Wh40k 10th Edition Terminator Datasheet, Rapid Fire and "Anti" Rules

[Lord Marshal]

Some new tidbits on the Terminator article

 

 

Critical Wounds are, "A guaranteed success, normally achieved by rolling an unmodified six."

 

. 

 

Edited April 4, 2023 by Lord Marshal

[firestorm40k]

It doesn't explain what 'Devestating Wounds' are from the Assault Cannon profile, I wonder if it's the equivalent of Rending from pre-8th Ed 40k? 

[WrathOfTheLion]

Power Weapon is an interesting move by them. I suspected they might do this given the 9E Chaos Space Marine Codex.

[Matrindur]

Anti-x keyword seems very interesting, rapid fire not being a flat double shots but a specific value instead too.

Also very nice the invul-save is just shown instead of being hidden in a wall of text

[MARK0SIAN]

I think the ‘anti’ rule could be good. It will help solve one of the major problems with the 8th and 9th weapons, that it’s very difficult to make a weapon good against its intended target without making it good against all targets. 

[ZeroWolf]

Doesn't HH 2.0 do something similar to the Anti rule?

[Lord Marshal]

If I had to guess, Faction Keywords will cover Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Black Templars, etc and they'll go back to being their 'own' codex rather than supplements (ALA the Cult Legions). There's too much money to be had in the super special extra unique non-codex chapters. Everybody else will be out of luck, though. 

 

2 minutes ago, ZeroWolf said:

Doesn't HH 2.0 do something similar to the Anti rule?

 

Yes, it's pretty much Rending (X).

 

Edited April 4, 2023 by Lord Marshal

[Kaiju Soze]

The change to Rapid Fire basically gets rid of the Dakka weapon type, which would now work along the lines of A2 (Rapid Fire 1), correct?

[tzeentch9]

Weird that chainfists can tear up vehicles, but not tough monsters. You would think it could tear through bone and sinew easier then metal etc...

[Loishy]

Interesting. The fact that the powerfist stays at S8 despite tanks having better toughness (around 10 I think) suggests that this weapon will be mostly good against infantry (and monsters perhaps). But if you want to smash a heavy vehicle, you will need chainfist.

 

As announced, all AP decreases, but the krak missile gains +1S. to help him hurt new vehicles I guess.

[acrozatarim]

14 minutes ago, KrakenBorn said:

 

I like it too; I'm really looking forward to seeing how the wounding system has been modified.

 

I remember in the scaramouche leak document (posted here a while ago) the leaker discussed that there were critical wounds; in which vs certain heavy armoured units you had to use a special anti weapon; otherwise you had to use 2 successful wound rolls to make a single wound roll.

 

For example lets say I am shooting a heavy armour unit and I am wounding on 5's (my gun is just a normal gun and not a weapon with the *anti heavy armour* keyword)

 

I roll and get 3 rolls of 5+; I have to combine two of them to make a single successful wound roll to force an armour save. Wound rolls basically count as half a wound roll unless you have the *anti* keyword on your weapon.

 

Very interesting to see if this pans out.

 

That document got so much outright wrong, including its claimed advantage/disadvantage system, that I think we can safely discount anything it did get right as either copied from other similar rumours, or just chance.

 

It claimed no Strength/Toughness, the return of Initiative, that there wouild still be force role slots, etc etc.

[MARK0SIAN]

15 minutes ago, KrakenBorn said:

 

I like it too; I'm really looking forward to seeing how the wounding system has been modified.

 

I remember in the scaramouche leak document (posted here a while ago) the leaker discussed that there were critical wounds; in which vs certain heavy armoured units you had to use a special anti weapon; otherwise you had to use 2 successful wound rolls to make a single wound roll.

 

For example lets say I am shooting a heavy armour unit and I am wounding on 5's (my gun is just a normal gun and not a weapon with the *anti heavy armour* keyword)

 

I roll and get 3 rolls of 5+; I have to combine two of them to make a single successful wound roll to force an armour save. Wound rolls basically count as half a wound roll unless you have the *anti* keyword on your weapon.

 

Very interesting to see if this pans out.

That would certainly go some way to making stuff more durable and might be why they felt the regular marine stat didn’t need changing. 
 

If it stops medium weapons being able to cheerfully rinse through infantry and armour and just being too good as an all rounder then I’m all for it.

[MagicHat]

No mention of the sergeant at all. 

So does the Power weapon have an extra A bacause it is a power weapon or the Sergeant wields it.

[Bradeh]

7 minutes ago, tzeentch9 said:

Weird that chainfists can tear up vehicles, but not tough monsters. You would think it could tear through bone and sinew easier then metal etc...

 

I assume it's more like the the vehicle blows up the where monsters are like space magic tough. 

 

 

1 minute ago, MagicHat said:

No mention of the sergeant at all. 

So does the Power weapon have an extra A bacause it is a power weapon or the Sergeant wields it.

 

 

Probably because he's the only one can get it.

