Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Yeah, I'd hope Immortals are in the 2w 3+ T5 range with solid guns and enough attacks that if you buff them they might actually hurt things (so 2-3 at S5 WS 3+).

No wishlisting for the halcyon days of the pariah's? I always thought those were a cool concept.

Removed - do not create alternate accounts to dodge suspensions.

Hecaton wrote:
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.

That doesn't solve the degradation of Warriors at all.

 Insectum7 wrote:


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".

I had a 3k necron army between 3rd & 4th, I got rid of them because most of my games involved marines and it became meq vs meq all the time. Your experience clearly varies and you obvious prefer those earlier rules, you'd get your armour facing back and all that other stuff your complain about not being in the game, just go play it and be happier.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breton wrote:

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.

That is literally where the other 99.9% of the population disagree, to the vast majority it is simply a term/keyword for a wound roll that cannot fail.

DiceRoller wrote:

Breton wrote:

 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.

There's no possible answer any of us can give to those questions but I'd lean towards critical wounds being a simple shorthand to hang other rules from and not doing anything on their own. I think that if they did anything else GW would have spoiled that already.

Nobody was asked to - all I said was I wanted to know what they were - what else was coming out of them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dominuschao wrote:
No wishlisting for the halcyon days of the pariah's? I always thought those were a cool concept.

One of the issues they're running into with Tomb Kings in Space is that they've started out with skeletons in heavy armor and shields. Its certainly possible and an interesting take on things, but a lot of the things Tomb Kings on Sand got don't necessarily apply to Tomb Kings in Space. On Sand their WBB was all tied in a bow with ItP, crumble, low LD, etc. I think they're still looking for the cycle there on Necrons.

Breton wrote:
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.

Not sure why you think there's anything wrong with my shorts, but please get your mind out of my clothing. You posited some scenarios, I proposed some thoughts as to how they may shake out.

I don't expect Critical Wounds to be anything more than a shorthand term for "this attack always wounds on X", where X defaults to 6+ but can be modified. I don't seem them affecting saves, or anything like that. I think they're just going to be a shorthand term that other rules can interact with.

What they do do is allow the replacement of all bits of rules that say "On a 6 to wound" - and allow for a bit more flexibility in those rules if a character say, can apply something to widen the range on which a Critical Wound occurs for that unit. Take a look through any 9th ed material you've got - any time a rule relies on "On a X to wound", you'll probably see that changed to "On a Critical Wound" in 10th, assuming the rule in question carries across.

We've seen something similar with the use of LETHAL HITS on the previewed Necron Gauss weapons, giving those weapons back an ability that had gone missing in the last couple of editions.

 Dysartes wrote:

Breton wrote:
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.

Not sure why you think there's anything wrong with my shorts, but please get your mind out of my clothing. You posited some scenarios, I proposed some thoughts as to how they may shake out.

I don't expect Critical Wounds to be anything more than a shorthand term for "this attack always wounds on X", where X defaults to 6+ but can be modified. I don't seem them affecting saves, or anything like that. I think they're just going to be a shorthand term that other rules can interact with.

What they do do is allow the replacement of all bits of rules that say "On a 6 to wound" - and allow for a bit more flexibility in those rules if a character say, can apply something to widen the range on which a Critical Wound occurs for that unit. Take a look through any 9th ed material you've got - any time a rule relies on "On a X to wound", you'll probably see that changed to "On a Critical Wound" in 10th, assuming the rule in question carries across.

We've seen something similar with the use of LETHAL HITS on the previewed Necron Gauss weapons, giving those weapons back an ability that had gone missing in the last couple of editions.

Excellent summary, there's no davinci code going on, it's simply a shorthand term to ease rules through.

 Dysartes wrote:

Breton wrote:
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.

Not sure why you think there's anything wrong with my shorts, but please get your mind out of my clothing. You posited some scenarios, I proposed some thoughts as to how they may shake out.

I don't expect Critical Wounds to be anything more than a shorthand term for "this attack always wounds on X", where X defaults to 6+ but can be modified. I don't seem them affecting saves, or anything like that. I think they're just going to be a shorthand term that other rules can interact with.

