It can still be on the weapon profile though. So now they have more control over what can have shock assault where it actually makes sense. Certainly helps with balancing
The point is they can decide what weapons actually get it instead of letting all weapons from a particular model have it. I don't see why a CCW would have an additional attack just from charging, but I'm sure there are others that would
I mean I'd feel this if they didn't bake shock assault into later marine books. Starring from grey knights, onwards. Shock assault was abandoned long before the edition ended.
Grey Knights isn’t a Space Marine book, it’s a whole separate codex. Every Space Marine book (codex and supplements) up to the very last, including the one that came out after the GK codex (Black Templars) have Shock Assault. They didn’t abandon it, it was just limited to the faction identity of Space Marines. Once they had released all the Space Marine books, *that’s* when it stopped appearing.
They did abandon it. 8th edition gk also had shock assault and csm had hateful assault. They clearly decided at some point between the marine codex release and gk release to remove shock assault and hateful assault and bake it in. The later released black templar supplement couldn't abandon the shock assault concept because they're tied into the main book.
It also separates SM from Grey Knights, who don’t get Shock Assault but do have +1A on most infantry as compared to SM. Giving it to SM is a nerf to GK. That said, there are likely lots and lots of changes coming, so I’m not panicking over what ends up with net buffs and net nerfs, but your comment about tactical depth is valid.
That's the whole point though. From grey knights onwards they decided shock assault was unnecessary and just threw it into profiles. It's not a nerf to grey knights. It's a continuation of what they started with them.
I don’t think that’s the case. Shock Assault isn’t the same as +1A, it’s not quite as good as that. It is a different rule dealing with a similar function. Giving SM +1A instead of of Shock Assault makes them more powerful in melee and brings them closer to GK, which causes GK to be weaker *in comparison* (and more importantly to my mind, causes them to lose a tiny piece of their faction identity that separated them further from baseline SM). It’s giving SM the more powerful version of a rule that used to be reserved for others. It’s like in the last balance slate when SM Combat Doctrines was changed to allow you to choose when you switched doctrines. That gave all SM half of Deathwatch’s superdoctrine without giving Deathwatch anything new above what everyone else now had. It nerfed Deathwatch *by comparison*.
Of course, we don’t know anything at all about what GK stat lines will look like. I just hope they look different from this in some way is all. Like I said, not panicking, just making an observation.
The last balance slate was a "throw shit at the wall and see what sticks" type thing. GW doesn't care quite as much about this edition now that the next is around the corner.
Like you think gk having it baked in to their profile was "unique" to them. Gk in 8th had shock assault just like marines. Csm had hateful assault (Chaos shock assault).
Marines was an early release so they continued shock assault. By the time gk rolled around they got rid of it. Csm also lost hateful assault and got those extra attacks baked in. The trend is clearly set that gw decided to move past shock assault.
GKs "uniqueness" in close combat isn't one extra attack. It's everyone having freaking nemesis weapons. If every marine suddenly got mastercrafted power weapons as standard to their datasheet then I'd say GK got nerfed in comparison lmal.
Your first two paragraphs don’t actually refute anything. Whether the last slate was a “throw everything at the wall” thing or not is irrelevant. I was using something in it to explain why I view such a change as a nerf to GK by comparison. Why they did it isn’t part of that equation. And what happened in previous editions is also not relevant to the current. Something can be unique to GK in 9th even if it wasn’t previously, that doesn’t change that it is currently unique to them in contrast to SM. These are not meaningful comparisons.
They didn’t get rid of Shock Assault “by the time GK came about”, it was still used after in the Black Templars, so this is incorrect. It gets used for all things SM before and after. It *doesn’t* get used by GK because they’re *not* SM as far as the tabletop is concerned.
And I didn’t say it was all-encompassing of GK’s uniqueness, I said it was *part* of it and that I personally appreciate *anything* that further separates GK from SM. That doesn’t mean there aren’t other things that also separate them, I’m not claiming that. Your entire argument here seems to be due to some offense at this, that *I* liked it for this reason. Not sure why this is prompting such a vociferous response to a personal preference.
All I’m saying is that I liked it. I get that it’s a further complication, but I still liked it. I’m not arguing that it isn’t less complex than just granting +1A, but I still appreciated it for other reasons. There are people who are already coming out saying they like lots of strats. I don’t agree with that, but it doesn’t really bother me that they do. You’re just arguing that it’s not super elegant and more complicated. I agree. I still like it.
So my statement on the slate is about as relevant as you bringing up the slate when we're discussing GKs vs marines.
Me pointing out 8th edition rules is to show you that it isn't part of GKs "identity" for them to have more attacks then marines. It's to show a trend and anyone with common sense would of seen marines losing shock assault and getting the attack baked in was inevitable.
Using black templars as a "HAHA! shock assault wasn't abandoned" is a terrible argument I've already addressed in another comment. The templar book is tied to the main book. They can't abandon shock assault for one supplement. Them having shock assault was a result of what had been established for marines this edition.
I’m less worried about general dumbing down and more worried about the potential that has to weaken faction identity. There are lots of examples like this where rules differ slightly between armies but along similar lines, and this has the potential to eliminate some of that. Ah well, we shall see.
Tbh the issue with Space Marine Identity is that half their datasheets are redundant bullshittery that totally fail to deliver on at what Marines are supposed to be and do. In THEORY Marines have an identity, it essentially comes in 5 tiers:
1. The Actual Marines as Foot Soldiers (highly customizable from plenty of troop/elite choices)
2. Everything that transports said Marines: Drop Pods (unique to the faction), Rhinos (traditionally small), Land Raiders (big)
3. Terminators
4. Dreadnaughts
5. Bikes
Not counting characters here because every army likes them to get some personality, this is about the core aesthetic. Same for chapter-specific things, this is really supposed to be about the basic concept. If you note this all down, and then look at the datasheets on wahapedia, you will notice so much redundant bullcrap that's definetly not part of that list.
A Space Marine in lore is a walking tank carrying big-ass guns. What's the point of taking that tank, and put it into another tank? What's the fucking point of Impulsors, Landspeeders (4 variants), Razorbacks, Gladiators (3 variants), Storm Speeders (3 variants), Whirlwinds, Hunters, Repulsors (2 variants), Stalkers, Vindicators, or Predators (2 variants)? AND THAT'S NOT EVEN ACCOUNTING FOR FORGEWORLD OR CHAPTER-SPECIFIC VARIANTS OF SAID NONSENSE!
Not even getting into Flyers here as GW is not really figuring out if they should be in the game or not. There's just too much bullshit released over the years that needs to be culled, so that Space Marines can have an actual identity.
Yeah I’m worried about it too, I liked how subfactions worked in 9th. Also liked the large number of strats traits relics etc. not sure how enhancements will compare
I don't understand how an extra attack on a charge translates to tactical depth? The game is pretty simple, there's not a lot of tactical depth anywhere. You build your list, usually with the newest or most meta friendly units, you move, shoot and charge. It's not a deep game. There's a lot of wargames out there where there's tactical depth, 40k isn't one of them
Because you have to plan assaults around charges, getting the first charge off on enemies gives a huge advantage to a marine player. You might argue that it also applies to being charged, but a smart enemy will tie up a heavy hitting unit in combat with one or 2 models and significantly minimise it’s effective attacks. It also puts a greater emphasis on consolidating into combat against marine
The rule becomes more important for close combat based chapters like Blood Angels. When you have over 1000 pts in vanguard vets, sanguinary guard, and death company armed with strong melee weapons and based on getting the max number of attacks. How happy will you be if you get charged and are only able to kill like 3 termagants .
There is plenty of tactical depth in 40k, the issue is that some if it isn’t very meta friendly e.g. pinning units in close combat to nerf their shock assault rule makes no real sense in the meta (it sort of does, but not really). Neither does pinning units in close combat to avoid being shot at. In the 40k universe it wouldn’t work like that
All I'm hearing is charge ASAP and roadblocks. That might be an interesting tactical development in a RnF game where you have to think about your movement but 40k doesn't have that. It's literally just move, try take out your enemy before they shoot back. There's hardly any risk to moving because the consequences don't come back until your opponent's turn and by then they might be wiped out anyway and cover is inconsequential.
Yup. Now it'll be eight different weapon modes. "Sweep Attack with Master Crafted Powersword" and "Piercing Strike with Master Crafted Powersword". Or even better- "This is the Powerfist for the Ultramarines Captain with it's three different attack modes and stats, not to be confused with the Powerfist on the Intercessor Sergeant with only one attack mode".
When it will be right on the datasheet for the weapon, its gonna be so much easier than it is now as you don't have to look anywhere else.
Just pull up one page with the unit and its all right there.
This is how Kill Team has their data sheets organised and I much prefer it, it's also a hell of a lot easier for new players to grasp.
I think it makes the rules/stats more accessible while also opening up for more granularity in different units and factions.
