A worry I have looking at the new gaunt datasheet. Judging from their guns still being way strong for basic gak guns (for 3rd-7th edition sensibilities) and D still being an integral part of weapon statlines, I worry that they're not rolling back the absurd killyness and 10th continues with the pointless arms race of buffing Damage and buffing Wounds at the same time. Heresy really hit the sweet spot here I think with Marines on 1W, Termies on 2-3W, all weapons on 1 damage with the old instant death rules in effect. Shame if 40k stuck with D2 everywhere and the necessary W prolifaration that goes with it.
As annoying as his video's are... Valrak has a very very very legit source. Not 100% perfect, but calling it roughly 80% so far in advance means he's probably the number 1 source of high quality rumours now.... Someone is punishing us for our sins to make him so esteemed...
I don't have an issue with that. S5 and 4 is fine the issue is when AP and damage get out of hand like they have in 9th. All those guns are AP0 and D1. S5 and 4 with no AP and 1 damage is fine IMO.
Not sure that I like the accuracy stats being part of the weapon now. So the weapon is what shoots now, independent of the user?
Then again, it would make applying modifiers easier; instead of saying "this powerklaw has a -1 one to hit" you can just say "this powerklaw hits on a 5+", so I suppose that was their thought process.
Also, no points or power levels on the sheet? With all of that empty space? Great, more flipping to the back of the book
Not sure that I like the accuracy stats being part of the weapon now. So the weapon is what shoots now, independent of the user?
Then again, it would make applying modifiers easier; instead of saying "this powerklaw has a -1 one to hit" you can just say "this powerklaw hits on a 5+", so I suppose that was their thought process.
Also, no points or power levels on the sheet? With all of that empty space? Great, more flipping to the back of the book
Oc is objective control. Their value individually when hold8ng objectives
Points will be in a pdf their said, no point putting them on the datasheet, if they will be adjusted with balance updates.
Not sure that I like the accuracy stats being part of the weapon now. So the weapon is what shoots now, independent of the user?
Then again, it would make applying modifiers easier; instead of saying "this powerklaw has a -1 one to hit" you can just say "this powerklaw hits on a 5+", so I suppose that was their thought process.
Also, no points or power levels on the sheet? With all of that empty space? Great, more flipping to the back of the book
OC is objective control, unclear at the moment how that works exactly.
The hit rolls etc. being on the weapon now might allow them to do stuff like 'Spray and Pray' vs. targeted shooting in the future, or have sweeps vs. powerful attacks in melee with different hit rolls easier than doing it with crutchy special rules, so that's a plus in my opinion. It sure is bad for memorizing though.
As for the empty space: i guess a lot of units are much more complicated than gaunts, with more options and special stuff, so there might not be too much free space really.
Not sure that I like the accuracy stats being part of the weapon now. So the weapon is what shoots now, independent of the user?
Then again, it would make applying modifiers easier; instead of saying "this powerklaw has a -1 one to hit" you can just say "this powerklaw hits on a 5+", so I suppose that was their thought process.
Also, no points or power levels on the sheet? With all of that empty space? Great, more flipping to the back of the book
OC is Objective Control, which replaces the old "this model counts as 2 models for objective secured" style rules. Might be a better way to balance things like Knights on a per-unit basis.
Not including points and power levels makes sense if you consider these datasheets will be sold as card decks for ingame referencing. In theory this means more 'permanent' printed rules, with any kind of later balance updates being focused on the materials you use to build your list before a game.
Not sure that I like the accuracy stats being part of the weapon now. So the weapon is what shoots now, independent of the user?
Then again, it would make applying modifiers easier; instead of saying "this powerklaw has a -1 one to hit" you can just say "this powerklaw hits on a 5+", so I suppose that was their thought process.
Also, no points or power levels on the sheet? With all of that empty space? Great, more flipping to the back of the book
OC is Objective Control, which replaces the old "this model counts as 2 models for objective secured" style rules. Might be a better way to balance things like Knights on a per-unit basis.
Not including points and power levels makes sense if you consider these datasheets will be sold as card decks for ingame referencing. In theory this means more 'permanent' printed rules, with any kind of later balance updates being focused on the materials you use to build your list before a game.
Pro-Move would be to make these cards/sheets laminated so you can do modifications with a wipeable marker. Also useful for marking degrading profiles. Thats an easy fix to do at home though.
lord_blackfang wrote: A blank spot where you could write points/PL in something non-permanent would be a nice touch
Gods I'd love GW to actually open a 3rd edition codex and realise that they CAN put points, stats, abilities and more all on ONE stat page instead of scattershot through the whole codex.
Not sure that I like the accuracy stats being part of the weapon now. So the weapon is what shoots now, independent of the user?
Then again, it would make applying modifiers easier; instead of saying "this powerklaw has a -1 one to hit" you can just say "this powerklaw hits on a 5+", so I suppose that was their thought process.
Also, no points or power levels on the sheet? With all of that empty space? Great, more flipping to the back of the book
They’ll keep doing points PDFs as is the current norm.
And yes, to hit stat per line is to negate need for sums.
Not sure that I like the accuracy stats being part of the weapon now. So the weapon is what shoots now, independent of the user?
Then again, it would make applying modifiers easier; instead of saying "this powerklaw has a -1 one to hit" you can just say "this powerklaw hits on a 5+", so I suppose that was their thought process.
Also, no points or power levels on the sheet? With all of that empty space? Great, more flipping to the back of the book
OC is Objective Control, which replaces the old "this model counts as 2 models for objective secured" style rules. Might be a better way to balance things like Knights on a per-unit basis.
Not including points and power levels makes sense if you consider these datasheets will be sold as card decks for ingame referencing. In theory this means more 'permanent' printed rules, with any kind of later balance updates being focused on the materials you use to build your list before a game.
Pro-Move would be to make these cards/sheets laminated so you can do modifications with a wipeable marker. Also useful for marking degrading profiles. Thats an easy fix to do at home though.
I could imagine GW doing these datasheets like they do Warscrolls in AoS. Thatmeans you'll buy a pack of unit cards and can laminate them to your heart's content.
I could imagine GW doing these datasheets like they do Warscrolls in AoS. Thatmeans you'll buy a pack of unit cards and can laminate them to your heart's content.
They said that's exactly how it will work already. You can either download the PDF or buy the army cards to get your 10th rules and that new cards will come when the Codex(replacing the PDF) is released
Not sure that I like the accuracy stats being part of the weapon now. So the weapon is what shoots now, independent of the user?
Then again, it would make applying modifiers easier; instead of saying "this powerklaw has a -1 one to hit" you can just say "this powerklaw hits on a 5+", so I suppose that was their thought process.
Also, no points or power levels on the sheet? With all of that empty space? Great, more flipping to the back of the book
OC is objective control, unclear at the moment how that works exactly.
The hit rolls etc. being on the weapon now might allow them to do stuff like 'Spray and Pray' vs. targeted shooting in the future, or have sweeps vs. powerful attacks in melee with different hit rolls easier than doing it with crutchy special rules, so that's a plus in my opinion. It sure is bad for memorizing though.
As for the empty space: i guess a lot of units are much more complicated than gaunts, with more options and special stuff, so there might not be too much free space really.
My guess is that OC will be a simple way to check when objectives are contested. For example if my troops have OC 8 while your Terminators have OC 3 then I control the objective.
I think the WS per weapon will work out a lot more cleanly for weapons with dual profile sweep / powerful as you mentioned. I hadn't considered having multiple options for ranged weapons, perhaps we'll see space marines have two profiles for their bolters, one for controlled bursts against elite units and one for full auto against hordes of greenskins.
Not sure that I like the accuracy stats being part of the weapon now. So the weapon is what shoots now, independent of the user?
Then again, it would make applying modifiers easier; instead of saying "this powerklaw has a -1 one to hit" you can just say "this powerklaw hits on a 5+", so I suppose that was their thought process.
Also, no points or power levels on the sheet? With all of that empty space? Great, more flipping to the back of the book
OC is objective control, unclear at the moment how that works exactly.
The hit rolls etc. being on the weapon now might allow them to do stuff like 'Spray and Pray' vs. targeted shooting in the future, or have sweeps vs. powerful attacks in melee with different hit rolls easier than doing it with crutchy special rules, so that's a plus in my opinion. It sure is bad for memorizing though.
As for the empty space: i guess a lot of units are much more complicated than gaunts, with more options and special stuff, so there might not be too much free space really.
My guess is that OC will be a simple way to check when objectives are contested. For example if my troops have OC 8 while your Terminators have OC 3 then I control the objective.
I think the WS per weapon will work out a lot more cleanly for weapons with dual profile sweep / powerful as you mentioned. I hadn't considered having multiple options for ranged weapons, perhaps we'll see space marines have two profiles for their bolters, one for controlled bursts against elite units and one for full auto against hordes of greenskins.
It will probably also used for stuff like automated defense guns on warmachines, drone-controlled T'au guns, grot guns on ork contraptions, Power of the Machine spirit and stuff like that. It also allows representing stuff like special targeters on the main gun rather elegantly.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Not sure that I like the accuracy stats being part of the weapon now. So the weapon is what shoots now, independent of the user?
Then again, it would make applying modifiers easier; instead of saying "this powerklaw has a -1 one to hit" you can just say "this powerklaw hits on a 5+", so I suppose that was their thought process.
Well for Tyranids having the weapon shoot independently isn't inaccurate, as they are separate organisms grafted on! But more to the point it is the skill the user has at hitting with that weapon.
Not sure that I like the accuracy stats being part of the weapon now. So the weapon is what shoots now, independent of the user?
Then again, it would make applying modifiers easier; instead of saying "this powerklaw has a -1 one to hit" you can just say "this powerklaw hits on a 5+", so I suppose that was their thought process.
Also, no points or power levels on the sheet? With all of that empty space? Great, more flipping to the back of the book
Or weapon on user x hits on y and on another on z.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Not sure that I like the accuracy stats being part of the weapon now. So the weapon is what shoots now, independent of the user?
Then again, it would make applying modifiers easier; instead of saying "this powerklaw has a -1 one to hit" you can just say "this powerklaw hits on a 5+", so I suppose that was their thought process.
Well for Tyranids having the weapon shoot independently isn't inaccurate, as they are separate organisms grafted on! But more to the point it is the skill the user has at hitting with that weapon.
Fleshborer: You point me in that direction right now!
Termagant: Nope.
Fleshborer: Ugh, so unprofessional!
This is why the Ultramarines keep winning, and now we get rules representation. Finally.
alextroy wrote:I don't put much stock in GW releasing three new codexes in the 6 months prior to releasing a full reset edition of the game. The last codex (excluding the compilation book Imperial Agents and Codex Supplement Traitor Legions) was 9 months before 8th Edition.
I need to ask for a second helping of crow. It isn't seeming to taste so bad at first bite.
Laughing Man wrote:
Billicus wrote: The real beauty of opr grimdark future is alternating activations, which would be great if 40k adopted but I doubt it
They said in the preview that 10th still has phases, which mostly rules out alternating activations.
Works just fine in Kill Team, so I don't see the issue.
Which reminds me that these new datasheets look a lot like a Kill Team datasheet.
Ugh, looks like they did away with the FoC and you can just take whatever you want.
Not sure I like that.
Get ready for meme-lists I guess.
"Yo dog, I heard you like Space Wolves, so I put wolves in the only wolves list so you can wolf while you wolf"
Also means that the troops tax is no longer a thing, so it's just going be a list of the best units for each army.
So instead of having to spend, I dunno, 200+ points on immortals, I can just use more destroyers, which pack a punch.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Ugh, looks like they did away with the FoC and you can just take whatever you want.
Not sure I like that.
Get ready for meme-lists I guess.
"Yo dog, I heard you like Space Wolves, so I put wolves in the only wolves list so you can wolf while you wolf"
Also means that the troops tax is no longer a thing, so it's just going be a list of the best units for each army.
So instead of having to spend, I dunno, 200+ points on immortals, I can just use more destroyers, which pack a punch.
We don't have enough info.
We don't know what they mean by 'type'. Can I take 9 redemptor dreadnoughts ( 3 per sheet ) or 3 ( as they are the same type )?
Additionally, BATTLELINE is not a keyword on the Termangant sheet. Therefore, I think we'll see subfactions define their own battleline so that Ravenwing et al are still a thing.
well, for the new rules the real question is not if it is good or not
but how long it will last until we see power creep and design changes come up again
the basic promises are the same we have heard so often
3rd Edi without Codex, 8th Edi without Codex ot 10th without Codex won't tell us much about what to expect from that game on the long term, as the core rules were not the big problem in any of those before
I must say I'm a fan of inidividual unit weapon stats. A lot more elegant way of diversifying tohit numbers depending on the unit. Now you can have units which are better with some weapon than with other weapons, this was impossible earlier without adding a bunch of stratagem etc bloat
tauist wrote: I must say I'm a fan of inidividual unit weapon stats. A lot more elegant way of diversifying tohit numbers depending on the unit. Now you can have units which are better with some weapon than with other weapons, this was impossible earlier without adding a bunch of stratagem etc bloat
I think it will really shine once we get to see profiles for 'complicated' superheavies and stuff like that.
kodos wrote: well, for the new rules the real question is not if it is good or not
but how long it will last until we see power creep and design changes come up again
the basic promises are the same we have heard so often
3rd Edi without Codex, 8th Edi without Codex ot 10th without Codex won't tell us much about what to expect from that game on the long term, as the core rules were not the big problem in any of those before
Their approach is different and measured.
Whether or not they can screw it up remains to be seen, but if they keep the page count down there will be less to fix.
Iracundus wrote: While I have nothing against the Lion, I admit I am not so on board with more Primarchs returning, because as special characters they overshadow everyone else (and can't be killed off by GW without causing huge uproar). Take the hyped Lion vs. Angron. We know Angron won't win because he can be defeated and respawn while no loyalist Primarch can truly be killed off since they cannot come back again if truly killed. That robs any conflict of suspense IMO and becomes like those superhero/supervillain versus matches that end up being inconclusive or with the supervillain being defeated but able to always escape.
Also what I don't want to happen is it becomes an auto-win if it is a Primarch vs. any non-Primarch antagonist. Again that means no suspense in any conflict if the Primarch is guaranteed to prevail. What I might find more interesting is if a Primarch lost strategically to a non-Primarch, and how they cope with that blow to their self-esteem (or how their followers cope with their idealized hero being defeated). Even though it is still involving special characters, imagine if Farsight, Eldrad, Yriel, or the Hive Mind outmaneuvered Lion El'jonson or Guilliman, such that they got so involved in winning one particular battle or campaign, they lose on the wider front. Would followers drift away or denounce their Primarch as being weakened and now unworthy?
I surprisingly found Guilliman less bad than I had first feared when he returned, as he provided a sole voice of contrast against the 40K Imperium. His anguished loneliness was kind of the point IMO. I don't want 40K to turn into Primarch drama show like 30K.
Excellent points well made.
I have to say I have felt that special characters in general rob the game of suspension in the same way and also make the setting feel a bit smaller. In what is meant to be a galaxy, two prominent characters somehow manage to cross paths on a regular basis.
Have these significant characters in the background, where they can be instrumental in the evolving story, just not on the table where they can (and do) turn up to lead small forces.
Now that they started, the question is not if we get back all of them, but just how long it will take and in which order
a single loyalist Primarch with each new reset will take a while until it gets boring, while they will run it with the traitor ones soon
kodos wrote: well, for the new rules the real question is not if it is good or not
but how long it will last until we see power creep and design changes come up again
the basic promises are the same we have heard so often
3rd Edi without Codex, 8th Edi without Codex ot 10th without Codex won't tell us much about what to expect from that game on the long term, as the core rules were not the big problem in any of those before
Their approach is different and measured.
Whether or not they can screw it up remains to be seen, but if they keep the page count down there will be less to fix.
as I said, not the first time they made that promise and if they will stick to it this time, we don't know (and remember, you just needed the free core rules and the datasheets of your units to play 8th edition as well, you never "needed" anything else)
but given that this is the 10th time they try not screwing it up again, with a mid-edition design shift or "we meant something different" after releasing the first codex, I don't give them the benefit of the doubt
Iracundus wrote: While I have nothing against the Lion, I admit I am not so on board with more Primarchs returning, because as special characters they overshadow everyone else (and can't be killed off by GW without causing huge uproar). Take the hyped Lion vs. Angron. We know Angron won't win because he can be defeated and respawn while no loyalist Primarch can truly be killed off since they cannot come back again if truly killed. That robs any conflict of suspense IMO and becomes like those superhero/supervillain versus matches that end up being inconclusive or with the supervillain being defeated but able to always escape.