What they do do is allow the replacement of all bits of rules that say "On a 6 to wound" - and allow for a bit more flexibility in those rules if a character say, can apply something to widen the range on which a Critical Wound occurs for that unit. Take a look through any 9th ed material you've got - any time a rule relies on "On a X to wound", you'll probably see that changed to "On a Critical Wound" in 10th, assuming the rule in question carries across.

We've seen something similar with the use of LETHAL HITS on the previewed Necron Gauss weapons, giving those weapons back an ability that had gone missing in the last couple of editions.

Except there's no (readily apparent) reason to make Anti-X wounds Critical Wounds when they could just be made Wounds. We pretty much have to assume there's more to it than Devastating Wounds Combos. Most editions introduce or reintroduce a mechanic that becomes the "test bed" of the edition - I think it's Critical Wounds. Because they're not hyping it, I'm guessing its either more appropriate for the codex releases or I'm wrong. But then I still have to wonder why they bothered to make Critical Wound in the first place. Anti-X/Poison and "6's always succeed" didn't need it, nor did Critically Devastating Wounds/Rending - we already had that USR too.

I don't doubt there will be abilities other than DEVASTATING WOUNDS - either on weapons, units, or even detachment/factions - that key off Critical Wounds. We just haven't seen them yet, though we may get exposed to more of them as the Faction preview cycle rolls on.

And we didn't have a Rending USR coming into 10th - USRs were killed in the bonfire that was the end of 7th, unfortunately. Critical Wounds give you the first half of 7th's Rending (n+ always wounds, regardless of T, where n defaults to 6), while DEVASTATING WOUNDS gives you a more powerful version of the second half, given that a Mortal Wound in 8/9/10th is more powerful than an AP2 wound.

By decoupling the parts, you get more flexibility on how they're triggered. Don't do anything special, and you've just got the top end of the 8/9th wounding chart (6 always wounds). Fold in an ANTI-X and/or DEVASTATING WOUNDS, and you see other ways to make a weapon more effective without needing to bump S or AP. And that's before anything else more theoretical comes into play.

But, at this point, we're in a wait/see/speculate kinda spot, until more information comes out. From what we've seen, though, I don't think Critical Wounds will do anything more on their own - but other actual USRs we don't know about might build off them.

I also wouldn't be surprised if several units have unique abilities that trigger on Critical Wounds - either for offence or defence.

Breton wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

Breton wrote:
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.

Not sure why you think there's anything wrong with my shorts, but please get your mind out of my clothing. You posited some scenarios, I proposed some thoughts as to how they may shake out.

I don't expect Critical Wounds to be anything more than a shorthand term for "this attack always wounds on X", where X defaults to 6+ but can be modified. I don't seem them affecting saves, or anything like that. I think they're just going to be a shorthand term that other rules can interact with.

What they do do is allow the replacement of all bits of rules that say "On a 6 to wound" - and allow for a bit more flexibility in those rules if a character say, can apply something to widen the range on which a Critical Wound occurs for that unit. Take a look through any 9th ed material you've got - any time a rule relies on "On a X to wound", you'll probably see that changed to "On a Critical Wound" in 10th, assuming the rule in question carries across.

We've seen something similar with the use of LETHAL HITS on the previewed Necron Gauss weapons, giving those weapons back an ability that had gone missing in the last couple of editions.

Except there's no (readily apparent) reason to make Anti-X wounds Critical Wounds when they could just be made Wounds. We pretty much have to assume there's more to it than Devastating Wounds Combos. Most editions introduce or reintroduce a mechanic that becomes the "test bed" of the edition - I think it's Critical Wounds. Because they're not hyping it, I'm guessing its either more appropriate for the codex releases or I'm wrong. But then I still have to wonder why they bothered to make Critical Wound in the first place. Anti-X/Poison and "6's always succeed" didn't need it, nor did Critically Devastating Wounds/Rending - we already had that USR too.

But they did need it so anti-infantry can be granular in comparison to flat critical wounds, also to use your example, you'd only be here repeating the same thing that a "poison wound" is a different thing than a wound or mortal wound using your demonstrated logic.

There are many things GW could do with Critical Wounds in addition to Devastating Wounds (do Mortal Wounds instead of normal Wounds). We are long used to Wounds that do additional damage on a 6, so a Damaging Wound that does extra Damage on a Critical Wound. They could go crazy and extend the Sustained Hits logic to a Sustained Wound rule where a Critical Wound does additional Wounds that must be saved. Or a Piercing Wound that does additional AP on a Critical Hit (although rather repetitive of Devastating Wounds in effect).

