10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46

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.

**Jarms48**

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

I miss the old Armoured Company CA rules for 3.5 edition. Rerolling the scatter die was great.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyran wrote:
Since they put krak, which lore wise are shaped charges, in it.

Anti-tank HEAT grenades have been a thing since WW2.

* * * * *

I'm more interested in the fact you can attach 2 leader units, which can be 1 command squad. That's pretty nice.

Also, it brings up an interesting point on the medi-pack. If it remains the same 5+++ for the unit, if you attach it does that apply to the 20 Guardsmen as well? That's if it stays that is.

These are actually pretty disappointing. AP-2 Baneblade Cannon sucks. Also, the melee profile is massively nerfed. RF Heavy Stubber just comes off as GW trying to sell more Macharius and Dorn tanks.

Though autocannons are looking pretty decent now, an increase to S and D. Flat 3 damage that can be very easily spammed in Guard lists.

Also disappointing. I know they want to reduce AP across the board, but just looking at the Baneblade Demolisher Cannon it's likely going to cause some internal balance issues. If that demolisher remains AP-3 we're just going to go back to "opps, all demolishers" again.

Just one last thing I noticed. Lack of turret weapon? I would have assumed the Baneblade Cannon and Battle Cannon would have been BS3+ with all other weapons being 4+.

**p5freak**

I'm looking forward to a 30 model unit of 20 shock troops with an attached command squad with ogryn bodyguard and attaches and another character with another bodyguard. The command squad medic will give the ogryn bodyguards 5+ FNP, and he can return a killed model to the unit. Good luck killing that 30 man blob, you will never get them below half strength. And did i mention the 10 special weapons ranging from grenade launchers to meltas and plasma weapons hitting on 3s ?

**Dudeface**

p5freak wrote:
I'm looking forward to a 30 model unit of 20 shock troops with an attached command squad with ogryn bodyguard and attaches and another character with another bodyguard. The command squad medic will give the ogryn bodyguards 5+ FNP, and he can return a killed model to the unit. Good luck killing that 30 man blob, you will never get the below half strength. And did i mention the 10 special weapons ranging from greande launchers to meltas and plasma weapons hitting on 3s ?

I strongly suspect attaches will be gone now, so it'd be a 26 man blob. We also don't know what medics do, what bodyguards do, how many special weapons they can have, what they cost or any other mildly relevant information. You're also forgetting that wounds are allocated to the attached units before the characters as per the earlier previews, so you kill the 20 guardsmen first.

**H.B.M.C.**

I felt that was a strange choice as well, especially given that BS is native to each weapon in 10th, meaning you don't need a special "Turret Weapon" exception/special rule: You can just give the turret weapon BS3+ and everything else BS4+.

And good point about the AP. AP-2 would have been a better choice for the Battlecannon, given its role and it means that the Demolisher isn't the default.

**Dudeface**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
I felt that was a strange choice as well, especially given that BS is native to each weapon in 10th, meaning you don't need a special "Turret Weapon" exception/special rule: You can just give the turret weapon BS3+ and everything else BS4+.

And good point about the AP. AP-2 would have been a better choice for the Battlecannon, given its role and it means that the Demolisher isn't the default.

Assuming a tank commander gives them take aim then you'd have BS2+ turrets which isn't very guard-typical. Agree on the AP though.

**Aash**

Nice to see that the twin heavy flamer interacts with the new twin linked rules. Re-roll hits on an autohit weapon would have been a bit of a miss.

**Valkyrie**

Bit of an OTT reaction on the Baneblade, both here and FB groups I've seen.

Cons
No turret weapon rule? Well we haven't seen the whole book yet have we?
Baneblade Cannon is Ap-2? For the whole of 9th people have been bitching about power creep, and they bitch when it's tuned down.
Melee profile nerfed? Well the BB only hit hard in Melee when you used a 2CP strat.
RF Stubber is a huge ploy to sell Macharius and Dorns? I've been playing Guard for close to 10 years and have never seen anyone use a Macharius. Giving a Stubber 3 extra shot isn't likely to change that.

Pros
Can give cover to friendly units. If you have 1 Guardsman who isn't fully 100% visible to the enemy, then the whole unit gets cover.
Doesn't degrade as badly, now you lose accuracy at 1/3 of your wounds compared to 1/2.
Better OC, means you can't be taken off the objective by a couple of Grots.

Seen quite a few schmuks complaining about how it's worthless now. Wait until 10th and see.

