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.

 Tyran wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

New rapid fire battle cannon kills 3 new blightlords on average.

Old rapid fire battle cannon killed 0-1 old blightlords on average.

Make of that what you will.

My math gives me 2 dead blightlords.

Roll (average): 2D6+6 (13 shots), 3+ hits (8.67 hits), 3+ wounds (5.78 wounds), 3+ save (1.93 failed saves).

You are right. I calculated a 3+ save to be a 2/3 chance to deal damage which is obviously just me being stupid.

leopard wrote:

 Souleater wrote:
They need to keep playing testing against the first, say, four codexes in each edition. That would have a better chance at maintaining an even playing field.

the fact that over how many editions now have they not done that and used "ohhh new shiny!!!" to sell models, to then nerf them slightly before they repeat the cycle tends to suggest they won't.

whats needed is for on a desk at GW right now there to be the outline rules for all factions already laid out and designed as a single set

won't happen, this is the 10th edition, most games are pretty good by the 2nd and more or less as good as they will get by the 3rd

You are asking gw to stop their successful marketing trick and take less profits. Yeah that's going to work.

You're assuming that being unable to maintain stock for even pre-orders is a "successful marketing trick", or even intentional.

tneva82 wrote:

leopard wrote:

 Souleater wrote:
They need to keep playing testing against the first, say, four codexes in each edition. That would have a better chance at maintaining an even playing field.

the fact that over how many editions now have they not done that and used "ohhh new shiny!!!" to sell models, to then nerf them slightly before they repeat the cycle tends to suggest they won't.

whats needed is for on a desk at GW right now there to be the outline rules for all factions already laid out and designed as a single set

won't happen, this is the 10th edition, most games are pretty good by the 2nd and more or less as good as they will get by the 3rd

You are asking gw to stop their successful marketing trick and take less profits. Yeah that's going to work.

This is TOO THIS DAY, the single dumbest myth about GW's releases.

Tell me, how many Gladiator tanks do you think were purchased because of their rules? Storm Speeders? Repulsors on release?

What about The hurricane bunker thing? The pogo stick turret? Literally every primaris model in the first 2 years of Primaris releases? The Sisters of Battle Castigator? What about the many MANY instances of new codexes coming out worse than the old ones?

People remember the Custodes through Tyranids run and Drukhari/Admech dropping in the same month and think the end of ninth was just powercreep, powercreep, powercreep. Meanwhile Sisters, Genestealer Cults, GK, AND Tsons all came out in that period and were mediocre.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

New rapid fire battle cannon kills 3 new blightlords on average.

Old rapid fire battle cannon killed 0-1 old blightlords on average.

Make of that what you will.

My math gives me 2 dead blightlords.

Roll (average): 2D6+6 (13 shots), 3+ hits (8.67 hits), 3+ wounds (5.78 wounds), 3+ save (1.93 failed saves).

You are right. I calculated a 3+ save to be a 2/3 chance to deal damage which is obviously just me being stupid.

If it matters, you forgot to add in 1 extra attack for Blast. Every 5 models adds 1 Attack. Just for accuracy's sake.


So something I haven't seen mentioned anywhere is that Nurgle's Gift stacks. It says within range of this unit, not within range of an unit. Feel free to contest that objective and enjoy having -2T. Also, if you take any Plauge Marines in a CSM detachment they lose the ability.

ERJAK 809431 11535682 wrote:
People remember the Custodes through Tyranids run and Drukhari/Admech dropping in the same month and think the end of ninth was just powercreep, powercreep, powercreep. Meanwhile Sisters, Genestealer Cults, GK, AND Tsons all came out in that period and were mediocre.

Hey GK were fun, but then they cut our second GM and released armies that kill NDKs too easy. Plus from a GK players perspective even if it wasn't DE tier of mind blowing good. Comparing to the 8th ed codex or the 8th codex being run in 9th, it was an improvment, especialy if someone doesn't like terminator models. The GK from 9th required practicaly no investment to be run as a better army with better rules, comparing to what people run in 8th. Maybe some people had to buy a librarian and a 5th NDK, and that is all.

@Karol

I know you don't have the option of playing anything but Matched in your meta, but everytime I see some one make a statement like this I have to remind them:

The rule that took away your second GM was a Matched-play-only rule.

Just like all the people upset about Ro3 always forget that it was only ever a Matched Play rule.

Just like the loss of Air Calvary was Matched play only.