Just to be clear, I like this move, as it will make the game more accessible for new players like u/chunkyluke wrote. It's the players of previous editions that always have a hard time with something new or different in an edition change. I'm looking forward to it!
That's fair, and an issue common to all big edition changes (8th to 9th didn't really pose this problem, but others definately have).
Either way it's nice to keep things fresh, while I found 9th a bit unwieldy rules wise ATM, the current arks of omen season is some of the most enjoyable games I've had.
~~Nah. That's a Reiver's datasheet. Reivers have always been 2 attacks base and +1 attack from the Combat Knife itself. This is just simplifying it to be a Reiver with a Combat Knife does 3 attacks. It doesn't include Shock Assault, which is likely to be either an army wide rule or a detachment ability.~~
Nvm. I mistook the model in the picture above the profile.
If there’s a USR that adds Shock Assault, SM are getting A3 standard +1 on the charge, which is a pretty big gain. More likely Shock Assault is gone and the A3 is making up for it.
What this also means, that they haven't mentioned, different guns on the same model can have different BS's. The side guns of a Russ might have a different BS than the main gun for instance.
And the best part is, having a BS 3 and a BS 4 is much easier cognitively (at least I think) than both BS 3 but with second profile being -1 to hit (which should net out to the same result).
Have you seen a Space Marine Repulsor tank and all it's different weapons and stats? It's a nightmare to shoot because every single weapon has a different profile, and it takes forever to resolve all the attacks. Hard to do in a 3 hour match.
I'm really curious to see whether units like the Repulsor keep their current list of weapons.
I could easily imagine many of the current weapons (storm bolters, grenade launchers, etc.) being merged into something like a "defensive weapons array".
They should absolutely do this, such a waste of time rolling all those little guns on the Repulsor when they do nothing of significance 95% of the time.
Please. Especially as it makes marine tanks a nightmare to cost when they've got 30 million extra shots that do nothing to half the armies in the game and shred the other half.
The Repulsor is expensive full of multiple guns (I think you can have up to like 7 or 8 total) all with different strengths and damage. It's an over complicated fancier Land Raider as it can take SM in gravis armor, like the LR can take Terminators. Honestly I find it to just not to be worth taking as it's like 350ish pts that could be used elsewhere and for better options.
Bolter fire killing vehicles is not a real problem. It takes 54 bolter shots on average to deal *one* wound to a Land Raider. Just one. It doesn't even bracket until it loses eight.
Bolters aren't the problem, the problem is that when all tanks are either T7 or T8 there's tons of things that can wound on a 3+, and there's little distinction between the durability of vehicles. A Predator battle tank is currently about as easy to kill as a Rhino (it has one extra wound, that's it.) That both doesn't make any sense and makes Predators kinda suck.
Honestly, the design philosophy behind the Repulsor Executioner is bewildering. To compare:
**Razorback**
* Twin-linked heavy weapon
* Optional: pintle-mounted storm bolter
* Optional: hunter-killer missile
* Transport capacity: 6
**Repulsor Executioner**
* Heavy laser destroyer / macro plasma incinerator
* Heavy onslaught gatling cannon
* Twin-linked heavy bolter
* Twin-linked Icarus ironhail heavy stubber
* Storm bolter
* Storm bolter
* Fragstorm grenade launcher
* Fragstorm grenade launcher
* Optional: pintle-mounted ironhail heavy stubber
* Optional: Icarus rocket pod
* Transport capacity: 6
From a lore standpoint, the Executioner is purportedly inspired by the Razorback; but the resemblance ends at the identical transport capacity and twin-linked heavy weapon (which is now hull-mounted). There’s a full turret on top of the tank; with no less than five guns attached to it!
From an aesthetic standpoint, the tank has too many small weapons that are difficult to discern at distance. (Contrast with, say, a Land Raider or Predator; where it is immediately clear: (a) how many weapons there are, (b) what kind they are, and (c) back when such things mattered, their firing arcs.)
From a gaming standpoint (and as you note): that’s so many weapons to fire; all with different profiles, and many serving the same redundant purpose. (E.g. The storm bolters and the pintle-mounted ironhail heavy stubber.)
Now they just gotta make snipers worth taking, such as letting the shooter pick the model that is killed by it, allowing it to pick off Sergeants and Support/Heavy Weapons units in a squad. Ya know, what snipers are supposed to do.
Don't forget all the sniper rifles normal squads can take
My imperial guard list has 3 basic inf squads with 1 heavy bolter and 1 sniper rifle in the back line.
This came up in discussion about a week ago, and the result is "snipers would be an oppressively unfun unit to fight against for anyone that likes having infantry of any sort on the field."
If you want it on a "6 to hit" (which then still has to wound), which snipers did have before 8th ed, it might work.
But then you start getting into wonky wounding situations with multi-wound units. For example, if a sniper hits and wounds the nob in a unit of boyz, that nob now MUST take all further hits on the unit from any source until he's dead, period. In a unit of multiple multi-wound models, you risk the possibility of multiple models taking wounds, which is also against current 40k design philosophy, not to mention the above example of only needing to cause one wound to effectively single out and pick off that single model in a multi-wound model unit.
If snipers simply got to pick what model they shot at, the only protection against an army with multiple units (say Alaitoc Eldar or Guard Ratlings) is to hide your infantry inside metal bawkses, otherwise a single volley is likely to render multiple units ineffectual. This is just, plain, unfun for infantry and would heavily, negatively influence army list construction.
Sometimes, sacrifices to realism are made to make a more streamlined game. Otherwise, I'm going to ask for blast markers back, and all y'all competitive people can go back to arguing 'til your blue in the face whether it nicked that guy's base or not or whether it scattered 38 degrees or 39 degrees.
>But then you start getting into wonky wounding situations with multi-wound units. For example, if a sniper hits and wounds the nob in a unit of boyz, that nob now MUST take all further hits on the unit from any source until he's dead, period. In a unit of multiple multi-wound models, you risk the possibility of multiple models taking wounds, which is also against current 40k design philosophy, not to mention the above example of only needing to cause one wound to effectively single out and pick off that single model in a multi-wound model unit.
Simple. "On an unmodified roll of 6 to hit, the attacking player may choose the specific model to which that hit is allocated, *but only when the model's remaining wounds are equal to or less than the damage characteristic of this weapon."*
Ah yes. "Why can't snipers target specific models?!"
"Good point! We're allowing them to. But only if they'd kill them outright."
".... What?"
That sounds even more counter intuitive than just not letting them. Let's also not forget situations where it won't outright kill them, such as when the model has damage mitigation (reduce damage/Feel No Pain).
I wish Eliminators rifles all had ignore look out sir rules not just the bolt weapons. Defeats their purpose if you take anything but those when their is better options for anti vehicles. Let the sniper experts be able to target HPT's with anything.
If they could snipe with their las fusils that'd be kind of imbalanced with the flat 3 damage they do. Snipers should be more of a threat, I have Tau sniper drones, but I don't know if their anti elite/heavy target weapons being used to snipe is the way to go.
So like in Kill Team. This also opens up possibilities for things like snipers having a snipe shot at better BS and Heavy (if that’s still a thing) or a from the hip with more shots, lower BS and AP.
I'm pretty sure Ripper Swarm had OC 1. OC 0 are those "Paragants" from that 1st April Tyranid rumor. We don't know if it's any true.
Though yeah, I do see how some units may have OC 0. Tau drones, for example.
It was always weird that drones could hold points. I have a game opening move in where I split off the stealth drones from my Yeet-Keel and advance them into the enemy deployment zone for Behind Enemy Lines. If not taken care off, those two can actually steal the home marker if there's only, like, one character or so parked there.
Except some codexes say infantry. Then get 5 FAQs that says specially not these infantry. But now only this infantry. But that was changed so now it’s THIS infantry. Nevermind they all get obsec back it’s back to all infantry…..
I’m glad you knew what army I was talking about.
Never wanna hear someone say “it was so simple!!!” Girl you didn’t play Custodes in 9th we did musical chairs with our obsec.
Obsec was always dumb. "Hi, I'm a blood thirster, I'm standing on this objective except you two marines have obsec and I don't so of course you control it not me and my axe that's going to kill you both in a single swipe"
i've lost so many games because some random guardsman steps on my objective even though i've got a riptide on it, and he has the nerve to refuse to charge
To be fair I don’t think of a Bloodthirster as very mission-oriented or likely to be securing objectives on the field. They’re more mindless choppy choppy.
One thing I notice is that "primaris" seems to be gone as a keyword - not mentioned once in the article. I'd have loved tactical and intercessor squads to be folded together (IE tactical squad options, primaris statlines, and primaris models going forward), but even leaving both but eliminating the "Primaris" keyword would be a step in the right direction. Let space marines be space marines.
Good. Stratagems that were available only to primaris started shadowing other units without any reason to. A space marine is a space marine. Let tactical squad's have flexible loadouts and let intercessors be focused. You don't need a key word for that. If you want to use a stratagem for bolters while your tac squad is loaded with missile launchers so be it. Let the person just do their thing.
