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.

Well, now this one is sorted. What's next?

I guess it depends on what the level of acceptable becomes.

I think a 5 man Possessed unit for example can approach 10 mortal wounds (plus a bunch of other regular attacks) with the "undivided, reroll everything" stratagem. Even regular Slaanesh for 5+ Sustained hits will probably see you getting 6-8 mortal wounds which will do a number on most things. If they remain around 140~ points they will be taking out units currently costing 200 (for example 5 Terminators, a lot of the bigger tanks).

Equally at 140 points they aren't exactly a ruinous loss if they die - and at 3 wounds T6 3+/5++ they aren't that fragile. A blob of 10 (with an optional MoP) is probably overkill (giving rise to bad trades etc) - but they'd be popping Knights.

If suddenly possessed were 50 points a model while Terminators were say 30, they'd be rubbish, but it seems unlikely that this will be the case.

Yea, I'm sort of waiting on the melee focused issues, because those units have to get there and I have no idea how easy that will be.

I know it's a low bar, but props to GW for their unexpectedly fast reaction to the problem.
Yes, it should have been caught in playtesting but its good they patched it before it could cause any actual issues

Ah, the upside of digital rules rears its head.

Personally I think GW is going to have to buff "Melta" weapons to be Anti-Monster & Anti-Vehicle.

For one of the all-time premier anti-armor weapons (iirc Multi-meltas in 2nd edition dealt 1d20 damage) they really seem lack-luster in 10th edition.

Melta weapons are just anti-elite now, rather than anti-vehicle.

New edition, new role. Like how grav guns went from anti-elite to anti-vehicle for some reason.

Multi-meltas are still kinda ridiculous with how many shots they get. They either equal or outperform lascannons against most targets.

The writers not knowing how the kits are actually laid-out now seems to be a permanent feature working as intended.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Well, now this one is sorted. What's next?

Wow, props to GW for fixing that issue so quickly. Hopefully they will be as quick to fix issues when more (I am certain there will be more) pop up

The -1 damage cap needs to be addressed.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
The -1 damage cap needs to be addressed.

Mmm, yea. I imagine we'll see that in the commentary. Bullgryns were either written by a totally different person or there's inconsistency on purpose. It will be interesting to see which way it goes, but gut tells me min 1 across the board ( and someone rumors that a youtube channel said as much ).

Taabletop titan guys said on yesterday game "we have good reason to believe it was not intended". (might not be 100% accurate quote

tneva82 wrote:
Taabletop titan guys said on yesterday game "we have good reason to believe it was not intended". (might not be 100% accurate quote

You'd never know with GW on whether they meant something or not.

IMHO currently the biggest question is how keywords work in an Attached unit.

 Lord Clinto wrote:
Personally I think GW is going to have to buff "Melta" weapons to be Anti-Monster & Anti-Vehicle.

For one of the all-time premier anti-armor weapons (iirc Multi-meltas in 2nd edition dealt 1d20 damage) they really seem lack-luster in 10th edition.

Multimeltas did 2D12 in 2nd. They were nasty af.

 Rihgu wrote:
Melta weapons are just anti-elite now, rather than anti-vehicle.

New edition, new role. Like how grav guns went from anti-elite to anti-vehicle for some reason.

I'd still use Multimeltas for anti-vehicle. The multiple shots and high AP is still great.

The changes to Grav are . . . Unexpected. Although it did require adjustment as it was over-competetive as a choice. It gains a bit in the anti-elite role with D3 though. A single shot will kill a 3W Gravis now.

 Tyran wrote:
IMHO currently the biggest question is how keywords work in an Attached unit.

If they don't apply, a lot of stuff (like [anti-psyker]) is completely meaningless (barring a few exceptions like grey knights).

Logically, since you're combining the units, all keywords from both units apply. They still need to state it, like the 1 damage minimum and rounding (rounding up is only mentioned in reference to how to roll a d3, and with [blast] you round down)

But if they apply, you get some very weird interactions.

 Rihgu wrote:
Melta weapons are just anti-elite now, rather than anti-vehicle.

New edition, new role. Like how grav guns went from anti-elite to anti-vehicle for some reason.

And that's fine.

Sure, it doesn't make sense that after 10 editions they've decided to change the role of one of the most prolific and storied anti-tank weapons in the game, but whatever - let's go with it! - and we'll say that the change to the meltagun is entirely intentional and it is meant to be an anti-elite weapon. I think it steps on the toes of what Plasma weapons are meant to do, but as I said, let's go with it and accept this as inentional. Fine.

Alongside this, your other anti-tank weapons (like the equally as prolific and common Lascannon) change to keep up with the changes in toughness values, and, if anything, further define the difference between an anti-tank and an anti-elite weapon. Also fine.

But Sisters don't have any other anti-tank weapons to increase and keep pace. Melta weaponry was their thing, and now they've been left behind. Do you see the issue?

If you choose to change the role of a near-universal weapon type for every army, then you have be aware that it might create some serious gaps. Other armies have Lascannons and Krak Missiles and other things that have changed, so the loss of melta-weaponry as a premiere tank killer isn't really that bitter a pill to swallow. For Sisters the buck stopped with Multi-Meltas.

