Combat Patrol 10th Edition Combat Patrol Preview

[Arkhanist]

37 minutes ago, Kallas said:

 

 

It depends. I want my games to have a basis in the lore. Combi-Meltas being AI is not part of the lore; Meltas are very much AV weapons, so why are these melta weapons suddenly utterly awful at it? People enjoy the game for different reasons: personally, I like my models to have weapons that do what they're supposed to - I didn't build my AV models to suddenly have them become AI weapons, or vice versa.

 

It's worth mentioning how it's a stupid notion. It's worth not accepting stupid changes for no good reason.

 

 

Combi-plasma, combi-grav, and combi-flamer are primarily all types of anti-infantry. If they'd combined all the profiles into anti-tank, you'd screw over those who'd built for that (without magnetising) instead. The problem is that they've combined 4 very different weapons into one catchall profile, assuming the combi change applies to all marine units. Combi meltas are not meltas any more, just as combi-plasma, combi-grav etc aren't their equivalent special weapons either, they're ALL something new, and that new thing is an AI weapon. Clearly you're unhappy with that change and you've expressed that at length, but I'm genuinely not sure what you think saying that over and over here (in news) will achieve. Nobody here can change GW's mind, or make you happier about it. Complaining to GW customer services would be more productive.

 

My Death Company used to be able to take bolters and chainswords for many years. I had to rip off and remodel a bunch of arms because they no longer can. My jump company vets ceased to exist. Was I happy about that? No. But GW changes stuff every edition, and old loadouts and models become invalidated - and we suck it up, or find like-minded locals who are prepared to houserule with us, or just stop playing because what other option is there?

Edited May 10, 2023 by Arkhanist

[Blindhamster]

4 minutes ago, Toxichobbit said:

 

So if it's because of the hit roll & str difference, why don't we have astartes power weapons? Astartes bolters? Will guardsmen have chainswords while Command Squads/Castellans/Commissars have officer's chainswords? Or the likely difference between Aeldari chainswords & Scorpion chainswords? If we need a different weapon type every time there's a different str or hit roll, then a lot of armies and even units within armies will have their own unique weapons, which sounds like an even more convoluted set of weapon profiles than the one they've just replaced.

 

Given the above, I feel confident that the only reason we have Astartes chainswords is the -1AP, which is much less reason to have a different weapon profile than combi-weapons/power weapons.

We now know that we do have astartes boltguns. For Astartes the boltgun is a 2 shot 24" weapon, for everyone else its a 1 shot, Rapid fire 1 24" weapon.

[Kallas]

17 minutes ago, Petitioner's City said:

But melta has always been an anti-infantry weapon too

A Volcano Cannon is also an anti-infantry weapon by that logic: it will completely annihilate any infantry it hits!

Of course it will, because it's designed to punch through armour; so soft, squishy flesh won't survive that.

 

Same as the Lascannon: yes, it will absolutely murder infantry that it hits...but that's not the purpose. The only real difference for the Melta is the range, which generally puts it in a position where infantry are far easier to hit than the normal ranges of a Lascannon or Volcano Cannon, but the design of the weapon is still dominantly an anti-armour weapon.

 

Being 9/-4/d6(+2) is plenty of explanation for it being absolutely devastating to fleshy bodies. Anything short of a Terminator is looking at immediate destruction, and even Terminators are likely to die; so it's already got anti-infantry capabilty baked into it, much like the Laascannon and Volcano Cannon (which also has Blast because, uh, it's a relatively big area that just gets evaporated). Point being, that the Combi-Melta not being capable against vehicles is the problem.

 

2 minutes ago, Arkhanist said:

Combi-plasma, combi-grav, and combi-flamer are primarily all types of anti-infantry. If they'd combined all the profiles into anti-tank, you'd screw over those who'd built for that (without magnetising) instead.

I don't want them to combine them into an anti-tank profile: they shouldn't be combined.

