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.

Some amount of streamlining is fine. Like I think it is better than there are (again) just "power weapons" and you can use whichever type you feel looks the best.

But this can be taken too far, and things at least must be consistent. Like it was annoying that CSM had power fists that were actual power fists for some units but not for others. Similarly the combi-weapon profiles feel jarring, because we can clearly see that they are meltas, plasmas and flamers, and those weapons have independent rules elsewhere in the army. So in the same way it would be jarring if a plasma pistol would not have bespoke plasma rules if plasma guns in the same army still have them.

Dakkrig Waaagh Walker rules are up.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/en-gb/articles/begrgyld/new40k-rules-more-dakka-than-you-can-shake-a-rig-at/

Not too shabby.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/en-gb/articles/begrgyld/new40k-rules-more-dakka-than-you-can-shake-a-rig-at/

Dakkarig rules up. I feel they are holding something back when they talk about datacard rules from the box. Like they know the full codex will be different. Might not be as relevant here, but will be significant for other units.

Ninja’d

I is sneekier dan a Grot!

There's definitely a right level for how detailed your weapons should be.

I'm very much in favour of things like powerswords, axes, and whatever else all just rolled into "powerweapon". There's just not enough design space to usefully separate them and it allows players more freedom in modelling what they like the look of.

But then something like a powerfist or thunderhammer should be a different weapon, as a "heavy power weapon" perhaps.

Where the problem really comes is you need to do this consistently. Combiweapons are the big boogiman in 10th and it's easy to see why. Everywhere else a plasmagun is different to a meltagun, except combis? But even then, where characters have combiweapons they do have weapon specific rules. It ends up making the combiweapons feel weird and arbitrary.

That firepower seems insane, but I have no idea how it scales on a BS 5+ base. It just look like something that will vaporize a full 10 man squad of marines with very little effort.

If it stands still it’s still probably removing a combat squad without outside buffs. And that’s just the cannon.

Ouch.

Looking forward to seeing what crazy the new Land Speeder will get up to tomorrow.

Quite nice that it doesn’t really do anything else for you. No buff bubble, no real interaction with friendly units.

From what we were told of the Warboss and Big Nob in the reveal stream, that brings a genuine difference in threat to the board.

Yes, stationary and with only mildly lucky rolls, this lad can squelch a decent number of gits. But the Warboss and Big Nob make all your Boyz far more fighty.

 Nevelon wrote:
That firepower seems insane, but I have no idea how it scales on a BS 5+ base. It just look like something that will vaporize a full 10 man squad of marines with very little effort.

If it stands still it’s still probably removing a combat squad without outside buffs. And that’s just the cannon.

Ouch.

Looking forward to seeing what crazy the new Land Speeder will get up to tomorrow.

With Heavy Buff and sustained hits it's roughly equivalent to a 3+ to hit, so it'll kill about 2 marines outside of cover.
14 shots, 66% hit, 66% wound, and marines save 33% of those, 2 damage per hit.

 Rihgu wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
That firepower seems insane, but I have no idea how it scales on a BS 5+ base. It just look like something that will vaporize a full 10 man squad of marines with very little effort.

If it stands still it’s still probably removing a combat squad without outside buffs. And that’s just the cannon.

Ouch.

Looking forward to seeing what crazy the new Land Speeder will get up to tomorrow.

With Heavy Buff and sustained hits it's roughly equivalent to a 3+ to hit, so it'll kill about 2 marines outside of cover.
14 shots, 66% hit, 66% wound, and marines save 33% of those, 2 damage per hit.

My bad. I got my wires crossed looking at the profile and my brain was doing the math for the dakka with the strength of the rockets, so 2+ wounding. Still nasty, but not as bad as I thought.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
There's definitely a right level for how detailed your weapons should be.

I'm very much in favour of things like powerswords, axes, and whatever else all just rolled into "powerweapon". There's just not enough design space to usefully separate them and it allows players more freedom in modelling what they like the look of.

But then something like a powerfist or thunderhammer should be a different weapon, as a "heavy power weapon" perhaps.

Where the problem really comes is you need to do this consistently. Combiweapons are the big boogiman in 10th and it's easy to see why. Everywhere else a plasmagun is different to a meltagun, except combis? But even then, where characters have combiweapons they do have weapon specific rules. It ends up making the combiweapons feel weird and arbitrary.

Power weapons and "heavy power weapons" sounds a little bit like WFB's hand weapons and great weapons. Sounds alright.

Combi weapons that don't fire like the parent version with a bolter attached are gross and just sound like incompetence to me more than anything else.

Commissar Cain comes to the tabletop

Combiweapons are difficult to do though, and I think is definitely one of those things that GW would proper rather never existed.

If you make combiweapons the same as their special weapon counterparts, then you have two options;
You can make them one-shot, in which case you now have a level of bookkeeping for who's fired their weapon and who's not. Not so bad for a sergeant maybe, but for 4 different sergeants? Or a whole squad of 10? Yeah not ideal.

Or you can make them unlimited fire. In which case they're functionally just special weapons with a bolter strapped to the side, which then gets weird because we don't usually think of the sergeant as a special weapons guy.

Or I guess you could go with option 3 and write a bespoke half-pint special weapon profile for each combi. That's *probably* what should be done (and arguably was done for characters) but they evidently didn't want to.
And there's good and bad reasons for not doing it. Good - that's like an extra 4 lines of weapon profiles on some already very bloated datasheets. Bad - that's more work they can skip out on by making a single profile.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Combiweapons are difficult to do though, and I think is definitely one of those things that GW would proper rather never existed.

If you make combiweapons the same as their special weapon counterparts, then you have two options;
You can make them one-shot, in which case you now have a level of bookkeeping for who's fired their weapon and who's not. Not so bad for a sergeant maybe, but for 4 different sergeants? Or a whole squad of 10? Yeah not ideal.