Also what I don't want to happen is it becomes an auto-win if it is a Primarch vs. any non-Primarch antagonist. Again that means no suspense in any conflict if the Primarch is guaranteed to prevail. What I might find more interesting is if a Primarch lost strategically to a non-Primarch, and how they cope with that blow to their self-esteem (or how their followers cope with their idealized hero being defeated). Even though it is still involving special characters, imagine if Farsight, Eldrad, Yriel, or the Hive Mind outmaneuvered Lion El'jonson or Guilliman, such that they got so involved in winning one particular battle or campaign, they lose on the wider front. Would followers drift away or denounce their Primarch as being weakened and now unworthy?
I surprisingly found Guilliman less bad than I had first feared when he returned, as he provided a sole voice of contrast against the 40K Imperium. His anguished loneliness was kind of the point IMO. I don't want 40K to turn into Primarch drama show like 30K.
Excellent points well made.
I have to say I have felt that special characters in general rob the game of suspension in the same way and also make the setting feel a bit smaller. In what is meant to be a galaxy, two prominent characters somehow manage to cross paths on a regular basis.
Have these significant characters in the background, where they can be instrumental in the evolving story, just not on the table where they can (and do) turn up to lead small forces.
Out of curiosity, why on earth would you think the suspense or w/e in a fight is literally who dies at the end? Especially with characters who are responsible for the ideas, goals, and wellbeing of literally billions?
If a fight between Angron and the Lion was even majority about who killed who, that would be doggak. The interesting consequences of a fight are in the goals and motivations of the characters and how the fight impacts the greater narrative. That's why people remember 'you killed my father, prepare to die' and not that he used a down-angle cross slash or whatever.
It's the same reason why X is stronger than Y arguments are dumb. It literally doesn't matter.
On the other hand, that's true too, though. Motivations and whatnot can't impact the greater narrative with SCs. SCs will always be who they are, and no matter how many times you put them on the small battlefields of 40k, they will have the same motivations and won't be changed by what happens.
They can lose tomorrow to Grog Dogsnot and still be the great hero of <faction>, whereas for a narrative person playing their own characters, that shameful defeat can be worked into their story.
The arguments about 'who's stronger between X & Y' is literally the only argument to have, because the players have no impact on their stories. Best to go by the advice of GW of old and accept that only bad people use SCs, and in general, no one should.
Warmachine fluff was pretty grating as it's a game that operates entirely on special characters but every time they butted heads in the story the loser had to miraculously survive, because they were an in game special character and couldn't be killed off, so we got truly asinine endings, the winner always having to rush off for some reason and never being able to take another 30 stupid seconds to gut their disabled nemesis and gain a world-altering strategic advantage.
lord_blackfang wrote: Warmachine fluff was pretty grating as it's a game that operates entirely on special characters but every time they butted heads in the story the loser had to miraculously survive, because they were an in game special character and couldn't be killed off, so we got truly asinine endings, the winner always having to rush off for some reason and never being able to take another 30 stupid seconds to gut their disabled nemesis and gain a world-altering strategic advantage.
At least with Undead, Liches, Demons and the like you have the convenient copout that they're either really hard to kill or can come back anyway. It get's really annoying if it happens for baseline humans, the term 'plot armour' comes to mind. Just like everybody and his grandmother crossing the Rubicon Primaris to no ill effect, it reeks of cheap writing and screws suspension of disbelief.
Personally, special characters don't bother me. I don't use them on the table (unless I have to - looking at you, Deathwing army and depending on rules not being able to take a generic terminator captain) and am not really worried about their stories.
For me, 40K is about the little people being ground to pulp in the hideous systems that make up the warring factions.
And, of course, giving them all names and back stories and throwing them into battles to die again and again and again
Iracundus wrote: While I have nothing against the Lion, I admit I am not so on board with more Primarchs returning, because as special characters they overshadow everyone else (and can't be killed off by GW without causing huge uproar). Take the hyped Lion vs. Angron. We know Angron won't win because he can be defeated and respawn while no loyalist Primarch can truly be killed off since they cannot come back again if truly killed. That robs any conflict of suspense IMO and becomes like those superhero/supervillain versus matches that end up being inconclusive or with the supervillain being defeated but able to always escape.
Also what I don't want to happen is it becomes an auto-win if it is a Primarch vs. any non-Primarch antagonist. Again that means no suspense in any conflict if the Primarch is guaranteed to prevail. What I might find more interesting is if a Primarch lost strategically to a non-Primarch, and how they cope with that blow to their self-esteem (or how their followers cope with their idealized hero being defeated). Even though it is still involving special characters, imagine if Farsight, Eldrad, Yriel, or the Hive Mind outmaneuvered Lion El'jonson or Guilliman, such that they got so involved in winning one particular battle or campaign, they lose on the wider front. Would followers drift away or denounce their Primarch as being weakened and now unworthy?
I surprisingly found Guilliman less bad than I had first feared when he returned, as he provided a sole voice of contrast against the 40K Imperium. His anguished loneliness was kind of the point IMO. I don't want 40K to turn into Primarch drama show like 30K.
To me the whole Arks of Omen narrative illustrates the problem. The biggest event since Gathering Storm, with a really cool idea and some great additions....that with this I feel that's all been lessened. At the last miniute It hasn't been allowed to be something that stands on its own, instead it's turned out to be something to bring back another loyalist Primarch. Can't let it end with some big interesting plot twist or be solved by one of the many cool 'normal' characters in the setting, instead it's "Here's another Primarch to solve it! Primarchs the just the best!" because others aren't allowed.
Even just the Language they use the latest article feels like it shows it:
The Imperium grasps for a light in the darkness, and a light they shall receive.
....a true hero of legend.
....scything through humanity’s foes like wheat
Those lucky few who live long enough to return a blow are met with a bone-crunching wave of force, as the fury of the Emperor Himself resounds from his shield.
With 100 or so years within the setting, 2 of the Imperiums greatest long-gone heroes have shown up after millenia of nothing, and other characters can't compete because Primarchs.
Like, I just keep thinking of how cool it could have been if instead of this it had been something like Luther and the Fallen. Or Dante / The Sanguinor. Or even Abaddon realizing he made a huge mistake and Vashtorr has tricked him. Could have been all sorts of interesting things for a variety of characters. But no, another Primarch just suddenly being pulled out of effectively nowhere at the last minute to come save the day. Overshadowing all sorts of other things, lessening the themes of the Imperium/setting more, focusing the spotlight on Space Marines and the Primarchs even more and moving things closer to Horus Heresy 2.0 where it's the story of the Primarchs isn't a good thing to me at all.
Mentlegen324 wrote: But no, another Primarch just suddenly being pulled out of effectively nowhere at the last minute to come save the day.
Well, given that The Rock was a prominent location halfway through the series, you can't really say it came out of nowhere for the guy that lives within The Rock to eventually put in an appearance.
Mentlegen324 wrote: But no, another Primarch just suddenly being pulled out of effectively nowhere at the last minute to come save the day.
Well, given that The Rock was a prominent location halfway through the series, you can't really say it came out of nowhere for the guy that lives within The Rock to eventually put in an appearance.
I wasn't referring to the physical location of him.
Mentlegen324 wrote: But no, another Primarch just suddenly being pulled out of effectively nowhere at the last minute to come save the day.
Well, given that The Rock was a prominent location halfway through the series, you can't really say it came out of nowhere for the guy that lives within The Rock to eventually put in an appearance.
I wasn't referring to the physical location of him.
Maybe not, but he's hardly coming out of nowhere if they've foreshadowed him by spotlighting his famous home a little two books earlier. Now if, say, Vulkan popped up in book 5, that would have been a weird and arbitrary ending.
Mentlegen324 wrote: But no, another Primarch just suddenly being pulled out of effectively nowhere at the last minute to come save the day.
Well, given that The Rock was a prominent location halfway through the series, you can't really say it came out of nowhere for the guy that lives within The Rock to eventually put in an appearance.
I wasn't referring to the physical location of him.
Maybe not, but he's hardly coming out of nowhere if they've foreshadowed him by spotlighting his famous home a little two books earlier. Now if, say, Vulkan popped up in book 5, that would have been a weird and arbitrary ending.
The Rock and the Dark Angels just being involved in something isn't "foreshadowing", they're both their own entities. There have been plenty of things involving them without the Lion suddenly showing up.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Lion having a lovely, if secretive sleep know only to the pet gremlins has been canon since Codex Angels of Death.
If a 25 year or more narrative run up is “out of nowhere” to you…..I don’t know what to say.
...This isn't something they've been working on for 25 years, you know. That that piece of lore about him being asleep in the Rock was there doesn't make it any less of a sudden thing just one day go "Oh look, he's back now", it's not a "narrative run up" to just all of a sudden do something with a small bit of lore never intended to actually go anywhere 25 years later. It's an entirely arbitrary thing.
Mentlegen324 wrote: But no, another Primarch just suddenly being pulled out of effectively nowhere at the last minute to come save the day.
The Final Secret
The only people who know about the disastrous events that took place on Caliban all those millennia ago are the Emperor and the Dark Angels themselves. The Dark Angels will never reveal the truth to anyone outside the Chapter for they could not bear others to know the truth of their terrible shame. And all the while, deep within his cell, Luther, the betrayer, speaks of what is to come. Yet even the highest ranking Dark Angels do not know everything, although they may thinks that they do.
Buried even deeper within the Rock, is the final, greatest secret of the Chapter. Only one person in the entire universe knows the truth - the Emperor himself. For hidden inside a secluded, unreachable chamber at the heart of what was once the planet Caliban, Lion El'Jonson lies sleeping, waiting with the Watchers in the Dark for that time when he will be needed once again to defend the Imperium against its enemies.
- Codex: Angels of Death (1996)
You may call it "out of... nowhere", but some of us have been waiting 27 years to see that endlessly intriguing set of paragraphs from the first Dark Angel Codex come to fruition.
I'm not a Dark Angel player. I have no interesting in purchasing this minaiture. I'm also extremely happy it exists and I think it's great that he's returning.
Mentlegen324 wrote: This isn't something they've been working on for 25 years, you know.
Of course they haven't. None of the people who work where when the above was written even work there anymore. But it's far from "out of nowhere".
If it'd been "Suddenly, Jaghatai Khan is back!", then that'd be out of no where.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Lion having a lovely, if secretive sleep know only to the pet gremlins has been canon since Codex Angels of Death.
If a 25 year or more narrative run up is “out of nowhere” to you…..I don’t know what to say.
I think the point is that this particular narrative isn't anything special. He's had 10,000 years to wake up and there is no justification for him to wake up at this particular specific point than any other point. There's no narrative reason that makes this point in 40k THE reason he wakes up, over any other point.
So it comes across as a very plot contrived reason.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Lion having a lovely, if secretive sleep know only to the pet gremlins has been canon since Codex Angels of Death.
If a 25 year or more narrative run up is “out of nowhere” to you…..I don’t know what to say.
I think the point is that this particular narrative isn't anything special. He's had 10,000 years to wake up and there is no justification for him to wake up at this particular specific point than any other point. There's no narrative reason that makes this point in 40k THE reason he wakes up, over any other point.
So it comes across as a very plot contrived reason.
Yeah this. Sure, Lion was always there in the freezer to be pulled out again, but there no in universe reason why now.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Lion having a lovely, if secretive sleep know only to the pet gremlins has been canon since Codex Angels of Death.
If a 25 year or more narrative run up is “out of nowhere” to you…..I don’t know what to say.
I think the point is that this particular narrative isn't anything special. He's had 10,000 years to wake up and there is no justification for him to wake up at this particular specific point than any other point. There's no narrative reason that makes this point in 40k THE reason he wakes up, over any other point.
So it comes across as a very plot contrived reason.
Even as a DA player I get this. Gulliman had a long intricate story involving multiple locations and named characters working together to bring him back. But the Lion just... had an alarm clock set I guess?
I'm hoping that the AOO book gives a good explanation for how and why he suddenly comes back.
A Watcher In The Dark woke up The Lion because Luther finally ran away from home and we only have 1 guy that knows outside of you. Also, he's the same guy that lost him.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Lion having a lovely, if secretive sleep know only to the pet gremlins has been canon since Codex Angels of Death.
If a 25 year or more narrative run up is “out of nowhere” to you…..I don’t know what to say.
I think the point is that this particular narrative isn't anything special. He's had 10,000 years to wake up and there is no justification for him to wake up at this particular specific point than any other point. There's no narrative reason that makes this point in 40k THE reason he wakes up, over any other point.
So it comes across as a very plot contrived reason.
Yes, this is what I mean. He's just back because he's just back now, it feels so arbitrary and contrived. Sure, there was the line of lore about him being asleep, but that makes little difference as that was never meant to go anywhere and 25 years later suddenly going "He's awake now" certainly doesn't feel earned or like it's had any real thought to it. The first book in the Arks of Omen series and he was already back.
There's also that Guilliman, Primaris, Indomitus etc has so, so much potential that's nowhere near exhausted to the point it feels like its the right time for it, and In-universe having 2 show up in like 100 years makes the whole thing come across as even more contrived after millennia of none of them.
Come on, people. We've known Johnson was going to return ever since they started advancing the timeline and brought back Guilliman. We know this just as we know they'll eventually bring back the other missing Primarchs as well.
It's not a matter of "if" but more a matter of "when".
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Lion having a lovely, if secretive sleep know only to the pet gremlins has been canon since Codex Angels of Death.
If a 25 year or more narrative run up is “out of nowhere” to you…..I don’t know what to say.
I think the point is that this particular narrative isn't anything special. He's had 10,000 years to wake up and there is no justification for him to wake up at this particular specific point than any other point. There's no narrative reason that makes this point in 40k THE reason he wakes up, over any other point.
So it comes across as a very plot contrived reason.
Yes, this is what I mean. He's just back because he's just back now, it feels so arbitrary and contrived. Sure, there was the line of lore about him being asleep, but that makes little difference as that was never meant to go anywhere and 25 years later suddenly going "He's awake now" certainly doesn't feel earned or like it's had any real thought to it. The first book in the Arks of Omen series and he was already back.
There's also that Guilliman, Primaris, Indomitus etc has so, so much potential that's nowhere near exhausted to the point it feels like its the right time for it, and In-universe having 2 show up in like 100 years makes the whole thing come across as even more contrived after millennia of none of them.
The Primarchs as a whole are arbitrary and contrived so that makes sense.
Guy has thing he thinks belongs to him that he treats badly. Thing rebels. Guy gets surprised and screwed over by rebellion. Wacky hijinks happen. American Dad has done the exact same plotline, better, like 8 times and didn't need 200 books to do it.
A Watcher In The Dark woke up The Lion because Luther finally ran away from home and we only have 1 guy that knows outside of you. Also, he's the same guy that lost him.
The End.
Pretty much. imo one can criticise the lore for being bad, I do it all the time, but people here seem to be saying it makes no sense, it's illogical, something like that. No, not really.
A Watcher In The Dark woke up The Lion because Luther finally ran away from home and we only have 1 guy that knows outside of you. Also, he's the same guy that lost him.
The End.
Pretty much. imo one can criticise the lore for being bad, I do it all the time, but people here seem to be saying it makes no sense, it's illogical, something like that. No, not really.
I don't even know what I would consider "illogical" at this point in 40k.....
The Khan rode his bike into the Vengeful Spirit and ghostbustered Sanguinius' soul. Corax captured the Sanguinor and jumped in The Khan's sidecar, came out of the warp to rez Sangy. They realized that Dorn's hand and Ferrus' head were stored under Sangy's body the whole time. The 5 Musketeer's, bodies reassembled, lassoed all the Hive Fleets and drug them into the warp.
as I said, not the first time they made that promise and if they will stick to it this time, we don't know (and remember, you just needed the free core rules and the datasheets of your units to play 8th edition as well, you never "needed" anything else)
but given that this is the 10th time they try not screwing it up again, with a mid-edition design shift or "we meant something different" after releasing the first codex, I don't give them the benefit of the doubt
I think it's fair to not give them the benefit of the doubt.
For me this is the strongest language they've ever used about future books.
There will certainly be some sort of power creep, because I imagine they'll do the same old Codex release schedule.
My hope is if they keep to their commitment then the swings won't be as wild as the past.
