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.

Uptonius wrote:

ccs wrote:

Uptonius wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Simplycasualgaming wrote:
...but I understand, reading comprehension is probably hard for you.

Bad start, Mr. 23 posts.

Simplycasualgaming wrote:
There is nothing wrong with the new point system...

As long as you ignore every single criticism that everyone has brought up since it was announced, sure.

To be fair, the number of posts is irrelevant. This is probably my 5th or 6th account here and I e been a member longer than all of you.

Prove it.

I actually took some time and forgot to take a screenshot while caught up in a journey down memory lane.
Uh ... You can use the Wayback Machine to look at Dakka pre-2006 and see pics of me at some of the mega-battles. Mostly Armageddon 3 and the Tyranid Invasion.

You made the claim, you show the proof.

After three games I can say I am not a fan of the new 'fly' mechanic. It is very fiddly trying to measure ranges measuring up and over items. Angling a tape measure can be challenging at times.

When I played my Space Marines, ,I roll a lot of dice due to Oath of Moment game mechanic. Also, Desolation Marines inherently had me rolling a lot of dice.

Aeldari was less dice but heard lots of groaning about a Wraithknight but giving a pass to unkillable Lychguard units if fighting them without using devastating wounds.

ccs wrote:


You made the claim, you show the proof.

Sorry to interrupt but I’ve been following this thread and I have to ask - Where is all this unprovoked aggression coming from? The other poster made the claim to illustrate a point, it wasn’t some assertion of authority, they’re not demanding anything from you in return or claiming the high ground. I think you need to go outside for a bit. Not everything needs to be a slapfight with winners and losers.

Roll Three Dice wrote:

ccs wrote:


You made the claim, you show the proof.

Sorry to interrupt but I’ve been following this thread and I have to ask - Where is all this unprovoked aggression coming from? The other poster made the claim to illustrate a point, it wasn’t some assertion of authority, they’re not demanding anything from you in return or claiming the high ground. I think you need to go outside for a bit. Not everything needs to be a slapfight with winners and losers.

Welcome to Dakka. No one believes anything here unless they have proof. Even a universal truth like "You roll a lot of dice in 40k compared to other systems" would be met with someone asking for statistical data on the amount of dice rolling done in 40k compared to other games.

Some people dislike other people. Makes stuff you are okey, when said by a friend or family, extremly offensive it is said by someone you don't like. For example I don't think I can get mad at Deadalus, or how or what he writes.

There is also topics. CCS for example treates legends as just another set of rules. For some of us, it is just a ban list. Makes certain arguments more heated. But in the end it is internet, so meh.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
The main thing that stuck out to me as nothing improving with 10e when looking at the various rule drops earlier was the dice volume has not changed. They have superficially claimed and attempted to adjust lethality somewhat, yet they did nothing to reduce the volume of dice being thrown around which is where the bulk of 40k's ridiculous lethality and protracted game time comes from. What might have tempted me to get back into 40k is if they rolled back the absurd bloat of attacks and marines went back to just 1 attack default, multishot weapons rolled back to an average of only 1-2 attacks, etc.

This is kind of a bad take as GW cut in half the number of dice that something like half the weapons in the game can roll by bringing back the concept of "twin-linked" (and applying it to the wound roll rather than the to-hit roll as was the case in older editions), instead of the 8th and 9th edition paradigm of treating those weapons as a multiple of the base weapon.

Hardly, considering most small arms or even heavy weapons have access to multiple shots in bulk, tanks not only still maintain a glut of fire but have creeping numbers of mounts which only further increases the dice bucket, and 10th's efforts to reduce the dice buckets of 10e when it comes to melee turned out to be a joke. To glance over yonder to Warhammer Fantasy 6th, likely the peak of GW tight game design, the amount of dice rolled for models is usually only a whopping one in most contexts unless it happens to be highly elite or using a special ranged weapon such as repeater crossbows. Any idea of dice volume being cut down can be rendered easily moot by glancing at the stats of primarchs, mere marines, or ork shootahs. All of it should be dramatically curtailed, and could even be done in a manner to not even shift current statistics of longevity if GW wanted to cling to this rather tissue-level durability of nuHammer.