But that is purely speculation based on what we have seen in 10th Previews and past rules. I just feel we will almost certainly see Haywire as Anti-Vehicle X+, Devastating Wounds.

A DEMORALISING WOUND, perhaps, that forces a Battleshock test even if the unit hasn't lost enough models for them to need to take one normally?

Nah. We've already seen a number of unit Abilities that force Battleshock test. No need for that if we have a Weapon Rule that does the same thing.

I’m genuinely looking forward to getting a feel for 40K now.

I appreciate other opinions are available, but it’s seeming less complex for the sake of complexity, without moving away from 40k’s long time mechanics.

 Dysartes wrote:
A DEMORALISING WOUND, perhaps, that forces a Battleshock test even if the unit hasn't lost enough models for them to need to take one normally?

Didn't the new Flamer dudes for Marines get a bespoke rule to do that?

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
A DEMORALISING WOUND, perhaps, that forces a Battleshock test even if the unit hasn't lost enough models for them to need to take one normally?

Didn't the new Flamer dudes for Marines get a bespoke rule to do that?

The Screamer Killer has one.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I've often found that those to say that are the ones who don't want or cannot argue back. Nothing I've said is unreasonable but you've just chosen to avoid answering any of it, and instead gone for hyperbolic ad hominem ("... people who think that anything that isn't what they liked 30 years ago is bad... ") rather than actually addressing the points raised. Worse, you claim that others are removing nuance yet think that throwing a block of cold, hard math at the argument will solve it, declaring that the maths is the thing that actually matters - as if it were the only thing that mattered - and that it makes you right. It doesn't. And it never will.

But if you want to run away from the argument, then that's your prerogative. We are not being forced to interact with one another, and do not have to if we do no choose to. Totally up to you. I wish you well. I hope you have fun with 10th. I on the other hand expect a little more from a company who's trying this for the 10th time and hasn't earned my trust that they'll get it right. The past informs the future, and GW's past is full of stumbling and falling. Why do you presume their future will be any brighter?

It's great that you're so righteous that you think that's true.

I throw cold hard math at the problem. If someone says "I don't see the reduction in lethality" is it or is it not a valid method to discuss this concern by doing the math and making comparisons? If instead someone says "why are ranged weapons not getting treated the same as melee weapons" and I show an example as to why that might be, but that's not valid either, I guess.

Math doesn't solve your feelings, but if you're not willing to inspect what you feelings are instead of just asserting them, because you don't like change then I'm not sure what to do. I completely understand the emotional appeal of 'my guy is armed with a heavy chainaxe' as if to say that this is a scary weapon with implications. Far more daunting that a 'heavy combat weapon', but I inspected my feelings and I found that it wasn't that important to me. It didn't change how I enjoy the game so I offered information to help inspect that feeling.

people who think that anything that isn't what they liked 30 years ago is bad. Liking something 30 years ago isn't bad. Bitching that it isn't the thing from 30 years is bad.

Let me explain it more simply:

My kid likes pepperoni pizza. It is also my favorite. One day mom decides to buy pepperoni, green pepper, and onion. Now, I'm a little skeptical as I haven't had this before. So she describes to me why she likes it. Ok, I think I'll give it a try. Once I do I find that even though it's not like my favorite it still has elements of it. And what has been added gives a new dimension that is quite enjoyable.

Now my kid - he refuses. He says, "You just like everything mom does!". And I try to explain that I don't. I just an open minded and willing to analyze and try new things. Then he pulls out a chart that shows how the weight of the pizza has increased. And I say, well that's a little weird, son. The weight of the pizza doesn't have a lot to do with how enjoyable it could be. He says I'm just defending mom without appreciating their view point and them him and his buddies jump me, because I didn't start my sentence with "Yea everything mom does is awful and pepperoni is my favorite, too".

You'll (finally) accept that GW is making some good changes, but you still wallow around in the 'Oh they gon feth up! I just know it! GW never changes!' And that's a very easy position to take, isn't it? All you have to do is wait a little. And it WILL happen, but what matters is the degree and how it gets handled, but you don't care about that. You just want that blood.

