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.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
They could say that they are leaders that start in their aspect and only leave when the unit is dead.

That's just how the regular "leader" rule works as far as we know. No leaving or joining units over the course of a game.

Side note : with no strat to reattach Leaders are super vulnerable to indirect or aircraft once the bodyguards are gone.

 Valkyrie wrote:

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.

I think rules layout is a valid thing to complain about. It might not be too hard to parse the weapon abilities section, but if the layout of the whole book is more concerned with text-fitting and presentation than actual usability, that could be an issue.

 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.

Here you go:

The Leader rule is... interesting. We saw part of it already (attaching in the pre-battle steps).

But the leader is completely ignored by attacks (unless [Precision comes up]), so a different toughness doesn't matter- you always use the unit's toughness

However, the wording implies that once the last bodyguard dies, any remaining attacks are allocated to the leader regardless of any toughness difference.

Also interesting- the 'lieutenants as second leaders' ability is a property of the 'Lt's' datacard. By the leader rule, only one character can be assigned to a unit.

Voss wrote:
Also interesting- the 'lieutenants as second leaders' ability is a property of the 'Lt's' datacard. By the leader rule, only one character can be assigned to a unit.

Yea they called out that Captains can break that dynamic. I imagine it will be fairly rare.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 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.

Here you go:

That'll depend on target as well though I assume? I.e. you will kill more 1w models.with the claws than the sword.

Dudeface wrote:
That'll depend on target as well though I assume? I.e. you will kill more 1w models.with the claws than the sword.

It assumes W1/2/3 for the GEQ/MEQ/TEQ listings. Not perfectly handling overflow, but close enough.

LC - best against GEQ
PF - MEQ
Sword - meeeeh
TH - TEQ and Monster and flex into invulnerable / high armor
CF - Vehicle

This ties to the rule layout complaint: I can't find anything that specifies the Stratagem layout. This might put my issue with Reinforcements to rest (if 'When' is actually not used to specify the timing window then a timing requirement in 'Target' is acceptable) but raises questions like whether I can resolve the effect without a viable target (or resolve the effect with a different unit) and such. Retroactively, I'm fairly sure I seriously overestimated what these Strategem parts are all about. I expected them to be much better defined than... well... literally nothing.

Also, that 'Grenade' Stratagem looks naughty for my Cadian Shock Troops: ~3 Mortal Wounds for potentially 0 CP sounds like a good deal, tho it is also a lot of 4+-s I must pass...

It’s good that everthing has a job, and nothing is purely overshadowed. If it’s worth speccing a captain to clear chaff is another story, but at least the tool for it does the job.

Relic weapon is weak though. Doesn’t seem to have a niche.

 Nevelon wrote:
It’s good that everthing has a job, and nothing is purely overshadowed. If it’s worth speccing a captain to clear chaff is another story, but at least the tool for it does the job.

Relic weapon is weak though. Doesn’t seem to have a niche.

Yea I think either it's a dud or they wrote the datasheet that the sword comes with gear the other options don't allow. But that would buck the old sheet gear options so who knows.

I'd love to see assault termies and storm shields.

 Nevelon wrote:
It’s good that everthing has a job, and nothing is purely overshadowed. If it’s worth speccing a captain to clear chaff is another story, but at least the tool for it does the job.

Relic weapon is weak though. Doesn’t seem to have a niche.

Yeah... I'd almost always want a power fist. Clearing GEQ isn't a job for a captain and chasing vehicles around doesn't seem terribly practical (especially for the terminator captain). The powerfist is top of class against the most common things I want him to fight, or dipping to the good side of average against outliers.

Nurgle's Gift - -1 toughness as the army wide rule then putting Lethal Hits on all your datasheets seems poorly thought out.

Spread the Sickness - the second part of this also seems to be slightly flawed, enemy units near the objective get the Gift. But either you have units protecting the objective so they would have had the Gift anyway. Or you don't have units protecting the objective so they capture it and turn off the Gift?

EightFoldPath wrote:
Nurgle's Gift - -1 toughness as the army wide rule then putting Lethal Hits on all your datasheets seems poorly thought out.

Hmm... someone really didn't think that one through.

And why are Reaper ACs still S7?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And why are Reaper ACs still S7?

I think they just want to make that one more analogous to the assault cannon. Thing is it's hard to know if S7 is very useful or not.

Given Autocannons went up to S9, it seems like an oversight.

And yes, I know the Reaper AC has 'Devastating Wounds', which might be interesting if it was ore than D1.

Death Guard is up!

Here are my thoughts:

As I suspected the army rule is the contagion ability. I though we might get a choice in the matter as Nurgles Gift, while good, can be situational. Maybe there will be a way to change it in the codex.
It is officially an aura now so abilities that effect auras will effect it now and the range increases faster which is nice.

Spread the sickness is kind of trash. The sticky objective ability really feels like they should be a Plague Marines ability to me and that the detachment rule should have been something else. In addition the fact that the objective gets contagions may not a big factor in the early game as by the time a unit is within range in the first two turns they are likely able to move on to the objective and claim it, turning it off. It would be better if the infection could stay forcing enemy units to have a penalty if they try to take the objective.