Like I said, I know that doesn't help you, because no one will Crusade with you. But for accuracy sake, #NotAllWaysToPlay.

BomBomHotdog wrote:

So something I haven't seen mentioned anywhere is that Nurgle's Gift stacks. It says within range of this unit, not within range of an unit. Feel free to contest that objective and enjoy having -2T.

That presumes Auras stack. We haven't seen those rules yet, but I doubt they do- its hugely problematic, and not just for death guard.
Additionally, the next sentence in the article implies its just -1 for being in contagion range:

Nurgle’s Gift blesses every Death Guard unit with an aura that increases over the course of the battle. Enemy units in Contagion Range have their Toughness reduced by 1 as unnatural plagues overwhelm them

If it does stack, a MSU death guard army can drop the entire enemy army to T0 once in range. So... obviously it does not. That's simply non-functional as a game mechanic.


----

Also, if you take any Plauge Marines in a CSM detachment they lose the ability.

Its a faction ability, so obviously yes. They'd have Dark Pacts instead (if PM can be taken in a CSM army)

But with the way datacards are designed, any 'plague marines' that CSM can take will be in their pack of cards/codex, with dark pact already in place as their faction ability, and 'heretic astartes' as their faction keyword. Sharing units across factions isn't really viable with this design.

Voss wrote:

BomBomHotdog wrote:

So something I haven't seen mentioned anywhere is that Nurgle's Gift stacks. It says within range of this unit, not within range of an unit. Feel free to contest that objective and enjoy having -2T.

That presumes Auras stack. We haven't seen those rules yet, but I doubt they do- its hugely problematic, and not just for death guard.
Additionally, the next sentence in the article implies its just -1 for being in contagion range:

Nurgle’s Gift blesses every Death Guard unit with an aura that increases over the course of the battle. Enemy units in Contagion Range have their Toughness reduced by 1 as unnatural plagues overwhelm them

If it does stack, a MSU death guard army can drop the entire enemy army to T0 once in range. So... obviously it does not. That's simply non-functional as a game mechanic.

Assuming this isn't an elaborate troll job, you an only be affected by the same Aura once.

PenitentJake wrote:
@Karol

I know you don't have the option of playing anything but Matched in your meta, but everytime I see some one make a statement like this I have to remind them:

The rule that took away your second GM was a Matched-play-only rule.

Just like all the people upset about Ro3 always forget that it was only ever a Matched Play rule.

Just like the loss of Air Calvary was Matched play only.

Like I said, I know that doesn't help you, because no one will Crusade with you. But for accuracy sake, #NotAllWaysToPlay.

For most people matched play is still going to be the standard so Karol's post is accurate. Just because you don't play standard matched play doesn't mean you aren't a minority.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

For most people matched play is still going to be the standard so Karol's post is accurate. Just because you don't play standard matched play doesn't mean you aren't a minority.

I'm fully aware that I'm a minority.

That doesn't mean that double GMs aren't still available in Crusade and Open play.

I'd just like people who complain about 9th to actually say "I am complaining about 9th edition Matched play" when that's what they are actually doing. People fail to do this so often that there are whole swaths of people who probably don't even know that their complaints don't universally apply.

Specificity is good when people are trying to communicate asynchronously in a medium that doesn't allow for paraverbal communication and proxemics.

Most 9th Ed play to most people was matched play though, so pointing out "Oh, that was a matched play rule only!" is a distinction without a difference.

I mean you might as well be saying "Oh, but that rule was only relevant in 98% of games!".

PenitentJake wrote:
I'm fully aware that I'm a minority.

That doesn't mean that double GMs aren't still available in Crusade and Open play.

I'd just like people who complain about 9th to actually say "I am complaining about 9th edition Matched play" when that's what they are actually doing. People fail to do this so often that there are whole swaths of people who probably don't even know that their complaints don't universally apply.

Specificity is good when people are trying to communicate asynchronously in a medium that doesn't allow for paraverbal communication and proxemics.

You're just being a pedant. There is very little discussion of anything outside of matched play on this site so there's no reason to make a distinction.

 alextroy wrote:

Voss wrote:

BomBomHotdog wrote:

So something I haven't seen mentioned anywhere is that Nurgle's Gift stacks. It says within range of this unit, not within range of an unit. Feel free to contest that objective and enjoy having -2T.