**ccs**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Not gonna lie, I'm not even sure what the argument is about at this stage.

They're arguing about how one person posts "what if" rules scenarios vs how others do it.

**AtoMaki**

These AM reveals are all kinds of perplexing for me:
- Born Soldiers is gone, apparently. Good riddance, but splashing orders are gone too, and that's sad.
- Speaking of which, Orders just being straight attribute buffs is bland af. Also, maximum lol for Take Cover actually limiting the cover save properly rather than doing a super-weird circumstantial exception like Benefit of Cover. So Mariens can get 2+ cover but Guardsmen? Get outta here stalker!
- The Drum-Fed Autogun is now an automatic marksman rifle of sorts. Huh. Dunno what you guys are smoking but S9 DD3 is not anti-tank nowadays, it is anti-MEQ - the Krak Grenade is basically a third Plasma Gun profile now.
- Can I use Reinforcements on a unit that was destroyed during a previous turn or phase? What does "was just destroyed" means?
- As soon as I saw the 20-strong Cadian squad option and the implication that Command Squads can join in, I knew that I will see a Dan Abnett book in the end. My Veterans died for this

.
- With that Autocannon profile, Tauroxes will be pretty brawny. Now I have to figure out how to make a double-AC turret for my Chimeras.

**PenitentJake**

Valkyrie wrote:
If you have 1 Guardsman who isn't fully 100% visible to the enemy, then the whole unit gets cover.

Not how this works.

Only the model that isn't fully visible gets the cover. And I believe that's for ALL cover now, so no model gets a cover bonus because someone else in their unit has cover.

Could be wrong about general cover, but that's definitely what the text of the rolling fortress rule indicates.

**vipoid**

Something occurs to me:

If a unit has a Vox Caster, do you get the effect of it if you target the (destroyed) unit with Reinforcements stratagem?

**Jarms48**

Valkyrie wrote:

Cons
No turret weapon rule? Well we haven't seen the whole book yet have we?
Baneblade Cannon is Ap-2? For the whole of 9th people have been bitching about power creep, and they bitch when it's tuned down.
Melee profile nerfed? Well the BB only hit hard in Melee when you used a 2CP strat.
RF Stubber is a huge ploy to sell Macharius and Dorns? I've been playing Guard for close to 10 years and have never seen anyone use a Macharius. Giving a Stubber 3 extra shot isn't likely to change that.

- Highly doubtful that turret weapons will remain, considering all special rules are now apart of the datasheet. If it’s not there, then it’s not there.
- Baneblade still sucks now, it’s going to suck more in 10th. Not sure what you’re even referring to here. It’s not even that lethal right now. To give you an example a Baneblade Cannon now only kills 5 marines, assuming they have no other defensive buffs. That’s less than 100 points of casualties from a 430 point model.
- Melee profile is regardless of the stratagem. You lose 3 attacks, S9, AP-2, and D2. That’s a massive nerf.
- I’ve got 11 Macharius tanks, a bit of every variant. Cost and bad rules is the biggest issue, it’s a great looking model. Regardless, that’s 6-9 extra shots on a Dorn and 12-15 extra shots on a Macharius. That’s not nothing to sneeze at. Basically a tactical squads worth of bolter fire.

**Dudeface**

AtoMaki wrote:
These AM reveals are all kinds of perplexing for me:
- Born Soldiers is gone, apparently. Good riddance, but splashing orders are gone too, and that's sad.

It's the detachment rule, and is almost exactly the same as now but with the caveat the unit hasn't moved.

- Speaking of which, Orders just being straight attribute buffs is bland af. Also, maximum lol for Take Cover actually limiting the cover save properly rather than doing a super-weird circumstantial exception like Benefit of Cover. So Mariens can get 2+ cover but Guardsmen? Get outta here stalker!

Marines can't get 2+ in cover.

- The Drum-Fed Autogun is now an automatic marksman rifle of sorts. Huh. Dunno what you guys are smoking but S9 DD3 is not anti-tank nowadays, it is anti-MEQ - the Krak Grenade is basically a third Plasma Gun profile now.

No infantry portable weapon constitutes as dedicated anti-armour, but that's sort of the point, anything you can take in volumes is less deadly to the big stuff

- Can I use Reinforcements on a unit that was destroyed during a previous turn or phase? What does "was just destroyed" means?

As much as I can see a need for a definition to prevent some weird ass interpretation of clear language, did you opponent kill it with their last interaction - use the strat. Have they killed something else since? They they haven't just killed it.