 

  

3 minutes ago, Arkhanist said:

My Death Company used to be able to take bolters and chainswords for many years. I had to rip off and remodel a bunch of arms because they no longer can. My jump company vets ceased to exist. Was I happy about that? No. But GW changes stuff every edition, and old loadouts and models become invalidated - and we suck it up, or find like-minded locals who are prepared to houserule with us, or just stop playing because what other option is there?

Yeah, not sure why you think I think that stuff is all good?

Edited May 10, 2023 by Kallas

[Blindhamster]

3 minutes ago, Kallas said:

Yeah, not sure why you think I think that stuff is all good?

I think its more that GW do it every edition, every edition some of us get burned in one way or another, It's not good, but clearly at this point a leopard isn't changing its spots.

[Kallas]

Just now, Blindhamster said:

I think its more that GW do it every edition, every edition some of us get burned in one way or another, It's not good, but clearly at this point a leopard isn't changing its spots.

Yeah, and it's crap each time.

 

Hell, I magnetise my models for this very reason - and it's still a stupid change.

[Arkhanist]

Yes it is, but that's GW for you.

[Toxichobbit]

4 minutes ago, Blindhamster said:

We now know that we do have astartes boltguns. For Astartes the boltgun is a 2 shot 24" weapon, for everyone else its a 1 shot, Rapid fire 1 24" weapon.

 

That kind of just proves my point even further. They've added in another unique weapon profile that wasn't needed and has less justification both from a modelling perspective & lore, while taking away older ones that make more sense. Will we now see Astartes bolt pistols, Astartes plasma pistols, Astartes power weapons, Astartes plasma guns, Officer's chainswords, Officers plasma pistols, Officer's laspistols, Nob choppas, Warboss choppas etc?* Their design decisions are nonsensical - either they're compacting similar weapons, or they aren't. Either they're making exceptions based on hit rolls/strength being different, or they aren't. Their previews so far show that there is no consistency, they've just arbitrarily decided to combine some weapons into one profile while keeping other's seperate.

 

* I know we won't, it's a hypothetical demonstration.

[Bradeh]

5 hours ago, Toxichobbit said:

 

No, they aren't.

 

Only Firstborn & Chaos Marines/Blightlord Terminators make significant use of combi-weapons. For Firstborn, the Tactical kit has one (4 build options), the Devastator kit has one (4 build options), the Sternguard kit has eight, the now-discontinued Captain kit had two, the MkIV Tactical Squad has two (3 build options), the Cataphractii Captain has one & Forgeworld sell a pack of fifteen. Also, the Land Raider Excelsior has one (held by the crewman), but that's Warhammer World Exclusive & Legends, so it's in a weird place. I'm not including limited releases for obvious reasons. You can give most Firstborn characters combi-weapons, but if you're a Firstborn collector that shouldn't be an issue at all. There was a time when Firstborn were struggling to find combi-weapons for units, but they're swimming in them now.

 

For Chaos Marines, the Terminator kit has five, the Chosen kit has two (3 build options), the Terminator/Sorcerer Lord has one, every Chaos Marine tank has one & the Exalted Champion had one before they discontinued it. Out of those kits, only the Terminator Lord/Sorcerer Lord & tanks don't have all the possible options in the kit. Chaos Bikers also have combi-weapon upgrade options for some reason, but none in the kit - they haven't sold the metal combi-weapon upgrade for that unit for a couple of editions at least. So that sucks, but then so does the entire Chaos Biker kit.

 

Blightlords have three, which is all the combi-weapon options that the unit has.

 

Yes but the point is players want five combi-melta or five combi-plasma because it was best, that is what was hard to get. I don't mean a few of each. You shouldn't have to go on ebay and spend like £5 for a tiny weapon bit and that's what people were doing. This ultimately caused a big imbalance in unit strength towards people who were willing to pay more. Sternguard and Chaos Terminators dropping down with five combi-melta or combi-plasma is much better than dropping down with what's in the box. 