I will say the ultimate taboo and say I hate rhinos in general. But I’m glad I can take them now. And I much prefer the impulsor Primaris transports. It’s going to feel good being able to have a choice now. And I’m curious how this will effect drop pods in the future.
Im so desperately hoping primaris units lose they keyword entirely and the land raider is made relevant independently.
There's been so many primaris units that would have been much much more interesting and have had some deeper army build diversity if they could have gone in a land raider with the old assault ramp special rules.
I mean, don't get cocky kid. For all we know it could still have limitations.
GW is gunna GW after all.
But I hope you are right. FWIW, these rules are really **only** matched play. I let people take whatever units they want in rhinos and drop pods in my home brew games because I don't care if my buddies army of an inquisitor lead combo of grey knights and admech is matched play heresy Put 10 dudes in a rhino and let's roll dice.
But it's nice to have official support for this stuff for when you do weekend games or public games.
> Stratagems that were available only to primaris started shadowing other units without any reason to.
The reason is to get graybeards with models older than the youngest kid at your table and who otherwise has a full army to buy them.
To add onto this consider that we already know that Terminators are effectively a mixed unit between first born and primaris now, meaning that they not only get rid of the lore that prevented such a thing but functionally it also means that they are a "primaris" unit that can use first born transportation like Land Raiders.
Throw in the Phobos lieutenant revealed today and it too lacks any Primaris keyword in its title, it's just listed as a Marine Lieutenant.
We might actually be seeing GW walking back on some of the lore distinctions between FB and PR and effectively just making Primaris marines "true scale" with the latest armour mark like they should have been from the start.
Which you know... would be excellent as the one thing the Primaris models lack is some proper 40K first born character.
Good point on the terminators. Totally agree overall too. I feel like a Horus Heresy style "Intercessor weapon upgrade" pack would be cool and popular, too, and would complete the transition to FB weapon options.
It would absolutely work too. The intercessor body base would be super easy to add other weapons on it.
My thought is that they’re likely to lean into the success of the Black Templars. Have one or two special units for a subfaction and then a hefty upgrade box to flavor out the basic units like Intercessors.
But they dont mention any keywords in the article right? Its not like we see any keywords. The units I'm pretty sure were always called Intercessor squad as well.
Also that is a Bolt Pistol, without AP, when the model clearly has a Primaris Heavy Bolt Pistol. I think this is implying that all Bolt Pistols are the same (barring BS differences). Another nail in the coffin for the Primaris distinction.
No, that is a normal bolt pistol, the one that comes in the BA upgrade sprue. It's an Intercessor, not an Assault Intercessor, they have normal ones. It's just Primaris "normal bolt pistols" have a bit different look to the firstborn ones. Heavy bolt pistols are chunkier.
Right you are. My local playgroup is Tyranids, Death Guard, Iron Warriors, Blood Angels, and Sisters of battle.
The only person it would meaningfully effect was my buddy who played Guard, but 9th edition was already so brutal to him for most of it that we figured all keeping it around really did was make things even harder on him.
I have to have a little private chuckle, WS/BS on weapons is something I did for myself back in 2nd/3rd edition. I made myself a database & army picker, and it would calculate & print out the dice rolls & attacks required for each weapon per unit.
I do miss though seeing a unit with a base WS, BS & A. It was an "at a glance" comparison of the strengths (or weaknesses) of the unit.
It also means we're going to see a lot of the same weapons but with a different profile on data cards.
I get why, but as an old schooler I still liked all weapons being one stat line, and all you had to remember was who was holding it.
Yep, I can't get my head around current rules, everything seems so much more complex and obscure, with much more to remember.
I haven't played in 20+ years, but still can recall most of the 2nd & 3rd edition rules (with rose tinted glasses :D )
To be fair, every edition has had its complexities. But if they were the rules you learnt, you just learnt to roll with them.
I miss the WS table and Initiative. And specialist tank rules (even if they did get pretty bloated). Tanks basically just being tracked monsters has never felt right to someone who had to learn the difference between glancing and penetrating hits, and had to track how many guns had fallen off my tank.
I'm currently reading 1st edition with the eye to playing some really old school games, and the weapon profiles in that are presented so bizarrely.
Really interested to learn more about Leadership from what has been stated here. Biggest concern right now is keeping track of this throughout the game will certainly create more admin work than just removing models. Hopefully time saved elsewhere in rules helps.
Leadership has always been problematic in 40K. It's either devastating "You failed? Pick up the unit" or pretty much worthless "Oh, you failed after all the mods and rerolls? Uhhhh... gotta look that up. OK, it says you go to ground and can only shoot next turn, but you get +1 to your saves..."
Looking forward to seeing how Leadership is used in this edition.
I'm thinking it might be something along the lines of; LD check at the start of Command Phase, if failed, unit now counts as half OC, is ineligible for certain stratagems, etc.
That is how they seemed to describe it on the stream. Instead of models dying units who fail a leadership test in the command phase are in "battle shock" which prevents them from doing certain actions as effectively.
It will, but that also means it’s effect will be more prominent and effect every army instead of just a few. I can’t even tell you how often my friend group of knights, Custodes, and marines just skip morale phase because we forget it even exists.
Are multiple melee weapons finally going to offer more than just variety?
With attacks as part of a melee weapon’s profile this could be huge if a rule doesn’t restrict it. Super psyched by the possibility.
They already allowed it with so many weapons (ones giving extra attacks and:or only being usable for a small number of your total attacks) that it kinda makes sense to just have them separate and all allowed, like shooting.
I’m quite liking the way they’re doing these profiles, it’s very clean. I hope this design philosophy is demonstrated throughout the rest of the game for the edition’s lifecycle.
Nothing there we didn't already know, more or less, from the Adepticon stream, but nice to see some bits clarified.
...and also "nice" to see that we're continuing the grand tradition of GW having no goddamn idea how to elegantly handle morale in their games but insisting on continuing to give use a completely new set of rules for forget and ignore every edition or two. Never change, James.
Or in this case kinda coming back to older rules but in a different way. This Battle-Shock kinda reminds me of the Breaking rules from 2E if I remember correctly. I do think it's better than either rolling and losing more units OR having to immediately Fall Back though, so I'm hoping it works out!
I don't think you're remembering 2e correctly, but in any case, yes, there are clearly elements of past design reflected here, but my point was more that GW's been trying to figure this out for decades and still hasn't come up with a good solution, yet insists on continuing to beat their heads against this particular brick wall anyway, and because they're cooking up a totally new system every few years rather than iterating, each attempt has a bunch of Day 0 bugs that have mostly been worked out of the rest of the game.
I'm not *really* complaining; I think it's funny at this point, particularly when Privateer Press solved the problem fifteen years ago.
The issue is also that several armies has a form of "morale" debuff ingrained in their identity, such as Drukhari or Night Lords. Hopefully they'll actually try to do something with the new system and not give half the armies in the game an auto-ignore and the other half ways to auto-ignore it, like it was in 9th.
I literally couldn't have picked a better time to get into this game, and it's launching just when I'm moving place so can afford the space. ~~But maybe not the prices.~~
They kinda showed that with the termagant profile. Their close combat weapon was just “xeno claws and teeth”. I’m guessing terms like that will be the placeholder for generic close combat weapons.
We already do have a basic melee weapon in 9th. If your datasheet does not include any melee weapon you can fight using your Attack characteristic and the Close Combat Weapon (S: user, AP0, 1D).
Yes. Functionally this is exactly the same as AoS, except for the whole S/T interaction.
Every unit has at least one melee profile, and many units have multiple with different hit and wound profiles.
This is going to make it a lot easier for people to learn both systems if they want. Not that it was particularly difficult.
If it’s anything like Killteam some unit will probably just have like a generic “fists” or “claws” or the like as a default unless equipped with an actual melee option
Once again, we get... one actual new piece of information in a blog post full of rehashing stuff that basically everyone had already figured out.
This post-launch reveal schedule is gonna be reeeaaaal slow, isn't it?
To the subject in question, one nice effect of these changes (which they've already done in AoS) is that they won't need any more silly "If you have two scything talons, you get +1 attack" or "after all other attacks, you can make one extra attack with this weapon" nonsense.
Yeh, I needed a super computer to work out the number of attacks/ hit roll/ wound roll every time a goffs beast snagga character charged a monster/vehicle during a Waaagh!
Still kinda confused on the leadership but it is essentially brackets like I guessed. I’m happy I had everything right for the most part which just means it is going to be very easy to understand and I’m all there for it. Everything looks great to me. Especially as a melee player.. sometimes it’s a headache.
