. Anti-X causes critical wounds. It could easily be pushed into a sniper mechanic which was already similar to poison.

Critical Wounds will be involved if someone uses a lot of models with Smite, if they use the "Focused witchfire" version of it, given that has the DEVASTATING WOUNDS property, transforming Critical Wounds (rolls of a 6, in this case) into Mortal Wounds. Whether Thousand Sons Sorcerers end up with Smite is another matter entirely, of course.

I would imagine Poison is likely to be replaced by ANTI-INFANTRY X, and may even get ANTI-MONSTER X as well. In either case, that's just fixing the to-wound rolls, but I doubt it gets combo'd with DEVASTATING WOUNDS too often.

Sniper probably gets a combination of PRECISE and DEVASTATING WOUNDS, but I doubt they generally get anything to increase the range that generates Critical Wounds - though the Vindicare might get an exception to that.

Karol wrote:

But tell you what, if you want to go full historical, lets do it. Necron wariors get their old stats adapted in to 10th ed. Along side the rules they had etc. They can even keep the new stuff they got. We will just bring back Phase Out and I will get my 5th GK rule set, so I can enjoy my army in a state when it was fun to play.

OMG, yes please! Let's ditch these 10th edition rules and all go back to 5th. I miss my blast templates and scatter dice so much

(Also, old style morale)

(Also also, firing arcs and hull facing)

(No, I'm not being sarcastic, I legit miss these things)

 Tyran wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Multiple wounds with crap save in editions defined by AP breakpoints were just crap wounds.

As for GW's vision of the Necrons, at their inception there were the uber mysterious and uber powerful uber ancient race. But nowadays their pov has been quite explored.
Back then a Necron warrior was a mysterious killing machine, now we now a Necron warrior is a lobotomized civilian in a body that is kinda falling apart under 65 million years of entropy.

The Necrons have gained character, but it cost them mysticism and creed.

It also cost the universe a good mystery and some unknowability. But that's Ward for you, bad rules, bad fluff, and fascism apologia.

DeadliestIdiot wrote:

Karol wrote:

But tell you what, if you want to go full historical, lets do it. Necron wariors get their old stats adapted in to 10th ed. Along side the rules they had etc. They can even keep the new stuff they got. We will just bring back Phase Out and I will get my 5th GK rule set, so I can enjoy my army in a state when it was fun to play.

OMG, yes please! Let's ditch these 10th edition rules and all go back to 5th. I miss my blast templates and scatter dice so much

(Also, old style morale)

(Also also, firing arcs and hull facing)

(No, I'm not being sarcastic, I legit miss these things)

Yeah, this is very much 'don't threaten me with a good time' territory.

Seriously, Karol, if you want to go back to 5th edition I'd be good with that. GKs aren't the only army that haven't been as fun since.

I'm not sure Newcron stuff has been the best (mainly because Necrons are all meant to be insane, but this rarely seems to come across mechanically or really in the fluff).

But Oldcron fluff is definitely marmite. If you liked it I guess it was cool. If you didn't it was about as welcome as Primaris.
"Oh that established 40k mystery? Yeah, turns out the C'tan did it."
"What about this one?" "Also C'tan."
And... "C'tan. C'tan. C'tan C'tan C'tan C'tan. Get stuffed Chaos, there's a new set of Gods now, with models and everything."

Not really surprised GW did the whole "I have to go now, my people need me to become Pokémon."

Eh.

Necron background for me is objectively better. From a dull as dishwater “all mindless automata driven by like…2 Stargods” to a glimpse at perhaps the fate of all sentient species in the Galaxy.

And the two are not mutually exclusive. We know their memories are now a form of programming. We known for a time, The Silent King had overriding command protocols, which we’re told he chose to destroy having seen how he failed his entire species.

In the original, we’re told the C’Tan were rendered all but extinct thanks to The Deceiver persuading three others to join him in snacking on their contemporaries.

We’re now told the Necrons turned their weapons and science against the C’Tan, shattering them.

Both of those could be completely true, after a fashion. What better way to arrange the Smorgasbord, avoid being consumed yourself, and ensure your former slaves are utterly convinced you’ve been eradicated than giving them the tools to prep your dinner?

All a matter of perspective.

I made a thread related to what's being talked about.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Eh.

Necron background for me is objectively better. From a dull as dishwater “all mindless automata driven by like…2 Stargods” to a glimpse at perhaps the fate of all sentient species in the Galaxy.

