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.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Pretty sure Frag Grenade went up a point of Strength too. Always used to be S3 for Grenade, S4 for Missile?

No idea if that’s new for 10th though.

frag grenade got nerfed D3 S4 shots is worse than D6 S3 shots.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Karol wrote:
If an armies core anti tank was 3 MM on dreadnoughts though, then those armies don't have a replacement unit armed with melta, which they could spam.

your dreads can take twinlascannons instead

Show me on the Paragon Warsuit's (our dreadnought equivalent) datasheet where it says I can run a twinlascannon.

they never said it could. they said dreadnought. not dreadnought equivalent of other factions.

Won’t the frag Grenade gets some bonus hits against larger squads?

 Souleater wrote:
Won’t the frag Grenade gets some bonus hits against larger squads?

Yupp. +1 hit per 5 models. Do against a 10 man squad, D3+3.

+1 attack per 5 models. So d3+2 attacks against 10 models.

Yupp, sorry. That's correct.

I still want to see the Blast rule written down just to make sure we aren't missing something, if it is:
1~5 models (which includes lone models like vehicles): +1 attack
6~10: +2
11~15: +3
It feels off.

It gets wonky as soon as you give every model in a 5 man or 10 man unit a blast weapon. Examples from 9th - Einhyr Hearthguard, Warp Spiders. 10 Warp Spiders as written in 9th but with 10th Blast rule would get 10d6 + 40 shots (75 average) into a 20 man unit of Guard and possibly + 10 if you attach a Leader model to push the unit from 16~20 to 21~25.

It gets really wild if you can dual wield blast weapons (and have them not be twin linked). Examples from 9th - Desolation Squad, Crisis Suits with AFB. 10 Desolation Squad as written in 9th but with 10th Blast rule and Super Frag as their main weapon would get 10d3 + 30 + 40 + 10d3 + 40 (150 average) into a 20 man unit of Guard and possibly + 20 if you attach a Leader model.

Of course, we've not seen those units yet. I'm mainly interested to see if they spotted the problem and found a fix. I think if Blast works as we think, you could even have a compelling 1 shot weapon with Blast on a 10 man squad.

CSM, Necrons and IG have all looked a bit undercooked to me. My (conspiracy) theory is:
- That Space Marines and Tyranids are getting their codex rules previewed.
- Everyone else will have their index rules previewed.
- This leaves room for GW to add another 20% to the later codexes to sell them.

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Pretty sure Frag Grenade went up a point of Strength too. Always used to be S3 for Grenade, S4 for Missile?

No idea if that’s new for 10th though.

frag grenade got nerfed D3 S4 shots is worse than D6 S3 shots.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Karol wrote:
If an armies core anti tank was 3 MM on dreadnoughts though, then those armies don't have a replacement unit armed with melta, which they could spam.

your dreads can take twinlascannons instead

Show me on the Paragon Warsuit's (our dreadnought equivalent) datasheet where it says I can run a twinlascannon.

they never said it could. they said dreadnought. not dreadnought equivalent of other factions.

They were talking about melta vs lascannons in general terms before that. The example of the dreadnought was the first 'marine specific' thing they explicitly mentioned; yet the entire scenario was clearly unconcerned with other imperial forces.

'If melta isn't good anymore, just take lascannons' is deeply annoying to hear when you have melta on basically every platform in your army and precisely 0 lascannons.

I'm not really worried about it from a balance perspective, but it is yet another example of everyone just assuming marines for everything.

Pretty sure it’s +1 per five, not +1 per five or portion thereof.

So 1-4 nothing, 5-9 +1, 10-14 +2…

ERJAK wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Karol wrote:
If an armies core anti tank was 3 MM on dreadnoughts though, then those armies don't have a replacement unit armed with melta, which they could spam.

your dreads can take twinlascannons instead

Show me on the Paragon Warsuit's (our dreadnought equivalent) datasheet where it says I can run a twinlascannon.

I was answering Karol's comment.

I'm pretty certain sisters will get a rule that buffs the holy trinity somehow. Unironically "wait and see" before freaking out

The only rule to buff the Holy Trinity Sisters may get is a Stratagem.

However, I won't be surprised if Sister of Battle weapons are not exactly the same as those used by other Imperial Forces. They may very well have a Sororitas Bolter that is different from the Bolter we saw on the Legionnaire. This would go along with the current Ministorum Flamers and Artificer-Crafted Storm Bolters that are better than the mundane versions of those weapons.

ERJAK wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Pretty sure Frag Grenade went up a point of Strength too. Always used to be S3 for Grenade, S4 for Missile?

