10th Faction Focus preview: IG

[mertbl]

10 minutes ago, Tokugawa said:

Demolisher increased to d6+3 attacks from d6, apporximate 86% increase on average, while many other weapons in the game reduced lethality. Definitely a winner.

 

Profile of plasma cannons haven't been previewed, but plasma pistol and plasma gun already confirmed having same S. So very probably plasma weapons are not "ok against everything" option as before. I also can't see executioner higher than S9.

I noticed the plasma gun AP is different between normal and overcharged profile. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, mertbl said:

I noticed the plasma gun AP is different between normal and overcharged profile. 

Never made sense to me that standard AP was -3. 

[jarms48]

  

14 hours ago, Tokugawa said:

Max infantry unit size is 20 now. Wargear options still mostly follow the box content.

 

I'm more interested in the fact you can attach 2 leader units, which can be 1 command squad. That's pretty nice. 

 

Also, it brings up an interesting point on the medi-pack. If it remains the same 5+++ for the unit, if you attach it does that apply to the 20 Guardsmen as well? That's if it stays that is. 

 

  

14 hours ago, Tokugawa said:

Baneblade datasheet. This confirmed that normal lascannon is S12 dmg d6+1, and autocannon is possibly S9 AP-1 dmg3.

 

These are actually pretty disappointing. AP-2 Baneblade Cannon sucks. Also, the melee profile is massively nerfed. 

  

14 hours ago, Tokugawa said:

Battlecannon is S10 AP-1 dmg3. No more infomation about Leman Russ.

 

Also disappointing. I know they want to reduce AP across the board, but just looking at the Baneblade Demolisher Cannon. If that demolisher remains AP-3 we're just going to go back to "opps, all demolishers" again.

 

Just one last thing I noticed. Lack of turret weapon? I would have assumed the Baneblade Cannon and Battle Cannon would have been BS3+ with all other weapons being 4+.

 

  

11 hours ago, librisrouge said:

Guys, guys, guys...the heavy stubber is Rapid Fire 3.

 

Gotta sell more Macharius and Dorn tanks. 

 

4 hours ago, Tokugawa said:

Profile of plasma cannons haven't been previewed, but plasma pistol and plasma gun already confirmed having same S as 9th. So very probably plasma weapons are not "ok against everything" option as before. I also can't see executioner higher than S9.

 

Yep. It's gone to anti-everything to anti-heavy infantry. Which is what it was always suppose to be. Can still kill regular infantry and vehicles but they're not the ideal target. 

 

Edited May 9, 2023 by jarms48

[domsto]

As many have pointed out, i am also dissapointed with the statline of the Battlecannon, either it will be dirtcheap or GW has put the Focus on the more special Variants like vanquishers or Punishers.

As we have not seen a single Point value it is hard to put the things in perspective, but currently it looks like Guard got the short end of the Stick again.

Edited May 9, 2023 by domsto

[Emperor Ming]

7 hours ago, jarms48 said:

  Also, the melee profile is massively nerfed. 

 Yikes, I missed that completely

 

Yep looks like its back to demolishers

[Sergeant Bastone]

Don't need to worry about the Battlecannon's inability to deal with armour; we have the autocannon and krak grenades for that :-)

 

I'm building some infantry squads today.  I'm wondering if our classic infantry squads will still be able to take boltguns.  I see that they are now flat 2 attacks now, same as the drumfed autogun but with an extra point of strength.  If you can still run it with a chainsword that's awesome as they are now +2 attacks.

 

The autocannon being brought back from the dead makes me hope the multilaser gets revived as well.  Maybe it ends up like Rapid Fire 3 

[G8Keeper]

I have a doubles tournament the week after 10th is released. So far this preview has me thinking Autocannons, 20 person Cadian squads and Leman Russ Demolishers.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, Sergeant Bastone said:

Don't need to worry about the Battlecannon's inability to deal with armour; we have the autocannon and krak grenades for that :-)

 

I'm building some infantry squads today.  I'm wondering if our classic infantry squads will still be able to take boltguns.  I see that they are now flat 2 attacks now, same as the drumfed autogun but with an extra point of strength.  If you can still run it with a chainsword that's awesome as they are now +2 attacks.

 

The autocannon being brought back from the dead makes me hope the multilaser gets revived as well.  Maybe it ends up like Rapid Fire 3 

Personally the 9th Ed multilaser has been working well for me, but I wouldn’t mind if it went up to S7 AP-2 D1 on top of its current 4 shots still a distinct weapon choice from the HB and the AC.

 

raising T cap is probably going to be the single best change of the edition imho

12 minutes ago, G8Keeper said:

I have a doubles tournament the week after 10th is released. So far this preview has me thinking Autocannons, 20 person Cadian squads and Leman Russ Demolishers.

Have they confirmed they’re using 10th for the tournament?

[G8Keeper]

Yup, confirmed.

[duz_]

As @our_bazpointed out in his thread, I'm a bit confused with the old infantry squad and new kits being their own units and how that's gonna play out so far.

 

However I am cautiously optimistic about 10th and what IG have in store. It's definitely going to be a tank edition for me 

 

I'm hoping some of you are right about Voxcaster in command units getting the range bonus. The CP refund is nice rules wise, but is thematically. 

 

Orders seem nice and balanced too. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

9 minutes ago, duz_ said:

As @our_bazpointed out in his thread, I'm a bit confused with the old infantry squad and new kits being their own units and how that's gonna play out so far.