The whole sleeping Lion thing was obviously inspired by Arthurian legend. And you know what King Arthur never does? Wake up. The Lion is no longer space King Arthur. Now he's just another space Superman running around doing superhero stuff. Lame.
I can't wait for them to bring back Sanguinius and ruin that whole storyline too.
Abadabadoobaddon wrote: The whole sleeping Lion thing was obviously inspired by Arthurian legend. And you know what King Arthur never does? Wake up. The Lion is no longer space King Arthur. Now he's just another space Superman running around doing superhero stuff. Lame.
I can't wait for them to bring back Sanguinius and ruin that whole storyline too.
...talk about a histrionic reaction.
Far be it from GW to depart from your particular vision of their own background.
This was one of the most spectacular reveals of recent memory, and yet there are still people acting like it's the end of the hobby?
I admit, an impish part of me wishes that they'd just introduce female Astartes. Maybe have an Indomitus founding chapter led by Chapter Mistress Aneeta Sark'eesian - just to drive certain elements of the hobby screaming from the scene. It's becoming so f-ing unbearable at this point.
...the Lion is an outstanding model. The only reason I may not pick up a copy is because all my money will be dumped into Seraphon.
I'm curious as to what story has been ruined here? The story where the Lion is asleep and never does nothing? Not much of a story...
crumby_cataphract wrote: I admit, an impish part of me wishes that they'd just introduce female Astartes. Maybe have an Indomitus founding chapter led by Chapter Mistress Aneeta Sark'eesian - just to drive certain elements of the hobby screaming from the scene. It's becoming so f-ing unbearable at this point.
You have no idea how close I was to putting a character called The Great Sark into something. Then the brief changed. Anyway...
A Watcher In The Dark woke up The Lion because Luther finally ran away from home and we only have 1 guy that knows outside of you. Also, he's the same guy that lost him.
The End.
Pretty much. imo one can criticise the lore for being bad, I do it all the time, but people here seem to be saying it makes no sense, it's illogical, something like that. No, not really.
Until the book comes out and people can see what the story of him returning actually is - and I'm assuming it isn't a thing in the Vashtorr-invades-The-Rock book - it seems a bit early to even be going after the lore, IMO.
Sculpt seems pretty nice - though I would like to see it next to Guilliman, not just Guilliman's shadow - and the four head options are cool, even if hood-but-no-helmet is giving me unmasked-Green-Arrow vibes...
I'm not necessarily in the market for the Primarch, then again, I said that about Mortarion before subbing to Conquest.If I pick up that new Thousand Sons box, I'll probably probably end up with Magnus
I am torn between the two hooded options for my favourite. Winged helmets don't float my boat.
One of the main things I've been thinking about is Cypher? We know he wants to get in front of the big E... Maybe the Lion knows why?
In addition, good opportunity for Luther to be a player in the background at least... Doesn't need rules, doesn't need a model, but up to something lore wise.
Another element is the aspect of the fallen in general now. Do the DA carry on as they were, or does the Lion skew the interactions and hunt now (presumably not as it basically invalidate the DW and RW's main lore function).
Final question to be answered.... Are the DA and the Lion the real traitors
H.B.M.C. wrote:I'm curious as to what story has been ruined here? The story where the Lion is asleep and never does nothing? Not much of a story...
main problem is simple that there is no story at all that makes people come with "now must be the time"
the Lion sleeps and the Watchers decide when the time he is needed most is coming
yet the big why is missing
what makes this minor event different from any other minor event in the past 10.000 years that the Watchers decided now he must come back
this is similar to how Captain Marvel was coming back in the MCU, as the event that got her called was "big" but Fury did not know about this, from that point of view any other big event in the previous films would have been good enough to call her is there was no possibility to know that the next one is going to be bigger
and here, if GW would have written that the Lion was woken up 5k years ago but just did not thought about revealing himself until Papa Smurf was coming back too it would have had more impact to the story than "now is the time without a reason"
also Cypher, would have been much better if the story was the Cypher finally reached the Emperor and this was the reason why the Lion is waking up, and this was always Cyphers plan as he somehow was knowing about the Sleeper and how to get him back
Daedalus81 wrote:My hope is if they keep to their commitment then the swings won't be as wild as the past.
I had that hope with 8th, and for a very short time in 9th (until the designers video preview were they said that they want those big swings)
Abadabadoobaddon wrote: The whole sleeping Lion thing was obviously inspired by Arthurian legend. And you know what King Arthur never does? Wake up. The Lion is no longer space King Arthur. Now he's just another space Superman running around doing superhero stuff. Lame.
I can't wait for them to bring back Sanguinius and ruin that whole storyline too.
They did that in 1996 though. The Sanguinor has been the warp ghost of Sanguinis *wink nudge* ever since then.
I fully expect to see a new plastic centrepiece model with primarch-level rules for the Sanguinor in the near future, and that will be that.
I had a fellow 40k try to engage me about the 40k Primarchs storyline today. Call me a jaded old man but with a world setting as riddled with inconsistencies as 40k is, the answer to any question about "Why do you think X happened" or "When will Y come back?" the answer is simply always "Whatever serves the narrative/business model."
Abadabadoobaddon wrote: The whole sleeping Lion thing was obviously inspired by Arthurian legend. And you know what King Arthur never does? Wake up. The Lion is no longer space King Arthur. Now he's just another space Superman running around doing superhero stuff. Lame.
I can't wait for them to bring back Sanguinius and ruin that whole storyline too.
They did that in 1996 though. The Sanguinor has been the warp ghost of Sanguinis *wink nudge* ever since then.
I fully expect to see a new plastic centrepiece model with primarch-level rules for the Sanguinor in the near future, and that will be that.
Sanguinor was invented by Matt Ward in the 5th ed blood angel codex in 2010. He's newer to the setting than the entire modern heresy story...
Until the book comes out and people can see what the story of him returning actually is - and I'm assuming it isn't a thing in the Vashtorr-invades-The-Rock book - it seems a bit early to even be going after the lore, IMO.
its not, or at least if it happens in that time frame, its not in the Vashtorr book. I've seen some of the spoilers for it, the Lion is not mentioned at all (mostly they bitch about the unsatisfying way the plot battle is resolved by the no-context introduction of a third faction......which does not bode well).
its POSSIBLE the invasion triggers the awakening, but if it is, its not something covering in the Vashtorr book and would have to be added on as a "while this main plot was happening, no one noticed this side plot" bolt on, which feels cheap.
Doesn't Vastorr end with the DA's going "Vashtorr has fled to the Sonmium stars!" (or however you spell that) which is where a previous piece of fluff said a Fallen army was mustering under Luther?
H.B.M.C. wrote: Doesn't Vastorr end with the DA's going "Vashtorr has fled to the Sonmium stars!" (or however you spell that) which is where a previous piece of fluff said a Fallen army was mustering under Luther?
I mean, that'll be why the Lion shows up.
It'd be good to get a line under the fallen arc to some degree and maybe they can stop the first being a knock off alpha legion where everything is a secretive secret plot of secret things because oh the shaaammmeee.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Doesn't Vastorr end with the DA's going "Vashtorr has fled to the Sonmium stars!" (or however you spell that) which is where a previous piece of fluff said a Fallen army was mustering under Luther?
I mean, that'll be why the Lion shows up.
It'd be good to get a line under the fallen arc to some degree and maybe they can stop the first being a knock off alpha legion where everything is a secretive secret plot of secret things because oh the shaaammmeee.
thing is, that "hidden shame" is LITERALLY the defining lore attribute for the dark angels, and has been since their inception. its going to be extremely difficult to transition off that. I wouldn't expect them to get much further than a "open secret" element of it being officially unrecognised, like the black templars numbers.
crumby_cataphract wrote: This was one of the most spectacular reveals of recent memory, and yet there are still people acting like it's the end of the hobby?
Was it? It's a nice model once you hide his mug under a helmet, but what's spectacular about a returning Primarch at this point? If one could have believed that GW was only going to bring back Daemon Primarchs when only Magnus was released, bringing back Girlyman removed any doubt that we had entered the second age of the Primarchs.
kodos wrote: what makes this minor event different from any other minor event in the past 10.000 years that the Watchers decided now he must come back
Arks of Omen is set a few years after the rift tore the galaxy and Imperium in half. Regardless of actual impact on the story, that's GW very overtly telling us that everything is different now and that going forward this singular event will be drawn on to explain all kinds of changes.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Doesn't Vastorr end with the DA's going "Vashtorr has fled to the Sonmium stars!" (or however you spell that) which is where a previous piece of fluff said a Fallen army was mustering under Luther?
I mean, that'll be why the Lion shows up.
It'd be good to get a line under the fallen arc to some degree and maybe they can stop the first being a knock off alpha legion where everything is a secretive secret plot of secret things because oh the shaaammmeee.
Flip that - the DA background with the Fallen, etc, was detailed before the Alpha Legion went into full mustache-twirling villain mode.
Abadabadoobaddon wrote: The whole sleeping Lion thing was obviously inspired by Arthurian legend. And you know what King Arthur never does? Wake up. The Lion is no longer space King Arthur. Now he's just another space Superman running around doing superhero stuff. Lame.
I can't wait for them to bring back Sanguinius and ruin that whole storyline too.
They did that in 1996 though. The Sanguinor has been the warp ghost of Sanguinis *wink nudge* ever since then.
I fully expect to see a new plastic centrepiece model with primarch-level rules for the Sanguinor in the near future, and that will be that.
Sanguinor was invented by Matt Ward in the 5th ed blood angel codex in 2010. He's newer to the setting than the entire modern heresy story...
Indeed, and the reactions to hin introduction were certainly... spicy 'Dumbest name ever', 'End of the Hobby', heard it all before.
There is no use in denying it: Primarchs of all persuasions have had the possibilities of their return built-in ever since they started fleshing out their dissappearances, Primarchs sell, Primarchs will return, just like Space Marines will be getting made. It's fundamental to the core elements of the setting: the business plans and spreadsheets.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Ugh, looks like they did away with the FoC and you can just take whatever you want.
Not sure I like that.
Get ready for meme-lists I guess.
"Yo dog, I heard you like Space Wolves, so I put wolves in the only wolves list so you can wolf while you wolf"
Also means that the troops tax is no longer a thing, so it's just going be a list of the best units for each army.
So instead of having to spend, I dunno, 200+ points on immortals, I can just use more destroyers, which pack a punch.
Well points might be issue anyway after max 3 dest unit taken
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kodos wrote: (and remember, you just needed the free core rules and the datasheets of your units to play 8th edition as well, you never "needed" anything else)
but given that this is the 10th time they try not screwing it up again, with a mid-edition design shift or "we meant something different" after releasing the first codex, I don't give them the benefit of the doubt
Of course datasheets were in index or codex behind paywalL
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Voss wrote: On the other hand, that's true too, though. Motivations and whatnot can't impact the greater narrative with SCs. SCs will always be who they are, and no matter how many times you put them on the small battlefields of 40k, they will have the same motivations and won't be changed by what happens.
They can lose tomorrow to Grog Dogsnot and still be the great hero of <faction>, whereas for a narrative person playing their own characters, that shameful defeat can be worked into their story.
The arguments about 'who's stronger between X & Y' is literally the only argument to have, because the players have no impact on their stories. Best to go by the advice of GW of old and accept that only bad people use SCs, and in general, no one should.
That assumes you follow the current flawed concept of "evolving storyline by gw" and not the original gw's idea "it's your sandbox, do your own stories".
We're assuming that the Lion is going to join up with the Dark Angels, you could easily keep the secret shame thread going if their new book is split into two subfactions. The Lion and his Fallen working as a "Secret Inquisition" within Nihilus vs the Chapter dedicated to hunting them and the 'pretender' down.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Doesn't Vastorr end with the DA's going "Vashtorr has fled to the Sonmium stars!" (or however you spell that) which is where a previous piece of fluff said a Fallen army was mustering under Luther?
I mean, that'll be why the Lion shows up.
It'd be good to get a line under the fallen arc to some degree and maybe they can stop the first being a knock off alpha legion where everything is a secretive secret plot of secret things because oh the shaaammmeee.
Flip that - the DA background with the Fallen, etc, was detailed before the Alpha Legion went into full mustache-twirling villain mode.
Oh I know it's part of the integral real world pun of the names etc. with The Dark Angels being a poem by Lionel Johnson about the secret shame of homosexual feelings. But it'd be nice for the Dark Angels to have plots or events that extend beyond "we're being dicks because we have secrets", maybe wear it with pride and go on a crusade of redemption etc.
Likewise the Lion of the HH books seems to have been written with a persona that's intentionally abrasive due to utilising people/situations to compartmentalised ends. Not all primarchs needs to be an inspiring leader but it might be nice for him to have a look in the mirror.
Until the book comes out and people can see what the story of him returning actually is - and I'm assuming it isn't a thing in the Vashtorr-invades-The-Rock book - it seems a bit early to even be going after the lore, IMO.
its not, or at least if it happens in that time frame, its not in the Vashtorr book. I've seen some of the spoilers for it, the Lion is not mentioned at all (mostly they bitch about the unsatisfying way the plot battle is resolved by the no-context introduction of a third faction......which does not bode well).
its POSSIBLE the invasion triggers the awakening, but if it is, its not something covering in the Vashtorr book and would have to be added on as a "while this main plot was happening, no one noticed this side plot" bolt on, which feels cheap.
He was already awake right at the very start of this whole narrative. Book 1 has Dante come across an entire destroyed fleet and space hulk that we now know was done by the Lion.
I guess that explains the whole "Dark Angels and Blood Angels are combined into an Angels of Death" rumor. It was likely just the Lion arriving with Dante to save the DA from the very obvious trap they went into
GaroRobe wrote: I guess that explains the whole "Dark Angels and Blood Angels are combined into an Angels of Death" rumor. It was likely just the Lion arriving with Dante to save the DA from the very obvious trap they went into
Well of course they're going to join forces. They've got two new models to sell!
That assumes you follow the current flawed concept of "evolving storyline by gw" and not the original gw's idea "it's your sandbox, do your own stories".
I was wavering on making this exact same point, but it seems to be a bit of a touchy subject for some people and I was wary of triggering another argument.
I agree - The focus on personalities and ‘Epic storylines’ tied to them seems completely at odds with what I always saw as the core appeal of 40k: Endless possibilities for making your own stories, because there isn’t one ‘main storyline’, and whatever happens, you will not be missed….
The kind of thing that GW are doing now makes sense when you think they are trying to emulate some of the bigger multi media franchises with cross market appeal, but this approach has a limit, even if you like it - it rotted star wars away from the inside and it’s why marvel was/is flagging (comics vs movies, respectively), albeit continuing to make big money, even if the quality and critical reception are dropping fast.
Thing is, both of those franchises tend to turn out their best stuff when they focus on smaller stories with minor or no name characters. Similarly, I much preferred it when ‘special characters’ in 40k were just named personalities who featured in a notable campaign, rather than setting-distorting snowflake OCs with a battery of super special rules, brawling in a royal rumble style soap opera that intermittently completely impacts or even fundamentally re-writes the very fabric of the setting.
That assumes you follow the current flawed concept of "evolving storyline by gw" and not the original gw's idea "it's your sandbox, do your own stories".
I was wavering on making this exact same point, but it seems to be a bit of a touchy subject for some people and I was wary of triggering another argument.
I agree - The focus on personalities and ‘Epic storylines’ tied to them seems completely at odds with what I always saw as the core appeal of 40k: Endless possibilities for making your own stories, because there isn’t one ‘main storyline’, and whatever happens, you will not be missed….
The kind of thing that GW are doing now makes sense when you think they are trying to emulate some of the bigger multi media franchises with cross market appeal, but this approach has a limit, even if you like it - it rotted star wars away from the inside and it’s why marvel was/is flagging (comics vs movies, respectively), albeit continuing to make big money, even if the quality and critical reception are dropping fast.
Thing is, both of those franchises tend to turn out their best stuff when they focus on smaller stories with minor or no name characters. Similarly, I much preferred it when ‘special characters’ in 40k were just named personalities who featured in a notable campaign, rather than setting-distorting snowflake OCs with a battery of super special rules, brawling in a royal rumble style soap opera that intermittently completely impacts or even fundamentally re-writes the very fabric of the setting.
I second this. I am definitely in the sandbox camp.
GaroRobe wrote: save the DA from the very obvious trap they went into
Why do people do this?