No idea if that’s new for 10th though.

frag grenade got nerfed D3 S4 shots is worse than D6 S3 shots.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Karol wrote:
If an armies core anti tank was 3 MM on dreadnoughts though, then those armies don't have a replacement unit armed with melta, which they could spam.

your dreads can take twinlascannons instead

Show me on the Paragon Warsuit's (our dreadnought equivalent) datasheet where it says I can run a twinlascannon.

they never said it could. they said dreadnought. not dreadnought equivalent of other factions.

They were talking about melta vs lascannons in general terms before that. The example of the dreadnought was the first 'marine specific' thing they explicitly mentioned; yet the entire scenario was clearly unconcerned with other imperial forces.

'If melta isn't good anymore, just take lascannons' is deeply annoying to hear when you have melta on basically every platform in your army and precisely 0 lascannons.

I'm not really worried about it from a balance perspective, but it is yet another example of everyone just assuming marines for everything.

luckily for you little ladies GW set the edition up so every single unit could have different stats for the exact same weapons. we've seen marine meltas, SoB meltas might be much better.

 alextroy wrote:
The only rule to buff the Holy Trinity Sisters may get is a Stratagem.

However, I won't be surprised if Sister of Battle weapons are not exactly the same as those used by other Imperial Forces. They may very well have a Sororitas Bolter that is different from the Bolter we saw on the Legionnaire. This would go along with the current Ministorum Flamers and Artificer-Crafted Storm Bolters that are better than the mundane versions of those weapons.

as i said : we litterally don't know.

I really does seem as if Meltas have stayed relatively similar to their 9th counter-parts despite everything else getting tougher and other weapons getting stronger.

I don't play my tiny guard force very often, but the guard previews seem pretty solid?

I never picked up their latest codex, but the orders seem to be streamlined. Flat movement bonuses (that don't require advance rolls) and stat buffs rather than requiring extra rolling. Take Cover and Duty and Honor seem like genuinely interesting tools in the toolbox. My only very minor gripe with the orders is that FRFSRF and Take Aim are both kill more betterer rules that don't really change the way units play, but that's fine. I assume that FRFSRF is superior to Take Aim on RF weapons right? So that people won't be tempted to just always use Take Aim? Not sure how I feel about plasma benefitting from FRFSRF, but not losing sleep over it.

Shock Troopers letting you treat objectives as sticky is neat. I hope to see more rules like that.

Battlecannons being better at anti-tank than meltaguns feels a little heretical, but I guess the AP does matter for a lot. I was a little iffy on the last few army previews, but this one seems like a fluffy, fun to play set of options so far.

Thinking back through 3rd-7th, Battlecannons were never bad at taking out vehicles, it was just a waste of their ordnance marker.

Yeah, Ordnance Weapons did get bonuses against vehicles, its just that due to the scatter it was more effective going after blobs of infantry. IIRC, if you didn't get the hole over the vehicle your attack dealt half-damage, and that was usually enough to just end up not dealing damage at all.

Ordinance did get 2d6 and take the highest result, which was nice. It was also a blast, so hit Open Topped vehicles twice. Plus Ordinance got its own Damage chart for 3-4(?), and maybe a bonus to damage for 5+(?). I remember even the lowly Whirlwind being pretty effective when engaging Trukks and DE Raiders. And the Demolisher Cannon was terrifying.

Looking at the rules we got yesterday, the Demolisher cannon is still pretty terrifying. I like the D6+3 hits, +1 for every 5 models in the target unit as well (is it ever 5 above 5, or just every 5?).

And that's good. I still remember when the Demolisher was first introduced. It was a properly scary gun, and the description they gave was that the whole tank lifts off the ground from the recoil. Hard as nails - highest armour in the game, IIRC - and just capable of levelling anything... including itself, during one of my worst games of 3rd ever, where a Demolisher scattered onto and killed itself. That was a bad game.

^Yah, the fact that it could get the result "Destroys transport and kills everyone on board" made it a must take for me in 4th ed. The psycological factor was immense.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Now you’re “one per ten” for each Special Weapon, giving the Grenade Launcher a little extra oomph does make sense.

Cadian Shock Troops are 2 per ten so the new 10E unit composition with a command squad attached might have five special weapons. My preference would be three grenade launchers and two plasma guns but some of the other special weapons are viable alternatives.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
"its been twenty years, warhammer 50k just released, Breton is still confused about critical wounds even if GW has adressed the issue multiple times already"

I've said I want to know more, I've said nobody here could answer it so I'm waiting for the rulebook, and how many years from now will you still be lying about what other people said?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Karol wrote:
If an armies core anti tank was 3 MM on dreadnoughts though, then those armies don't have a replacement unit armed with melta, which they could spam.

your dreads can take twinlascannons instead

Plus that whole new Dread being shipped for loyalists with a TLLC, and a Super Krak launcher.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Pretty sure Frag Grenade went up a point of Strength too. Always used to be S3 for Grenade, S4 for Missile?