 

I'm not saying I like this change but GW has refused for a long time to put the adequate weapons for the rules in the box, GW could of fixed this issue another way.

 

Remember when a unit could only shoot at one target and the devastator squad only come with one of each weapon? 

Edited May 10, 2023 by Bradeh

[Arkhanist]

6 minutes ago, Toxichobbit said:

 

That kind of just proves my point even further. They've added in another unique weapon profile that wasn't needed and has less justification both from a modelling perspective & lore, while taking away older ones that make more sense. Will we now see Astartes bolt pistols, Astartes plasma pistols, Astartes power weapons, Astartes plasma guns, Officer's chainswords, Officers plasma pistols, Officer's laspistols, Nob choppas, Warboss choppas etc?* Their design decisions are nonsensical - either they're compacting similar weapons, or they aren't. Either they're making exceptions based on hit rolls/strength being different, or they aren't. Their previews so far show that there is no consistency, they've just arbitrarily decided to combine some weapons into one profile while keeping other's seperate.

 

* I know we won't, it's a hypothetical demonstration.

 

It's so they can change the effectiveness of a weapon based upon the unit carrying it. Theres not one list of universal weapon profiles now, the weapon is tied to the datasheet, and one overpowered unit can be tweaked without impacting the rest of the codex

 

It simplifies in that only need to know the stuff you and your opponent actually have on the table. but it's more complex in that there's no universal weapons any more and you need to know unit roles instead. Could end up like the strategem horror show of 9th, or easier - I don't know which at this point.

[Blindhamster]

8 minutes ago, Toxichobbit said:

 

That kind of just proves my point even further. They've added in another unique weapon profile that wasn't needed and has less justification both from a modelling perspective & lore, while taking away older ones that make more sense. Will we now see Astartes bolt pistols, Astartes plasma pistols, Astartes power weapons, Astartes plasma guns, Officer's chainswords, Officers plasma pistols, Officer's laspistols, Nob choppas, Warboss choppas etc?* Their design decisions are nonsensical - either they're compacting similar weapons, or they aren't. Either they're making exceptions based on hit rolls/strength being different, or they aren't. Their previews so far show that there is no consistency, they've just arbitrarily decided to combine some weapons into one profile while keeping other's seperate.

 

* I know we won't, it's a hypothetical demonstration.

as others said, it isn't the same though. It was clearly done so that space marines didn't need a rule like bolter discipline anymore. Instead they just have it built into the weapon, because to them, that's what the weapon does.

We have USRs, we apparently no longer have UWRs (universal weapon rules!).

 

So within the space marine line, the difference in bolter rules didn't add complexity, it reduced it as there isn't a rule you need to remember, it simply just has the stats on the unit datasheet/card/profile/whatever.

 

it shows how marines are THE archetypal bolter wielders without needing a special rule to do it. ergo, it's a win. Marine chainswords similarly have different rules because the miniature for a marine chainsword is noticeably larger than a guard one, so it makes sense they hit harder. Kinda like a middle ground between a guardsman chainsword and an eviscerator I guess.

 

As far as combi weapons go, I do agree they should have kept them as distinct profiles, they make more sense that way, but I also do think that the change to combi weapons going from 1 shot made them go from fairly useless (pre 8th) to generally better than special weapons (9th). The idea behind these rules was clearly to give "combi weapons" their own niche, distinct from special weapons. I don't think they've done a great job, but they've definitely made them distinct from special weapons and bolt weapons. as I already mentioned, I'd have made them be anti vehicle 4 or 5+ as well as anti infantry personally, it wouldn't represent the combi flamer too well, but would do a fair job of the plasma, melta and grav otherwise.

[Orange Knight]

18 minutes ago, Toxichobbit said:

 

That kind of just proves my point even further. They've added in another unique weapon profile that wasn't needed

 

I think this profile is actually very good and compelling. When dealing with tough infantry, people are typically taking weapons with high strength and AP, but those weapons can prove ineffective if a few invul saves are rolled unless they are applied in high volumes.