4 Stargods, at least. Nightbringer, Deciever, Dragon, Outsider. It also had a glimpse of the fate of sentient species. Enslaved food for the C'tan. Cattle in a galaxy permanently sealed off from the warp. One of their proposed superheavies for Epic was called the Abbotior, eg. Slaughterhouse.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:


Like the Marine codex. . with it's Marines, it's Marines +.5, Marines +1, Marines +2 and even Marines -1?

Which is something about Marines the vast majority roll their eyes at and disagree with.

Those tiers existed even before Primaris. Either way it makes it clear that the gamut of eliteness is very possible.

Dudeface wrote:

Or you could just add more Marines and pump up the extent of the Marine +1 heirarchy without degrading the units below it. . . . Centurions come to mind.

The idea that Necrons had to be degraded to "make room for more options" is completely unfounded.

Again, how many people consider centurions etc a good design choice? You're right they could have introduced more canoptek etc units to expand stat ranges and roles. But they didn't, they kept the necrons the core factor of the necron army. They also haven't degraded the necron army, they've degraded warriors, immortals haven't really changed much.

Re: Centurions, it doesn't matter whether you like them or not, what's clear is that they are an example of an army "expanding upwards". Obliterators are another fine example.

Re: Immortals, Even if they had remained the same while other units simply got better, it remains a contextual degradation. The Shuriken Catapult from 3rd through 8th is a prime example of that phenomena. What should be incontrovertible is that Marines have inflated in value in comparison, which is what my chart focuses on. Immortals used to be "worth" nearly 2 Tactical Marines. That has been cut in half.

In addition to Warriors and Immortals, Flayed Ones, Destroyers, Monoliths, have all been knocked down a notch or two. And Pariahs don't even exist anymore.

Dudeface wrote:

I'd argue that Necrons are less unique now than they were before. They're sorta more like Robot Eldar now. Better-than-Marine-core-troop, with such a unique rule as Phase Out, coupled with their specific strengths and weaknesses, made them far more unique as a faction than they are now.

When your argument for the army having evolved differently is "but do it like marines instead", it doesn't differentiate them. A warrior was a marine that got back up, was slower in melee and had bolters with a special rule. We're clearly not going to agree on this, but as you respect the older editions way more than where the game is now, at least you can keep playing those rules.

You're completely daft if you think Necrons were just "Marines that got back up, etc". As an army they played very differently. Not only as the player of Necrons, but playing against them. Similar base stats, totally different build/play experience.

In short, your attempted points about the limits of potential expansion are plainly false in light of the possibilities displayed in other armies, but also you appear to be unqualified to even discuss Necrons if you're just going to reduce them to "Marines that got back up".

We could have our cake and eat it too if Immortals are battleline and are about on par with a Primaris marine in terms of durability and firepower.

I'm guessing some people here would ree at that idea though.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

The devil, as always, is in the detail though, and where GW has always consistently fallen over is with the Codices.

I know you said more than this in this post (and it was a good one), I wanna focus on this point because its super interesting to me. Every single gamer who has more than one edition of this game under their belt knows that the codices are where the game collapses. The general tenor tends to be that since they've been doing indexhammer, the edition release is when the game is most fun. Yet gaming groups will actively play a worse product and pay for it once the codices start rolling out... and begrudge the game for it.

It's a very particular 40k thing. I dont know why it is.

Our group's going to stick with release rules (if they're fun). I think more people should try to take control of the game for themselves in similar ways. I know this is a bit of a marginal or tangential take, but I'm fascinated with the ways 40k players react to this game. It's totally unique. In one sense I understand that you can't subdivide play with as many different versions of the game as their are gaming clubs/groups, and on a forum like dakka we all have to be speaking the same game language. At the same time though, I've been in this game long enough to see people play games with junk rules, 20 pounds of books, and fielding models they never wanted to take. Aint good.

DeadliestIdiot wrote:

Karol wrote:

But tell you what, if you want to go full historical, lets do it. Necron wariors get their old stats adapted in to 10th ed. Along side the rules they had etc. They can even keep the new stuff they got. We will just bring back Phase Out and I will get my 5th GK rule set, so I can enjoy my army in a state when it was fun to play.

OMG, yes please! Let's ditch these 10th edition rules and all go back to 5th. I miss my blast templates and scatter dice so much

(Also, old style morale)

(Also also, firing arcs and hull facing)

(No, I'm not being sarcastic, I legit miss these things)

Yes. A thousand times yes.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

Breton wrote:
Reanimation Protocols sounds like it could be first up for the nerf-bat. Warp the Warriors to the Monolith on the objective, get D3+3 wounds back. Everything and their sister gets their own apothecary every turn in an edition they're trying to tone down lethality in might be a bit of a tough balance to strike early on.