That presumes Auras stack. We haven't seen those rules yet, but I doubt they do- its hugely problematic, and not just for death guard.
Additionally, the next sentence in the article implies its just -1 for being in contagion range:

Nurgle’s Gift blesses every Death Guard unit with an aura that increases over the course of the battle. Enemy units in Contagion Range have their Toughness reduced by 1 as unnatural plagues overwhelm them

If it does stack, a MSU death guard army can drop the entire enemy army to T0 once in range. So... obviously it does not. That's simply non-functional as a game mechanic.

Assuming this isn't an elaborate troll job, you an only be affected by the same Aura once.

Spoiler:

Aha. I figured that had to be somewhere, but wasn't sure if it was on the leaked pages, and didn't have any luck scrolling through the mess.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
I'm fully aware that I'm a minority.

That doesn't mean that double GMs aren't still available in Crusade and Open play.

I'd just like people who complain about 9th to actually say "I am complaining about 9th edition Matched play" when that's what they are actually doing. People fail to do this so often that there are whole swaths of people who probably don't even know that their complaints don't universally apply.

Specificity is good when people are trying to communicate asynchronously in a medium that doesn't allow for paraverbal communication and proxemics.

You're just being a pedant. There is very little discussion of anything outside of matched play on this site so there's no reason to make a distinction.

A large amount of discussions here are agnostic about matched/crusade. Most of the rules overlap between the two, and people are using the same codexes. It is worth pointing out that there are other options. “You can/can’t do that” sometimes needs to have a footnote.

Matched might be the majority here on Dakka, but it is not exclusively the only way we play.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Most 9th Ed play to most people was matched play though, so pointing out "Oh, that was a matched play rule only!" is a distinction without a difference.

I mean you might as well be saying "Oh, but that rule was only relevant in 98% of games!".

If Crusade was as unpopular as you seem to state that it is, do you think GW would have carried it over to 10th?

Now you might mean "Most 9th Ed play to most people ON DAKKA was Matched play" - that's 100% true; I've only seen I think three people on this forum stand up for Crusade.

And it is also 100% true to say that other sources seem to indicate that Matched is the most popular too- the big Goonhammer survey from a while back confirms this to be true, for example. But they said that 20-30% of their respondents preferred Crusade (if memory serves correctly). This figure seems more accurate, because it supports GW's decision to keep Crusade. Print runs for Crusade are obviously smaller for Crusade than for matched, but the product wouldn't have been carried forward into a new edition if it didn't make money for the company in the last edition, so somebody's playing it.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

You're just being a pedant.

Honestly? Maybe a little.

Especially since my response was to Karol- I know English isn't his first language (but holy crow dude, your English got way, way better after that big break you took a while back- Way to go!).

I really like Karol's posts. I specifically prefaced my post to indicate that I understood the situation he's in- we've had these same discussions so many times that we can anticipate each other's posts- I mean you guys all know as soon as you say my name there's a 50/50 shot I'm going to be talking Crusade, right?

But it's obvious that both you and HBMC want me to shut up about this, so I will.

 Nevelon wrote:


A large amount of discussions here are agnostic about matched/crusade. Most of the rules overlap between the two, and people are using the same codexes. It is worth pointing out that there are other options. “You can/can’t do that” sometimes needs to have a footnote.

Matched might be the majority here on Dakka, but it is not exclusively the only way we play.

Thanks for that bro. I feel like I didn't entirely waste my keystrokes.

But I've already agreed to let it go, because neither of us are going to make headway in this discussion. Cheers!

PenitentJake wrote:
If Crusade was as unpopular as you seem to state that it is, do you think GW would have carried it over to 10th?

PenitentJake wrote:
But it's obvious that [you] want me to shut up about this, so I will.

Please don't put words in my mouth, or pout dramatically like this when people point out that your caveat ain't much of one.

I was trying to be nice, but what 5th said is right: You are being pedantic about this.

I like Crusade. I champion Crusade. I think it's a great idea and I'm really happy that they're keeping it going in 10th. But I also realise that most games are matched play and that's the way it is, so saying "But it was a matched play rule only!" might as well just be "It was a rule only used by most of the people playing the game!".

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
One theory that I've heard is that any abilities similar to that of DR might be connected to the Nurgle keyword.

DR? Diminishing Returns?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
At first glance that battlecannon seems like a huge glow-up. Certainly more punishing than the old one, which always felt limp. Is it too much though?