And most of all, I have a real problem with people who look at all these changes and just accept them without question or criticism, acting as if everything that's changing is instantly better, forgetting years and years of GW's history with messing rules up and, perhaps blindly, assuming that they could never possibly make those mistakes again.

You completely ignore any of my reservations about combis, psychic powers, and how codexes will roll out. Instead you and others frequently insist that everything I say is just supportive of GW and completely ignore what I say unless I put a giant asterisk on each post so I don't interrupt your complaint parade.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

You completely ignore any of my reservations about combis, psychic powers, and how codexes will roll out. Instead you and others frequently insist that everything I say is just supportive of GW and completely ignore what I say unless I put a giant asterisk on each post so I don't interrupt your complaint parade.

Necrons don't have any of those things, so why would changes to them make him care? At some point it becomes an argument with a person, who doesn't care about your stuff, cares about his and no amount of argumentation or math will convince them. Only thing worse is talking about a faction being bad, like Cruel Boys, with a person who thinks that Cruel boys shouldn't even be a faction.

Breton wrote:


Except there's no (readily apparent) reason to make Anti-X wounds Critical Wounds when they could just be made Wounds.

You can't, because Normal Wounds are scored by comparing strength vs. toughness. This makes them different than Critical Wounds, which are scored regardless of toughness and without concern for it. I am uncertain why this is so hard to get.

If I have Anit-X, and I exceed the X score needed, the wound is called a critical wound, because even if your toughness is 998,473,912, the wound still hurts you BECAUSE IT'S CRITICAL. A normal wound does not do this.

Normal wound= Requires a strength roll vs. toughness in order to inflict damage
Critical wound= Does not require a strength roll vs. toughness- skip the roll and process directly to saving throw

Breton wrote:

But then I still have to wonder why they bothered to make Critical Wound in the first place. Anti-X/Poison and "6's always succeed" didn't need it,

Because now, the Devastating Wounds ability doesn't have to say "If you rolled above the poison target when firing a poisoned weapon, or you rolled a 6 on a weapon that wasn't poisoned, the wound becomes a mortal wound."

Instead, you can say "When this unit scores a critical wound, they inflict a Mortal wound rather than regular damage." Easier, right? That's why they did it.

As others have pointed it, there are quite likely to be other effects that trigger off Critical Wounds; if this is true, then creating the Critical Wound descriptor was an even better design decision, because it will save space in the rules on a bunch of abilities, rather than just on the Devasting Wounds ability. But even if it turns out NOT to be true, the term Critical Wounds still has value, because it provides a way to describe a wound which bypassed toughness without having to list all of the scenarios that cause that type of wound.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I've often found that those to say that are the ones who don't want or cannot argue back. Nothing I've said is unreasonable but you've just chosen to avoid answering any of it, and instead gone for hyperbolic ad hominem ("... people who think that anything that isn't what they liked 30 years ago is bad... ") rather than actually addressing the points raised. Worse, you claim that others are removing nuance yet think that throwing a block of cold, hard math at the argument will solve it, declaring that the maths is the thing that actually matters - as if it were the only thing that mattered - and that it makes you right. It doesn't. And it never will.

But if you want to run away from the argument, then that's your prerogative. We are not being forced to interact with one another, and do not have to if we do no choose to. Totally up to you. I wish you well. I hope you have fun with 10th. I on the other hand expect a little more from a company who's trying this for the 10th time and hasn't earned my trust that they'll get it right. The past informs the future, and GW's past is full of stumbling and falling. Why do you presume their future will be any brighter?

It's great that you're so righteous that you think that's true.

I throw cold hard math at the problem. If someone says "I don't see the reduction in lethality" is it or is it not a valid method to discuss this concern by doing the math and making comparisons? If instead someone says "why are ranged weapons not getting treated the same as melee weapons" and I show an example as to why that might be, but that's not valid either, I guess.

Math doesn't solve your feelings, but if you're not willing to inspect what you feelings are instead of just asserting them, because you don't like change then I'm not sure what to do. I completely understand the emotional appeal of 'my guy is armed with a heavy chainaxe' as if to imply that this is a scary weapon with implications. Far more daunting that a 'heavy combat weapon', but I inspected my feelings and I found that it wasn't that important to me. It didn't change how I enjoy the game.

people who think that anything that isn't what they liked 30 years ago is bad. Liking something 30 years ago isn't bad. Bitching that it isn't the thing from 30 years is bad.