- As soon as I saw the 20-strong Cadian squad option and the implication that Command Squads can join in, I knew that I will see a Dan Abnett book in the end. My Veterans died for this .

Not sure what bearing it has on veterans?

- With that Autocannon profile, Tauroxes will be pretty brawny. Now I have to figure out how to make a double-AC turret for my Chimeras.

I suspect the old FW turret rules will be gone.

**Lord Clinto**

PenitentJake wrote:
Valkyrie wrote:
If you have 1 Guardsman who isn't fully 100% visible to the enemy, then the whole unit gets cover.

Not how this works.

Only the model that isn't fully visible gets the cover. And I believe that's for ALL cover now, so no model gets a cover bonus because someone else in their unit has cover.

Could be wrong about general cover, but that's definitely what the text of the rolling fortress rule indicates.

I read it the way Penitent posted it, but IMO the first wound removed would have to be the Guardsman actually in cover; which would remove the Baneblade "Cover" for subsequent enemies attacking this unit.

**Tsagualsa**

Lord Clinto wrote:
PenitentJake wrote:
Valkyrie wrote:
If you have 1 Guardsman who isn't fully 100% visible to the enemy, then the whole unit gets cover.

Not how this works.

Only the model that isn't fully visible gets the cover. And I believe that's for ALL cover now, so no model gets a cover bonus because someone else in their unit has cover.

Could be wrong about general cover, but that's definitely what the text of the rolling fortress rule indicates.

I read it the way Penitent posted it, but IMO the first wound removed would have to be the Guardsman actually in cover; which would remove the Baneblade "Cover" for subsequent enemies attacking this unit.

The Rolling Fortress rule states that models get the Benefit of Cover, and then again the BoC rule talks about models:

The actual question behind all of this is who does the allocating for an unit that has models in cover and models outside of cover.

**Daedalus81**

EightFoldPath wrote:
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.

You're jumping the gun on this when the grenade launcher went from D6 to D3. They're aware of the potential. Inceptors abused the hell out of the old rule and now will likely be twin linked instead.

**AtoMaki**

Dudeface wrote:
Marines can't get 2+ in cover.

Oh, they absolutely can. They just need to be shot at by an AP -1 weapon and get a +1 cover save modifier from somewhere. As the Benefit of Cover exception doesn't trigger in this case they get 2+ cover. Even if such modifier cannot be gained in the initial ruleset, it is still a possibility. Here note that if they flat limited BoC to 3+ like in the case of Take Cover, then this possibility would be non-existent.

Dudeface wrote:
As much as I can see a need for a definition to prevent some weird ass interpretation of clear language, did you opponent kill it with their last interaction - use the strat. Have they killed something else since? They haven't just killed it.

Say, the enemy kills my Leman Russ in their Shooting phase. Then they charge and fight but don't kill anything. Can I revive my Russ in my Shooting phase? What if my Russ dies in my turn? Can I revive it in the enemy Shooting phase? As per the timing specification (When) it simply says "Any Phase" rather "immediately when one of your units has been destroyed", and "was just destroyed" gives quite a timing window. It was just destroyed in the battle a few turns ago too.

**Daedalus81**

Wyldhunt wrote:
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.

A Battlecannon is a bit of a different class of weapon.

In any case it does 2.4 to a T10 3+ vehicle. If a MM is still 2 shots -- 1.6 or 2.4 in half. If it's twin linked -- 1.3 and 2.

And that's 6.5 shots from the BC. MM is still pretty viable.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

H.B.M.C. wrote:
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.

Memory unlocked.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

AtoMaki wrote:

Say, the enemy kills my Leman Russ in their Shooting phase. Then they charge and fight but don't kill anything. Can I revive my Russ in my Shooting phase? What if my Russ dies in my turn? Can I revive it in the enemy Shooting phase? As per the timing specification (When) it simply says "Any Phase" rather "immediately when one of your units has been destroyed", and "was just destroyed" gives quite a timing window. It was just destroyed in the battle a few turns ago too.

See strat text. Also, can't revive tanks.

**Dudeface**

AtoMaki wrote:

Oh, they absolutely can. They just need to be shot at by an AP -1 weapon and get a +1 cover save modifier from somewhere. As the Benefit of Cover exception doesn't trigger in this case they get 2+ cover. Even if such modifier cannot be gained in the initial ruleset, it is still a possibility. Here note that if they flat limited BoC to 3+ like in the case of Take Cover, then this possibility would be non-existent.