Given the Range/Rapid Fire interaction? Probably. The chances that thing won't get Rapid Fire is pretty slim.

On the flipside, the OC numbers look like they might still be too low - it loses to 5 Cadian Shock Troops. Armiger OC should (probably) be floating around somewhere around 20 at that point they're tying against 10 of What-Used-To-Be-Troops-with-OC2 each - Tacticals, Berserkers, Sisters, Guardsmen and so on - and adjust that based on what skewing "Full Armiger" can and can't do against prototypical Guard/Ork/Nids or Marine/Khorne/etc armies.

I'm a little confused by the Chainbreaker Multi-laser - unless Super Heavy Walker or some other rule lets him shoot both, the edge cases where you'd pick that over the low intensity las-impulsor are pretty few and far between.

Breton wrote:

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
One theory that I've heard is that any abilities similar to that of DR might be connected to the Nurgle keyword.

DR? Diminishing Returns?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
At first glance that battlecannon seems like a huge glow-up. Certainly more punishing than the old one, which always felt limp. Is it too much though?

Given the Range/Rapid Fire interaction? Probably. The chances that thing won't get Rapid Fire is pretty slim.

On the flipside, the OC numbers look like they might still be too low - it loses to 5 Cadian Shock Troops. Armiger OC should (probably) be floating around somewhere around 20 at that point they're tying against 10 of What-Used-To-Be-Troops-with-OC2 each - Tacticals, Berserkers, Sisters, Guardsmen and so on - and adjust that based on what skewing "Full Armiger" can and can't do against prototypical Guard/Ork/Nids or Marine/Khorne/etc armies.

I'm a little confused by the Chainbreaker Multi-laser - unless Super Heavy Walker or some other rule lets him shoot both, the edge cases where you'd pick that over the low intensity las-impulsor are pretty few and far between.

Disgustingly Resilient.

Correct me if I am wrong and this has changed in 10th but you can shoot with all of a models ranged weapons when you shoot so you shouldn't need to choose between shooting the Multi-laser and the las-impulsor.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
If Crusade was as unpopular as you seem to state that it is, do you think GW would have carried it over to 10th?

PenitentJake wrote:
But it's obvious that [you] want me to shut up about this, so I will.

Please don't put words in my mouth, or pout dramatically like this when people point out that your caveat ain't much of one.

I was trying to be nice, but what 5th said is right: You are being pedantic about this.

I like Crusade. I champion Crusade. I think it's a great idea and I'm really happy that they're keeping it going in 10th. But I also realise that most games are matched play and that's the way it is, so saying "But it was a matched play rule only!" might as well just be "It was a rule only used by most of the people playing the game!".

Polls in various communities have shown that crusade is the second most played mode, only slightly less popular than the most recent tournament pack and slightly more popular than Tempest of War and playing matched play directly from the book. The vast majority (80+%) play in one of those four ways, though boarding patrol might have taken a chunk out of that.

That said, most people playing crusade adapt the balance dataslates and limitations from matched played (and use points) because - despite the opinion of a few individuals - those balance improvements tend to lead to better narrative games as well.

 Jidmah wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
If Crusade was as unpopular as you seem to state that it is, do you think GW would have carried it over to 10th?

PenitentJake wrote:
But it's obvious that [you] want me to shut up about this, so I will.

Please don't put words in my mouth, or pout dramatically like this when people point out that your caveat ain't much of one.

I was trying to be nice, but what 5th said is right: You are being pedantic about this.

I like Crusade. I champion Crusade. I think it's a great idea and I'm really happy that they're keeping it going in 10th. But I also realise that most games are matched play and that's the way it is, so saying "But it was a matched play rule only!" might as well just be "It was a rule only used by most of the people playing the game!".

Polls in various communities have shown that crusade is the second most played mode, only slightly less popular than the most recent tournament pack and slightly more popular than Tempest of War and playing matched play directly from the book. The vast majority (80+%) play in one of those four ways, though boarding patrol might have taken a chunk out of that.

That said, most people playing crusade adapt the balance dataslates and limitations from matched played (and use points) because - despite the opinion of a few individuals - those balance improvements tend to lead to better narrative games as well.

Hardly surprising, afterall it's difficult to have a narrative when the game collapses due to certain units or mechanics or rules.

Sadly though alot of these changes wouldn't have been necessary if gw did test more completly...before release and dropped the stretched out rules-release cycle in favour for a rules all at once approach.