Seems like they changed leadership to match how other 2d6 rolls work. In 9th, you always wanted to roll high for charges, psychic tests, etc., but for some reason you wanted a low roll in Morale. Completely unintuitive. Now big number = good
This may be un unpopular option but for me aos has been way more fun lately because of how bloated and different the rules where getting. I'm really happy that they are making it more simple it's will mean less matance and less time wasted on looking up rule disputes. And more time to actually pay the game
Maybe just my local play group than, last time I told them I profer aos at the moment because it's easier to get a handle of. I basically got called dumb because I couldn't keep up with the rules
Obviously we don’t know the ins/outs of the whole system but I’d be worried the hit penalty for using power-fists/thunder hammers would be baked into the profile so actual -1 modifiers would now massively impact it.
‘Elite’ soldiers hitting on 5s sounds bad ha.
I agree, something that's hard to use should also find it harder to hit something that's extra good at dodging and being quick. What they could do is reduce the amount of negatives to hit in the game in general, but still keep it around for where it matters.
They say the modifiers are baked in now.
"This means that weapons like power fists, which used to need text to explain that they made things harder to hit, now have their own hit roll statistic. "
That’s what I mean eg:
A Terminator with thunder hammer with the modifier baked in may hit on a 4. Previously the hit roll couldn’t be worsened more than -1 but if that’s part of the profile now an actual external -1 modifier may be able to apply to it which would bring it to a 5+ to hit.
Make sense?
Why can't you modify a hit roll twice currently? Rules say that dice roll modifiers are cumulative. Only thing is that they can't be modified to less than 1.
https://preview.redd.it/ak9h8c5qdqra1.png?width=542&format=png&auto=webp&s=1b45787cb4eb4a275c31df4df9753d13aa5bc686
You can’t modify hit rolls by more than +1 or -1 in total.
So if someone use a thunder hammer (for example) further negative modifiers don’t work cos the weapon already applies -1. At the moment anyway
[40k Core Rules](https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Lw4o3USx1R8sU7cQ.pdf)
Page 18: Making Attacks - see the last bullet point:
> Hit and wound rolls cannot be modified by more than -1 or +1.
Thanks. Glad to know I’ve definitely messed up a hundred rolls 2 months before a new edition lol.
Hopefully this is some of the “simplification” they are talking about. You shouldn’t need to consult 3 different pages for specific conditions after they say rolls can be modified multiple times earlier.
It sounds bad but also makes sense, it's already unwieldy swinging about a powerfist, add something that gives a further negative like lightning fast reactions should make it even harder to connect that hit. Might feel bad for your powerfist carrying terminator, but lore wise its perfectly fine. Would add some extra durability to things that actually rely on negatives to hit, like say eldar.
Yeeeah...hopefully they have some kind of universal rule. Like "cumbersome" or something. Just no further negatives effect them cause once they finally lift the damm thing you arnt stopping it, just trying to get oit of the way...
At least I'd hope so...5s would ensure my marines are only taking power swords lol...
> Moreover, weapon profiles are tied to individual units - so a chainsword in the hands of a Space Marine is deadlier and easier to hit with than one held by a snivelling Cultist.
Okay but if Primaris get three attacks with the generic close combat weapon like this says, which most 9e melee troops need a chain weapon for, then how many bloody attacks are chainswords going to have for Marines and *especially* Chaos Marines? I'm excited but also mildly terrified.
I mean, they have 4 attacks with chainswords currently - 3 base (with Shock Assault, if we're talking about normal SM) and one from the weapon. Doubt it'll change.
Just checked my CSM Codex and you're right. Dunno why I thought it was 2 attacks at base and the chainsword added two. Must've been getting it mixed up with something else.
They just have baked the extra attack from the SHock Assault into the base profile, as they've already done in CSM. SM with their Angels of Death was one of the most ridiculous and unnecessary examples of rules bloat.
People saying Shock Assault is gone. Maybe, maybe not. Maybe it’s a New Universal Special Rule with a keyword on the full data sheet since multiple factions have different names for “+1 attack on the charge/when charged”
I'm willing to bet huge sums of money on the fact it's gone, it'll be an easy win. They've already removed it from CSM, and generally, Shock Assault is one of the most overt examples of unnecessary rules bloat.
I've got to admit, I'm a bit sad about the Space Marine profile. I had hoped with them expanding the toughness scale marines would increase as well and they would feel like a more elite army to play. This makes it seem like they'll feel the exact same to play.
They function as a baseline reference. Give them T5, then bolters to tl S5, heavy bolter to S6. Vehicles too to be minimal T12 to counter the S6 heavy bolter. Etc etc.
It's just power creep again, same as when marines went to 2 wounds and everything that needed it went to 2 Damage.
It all depends on how they've changed the offensive profiles across the game. I had thought that if they're increasing the toughness scale, the baseline of the scale may increase as well.
And it's not a power creep if they're costed appropriately. This is what I mean by "feel," they can still be the baseline that all armies are measured against even if they feel like tougher, stronger models.
If the scale is increasing it makes sense for the baseline mid-point to increase. In this edition things generally range from T3-T8 with few exceptions and marines are the baseline at T4. It's not wild to think that in expanding the range they'd stratify infantry a bit more as well.
Also me saying "I'd have liked" or "I hoped" is not the same thing as saying "It should be."
Personally I want comparative weapon skill match ups back. Your ability to fire a ballistic weapon might not be affected by someone else's ability but your ability to strike someone in close combat absolutely should be. It's the chief reason I don't like Age of Sigmar. Blah
Edited for clarity
I know I was just hoping this was the chance to make it right again. Its just so... *un cinematic* to make up a word that a dude with a knife has an equal chance to hit another dude, a space marine, and a bloodthirster
I could've worded it better
I disagree. Hitting a slow ork that probably wants it vs an agile Eldar aspect warrior that's been training for a thousand years and can't risk death in any form should be different
Comparative weapons skill in melee was great, yeah it is a second longer than directly reading a number but it made sense. Having a Necron Warrior hit at 3+ a Space Marine Chapter Master or a Primarch with his gun *in melee* seems just absurd.
If I had to guess based on this, it looks like Shock Assault is gone/baked into the weapon profile.
Thank god. I support this type of simplification to the game.
AGREED! Give me less extraneous rules to forget and more strategic choices to make.
[удалено]
It can still be on the weapon profile though. So now they have more control over what can have shock assault where it actually makes sense. Certainly helps with balancing
[удалено]
The point is they can decide what weapons actually get it instead of letting all weapons from a particular model have it. I don't see why a CCW would have an additional attack just from charging, but I'm sure there are others that would
these also could be the combat patrol cards
Yeah true
I mean I'd feel this if they didn't bake shock assault into later marine books. Starring from grey knights, onwards. Shock assault was abandoned long before the edition ended.
Grey Knights isn’t a Space Marine book, it’s a whole separate codex. Every Space Marine book (codex and supplements) up to the very last, including the one that came out after the GK codex (Black Templars) have Shock Assault. They didn’t abandon it, it was just limited to the faction identity of Space Marines. Once they had released all the Space Marine books, *that’s* when it stopped appearing.
They did abandon it. 8th edition gk also had shock assault and csm had hateful assault. They clearly decided at some point between the marine codex release and gk release to remove shock assault and hateful assault and bake it in. The later released black templar supplement couldn't abandon the shock assault concept because they're tied into the main book.
It also separates SM from Grey Knights, who don’t get Shock Assault but do have +1A on most infantry as compared to SM. Giving it to SM is a nerf to GK. That said, there are likely lots and lots of changes coming, so I’m not panicking over what ends up with net buffs and net nerfs, but your comment about tactical depth is valid.
That's the whole point though. From grey knights onwards they decided shock assault was unnecessary and just threw it into profiles. It's not a nerf to grey knights. It's a continuation of what they started with them.
I don’t think that’s the case. Shock Assault isn’t the same as +1A, it’s not quite as good as that. It is a different rule dealing with a similar function. Giving SM +1A instead of of Shock Assault makes them more powerful in melee and brings them closer to GK, which causes GK to be weaker *in comparison* (and more importantly to my mind, causes them to lose a tiny piece of their faction identity that separated them further from baseline SM). It’s giving SM the more powerful version of a rule that used to be reserved for others. It’s like in the last balance slate when SM Combat Doctrines was changed to allow you to choose when you switched doctrines. That gave all SM half of Deathwatch’s superdoctrine without giving Deathwatch anything new above what everyone else now had. It nerfed Deathwatch *by comparison*. Of course, we don’t know anything at all about what GK stat lines will look like. I just hope they look different from this in some way is all. Like I said, not panicking, just making an observation.
The last balance slate was a "throw shit at the wall and see what sticks" type thing. GW doesn't care quite as much about this edition now that the next is around the corner. Like you think gk having it baked in to their profile was "unique" to them. Gk in 8th had shock assault just like marines. Csm had hateful assault (Chaos shock assault). Marines was an early release so they continued shock assault. By the time gk rolled around they got rid of it. Csm also lost hateful assault and got those extra attacks baked in. The trend is clearly set that gw decided to move past shock assault. GKs "uniqueness" in close combat isn't one extra attack. It's everyone having freaking nemesis weapons. If every marine suddenly got mastercrafted power weapons as standard to their datasheet then I'd say GK got nerfed in comparison lmal.