Given there are currently 0 examples of marines getting a cover save modifier, this is entirely moot until such time. The current design paradigm for GW seems to be if it was intended to give them a 2+, they'd give them a 2+ without a bundle of hoops to jump through, or a "+1 to save when not fully visible to opponent" rule, which would modify the base save up to 2+ and benefits of cover again don't kick in. Why this needs to be a complaint though? Don't know.

Say, the enemy kills my Leman Russ in their Shooting phase. Then they charge and fight but don't kill anything. Can I revive my Russ in my Shooting phase? What if my Russ dies in my turn? Can I revive it in the enemy Shooting phase? As per the timing specification (When) it simply says "Any Phase" rather "immediately when one of your units has been destroyed", and "was just destroyed" gives quite a timing window. It was just destroyed in the battle a few turns ago too.

What was the last thing that happened. What just happened before you play the strat that you can use at literally any time?

**VladimirHerzog**

man, GW blueballing me big time by showing a Lord of Change on the thumbnail but not in the article :(

**AtoMaki**

Dudeface wrote:
The current design paradigm for GW seems to be if it was intended to give them a 2+, they'd give them a 2+ without a bundle of hoops to jump through

On the other hand, if they intended to not give them a 2+ then they would simply not have that loophole, wouldn't they? Just limit BoC to 3+, end of story. But it is not limited to 3+ it just ceases to exist when another bundle of hoops is jumped through.

Dudeface wrote:
What was the last thing that happened. What just happened before you play the strat that you can use at literally any time?

The entire battle up to that point, obviously. Heck, an argument can be made that I can revive a unit that was just destroyed in the previous game of my Warhammer 40k career.

**Dudeface**

AtoMaki wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
The current design paradigm for GW seems to be if it was intended to give them a 2+, they'd give them a 2+ without a bundle of hoops to jump through

On the other hand, if they intended to not give them a 2+ then they would simply not have that loophole, wouldn't they? Just limit BoC to 3+, end of story. But it is not limited to 3+ it just ceases to exist when another bundle of hoops is jumped through.

Dudeface wrote:
What was the last thing that happened. What just happened before you play the strat that you can use at literally any time?

The entire battle up to that point, obviously. Heck, an argument can be made that I can revive a unit that was just destroyed in the previous game of my Warhammer 40k career.

Err no, I'm out.

**VladimirHerzog**

AtoMaki wrote:

The entire battle up to that point, obviously. Heck, an argument can be made that I can revive a unit that was just destroyed in the previous game of my Warhammer 40k career.

unironically get fethed if you ever come up with that argument in a game

**JNAProductions**

Target: One Regiment unit from your army that was just destroyed.

**Dudeface**

JNAProductions wrote:
Target: One Regiment unit from your army that was just destroyed.

Their argument is basically 'but it was just destroyed 3 days ago'.

**CthuluIsSpy**

Yeah, to me it's clear that you play it as soon as a single unit gets wiped out, hence why you can activate it in any phase.
So lose a unit to melee in your combat phase? You can use it. Lose a unit in your opponent's combat phase? Play it. Opponent just shot your conscripts off the field? Ditto.

Its basically a reaction / trap card.

**Tsagualsa**

Dudeface wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
Target: One Regiment unit from your army that was just destroyed.

Their argument is basically 'but it was just destroyed 3 days ago'.

I guess that 'argument' quickly turns to discussing games that were just cancelled

**Tyran**

Obviously you summon Cadia the planet, after all it was just recently destroyed a few years ago.

**CthuluIsSpy**

Tyran wrote:
Obviously you summon Cadia the planet, after all it was just recently destroyed a few years ago.

Per this interpretation of the rules, I can summon the Krork.
After all, to a necron, the War in Heaven was just a couple of billion of years ago.

**Daedalus81**

AtoMaki wrote:

On the other hand, if they intended to not give them a 2+ then they would simply not have that loophole, wouldn't they? Just limit BoC to 3+, end of story. But it is not limited to 3+ it just ceases to exist when another bundle of hoops is jumped through.

The entire battle up to that point, obviously. Heck, an argument can be made that I can revive a unit that was just destroyed in the previous game of my Warhammer 40k career.

I get the sense that you just want something to feel how you want it to feel without actually addressing the consequences of such a change.

Your second point reveals your lack of care in considering sound logic.