Edited April 4, 2023 by Bradeh

[Xenith]

7 minutes ago, tzeentch9 said:

Weird that chainfists can tear up vehicles, but not tough monsters. You would think it could tear through bone and sinew easier then metal etc...

 

Monsters move around a bit more and fight back - Chainfists were designed for cutting through thick, immobile bulkheads. Same reason a dude with a blowtorch can cut through a bank vault, but he'd have trouble sawing an unrestrained human in half with one. 

[WrathOfTheLion]

The anti-<x> rule is a quite clever way of scoping a weapon to damage certain units, instead of achieving that by bumping strength up. So weapons won't increase in strength to match the new higher toughness, but you'll have to bring certain weapons that can reliably handle them.

[tzeentch9]

2 minutes ago, Xenith said:

 

Monsters move around a bit more and fight back - Chainfists were designed for cutting through thick, immobile bulkheads. Same reason a dude with a blowtorch can cut through a bank vault, but he'd have trouble sawing an unrestrained human in half with one. 

Doesn't quite apply, ie elder vehicles certainly move around a lot, dreadnoughts and the like would fight back. I presume it's just done that way for rules reasons, rather than flavour reasons, just feels weird

[INKS]

So chainfists cause a wound on armor on a 3+? Am I understanding Anti correctly?

[Kallas]

1 minute ago, INKS said:

So chainfists cause a wound on armor on a 3+? Am I understanding Anti correctly?

Yup!
 

Quote

Anti abilities – covering many different keywords like Infantry, Monster, and Vehicle – produce a Critical Wound** on any wound roll that matches or beats the specified score, regardless of the target’s Toughness. This makes for specialised weapons that excel in their field, but don’t stay equally deadly against other target types.

 

I really like this addition. Will help refine weapons into being good against their intended targets. We saw way too many issues with things like Ravagers pumping out mass 5/-3/2 shots and ripping up vehicles when they should be extremely effective vs only infantry, and struggle against heavy armour.

[acrozatarim]

2 minutes ago, INKS said:

So chainfists cause a wound on armor on a 3+? Am I understanding Anti correctly?

Yeah. When rolling to wound against a vehicle with a chainfist, no matter what the Toughness of the target is, a 3+ always wounds.

If the Chainfist somehow would be at 2+ to wound against the vehicle via circumstance, you still get to wound on 2+. It's just that 3+ always wounds, even if they put a -1 to wound effect on you or something.

[The Emperors Champion22]

20 minutes ago, MagicHat said:

No mention of the sergeant at all. 

So does the Power weapon have an extra A bacause it is a power weapon or the Sergeant wields it.

It might be that power fists are so much better that they get less attacks, but unless they have a massive points cost I can’t see anyone ever taking the power weapon over them.

[INKS]

13 minutes ago, tzeentch9 said:

Doesn't quite apply, ie elder vehicles certainly move around a lot, dreadnoughts and the like would fight back. I presume it's just done that way for rules reasons, rather than flavour reasons, just feels weird

If we want to get real world into things. Something like a hacksaw has fine, shallow, closely spaced teeth that will clog up rapidly if used to cut meat and bone. A bone saw, has larger deeper, wider teeth that will cut easily and quickly through flesh and bone, producing a smooth, splinter-free results without clogging it up.

 

It's possible that a chainfist therefore is made for cutting metal and not for cutting bone and flesh.

[INKS]

22 minutes ago, The Emperors Champion22 said:

It might be that power fists are so much better that they get less attacks, but unless they have a massive points cost I can’t see anyone ever taking the power weapon over them.

Remember- attacks are now based on weapons and not who is using it. close combat knives were 3 attacks, the power weapons is 4 attacks. It's just their balancing. 

 

Just guessing but knives and power weapons are generally faster than a power first which only has 2 attacks. So it's kind of a speed thing? (maybe)? --Edit: Strike this, I got the power fist attacks wrong. I guess the power weapon is just baked in with the extra attack - ie balancing. 

Edited April 4, 2023 by INKS

[acrozatarim]

Chainfists' thing was always cutting through bulkheads etc because they are literally a construction site tool turned to combat purposes, so I'm happy for them to just get a boost vs vehicles tbh.

 

Interestingly, them being Anti-Vehicle has some implications about how terrain will work as well. If there was to be destroyable terrain, the chainfist is the weapon for that sort of job, so I guess that means we're not seeing things like destroyable bunkers coming back - or they're classified as vehicles for some reason.

[TheMawr]

Did terminators previously not have sergeants in the squad or have the sergeants only got different stats on the offensive side ?

 

I had been wondering about this with the termagant datasheets that the statblock seemingly was designed with generally having only a single statline, with 2 being an exception (and 3 the physical max) however in current datasheets I think the average is 2 statlines, not 1.

 

Some of those squadleaders had only higher BS/WS, S, A or Ld... the first 3 now reflected in the weapons and Ld having a single Ld for the entire squad makes more sense.

 

And while graphically looks a little better than the termagent datasheet, I still think the design is bad/amateurish.. but I think cosmetics like that only bother the people who can easily do it theirselves anyway XD