Surprised they didn't preview Plague marines but terminators instead. Losing an inch of movement is bad, especially now that they are effected by movement penalties. Lethal hits seems to be the new plague weapons which feels worst to me. Everyone else gets rerolls why not our best one?
Still hate that Combi-weapons have be turned into this abomination. The bubonic blade got the strength of the sword and the AP of the axe so...
T6 and Inv4 is nice of course.

The Malignant Plaguecasters is kind of meh. They didn't get the psychic power I wanted, Miasma of Pestilence, and they can roll a backfire. Pestilent Fallout seems worst then before.

The mortar gets more attack and loses AP, not surprising. It is weird it doesn't have Heavy though.

The stratagem is ok but not great as they require critical hits which aren't reliable.

Not too impressed with it but I will have to wait to see the index and the codex to really judge.

So tl;Dr, layers of rules peeled off, situation army bonus, reduced lethality, bit bland. Welcome to the club same as everyone else.

10th is supposed to be an era of "less" lethality and having DG lean into army wide resiliency should help the army last on the table.

I open GW doesn't slap a massive point increase.

Ya not impressed. Where is the FNP?

 whembly wrote:
... and having DG lean into army wide resiliency...

But they don't, really. They lean into making the enemy less resilient (and then using guns that don't need that rule in the first place).

It's all so poorly thought out.

People who wanted a fnp profile extra in a world of reduced lethality, would you accept being utterly pillow fisted and/or horribly expensive to compensate?

Yeah. Sort of echoing points - but not quite sure why people were initially so positive on the DG release in the other thread.

Blightlords seem to have taken quite a step backwards. Terminators were T4 and 5++ while BL were T5 4++ and had Disgustingly Resilient. Well now Terminators are T5 4++, and Blightlords are T6 4++ but no DR. So its now functionally the same to hit both units with S4, S7-9 and S12 and up attacks. Points, synergies, wait and see etc - but that doesn't seem great.

The Plaguecaster may be okay - although I think you will end up with turns where he doesn't do very much due to 12" range on Plague Wind.

Armywide sticky objectives is useful - but when other armies are getting this ability on basic troops, and an impactful detachment ability, I'm not sure its going to be that great. Don't worry - those BL can tag an objective, and then waddle their 4" move up the table? Not really seeing it.

The Plagueburst Mortar has gone from an "anti-anything weapon" (S8 AP-2 2 damage) to a sort of confused S8 AP-1 2 damage profile. Too low S for vehicles, too low AP to MEQ.

Dudeface wrote:
People who wanted a fnp profile extra in a world of reduced lethality, would you accept being utterly pillow fisted and/or horribly expensive to compensate?

A single extra point of T really isn't a lot for the Marine variant specifically known for resilience, though.

They could have done more than that without making them so skewed into toughness that they have to become offensively weak for their points to compensate.

Boosykes wrote:
Ya not impressed. Where is the FNP?

I don't think they should get FNP, but the rules for DG are very meh.

The Plague replacement of Lethal Hits doesn't give a crap about -1T.

I hope that what we're going to see is that characters joining will grant FNP or other abilities that will make everything come together, but right now this is the worst preview.

 catbarf wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
People who wanted a fnp profile extra in a world of reduced lethality, would you accept being utterly pillow fisted and/or horribly expensive to compensate?

A single extra point of T really isn't a lot for the Marine variant specifically known for resilience, though.

They could have done more than that without making them so skewed into toughness that they have to become offensively weak for their points to compensate.

Your options are T, W, Sv, or FnP. If we want to streamline life a little, damage reduction is a conditional extra wounds, FnP is also a form of conditional extra wounds. So what would you have them do without giving them 3w plague marines via one method or another? Or is that the answer? If so what points does that attract?

Tyel wrote:
Blightlords seem to have taken quite a step backwards. Terminators were T4 and 5++ while BL were T5 4++ and had Disgustingly Resilient. Well now Terminators are T5 4++, and Blightlords are T6 4++ but no DR. So its now functionally the same to hit both units with S4, S7-9 and S12 and up attacks. Points, synergies, wait and see etc - but that doesn't seem great.

They dodge S10 doubling them out which includes Battlecannon, Exorcist, Eldar ML, and heavy beamer. There's tons of S5/6 in the previews as well -- and lots of S5 melee.

I think BL Termies are fine. I just have no idea how they'll make Plague Marines worthwhile and bring it all together.

Dudeface wrote:

Your options are T, W, Sv, or FnP. If we want to streamline life a little, damage reduction is a conditional extra wounds, FnP is also a form of conditional extra wounds. So what would you have them do without giving them 3w plague marines via one method or another? Or is that the answer? If so what points does that attract?

IMHO that is kinda the answer. 3W Plague Marines are mathematically mostly the same as giving them a 5+ FNP, but without needing the extra roll.

And IMHO Plague Marines should be expensive.

Question - what OC do people think Poxwalkers will end up with?

 Dysartes wrote:
Question - what OC do people think Poxwalkers will end up with?

Hopefully 1. But I could see a convincing case made for 0.

OC 2 seems unreasonable for how little they have left in the way of a mind, and promotes taking them rather than plague marines.

I could see them being OC 0 as a cheap chaff unit