 

These new combi weapons will potentially be the premier method of dealing with units like Death Guard Terminators, Custodes, etc, and not simply using more anti-tank guns.

 

This new weapon profile is completely new, and it doesn't share any redundant attributes with the other weapons when it comes to it's main mechanic. Can't say if it's needed or not until we have tested it in the game.

I like the idea of sending the Sternguard in to hunt down the toughest infantry squad on the tabletop.

Edited May 10, 2023 by Orange Knight

[burningsky25]

I dunno.  I get that things change from edition to edition, there's absolutely lots that gets invalidated or re-purposed against targets you didn't anticipate beforehand, I get that.  I don't find that objectionable personally, I think that's to be expected, and also a bit of the fun of exploring a new edition.

 

But . . I really dislike this change too.  There's pros to it of course; streamlining/unifying profiles, creating a new weapon niche.   I just dislike it for how much it disrupts the visual cues of identifying a unit and it's weapons.  The ork example is a reasonable counter-example, but I don't find it that compelling.  Ork weapons being an amalgamation of all sorts of different weapons which have this unified damage effect is just fine, and does in actuality reflect the weapons as modelled themselves; they are an amalgamation! They have all types of weapons, some of them more prominently, some of them less prominently.  This is not the same as the way combi-weapons are generally modelled, especially not the bolter variants (as opposed to storm bolter variants) which unequivocally have the special weapon built into the weapon.  To have that not reflect at all any of the specifics of that profile is simply jarring, and yes, it is more jarring because of the consistent and lengthy history of this expectation.   

 

I'm not sure what the best solution is given their other design goals, and I'll admit it's not without some gameplay benefits.  That being said I do hope they revisit the idea in the future.  I'd say generally incorporating the exact same profile with one les BS would be a novel solution not available previously, though that doesn't address the flamer of course.  D3 hits instead of D6? That would be arguably straightforward, and an understandable and suitable downgrade to purpose built weapons.  Return of one-use is of course probably the next likely alternative, though I think that's not preferable as it can create significant bookkeeping, and may not even be a significant hindrance if you expect them to only live for a single round of shooting anyways.  Ah well, just a change to live with for now.

[Toxichobbit]

4 minutes ago, Bradeh said:

 

Yes but the point is players want five combi-melta or five combi-plasma because it was best, that is what was hard to get. I don't mean a few of each. You shouldn't have to go on ebay and spend like £5 for a tiny weapon bit and that's what people were doing. 

 

I'm not saying I like this change but GW has refused for a long time to put the adequate weapons for the rules in the box, GW could of fixed this issue another way.

 

Remember when a unit could only shoot at one target and the devastator squad only come with one of each weapon? 

 

Sorry, I don't think I managed to get my point across clearly. You can't take 5 combi-meltas on any unit other than Sternguard, so you don't need mass combi-meltas anymore. Chaos Terminators are not anti-tank because they can only take one combi-melta. Chaos Terminators do not need multiple combi-meltas from eBay because they can only take one. Same with Chosen, Death Guard, Tactical Squads, Devastator Squads etc. People shouldn't be needing to go onto eBay and mass buy combi-meltas, combi-plasma or whatever the flavour of the edition is anymore, because most units come with their maximum allowance in the box. It would be a simple change to limit the remaining units (mainly Sternguard) to what's in the box. But even if they didn't, the price of combi-weapons will drop because the demand for them has gone down.

 

The issue with not getting enough combi-weapons was solved last edition for most units, therefore it isn't a good reason for GW to make this change.

 

21 minutes ago, Kallas said:

A Volcano Cannon is also an anti-infantry weapon by that logic: it will completely annihilate any infantry it hits!

Of course it will, because it's designed to punch through armour; so soft, squishy flesh won't survive that.