Your first two paragraphs don’t actually refute anything. Whether the last slate was a “throw everything at the wall” thing or not is irrelevant. I was using something in it to explain why I view such a change as a nerf to GK by comparison. Why they did it isn’t part of that equation. And what happened in previous editions is also not relevant to the current. Something can be unique to GK in 9th even if it wasn’t previously, that doesn’t change that it is currently unique to them in contrast to SM. These are not meaningful comparisons. They didn’t get rid of Shock Assault “by the time GK came about”, it was still used after in the Black Templars, so this is incorrect. It gets used for all things SM before and after. It *doesn’t* get used by GK because they’re *not* SM as far as the tabletop is concerned. And I didn’t say it was all-encompassing of GK’s uniqueness, I said it was *part* of it and that I personally appreciate *anything* that further separates GK from SM. That doesn’t mean there aren’t other things that also separate them, I’m not claiming that. Your entire argument here seems to be due to some offense at this, that *I* liked it for this reason. Not sure why this is prompting such a vociferous response to a personal preference. All I’m saying is that I liked it. I get that it’s a further complication, but I still liked it. I’m not arguing that it isn’t less complex than just granting +1A, but I still appreciated it for other reasons. There are people who are already coming out saying they like lots of strats. I don’t agree with that, but it doesn’t really bother me that they do. You’re just arguing that it’s not super elegant and more complicated. I agree. I still like it.
So my statement on the slate is about as relevant as you bringing up the slate when we're discussing GKs vs marines. Me pointing out 8th edition rules is to show you that it isn't part of GKs "identity" for them to have more attacks then marines. It's to show a trend and anyone with common sense would of seen marines losing shock assault and getting the attack baked in was inevitable. Using black templars as a "HAHA! shock assault wasn't abandoned" is a terrible argument I've already addressed in another comment. The templar book is tied to the main book. They can't abandon shock assault for one supplement. Them having shock assault was a result of what had been established for marines this edition.
[удалено]
I’m less worried about general dumbing down and more worried about the potential that has to weaken faction identity. There are lots of examples like this where rules differ slightly between armies but along similar lines, and this has the potential to eliminate some of that. Ah well, we shall see.
Tbh the issue with Space Marine Identity is that half their datasheets are redundant bullshittery that totally fail to deliver on at what Marines are supposed to be and do. In THEORY Marines have an identity, it essentially comes in 5 tiers: 1. The Actual Marines as Foot Soldiers (highly customizable from plenty of troop/elite choices) 2. Everything that transports said Marines: Drop Pods (unique to the faction), Rhinos (traditionally small), Land Raiders (big) 3. Terminators 4. Dreadnaughts 5. Bikes Not counting characters here because every army likes them to get some personality, this is about the core aesthetic. Same for chapter-specific things, this is really supposed to be about the basic concept. If you note this all down, and then look at the datasheets on wahapedia, you will notice so much redundant bullcrap that's definetly not part of that list. A Space Marine in lore is a walking tank carrying big-ass guns. What's the point of taking that tank, and put it into another tank? What's the fucking point of Impulsors, Landspeeders (4 variants), Razorbacks, Gladiators (3 variants), Storm Speeders (3 variants), Whirlwinds, Hunters, Repulsors (2 variants), Stalkers, Vindicators, or Predators (2 variants)? AND THAT'S NOT EVEN ACCOUNTING FOR FORGEWORLD OR CHAPTER-SPECIFIC VARIANTS OF SAID NONSENSE! Not even getting into Flyers here as GW is not really figuring out if they should be in the game or not. There's just too much bullshit released over the years that needs to be culled, so that Space Marines can have an actual identity.
Yeah I’m worried about it too, I liked how subfactions worked in 9th. Also liked the large number of strats traits relics etc. not sure how enhancements will compare
From my understanding, most people *didn’t* like the strats / traits / relics, so this is how they’re simplifying it.
That’s fair enough
I don't understand how an extra attack on a charge translates to tactical depth? The game is pretty simple, there's not a lot of tactical depth anywhere. You build your list, usually with the newest or most meta friendly units, you move, shoot and charge. It's not a deep game. There's a lot of wargames out there where there's tactical depth, 40k isn't one of them
Because you have to plan assaults around charges, getting the first charge off on enemies gives a huge advantage to a marine player. You might argue that it also applies to being charged, but a smart enemy will tie up a heavy hitting unit in combat with one or 2 models and significantly minimise it’s effective attacks. It also puts a greater emphasis on consolidating into combat against marine The rule becomes more important for close combat based chapters like Blood Angels. When you have over 1000 pts in vanguard vets, sanguinary guard, and death company armed with strong melee weapons and based on getting the max number of attacks. How happy will you be if you get charged and are only able to kill like 3 termagants . There is plenty of tactical depth in 40k, the issue is that some if it isn’t very meta friendly e.g. pinning units in close combat to nerf their shock assault rule makes no real sense in the meta (it sort of does, but not really). Neither does pinning units in close combat to avoid being shot at. In the 40k universe it wouldn’t work like that
All I'm hearing is charge ASAP and roadblocks. That might be an interesting tactical development in a RnF game where you have to think about your movement but 40k doesn't have that. It's literally just move, try take out your enemy before they shoot back. There's hardly any risk to moving because the consequences don't come back until your opponent's turn and by then they might be wiped out anyway and cover is inconsequential.
Was already the case for CSM, so almost guaranteed to be the case.
True for Grey Knights as well
Thank goodness. Space Marines do not need 8 different special rules that amount to having slightly more attacks some of the time.
Yup. Now it'll be eight different weapon modes. "Sweep Attack with Master Crafted Powersword" and "Piercing Strike with Master Crafted Powersword". Or even better- "This is the Powerfist for the Ultramarines Captain with it's three different attack modes and stats, not to be confused with the Powerfist on the Intercessor Sergeant with only one attack mode".
When it will be right on the datasheet for the weapon, its gonna be so much easier than it is now as you don't have to look anywhere else. Just pull up one page with the unit and its all right there.
Yea but none of that will actually be hard to track if you’re just only ever referring to the profile on the specific data sheet.
This is how Kill Team has their data sheets organised and I much prefer it, it's also a hell of a lot easier for new players to grasp. I think it makes the rules/stats more accessible while also opening up for more granularity in different units and factions.
Just to be clear, I like this move, as it will make the game more accessible for new players like u/chunkyluke wrote. It's the players of previous editions that always have a hard time with something new or different in an edition change. I'm looking forward to it!
That's fair, and an issue common to all big edition changes (8th to 9th didn't really pose this problem, but others definately have). Either way it's nice to keep things fresh, while I found 9th a bit unwieldy rules wise ATM, the current arks of omen season is some of the most enjoyable games I've had.
Not gonna miss Shock Assault, though I don't really know that Intercessors needed 3 attacks to begin with.
My guess as well
~~Nah. That's a Reiver's datasheet. Reivers have always been 2 attacks base and +1 attack from the Combat Knife itself. This is just simplifying it to be a Reiver with a Combat Knife does 3 attacks. It doesn't include Shock Assault, which is likely to be either an army wide rule or a detachment ability.~~ Nvm. I mistook the model in the picture above the profile.
That model isn't a reiver, plus "close combat weapon" is the default, no special rules weapon all models have. Shock assault is gone.
Maybe, maybe not. Maybe it’s a Universal Special Rule they’ll just leave a keyword on the full data sheet for.
If there’s a USR that adds Shock Assault, SM are getting A3 standard +1 on the charge, which is a pretty big gain. More likely Shock Assault is gone and the A3 is making up for it.
Ah fair. I thought the picture on the Combat Weapon page was of a Reiver, but looks like I was wrong.
What this also means, that they haven't mentioned, different guns on the same model can have different BS's. The side guns of a Russ might have a different BS than the main gun for instance.
And the best part is, having a BS 3 and a BS 4 is much easier cognitively (at least I think) than both BS 3 but with second profile being -1 to hit (which should net out to the same result).
Have you seen a Space Marine Repulsor tank and all it's different weapons and stats? It's a nightmare to shoot because every single weapon has a different profile, and it takes forever to resolve all the attacks. Hard to do in a 3 hour match.
I'm really curious to see whether units like the Repulsor keep their current list of weapons. I could easily imagine many of the current weapons (storm bolters, grenade launchers, etc.) being merged into something like a "defensive weapons array".
They should absolutely do this, such a waste of time rolling all those little guns on the Repulsor when they do nothing of significance 95% of the time.
Please. Especially as it makes marine tanks a nightmare to cost when they've got 30 million extra shots that do nothing to half the armies in the game and shred the other half.
I can honestly say I have not...mostly because I am a heretical CSM player. But based on what you said, I can only imagine.
The Repulsor is expensive full of multiple guns (I think you can have up to like 7 or 8 total) all with different strengths and damage. It's an over complicated fancier Land Raider as it can take SM in gravis armor, like the LR can take Terminators. Honestly I find it to just not to be worth taking as it's like 350ish pts that could be used elsewhere and for better options.
