Jump to content

Recommended Posts

It'll probably be; pick a weapon to make attacks with.  If a unit is equipped with multiple melee weapons, you may make one extra attack with the weapon you didn't choose, or something like that, which at least somewhat ties it back in to the current rules.  It can't be "Take all swings with all available" as that would turn the primarch into a legitimate blender.

2 hours ago, Captain Idaho said:

 

As an Ultramarines player, even I would like Guilliman to only be able to use 1 melee weapon. Hopefully that'll be the rule in the core rules, as it just seems... overpowered.

Even so, he's what, 14 attacks with the sword? Near double that of the swarmlords, with 25% the amount of swords.

 

Most factions that aren't marines or chaos have lately been getting "primarch tier" models. Silent king for necrons, Thraka for orks. Swarmlord feels like it should have been their best candidate for a primarch tier model for nids, but he's not there at all. Will they be getting a bigger leader bug?

54 minutes ago, Marshal Reinhard said:

Even so, he's what, 14 attacks with the sword? Near double that of the swarmlords, with 25% the amount of swords.

 

Most factions that aren't marines or chaos have lately been getting "primarch tier" models. Silent king for necrons, Thraka for orks. Swarmlord feels like it should have been their best candidate for a primarch tier model for nids, but he's not there at all. Will they be getting a bigger leader bug?

 

It would be a huge departure from where the Swarmlord currently exists in the Tyranid roster, so I doubt they'd make such a swing with that unit.
 

The swarmlord is a 240pt unit in current rules, which isn't so far away from Gulliman, but is in a completely different organizational slot.  I know those matter less in 10th, but it'd still be a big change from what his current role is to what a Lord of War is supposed to be.  I would hope for a more bespoke LoW, or maybe the Screamer Killer could be buffed to that level?

Well the discussion is around Tyranid Lords of War, so that's what we're talking about, and Tyranids only have Forgeworld nonsense to field in that slot, and both of them err towards "Well, you wanted Titan Sized things." which is what half of the lord of war army slot was used for.  The other half was absolute :cuss:ing beat-sticks that don't really fit the idea of HQ or Elites, such as the primarchs and then eventually things like The Silent King.

Now, if Lord of War is now just a bespoke "The strongest dude you've got", i'm also okay with that, but would require some changes around the idea of what that slot is supposed to represent, and every force is gonna need some representation.

Compared to Abby?  No idea.  His T5 is so weird and borderline upsetting that I don't have the heart to put effort into the mathhammer on it.

Edited by DemonGSides

Yeah with the T increases of Guilliman and other big bads, I was surprised to see Abaddon go lower. I think the Swarmlord might take him in combat.

 

Though I definitely agree that "other rules" is a nice tough for leaders of armies. It's not all about kicking buttocks.

13 hours ago, Captain Idaho said:

 

As an Ultramarines player, even I would like Guilliman to only be able to use 1 melee weapon. Hopefully that'll be the rule in the core rules, as it just seems... overpowered.

Im pretty sure you only can attack with one weapon. Based on the Legionares data. They have a ccw, bolt pistol and bolter. They can switch out the bolter for a chainsword. If they do that and can attack with both they would have 7 attacks each. It seems totally bonkers if it works like that.

Also all captains and the like would all be given 2 different weapons so they could hit with a million attacks. I just dont see it being like that.

Edited by Sir Clausel

I guess the benefit of two of the same weapons= twinlinked, while

Two different melee weapons = get to choose profile rather than fully utilize both. 

 

No mix and matching attacks if you got two different melee options then? Seems a bit restrictive, but I dont see a easy way of mixing guillimans options since attack numbers are different.

Edited by Marshal Reinhard
On 5/3/2023 at 10:47 AM, KrakenBorn said:

Not happy regarding the 2d6 damage -4AP anti tank gun though. Come on GW... I thought damage and AP were being scaled back? Either make it D6+2 or at least scale the AP back.

It has been scaled check. Have you missed an the reduced AP thus far?

 

Why do you feel strong anti-tank weaponry shouldn't exist in 40k?

It looks so far like the only units that carry really potent anti-tank weapons are tanks (or big monster in the case of Nids). This seems OK to me as it implies you will need tanks to efficiently counter enemy tanks and stop them running riot through your infantry. Infantry anti-tank weapons still exist but melta is now going to need a 5+ to wound against most vehicles. That means if you want to rely on infantry to take out tanks you will either need a lot of them or a lot of rerolls.

 

Part of the problem with the increased lethality in 9th was that it was too easy for Eradicators, Fire Dragons and the like to vapourise vehicles. Tanks as a whole became a liability unless they had an Invulnerable save or a Damage mitigation rule.

47 minutes ago, Sarges said:

Haven't crossed my mind  before what a force multiplier are mass Blast weapons on Infantry in this edition. Unit of 10 Barbgaunts firing in 10-man squad will have 20+10d6 shots.

The disruption bombardment is nuts if you can split fire to different enemy units. 

1 hour ago, Xanthous said:

I have to say, with all the talk of 'living artillery', I'm surprised to not see a particularly long range or some kind of indirect fire on the Barbgaunt's biocannon.

I dunno, I think this is quite strong enough thank you very much.  They may have been better off with less shots honestly, they'll have horrible durability at this rate given how much the shooting profile will cost in comparison to their expected toughness.  Fire support gaunts, and synapse gaunts, are neat niches to see expanded though.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.