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.

Jesus Christ, we really getting into BCB-levels of rules-lawyering on an edition which hasn't even been released yet?

pgmason wrote:

In common English usage, is something 'just' happened, it means it happened immediately prior to now.

Not necessarily. A phrase in common use where I'm from is just last (week, month, year, x time interval), e.g. I bought a new car just last year, or I just went shopping last week. It is also used as an adverb to describe something exact or precise, e.g. just right or very recently; the phone just rang, or model just destroyed.

pgmason wrote:

It's clearly referring to something you do in immediate reaction to a unit being destroyed. Not next phase, not next turn, immediately.

That said, I agree with you here. From the context it seems clear that it means use this stratagem when the last wound from the last model in the unit is removed.

I have the same problem with this stratagem that I have with Reanimation Protocols. The intention is clear but the wording is not, and without elaboration is open to interpretation.

 Valkyrie wrote:
Jesus Christ, we really getting into BCB-levels of rules-lawyering on an edition which hasn't even been released yet?

Yes. If GW can't be bothered to write things unambiguously, then we should take them to task. The tourney-bros are going to pick the rules apart and exploit bad wording, and as a result the game will be rebalanced and FAQ'd into oblivion as a result of tournament results. FAQ's are all fine and dandy, but in this edition they are harping on the consolidation aspect of the new edition. It can be difficult to keep all of the FAQ's if you aren't a Warhammer+ member. I would much rather that all of you voice your concerns and have them heard and communicated to GW then keep seeing people shoot down concerns as stupid or cope.

crazysaneman wrote:

pgmason wrote:

In common English usage, is something 'just' happened, it means it happened immediately prior to now.

Not necessarily. A phrase in common use where I'm from is just last (week, month, year, x time interval), e.g. I bought a new car just last year, or I just went shopping last week. It is also used as an adverb to describe something exact or precise, e.g. just right or very recently; the phone just rang, or model just destroyed.

pgmason wrote:

It's clearly referring to something you do in immediate reaction to a unit being destroyed. Not next phase, not next turn, immediately.

That said, I agree with you here. From the context it seems clear that it means use this stratagem when the last wound from the last model in the unit is removed.

I have the same problem with this stratagem that I have with Reanimation Protocols. The intention is clear but the wording is not, and without elaboration is open to interpretation.

I think we can all agree that the wording could be made clearer to better match intent - it might be down to the limitations of the 'Stratagem card' or whatever, but i think it could be improved upon a lot. However, as you say, the intent seems clear enough. For the time being, it probably comes down to talking with your opponent beforehand, TOs making a ruling, and eventually a FAQ if the issue persists.

Tsagualsa wrote:

I think we can all agree that the wording could be made clearer to better match intent - it might be down to the limitations of the 'Stratagem card' or whatever, but i think it could be improved upon a lot. However, as you say, the intent seems clear enough. For the time being, it probably comes down to talking with your opponent beforehand, TOs making a ruling, and eventually a FAQ if the issue persists.

Exactly. Now is the time to speak out about these kinds of issues so they can be addressed. Since all the indices at launch are digital, they are still changeable before release and don't necessarily need a dozen FAQ's in the future.

 Valkyrie wrote:
Jesus Christ, we really getting into BCB-levels of rules-lawyering on an edition which hasn't even been released yet?

Oh man I haven't heard that name in a long time....

crazysaneman wrote:
Yes. If GW can't be bothered to write things unambiguously, then we should take them to task. The tourney-bros are going to pick the rules apart and exploit bad wording, and as a result the game will be rebalanced and FAQ'd into oblivion as a result of tournament results. FAQ's are all fine and dandy, but in this edition they are harping on the consolidation aspect of the new edition. It can be difficult to keep all of the FAQ's if you aren't a Warhammer+ member. I would much rather that all of you voice your concerns and have them heard and communicated to GW then keep seeing people shoot down concerns as stupid or cope.

In my opinion there's no alternate scenario that isn't totally absurd. To me it's a non-issue and does not need an FAQ and I can't see any other tournament players I know thinking differently.

So it's purely people being absurd or ignorant for its own sake. Gotcha.

Let's move on.

I missed this yesterday in the Guard preview, some might have seen it some might have not:

you have the Born Soldiers Detachment rule, which confers Lethal Hits on ranged attacks made by units that Remained Stationary.

So the detachment ability for Guard is 6s to hit auto wound but nerfed slightly to require you to either stand still or find a rule that lets you count as standing still.

There is also mention of an enhancment (warlord trait) that makes it 5s to hit critical hit (auto wound) (again requiring Remained Stationary).