Let me explain it more simply:

My kid likes pepperoni pizza. It is also my favorite. One day mom decides to buy pepperoni, green pepper, and onion. Now, I'm a little skeptical as I haven't had this before. So she describes to me why she likes it. Ok, I think I'll give it a try. Once I do I find that even though it's not like my favorite it still has elements of it. And what has been added gives a new dimension that is quite enjoyable.

Now my kid - he refuses. He says, "You just like everything mom does!". And I try to explain that I don't. I just an open minded and willing to analyze and try new things. Then he pulls out a chart that shows how the weight of the pizza has increased. And I say, well that's a little weird, son. The weight of the pizza doesn't have a lot to do with how enjoyable it could be. He says I'm just defending mom without appreciating their view point and them him and his buddies jump me, because I didn't start my sentence with "Yea everything mom does is awful and pepperoni is my favorite, too".

You'll (finally) accept that GW is making some good changes, but you still wallow around in the 'Oh they gon feth up! I just know it! GW never changes!' And that's a very easy position to take, isn't it? All you have to do is wait a little. And it WILL happen, but what matters is the degree and how it gets handled, but you don't care about that. You just want that blood.

And most of all, I have a real problem with people who look at all these changes and just accept them without question or criticism, acting as if everything that's changing is instantly better, forgetting years and years of GW's history with messing rules up and, perhaps blindly, assuming that they could never possibly make those mistakes again.

You completely ignore any of my reservations about combis, psychic powers, and how codexes will roll out. Instead you and others frequently insist that everything I say is just supportive of GW and completely ignore what I say unless I put a giant asterisk on each post so I don't interrupt your complaint parade.

All coming from the guy defending the new Combi-Weapons LOL

GW hires for attitude, is that what you're trying to express?

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Spoiler:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I've often found that those to say that are the ones who don't want or cannot argue back. Nothing I've said is unreasonable but you've just chosen to avoid answering any of it, and instead gone for hyperbolic ad hominem ("... people who think that anything that isn't what they liked 30 years ago is bad... ") rather than actually addressing the points raised. Worse, you claim that others are removing nuance yet think that throwing a block of cold, hard math at the argument will solve it, declaring that the maths is the thing that actually matters - as if it were the only thing that mattered - and that it makes you right. It doesn't. And it never will.

But if you want to run away from the argument, then that's your prerogative. We are not being forced to interact with one another, and do not have to if we do no choose to. Totally up to you. I wish you well. I hope you have fun with 10th. I on the other hand expect a little more from a company who's trying this for the 10th time and hasn't earned my trust that they'll get it right. The past informs the future, and GW's past is full of stumbling and falling. Why do you presume their future will be any brighter?

It's great that you're so righteous that you think that's true.

I throw cold hard math at the problem. If someone says "I don't see the reduction in lethality" is it or is it not a valid method to discuss this concern by doing the math and making comparisons? If instead someone says "why are ranged weapons not getting treated the same as melee weapons" and I show an example as to why that might be, but that's not valid either, I guess.

Math doesn't solve your feelings, but if you're not willing to inspect what you feelings are instead of just asserting them, because you don't like change then I'm not sure what to do. I completely understand the emotional appeal of 'my guy is armed with a heavy chainaxe' as if to imply that this is a scary weapon with implications. Far more daunting that a 'heavy combat weapon', but I inspected my feelings and I found that it wasn't that important to me. It didn't change how I enjoy the game.

people who think that anything that isn't what they liked 30 years ago is bad. Liking something 30 years ago isn't bad. Bitching that it isn't the thing from 30 years is bad.

Let me explain it more simply:

My kid likes pepperoni pizza. It is also my favorite. One day mom decides to buy pepperoni, green pepper, and onion. Now, I'm a little skeptical as I haven't had this before. So she describes to me why she likes it. Ok, I think I'll give it a try. Once I do I find that even though it's not like my favorite it still has elements of it. And what has been added gives a new dimension that is quite enjoyable.