 

Same as the Lascannon: yes, it will absolutely murder infantry that it hits...but that's not the purpose. The only real difference for the Melta is the range, which generally puts it in a position where infantry are far easier to hit than the normal ranges of a Lascannon or Volcano Cannon, but the design of the weapon is still dominantly an anti-armour weapon.

 

Being 9/-4/d6(+2) is plenty of explanation for it being absolutely devastating to fleshy bodies. Anything short of a Terminator is looking at immediate destruction, and even Terminators are likely to die; so it's already got anti-infantry capabilty baked into it, much like the Laascannon and Volcano Cannon (which also has Blast because, uh, it's a relatively big area that just gets evaporated). Point being, that the Combi-Melta not being capable against vehicles is the problem.

 

I don't want them to combine them into an anti-tank profile: they shouldn't be combined.

 

  

Yeah, not sure why you think I think that stuff is all good?

 

To expand upon this, a weapon killing infantry does not make it an anti-infantry weapon. It just means it passes the bare minimum requirements for being a feasible weapon (sorry Grots). Calling anything "anti-X" suggests some kind of specialisation. In the case of anti-tank, it's the ability to defeat high toughness, good armour saves & multiple wounds. In the case of anti-infantry these things are less important and rate of fire becomes king, either because the weapon fires a lot of shots or can be fielded in large numbers. This does not apply to melta weapons, therefore they are not anti-infantry.

 

12 minutes ago, Arkhanist said:

 

It's so they can change the effectiveness of a weapon based upon the unit carrying it. Theres not one list of universal weapon profiles now, the weapon is tied to the datasheet, and one overpowered unit can be tweaked without impacting the rest of the codex

 

It simplifies in that only need to know the stuff you and your opponent actually have on the table. but it's more complex in that there's no universal weapons any more and you need to know unit roles instead. Could end up like the strategem horror show of 9th, or easier - I don't know which at this point.

 

Yeah, I can see why they've done it. I'll be honest, I like the weapons on the datasheet with all the relevant stats baked in. It feels elegant (whether it will be in practice remains to be seen). What I don't get is why some weapons are combined while other's remain different, and the post I was replying to suggested that it was because they now had different hit rolls & str. I was just showing why I don't think that theory holds water, because if that was the case we'd see different weapon names every time there's a different hit roll/str.

[Kallas]

5 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

These new combi weapons will potentially be the premier method of dealing with units like Death Guard Terminators, Custodes, etc, and not simply using more anti-tank guns.

They will do very little actual damage to those units (or any units), because they're inaccurate and even with AI4+ they're not doing many wounds. Statistically, they're doing 0.5 wounds per Combi-Weapon in Rapid Fire range: hardly scary.

[Blindhamster]

2 minutes ago, Kallas said:

They will do very little actual damage to those units (or any units), because they're inaccurate and even with AI4+ they're not doing many wounds. Statistically, they're doing 0.5 wounds per Combi-Weapon in Rapid Fire range: hardly scary.

have to agree with this, when you consider the combi-melta would have also been hitting on 4s, but wounding on 2s and forcing just invulnerable saves and dealling an average of 3-5 damage per hit... its quite a lot worse lol.

[Orange Knight]

1 minute ago, Kallas said:

They will do very little actual damage to those units (or any units), because they're inaccurate and even with AI4+ they're not doing many wounds. Statistically, they're doing 0.5 wounds per Combi-Weapon in Rapid Fire range: hardly scary.

 

11 Mortal Wounds from a squad of 10 once you use the Oath. And we have no idea what the Ballistic Skill will be for these weapons when used by the Sternguard. If it's 3+ or better than you could reliably remove 5 Terminators in one round of shooting.

[Toxichobbit]

10 minutes ago, Blindhamster said:

as others said, it isn't the same though. It was clearly done so that space marines didn't need a rule like bolter discipline anymore. Instead they just have it built into the weapon, because to them, that's what the weapon does.