So we almost have the Devastating Cruddaces USR, which requires the following combination:
- Lethal Hits (Critical Hits (6s) auto wound)
- Improved Critical Hits chance to 5s or 4s.
- missing rule - Critical Hits count as Critical Wounds.
- Devastating Wounds (Critical Wounds (6s) are mortal wounds).

I'm also reading this from the Daemons preview:

An objective is only captured when the total Objective Control of nearby models exceeds that of their opponent, so a unit with OC 0 will effectively ‘tie’ even when faced with a complete lack of challengers.

As saying OC 0 units can't control an objective (capture not being a word really used in the rules) so unless you have a rule to make the objective sticky, an OC0 unit won't score Primary, turn off banners, etc.

I'm expecting the Sisters preview tomorrow to show the downsides of the PSYCHIC keyword. I also don't think we've seen any litanies/prayers previewed yet so we should find out if it is still roll a 2+/3+ in your command phase to do stuff.

Looking at the Space Marine Terminator Captain combined with Roboute, it looks like you could use the same strategem three times in a single phase (probably on 3 units not 3 times on the same unit) for X CP - 0 CP - 0 CP. Three uses of Only in Death Does Duty End for 2 CP rather than 6 CP sounds pretty good.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ah yes, seen a few people a bit confused why the daemonic pact rule says:

If your WARLORD is LUCIUS THE ETERNAL, you can only include SLAANESH LEGIONES DAEMONICA units using these rules

I suspect Lucius will have a rule on his datasheet that makes Noise Marines Battleline if he is the warlord.

So if you don't have him as a warlord, you can have a generic Slaanesh themed CSM list with up to 3 units of Noise Marines and can take any daemons you want. But, if you want Noise Marines as Battleline so you can take 6 units that will mean you can only take Slaanesh daemons.

This whole Lucius thing is of course to tide us over to Codex EC.

Or even just until the Chaos Codex, which, presumably, will have more detachments and allow for a Slaaneshi/EC-themed one.

And that will tide us over until the actual EC book.

I am irrationally angry that they moved the invulns to a (in my opinion) far more sensible location for the combat patrol entries. Why move it all for that matter?

I would have said space, but the top banner doesn't seem to be any larger on the Combat Patrol sheet.

If a unit has multiple statlines (artillery with crew, drones imbedded in squads?, other similar things) they might want to keep everyone on a single line, so they could stake multiples.

Now they don’t do that sort of thing very often, and invulns are rare, but maybe that’s why?

I do prefer all the saves being in one spot.

One thing I notice is that in both 9th and 10th editions, when souping together daemons and CSM, it's always the CSM that have to be the dominant faction, and now the daemon detachment won't even be able to have the warlord. I really wish that GW allowed for CSM to be the allied detachment, with the daemons getting the warlord and now keeping Shadows, as there are cases of bands of CSM worshipping greater daemons and it would be fun to play an army like that.

Its largely consistent. If you aren't fighting in the Eye or similar region (where almost no one non-chaos goes), daemons are temporary.

When daemons attack, someone brings them there via summoning. Chaos marines are best equipped to do that, one way or another.

Voss wrote:
Its largely consistent. If you aren't fighting in the Eye or similar region (where almost no one non-chaos goes), daemons are temporary.

When daemons attack, someone brings them there via summoning. Chaos marines are best equipped to do that, one way or another.

With the opening of the Rift, daemons are becoming more solid in the material world. Also, if they can command mixed daemon/mortal armies in AoS, I don't see why it can't happen in 40k. I'd really love to run my custom warband, the Brethren of the Rainfather, with Rotigus being the warlord.

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

the new dread doesn't have TLLC though....

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.

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
One thing I notice is that in both 9th and 10th editions, when souping together daemons and CSM, it's always the CSM that have to be the dominant faction, and now the daemon detachment won't even be able to have the warlord. I really wish that GW allowed for CSM to be the allied detachment, with the daemons getting the warlord and now keeping Shadows, as there are cases of bands of CSM worshipping greater daemons and it would be fun to play an army like that.

Not true. Disciples of Belakor. You can play them with just one CSM unit. Daemons even kept warpstorm abilities.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

EightFoldPath wrote:
I missed this yesterday in the Guard preview, some might have seen it some might have not:

you have the Born Soldiers Detachment rule, which confers Lethal Hits on ranged attacks made by units that Remained Stationary.

So the detachment ability for Guard is 6s to hit auto wound but nerfed slightly to require you to either stand still or find a rule that lets you count as standing still.

There is also mention of an enhancment (warlord trait) that makes it 5s to hit critical hit (auto wound) (again requiring Remained Stationary).

So we almost have the Devastating Cruddaces USR, which requires the following combination:
- Lethal Hits (Critical Hits (6s) auto wound)
- Improved Critical Hits chance to 5s or 4s.
- missing rule - Critical Hits count as Critical Wounds.
- Devastating Wounds (Critical Wounds (6s) are mortal wounds).