Because the Dark Angels themselves admit that they are very likely going into a trap by pursing Vashtorr, and decide to go anyway? And they're bringing the Rock with them to Vashtorr, which is the very thing he was trying to raid in the first place?
That assumes you follow the current flawed concept of "evolving storyline by gw" and not the original gw's idea "it's your sandbox, do your own stories".
I was wavering on making this exact same point, but it seems to be a bit of a touchy subject for some people and I was wary of triggering another argument.
I agree - The focus on personalities and ‘Epic storylines’ tied to them seems completely at odds with what I always saw as the core appeal of 40k: Endless possibilities for making your own stories, because there isn’t one ‘main storyline’, and whatever happens, you will not be missed….
The kind of thing that GW are doing now makes sense when you think they are trying to emulate some of the bigger multi media franchises with cross market appeal, but this approach has a limit, even if you like it - it rotted star wars away from the inside and it’s why marvel was/is flagging (comics vs movies, respectively), albeit continuing to make big money, even if the quality and critical reception are dropping fast.
Thing is, both of those franchises tend to turn out their best stuff when they focus on smaller stories with minor or no name characters. Similarly, I much preferred it when ‘special characters’ in 40k were just named personalities who featured in a notable campaign, rather than setting-distorting snowflake OCs with a battery of super special rules, brawling in a royal rumble style soap opera that intermittently completely impacts or even fundamentally re-writes the very fabric of the setting.
That assumes you follow the current flawed concept of "evolving storyline by gw" and not the original gw's idea "it's your sandbox, do your own stories".
I was wavering on making this exact same point, but it seems to be a bit of a touchy subject for some people and I was wary of triggering another argument. I agree - The focus on personalities and ‘Epic storylines’ tied to them seems completely at odds with what I always saw as the core appeal of 40k: Endless possibilities for making your own stories, because there isn’t one ‘main storyline’, and whatever happens, you will not be missed….
Except that hasn't been true since 3rd Ed, which HAD an evolving main storyline centered around main personalities(3rd War for Armageddon, Black 13th 1.0, Medusa V, etc.). Those endless possibilities still exist.
- The dude with the two knives in the trailer is actually a special character from the Starter Box
- Everything in the trailer will get a model in the Box
- New Space Marine Veterans unit with combi weapons
- Next week more BA and DA rumours
- Space Hulk rumours also next week
- Valrak himself will be on holiday, the videos are pre-recorded, so no livestreams etc.
" Universal special rules are back in the game – It doesn’t matter if you’re making a Dimensional Translocation or preparing Death From Below, it’s all a Deep Strike now!"
Players wanted those away, they went away. Now they are back. In couple editions away again no doubt
" Universal special rules are back in the game – It doesn’t matter if you’re making a Dimensional Translocation or preparing Death From Below, it’s all a Deep Strike now!"
Players wanted those away, they went away. Now they are back. In couple editions away again no doubt
Not necessarily true. What I don't want are LOADS of Unique Special Rules (USRs) and i definitely don't want layered USRs. For example, i can accept 'Deep Strike' being a USR so long as i don't have like a million of them to remember. What i DO NOT want is things like 'Jump Infantry' being a USR that itself then confers several other USRs.
So GW stating this is a ground up re-write of the game, makes this effectively the 5th game called Warhammer 40,000.
1st edition aka rouge trader
2nd edition (the best one)
3rd-7th edition evolution of the same game
8-9th the dumpster fire version of the game
and now 10th.
How closely are we expecting the game to be compared to the recent version, or will we see a shift back towards older concepts in terms of rules designs as hinted at by universal special rules returning.
Tamereth wrote: So GW stating this is a ground up re-write of the game, makes this effectively the 5th game called Warhammer 40,000.
1st edition aka rouge trader
2nd edition (the best one)
3rd-7th edition evolution of the same game
8-9th the dumpster fire version of the game
and now 10th.
How closely are we expecting the game to be compared to the recent version, or will we see a shift back towards older concepts in terms of rules designs as hinted at by universal special rules returning.
You'll never hear about it from GW because they like to pretend that they're their own, independent ecosystem and nothing anybody else does will ever matter to them, but the best case you can hope for is not that they're 'taking inspiration' by looking backwards at what they have done in the past or sidewards at their own specialist games, but that they acknowledge stuff that is common wisdom in the world of game design at large. GW is succesful, but their game writing is very backwards in lots of places, both on the conceptual and on the technical level. They're clinging to a lot of hidebound conventions that wargaming at large has long since abandoned, and every edition of 40k since ~4th has been them kicking and screaming against being dragged to the 21st century
The short answer is yes! Ultimately the Warhammer Design Studio decided that having the same special rule under a dozen or more separate faction names had become a bit of a barrier to the smooth running of the game – not least because many players simply referred to them by a single name anyway, such as Deep Strike and Feel No Pain.
Do Vehicle and Monster profiles still degrade as they take damage?
More or less, though the mechanic has been streamlined. Instead of three separate profiles, there’s a single line on each unit card that still acts like this and explains any penalties incurred when a certain Wounds threshold is reached. More on this soon.
So if the rumor that everything in the trailer is getting a model in the starter box is true, that's.....quite a lot.
Just on one watch I saw (and I'm sure I'm mislabeling a few things):
-Terminator Librarian
-Terminator Captain
-Phobos Character
-Combi-Weapon Heavy Intercessors (veterans?)
-Heavy Support Redemptor
-Aggressor Apothecary
-Terminators
-Carnifex
-Lictor
-Artillery Bug
-Ymgrl Big Bug
-Flying Warrior
-Floaty Brain bug
-Guants of both varieties
I mean, that would easily be the largest launch box ever, right?
The changes to degrading profiles was interesting. I didn't really consider this to be complex. It was pretty much all there and would've fit on to the new data sheets. Wonder how they are doing it in the new world.
Necronmaniac05 wrote: The changes to degrading profiles was interesting. I didn't really consider this to be complex. It was pretty much all there and would've fit on to the new data sheets. Wonder how they are doing it in the new world.
Well sounded it's like: For every X wounds -1 to stats X, Y and Z.
But we'll see. It seems more of presentational change rather than huge change to result.
Speculating about the starter box and the combat patrol game mode. Would be too sensible if the starter box contained two valid Combat Patrol forces, one for Space Marines and one for Tyranids.
After all it is a starter box and the Combat Patrol game mode is supposed to be for beginners. Finally a starter box where the two included armies are balanced against each other?
godswildcard wrote: So if the rumor that everything in the trailer is getting a model in the starter box is true, that's.....quite a lot.
Just on one watch I saw (and I'm sure I'm mislabeling a few things):
-Terminator Librarian
-Terminator Captain
-Phobos Character
-Combi-Weapon Heavy Intercessors (veterans?)
-Heavy Support Redemptor
-Aggressor Apothecary
-Terminators
-Carnifex
-Lictor
-Artillery Bug
-Ymgrl Big Bug
-Flying Warrior
-Floaty Brain bug
-Guants of both varieties
I mean, that would easily be the largest launch box ever, right?
Actually i misheard/mistranscribed and it was only said that everything in the trailer will get a model but not necessarily in the box. If you subtract e.g. the Dreadnought and the artillery bugs it seems much more in line with other boxed sets.
godswildcard wrote: So if the rumor that everything in the trailer is getting a model in the starter box is true, that's.....quite a lot.
Just on one watch I saw (and I'm sure I'm mislabeling a few things):
-Terminator Librarian
-Terminator Captain
-Phobos Character
-Combi-Weapon Heavy Intercessors (veterans?)
-Heavy Support Redemptor
-Aggressor Apothecary
-Terminators
-Carnifex
-Lictor
-Artillery Bug
-Ymgrl Big Bug
-Flying Warrior
-Floaty Brain bug
-Guants of both varieties
I mean, that would easily be the largest launch box ever, right?
Actually i misheard/mistranscribed and it was only said that everything in the trailer will get a model but not necessarily in the box. If you subtract e.g. the Dreadnought and the artillery bugs it seems much more in line with other boxed sets.
Gotcha. That makes a lot more sense. Here's hoping the box won't be $300...but I wouldn't put it past GW.
godswildcard wrote: So if the rumor that everything in the trailer is getting a model in the starter box is true, that's.....quite a lot.
Just on one watch I saw (and I'm sure I'm mislabeling a few things):
-Terminator Librarian
-Terminator Captain
-Phobos Character
-Combi-Weapon Heavy Intercessors (veterans?)
-Heavy Support Redemptor
-Aggressor Apothecary
-Terminators
-Carnifex
-Lictor
-Artillery Bug
-Ymgrl Big Bug
-Flying Warrior
-Floaty Brain bug
-Guants of both varieties
I mean, that would easily be the largest launch box ever, right?
It's likely an Indomitus deal, where only the LE box gets all the stuff and the standard ones are cut down and lose all the cool stuff. There was a lot of stuff in the Indomitus box (61 figures including a couple of larger ones).
Necronmaniac05 wrote: The changes to degrading profiles was interesting. I didn't really consider this to be complex. It was pretty much all there and would've fit on to the new data sheets. Wonder how they are doing it in the new world.
Its not really complexity, its a matter of formatting and layout on the new data cards. Something that degraded in BS & WS would now have to have three profiles for each and every weapon, in sequence. That's both confusing and ugly, and depending on the unit (thinking knights or primaris tanks with their ~10 weapon systems), there just isn't space for that. It gets even worse if movement also degrades, as that becomes multiple entries up top as well.
From a usability/readability perspective, they had to handle it a different way once they broke BS, WS and S away from the main profile.
On the upside, things like powerfists (that had a -1 to hit) can now just be WS4+ (or 3+ on characters) and S8 rather than floating modifiers. The gross stupidity of tyranid talons in the current codex and their dozen different ways of affecting statlines can also go away. No more dumb debates about multiple weapons adding +1 attack or +1 attack each, either - those weapons can just have X attacks.
Now, I've gotta go plan a 'welcome back' party for USRs.
Tamereth wrote: So GW stating this is a ground up re-write of the game, makes this effectively the 5th game called Warhammer 40,000.
1st edition aka rouge trader
2nd edition (the best one)
3rd-7th edition evolution of the same game
8-9th the dumpster fire version of the game
and now 10th.
How closely are we expecting the game to be compared to the recent version, or will we see a shift back towards older concepts in terms of rules designs as hinted at by universal special rules returning.
Oh how nostalgia is a cruel mistress that gilds the past and tricks one into hating the future.
This is 8th edition carried forward. I highly doubt you'll be getting vehicle facings, templates, or WS tables back.
What makes 8th edition?
Stratagems, Command Phase, Traits, vehicles with wounds, unbound characteristics, and a more elaborate mission set. All these items are still present. 'OC' is just objective secured but simpler. WS/BS on weapons changes effectiveness, but not the game itself.
Morale and cover are probably the systems that will see the most change.
StraightSilver wrote: I've just realised I won't be able to use FirstBorn Marines in Combat Patrol, because all the sets are Primaris...
First World problem I know, but I don't want to play Primaris....
Eh. Once it drops, figure out what the average point value is among the 5? 6? space marine combat patrols and build a similar model count force out a character, tactical squad, rhino and assault squad or terminators.
StraightSilver wrote: I've just realised I won't be able to use FirstBorn Marines in Combat Patrol, because all the sets are Primaris...
First World problem I know, but I don't want to play Primaris....
Eh. Once it drops, figure out what the average point value is among the 5? 6? space marine combat patrols and build a similar model count force out a character, tactical squad, rhino and assault squad or terminators.
Strong indications that combat patrol forces will have different rules to those of the main game looking at the termagants, so might not be that simple.
Strong indications that combat patrol forces will have different rules to those of the main game looking at the termagants, so might not be that simple.
That article today was harping on about how they used their 'game designer genius' to balance the combat patrols, so i guess that that 'genius' boils down to different datasheets with additional abilities and weapons for the patrols with bad units in them...
godswildcard wrote: So if the rumor that everything in the trailer is getting a model in the starter box is true, that's.....quite a lot.
Just on one watch I saw (and I'm sure I'm mislabeling a few things): -Terminator Librarian -Terminator Captain -Phobos Character -Combi-Weapon Heavy Intercessors (veterans?) -Heavy Support Redemptor -Aggressor Apothecary -Terminators
-Carnifex -Lictor -Artillery Bug -Ymgrl Big Bug -Flying Warrior -Floaty Brain bug -Guants of both varieties
I mean, that would easily be the largest launch box ever, right?
Those combi-weapon dudes aren't heavy intercessors, they're standard MkX. My money is on them being Sternguard based on the adornments (backpack thing, Mk7/8 helmet on another) and first company markings.
We won't be getting everything in that list for the starter, however.
Strong indications that combat patrol forces will have different rules to those of the main game looking at the termagants, so might not be that simple.
That article today was harping on about how they used their 'game designer genius' to balance the combat patrols, so i guess that that 'genius' boils down to different datasheets with additional abilities and weapons for the patrols with bad units in them...
Based on how previous starter game modes were received, I'll be curious if the community adopts Combat Patrol as a game mode outside of GW's own stores.
Strong indications that combat patrol forces will have different rules to those of the main game looking at the termagants, so might not be that simple.
That article today was harping on about how they used their 'game designer genius' to balance the combat patrols, so i guess that that 'genius' boils down to different datasheets with additional abilities and weapons for the patrols with bad units in them...
Based on how previous starter game modes were received, I'll be curious if the community adopts Combat Patrol as a game mode outside of GW's own stores.
Poorly I'd wager but it might be a fun/good way to army hop or scratch an itch in a quick game etc. The only way it'll take off to the wider playerbase is if GW start encouraging formal events for CP.
Aash wrote: Speculating about the starter box and the combat patrol game mode. Would be too sensible if the starter box contained two valid Combat Patrol forces, one for Space Marines and one for Tyranids.
After all it is a starter box and the Combat Patrol game mode is supposed to be for beginners.
Finally a starter box where the two included armies are balanced against each other?
You might be first one to want less models to the launch box rather than more Seeing price is only going to go UP that would make the launch box worse value than ever.
So in short: Bad idea.
(alternatively point costs of everything drops dramatically and we all need to buy more models to get 2k and board would be even more silly cramped)
Roll Three Dice wrote: I agree - The focus on personalities and ‘Epic storylines’ tied to them seems completely at odds with what I always saw as the core appeal of 40k: Endless possibilities for making your own stories, because there isn’t one ‘main storyline’, and whatever happens, you will not be missed.
I completely agree. I liked it better when 40k was a setting within which stories are told, rather than a continually developing story.
BattleTech has a story. Things change. Nations rise and fall. Characters are killed, or get old and die. They have children. They grow up to be leaders or tyrants or cowards.
Meanwhile the Lion was asleep in the rock, Guillman was slowly healing in stasis, and Russ promised to return for the Wolf Time... but in the meantime, tell whatever story you want. I think things were better that way.
Looking at everything we've seen so far, here's a terrifying thought: What it Terminators come in units of 3 now (and, by extension, boxes of 3... for more than 5 cost right now, no doubt).
Consider the Teleport Attack in the trailer. 5 Terminators appear, but one of them is a Captain, and one of them is a Libby.
The others are a Sergeant, a SB/PF dude, and Mr. Assault Cannon.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Looking at everything we've seen so far, here's a terrifying thought: What it Terminators come in units of 3 now (and, by extension, boxes of 3... for more than 5 cost right now, no doubt).
Consider the Teleport Attack in the trailer. 5 Terminators appear, but one of them is a Captain, and one of them is a Libby.
The others are a Sergeant, a SB/PF dude, and Mr. Assault Cannon.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Looking at everything we've seen so far, here's a terrifying thought: What it Terminators come in units of 3 now (and, by extension, boxes of 3... for more than 5 cost right now, no doubt).
Just to check I haven't missed any new information on how morale will work have we, just that it is a LD stat,t it won't kill models and it's done in command phase?
Would it be completely crazy to think that the LD stat (8+ on gants) may not actually be sommething that is rolled against?
What if it is actually an indicator of how many models need to be in a unit before they are subject to morale issues?
ie. Once a gant unit goes below 8 models at the start of command phase they are subject to morale issues whatever they may be.
This would mean a lower stat is actually better and would encourage certain types of units to be larger and encourage hordes where appropriate.
I know it's probably wishful thinking, but it just makes no sense to me that the current system of models lost would work if it is done in command phase. Too much book keeping
Doohicky wrote: Just to check I haven't missed any new information on how morale will work have we, just that it is a LD stat,t it won't kill models and it's done in command phase?