I mean, my faction has literally nothing above S8.
Decent amount of Lethal Hits, but no dice manipulation like Sisters have. And highest damage is just 1d6, which is on ONE model.

Edit: A GUO kitted for tank-murdering does...

6 attacks
4 hits, 1 crit (with Lethal Hits)
4/3 plus 1 wounds, 7/3 total
14/9 failed saves at d6 damage apiece
49/9 or 5.44 damage from the Bilesword

Bileblade has Extra Attacks, so...
3 attacks
2 hits, 1/2 crits (with Lethal Hits)
2/3 plus 1/2 wounds, 7/6 total
14/18 or 7/9 failed saves
14/9 or 1.56 damage from the Blade

7 damage total to a Rhino. From the single deadliest tankbuster in my army. Admittedly, he does have Putrid Vomit still, which adds 1.44 damage, for 8.44 damage total.

A unit of Paragon Warsuits, meanwhile, does...

6 Multimelta Shots
4 hits
2 wounds
2 failed saves for d6 damage each (d6+2 if in half range)
7 or 11 damage, depending on range

3 Grenade Shots
2 hits
3/2 wounds
1 failed save for d3 damage
2 damage

9 War Mace swings
9/2 hits
18/6 or 3 wounds
3/2 failed saves for 3 damage each
9/2 or 4.5 damage

So they can body a single Rhino in shooting if in half-range with half their guns, and their remaining damage does 3/4ths of a GUO's damage to another one.

 Tyran wrote:
But if they apply, you get some very weird interactions.

Such as?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
If you choose to change the role of a near-universal weapon type for every army, then you have be aware that it might create some serious gaps. Other armies have Lascannons and Krak Missiles and other things that have changed, so the loss of melta-weaponry as a premiere tank killer isn't really that bitter a pill to swallow. For Sisters the buck stopped with Multi-Meltas.

Melta still does work and Sisters are one of the better factions at using it thanks to their rerolls and plentiful access to it. You'll need to adapt, perhaps by adding things like transports to get the melta where it needs to go, but it'll still do the job once you get it there.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
But if they apply, you get some very weird interactions.

Such as?

Biggest issue for me is that adding your character's keywords to their unit (especially psyker) is a massive risk. The wide availability of anti psyker weapons means that simply putting a psyker into a unit makes that whole unit extremely vulnerable.

A librarian in a terminator squad means the hounds of morkai will annihilate the squad if they also count as psykers. This is an example of a very expensive negative interaction.

Farseers won't survive the first round if their ablative squad also counts as psykers - T3 4+ wound vs anti psyker X will see them mown down.

The character keyword applying to the whole unit also creates weird interactions - how do you resolve attacks against a unit of character models? According to the leader rule, attacks cannot be allocated to Character models in attached units - which if units combine keywords means every model in the unit has the Character keyword and thus can't be targeted at all unless by precision weapons.

Thus a psyker character technically would make their bodyguards impossible to target but also very vulnerable to a precision anti psyker weapon that can target them....


Just the way the precision rule and the the leader rule function make me suspect that units don't combine their keywords.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
But if they apply, you get some very weird interactions.

Such as?

Monster becoming able to move through and upon ruins by gaining the Infantry keyword, Precision being able to snipe any model within an unit (not just the Leader) as they all gain Character keyword or Flying characters giving Fly to their units.

 Rihgu wrote:
Melta weapons are just anti-elite now, rather than anti-vehicle.

New edition, new role. Like how grav guns went from anti-elite to anti-vehicle for some reason.

And it was an extremely poor choice because pre-existing factions and their options were built around the previous roles. Look at what it did to Sisters. Grav should have gotten Anti-Monster 4+ (or so) and Melta and LasCannon should have gotten Anti Vehicle (or Anti-both) 4+ or so.

 Hellebore wrote:
Biggest issue for me is that adding your character's keywords to their unit (especially psyker) is a massive risk. The wide availability of anti psyker weapons means that simply putting a psyker into a unit makes that whole unit extremely vulnerable.

A librarian in a terminator squad means the hounds of morkai will annihilate the squad if they also count as psykers. This is an example of a very expensive negative interaction.

That seems intentional otherwise anti-psyker would be next to worthless given that psykers would always be hidden within a unit and untargetable.

The character keyword applying to the whole unit also creates weird interactions - how do you resolve attacks against a unit of character models? According to the leader rule, attacks cannot be allocated to Character models in attached units - which if units combine keywords means every model in the unit has the Character keyword and thus can't be targeted at all unless by precision weapons.

Yeah, the multiple-character units could use some clarification.

As for a character giving the trait to each model in the unit, I don't think that's how it works. The keyword goes on the unit, not each model so there are no issues.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
That seems intentional otherwise anti-psyker would be next to worthless given that psykers would always be hidden within a unit and untargetable.

or just GWs way of saying that you cannot have more characters than units to join

EviscerationPlague wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Taabletop titan guys said on yesterday game "we have good reason to believe it was not intended". (might not be 100% accurate quote

You'd never know with GW on whether they meant something or not.