I'm looking forward for guard arty spam which will hit on 3s, autowounding on 5s, and maybe even doing MWs on 6s to wound.

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

There isn't one. I mentioned wanting to know more about what Critical Wounds can do, someone misunderstood that as some sort of confusion over how to create one. Anything beyond that is either someone trolling, or someone who didn't go far enough back to look.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

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.

No, I'm not. "I want to know what Critical Wounds are" is not a query. "I know how to make them, I want to know more about what they do" is not a query.

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,

And yet again, I'd like to point out I didn't ask for one. You've gone on for half a dozen pages where I tell you I didn't ask for it, so you can tell me you don't have one to give me.

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.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:

 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.

Not even that -

I said I wanted to know more about what Critical Wounds do - i.e. what you can do with them.

Someone told me how to make Critical Wounds.

I explained I already know how to make them, I was wondering what you could do with them.

Someone told me they don't do anything.

I pointed out making Critical Wounds just to trigger Devastating Wounds a little more feels like a little too much work and they probably do do something else we haven't found out about yet.

Someone else told me again how to make them, while someone else said they I shouldn't ask what they do (when I didn't ask, I just said I wanted to know because I knew it wasn't out yet and was speaking to the future).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:
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?

This should go in the rules forum once it goes live - but I'd guess its a matter of timing - you can't use the stratagem until the Vox Caster has left the table (and assuming "on the table" is still a thing) the Vox Caster wouldn't be around to trigger the Vox Caster rule.

If you want some other questions to ponder:

Look on the options Page: This Unit can have up to two Leder Units... yadda yadda. Then goes on to say no more than one of those units can be a Command Squad unit which implies the Command Squad will be a Leader Unit (potentially) added to yet another squad and while the Strat prevents bringing back chracters the Command Squad unit may not be a Character - but on the flip side, is an attached command squad still a seperate unit, or once it attaches (assumedly pre-game) does it then become one giant unit?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jarms48 wrote:


- 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.

Not quite - all special rules are not a part of the datasheet. They're bringing back USR's meaning many special rules are going to be in the BRB. That said Turret is still probably gone because we didn't see a keyword or teaser here or on the Repulsor

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
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.

It was just Destroyed when the last model gets picked up.

I've got a feeling this edition is going to be great for melee armies and units capable of shooting and fighting.

We have not seen anything about flyers, or the inclusion of forge world units as a whole.

I think my vendettas are probably going to have 3 standard twin link lascannons with none of the anti armor benefits it had in 6th and 7th edition.

Breton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

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.

No, I'm not. "I want to know what Critical Wounds are" is not a query. "I know how to make them, I want to know more about what they do" is not a query.

You're requesting more information on a goddamn board, of course it's a query, in fact you say it is in this very post:

I said I wanted to know more about what Critical Wounds do - i.e. what you can do with them.

If you don't want a response or conversation don't use an ambiguously worded query as a statement on a public forum.

As you're concerned nobody has been reading it or goes far enough back:

Original point is you stating you'd like more information:

Breton wrote:

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

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

Someone tries to be helpful and your response, query:

Breton wrote:

That still doesn't explain what a Critical Wound is. I mean a Wound, a Critical Wound, a Mortal Wound? A Wound can armor save, a Mortal Wound can't, what happens to a Critical Wound?

And where it goes off the rails with you acting like a diva because people don't understand what your confusion is about which spiralled to here.

Breton wrote:

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

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

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

I'll not respond again on the topic and leave you to your external monologue.

 p5freak wrote:
Not true. Disciples of Belakor. You can play them with just one CSM unit. Daemons even kept warpstorm abilities.

But that's a named army sub-faction, not a rule to allow for any daemons HQ's to serve as warlords for armies with CSM in them.

 ArcaneHorror wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Not true. Disciples of Belakor. You can play them with just one CSM unit. Daemons even kept warpstorm abilities.

But that's a named army sub-faction, not a rule to allow for any daemons HQ's to serve as warlords for armies with CSM in them.

It does what you asked for, daemons are the dominant faction, a daemon HQ is the warlord, and you can include CSM.

 Sledgehammer wrote:
I've got a feeling this edition is going to be great for melee armies and units capable of shooting and fighting.

We have not seen anything about flyers, or the inclusion of forge world units as a whole.

I think my vendettas are probably going to have 3 standard twin link lascannons with none of the anti armor benefits it had in 6th and 7th edition.

What makes you say that? That's an honest question - I really haven't gotten a feeling about that in either direction.