You must be joking. There's no way lethality has gone down so much that a rule that requires the unit to survive the opponent's entire turn before getting d3 wounds back is broken. I fully expect to have turns where I roll no RP because everything that got shot at died.

Other people in here have posited that melee will now take multiple turns. Plus all the drops in Armor Piercing, changes to Twin Link. 10 Assault Intercessors vs 10 Warriors - (assuming what we know changed and what we assume won't are true) 40 attacks, 25ish hits, 12 and a halfish wounds, 4ish armor saves. D3+3 Reanimations. Now do that on 5 Objectives at once. 10 regular intercessors 20 shots, 15ish hits, 7.5ish wounds, 2ish saves, 5-6 dead, D3+3 reanimations. D3+3 = Average 4.5 Kill 7.5, reanimate 4.5 net loss 3 per turn - and that's before Marine losses and extra warrior models due to points differentials.

As I said, it COULD be - we're still making semi-educated guesses in lethality and support units. Once you get into Bobby G, Abby, and (assumedly) a host of other characters/monsters/big-bads the calculus is going to change quite a bit as well. Guilliman and Abby can ginsu 10 warriors at a time it looks like. Of course Necrons will also have their Big Bads.

A d3+3 averages to 5, quick FYI.

 Dysartes wrote:

Breton wrote:
Well just off the top of my head, I've already wondered if it would be part of a replacement for Smite Spam from Thousand Sons, and Poison for Drukhari among others. Anti-X causes critical wounds. It could easily be pushed into a sniper mechanic which was already similar to poison.

Critical Wounds will be involved if someone uses a lot of models with Smite, if they use the "Focused witchfire" version of it, given that has the DEVASTATING WOUNDS property, transforming Critical Wounds (rolls of a 6, in this case) into Mortal Wounds. Whether Thousand Sons Sorcerers end up with Smite is another matter entirely, of course.

I would imagine Poison is likely to be replaced by ANTI-INFANTRY X, and may even get ANTI-MONSTER X as well. In either case, that's just fixing the to-wound rolls, but I doubt it gets combo'd with DEVASTATING WOUNDS too often.

Anti-X creates Critical Wounds. So its already involving Critical Wounds - the thing I was wondering about that seems to have gotten your shorts in a twist. Now lets assume you're right and it doesn't get combo'd with Devastating Wounds too often - and it probably won't - that still implies Critical Wounds are for more than combo'ing wiht Devastating Wounds. Why are poison Wounds Critical if Critical Wounds don't do anything without Devastating Wounds? Gee if only some of us had been wondering about that sort of thing, instead of repeatedly regurgitating HOW instead of WHAT

Sniper probably gets a combination of PRECISE and DEVASTATING WOUNDS, but I doubt they generally get anything to increase the range that generates Critical Wounds - though the Vindicare might get an exception to that.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
A d3+3 averages to 5, quick FYI.

Not the way I roll D3's and D4's But yeah, I was mostly doing off the cuff and estimates and made it half to come to the end with a whole number. 2/3 of 40 isn't exactly 25 either.

A Critical Wound is a success regardless of the normal required number.
It is also a keyword that other effects may reference.

To our knowledge right now, it doesn’t do anything else on its own.

 JNAProductions wrote:
A Critical Wound is a success regardless of the normal required number.
It is also a keyword that other effects may reference.

To our knowledge right now, it doesn’t do anything else on its own.

Yeah, I'm not sure what's so difficult about this concept, but that's the part a few of us are wondering about.

1) They made an entirely new category of wounds aka: Critical
2) There multiple parallel paths to a Critical Wound (Natural 6, other special rules like Anti-X)
3) We know Devastating Wounds interacts with Critical Wounds to become an pre-existing category of wounds - Mortal.
4) Even people trying to confuse and conflate How instead of What on Critical Wounds is assuming Devastating Wounds is/will not be the only interaction with Critical Wounds.
5) I'm assuming most of us don't think GW would be so wasteful to create this new tier of wounds in a new edition to "trim the bloat" only to have it rarely do anything. They can be dumb, but rarely that dumb.
6) Just because they haven't leaked a rulebook definition of Critical Wounds (and what, if anything, they do on their own) doesn't mean there isn't one


Mortal Wounds invalidate (potentially) all saves. Will Critical Wounds do anything at all? invalidate USR saves like Feel No Pain? Invalidate Armor saves but not FNP and true invulns(thus creating three "tiers" of saves as well Armor-USR-Invuln)? Who knows, but it feels like the middle tier of wounds would/could slot in there somewhere.