They could have just given the 8th apocalypse ruleset a bit of polish and called it a day if they wanted to reduce rolls. It had vastly reduced dice rolling and meaningful anti-tank/anti-infantry weapons, among other things.

I actually took some time and forgot to take a screenshot while caught up in a journey down memory lane.
Uh ... You can use the Wayback Machine to look at Dakka pre-2006 and see pics of me at some of the mega-battles. Mostly Armageddon 3 and the Tyranid Invasion.

You made the claim, you show the proof.

I'm still cranky about what they did to meltaguns. I struggle to come up with any situation where they are preferable to Plasma guns. Maybe against exactly T9 targets?

 Paimon wrote:
I'm still cranky about what they did to meltaguns. I struggle to come up with any situation where they are preferable to Plasma guns. Maybe against exactly T9 targets?

Bear in mind that Hazardous happens after shooting. You can't reroll out of it except with CP, which is very valuable now. So you will lose models shooting plasma while trying to keep up with melta.

Beyond that many models exist in the T8 and T9 range as well as those with a 3+ or better and no invuln. Finally, you have models with W3/4/5/6 that will take a minimum of 2+ wounds from plasma, but potentially less from melta.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Paimon wrote:
I'm still cranky about what they did to meltaguns. I struggle to come up with any situation where they are preferable to Plasma guns. Maybe against exactly T9 targets?

Bear in mind that Hazardous happens after shooting. You can't reroll out of it except with CP, which is very valuable now. So you will lose models shooting plasma while trying to keep up with melta.

Beyond that many models exist in the T8 and T9 range as well as those with a 3+ or better and no invuln. Finally, you have models with W3/4/5/6 that will take a minimum of 2+ wounds from plasma, but potentially less from melta.

Yep Gravis, Terminators, Assorted Destroyers, Wraith-X, Raiders, Ravagers, Medium-Large Bugs and so on.

While you roll for hazardous after shooting, you also only roll once for each weapon, not once for each shot. With plasma being both 24" range, and rapid fire, you're going to be safer, and shoot more, more often. And a 15% (with option to reroll) chance to lose a model to hazardous is much less punishing than a 100% chance that you're much closer to everything that your opponent has that can kill you.

The Goonhammer article showing the data mined info about unit toughness and saves pretty clearly shows a significant valley for toughness 7 and 8. If Toughness 8 and 9 are the only thing we look at, that's around 38% of the data sheets. 47% of vehicles have 10 or higher toughness, which means that the two have the same chance to wound. To be fair, you're right about the AP making a difference, 3+ saves are the most common by far for both toughness ranges (again only for vehicles). But invulnerable saves are common enough that that's not much of a gap as you think.

Against T3 and T4 units with 1 and 2 wounds, plasma is head and shoulders better. Between 5 and 7, it's better against 2 wound units, and melta closes the gap as wounds climb. At least the ceiling does. At 12 inches, each plasma is threatening 4 damage, while the Melta's average is 3.5. That obviously goes up when in half range for Meltas, but if we count that, then we also need to count the extra shots that Plasma gets outside of 12 inches.

If you tell me I can have a weapon that way better against infantry, and basically the same against everything else except light vehicles, I'm gonna take that one over the one that shoots less, at shorter range, and that is only better against an incredibly small sliver of the field.

Caveat: I'm a sisters player, so a lot of my salt is that Melta is the only high strength gun I have, and it's now outclassed by a lot. If the Melta Rule added to both Strength and Damage, I think I'd have been fine with how things turned out. Or if they gave it strength 10, even if only on the multi-meltas.

It's going to be very meta dependent. There may be fewer units with T8/9, but if those units are selected the meta will lean.

In 9th I literally never saw any model die to overcharge due to rerolls so at least with this system it's a present threat. And the choice may come down to which weapon fits best tactically with the armies other units instead of which is more effective. A good thing, I think.

My main gripe is that there is a lot more overlap between what the Plasma gun and the Meltagun are good at dealing with, but the plasma gun is way better at the bottom end, while melta lost a lot of it's top end. And Sisters basically just don't get access to plasma, so they're stuck with melta, even when it's worse.

I think the top end has to get fixed before we can properly see how effective some of these other weapons will be. There's too much chaos making melta look weaker than it is.