The later will probably never happen though, since the rules are the recurring spending factor gw has.

 alextroy wrote:
Assuming this isn't an elaborate troll job, you an only be affected by the same Aura once.

Spoiler:

Argh. Random characteristic still determined "when required". In aos that has resulted arquments in when it is required...

At least move got changed to when model picked to move. Pretty sure here clearly you get to roll before determining whether to run. In aos side move is also determine when required and arquments fly is m characteristic required to decide whether to run or not...

Still whatabout 1/phase bonus to shooting. Before or after knowing # of shots?

2 years aos players been debating and sent questions to gw and still no response.

 KingGarland wrote:

Breton wrote:

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
One theory that I've heard is that any abilities similar to that of DR might be connected to the Nurgle keyword.

DR? Diminishing Returns?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
At first glance that battlecannon seems like a huge glow-up. Certainly more punishing than the old one, which always felt limp. Is it too much though?

Given the Range/Rapid Fire interaction? Probably. The chances that thing won't get Rapid Fire is pretty slim.

On the flipside, the OC numbers look like they might still be too low - it loses to 5 Cadian Shock Troops. Armiger OC should (probably) be floating around somewhere around 20 at that point they're tying against 10 of What-Used-To-Be-Troops-with-OC2 each - Tacticals, Berserkers, Sisters, Guardsmen and so on - and adjust that based on what skewing "Full Armiger" can and can't do against prototypical Guard/Ork/Nids or Marine/Khorne/etc armies.

I'm a little confused by the Chainbreaker Multi-laser - unless Super Heavy Walker or some other rule lets him shoot both, the edge cases where you'd pick that over the low intensity las-impulsor are pretty few and far between.

Disgustingly Resilient.

Correct me if I am wrong and this has changed in 10th but you can shoot with all of a models ranged weapons when you shoot so you shouldn't need to choose between shooting the Multi-laser and the las-impulsor.

You can't with melee - I haven't seen yet if that applies to the guns as well.

From the leaked Rulebook images, ýou can shoot with all of your ranged weapons.

tneva82 809431 11535874 wrote:

2 years aos players been debating and sent questions to gw and still no response.

Slow and steady, that is how GW operates most of the time. Took them 3 years to notice that Abhore the Witch lets you double dip on kill secondaries vs "magic" armies. lol

so I have been thinking about this a bit.

At first I saw the combining of rules and loss of weapon types as bad, I like the granular nature of having all sorts of options, gear ect. on a model, I do not like that GW over the last few editions has forced monopose models on us and due to that removed options.

And then I played battletech again and it hit me, why is it that I do not care as much that each model I have in battletech has the correct loadout on the model when compared to the mech sheet and why do I not just apply this mentality to my 40k army.

So I did, this has allowed me to start kitbashing together all sorts of things now, Volkite Agressors, Plasma incinerators for my Hellblasters, Lightning claw and thunder hammer on my Gravis captain, due to the
homogenization of the data sheets I can go nuts as the model is no longer a character, its a token, a representative of the data sheet, as long as the loadout is vaguely correct the rest does not matter anymore with 10th.

I know this comment is out of nowhere but I thought I would share a musing.

 Formosa wrote:
why is it that I do not care as much that each model I have in battletech has the correct loadout on the model when compared to the mech sheet and why do I not just apply this mentality to my 40k army

I tie the difference to the compared price tag and detail on my Battletech and 40k models. I do remember when Battletech tried to go 40k with Dark Age and have premium-priced but high(ish)-detail models that - surprise surprise - had the rules to match their loadout.

 Formosa wrote:
so I have been thinking about this a bit.

At first I saw the combining of rules and loss of weapon types as bad, I like the granular nature of having all sorts of options, gear ect. on a model, I do not like that GW over the last few editions has forced monopose models on us and due to that removed options.

And then I played battletech again and it hit me, why is it that I do not care as much that each model I have in battletech has the correct loadout on the model when compared to the mech sheet and why do I not just apply this mentality to my 40k army.

So I did, this has allowed me to start kitbashing together all sorts of things now, Volkite Agressors, Plasma incinerators for my Hellblasters, Lightning claw and thunder hammer on my Gravis captain, due to the
homogenization of the data sheets I can go nuts as the model is no longer a character, its a token, a representative of the data sheet, as long as the loadout is vaguely correct the rest does not matter anymore with 10th.

I know this comment is out of nowhere but I thought I would share a musing.