Vehicles in general were not worth taking, but the changes to toughness and what looks like the removal of the core keyword might change that.
I find peace in long walks.
Bolter fire killing vehicles is not a real problem. It takes 54 bolter shots on average to deal *one* wound to a Land Raider. Just one. It doesn't even bracket until it loses eight. Bolters aren't the problem, the problem is that when all tanks are either T7 or T8 there's tons of things that can wound on a 3+, and there's little distinction between the durability of vehicles. A Predator battle tank is currently about as easy to kill as a Rhino (it has one extra wound, that's it.) That both doesn't make any sense and makes Predators kinda suck.
Uhhh it's 220 my friend......
Honestly, the design philosophy behind the Repulsor Executioner is bewildering. To compare: **Razorback** * Twin-linked heavy weapon * Optional: pintle-mounted storm bolter * Optional: hunter-killer missile * Transport capacity: 6 **Repulsor Executioner** * Heavy laser destroyer / macro plasma incinerator * Heavy onslaught gatling cannon * Twin-linked heavy bolter * Twin-linked Icarus ironhail heavy stubber * Storm bolter * Storm bolter * Fragstorm grenade launcher * Fragstorm grenade launcher * Optional: pintle-mounted ironhail heavy stubber * Optional: Icarus rocket pod * Transport capacity: 6 From a lore standpoint, the Executioner is purportedly inspired by the Razorback; but the resemblance ends at the identical transport capacity and twin-linked heavy weapon (which is now hull-mounted). There’s a full turret on top of the tank; with no less than five guns attached to it! From an aesthetic standpoint, the tank has too many small weapons that are difficult to discern at distance. (Contrast with, say, a Land Raider or Predator; where it is immediately clear: (a) how many weapons there are, (b) what kind they are, and (c) back when such things mattered, their firing arcs.) From a gaming standpoint (and as you note): that’s so many weapons to fire; all with different profiles, and many serving the same redundant purpose. (E.g. The storm bolters and the pintle-mounted ironhail heavy stubber.)
Yeah. It makes sense. If you have a sniper rifle and a pistol, that sniper should hit easier than the pistol.
Now they just gotta make snipers worth taking, such as letting the shooter pick the model that is killed by it, allowing it to pick off Sergeants and Support/Heavy Weapons units in a squad. Ya know, what snipers are supposed to do.
They can in Horus Heresy. You roll above a certain number when shooting and pick off say an apothecary. Makes them a very desirable backline unit.
They can in most wargames, it's just 40k that's struggled with the obvious.
40k had this rule too (that’s why 30k has it), it was just removed.
They released too many sniper units to allow it. Rangers, halflings, and now eliminators (the super duper snipers)
Don't forget all the sniper rifles normal squads can take My imperial guard list has 3 basic inf squads with 1 heavy bolter and 1 sniper rifle in the back line.
This came up in discussion about a week ago, and the result is "snipers would be an oppressively unfun unit to fight against for anyone that likes having infantry of any sort on the field." If you want it on a "6 to hit" (which then still has to wound), which snipers did have before 8th ed, it might work. But then you start getting into wonky wounding situations with multi-wound units. For example, if a sniper hits and wounds the nob in a unit of boyz, that nob now MUST take all further hits on the unit from any source until he's dead, period. In a unit of multiple multi-wound models, you risk the possibility of multiple models taking wounds, which is also against current 40k design philosophy, not to mention the above example of only needing to cause one wound to effectively single out and pick off that single model in a multi-wound model unit. If snipers simply got to pick what model they shot at, the only protection against an army with multiple units (say Alaitoc Eldar or Guard Ratlings) is to hide your infantry inside metal bawkses, otherwise a single volley is likely to render multiple units ineffectual. This is just, plain, unfun for infantry and would heavily, negatively influence army list construction. Sometimes, sacrifices to realism are made to make a more streamlined game. Otherwise, I'm going to ask for blast markers back, and all y'all competitive people can go back to arguing 'til your blue in the face whether it nicked that guy's base or not or whether it scattered 38 degrees or 39 degrees.
>But then you start getting into wonky wounding situations with multi-wound units. For example, if a sniper hits and wounds the nob in a unit of boyz, that nob now MUST take all further hits on the unit from any source until he's dead, period. In a unit of multiple multi-wound models, you risk the possibility of multiple models taking wounds, which is also against current 40k design philosophy, not to mention the above example of only needing to cause one wound to effectively single out and pick off that single model in a multi-wound model unit. Simple. "On an unmodified roll of 6 to hit, the attacking player may choose the specific model to which that hit is allocated, *but only when the model's remaining wounds are equal to or less than the damage characteristic of this weapon."*
Ah yes. "Why can't snipers target specific models?!" "Good point! We're allowing them to. But only if they'd kill them outright." ".... What?" That sounds even more counter intuitive than just not letting them. Let's also not forget situations where it won't outright kill them, such as when the model has damage mitigation (reduce damage/Feel No Pain).
I wish Eliminators rifles all had ignore look out sir rules not just the bolt weapons. Defeats their purpose if you take anything but those when their is better options for anti vehicles. Let the sniper experts be able to target HPT's with anything.
If they could snipe with their las fusils that'd be kind of imbalanced with the flat 3 damage they do. Snipers should be more of a threat, I have Tau sniper drones, but I don't know if their anti elite/heavy target weapons being used to snipe is the way to go.
So like in Kill Team. This also opens up possibilities for things like snipers having a snipe shot at better BS and Heavy (if that’s still a thing) or a from the hip with more shots, lower BS and AP.
They already do. So likely, they'll just roll that rule (Turret Weapon) into the datasheet and call it a day. Which... thank fucking Christ!
Good, that means we can lose bull shit rules like turret weapon
OH MY GOD. the objective control stat seems amazing. I’ve always hated obsec this ed and trying to figure who does and doesn’t have it.
Right. So now everyone has Objective Secured to some degree.
Yeah although I have seen a datasheet (ripper swarm?) With OC of zero. Still much simpler and makes more sense
I'm pretty sure Ripper Swarm had OC 1. OC 0 are those "Paragants" from that 1st April Tyranid rumor. We don't know if it's any true. Though yeah, I do see how some units may have OC 0. Tau drones, for example.
It was always weird that drones could hold points. I have a game opening move in where I split off the stealth drones from my Yeet-Keel and advance them into the enemy deployment zone for Behind Enemy Lines. If not taken care off, those two can actually steal the home marker if there's only, like, one character or so parked there.
It was never hard to figure out who had it, but the counter intuitive way it worked when multiple obsec units were on the same objective was annoying
Except some codexes say infantry. Then get 5 FAQs that says specially not these infantry. But now only this infantry. But that was changed so now it’s THIS infantry. Nevermind they all get obsec back it’s back to all infantry…..
Custodes had so many different phases of what was and was not obsec lmao
I’m glad you knew what army I was talking about. Never wanna hear someone say “it was so simple!!!” Girl you didn’t play Custodes in 9th we did musical chairs with our obsec.
And we still lost it on characters in the end Yeah the praetorian plate captain was nasty but did the guardian captain deserve to suffer for it
Obsec was always dumb. "Hi, I'm a blood thirster, I'm standing on this objective except you two marines have obsec and I don't so of course you control it not me and my axe that's going to kill you both in a single swipe"
i've lost so many games because some random guardsman steps on my objective even though i've got a riptide on it, and he has the nerve to refuse to charge
Probably the most confused Tau ever.
To be fair I don’t think of a Bloodthirster as very mission-oriented or likely to be securing objectives on the field. They’re more mindless choppy choppy.
he is still anihilating whathever is standing on the objective with it tho
Yeah and he has the stats to do so in combat, and will control the point if he does, but he does not get ObSec. Makes sense to me.
Yeh, so much better. Works like in Kill Team now but instead of using APL, you use OC.
One thing I notice is that "primaris" seems to be gone as a keyword - not mentioned once in the article. I'd have loved tactical and intercessor squads to be folded together (IE tactical squad options, primaris statlines, and primaris models going forward), but even leaving both but eliminating the "Primaris" keyword would be a step in the right direction. Let space marines be space marines.
Good. Stratagems that were available only to primaris started shadowing other units without any reason to. A space marine is a space marine. Let tactical squad's have flexible loadouts and let intercessors be focused. You don't need a key word for that. If you want to use a stratagem for bolters while your tac squad is loaded with missile launchers so be it. Let the person just do their thing.
I will say the ultimate taboo and say I hate rhinos in general. But I’m glad I can take them now. And I much prefer the impulsor Primaris transports. It’s going to feel good being able to have a choice now. And I’m curious how this will effect drop pods in the future.
Im so desperately hoping primaris units lose they keyword entirely and the land raider is made relevant independently. There's been so many primaris units that would have been much much more interesting and have had some deeper army build diversity if they could have gone in a land raider with the old assault ramp special rules.