Consider the following math for the moment though :

12 * .666 * .666 * .5 * 2 = 5.3 // 6 PG OC @ 12"
6 * .666 * .666 * .5 * 3.5 = 4.7 // 6 Meltaguns @ 12"

This is against a less-optimal target for melta - something with a 4++. At the end of this shooting you'll statistically lose a PG wielder. PG would be half of that at range and Melta would be 50%+ higher in short.

I think what people value is the range more than anything, but that provides less damage with more opportunities to lose models. Half of that 5.2 is 2.6, which means roughly more than one shot got through. It is worth to maybe get a wound or two through for the chance to lose models? I guess it depends on what tools you have to reliably deliver models.

There's also the matter of cover, which makes 3+ saves a 5+ instead of a 6+ against PG. Those MG above go from 68% to kill a Scout Sentinel to 56% ( -18% ). The PG go from 69.5% to 49% ( - 30% ). The net effect of cover is much greater if there's no invulnerable to mess with the curve and with cover being easier to achieve it can be a relevant consideration.

I return to the Leviathan assembly instructions, where there are clearly set differences between Melta and Plasma.

Melta has Anti-Vehicle 4+, and Plasma has Anti-Monster 4+.

If GW just used the rules they created in a more comprehensive manner, then we'd have clear distinctions for weapon roles and we wouldn't have the melta problem, or the plasma conundrum.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
It's going to be very meta dependent. There may be fewer units with T8/9, but if those units are selected the meta will lean.

In 9th I literally never saw any model die to overcharge due to rerolls so at least with this system it's a present threat. And the choice may come down to which weapon fits best tactically with the armies other units instead of which is more effective. A good thing, I think.

In my last game Kairos exploded to a hazardous roll made while he had 1 wound left so it's definitely something that can happen lol

Melta has Anti-Vehicle 4+, and Plasma has Anti-Monster 4+.

With all the issues 10th has, I have to admit I really like those kinds of USRs, because it allows for an easy implementation of specific niches.

 BertBert wrote:
With all the issues 10th has, I have to admit I really like those kinds of USRs, because it allows for an easy implementation of specific niches.

I do as well, even if it has knock-on problems such as how that interacts with Devastating Wounds, as well as more specific things like like what role do Grav weapons have if Melta is Anti-Vehicle and Plasma is Anti-Monster?

The unfortunate answer is "It doesn't have a role", because Grav never really had a role when they awkwardly shoe-horned it into 40k to give Space Marines a new hat something they didn't own and suddenly had to buy.

That's why I'd make 'Grav' a rule unto itself, and it's something that could go with other factions as well (AdMech and Votaan make sense as a start), and just have it as "The To Wound roll of weapons with the [Grav] ability is equal to the unit's armour save". So 2+ save = 2+ To Wound, whereas a 5+ save = a 5+ to wound. Goes back a bit to what Grav was kind of like, in that the heavier something was, the more vulnerable it was to Graviton weaponry.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 BertBert wrote:
With all the issues 10th has, I have to admit I really like those kinds of USRs, because it allows for an easy implementation of specific niches.

I do as well, even if it has knock-on problems such as how that interacts with Devastating Wounds, as well as more specific things like like what role do Grav weapons have if Melta is Anti-Vehicle and Plasma is Anti-Monster?

The unfortunate answer is "It doesn't have a role", because Grav never really had a role when they awkwardly shoe-horned it into 40k to give Space Marines a new hat something they didn't own and suddenly had to buy.

That's why I'd make 'Grav' a rule unto itself, and it's something that could go with other factions as well (AdMech and Votaan make sense as a start), and just have it as "The To Wound roll of weapons with the [Grav] ability is equal to the unit's armour save". So 2+ save = 2+ To Wound, whereas a 5+ save = a 5+ to wound. Goes back a bit to what Grav was kind of like, in that the heavier something was, the more vulnerable it was to Graviton weaponry.

OR Grav Weapons can just be alternative models for Plasma.

Not everything needs a bespoke rule, and Grav is absolutely proof of that.

I'd rather find a way to give something a role than cut it from the game. Besides, Grav weapons have models, so...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I return to the Leviathan assembly instructions, where there are clearly set differences between Melta and Plasma.

Melta has Anti-Vehicle 4+, and Plasma has Anti-Monster 4+.