We have USRs, we apparently no longer have UWRs (universal weapon rules!).

 

So within the space marine line, the difference in bolter rules didn't add complexity, it reduced it as there isn't a rule you need to remember, it simply just has the stats on the unit datasheet/card/profile/whatever.

 

it shows how marines are THE archetypal bolter wielders without needing a special rule to do it. ergo, it's a win. Marine chainswords similarly have different rules because the miniature for a marine chainsword is noticeably larger than a guard one, so it makes sense they hit harder. Kinda like a middle ground between a guardsman chainsword and an eviscerator I guess.

 

As far as combi weapons go, I do agree they should have kept them as distinct profiles, they make more sense that way, but I also do think that the change to combi weapons going from 1 shot made them go from fairly useless (pre 8th) to generally better than special weapons (9th). The idea behind these rules was clearly to give "combi weapons" their own niche, distinct from special weapons. I don't think they've done a great job, but they've definitely made them distinct from special weapons and bolt weapons. as I already mentioned, I'd have made them be anti vehicle 4 or 5+ as well as anti infantry personally, it wouldn't represent the combi flamer too well, but would do a fair job of the plasma, melta and grav otherwise.

 

I understand how the weapon profiles work & the reasoning as to why Marine bolters are better. What I don't understand is why they kept Marines with different bolters/chainswords when they are merging power/combi weapons to streamline the game (or whatever reason they've decided to do it). It's hypocritical. The reasoning that it's to represent bolter discipline, or Astartes having bigger weapons etc holds zero consistency when in the same breath GW are saying "but combi-melta & combi-flamer similar enough to share a profile for X reason". The inconsistency is jarring and just shows how bad GW are at designing games. Normally it's at least a few Codexes in before we start getting inconsistencies like this.

[Lemondish]

9 hours ago, Kallas said:

Got any reason to think Combi-Weapons won't be a single profile?

 

We've seen it twice now, and we've seen that the previewed Captain's Combi-Weapon is Index card ("Check out how the Captain in Terminator Armour from the index cards compares with the streamlined Captain Octavius from Combat Patrol.")

 

Evidence suggests that Combi-Weapons are going to be a single profile.

 

Sure does, but I feel like there's something to be said about the fact these units only have a single valid combi-weapon bit out of all of their available kits today. The 9th edition Codex enables the use of all vombi-weapon options for both units today, which on the surface suggests that these are all being combined. But with there only being a single Terminator combi weapon bit available (the blood angels librarian combi-melta), everyone else would have had to have been built either via conversion or kit bashed from ancient kits.

 

Look, I know I'm reaching here. All I'm saying is that I really hope we're all wrong, and I'm putting my faith in that. If it means I lose whatever bet we make, oh well

Edited May 10, 2023 by Lemondish

[Kallas]

8 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

once you use the Oath

This is a big assumption. I see this a lot, people assuming that Oath is involved: it's a single unit per turn, it can't always be on what you want to shoot.

 

8 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

we have no idea what the Ballistic Skill will be for these weapons when used by the Sternguard.

We can reasonably assume it's either 3+ or 4+. Terminator Librarians are 4+ with their Combi-Weapons, and Terminator Captains are 3+ with theirs; Sternguard haven't been hitting on 2+ for many years now, so we can reasonably assume that they won't improve their accuracy this time (it's possible, of course) and will likely be 4+ like the Libby.

 

8 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

If it's 3+ or better than you could reliably remove 5 Terminators in one round of shooting.

If it's 3+ then they can kill 4 Terminators with Oath involved (ie, each shots has a 66% chance to inflict a MW; so the average is 13 wounds). Combi-Weapons as we've seen are not reliable and not particularly effective if they require Oath.

