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.

leopard wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
Critical wounds are wounds that ignore the s vs t interaction, succeeding on a fixed roll.

In normal attacks, that's a 6. Some special rules change it.

Bit it's never been confusing to me. A crit is a successful wound on a fixed number that ignores s vs t.

Dear god, please not this again.

look on the upside, there is a whole editions worth of time with this debate, especially when GW start issuing books with "critical wounds must be re-rolled v this unit" or other such jibberish to needlessly muddy the water

It's easily in the top three, together with 'Who gets plunging fire if my gaming table is a Klein bottle' and 'Do you really know that the word just does not include two games ago'

Flashbacks to "that model doesn't have eyes, so can't shoot"...

 Trickstick wrote:
Flashbacks to "that model doesn't have eyes, so can't shoot"...

Ok this one is new to me, would love to hear more.

Dudeface wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
Flashbacks to "that model doesn't have eyes, so can't shoot"...

Ok this one is new to me, would love to hear more.

In one edition (6th or 7th IIRC) the rules required you to draw LoS from a model's eyes. Cue lots of people pointing out that many, many models don't have eyes and therefore couldn't shoot because they didn't have LoS.

Slipspace wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
Flashbacks to "that model doesn't have eyes, so can't shoot"...

Ok this one is new to me, would love to hear more.

In one edition (6th or 7th IIRC) the rules required you to draw LoS from a model's eyes. Cue lots of people pointing out that many, many models don't have eyes and therefore couldn't shoot because they didn't have LoS.

Shame that it didn't lead to e.g. Tyranids with comically Lobster-like eyestalks

Dudeface wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
Flashbacks to "that model doesn't have eyes, so can't shoot"...

Ok this one is new to me, would love to hear more.

5th edition true line of sight rules:

Line of sight must be traced from the eyes of the firing model...

So if the model doesn't have eyes, you could argue that it couldn't shoot.

 Trickstick wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
Flashbacks to "that model doesn't have eyes, so can't shoot"...

Ok this one is new to me, would love to hear more.

5th edition true line of sight rules:

Line of sight must be traced from the eyes of the firing model...

So if the model doesn't have eyes, you could argue that it couldn't shoot.

I don't think we ever noticed or paid attention to that in a literal sense, we just applied a little common sense and moved on.

Dudeface wrote:
I don't think we ever noticed or paid attention to that in a literal sense, we just applied a little common sense and moved on.

Oh 100%, but it was fun to laugh at this sort of thing. Or you could get that guy trying it, but then why would you play that person?

A friend of mine added rocks to his bases so his Tyranid monsters could look over smaller fences in 5th edition. There were some hardcore rules lawyers in the tabletop club back then ...

I have vague memories of someone modelling wings shielding their model, as you couldnt draw los to wings and they would block los to the body...

Brickfix wrote:
A friend of mine added rocks to his bases so his Tyranid monsters could look over smaller fences in 5th edition. There were some hardcore rules lawyers in the tabletop club back then ...

I remember seeing a wraithlord converted to be laying down sniper-style to avoid LOS once

Some interesting tidbits from the leak:

- Strategic reseves now 25% of points of army
- Strategic reserves can last until the last turn, destroyed at the end of the battle
- Flying units can charge through terrain and models as if they were not there
- Combat is base to base or within engagement range, and one friendly base behind. Anything behind 2 lines of base-to-base contact cannot fight
- "Scouts" can move X" at the start of the battle. IF in a transport, the transport makes that move.
- Heroic intervention now a 2CP stratagem, counts as a 6" charge
- Shooting: Monsters and vehicles can be shot at even if they are within engagement range of friendly unit. The unit in engagement range can still only shoot with pistos.
- Everyone has access to a "Deep Strike in your opponent's movement phase" strat.
- Grenades are now a generic "Roll 6x D6, every 4+ is a MW" strat.
- BGNT now has a -1 to hit on all weapons except Pistols.
- Hazardous weapons just roll one D6 per model, regardless of number of shots fired. Kills a model or does 3MW to Monsters Vehicles and Characters.

 Valkyrie wrote:

- Heroic intervention now a 2CP stratagem, counts as a 6" charge

You have to be with 6", but still have to roll for charge as normal. So you have a chance to fail.

Dudeface wrote:

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?

But at least now it's in the open, you can lay it to rest surely, or are you wanting a breakdown of every possible interaction?

Yes I am potentially being provocative raising it again, but after 10 pages of putting up with your dishonesty and poor wording, I felt drawing a conclusion to something that plagued this thread is worthwhile. A little humility to all those people you got angry at telling you what it was, as per your question, wouldn't hurt.