Would it be completely crazy to think that the LD stat (8+ on gants) may not actually be sommething that is rolled against?
What if it is actually an indicator of how many models need to be in a unit before they are subject to morale issues?
ie. Once a gant unit goes below 8 models at the start of command phase they are subject to morale issues whatever they may be.
Not completely crazy, but a threshold wouldn't be expressed as X+. It would just be X
It also guts smaller units, as they're starting closer to the threshold.
This would mean a lower stat is actually better and would encourage certain types of units to be larger and encourage hordes where appropriate.
Lower stat is better for stat checks as well (6+ is easier to roll on 2d6 than 8+). But your threshold system would encourage ALL units to be bigger, as bigger is farther away from the failed morale state.
Also, making it automatic and irreversible is a kick to player agency. Reach model threshold and you suck forever is pretty miserable.
I know it's probably wishful thinking, but it just makes no sense to me that the current system of models lost would work if it is done in command phase. Too much book keeping
It won't be the current system.
Since it happens in the command phase, easiest thing would be dice roll to operate normally for the turn (or game), despite the losses. Rallying, essentially.
A failed morale state can simply be 'can't hold objectives or take actions, can't move towards enemies and/or has a penalty on attacks (or half the number of attacks)'
Roll Three Dice wrote: I agree - The focus on personalities and ‘Epic storylines’ tied to them seems completely at odds with what I always saw as the core appeal of 40k: Endless possibilities for making your own stories, because there isn’t one ‘main storyline’, and whatever happens, you will not be missed.
I completely agree. I liked it better when 40k was a setting within which stories are told, rather than a continually developing story.
BattleTech has a story. Things change. Nations rise and fall. Characters are killed, or get old and die. They have children. They grow up to be leaders or tyrants or cowards.
Meanwhile the Lion was asleep in the rock, Guillman was slowly healing in stasis, and Russ promised to return for the Wolf Time... but in the meantime, tell whatever story you want. I think things were better that way.
I get what you're saying but from what we've been seeing since the end of 7th?
There's just more famous sectors in crisis. Before you had Cadia, Armageddon, Baal and what not.
Now you have Cadia, Armageddon, Baal, Pariah Nexus, Ultramar under DG attack, apparently Leviathan attacking the west and so on. These conflicts don't really get finished, they rather move on, they're just new frontlines. (Vigilus and Octarius were concluded I think, but the others not so much). The Psychic awakening didn't really change anything and I'm not really seeing these Archs do much of a change. So you can still do whatever you like as there won't be another Cicatrix opening anytime soon. And GW is very conservative, Magnus wasn't even allowed to finally wipe Fenris. GW merely wants to tell some "official stories" with their heroes (Apparently Abaddon and Guilliman most prominently), but it's not stopping you from telling yours as well, especially if you don't want to use named characters.
Doohicky wrote: Do you think that every unit will have to roll morale in command phase no matter what?
That sounds really clunky to me.
I would expect there has to be some sort of trigger to it
I imagine that the rolling starts when you're under fire, have taken casualties or are in charge range of the enemy at the earliest, since otherwise statistics would lead to untouched units of e.g. Terminators or other Elites running away randomly and without reason Unless of course it was set up in a way that at least starting rolls can not fail, which would also mean that you would not need to roll.
Doohicky wrote: Do you think that every unit will have to roll morale in command phase no matter what?
That sounds really clunky to me.
I would expect there has to be some sort of trigger to it
Well, yeah. I wouldn't expect morale tests for no reason. That didn't even occur to me to explain.
Obvious thing would be 50% of starting (or current) squad size.
Psychic powers that can force a morale test in the next turn only would also be a likely design space.
Doohicky wrote: Do you think that every unit will have to roll morale in command phase no matter what?
That sounds really clunky to me.
I would expect there has to be some sort of trigger to it
I imagine that the rolling starts when you're under fire, have taken casualties or are in charge range of the enemy at the earliest, since otherwise statistics would lead to untouched units of e.g. Terminators or other Elites running away randomly and without reason Unless of course it was set up in a way that at least starting rolls can not fail, which would also mean that you would not need to roll.
Marker on any unit that has taken any casualties at all would work.
Then on their morale phase remove marker and roll
Valrak says Russ is next? Nah, next primarch will be the Khan (I saw the road map, trust me).
The Khan has been chilling with the Warp Spider Phoenix Lord under like a staircase in the Webways. It was totally a "Just one hit, and then I gotta go" situation (Go watch the movie PCU). And then 10000 years go by and the Khan bursts back into reality in a puff of smoke (literally) and is like "Sh!t *cough* *cough*, What’s going on guys??"
And then the Eldar players will get new Warp Spider models or something.
Roll Three Dice wrote: I agree - The focus on personalities and ‘Epic storylines’ tied to them seems completely at odds with what I always saw as the core appeal of 40k: Endless possibilities for making your own stories, because there isn’t one ‘main storyline’, and whatever happens, you will not be missed.
I completely agree. I liked it better when 40k was a setting within which stories are told, rather than a continually developing story.
BattleTech has a story. Things change. Nations rise and fall. Characters are killed, or get old and die. They have children. They grow up to be leaders or tyrants or cowards.
Meanwhile the Lion was asleep in the rock, Guillman was slowly healing in stasis, and Russ promised to return for the Wolf Time... but in the meantime, tell whatever story you want. I think things were better that way.
Yawn...
It was that way for 20 years. Stale. Time to actually deliver on some of this 5 minutes to midnight ragnarok stuff. I am happy they do something with the metaplot once in a great while.
Doohicky wrote: Do you think that every unit will have to roll morale in command phase no matter what?
That sounds really clunky to me.
I would expect there has to be some sort of trigger to it
Well, yeah. I wouldn't expect morale tests for no reason. That didn't even occur to me to explain.
Obvious thing would be 50% of starting (or current) squad size.
Psychic powers that can force a morale test in the next turn only would also be a likely design space.
This could be great for Night Lords. If they continue to have legion rules, that is.
Doohicky wrote: Do you think that every unit will have to roll morale in command phase no matter what?
That sounds really clunky to me.
I would expect there has to be some sort of trigger to it
Well, yeah. I wouldn't expect morale tests for no reason. That didn't even occur to me to explain.
Obvious thing would be 50% of starting (or current) squad size.
Psychic powers that can force a morale test in the next turn only would also be a likely design space.
Seems like 50% would be too much. A percentage on odd numbered squads is also sort of annoying. Maybe 25%.
Termagants have 8+ so 2D6 is only 40% to pass. It sounds like battleshock can accumulate too though so some counters will be involved.
I’d be happy for any unit that is below starting strength taking a morale test in the command phase, it all depends on what modifies the test, how easy it is to pass or fail and what the consequences of failing are. Any unit below starting strength is easy to track.
Roll Three Dice wrote: I agree - The focus on personalities and ‘Epic storylines’ tied to them seems completely at odds with what I always saw as the core appeal of 40k: Endless possibilities for making your own stories, because there isn’t one ‘main storyline’, and whatever happens, you will not be missed.
I completely agree. I liked it better when 40k was a setting within which stories are told, rather than a continually developing story.
BattleTech has a story. Things change. Nations rise and fall. Characters are killed, or get old and die. They have children. They grow up to be leaders or tyrants or cowards.
Meanwhile the Lion was asleep in the rock, Guillman was slowly healing in stasis, and Russ promised to return for the Wolf Time... but in the meantime, tell whatever story you want. I think things were better that way.
Yawn...
It was that way for 20 years. Stale. Time to actually deliver on some of this 5 minutes to midnight ragnarok stuff. I am happy they do something with the metaplot once in a great while.
So rather than let players have fun making stories you prefer forever locked status quo "I'll get you next time!" where nothing can change.
Got it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jaredb wrote: I'm fairly certain it'll be a 5 man box, based on the video alone it had s 5 man squad.
Roll Three Dice wrote: I agree - The focus on personalities and ‘Epic storylines’ tied to them seems completely at odds with what I always saw as the core appeal of 40k: Endless possibilities for making your own stories, because there isn’t one ‘main storyline’, and whatever happens, you will not be missed.
I completely agree. I liked it better when 40k was a setting within which stories are told, rather than a continually developing story.
BattleTech has a story. Things change. Nations rise and fall. Characters are killed, or get old and die. They have children. They grow up to be leaders or tyrants or cowards.
Meanwhile the Lion was asleep in the rock, Guillman was slowly healing in stasis, and Russ promised to return for the Wolf Time... but in the meantime, tell whatever story you want. I think things were better that way.
Yawn...
It was that way for 20 years. Stale. Time to actually deliver on some of this 5 minutes to midnight ragnarok stuff. I am happy they do something with the metaplot once in a great while.
It was only "stale" if you decided that nothing mattered except the non-existent "metaplot" and ignored the countless new stories, characters, planets, locations, events, campaigns etc had were regularly added, both big and small.
Roll Three Dice wrote: I agree - The focus on personalities and ‘Epic storylines’ tied to them seems completely at odds with what I always saw as the core appeal of 40k: Endless possibilities for making your own stories, because there isn’t one ‘main storyline’, and whatever happens, you will not be missed.
I completely agree. I liked it better when 40k was a setting within which stories are told, rather than a continually developing story.
BattleTech has a story. Things change. Nations rise and fall. Characters are killed, or get old and die. They have children. They grow up to be leaders or tyrants or cowards.
Meanwhile the Lion was asleep in the rock, Guillman was slowly healing in stasis, and Russ promised to return for the Wolf Time... but in the meantime, tell whatever story you want. I think things were better that way.
Yawn...
It was that way for 20 years. Stale. Time to actually deliver on some of this 5 minutes to midnight ragnarok stuff. I am happy they do something with the metaplot once in a great while.
It was only "stale" if you decided that nothing mattered except the non-existent "metaplot" and ignored the countless new stories, characters, planets, locations, events, campaigns etc had were regularly added, both big and small.
Discussing this is like the special character discussion: ultimately futile, because either option will piss off roughly 50% of the community. People complained when it was a 'setting, not a story' and ridiculed the rhetoric of 'the clock ever creeping closer to midnight' but nothing ever really happening, and people complain now that we have actual plot advancement and comicbook superheroes. There's no pleasing everyone, GW is gonna do what GW is gonna do, apparently the big heroes and 'awesome' stories sell, until that changes your main options are to embrace it or ignore it, for it does not look like it's going away anytime soon. With a bit of luck they'll slow down once they wrecked one half of the Imperium and returned Fulgrim and maybe another couple of loyalists, when we've reached another stagnation phase, but with a generally darker galaxy and higher stakes.
Roll Three Dice wrote: I agree - The focus on personalities and ‘Epic storylines’ tied to them seems completely at odds with what I always saw as the core appeal of 40k: Endless possibilities for making your own stories, because there isn’t one ‘main storyline’, and whatever happens, you will not be missed.
I completely agree. I liked it better when 40k was a setting within which stories are told, rather than a continually developing story.
BattleTech has a story. Things change. Nations rise and fall. Characters are killed, or get old and die. They have children. They grow up to be leaders or tyrants or cowards.
Meanwhile the Lion was asleep in the rock, Guillman was slowly healing in stasis, and Russ promised to return for the Wolf Time... but in the meantime, tell whatever story you want. I think things were better that way.
Yawn...
It was that way for 20 years. Stale. Time to actually deliver on some of this 5 minutes to midnight ragnarok stuff. I am happy they do something with the metaplot once in a great while.
First of all, it's 2 minutes to midnight. The hands that threaten doom. Kids these days.
Secondly, the problem with advancing the plot is that they cannot resolve it in a narratively compelling way. A story has a beginning, middle, and end. But they can never actually resolve this story without ending the setting and then having us play historical games (which I would actually prefer to what we got, but not what the Advance the Timeline crowd really wants methinks). So all we really get is shuffling of deck chairs. And that begs the question, other than an excuse to introduce new minis, what's the point? It's just changing things for the sake of changing things. I got into 40k because I liked the setting as is - if I wanted something different I'd look into other properties.
For me, the best thing about 40K is that it can be whatever you want it to be. In my head canon, the Horus Heresy is legend rather than history, the Primarchs may or may not have ever been real, any rumours of one or two of them returning might just be wild stories or propaganda.
The big stories that GW put out are simply a backdrop and most parts of the galaxy are so far removed from those events as to make them irrelevant (if you want them to be).
My biggest complaint about special characters is that they should simply be examples of their archetype that players can use or take as inspiration when creating their own. They shouldn’t be more powerful that generic characters of equal stature. As an example Marneus Calgar, say, is a chapter master. The rules for generic Chapter Masters should enable players who invent their own chapters to create a leader just as powerful and interesting to play as him or any other named chapter master.
MonkeyBallistic wrote: The big stories that GW put out are simply a backdrop and most parts of the galaxy are so far removed from those events as to make them irrelevant (if you want them to be).
Part of Cypher's fluff is literally that parts of the fringe believe the Emperor is dead and that Cypher was his successor. The galaxy is HUGE and it takes time for information to filter across if at all.
Boosykes wrote: Hate to say it but new terminators will be 3 to a box.
Not remotely any chance of this. As much chance as The Old World being 15mm.
What is probably going to happen is a first set of sculpts in starter box then a different kit/kits later with options. The layered pauldron in previews has a lack of undercut suggesting one piece moulding, not pauldron piece glued over shoulder piece.
tneva82 wrote: All we got was all room for player stories went away for locked up´status quo.
No, it didn't. There's an entire FETHING GALAXY to play in outside of the main plot.
And this is still the case. Advancing the story and bringing back legendary figures doesn't change the fact that the setting is (still) large enough to accommodate almost any story a player might want to tell.
Boosykes wrote: Hate to say it but new terminators will be 3 to a box.
Not remotely any chance of this. As much chance as The Old World being 15mm.
How many terminators are in the Custodes box again? Not saying it will be three, but to say there isn't a remote chance is nonsensical.
By that logic Termagants could be 3 to a squad, because they also are entirely different models to a classic Terminator with different squad org, just as any Custodes models are. Terminators have 30+ years of squad size and load out precedent.
jaredb wrote: I'm fairly certain it'll be a 5 man box, based on the video alone it had s 5 man squad.
No it didn't.
We don't see 5, but its hard to tell how many there actually are. 4 teleport in (3 + the Librarian), but then in the very next scene there's a 4th one with an assault cannon who wasn't there before.
I feel like it will come down solely to the way they set out the sprues. Even with the size increase, I imagine that fitting four bodies into a single sprue wouldn't be impossible, while the sergeant goes on another sprue along with most of the weapons, with accessories spread across the two. That would allow them to swap the Sergeant sprue out for another Sergeant sprue that had close combat weapons on it. A three-sprue alternative would have two regular terminators to a sprue with all their standard loadout, replicated once in the box, with another sprue again for the sergeant and special weapons. Pure speculation, but the two/three-sprues-to-a-box setup of the current marine releases suggests there will be plenty of sprue space for a full five man squad, depending on whether or not they're willing to keep certain options out, or insist they be included. There are multiple permutations I can think of which would easily fit a five man Terminator squad into even fewer sprues than the current standard Intercessor set comes with, so they'd genuinely have to try hard in order to put out a Terminator squad of 3 to a box. I realise some of you probably think that's exactly what they'd try to do though, so I guess my argument is going to fall on more than a few deaf ears.
Boosykes wrote: The stater will be exactly as pictured a 3 man squad and a captain and a librarian.
Later a seperat kit with some options will come out 3 man squad.
To be clear this is my opinion. I just think this is how GW works now you pay way more and get way less.
Are terminator units going to go to 3-10 unit size? Custodes are 1-6 unit size, but were only ever sold as 3 packs via the forgeworld and plastic versions. Current sm terminator squads are sold as boxes of 5 in every form- basic, assault, blood angels, deathwing, wolf guard, grey knights, chaos, scarab occult, and blightlord, while tartarus and cataphractii are now doubled up and sold as boxes of 10.
5 Heavy Intercessors fit in one kit just fine, and are similar in size to the new terminators, and TDA doesn't have separate backpacks, pistol holsters, or bits to swap out to change the weapon styles.
It would be really weird for CSM to lose 3 man termies and then SM gets them. I don't know that marines would change their typical units like that in lore, so, I imagine it would still be 5 man.
Daedalus81 wrote: It would be really weird for CSM to lose 3 man termies and then SM gets them. I don't know that marines would change their typical units like that in lore, so, I imagine it would still be 5 man.