 

However I am cautiously optimistic about 10th and what IG have in store. It's definitely going to be a tank edition for me 

 

I'm hoping some of you are right about Voxcaster in command units getting the range bonus. The CP refund is nice rules wise, but is thematically. 

 

Orders seem nice and balanced too. 

What are you confused about in regards to the infantry squads and new kits?

[Emperor Ming]

Since the new cadians have sgts with chainswords and sgts with the autogun,

 

They make both squads right? You would just need the heavy weapon

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

41 minutes ago, Emperor Ming said:

Since the new cadians have sgts with chainswords and sgts with the autogun,

 

They make both squads right? You would just need the heavy weapon

Yes the new CST box can build either a CST or an infantry squad.

[sairence]

I'd be somewhat confused if any weapons actually goes up in AP, given their stated aim of reducing it across the board. 

[Shamansky]

On 5/9/2023 at 2:18 AM, Emperor Ming said:

Battlecannon ap has to be an error, its less ap than a krak grenade

Well, BC used to be an anti-infantry pan-cake launcher before 8th ed. Consider it as HE-shells. And 'krak' grenades and missiles are shaped charge ammo which has much more armour penetration.

[duz_]

Some insight in how indirect fire works from the sisters article today. 

 

-1 to hit and unit gets cover. Hopefully our artillery gets similar treatment to the profile below

 

[The Pounder]

Yeah, I’m hoping our artillery gets the Heavy rule too, the +1 to hit for not moving would help negate the -1 for indirect fire.

 

Fingers crossed my FW Artillery get a much needed boost! 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

10 hours ago, sairence said:

I'd be somewhat confused if any weapons actually goes up in AP, given their stated aim of reducing it across the board. 

I wouldn’t be.

if there’s less AP in general, then increasing AP on a small number of weapons doesn’t hurt  as much.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

2 hours ago, duz_ said:

Some insight in how indirect fire works from the sisters article today. 

 

-1 to hit and unit gets cover. Hopefully our artillery gets similar treatment to the profile below

 

Sorry but this seems stupid.

why are we still subtracting 1 from hit rolls when they can adjust BS on individual units with a weapon?

 

why would a unit in the open get the benefit of cover?

 

it may have lead to some arguments but scatter dice and templates 100% made sense.

[Shamansky]

34 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Sorry but this seems stupid.

why are we still subtracting 1 from hit rolls when they can adjust BS on individual units with a weapon?

 

why would a unit in the open get the benefit of cover?

 

it may have lead to some arguments but scatter dice and templates 100% made sense.

Scatter dice and templates were awesome. It was possible to depict MLRS-ish and BFG AoE attacks. But as i remember BS of the shooter was not substructed from the scatter roll in case of indirect fire at a target out of LOS. So the -1 to hit roll is understandable. But benefir of cover out of cover is stupid.

[Tokugawa]

The indirect fire penalty is much much less painful than 9th. "Count as in cover" is equal to "no penalty" if the target already in cover, but "+1 to save" is always +1. 

[sairence]

54 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Sorry but this seems stupid.

why are we still subtracting 1 from hit rolls when they can adjust BS on individual units with a weapon?

 

why would a unit in the open get the benefit of cover?

 

it may have lead to some arguments but scatter dice and templates 100% made sense.

...because you can take the same gun and fire directly, in which case you use the normal balistic skill? I'm sorry, what kind of question is that? 

 

GW wants to make it harder for a weapon to be effective when you fire it without line of sight. If they reduce the base BS, they penalise the gun when it fires with LoS as well, which is clearly not desires.

 

Besides, it's likely that at least all of our artillery will have the heavy keyword, giving them a +1 to hit if you don't move. Kinda makes sense to me. So, as there's abilities to easily overcome the hit penalty, you also get an AP penalty on top.

 

The obvious aim being that indirect fire is less effective that direct fire, because a game where you get blasted off the board with no way to interact with your opponents Are. Not. Fun

[Tokugawa]

Indirect fire penalty must exist, else builds like 18 hive guards will eat everything, and opponent player can't interact with it or counter it at all.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

7 minutes ago, sairence said:

...because you can take the same gun and fire directly, in which case you use the normal balistic skill? I'm sorry, what kind of question is that? 

 

GW wants to make it harder for a weapon to be effective when you fire it without line of sight. If they reduce the base BS, they penalise the gun when it fires with LoS as well, which is clearly not desires.

 

Besides, it's likely that at least all of our artillery will have the heavy keyword, giving them a +1 to hit if you don't move. Kinda makes sense to me. So, as there's abilities to easily overcome the hit penalty, you also get an AP penalty on top.

 

The obvious aim being that indirect fire is less effective that direct fire, because a game where you get blasted off the board with no way to interact with your opponents Are. Not. Fun

and? that doesn't justify nerfing indirect fire. 

there's plenty of ways to not get blasted off the board and interact with your opponenet when they use artillery though.

this is just lazy unimaginative rule writing.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

16 minutes ago, Tokugawa said:

Indirect fire penalty must exist, else builds like 18 hive guards will eat everything, and opponent player can't interact with it or counter it at all.

If you’re worried about lists with 18 of the same indirect fire unit, then GW can reduce the number of models in the units. I assume rule of 3 will still exist in 10th