No potentially about it you are - and you'd be the one with the dishonesty suggesting one snip covers all the interactions - or that one other cherry picked snip (that ignores the conversations relating to Devastating Wounds, or the fact that Critical Wounds don't become Mortal Wounds "on their own" etc?) is the sum total of what I was asking about and so on. Did you have a bad day today? Your mom yell at you for not cleaning your room or something? Is that why you decided to come out here and troll over something that went away?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hellebore wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
Scorpion claw 3+ A4 s8 ap-2 d2
Biting blade 3+ a5 s7 ap-1 d1
Chain sabres (twin linked) 3+ a6 s5 ap-1 d1

Are these options meant to be balanced against one another?

I wasn't really trying to, but are we expecting them to all cost the same and balance in the stats?

The terminator captain had 5 weapon options but they didn't look equal to me.

The differences were

Sword s5 a6
Fist s8 a5
Claw s5 a7 D1 twinlinked

Chain fist a5 3+ anti vehicle
Hammer a5 3+ devestating wounds

I'm not sure if they all balance.

Certainly imo the lightning claws are weakest, losing (compared to sword) damage for 1 extra attack and the off chance you'll roll a 1.

I suspect they are - that last points update sure felt like a trial balloon for that. And yeah, I also suspect that Twin Linking in general is going to be "over-costed" so to speak, and especially so on the Lightning Claws.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Valkyrie wrote:
Some interesting tidbits from the leak:

- Strategic reseves now 25% of points of army
- Strategic reserves can last until the last turn, destroyed at the end of the battle

You mean you can bring them in up to the last turn, and destroyed if you dont? At first I read that as Any Strategic Reserves count as destroyed after the end of the battle which was weird.

- Flying units can charge through terrain and models as if they were not there

This has been pretty normal?

- Combat is base to base or within engagement range, and one friendly base behind. Anything behind 2 lines of base-to-base contact cannot fight

Sounds like they're trying to bring back "ranking up" from Fantasy.

- "Scouts" can move X" at the start of the battle. IF in a transport, the transport makes that move.
- Heroic intervention now a 2CP stratagem, counts as a 6" charge
- Shooting: Monsters and vehicles can be shot at even if they are within engagement range of friendly unit. The unit in engagement range can still only shoot with pistos.
- Everyone has access to a "Deep Strike in your opponent's movement phase" strat.

Oh. Yeah that one is definitely interesting.

- Grenades are now a generic "Roll 6x D6, every 4+ is a MW" strat.
- BGNT now has a -1 to hit on all weapons except Pistols.
- Hazardous weapons just roll one D6 per model, regardless of number of shots fired. Kills a model or does 3MW to Monsters Vehicles and Characters.

Sounds like they're still trying to rework Gets Hot so you can't reroll the one's with a leader. I wonder if there will be strats etc to reroll (or Sub for the Sisters/etc) the single dice.

- Hazardous weapons just roll one D6 per model, regardless of number of shots fired. Kills a model or does 3MW to Monsters Vehicles and Characters.

Sounds like they're still trying to rework Gets Hot so you can't reroll the one's with a leader. I wonder if there will be strats etc to reroll (or Sub for the Sisters/etc) the single dice.

Command Re-roll specifically mentions Hazardous tests. Might already be implied but it's worth mentioning that the Hazardous test is separate from your Hit rolls, so 1's to hit don't automatically proc it.

ccs wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:


40k FW will disappear completely eventually.

Not completely, but it will cut back. 40K FW is still the "test bed" to see if something is worth moving to 40K "Proper".

Care to elaborate please? I'm not sure what metric you might use but I'm sure sales of the HH dread etc have been enough to warrant 40k rules, but I doubt they'll end up in "proper" 40k.

The "HH dreads" (and most other HH vehicles) have been part of "proper 40k" since late 6th/early 7th. What exactly are you on about?

Only recently has plastic models been coming out.

And???

Guess you missed his point of fw units moving to gw...

Fw resin. Then gw plastic. That's the point. Good job at missing such a trivial example.

Has there been plastic leviathan in 6/7 edition?

There are oddities in the weapon rules that don't make a lot of sense to me, specifically Hazardous.

I don't know why they just didn't base it all on Mortal Wounds, rather than Mortal Wounds for some, and "just die" for others.

Means you could have a 4 wound trooper die instantly, but a 4 would character loses 3 wounds.