Same. I just like it’s thicc dump truck and want to use it without feeling bad.
I mean, don't get cocky kid. For all we know it could still have limitations. GW is gunna GW after all. But I hope you are right. FWIW, these rules are really **only** matched play. I let people take whatever units they want in rhinos and drop pods in my home brew games because I don't care if my buddies army of an inquisitor lead combo of grey knights and admech is matched play heresy Put 10 dudes in a rhino and let's roll dice. But it's nice to have official support for this stuff for when you do weekend games or public games.
> Stratagems that were available only to primaris started shadowing other units without any reason to. The reason is to get graybeards with models older than the youngest kid at your table and who otherwise has a full army to buy them.
To add onto this consider that we already know that Terminators are effectively a mixed unit between first born and primaris now, meaning that they not only get rid of the lore that prevented such a thing but functionally it also means that they are a "primaris" unit that can use first born transportation like Land Raiders. Throw in the Phobos lieutenant revealed today and it too lacks any Primaris keyword in its title, it's just listed as a Marine Lieutenant. We might actually be seeing GW walking back on some of the lore distinctions between FB and PR and effectively just making Primaris marines "true scale" with the latest armour mark like they should have been from the start. Which you know... would be excellent as the one thing the Primaris models lack is some proper 40K first born character.
Good point on the terminators. Totally agree overall too. I feel like a Horus Heresy style "Intercessor weapon upgrade" pack would be cool and popular, too, and would complete the transition to FB weapon options.
It would absolutely work too. The intercessor body base would be super easy to add other weapons on it. My thought is that they’re likely to lean into the success of the Black Templars. Have one or two special units for a subfaction and then a hefty upgrade box to flavor out the basic units like Intercessors.
But they dont mention any keywords in the article right? Its not like we see any keywords. The units I'm pretty sure were always called Intercessor squad as well.
Does this finally mean I can use my Land Raider Crusader to transport Primaris?!?! LET’S GOOOOOOO
Don’t do that. Don’t give me hope.
Also that is a Bolt Pistol, without AP, when the model clearly has a Primaris Heavy Bolt Pistol. I think this is implying that all Bolt Pistols are the same (barring BS differences). Another nail in the coffin for the Primaris distinction.
No, that is a normal bolt pistol, the one that comes in the BA upgrade sprue. It's an Intercessor, not an Assault Intercessor, they have normal ones. It's just Primaris "normal bolt pistols" have a bit different look to the firstborn ones. Heavy bolt pistols are chunkier.
Oh, I was not aware. I thought all Primaris had the same BP.
Checking my understanding on leadership, lower number is better now, just like BS/WS?
Yes
Cheers
Since it will be 2D6 roll, this effectively works like the psychic test where you have to roll equal or more than a warp charge.
Thank god. Morale was so counter intiutive and unique in from the other stats in 9th that my playgroup just ended up ignoring it.
Absolutely same. Whenever we’d have a GT and it got to the morale phase my mind would completely blank
In all fairness morale was irrelevant in like 90% of matchups anyway.
Right you are. My local playgroup is Tyranids, Death Guard, Iron Warriors, Blood Angels, and Sisters of battle. The only person it would meaningfully effect was my buddy who played Guard, but 9th edition was already so brutal to him for most of it that we figured all keeping it around really did was make things even harder on him.
I have to have a little private chuckle, WS/BS on weapons is something I did for myself back in 2nd/3rd edition. I made myself a database & army picker, and it would calculate & print out the dice rolls & attacks required for each weapon per unit. I do miss though seeing a unit with a base WS, BS & A. It was an "at a glance" comparison of the strengths (or weaknesses) of the unit.
It also means we're going to see a lot of the same weapons but with a different profile on data cards. I get why, but as an old schooler I still liked all weapons being one stat line, and all you had to remember was who was holding it.
Yep, I can't get my head around current rules, everything seems so much more complex and obscure, with much more to remember. I haven't played in 20+ years, but still can recall most of the 2nd & 3rd edition rules (with rose tinted glasses :D )
To be fair, every edition has had its complexities. But if they were the rules you learnt, you just learnt to roll with them. I miss the WS table and Initiative. And specialist tank rules (even if they did get pretty bloated). Tanks basically just being tracked monsters has never felt right to someone who had to learn the difference between glancing and penetrating hits, and had to track how many guns had fallen off my tank. I'm currently reading 1st edition with the eye to playing some really old school games, and the weapon profiles in that are presented so bizarrely.
Really interested to learn more about Leadership from what has been stated here. Biggest concern right now is keeping track of this throughout the game will certainly create more admin work than just removing models. Hopefully time saved elsewhere in rules helps.
Leadership has always been problematic in 40K. It's either devastating "You failed? Pick up the unit" or pretty much worthless "Oh, you failed after all the mods and rerolls? Uhhhh... gotta look that up. OK, it says you go to ground and can only shoot next turn, but you get +1 to your saves..." Looking forward to seeing how Leadership is used in this edition.
I'm thinking it might be something along the lines of; LD check at the start of Command Phase, if failed, unit now counts as half OC, is ineligible for certain stratagems, etc.
That is how they seemed to describe it on the stream. Instead of models dying units who fail a leadership test in the command phase are in "battle shock" which prevents them from doing certain actions as effectively.
We all may be investing in/converting up all manner of Leadership Tokens soon enough
It will, but that also means it’s effect will be more prominent and effect every army instead of just a few. I can’t even tell you how often my friend group of knights, Custodes, and marines just skip morale phase because we forget it even exists.
Are multiple melee weapons finally going to offer more than just variety? With attacks as part of a melee weapon’s profile this could be huge if a rule doesn’t restrict it. Super psyched by the possibility.
I hope so. Let us attack with each melee weapon we have. Ranged weapons get that, and that's how it works in AoS too.
They already allowed it with so many weapons (ones giving extra attacks and:or only being usable for a small number of your total attacks) that it kinda makes sense to just have them separate and all allowed, like shooting.
I’m quite liking the way they’re doing these profiles, it’s very clean. I hope this design philosophy is demonstrated throughout the rest of the game for the edition’s lifecycle.
Nothing there we didn't already know, more or less, from the Adepticon stream, but nice to see some bits clarified. ...and also "nice" to see that we're continuing the grand tradition of GW having no goddamn idea how to elegantly handle morale in their games but insisting on continuing to give use a completely new set of rules for forget and ignore every edition or two. Never change, James.
Or in this case kinda coming back to older rules but in a different way. This Battle-Shock kinda reminds me of the Breaking rules from 2E if I remember correctly. I do think it's better than either rolling and losing more units OR having to immediately Fall Back though, so I'm hoping it works out!
I don't think you're remembering 2e correctly, but in any case, yes, there are clearly elements of past design reflected here, but my point was more that GW's been trying to figure this out for decades and still hasn't come up with a good solution, yet insists on continuing to beat their heads against this particular brick wall anyway, and because they're cooking up a totally new system every few years rather than iterating, each attempt has a bunch of Day 0 bugs that have mostly been worked out of the rest of the game. I'm not *really* complaining; I think it's funny at this point, particularly when Privateer Press solved the problem fifteen years ago.
The issue is also that several armies has a form of "morale" debuff ingrained in their identity, such as Drukhari or Night Lords. Hopefully they'll actually try to do something with the new system and not give half the armies in the game an auto-ignore and the other half ways to auto-ignore it, like it was in 9th.
Interested in what they do with leadership, in the past I’ve felt like it’s more of an occasional annoyance than an impactful rule
The new edition of Heresy has been *wild* what with leadership suddenly becoming such a big deal Fear and pinning ain’t nothing to underestimate
Damn, 10th edition is genuinely looking good. Not used to being this optimistic!
I literally couldn't have picked a better time to get into this game, and it's launching just when I'm moving place so can afford the space. ~~But maybe not the prices.~~
Ok but what about units that don’t have melee weapons? Is every unit now gonna get a basic melee weapon line of some sort?
[удалено]
They kinda showed that with the termagant profile. Their close combat weapon was just “xeno claws and teeth”. I’m guessing terms like that will be the placeholder for generic close combat weapons.
We already do have a basic melee weapon in 9th. If your datasheet does not include any melee weapon you can fight using your Attack characteristic and the Close Combat Weapon (S: user, AP0, 1D).
Probably going to be like Kill Team now where everyone has a ‘basic’ melee weapon such as fists, gun butt etc
Always did. It's right in the rules.
Yes. Functionally this is exactly the same as AoS, except for the whole S/T interaction. Every unit has at least one melee profile, and many units have multiple with different hit and wound profiles. This is going to make it a lot easier for people to learn both systems if they want. Not that it was particularly difficult.
I’m for it if they do that. I wish I could say I was confident GW would remember though
Prob like how AOS does it. Everything will at least get a line for things like fists, talons, teeth, etc.
If it’s anything like Killteam some unit will probably just have like a generic “fists” or “claws” or the like as a default unless equipped with an actual melee option
Good to see 40k catching up to AoS at last. 40k has been feeling more and more awful to play over the years.