Not sure what will change or not, but 3/6 man squads have been creeping into space marines for a while now, starting pre-primaris with the even more bigger armor suits... the centurions.
Guilliman fluff-wise have been critical of the space marines in general for treating the Codex Astartes as an immutable solution for 10,000 years rather than something to adapt over time. He'd be the obvious person to change things
Given the range bloat of trying to carry two separate but over-stuffed model lines, its clear something is going to change on the game level. Considering they're just blowing off the distinction between primaris and not-primaris with the new terminators, I'm feeling a bit hopeful for a unit squish where people can use whichever space marine with bolter model they've got on hand to fill out the basic units.
drbored wrote: This is Space Marines we're talking about.
It'll be a 5-man terminator box. Then there'll be ANOTHER 5-man terminator box with a different loadout.
And then there'll be the terminator captain, librarian, chaplain, apothecary, tech marine, lieutenant, all in separate 40 dollar boxes.
And then ANOTHER 5-man terminator box with ANOTHER different loadout.
Please, why even debate this?
We already have that, technically.
Exactly, and this is the Terminator Embiggening (instead of Primarising) so everything that we already have as a Terminator is gunna get a brand new plastic sculpt.
This also means new life for a lot of Terminator-equivalent things, and likely the ramp open for other stuff as well.
MARK MY WORDS. By the end of the year, you'll have people whinging, malding, seething, and SCREAMING at GW to upscale "their chapter's" terminators.
And despite people saying "don't worry, you'll get your time in the sun" people will still whinge, mald, seeth, and scream, until every one of those above kits is either squatted or upscaled to the new Terminator size.
GW knows full well that they make the most money on space marines, and simply by upscaling and increasing the resolution on Terminators, they have over TWENTY kits they can re-do over the next few years to keep people buying Space Marines, and we've already seen that there's that new Terminator Rune-psyker that looks like a little more than some generic Librarian.
Don't forget that if they alter the shoulder pads, they'll have to replace all of the Chapter upgrade sprues as well...
Or put out new Terminator-sprcific ones.
Lord Damocles wrote: Don't forget that if they alter the shoulder pads, they'll have to replace all of the Chapter upgrade sprues as well...
Or put out new Terminator-sprcific ones.
They may not alter the pads. Mark X pads are the same size as all firstborn pads and fully interchangeable. I’ve put Mark VI pads on an intercessor and they look just fine.
Wow, I haven't been this excited in a long time. While 9th Edition had some improvements compared to 8th, they went way too far with all the subfaction rules, warlord traits, artefacts and especially stratagems. It was such a pain to arrange a simple, casual game because of the bloat. I don't think I've played a single one with my friend where we didn't forget about at least a few rules or strategems...
Here's hoping 10th will be fairly streamlined and balanced. Still, I'm really curious what will happen to all the "range-rotated" units and wargear options that aren't in the boxes. You'd better use this opportunity to convert the rest of Drukhari range to plastic, GW, and I'm still waiting for plastic Vect on his Dais of Destruction
Boosykes wrote: Hate to say it but new terminators will be 3 to a box.
Not remotely any chance of this. As much chance as The Old World being 15mm.
How many terminators are in the Custodes box again? Not saying it will be three, but to say there isn't a remote chance is nonsensical.
By that logic Termagants could be 3 to a squad, because they also are entirely different models to a classic Terminator with different squad org, just as any Custodes models are. Terminators have 30+ years of squad size and load out precedent.
Great use of reductio ad absurdum. Same you didn't have a better argument, that say focused on relative model size, battlefield role etc.
Terminator Captain
Terminator Librarian
Both included in the new starter per rumors Terminator Chaplain
Would be nice after 2 limited release plastics Terminator Ancient
Currently limited to Space Marine Heroes 2 for a generic one Terminators (ranged)
we have seen a basic loadout and assault cannon Terminators (melee)
would be nice for a proper seperate kit with running legs
Deathwatch Terminators
Not currently a unique kit, just an upgrade sprue for generic terminators
Belial
would make sense to get an update alongside deathwing, or GW could prioritize Samael and Ravenwing going over to primaris tech.
Deathwing Terminators
Deathwing Knights
[B]Shared kit
Logan Grimnar
seems low on the list to update since his sleigh kit came along Arjac Rockfist
Njal Stormcaller
Both are newer sculpts, but of the two, Njal seems more likely Wolf Guard Terminators
Maybe like Chaos have subfactions use variant TDA, make them into upscale and modified Cataphractii?
Lysander (fyi, already gone from GW site)
Blood Angels Terminator Librarian
Blood Angels Terminators (melee)
Like Wolves, maybe use variant armor? Tartaros would fit BA pretty well, like how it is a base for thousand sons scarab occult
Kaldor Draigo
Grey Knights Brother Captain
Grey Knights Terminator Librarian
Grey Knights Terminators
Grey Knights Paladins
GK librarian model is just the basic SM terminator. A proper clampack generic Grandmaster/ Brother Captain would be nice. Terminators and Paladins are a shared kit. And the Dreadknight pilot is a terminator as well. Maybe a redo of that kit to look more like the concept art? But GK terminators still look amazing- they would benefit more from either rescaled basic troops to match the new Crowe, or new kits period like a unique GK Dreadnought
Malika2 wrote: Dreadknight concept art? Where can we find that?
Well, not exactly concept art, but there is a greyscale image on page 4 of the 5th Edition GK codex of a dreadknight that is more compact, with the legs of the operator integrated into the suits legs and a few other changes that make it look like a proper exoskeleton rather than a big suit that the GK is riding on the front of.
Malika2 wrote: Dreadknight concept art? Where can we find that?
Well, not exactly concept art, but there is a greyscale image on page 4 of the 5th Edition GK codex of a dreadknight that is more compact, with the legs of the operator integrated into the suits legs and a few other changes that make it look like a proper exoskeleton rather than a big suit that the GK is riding on the front of.
Edit: Found it
That's basically the sisters warsuit design. The model ended up a lot bigger than that in proportion to the wearer though, so perhaps it was drawn when they wanted it as a dreadnought equivalent but was subsequently upscaled to a knight equivalent.
there's no way you could incorporate the current wearer's legs into the thighs of the suit and still have it stride correctly without the wearer doing the splits to try and contort correctly...
Malika2 wrote: Dreadknight concept art? Where can we find that?
Well, not exactly concept art, but there is a greyscale image on page 4 of the 5th Edition GK codex of a dreadknight that is more compact, with the legs of the operator integrated into the suits legs and a few other changes that make it look like a proper exoskeleton rather than a big suit that the GK is riding on the front of.
Edit: Found it
Spoiler:
That's basically the sisters warsuit design. The model ended up a lot bigger than that in proportion to the wearer though, so perhaps it was drawn when they wanted it as a dreadnought equivalent but was subsequently upscaled to a knight equivalent.
there's no way you could incorporate the current wearer's legs into the thighs of the suit and still have it stride correctly without the wearer doing the splits to try and contort correctly...
It's 40k, sawing of the wearer's legs and replacing them with bionics that can be taken off when needing to pilot a dreadknight is a perfectly viable solution...
It's 40k, sawing of the wearer's legs and replacing them with bionics that can be taken off when needing to pilot a dreadknight is a perfectly viable solution...
If only, that would have been a fantastic concept. Also background wise. Do they wait until the correct candidate comes back legless from the latest mission, or do they pull straws before battle. Everyone dreading that they are next to get amputated. Pun intended. But alas, we got baby carriers. Nothing beats the good old forever box so far. Well maybe OG Penitent Engines and Arco-Flagellant, that is.
Honestly my worry is that GW has zero faith in keeping anything they say. They say free rules, but they said that with 9th too and the free rules were the most basic, almost useless on their own. They say indexes will be free, but we know they're going to go back to the codex model and then remove the free rules. They talk about streamlining but the real question will be if they go back on that with codexes like they did in 9th. The core of 9th was fine. It was the bloat of stratagems and secondary objectives that ruined it IMHO.
Basically I'm optimistic but GW has lied constantly about this so I have no reason to think this time will be any different
Wayniac wrote: Honestly my worry is that GW has zero faith in keeping anything they say. They say free rules, but they said that with 9th too and the free rules were the most basic, almost useless on their own. They say indexes will be free, but we know they're going to go back to the codex model and then remove the free rules. They talk about streamlining but the real question will be if they go back on that with codexes like they did in 9th. The core of 9th was fine. It was the bloat of stratagems and secondary objectives that ruined it IMHO.
Basically I'm optimistic but GW has lied constantly about this so I have no reason to think this time will be any different
I fear that bloat returning is just the circle of life for GW products: they hamper themselves too much at the beginning of the edition, then slowly add stuff, exceptions and exceptions to the exceptions until they need to raze it again. It will probably be something like sticking to the letter of 'no more stratagem bloat' by having less stratagems, but not to the spirit by having bloat like IG 'orders', the 'phase' stuff like doctrines etc., alternate army rules and so on instead. But who knows, maybe they'll surprise us all.
Here's hoping they learned from the 9th edition experience along with how other games are handling expanding their model range. Don't pile up, spread out. Rather than adding more rules on top of existing rules, make new options aside the existing options.
All your army rules will fit on a two-page spread. So you might get four different sets of Army Rules for Space Marines, Space Marines 1st Company, Dark Angels, and Deathwing. They have a few different options for things like Warlord Traits, Relics, Stratagems and possible unit restrictions. You never have to balance adding new rules to a faction and hope they don't overpower another faction because you are balancing whole packages of rules against each other.
Wayniac wrote: Honestly my worry is that GW has zero faith in keeping anything they say. They say free rules, but they said that with 9th too and the free rules were the most basic, almost useless on their own. They say indexes will be free, but we know they're going to go back to the codex model and then remove the free rules. They talk about streamlining but the real question will be if they go back on that with codexes like they did in 9th. The core of 9th was fine. It was the bloat of stratagems and secondary objectives that ruined it IMHO.
Basically I'm optimistic but GW has lied constantly about this so I have no reason to think this time will be any different
They said this about Age of Sigmar, too. Look how that turned out.
Wayniac wrote: Honestly my worry is that GW has zero faith in keeping anything they say. They say free rules, but they said that with 9th too and the free rules were the most basic, almost useless on their own. They say indexes will be free, but we know they're going to go back to the codex model and then remove the free rules. They talk about streamlining but the real question will be if they go back on that with codexes like they did in 9th. The core of 9th was fine. It was the bloat of stratagems and secondary objectives that ruined it IMHO.
Basically I'm optimistic but GW has lied constantly about this so I have no reason to think this time will be any different
Well, 8th started with standard indexes, and as soon as the codexes came out, it created waves of power creep. It also started with core strategems, accessible to everyone, and then each codex army started getting strategems, some of which had things like shooting twice in the same shooting phase.
I don't even care if it's free or not, the primary issue is that releasing waves of codexes separately creates a huge imbalance, as you have armies with codexes going up against index armies. A uniform index, especially a digital index, would allow them to create updates on a consistent basis so that all armies are simultaneously on the same page. To be fair, they have already been going this route with the army balance dataslates, which affected all armies and were released at the same time. I think they realize this is a problem. I think they realize the mistakes they made. Commitment is another thing entirely, though.
I think it comes down to their bottom line, and how the market responds to this business model. If it brings people back in and has them buying kits and attending tourneys, they'll probably shy away from the old model. If it falls on its face and revenues drop, they'll likely reevaluate. I could certainly see them hyping the "return of your favorite codexes!" down the line if they are grasping for a hype train.
Wayniac wrote: Honestly my worry is that GW has zero faith in keeping anything they say. They say free rules, but they said that with 9th too and the free rules were the most basic, almost useless on their own. They say indexes will be free, but we know they're going to go back to the codex model and then remove the free rules. They talk about streamlining but the real question will be if they go back on that with codexes like they did in 9th. The core of 9th was fine. It was the bloat of stratagems and secondary objectives that ruined it IMHO.
Basically I'm optimistic but GW has lied constantly about this so I have no reason to think this time will be any different
Well, 8th started with standard indexes, and as soon as the codexes came out, it created waves of power creep. It also started with core strategems, accessible to everyone, and then each codex army started getting strategems, some of which had things like shooting twice in the same shooting phase.
I don't even care if it's free or not, the primary issue is that releasing waves of codexes separately creates a huge imbalance, as you have armies with codexes going up against index armies. A uniform index, especially a digital index, would allow them to create updates on a consistent basis so that all armies are simultaneously on the same page. To be fair, they have already been going this route with the army balance dataslates, which affected all armies and were released at the same time. I think they realize this is a problem. I think they realize the mistakes they made. Commitment is another thing entirely, though.
I think it comes down to their bottom line, and how the market responds to this business model. If it brings people back in and has them buying kits and attending tourneys, they'll probably shy away from the old model. If it falls on its face and revenues drop, they'll likely reevaluate. I could certainly see them hyping the "return of your favorite codexes!" down the line if they are grasping for a hype train.
I expect ( read : hope ) that indexes won't be bare bones. Everyone should have complete army rules with their "base" trait, relics, strats, etc.
The purpose of the codexes will be to give more 'swap in' army rules. So perhaps my index will let me play straightforward TS and the codex will give me Warpmeld and maybe a handful of Cults. I imagine the number of relics is going to go way down, since it wouldn't make sense for a Cult to have 6 relics.
The data sheet for termagants is already more interesting than the current one. Is that because it's an index datasheet or a codex one? Will index datasheets have barebones abilities?
8th indexes had so very little to them so when codexes hit the creep was readily apparent. 9th became so broad with choice that the creep was readily apparent.
If stratagems exist for all and the mechanics ( as per termagants ) exist then the only thing GW does with codexes is provide more alternatives. If, as you say, it isn't lucrative then surely they could switch tack so hopefully the community puts their money where their mouth is -- if GW delivers like we hope.
Nightlord1987 wrote: Marines are the most bloated faction. They can't possibly simplify them with all the subfactions and successors.
Depends how they approach this "two pages for your army rules" thing - subfaction-specific units will get their own datasheets, after all. In theory, they could do a set of army rules sheets, where you get "Space Marines", "Space Marines (Blood Angels)", "Space Marines (Dark Angels)", "Space Marines (Space Wolves)", "Space Marines (Ultramarines)", etc, where the two pages cover the core SM rules, plus whatever is produced at the army rules level for each Chapter.
Nightlord1987 wrote: Marines are the most bloated faction. They can't possibly simplify them with all the subfactions and successors.
Depends how they approach this "two pages for your army rules" thing - subfaction-specific units will get their own datasheets, after all. In theory, they could do a set of army rules sheets, where you get "Space Marines", "Space Marines (Blood Angels)", "Space Marines (Dark Angels)", "Space Marines (Space Wolves)", "Space Marines (Ultramarines)", etc, where the two pages cover the core SM rules, plus whatever is produced at the army rules level for each Chapter.
Several rumourpersons said that 'Chapter supplements' for various SM chapters had been originally intended for 9th and were held of for 10th edition; i strongly suspect that these will be just that: special units, two-page 'army rules' and an assortment of relics and stuff for these chapters.
Nightlord1987 wrote: Marines are the most bloated faction. They can't possibly simplify them with all the subfactions and successors.
Depends how they approach this "two pages for your army rules" thing - subfaction-specific units will get their own datasheets, after all. In theory, they could do a set of army rules sheets, where you get "Space Marines", "Space Marines (Blood Angels)", "Space Marines (Dark Angels)", "Space Marines (Space Wolves)", "Space Marines (Ultramarines)", etc, where the two pages cover the core SM rules, plus whatever is produced at the army rules level for each Chapter.
There are two good approaches:
2 pages for space marines, with no special rules for anybody
OR
2 pages per chapter, with no base <space marines> rules for anybody, and you can't double stack. You use rules for <chapter> and that's it.
Nightlord1987 wrote: Marines are the most bloated faction. They can't possibly simplify them with all the subfactions and successors.
Depends how they approach this "two pages for your army rules" thing - subfaction-specific units will get their own datasheets, after all. In theory, they could do a set of army rules sheets, where you get "Space Marines", "Space Marines (Blood Angels)", "Space Marines (Dark Angels)", "Space Marines (Space Wolves)", "Space Marines (Ultramarines)", etc, where the two pages cover the core SM rules, plus whatever is produced at the army rules level for each Chapter.
There are two good approaches:
2 pages for space marines, with no special rules for anybody
OR
2 pages per chapter, with no base <space marines> rules for anybody, and you can't double stack. You use rules for <chapter> and that's it.