You can follow the spirit of WYSWYG without literally being WYSWYG.

If you have a captain with a pair of CC weapons, what I see is a blender who’s going to atomize anything he touches. Which is what I get. Doe it mater that his datasheet lists a powerfirst and powersword and what you have on the table is TH/LC? Not significantly. The mini delivers on its promise.

Now it he’s equipped with some sort of relic blaster and has a notable shooting attack? That’s not on the model, and could lead to gotcha moments where what was seen is not what was gotten.

And it’s less of an issue for non-marine armies. Does the average person know the difference between scything talons, rending claws, bone swords, or crushing claws? When going over my list at the start of the game I note units with general roles. “These guys have the talons that cash out infantry, this one has the anti tank gun. Big guy over here shoots plasma across the table” WYSWYG only goes so far. What they see is a horde of bugs with random unknown stabby and shooty things. But they have no idea what they are looking at. So in the spirit of fairness (and to save them half an hour of reading my codex) I just tell them what they are getting.

With marines people actually know what they are looking at, so when they get something else it can cause trouble.

 Nevelon wrote:
Does it matter that his datasheet lists a powerfist and powersword and what you have on the table is TH/LC? Not significantly.

I would say this is pretty disappointing. I assume when my Special Snowflake Badass faces off with another Special Snowflake Badass then something special and badass happens, not just a generic exchange of generic blows that can be perfectly replicated with Cookie Cutters too. Extra points if my Special Snowflake Badass faces off with a Cookie Cutter and gets his butt handed to him because neither his specialness nor his badassitude matters in any shape or form.

 Nevelon wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
so I have been thinking about this a bit.

At first I saw the combining of rules and loss of weapon types as bad, I like the granular nature of having all sorts of options, gear ect. on a model, I do not like that GW over the last few editions has forced monopose models on us and due to that removed options.

And then I played battletech again and it hit me, why is it that I do not care as much that each model I have in battletech has the correct loadout on the model when compared to the mech sheet and why do I not just apply this mentality to my 40k army.

So I did, this has allowed me to start kitbashing together all sorts of things now, Volkite Agressors, Plasma incinerators for my Hellblasters, Lightning claw and thunder hammer on my Gravis captain, due to the
homogenization of the data sheets I can go nuts as the model is no longer a character, its a token, a representative of the data sheet, as long as the loadout is vaguely correct the rest does not matter anymore with 10th.

I know this comment is out of nowhere but I thought I would share a musing.

You can follow the spirit of WYSWYG without literally being WYSWYG.

If you have a captain with a pair of CC weapons, what I see is a blender who’s going to atomize anything he touches. Which is what I get. Doe it mater that his datasheet lists a powerfirst and powersword and what you have on the table is TH/LC? Not significantly. The mini delivers on its promise.

Now it he’s equipped with some sort of relic blaster and has a notable shooting attack? That’s not on the model, and could lead to gotcha moments where what was seen is not what was gotten.

And it’s less of an issue for non-marine armies. Does the average person know the difference between scything talons, rending claws, bone swords, or crushing claws? When going over my list at the start of the game I note units with general roles. “These guys have the talons that cash out infantry, this one has the anti tank gun. Big guy over here shoots plasma across the table” WYSWYG only goes so far. What they see is a horde of bugs with random unknown stabby and shooty things. But they have no idea what they are looking at. So in the spirit of fairness (and to save them half an hour of reading my codex) I just tell them what they are getting.

With marines people actually know what they are looking at, so when they get something else it can cause trouble.

Yep all completely fair, its more weapon swaps to represent the thing than just having a totally made up loadout that does not exist in the rules, I want to customise not confuse or "Gotcha" people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AtoMaki wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
Does it matter that his datasheet lists a powerfist and powersword and what you have on the table is TH/LC? Not significantly.

I would say this is pretty disappointing. I assume when my Special Snowflake Badass faces off with another Special Snowflake Badass then something special and badass happens, not just a generic exchange of generic blows that can be perfectly replicated with Cookie Cutters too. Extra points if my Special Snowflake Badass faces off with a Cookie Cutter and gets his butt handed to him because neither his specialness nor his badassitude matters in any shape or form.

Also a fair comment but I think that is where Crusade is going to come in, my assumption is that Crusade is going to be expanded with more relics and gear and that is the thing that will allow our models to get their character, not perfect I grant you but if I really want to go whole hoc on making my guy, I play Heresy.