Yes, I know there aren't all that many multi-wound infantry types, but it's just weirdly inconsistent to create a single rule for this type of weapon that has two different types of outcome (ie. non-scaling insta-death and defined rules Mortal Wounds).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
There are oddities in the weapon rules that don't make a lot of sense to me, specifically Hazardous.

I don't know why they just didn't base it all on Mortal Wounds, rather than Mortal Wounds for some, and "just die" for others.

Means you could have a 4 wound trooper die instantly, but a 4 would character loses 3 wounds.

Yes, I know there aren't all that many multi-wound infantry types, but it's just weirdly inconsistent to create a single rule for this type of weapon that has two different types of outcome (ie. non-scaling insta-death and defined rules Mortal Wounds).

I agree, I don't understand why characters, monsters, and vehicles have to have their plasma weapons be so dangerous to themselves. I wonder how this will affect Kharn.

Could'a just made it D3 Mortal Wounds to the wielder of the weapon. Simple, but not simplistic!

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
There are oddities in the weapon rules that don't make a lot of sense to me, specifically Hazardous.

I don't know why they just didn't base it all on Mortal Wounds, rather than Mortal Wounds for some, and "just die" for others.

Means you could have a 4 wound trooper die instantly, but a 4 would character loses 3 wounds.

Yes, I know there aren't all that many multi-wound infantry types, but it's just weirdly inconsistent to create a single rule for this type of weapon that has two different types of outcome (ie. non-scaling insta-death and defined rules Mortal Wounds).

Because the rules don't want to force situations that could leave multiple injured models in one unit or spill over into other models. For example, if a failure always did three MW's, your guardsmen with plasmaguns would explode and kill half of their teammates with them. It's also been this way from 8th onwards, so nothing particularly new in it except for the separation from To Hit rolls.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
There are oddities in the weapon rules that don't make a lot of sense to me, specifically Hazardous.

I don't know why they just didn't base it all on Mortal Wounds, rather than Mortal Wounds for some, and "just die" for others.

Means you could have a 4 wound trooper die instantly, but a 4 would character loses 3 wounds.

Yes, I know there aren't all that many multi-wound infantry types, but it's just weirdly inconsistent to create a single rule for this type of weapon that has two different types of outcome (ie. non-scaling insta-death and defined rules Mortal Wounds).

The only 4-wound unit I can think of that has Hazardous weapons at the moment would be Crisis Suits. The problem with using Mortal Wounds on non-single model units is the wounds would carry over, which is not a desirable outcome. I don't really see a problem with treating characters monsters and vehicles differently, assuming the costs are appropriate for the Hazardous weapons. It also seems likely most Hazardous weapons will have a safer profile they can use if you're worried about the consequences.

Slipspace wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
There are oddities in the weapon rules that don't make a lot of sense to me, specifically Hazardous.

I don't know why they just didn't base it all on Mortal Wounds, rather than Mortal Wounds for some, and "just die" for others.

Means you could have a 4 wound trooper die instantly, but a 4 would character loses 3 wounds.

Yes, I know there aren't all that many multi-wound infantry types, but it's just weirdly inconsistent to create a single rule for this type of weapon that has two different types of outcome (ie. non-scaling insta-death and defined rules Mortal Wounds).

The only 4-wound unit I can think of that has Hazardous weapons at the moment would be Crisis Suits. The problem with using Mortal Wounds on non-single model units is the wounds would carry over, which is not a desirable outcome. I don't really see a problem with treating characters monsters and vehicles differently, assuming the costs are appropriate for the Hazardous weapons. It also seems likely most Hazardous weapons will have a safer profile they can use if you're worried about the consequences.

I don't disagree with their choice but it's not like H.B.M.C. doesn't have a point either here, someone's plasma pistol blowing up in their hands or a psychic backlash has good odds of hitting someone at their elbow/shoulder. The only instance it might cause problems to use MW is it you have something like a tac squad with multiple minis both armed with the plasma and those without, if the plasma gunner blows up and does 3 MW, the 3rd might be placed onto a rando bolter guy, then if the plasma cannon overheats and does 1 MW the rules force you to kill the bolter guy. Same would apply if the first weapon overheats and a guy already has 1 wound missing.

So having written it out, yes, they made the better choice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breton wrote:

No potentially about it you are - and you'd be the one with the dishonesty suggesting one snip covers all the interactions - or that one other cherry picked snip (that ignores the conversations relating to Devastating Wounds, or the fact that Critical Wounds don't become Mortal Wounds "on their own" etc?) is the sum total of what I was asking about and so on. Did you have a bad day today? Your mom yell at you for not cleaning your room or something? Is that why you decided to come out here and troll over something that went away?