Yeah we all have good reason to believe it was not intended. It's called historical knowledge. That doesn't make us right until GW says so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
IMHO currently the biggest question is how keywords work in an Attached unit.

If they don't apply, a lot of stuff (like [anti-psyker]) is completely meaningless (barring a few exceptions like grey knights).

Logically, since you're combining the units, all keywords from both units apply. They still need to state it, like the 1 damage minimum and rounding (rounding up is only mentioned in reference to how to roll a d3, and with [blast] you round down)

I'm not sure I'm with you on that one. The Magical Relic of Psyker Slaying isn't going to be - or at least it shouldn't be - more potent against Bolter Marine Redshirt than it is against Chief Librarian Jazzhands just because Redshirt is being told who to shoot at by Jazzhands. Likewise, SYLL’ESSKE leading some Daemonettes does not make the Daemonettes bigger and more monstrous.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I mean, my faction has literally nothing above S8.
Decent amount of Lethal Hits, but no dice manipulation like Sisters have. And highest damage is just 1d6, which is on ONE model.

I'm assuming you mean Chaos Daemons - with a Nurgle bent?

It LOOKS to me like they're trying to push you into Soul Grinders and, to a lesser extent, Be'Lakor which I get is not ideal from either a fluff or a functional standpoint - and even then for Nurgle Marked its just the claw, not the Tzeentch Warp Gaze ranged attack. 1 Enhancement per Mark/God/subfaction also suggests they're not "supporting" mono-god lists, instead expecting some sort of mutli-national approach which REALLY doesn't work from a fluff standpoint when considering historical animosities.

I suspect this roll-out is going to expose the unfinished nature of a number of factions/subfactions for their lack of all-around completeness - Sisters, Daemons (especially mono-god), We'll probably see some issues with Grey Knights, maybe Custodes and Votann.

 Hellebore wrote:


The character keyword applying to the whole unit also creates weird interactions - how do you resolve attacks against a unit of character models? According to the leader rule, attacks cannot be allocated to Character models in attached units - which if units combine keywords means every model in the unit has the Character keyword and thus can't be targeted at all unless by precision weapons.

Thus a psyker character technically would make their bodyguards impossible to target but also very vulnerable to a precision anti psyker weapon that can target them....


Just the way the precision rule and the the leader rule function make me suspect that units don't combine their keywords

Differnce between unit and model having keyword.

To wound works on unit.

Wound cannot be allocated to MODEL with character keyword.

Unit has keyword. Not every model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tyran wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
But if they apply, you get some very weird interactions.

Such as?

Monster becoming able to move through and upon ruins by gaining the Infantry keyword, Precision being able to snipe any model within an unit (not just the Leader) as they all gain Character keyword or Flying characters giving Fly to their units.

Nope. Model has to have infantry keyword. Unit having it doesn't give every model.

tneva82 wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:


The character keyword applying to the whole unit also creates weird interactions - how do you resolve attacks against a unit of character models? According to the leader rule, attacks cannot be allocated to Character models in attached units - which if units combine keywords means every model in the unit has the Character keyword and thus can't be targeted at all unless by precision weapons.

Thus a psyker character technically would make their bodyguards impossible to target but also very vulnerable to a precision anti psyker weapon that can target them....


Just the way the precision rule and the the leader rule function make me suspect that units don't combine their keywords

Differnce between unit and model having keyword.

To wound works on unit.

Wound cannot be allocated to MODEL with character keyword.

Unit has keyword. Not every model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tyran wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
But if they apply, you get some very weird interactions.

Such as?

Monster becoming able to move through and upon ruins by gaining the Infantry keyword, Precision being able to snipe any model within an unit (not just the Leader) as they all gain Character keyword or Flying characters giving Fly to their units.

Nope. Model has to have infantry keyword. Unit having it doesn't give every model.

That's a weird position to take. So no models have any key words, but ALL models have keywords. So if you can only see one one model, it has no key words? How are you defining a unit if not a collection of models?

I can't see how a model from a unit doesn't have a keyword whilst simultaneously being affected by the keywords the unit has...

 Hellebore wrote:


That's a weird position to take. So no models have any key words, but ALL models have keywords. So if you can only see one one model, it has no key words? How are you defining a unit if not a collection of models?

I can't see how a model from a unit doesn't have a keyword whilst simultaneously being affected by the keywords the unit has...

not quite, at least if i understand it properly.

models each have thier own keywords, be it [infantry], [fly], [psychic], etc. those apply to things like movement (so a kastellen unit with a [walker] robot is bound by whatever keywords that model has.

however, the UNIT is considered to have any and all keywords it's constituent parts have, and shooting is resolved against "the unit" until the wounds get allocated.

so, yes [anti-psychic] will affect terminators led by a Liberian. its bloody stupid and a serious nerf to Tsons and GK, but apparently thats how they want it to play.


I haven't seen any designers commentary or "rare rules" type thing that lays this out, but that's what goonhammer, who clearly HAVE seen stuff they aren't talking about yet (im guesing NDA), are talking about.