No idea if that’s new for 10th though.

Not always, but S3 for a while now.

Breton wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
"its been twenty years, warhammer 50k just released, Breton is still confused about critical wounds even if GW has adressed the issue multiple times already"

I've said I want to know more, I've said nobody here could answer it so I'm waiting for the rulebook, and how many years from now will you still be lying about what other people said?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Karol wrote:
If an armies core anti tank was 3 MM on dreadnoughts though, then those armies don't have a replacement unit armed with melta, which they could spam.

your dreads can take twinlascannons instead

Plus that whole new Dread being shipped for loyalists with a TLLC, and a Super Krak launcher.

You don't seem to accept the answer of "Critical Wounds are unlikely to do anything on their own."

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


I was answering Karol's comment.

I'm pretty certain sisters will get a rule that buffs the holy trinity somehow. Unironically "wait and see" before freaking out

Or changes it. You don't sell new models if you don't change up the top tier units and the elemental flavor of the month every so often.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
You don't seem to accept the answer of "Critical Wounds are unlikely to do anything on their own."

You don't seem to accept the part where I said What Else interacts?

I've said they might do something on their own, we don't know.

I've said a handful of Devastating Wounds upgrades doesn't seem worth the effort of making a new box of wounds - so what else plays?

I've said it (to me) feels like one of the things they could be using to differentiate subfactions or playstyles etc with so much else going away.

At what point did I say they would do something on their own? I pointed out it was a possibility while listing a number of things they could be a part of.

Lately all I've been doing is pointing out where people have lied about what I said. What part of that do you have trouble accepting while doing the lying yourself?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I really does seem as if Meltas have stayed relatively similar to their 9th counter-parts despite everything else getting tougher and other weapons getting stronger.

Melta was arguably the flavor of the month for 9th - when Eradicators came out. Plasma was arguably the flavor of the month for 8th when Hellblasters came out. Before that was arguably Grav. I'd say Flame is overdue, but they don't appear to be doing anything especially nice for them.

Breton wrote:
At what point did I say they would do something on their own? I pointed out it was a possibility while listing a number of things they could be a part of.

Well, there was this:

Breton wrote:
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.

Now, you're not saying there that it definitely will happen, but that certainly reads as you posing the possibility that CW will do something on their own.

 Dysartes wrote:

Breton wrote:
At what point did I say they would do something on their own? I pointed out it was a possibility while listing a number of things they could be a part of.

Well, there was this:

Breton wrote:
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.

Now, you're not saying there that it definitely will happen, but that certainly reads as you posing the possibility that CW will do something on their own.

We don't have the rulebook so there is that possibility - And that sounds an awful lot like

At what point did I say they would do something on their own? I pointed out it was a possibility while listing a number of things they could be a part of.

You might want to look at what you've said and how you've said it.

I'm not the only one who's reading the implications in your words-Dystartes just posted in concurrence.

Breton, I think everyone reads your stuff the same way. If you don't like how they're reading it then it's on you to change how you write it.

novembermike wrote:
Breton, I think everyone reads your stuff the same way. If you don't like how they're reading it then it's on you to change how you write it.

I don't, I think a number of people do - and inject personal animus into their reading. Unless you can find someplace I said I don't understand how Critical Wounds are made, or that it's unacceptable they don't do more on their own.

Not gonna lie, I'm not even sure what the argument is about at this stage.

Breton wrote:

novembermike wrote:
Breton, I think everyone reads your stuff the same way. If you don't like how they're reading it then it's on you to change how you write it.

I don't, I think a number of people do - and inject personal animus into their reading. Unless you can find someplace I said I don't understand how Critical Wounds are made, or that it's unacceptable they don't do more on their own.

You're missing the point, you're questioning what a critical wound is, which inevitably prompts people to give you the definition we've been provided by GW. The conflict happens because the way you're directing your comments is causing it to look like a query, when either it's an inner monologue/rhetorical and you're not expecting a response, or alternatively like you have a lack of understanding of what GW has said.

In reality after it having gone on for half a dozen pages and people getting frustrated at you being offended by their attempts to explain or offer their insight, patience wears thin. But unless you phrase your position better you're going to keep getting what you have so far - people grumpily reiterating to you it's a mechanic to automatically wound on a roll of X.

Nobody can give you a rulebook definition with citation, nobody can tell you every rule they will combo with it or each unit entry it'll appear on. We can, however, give likely instances where weapons have a "wounds on X" mechanic, propose it'll replace those and potentially combo with other USR/abilities that key off critical wounds. We can also propose that it's usefulness is evident and knowing GW and their iterations of 40k it likely doesn't do anything on it's own beyond that normal wound on a value of X.