I'd expect that the default space marine rules will be 'codex-compliant chapter' / ultramarines successor. Then you can swap that out for other chapters or sub-groups like Deathwing & Ravenwing.
xttz wrote: I'd expect that the default space marine rules will be 'codex-compliant chapter' / ultramarines successor. Then you can swap that out for other chapters or sub-groups like Deathwing & Ravenwing.
I'd expect successor chapter = you pick one parent, similar to now. Known successor has to pick daddy chapter, unknown has free range. But picking isn't optional.
Codex compliant is meaningless, since it includes DA, Salamanders, and Iron Hands, all whom aren't really by formal organization charts, but it never matters on the table. Then there are the fetish chapters (BA, White Scars and Raven Guard) that don't want to be codex compliant but are on paper. Non-codex is really only woofs and templars, and really, actually codex compliant in theory, org charts AND game reality is just Fists and Ultras.
Terminator Captain
Terminator Librarian
Both included in the new starter per rumors Terminator Chaplain
Would be nice after 2 limited release plastics Terminator Ancient
Currently limited to Space Marine Heroes 2 for a generic one Terminators (ranged)
we have seen a basic loadout and assault cannon Terminators (melee)
would be nice for a proper seperate kit with running legs
Deathwatch Terminators
Not currently a unique kit, just an upgrade sprue for generic terminators
Belial
would make sense to get an update alongside deathwing, or GW could prioritize Samael and Ravenwing going over to primaris tech.
Deathwing Terminators
Deathwing Knights
[B]Shared kit
Logan Grimnar
seems low on the list to update since his sleigh kit came along Arjac Rockfist
Njal Stormcaller
Both are newer sculpts, but of the two, Njal seems more likely Wolf Guard Terminators
Maybe like Chaos have subfactions use variant TDA, make them into upscale and modified Cataphractii?
Lysander (fyi, already gone from GW site)
Blood Angels Terminator Librarian
Blood Angels Terminators (melee)
Like Wolves, maybe use variant armor? Tartaros would fit BA pretty well, like how it is a base for thousand sons scarab occult
Kaldor Draigo
Grey Knights Brother Captain
Grey Knights Terminator Librarian
Grey Knights Terminators
Grey Knights Paladins
GK librarian model is just the basic SM terminator. A proper clampack generic Grandmaster/ Brother Captain would be nice. Terminators and Paladins are a shared kit. And the Dreadknight pilot is a terminator as well. Maybe a redo of that kit to look more like the concept art? But GK terminators still look amazing- they would benefit more from either rescaled basic troops to match the new Crowe, or new kits period like a unique GK Dreadnought
Notes in bold
ty for the corrections and notes.
I would NOT be surprised if this means new Tartaros and Cataphractii for both 30k and 40k. As for the GK, they need... something. They haven't gotten anything except a handful of named characters since 6th edition, right up there with Dark Eldar. Those two are on my short list of factions I hope get some love in the new edition. Updating GK terminators to the new scale would be a simple way to do that.
As it is, that's still a ton of Terminator-related kits that could be updated by GW to give us plenty of space marine kits to fill up the next edition or two.
The other big problem is if they continue to do the codex nonsense which we all know they're going to and they've said as much there's what 24 factions? Even if they released one every month You're looking at two years before everyone has one and by that point you only have a year left of the edition before the next one comes out.
The codex model is not sustainable and until they realize that I don't think they're going to learn anything and that's not even getting into the inevitable power creep or once they're done of 10 codexes The 11th one inexplicably changes the direction of how there designing and then all the future ones follow that but all the ones before are now using an outdated design pattern.
What they really need to do is make the indexes complete and then if they do a codex add something flavorful like armies of renown or something like that. You would still have the issue of codex creep but at least it would be optional stuff
Well, ironically, if they wouldn't push a new edition every 3 years, then they'd have plenty of time to update all the codexes within the first 2 and still have 2+ years to enjoy them, give us campaign books and supplements, and try to actually balance the game...
But that doesn't sell books. They don't get money when people play games, they get money when people buy the books to play the games.
Nothing is going to change in that regard unless people stop buying the codexes.
drbored wrote: Well, ironically, if they wouldn't push a new edition every 3 years, then they'd have plenty of time to update all the codexes within the first 2 and still have 2+ years to enjoy them, give us campaign books and supplements, and try to actually balance the game...
But that doesn't sell books. They don't get money when people play games, they get money when people buy the books to play the games.
Nothing is going to change in that regard unless people stop buying the codexes.
It wouldn't matter even if codex were free. Point is to change rules so people(especially tournament try hards) by new models and armies to chase new hotness.
8th didn't start that well, remember. The indexes were still an unbalanced mess of conscript and razorback spam, terrain rules were virtually non-existent, and assault weapons never worked as written...
It was still in a state that was playable without having to dig through geological layers of rules, unlike what it became around the mid point.
Someone new to the hobby, could be given the rule pamphlet, and an index book for their force and they'd be OK to play. At rhe mid point that would not happen.
stonehorse wrote: It was still in a state that was playable without having to dig through geological layers of rules, unlike what it became around the mid point.
Given that this is the 8th iteration of a game that charges about £50 for its core rulebook alone, we don't seem to be setting the bar especially high.
I don't, I remember the opposite as there was a huge push to the game with people coming back and it big start compared to what was left at the end of 7th
that 8th was not balanced well, but it was much better than the game before and therefore it was good enough for most people
same will be with 10th, it will be good enough for most people to come back as it does not need to be good, just better than before
(and this is also what GW is aiming for, make the game worse over time so you can be easily be better with a new Edition and get money back without investing anything)
Not sure that's true. I don't believe GW deliberately bloats and over complicates it's games. GW I think is constantly wrestling with how to improve and/or maintain its revenue. Selling models is one way and arguably the best way but ultimately designing new sculpts and then writing new rules in the volumes needed across even the top X most popular factions is probably beyond GWs resources.
New rules and game modes are likely much quicker and easier to turn around and sell via supplements. However these inevitably lead to bloat, complexity and player dissatisfaction. This then is usually the driver for new editions and resets.
I'm excited for tenth and I've liked everything they have announced so far. I also think they could (emphasis on could) solve the issue I mentioned above with the 'one in one out' approach to army/faction rules. Ultimately, if all you need to bring to play is those two pages of rules then it doesn't matter if you've got 10 sets of two page rules to choose from or 5. You only need the two pages that apply to your army.
Plus, in the competitive scene, you could just share the two pages of rules for the army you're using with your opponent before the game.
stonehorse wrote: I suspect that 10th will start off well, like how 8th did... then it will quickly become a mess, and then the while process starts again.
It isn't a design flaw, it is a feature as it is a way to justify a new edition every 2-3 years.
Yep. I am still flabbergasted people falling for this scam in 2023.
stonehorse wrote: I suspect that 10th will start off well, like how 8th did... then it will quickly become a mess, and then the while process starts again.
It isn't a design flaw, it is a feature as it is a way to justify a new edition every 2-3 years.
Yep. I am still flabbergasted people falling for this scam in 2023.
that's the worst part. Any other company would be laughed at and forced to change by people not falling for it. But GW is actually rewarded for it time and time again with zealotry and record profits
I don't think GW will ever be able to reduce bloat willingly or unwillingly unless they start sunsetting units.
At this point half of the Space Marines Codex could easily be sunset in regards to the game balance. Space Marines is perhaps the most bloated corpse of all(I'd say Stormcast is second as they get a new chamber every edition).
The worst part is that this eternal bloat means that these two factions are perhaps the most annoying to collect and paint because they are always getting new stuff. Hell, I've given up on Marines and Stormcast as I can't be bothered at this point.
10th has the same issue as every other new "Edition"... They are great on selling you a lemon off the lot with a shiny new paint job. It's only until a couple of months past the next New Guy writer trying to cut their teeth that you get these ham fisted codex's that in turn try to impose the ridiculous units like the Nerf-gun Brigade, or the "Improved" Orks who aren't orks anymore.
As long as I've been playing, I almost have an army per faction, so when you see something that you once played a fairly balanced game with, devolve into a Peen measuring contest, it doesn't really matter at that point.
GW's going to GW. You learn to live with it after you go through it time after time, or you tap out.
My genuine biggest beef with the codex system has always been the way in which they arbitrarily nullify models just out of spite, or because of the inability fore the writer to actually do their job. A 6 pack of beer over a post game discussion wealds a lot more credibility to me then some of these writers have. It becomes glaringly clear that there are some over in GW who are nowhere near the quality that their past game designers have been, and at the time- It seems like we took talent for granted, as the end users.
I might have to take a step back for a year on this one, until I see if the 10th edition "Improvements" are worth my time.
It'll give me time to catch up on buying my Space Hulk 4X8 multi-level board.
stonehorse wrote: I suspect that 10th will start off well, like how 8th did... then it will quickly become a mess, and then the while process starts again.
It isn't a design flaw, it is a feature as it is a way to justify a new edition every 2-3 years.
This is definitely the pattern that is emerging and it's a system that GW have to be VERY careful with, especially if it is intentional in some way.
The Internet has a long memory, and eventually you could get to a point where the larger population sees the pattern every 3-6 years and then refuses to buy into the next series, because the trust is lost on a larger scale.
GW self-sabotaging late-edition stuff so they can advertise the new edition as 'the best thing ever' is definitely the kind of corporate BS I'd expect out of a larger company. Here's hoping the game designers really are just being misled and try to do better this time around.
stonehorse wrote: I suspect that 10th will start off well, like how 8th did... then it will quickly become a mess, and then the while process starts again.
It isn't a design flaw, it is a feature as it is a way to justify a new edition every 2-3 years.
This is definitely the pattern that is emerging and it's a system that GW have to be VERY careful with, especially if it is intentional in some way.
The Internet has a long memory, and eventually you could get to a point where the larger population sees the pattern every 3-6 years and then refuses to buy into the next series, because the trust is lost on a larger scale.
GW self-sabotaging late-edition stuff so they can advertise the new edition as 'the best thing ever' is definitely the kind of corporate BS I'd expect out of a larger company. Here's hoping the game designers really are just being misled and try to do better this time around.
There are always new people who age up into the core demo they're aiming for that start to get excited about 40k as well. It's a balancing act and as long as they keep those monthly releases coming then (at least recently since 7th edition) the odds/numbers seem to be in their favor.
As long as GW keeps getting rewarded with record profits and selling out of releases immediately they'll continue to learn nothing except their smoke and mirrors scamming works.
Just a little heads-up, i went over the OP and tallied the rumours that we now know to be mostly true, false, ambiguous and the ones that are still pending - in annoying colours, no less! I also removed the thematic summaries for 10th edition and the starter box because maintaining them further makes no sense, and removed the obviously fake stuff from the summaries for SM and Tyranids to improve readability.
The next steps will be a detailled tally of especially Valrak's predictions, and a detailled re-analysis of the 50 page pdf in light of stuff we know for sure now, but i can't promise when i'll get to it.
Makes me feel they take out all the stratagems that where effectively useless, but left in all the powerful ones.
Solves only half the issues with them so meh.
I can't help but cynically gloat at that interview. Oh my, at one point you realized, that having to look for 6+ rules in 3 books, 2 Erratas/FAQs and countless stratagems, just to realize if your hit roll actually hit and then have to do it again for every roll afterwards might be bloated? Oh my, who would have thought. Have you seen the latest AoS Battle reports? It's basically a special rule poping up with a ding every 3 seconds now, almost as bad as a person with notification and tapping sounds for their instant messenger on a train. That didn't stop you from delivering broken Codex after Codex now, didn't it?
And if you think the new edition is going to be better, the very first profile card (The Termagant in Combat patrol) already has a rule that states that the model does something something Benfits of Cover. That alone should raise a red flag. You're not in cover, you just have the benefit of cover. Freaking twisted tongue rules all over again and the damned thing isn't even released yet.
10th promises to be as rubbish as 9th all over again.
Acknowledging that they needed (and supposedly now have) a design process for adding rules (as well as replacing rather than adding on top) is very much new.
Also tacitly admitting that bloat was a problem (too many strats and on datasheets, 'did we really need to do this?'), as was directly addressing 'gotcha moments.' That's a lot more self-reflection than I expected.
And if you think the new edition is going to be better, the very first profile card (The Termagant in Combat patrol) already has a rule that states that the model does something something Benfits of Cover. That alone should raise a red flag. You're not in cover, you just have the benefit of cover.
There's literally nothing wrong with this, relax LOL
Acknowledging that they needed (and supposedly now have) a design process for adding rules (as well as replacing rather than adding on top) is very much new.
Also tacitly admitting that bloat was a problem (too many strats and on datasheets, 'did we really need to do this?'), as was directly addressing 'gotcha moments.' That's a lot more self-reflection than I expected.
I was waiting for the "Why did we move this from the Datasheet to a Stratagem?" moment, to be frank.
GiToRaZor wrote: I can't help but cynically gloat at that interview. Oh my, at one point you realized, that having to look for 6+ rules in 3 books, 2 Erratas/FAQs and countless stratagems, just to realize if your hit roll actually hit and then have to do it again for every roll afterwards might be bloated? Oh my, who would have thought. Have you seen the latest AoS Battle reports? It's basically a special rule poping up with a ding every 3 seconds now, almost as bad as a person with notification and tapping sounds for their instant messenger on a train. That didn't stop you from delivering broken Codex after Codex now, didn't it?
And if you think the new edition is going to be better, the very first profile card (The Termagant in Combat patrol) already has a rule that states that the model does something something Benfits of Cover. That alone should raise a red flag. You're not in cover, you just have the benefit of cover. Freaking twisted tongue rules all over again and the damned thing isn't even released yet.
10th promises to be as rubbish as 9th all over again.
You realize in those aos reports they keep repeating same rule constantly?
You get lots of rule popups if you show same rule every time it pops up.
In 40k terms take that termagaunt move reaction. Pop up rule on video every time enemy finishes move near termagaunt unit and termagaunt moves. How many pop ups that happen?
Or pop up every time command reroll is used showing reroll rule
(rather irritating way to do report though. No i don't need to see same rule nth time tyvm)
Billicus wrote: It's laying the groundwork for the bloat to come back in the form of detachments, which is kind of what you used to see a lot of in 7th ed.
Is it bloat if I can give you a piece of paper that tells you everything about the army I'm using?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
GiToRaZor wrote: And if you think the new edition is going to be better, the very first profile card (The Termagant in Combat patrol) already has a rule that states that the model does something something Benfits of Cover. That alone should raise a red flag. You're not in cover, you just have the benefit of cover. Freaking twisted tongue rules all over again and the damned thing isn't even released yet.
I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say here. That rule is perfectly clear to me.
Daedalus81 wrote: I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say here. That rule is perfectly clear to me.
Does a rule that goes off of a unit being in cover work with a unit having the benefits of cover (while not actually being in cover)?
I guess this is the perceived issue.
It's futile to discuss this until we know how cover rules work this time around, and if 'the benefits of cover' is flowery language or a defined rules term.
Daedalus81 wrote: I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say here. That rule is perfectly clear to me.
Does a rule that goes off of a unit being in cover work with a unit having the benefits of cover (while not actually being in cover)?
I guess this is the perceived issue.
It's futile to discuss this until we know how cover rules work this time around, and if 'the benefits of cover' is flowery language or a defined rules term.
It seems to me like a defined rules term that will be applied to multiple situations:
Inside a ruin? Benefits of cover
Going really fast on a jetbike? Benefits of cover
Popped your smoke launchers? Benefits of cover
Weird psychic shield? Benefits of cover
However as the benefit always has the same name, it won't stack repeatedly.
Daedalus81 wrote: I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say here. That rule is perfectly clear to me.
Does a rule that goes off of a unit being in cover work with a unit having the benefits of cover (while not actually being in cover)?
I guess this is the perceived issue.
It's futile to discuss this until we know how cover rules work this time around, and if 'the benefits of cover' is flowery language or a defined rules term.
It seems to me like a defined rules term that will be applied to multiple situations:
Inside a ruin? Benefits of cover
Going really fast on a jetbike? Benefits of cover
Popped your smoke launchers? Benefits of cover
Weird psychic shield? Benefits of cover
However as the benefit always has the same name, it won't stack repeatedly.
Yep, that's how i see it too. Abilities could be worded to use that terminology, e.g. 'Chamalamadingdong cloaks: if this unit is within 6' of terrain, it gains the benefits of cover'.
Certainly less wordy than 'this unit counts as being in cover for the purpose of shooting' or whatever.