I'm hoping the CSM Legionaries had a typo with their Boltgun not being Rapidfire (or anything - not heavy, not assault etc) - The feeling I do get is that 200 points of Player 1 Generic Troopish Unit vs 200 points of Player 2 Generic Troopish Unit (Think the Necron Warriors, Gants/Guants, Intercessors, Legionaries, and on and on) - I think those are going to be an all day pack a lunch thing without some sort of intervention.

I want to say it feels like its going to be Rock Paper Scissors because I don't mean it exactly like that - I don't think Monsters beat troops beat vehicles beat monsters or like that - but I mean it feels like if you skew you won't have an important aspect provided by the other type i.e. if you load up on 200 hormagaunts, you'll run into trouble displacing the 40 Space Marines - while a Primarch, Greater Daemon probably a Brutalis Dread, etc - the big monsters and probably vehicles then have the damage output to displace but not the soaking and OC abilities of the infantry. Its too early to say yet, but it feels like they've set up the rules to push you away from skew.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

No, I'm not. "I want to know what Critical Wounds are" is not a query. "I know how to make them, I want to know more about what they do" is not a query.

You're requesting more information on a goddamn board, of course it's a query, in fact you say it is in this very post:

I said I wanted to know more about what Critical Wounds do - i.e. what you can do with them.

If you don't want a response or conversation don't use an ambiguously worded query as a statement on a public forum.

As you're concerned nobody has been reading it or goes far enough back:

Original point is you stating you'd like more information:

Breton wrote:

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

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

Yeah that's still not a request. "One of the first things I'm doing is to buy some of those sweet new Arks of Omen: Sanguinary Guard Dice Sets" is not a request for someone on a board to sell me some dice. "One of the first things I'm going to do is paint up a new Land Raider because my old one is chipped up a bit from travel" is not a request for someone to paint me up a land raider.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

EightFoldPath wrote:
I also don't think we've seen any litanies/prayers previewed yet so we should find out if it is still roll a 2+/3+ in your command phase to do stuff.

I was assuming there wouldn't be any Litanies/Prayers. I always felt like they (Litanies at least) were added as an offset for psychic powers to make taking a Chaplain over a Libby a more difficult/even/offset choice. Now that psychic phases are gone (and thus most psychic powers) I wouldn't expect Litanies to stick either. I assume they will have a bespoke "when joined to a unit...." rule that will look like at least one of their Litanies - and it will probably just be "on" no check.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nevelon wrote:
If a unit has multiple statlines (artillery with crew, drones imbedded in squads?, other similar things) they might want to keep everyone on a single line, so they could stake multiples.

Now they don’t do that sort of thing very often, and invulns are rare, but maybe that’s why?

I do prefer all the saves being in one spot.

They do it often enough you're right, they probably need/want a system for it. Thunderfire Cannons, The Silent King - drones as you mentioned - and its likely to get even more common with characters inside squads again that's likely to be the most common cause of a mixed stat-sheet thing.

Not being able to score at all, even uncontested, with 0 OC means battle shock is going to be critical, and also means if immunity to it stays, those units will be head and shoulders above the rest.

Rip plague marines I guess.

Wayniac wrote:
Not being able to score at all, even uncontested, with 0 OC means battle shock is going to be critical, and also means if immunity to it stays, those units will be head and shoulders above the rest.

Rip plague marines I guess.

In my opinion, if synapse isn't making stuff immune to battle shock, nothing is.

That said, I don't understand your comment about plague marines, can you please explain?

EightFoldPath wrote:

There is also mention of an enhancment (warlord trait) that makes it 5s to hit critical hit (auto wound) (again requiring Remained Stationary).

So we almost have the Devastating Cruddaces USR, which requires the following combination:
- Lethal Hits (Critical Hits (6s) auto wound)
- Improved Critical Hits chance to 5s or 4s.
- missing rule - Critical Hits count as Critical Wounds.
- Devastating Wounds (Critical Wounds (6s) are mortal wounds).

Lethal Hits are less useful the higher the strength of the weapon, but little solace when lasguns are getting dumped into you. If that enhancement is an aura it could wind up being super dumb.

Sisters

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/05/10/warhammer-40000-faction-focus-adepta-sororitas/

Leagues of Votann up next

 p5freak wrote:
It does what you asked for, daemons are the dominant faction, a daemon HQ is the warlord, and you can include CSM.

Not everyone wants to use a special character to run their chosen army type.

So it's strongly implied by indirect USR that you can only kill models in line of sight, not wipe units because one guy wasn't quite round the corner. Add in the new regen abilities, cover saves a plenty etc and it's feasible moat of your army could be alive t4

Dudeface wrote:
So it's strongly implied by indirect USR that you can only kill models in line of sight, not wipe units because one guy wasn't quite round the corner. Add in the new regen abilities, cover saves a plenty etc and it's feasible moat of your army could be alive t4

Not if your army is t3 and doesn't benefit from cover because of their 3+ save.