If GW just used the rules they created in a more comprehensive manner, then we'd have clear distinctions for weapon roles and we wouldn't have the melta problem, or the plasma conundrum.

That actually would have been nice - Melta at Anti-Vehicle 4+ makes more sense than Grav at Anti-Vehicle 2+. I think they bailed on the Plasma-ANTI-Monster because then it starts hitting the Primarchs, Greater Daemons, and other named Faces Of The Franchise.

Seems like a dumb reason not to give plasma Anti-Monster.

Anti-Monster is a weirdly rare ability. Giving that to plasma would give it a real niche.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Seems like a dumb reason not to give plasma Anti-Monster.

Anti-Monster is a weirdly rare ability. Giving that to plasma would give it a real niche.

Not giving people a shortcut into deleting all those centerpiece HQ type models is a very good reason. It just wasn't the best way to fix it. Better to make Plasma Anti-Monster and change those models they want to exclude to BRUTE keywords instead of MONSTER with BRUTE getting all the rules for MONSTER without the keyword shortcut. Another example of GW not taking full advantage of their keyword system I suppose.

Breton wrote:
Not giving people a shortcut into deleting all those centerpiece HQ type models is a very good reason.

Then that's a problem with the application of the 'Monster' keyword, not the anti-monster rules.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Breton wrote:
Not giving people a shortcut into deleting all those centerpiece HQ type models is a very good reason.

Then that's a problem with the application of the 'Monster' keyword, not the anti-monster rules.

Pretty sure I said that a while back? You know, the part about an understandable reason, but the better solution thing up there?

You added more rules though. A whole additional keyword to solve a solution that could be fixed by just removing 'Monster' from things that aren't monsters.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You added more rules though. A whole additional keyword to solve a solution that could be fixed by just removing 'Monster' from things that aren't monsters.

So you're saying delete MONSTER from the Primarchs, the Hive Tyrants, etc so there's next to no rules for them in the movement phase? I get you keep wanting to turn this into Checkers 40,000 so your default kneejerk reaction is to object to anything that doesn't delete 99% of the rules but those models still need a classification keyword since most movement rules revolve around that keyword - plus most of the time it doesn't add another rule, it adds one to two words to an existing rule:

For example:

The only exception to this is
when moving Monster or Vehicle models; such models cannot
be moved over other friendly Monster or Vehicle models and

turns into:

The only exception to this is
when moving Monster, BRUTE or Vehicle models; such models cannot
be moved over other friendly Monster, BRUTE or Vehicle models and

Emphasis added to the changes.

Have you tried actually reading what people say, and giving it thought before dismissing it because it MAY "add rules"?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I'd rather find a way to give something a role than cut it from the game. Besides, Grav weapons have models, so...

The model isn't being cut from the game though, and it's cutting a rule that had too much overlap with niches filled to begin with.

That's like saying making the Relic Power Weapon a default for the Terminator Captain got rid of Power Axes and such. Sometimes, especially for HQ level models, consolidation works for such conversion purposes. After all, what Captain has a super lowly regular ol' Power Weapon to begin with? They should all be at that upper level, whereas Vanguard Vets choosing between Swords vs Axes makes sense as mooks.

You simply have to know when to consolidate and when not to. GW throws darts at a board to determine it though.

But a Grav-Gun isn't a Plasma Gun, and a Power Axe is still a power weapon.

What you're actually arguing is to make the Plasma Gun and the Grav-Gun into "Generic Anti-Monster Gun". That's more consolidationist nonsense.

Breton wrote:
So you're saying delete MONSTER from the Primarchs, the Hive Tyrants, etc so there's next to no rules for them in the movement phase?

I said removing Monster from things that aren't Monsters. A Hive Tyrant is a Monster. How did you miss that? I was talking about Primarchs, and that sort of thing - the Epic heroes that have been saddled with 'Monster' in this edition for no reason. Monsters would keep Monster, because that makes sense.

And of course I wouldn't leave them without a rule. They'd be Infantry. Duh!

Breton wrote:
I get you keep wanting to turn this into Checkers 40,000...

I don't, I haven't the faintest idea where you get that idea, and your continued attempts to paint me as an unthinking simpleton who only understands checkers and not complex mechanics has reached the point where I will no longer put up with it. I'm done with you.