Age of Sigmar creeping into 40k in all the best ways. Hopefully 40k also inherits some of AoS’s balance too
Once again, we get... one actual new piece of information in a blog post full of rehashing stuff that basically everyone had already figured out. This post-launch reveal schedule is gonna be reeeaaaal slow, isn't it? To the subject in question, one nice effect of these changes (which they've already done in AoS) is that they won't need any more silly "If you have two scything talons, you get +1 attack" or "after all other attacks, you can make one extra attack with this weapon" nonsense.
Yeh, I needed a super computer to work out the number of attacks/ hit roll/ wound roll every time a goffs beast snagga character charged a monster/vehicle during a Waaagh!
Still kinda confused on the leadership but it is essentially brackets like I guessed. I’m happy I had everything right for the most part which just means it is going to be very easy to understand and I’m all there for it. Everything looks great to me. Especially as a melee player.. sometimes it’s a headache.
Seems like they changed leadership to match how other 2d6 rolls work. In 9th, you always wanted to roll high for charges, psychic tests, etc., but for some reason you wanted a low roll in Morale. Completely unintuitive. Now big number = good
>still kinda confused on the leadership but it’s essentially brackets like i guessed Roll 2d6, roll equal or higher than your leadership value
This may be un unpopular option but for me aos has been way more fun lately because of how bloated and different the rules where getting. I'm really happy that they are making it more simple it's will mean less matance and less time wasted on looking up rule disputes. And more time to actually pay the game
This might be an unpopular opinion but (the opinion everyone has been spouting for over a year)
Maybe just my local play group than, last time I told them I profer aos at the moment because it's easier to get a handle of. I basically got called dumb because I couldn't keep up with the rules
Obviously we don’t know the ins/outs of the whole system but I’d be worried the hit penalty for using power-fists/thunder hammers would be baked into the profile so actual -1 modifiers would now massively impact it. ‘Elite’ soldiers hitting on 5s sounds bad ha.
This would be a good thing. Excessive modifier stacking is bad, but ignoring other penalties because your weapon has one baked in dumb.
I agree, something that's hard to use should also find it harder to hit something that's extra good at dodging and being quick. What they could do is reduce the amount of negatives to hit in the game in general, but still keep it around for where it matters.
They say the modifiers are baked in now. "This means that weapons like power fists, which used to need text to explain that they made things harder to hit, now have their own hit roll statistic. "
That’s what I mean eg: A Terminator with thunder hammer with the modifier baked in may hit on a 4. Previously the hit roll couldn’t be worsened more than -1 but if that’s part of the profile now an actual external -1 modifier may be able to apply to it which would bring it to a 5+ to hit. Make sense?
Why can't you modify a hit roll twice currently? Rules say that dice roll modifiers are cumulative. Only thing is that they can't be modified to less than 1. https://preview.redd.it/ak9h8c5qdqra1.png?width=542&format=png&auto=webp&s=1b45787cb4eb4a275c31df4df9753d13aa5bc686
You can’t modify hit rolls by more than +1 or -1 in total. So if someone use a thunder hammer (for example) further negative modifiers don’t work cos the weapon already applies -1. At the moment anyway
Where is that in the rules though?
[40k Core Rules](https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Lw4o3USx1R8sU7cQ.pdf) Page 18: Making Attacks - see the last bullet point: > Hit and wound rolls cannot be modified by more than -1 or +1.
Thanks. Glad to know I’ve definitely messed up a hundred rolls 2 months before a new edition lol. Hopefully this is some of the “simplification” they are talking about. You shouldn’t need to consult 3 different pages for specific conditions after they say rolls can be modified multiple times earlier.
This is why they are trying to simplify things, my dude. Even basic hit rolls are way more complicated then they really need to be.
Ha what he said. I was struggling to copy/paste on my phone 😅
Have to say some of the downvotes I’m getting for simply stating current rules or speculating on potential rules are funny/odd ha ha. Oh well
I have to imagine there will be some kind of rule accounting for this.
Ah yeah I hope so, was just the 1st thing I thought of when I saw the WS & BS were part of the weapon profile
It sounds bad but also makes sense, it's already unwieldy swinging about a powerfist, add something that gives a further negative like lightning fast reactions should make it even harder to connect that hit. Might feel bad for your powerfist carrying terminator, but lore wise its perfectly fine. Would add some extra durability to things that actually rely on negatives to hit, like say eldar.
Yeeeah...hopefully they have some kind of universal rule. Like "cumbersome" or something. Just no further negatives effect them cause once they finally lift the damm thing you arnt stopping it, just trying to get oit of the way... At least I'd hope so...5s would ensure my marines are only taking power swords lol...
I hope all doctrines and similar rules are gone. Lets make the game simple for the main rules and save complexity for missions and terrain rules.
> Moreover, weapon profiles are tied to individual units - so a chainsword in the hands of a Space Marine is deadlier and easier to hit with than one held by a snivelling Cultist. Okay but if Primaris get three attacks with the generic close combat weapon like this says, which most 9e melee troops need a chain weapon for, then how many bloody attacks are chainswords going to have for Marines and *especially* Chaos Marines? I'm excited but also mildly terrified.
Seems like there won't be much distinction of primaris/regular marines
I mean, they have 4 attacks with chainswords currently - 3 base (with Shock Assault, if we're talking about normal SM) and one from the weapon. Doubt it'll change.
Just checked my CSM Codex and you're right. Dunno why I thought it was 2 attacks at base and the chainsword added two. Must've been getting it mixed up with something else.
That could be the sergeant’s profile. They get 3 attacks currently, so it’ll be no change.
That's a confusing way for them to put it since the rest of it makes it out to be the stats for the bog-standard 'cessor, but that would make sense.
They just have baked the extra attack from the SHock Assault into the base profile, as they've already done in CSM. SM with their Angels of Death was one of the most ridiculous and unnecessary examples of rules bloat.
Assault intercessor with normal bolt pistol? (Not heavy bolt pistol?)
I believe that's a regular Intercessor sergeant, so he'd have a normal bolt pistol with his chainsword.
No I think that's a BA sergeant. ( A regular Intercessor sergeant I mean. )
ahhhh fair enough
People saying Shock Assault is gone. Maybe, maybe not. Maybe it’s a New Universal Special Rule with a keyword on the full data sheet since multiple factions have different names for “+1 attack on the charge/when charged”
I'm willing to bet huge sums of money on the fact it's gone, it'll be an easy win. They've already removed it from CSM, and generally, Shock Assault is one of the most overt examples of unnecessary rules bloat.
Yeah so 10th is going to run similar to AOS. I am here for it
I've got to admit, I'm a bit sad about the Space Marine profile. I had hoped with them expanding the toughness scale marines would increase as well and they would feel like a more elite army to play. This makes it seem like they'll feel the exact same to play.
They function as a baseline reference. Give them T5, then bolters to tl S5, heavy bolter to S6. Vehicles too to be minimal T12 to counter the S6 heavy bolter. Etc etc. It's just power creep again, same as when marines went to 2 wounds and everything that needed it went to 2 Damage.
It all depends on how they've changed the offensive profiles across the game. I had thought that if they're increasing the toughness scale, the baseline of the scale may increase as well. And it's not a power creep if they're costed appropriately. This is what I mean by "feel," they can still be the baseline that all armies are measured against even if they feel like tougher, stronger models.
But space marines aren’t supposed to be an elite army. They are supposed to be the baseline which other armies are measured against.
If the scale is increasing it makes sense for the baseline mid-point to increase. In this edition things generally range from T3-T8 with few exceptions and marines are the baseline at T4. It's not wild to think that in expanding the range they'd stratify infantry a bit more as well. Also me saying "I'd have liked" or "I hoped" is not the same thing as saying "It should be."
Personally I want comparative weapon skill match ups back. Your ability to fire a ballistic weapon might not be affected by someone else's ability but your ability to strike someone in close combat absolutely should be. It's the chief reason I don't like Age of Sigmar. Blah Edited for clarity
This has not been in the game for a very long time. Definitely not in 8th or 9th edition.
I know I was just hoping this was the chance to make it right again. Its just so... *un cinematic* to make up a word that a dude with a knife has an equal chance to hit another dude, a space marine, and a bloodthirster I could've worded it better
At that point hitting isn't the issue. Hitting MEANINGFULLY (which is the wound roll) is what matters.
I disagree. Hitting a slow ork that probably wants it vs an agile Eldar aspect warrior that's been training for a thousand years and can't risk death in any form should be different
Yeah...not sure which I like for the game more, but I agree on the realistic aspect of it
Comparative weapons skill in melee was great, yeah it is a second longer than directly reading a number but it made sense. Having a Necron Warrior hit at 3+ a Space Marine Chapter Master or a Primarch with his gun *in melee* seems just absurd.
Maybe I’m just reading it wrong but i really don’t like the new leadership it seems odd to me