Edited May 10, 2023 by Kallas
Fixed maths

[Arkhanist]

There does seem to be a general design principle towards dramatically toning down and eliminating man-portable anti-tank capability, presumably as part of the idea of bringing tanks back to the table as a meaningful choice. If we want tanks (and knights) to be dangerous, tough and impactful, then they need to have space to operate in, which they haven't really had for the last few editions except for casual games and very specific examples (every Russ a tank commander!). The idea appears to be to take down tanks you need tank-hunter vehicles, or e.g. massed lascannons. Infantry will mostly be there to hold objectives and fight other infantry. with the weapon profiles designed around strengths at taking on different types rather than just plasma > everything. Having transports be a viable option again, assuming that's how it shakes out opens up some interesting possibilities too.

[Kallas]

2 minutes ago, Lemondish said:

All I'm saying is that I really hope we're all wrong

So do I

[WrathOfTheLion]

3 minutes ago, Lemondish said:

Look, I know I'm reaching here. All I'm saying is that I really hope we're all wrong, and I'm putting my faith in that. If it means I lose whatever bet we make, oh well

You'll be internet wrong for a bit. The horror!

 

I suspect they're single profile, but like with most things, there's no point in dwelling too much on it or arguing about it, given GW has already made that decision and we just have to wait and find out.

[Blindhamster]

5 minutes ago, Toxichobbit said:

 

I understand how the weapon profiles work & the reasoning as to why Marine bolters are better. What I don't understand is why they kept Marines with different bolters/chainswords when they are merging power/combi weapons to streamline the game (or whatever reason they've decided to do it). It's hypocritical. The reasoning that it's to represent bolter discipline, or Astartes having bigger weapons etc holds zero consistency when in the same breath GW are saying "but combi-melta & combi-flamer similar enough to share a profile for X reason". The inconsistency is jarring and just shows how bad GW are at designing games. Normally it's at least a few Codexes in before we start getting inconsistencies like this.

again, the design direction seems to be to do away with the idea of consistency of weapon rules across the entire game, and instead balancing of the weapon rules for the unit. They likely start with a baseline and go from there.

 

Honestly, I'd not even be surprised if combi weapons on units like sternguard ARE still distinct. In the same way that melee weapons on line units seem to be merged whilst the more melee focused captains have unique melee profiles for each choice.

[Bradeh]

6 minutes ago, Kallas said:

This is a big assumption. I see this a lot, people assuming that Oath is involved: it's a single unit per turn, it can't always be on what you want to shoot.

 

We can reasonably assume it's either 3+ or 4+. Terminator Librarians are 4+ with their Combi-Weapons, and Terminator Captains are 3+ with theirs; Sternguard haven't been hitting on 2+ for many years now, so we can reasonably assume that they won't improve their accuracy this time (it's possible, of course) and will likely be 4+ like the Libby.

 

If it's 3+ then they can kill 4 Terminators with Oath involved (ie, each shots has a 56% chance to inflict a MW; so the average is 11 wounds; so 12 wounds or 4 Terminators is rounding up). Combi-Weapons as we've seen are not reliable and not particularly effective if they require Oath.

 

Lethality probably won't go down much but I don't think GW wants units killing 5 Terminators a turn, unless your name is Abaddon or something. 

 

Love the optimism about combis not being merged, Rhinos not allowing Intercessors is going to be another one! 

Edited May 10, 2023 by Bradeh

[Kallas]

Just now, Bradeh said:

I don't think GW wants units killing 5 Terminators a turn. 

That very much depends on the unit shooting. As is, with the current Melta profiles we've seen, a unit of 10 Meltas at 12"/beyond Melta range would kill an average of 1.4 Terminators (math isn't perfect there, because I couldn't be bothered working out chances for a low damage roll followed by another low damage roll; so they're actually a bit tougher as that 1.4 is calculating for the 3+ needed to one-shot a model). Of course, Oath increases that significantly (up to 2.55).

 

Besides, we still have whole units equipped with these kinds of weapons, just specifically not these Combi-Weapons, because apparently those specifically are a problem