Now my kid - he refuses. He says, "You just like everything mom does!". And I try to explain that I don't. I just an open minded and willing to analyze and try new things. Then he pulls out a chart that shows how the weight of the pizza has increased. And I say, well that's a little weird, son. The weight of the pizza doesn't have a lot to do with how enjoyable it could be. He says I'm just defending mom without appreciating their view point and them him and his buddies jump me, because I didn't start my sentence with "Yea everything mom does is awful and pepperoni is my favorite, too".

You'll (finally) accept that GW is making some good changes, but you still wallow around in the 'Oh they gon feth up! I just know it! GW never changes!' And that's a very easy position to take, isn't it? All you have to do is wait a little. And it WILL happen, but what matters is the degree and how it gets handled, but you don't care about that. You just want that blood.

And most of all, I have a real problem with people who look at all these changes and just accept them without question or criticism, acting as if everything that's changing is instantly better, forgetting years and years of GW's history with messing rules up and, perhaps blindly, assuming that they could never possibly make those mistakes again.

You completely ignore any of my reservations about combis, psychic powers, and how codexes will roll out. Instead you and others frequently insist that everything I say is just supportive of GW and completely ignore what I say unless I put a giant asterisk on each post so I don't interrupt your complaint parade.

All coming from the guy defending the new Combi-Weapons LOL

GW hires for attitude, is that what you're trying to express?

Daedalus81 defended the Combi-Weapon? The only defense if the Combi-Weapon on the Librarian I've noted was mine based on the math comparing his Combi-Weapon the his Storm Bolter. They are roughly equivalent weapons, each having a preferred target they are better against. That would make them 0 point options for the unit. Which is a reason for the rule. Not a great one, but certainly an understandable one.

Daed specifically mentioned having "reservations" about the changes to combi-weapons in the quoted post.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Daed specifically mentioned having "reservations" about the changes to combi-weapons in the quoted post.

Reservations = not going to criticize

EviscerationPlague wrote:

All coming from the guy defending the new Combi-Weapons LOL

GW hires for attitude, is that what you're trying to express?

Remember where I said this?

He says I'm just defending mom without appreciating their view point and them him and his buddies jump me, because I didn't start my sentence with "Yea everything mom does is awful and pepperoni is my favorite, too".

That's you. You're the toadie that comes in all 'look at me guys! I'm helping!' while completely ignoring my reservations about combis and questions that it creates around Sternguard - especially with a new kit coming. All you care about is painting with that broad brush so you can feel cool.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Daed specifically mentioned having "reservations" about the changes to combi-weapons in the quoted post.

Reservations = not going to criticize

Reservations means I am going to take time to think about it. I don't like what it does to some units, but I also can't change it. All I can do is inspect it within the game when it's out and if I don't find a good reason for removing them then that's a request I can send to GW.

Or I could just say, "OMG GW is sooo dumb. Why do they do dumb things? Does anyone else hate GW?", but I don't find that very productive or enlightening.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Daed specifically mentioned having "reservations" about the changes to combi-weapons in the quoted post.

Reservations = not going to criticize

That's not synonymous with "reservations". Synonyms for "reservations" include things like doubt and skepticism. That's not exactly positive.

Karol wrote:
Necrons don't have any of those things, so why would changes to them make him care? At some point it becomes an argument with a person, who doesn't care about your stuff, cares about his and no amount of argumentation or math will convince them. Only thing worse is talking about a faction being bad, like Cruel Boys, with a person who thinks that Cruel boys shouldn't even be a faction.

There's multiple layers here and the post I made isn't addressing one particular person directly, but many who constantly badger me.

As for Necrons - deciding that Immortals are no longer worthwhile while not having seen Immortals in this edition or contextualizing WHY Immortals felt different in older editions doesn't make for great discussion material in a thread about *checks notes* 10th edition gameplay and rules discussion.

I realize that I'm being a huge dick right now and I apologize to the forum in general for going on a tirade. I'm just sick of some of these dynamics. If you don't agree with my premise - say so. Tell me why it's not compelling. Don't just cop out and say 'hur hur you defend GW'.

For what it's worth, Daed, I think you're being reasonable.

We don't always agree, but you're not the jerk here.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Daed specifically mentioned having "reservations" about the changes to combi-weapons in the quoted post.

Reservations = not going to criticize

That's not synonymous with "reservations". Synonyms for "reservations" include things like doubt and skepticism. That's not exactly positive.

Not to mention "pre-booked seats".