Or you can make them unlimited fire. In which case they're functionally just special weapons with a bolter strapped to the side, which then gets weird because we don't usually think of the sergeant as a special weapons guy.

Or I guess you could go with option 3 and write a bespoke half-pint special weapon profile for each combi. That's *probably* what should be done (and arguably was done for characters) but they evidently didn't want to.
And there's good and bad reasons for not doing it. Good - that's like an extra 4 lines of weapon profiles on some already very bloated datasheets. Bad - that's more work they can skip out on by making a single profile.

I think they should have shorter range. So basically pistols that are not pistols. Then you fire the bolter at the long range and the special weapon at the short range. Or possibly both at the short rage, that's fine too. It makes sense, these weapon components are far smaller than the full special weapons.

Wait…where the flip is Jurgen’s Lasgun???

Aww man, he's going to cost stupid money but I do love that model.

Would have preferred one more like rowan atkinson than his propaganda posters

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Combiweapons are difficult to do though, and I think is definitely one of those things that GW would proper rather never existed.

I was OK with the ones that were in the 10th ed booklet but didn't actually make it into the rules for some unknown reason where they all had the same stats but flamers had Anti-Infantry, Melta had Anti-Vehicle, and Plasma had Anti-Monster. Just different enough where it felt like modeling choice mattered.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Combiweapons are difficult to do though, and I think is definitely one of those things that GW would proper rather never existed.

I was OK with the ones that were in the 10th ed booklet but didn't actually make it into the rules for some unknown reason where they all had the same stats but flamers had Anti-Infantry, Melta had Anti-Vehicle, and Plasma had Anti-Monster. Just different enough where it felt like modeling choice mattered.

That was a nice compromise; I liked that option.

Billicus wrote:
That's so dull, though. To "solve" a "problem" that in the case of a 10pt pistol amounts to less than 1% of somebody's 2000pt list. That isn't a problem and solving it by homogenizing everything is gross.

There's a line where it becomes useful. I just think in the case of something like a Guard sergeant they fall way below that line to the point where tracking the exact pistol every last one of them has is more hassle than its worth. In a game with Knights and planes and hundreds of models on the board, delineating the type of pistol some inconsequential nobody is carrying seems like a waste of time. A better example is probably the bolt pistol versus las pistol. On a Guard sergeant the difference in damage output between the two is basically zero. Why bother tracking that? Making it a more generic option also increases the modelling opportunities.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Combiweapons are difficult to do though, and I think is definitely one of those things that GW would proper rather never existed.

If you make combiweapons the same as their special weapon counterparts, then you have two options;
You can make them one-shot, in which case you now have a level of bookkeeping for who's fired their weapon and who's not. Not so bad for a sergeant maybe, but for 4 different sergeants? Or a whole squad of 10? Yeah not ideal.

Or you can make them unlimited fire. In which case they're functionally just special weapons with a bolter strapped to the side, which then gets weird because we don't usually think of the sergeant as a special weapons guy.

Or I guess you could go with option 3 and write a bespoke half-pint special weapon profile for each combi. That's *probably* what should be done (and arguably was done for characters) but they evidently didn't want to.
And there's good and bad reasons for not doing it. Good - that's like an extra 4 lines of weapon profiles on some already very bloated datasheets. Bad - that's more work they can skip out on by making a single profile.

They used to be -1 to hit with if you used both, which was something (although counterintuitive since twin linked weapons at the time gave you a reroll to hit). There's room out there for a creative solution.

First Valhallan model is several decades? Intriguing sadly enough we won't get a whole range of them...

I’ve always interpreted that as having to space out your shots, reducing aiming time for each.

The -1 to hit thing just meant you didn't get a free bolter with your flamer.
You'd never normally bother firing the bolter half of a combi-plasma or something.
But fundementally your combi-weapon was just a special weapon with extra flexibility
Was it Sternguard Veterans where only 1/5 was allowed a plasmagun, but everyone was allowed a combi-plasma. Which just really highlights the problem with combi-weapon rules then.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Wait…where the flip is Jurgen’s Lasgun???

Glorious models - Jurgan does love his melta IIRC

Crossed fingers for Amberely or some of the 597th Valhallan Regiment

 kirotheavenger wrote:
The -1 to hit thing just meant you didn't get a free bolter with your flamer.
You'd never normally bother firing the bolter half of a combi-plasma or something.
But fundementally your combi-weapon was just a special weapon with extra flexibility
Was it Sternguard Veterans where only 1/5 was allowed a plasmagun, but everyone was allowed a combi-plasma. Which just really highlights the problem with combi-weapon rules then.

To be fair, 1/5 could take anything from the special/heavy list. Not just plasma guns.

But yea, over the years their gear interacted oddly with the rules. I particularly like how their sarges were called out for not being able to take thunderhammers for the longest time.

I like them... but this is going to be the steal legion thing all over again by the end of the week.

Why does Cain look like a monkey man?

Jurgen has a painful case of CAD design, his coat is far to angular.

For miniatures i've wanted for years I'm underwhelmed.

 Tamereth wrote:
Why does Cain look like a monkey man?

Jurgen has a painful case of CAD design, his coat is far to angular.

For miniatures i've wanted for years I'm underwhelmed.

The mutton chop sideburns and clean chin do give me planet of the apes vibes.

Warhammer 40,000 Faction Focus: Imperial and Chaos Knights

Probably the first model reveal in a while that's gotten me excited. The faces could be better, but its a chance to finally get Cain and Jurgen minis. Hopefully they're sticking around for a bit so I can grab one. The article doesn't seem to say otherwise at least.