Not at all, I felt that given the debate lasted over 10 pages because we didn't have the full rules, providing the full rules was a worthy time to resurface it. Your original post was that the first thing you wanted to read is the section for critical wounds once you had the core rules to answer what they were/did - you're welcome.

Slipspace wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
There are oddities in the weapon rules that don't make a lot of sense to me, specifically Hazardous.

I don't know why they just didn't base it all on Mortal Wounds, rather than Mortal Wounds for some, and "just die" for others.

Means you could have a 4 wound trooper die instantly, but a 4 would character loses 3 wounds.

Yes, I know there aren't all that many multi-wound infantry types, but it's just weirdly inconsistent to create a single rule for this type of weapon that has two different types of outcome (ie. non-scaling insta-death and defined rules Mortal Wounds).

The only 4-wound unit I can think of that has Hazardous weapons at the moment would be Crisis Suits. The problem with using Mortal Wounds on non-single model units is the wounds would carry over, which is not a desirable outcome. I don't really see a problem with treating characters monsters and vehicles differently, assuming the costs are appropriate for the Hazardous weapons. It also seems likely most Hazardous weapons will have a safer profile they can use if you're worried about the consequences.

Many offensive psychic powers seem to have a focused mode that has Hazardous now, as a replacement for perils, so it's likely to be a bit more widespread this edition.

 Valkyrie wrote:
Some interesting tidbits from the leak:

- Strategic reseves now 25% of points of army

The way this is set out in the rules seems to confirm that battle sizes are fixed – apparently 1500 points worth of models is wrongfun?

 Valkyrie wrote:

- Heroic intervention now a 2CP stratagem, counts as a 6" charge

This is not limited to CHARACTERS, any unit in range is viable. Great for setting up protector units. Charging stuff next to Dreadnoughts or Daemon Engines is not advised


Also: Tank Shock!
If things like Dreadnoughts/the Defiler still have their juicy S14 fists, rolling 16 dice to fish for MWs on 5+ before you proceed to trample what's left of the enemy sounds like a fun way to burn a CP.

Snugiraffe wrote:
The way this is set out in the rules seems to confirm that battle sizes are fixed – apparently 1500 points worth of models is wrongfun?

I know I keep using this word, but I really do wish they'd scale these rules a bit more rather than these fixed amounts.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Snugiraffe wrote:
The way this is set out in the rules seems to confirm that battle sizes are fixed – apparently 1500 points worth of models is wrongfun?

I know I keep using this word, but I really do wish they'd scale these rules a bit more rather than these fixed amounts.

Might be my experience of working with humans and organisation coming through here, but I wouldn't trust people to just make their own way. You'd end up with people claiming they don't know what to do and doing nothing, the people who pick obscure values and publicly complain something doesn't work and events that all bicker over size etc.

I agree in principle, but I don't trust humans enough, especially not 40k players.

Snugiraffe wrote:


Also: Tank Shock!
If things like Dreadnoughts/the Defiler still have their juicy S14 fists, rolling 16 dice to fish for MWs on 5+ before you proceed to trample what's left of the enemy sounds like a fun way to burn a CP.

I'm really looking forward to seeing what the Goliath Rockgrinder gets for it.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
There are oddities in the weapon rules that don't make a lot of sense to me, specifically Hazardous.

I don't know why they just didn't base it all on Mortal Wounds, rather than Mortal Wounds for some, and "just die" for others.

Means you could have a 4 wound trooper die instantly, but a 4 would character loses 3 wounds.

Yes, I know there aren't all that many multi-wound infantry types, but it's just weirdly inconsistent to create a single rule for this type of weapon that has two different types of outcome (ie. non-scaling insta-death and defined rules Mortal Wounds).

I'd guess it's a combination of left-overs and character vs rank and file.

Assuming this new Army Building system lasts for a while - and that's a big if - we'll probably have remnants of the previous system showing up for a few editions. Gets Hot/Hazardous being just one of them.

In addition there's a much bigger let-down when your leader-one-of-a-kind self immolates than if one of your Super Trooper does it when you have 3 units of 5. Call it plot armor.

Re: hazardous
Its also worth noting that you can feel no pain your way out of mortal wounds, but not being removed.

So troopers always die, characters & etc can potentially escape unscathed.

---
Also it grinds my gears that weapon abilities are organized by how they fit on the page rather than alphabetical order.

Layout does not trump proper organization!

Voss wrote:

Also it grinds my gears that weapon abilities are organized by how they fit on the page rather than alphabetical order.

Layout does not trump proper organization!

Hardly the biggest thing to complain about.