You realize in those aos reports they keep repeating same rule constantly?
You get lots of rule popups if you show same rule every time it pops up.
In 40k terms take that termagaunt move reaction. Pop up rule on video every time enemy finishes move near termagaunt unit and termagaunt moves. How many pop ups that happen?
Or pop up every time command reroll is used showing reroll rule
(rather irritating way to do report though. No i don't need to see same rule nth time tyvm)
That is 12 Rules in just over 1 minute and all of them are distinct, some have a text pasage that fills the height of the entire screen. Do I need to say more?
Daedalus81 wrote: I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say here. That rule is perfectly clear to me.
Does a rule that goes off of a unit being in cover work with a unit having the benefits of cover (while not actually being in cover)?
I guess this is the perceived issue.
I would say that since it says 'Benefit of Cover' that it means there is a set of rules that determine what happens when you are under the 'Benefit of Cover'. So either you can be near terrain or you have this special rule. Either way you receive this "benefit", which does x/y/z.
Daedalus81 wrote: I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say here. That rule is perfectly clear to me.
Does a rule that goes off of a unit being in cover work with a unit having the benefits of cover (while not actually being in cover)?
I guess this is the perceived issue.
It's futile to discuss this until we know how cover rules work this time around, and if 'the benefits of cover' is flowery language or a defined rules term.
It seems to me like a defined rules term that will be applied to multiple situations:
Inside a ruin? Benefits of cover
Going really fast on a jetbike? Benefits of cover
Popped your smoke launchers? Benefits of cover
Weird psychic shield? Benefits of cover
However as the benefit always has the same name, it won't stack repeatedly.
Or the core rules will let those benefits stack X number of times.
Billicus wrote: It's laying the groundwork for the bloat to come back in the form of detachments, which is kind of what you used to see a lot of in 7th ed.
Is it bloat if I can give you a piece of paper that tells you everything about the army I'm using?
You could do that now with a bit of formatting. For me bloat is there being lots of different ways the units in that army could be behaving that I need to keep abreast of, which is where it sounds like we will get to before long if they're going to introduce new detachments over time that bring different rules in, which was my understanding from that interview.
Billicus wrote: It's laying the groundwork for the bloat to come back in the form of detachments, which is kind of what you used to see a lot of in 7th ed.
Is it bloat if I can give you a piece of paper that tells you everything about the army I'm using?
You could do that now with a bit of formatting. For me bloat is there being lots of different ways the units in that army could be behaving that I need to keep abreast of, which is where it sounds like we will get to before long if they're going to introduce new detachments over time that bring different rules in, which was my understanding from that interview.
I don't think you can very easily. Here's my army currently and circled in red is likely what will be available in the future. The psychic pages will now all be on the datasheet so all this isn't lost, but the listbuilding and breadth of choice per unit becomes much simpler. Note: This doesn't show the other 4 pages of great cults.
Billicus wrote: It's laying the groundwork for the bloat to come back in the form of detachments, which is kind of what you used to see a lot of in 7th ed.
Is it bloat if I can give you a piece of paper that tells you everything about the army I'm using?
You could do that now with a bit of formatting. For me bloat is there being lots of different ways the units in that army could be behaving that I need to keep abreast of, which is where it sounds like we will get to before long if they're going to introduce new detachments over time that bring different rules in, which was my understanding from that interview.
I don't think you can very easily. Here's my army currently and circled in red is likely what will be available in the future. The psychic pages will now all be on the datasheet so all this isn't lost, but the listbuilding and breadth of choice per unit becomes much simpler. Note: This doesn't show the other 4 pages of great cults.
To be quite fair, 19 pages of stuff printed in a normal font and small print is absolutely insane for even one army, let alone the two dozen factions we have now. It sucks for anyone to lose a majority of options, but that bloat is just not sustainable.
Tsagualsa wrote: To be quite fair, 19 pages of stuff printed in a normal font and small print is absolutely insane for even one army, let alone the two dozen factions we have now. It sucks for anyone to lose a majority of options, but that bloat is just not sustainable.
Yea - I'm not complaining. I totally love my 9th edition codex. It genuinely did a good job of getting the feel of the army right.
Obviously all these rules can't remain as is, but I am totally ok getting a 'Warp Meld' detachment with rules and abilities that gel with Spawn and Tzaangors and a 'Duplicity' detachment that has a different set of abilities that might prefer Rubrics.
Then I can tell my opponent the 6 strats I have and then they can discern my capabilities by understanding my units do the same thing as the ones they played in previous games.
The great thing about all of this is GW can collect the performance of detachments and address them individually rather than trying to fix a whole faction at once and with the pared down rules it will be nearly impossible to achieve the buff stacking that we have.
Platuan4th wrote: 10th Ed Codexes gonna be as thin as 3rd Ed Codexes for 4 times the price.
Hopefully they use this as a chance to consolidate things. If so much stuff is being culled then there's no reason for 10 separate space marine books. We could even plausibly see codexes closer to the 8E indexes, such as all Aeldari in one book.
Acknowledging that they needed (and supposedly now have) a design process for adding rules (as well as replacing rather than adding on top) is very much new.
Also tacitly admitting that bloat was a problem (too many strats and on datasheets, 'did we really need to do this?'), as was directly addressing 'gotcha moments.' That's a lot more self-reflection than I expected.
I must say that's exactly how I felt at the start of 8th. All those designer's commentaries, Beta rules and correctly describing what went wrong in 7th, cool chapter approved rules with fun stuff like custom land raiders, different mission styles right in the core book really made it look like they wanted to work with the community. Well they did for one edition, in came 9th with new point values they pulled out of nowhere despite the rules being practically the same, mission style that were mostly a copy of tournaments, and uncontrolled codex creep that I doubt ever saw any playtesting. Now they're dialing back again but what they did in 9th makes me very skeptical now and I'm beginning to see where those grumpy people on dakka come from .
The points for 9th were a universal increase to reverse the race to the bottom happening at the end of 8th.
People liked the faction stuff and many liked stratagems. GW just decided to go ham and then push out 21 codexes and 4 supplements in 3 years as well as the 13 campaign books and Chapter Approved on top of the prior 6 marine supplements, PA books, and Vigilus.
There's absolutely no time for them to have balanced any of that properly while *also* likely having started in on 10th from about 2 years ago, but they made a damn good effort at trying to fix their issues and continue to show their capacity to learn and grow.
The puff piece is a puff piece, no surprise there.
Nick asking the pre-prepared questions is cringe, Stu had his pre-loaded answers.
All I see is patterns repeating. They'll trim down 10th ed back to basics, only to bloat it back up again.
So, instead of just whinging, let's be realistic and try to look at the positive.
Positive 1. GW have clearly gotten the feedback. Either at tournaments or through FAQ e-mails or online through social media, they managed to get what the community has been screaming down the tubes about. Even if they're just practicing lip service, they are acknowledging the complaints and can't play ignorant any more.
Positive 2. USRs are coming back. Stu even said 'despite a decade apart (it's only been about 6 years since 7th ended guys...) people still use the old terminology. "Having a common language was really important" YEAH NO S***. It's almost like speaking in similar, easily identifiable terms is what people naturally do, and not just in games, but in the military, in corporate offices, in all walks of life. Having every little rule separated under a different name is contrary to how people naturally operate! So, good that they've finally acknowledged that and we're getting a bit more of that shared language back.
Positive 3. The hope is not that GW won't bloat the game back at all. We know it'll happen eventually. The hope is that it will take LONGER to bloat the game back up, and that the number of times we have to huck our codexes due to a re-indexing is going to be kept to a minimum. I do not want another World Eaters situation, be it this edition, next edition, or the one after that. It steps on people's toes and puts a time limit on an already expensive book. As it stands, you'd hope that a codex would last the full breadth of an edition, but some codexes get less than a year of lifespan, while others stretch on for 5+ years (poor astra militarum). All this to say that the longer that GW can go WITHOUT indexing the entire game, the better.
Positive 4. GW is adding a new level of granularity by getting rid of model strength and putting the to-hit and strength of weapons individually on their datacard. This means that two models with similar weapons could behave differently, according to their strength. No more 'Power Fist x2 strength', instead it could be that a Space Marine Terminator with a Power Fist is straight str 8 and a Astra Militarum Sgt with a power fist might only be str 5 or could be up to str 7. There's more room to adjust for relative power level to make strong things feel appropriate. A heavy bolter in the hands of a regular tactical marine might hit on a 4+, while in the hands of a devastator might hit on a 3+, for example, to show the devastator's unique role in carrying heavy weapons, and the tactical marine maybe not having the same suspensor systems that the devastator has. This granularity also means that we might no longer see the huge lists of weapons in the back of a codex. When you need to look up a weapon, it'll be more specific to what is wielding it, so you look at the datacard instead. Less flipping back and forth is a GREAT thing.
These are some good things to look forward to that improve qualtiy of life and show that GW is indeed listening.
How good the game is and how long until the dollar signs override customer preference is the real question.
I’m really hoping that the “free” part of the rules sticks around awhile before the tidal wave of codexes. I plan to keep playing with my 9th codexes (crusade with stratagem caps) and will continue that well into next year.
However, I know some of my friends will move onto 10th and so having access to free rules to participate is a good thing. When I’ve had suitable use out of my 9th codexes, and the new edition is slightly fleshed out, I may make the switch to 10th.
As it stands, with a 30k army I have yet to build and the news of epic 40K, I may be tempted to skip the entire edition and take it back up for 11th. Who knows?
On the fence with the starter box too. Usually good value, but just not sure if it will contain models that I must have.
I do kind of hope, almost certainly forlornly, that a Codex won’t add a huge amount to the given Index it’s replacing.
Update data sheets? No problem.
Add in entirely new units? No problem.
Rejig army specific bonuses? No problem.
But….please. Don’t add in loads and loads and loads of new rules for General 40K. Add in Crusade type rules by all means. But don’t start or even begin packing them out with More Stratagems Than An Index.
This way, those awaiting a Codex, and no matter how quickly you get them out, someone is gonna be last, aren’t at a particular disadvantage.
I feel that on that route, results monitored to check balance will be more accurate, as you won’t see quite the same New Hotness skewing, or given forces underrepresented as without a new Codex they’re at a significant disadvantage. Not because their units are bobbins, but because they’re hobbled compared to someone with four pages of stratagems.
I feel that on that route, results monitored to check balance will be more accurate, as you won’t see quite the same New Hotness skewing, or given forces underrepresented as without a new Codex they’re at a significant disadvantage. Not because their units are bobbins, but because they’re hobbled compared to someone with four pages of stratagems.
You realize right that would hurt gw profits?
It's not a bug. It's feature. Gw want newest hotness to gather all the focus and even better sales.
Just updating and tweaking existing data sheets, adding new units? That’s your hook right there. That’s the New Hotness. That’s how you get folk to reassess their existing collection and buy more models. Not just the shiny new, but also older kits with tweaked rules.
I do kind of hope, almost certainly forlornly, that a Codex won’t add a huge amount to the given Index it’s replacing.
Update data sheets? No problem.
Add in entirely new units? No problem.
Rejig army specific bonuses? No problem.
But….please. Don’t add in loads and loads and loads of new rules for General 40K. Add in Crusade type rules by all means. But don’t start or even begin packing them out with More Stratagems Than An Index.
This way, those awaiting a Codex, and no matter how quickly you get them out, someone is gonna be last, aren’t at a particular disadvantage.
I feel that on that route, results monitored to check balance will be more accurate, as you won’t see quite the same New Hotness skewing, or given forces underrepresented as without a new Codex they’re at a significant disadvantage. Not because their units are bobbins, but because they’re hobbled compared to someone with four pages of stratagems.
My expectation is that, as you said, we're getting Crusade, and a handful of other things.
Indexes will have datasheets and very basic faction rules.
Codexes will have all the datasheets, the faction rules expanded, Crusade rules, and all your subfaction rules (chapters, legions, orders, etc).
The prayer is that they wont have much MORE than that. The thing we need to keep GW from bringing back are all the superfaction abilities. Wanton destruction? Tactical doctrine? Get rid of all that garbage.
That video makes me think everything is going to be warbands. Non-interacting army lists that only act in isolation. In other words, bespoke organizations of units with a few unique special rules and items. You want a Space Marine army? Okay, there's X number of warbands you can take. Pick one.
Tau army? Okay, there's a T'au warband (orange) and a Farsight warband (red), maybe even a Shadowsun warband (white).
Sure, it all fits on one page, but there's no room for customization or making stuff your own. Privateer Press is doing something like this now with Warmachine. I don't know the details since I don't play anymore, but, for instance, there is no Cygnar army anymore, just a few different brigade styles from the Cygnar faction. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong!
That's not to say GW would be doing this in response to PP. The days of PP being a threat to GW are long gone. But it's interesting to see what my be parallel evolution in game systems.
The Power Cosmic wrote: That video makes me think everything is going to be warbands. In other words, bespoke organizations of units with a few unique special rules and items. You want a Space Marine army? Okay, there's X number of warbands you can take. Pick one.
Tau army? Okay, there's a T'au warband (orange) and a Farsight warband (red), maybe even a Shadowsun warband (white).
Pretty sure you're confusing Combat Patrol and the base 10th.
The Power Cosmic wrote: That video makes me think everything is going to be warbands. In other words, bespoke organizations of units with a few unique special rules and items. You want a Space Marine army? Okay, there's X number of warbands you can take. Pick one.
Tau army? Okay, there's a T'au warband (orange) and a Farsight warband (red), maybe even a Shadowsun warband (white).
Pretty sure you're confusing Combat Patrol and the base 10th.
I hope not. Maybe the base 40k is just a larger version of what combat patrol ends up being. Like literally larger, 2-3 combat patrols mushed together.
The Power Cosmic wrote: That video makes me think everything is going to be warbands. In other words, bespoke organizations of units with a few unique special rules and items. You want a Space Marine army? Okay, there's X number of warbands you can take. Pick one.
Tau army? Okay, there's a T'au warband (orange) and a Farsight warband (red), maybe even a Shadowsun warband (white).
Pretty sure you're confusing Combat Patrol and the base 10th.
I hope not. Maybe the base 40k is just a larger version of what combat patrol ends up being. Like literally larger, 2-3 combat patrols mushed together.
That sounds horrible and they've given us no reason to think that's what's happening.
Platuan4th wrote: 10th Ed Codexes gonna be as thin as 3rd Ed Codexes for 4 times the price.
Hopefully they use this as a chance to consolidate things. If so much stuff is being culled then there's no reason for 10 separate space marine books. We could even plausibly see codexes closer to the 8E indexes, such as all Aeldari in one book.
The thing I most expect to see in the Indexes and the next line of Codexes is even more NMNR and what the kit instructions build unit restrictions. Not 100%, but a whole lot more than what you saw in the 9th Edition Codexes.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:On Index Vs Codex?
I do kind of hope, almost certainly forlornly, that a Codex won’t add a huge amount to the given Index it’s replacing.
Update data sheets? No problem.
Add in entirely new units? No problem.
Rejig army specific bonuses? No problem.
But….please. Don’t add in loads and loads and loads of new rules for General 40K. Add in Crusade type rules by all means. But don’t start or even begin packing them out with More Stratagems Than An Index.
This way, those awaiting a Codex, and no matter how quickly you get them out, someone is gonna be last, aren’t at a particular disadvantage.
I feel that on that route, results monitored to check balance will be more accurate, as you won’t see quite the same New Hotness skewing, or given forces underrepresented as without a new Codex they’re at a significant disadvantage. Not because their units are bobbins, but because they’re hobbled compared to someone with four pages of stratagems.
The detachment system, as much as I can tell from the videos, will be different versions of the army you can play that have different detachment rules but use the same units. Look at Codex World Eaters and its World Eaters and Disciples of the Red Angel armies. I expect we will see at 2 page version of that in the different codexes.
So Codex Space Marines may have:
Space Marines Battle Company: the index list, maybe refined
SM First Company
SM Vanguard Spearhead: Phobos list
Etc and so on
Each of these will have a two page rules spread that will include some common rules (ATSKNF) and many unique rules (stratagems, relics, warlord traits, others).
I do wonder how the new edition will handle allies.
alextroy wrote: The thing I most expect to see in the Indexes and the next line of Codexes is even more NMNR and what the kit instructions build unit restrictions. Not 100%, but a whole lot more than what you saw in the 9th Edition Codexes.
And people wonder why I fear a new Carnifex kit.
And forget Legends. The concession Chaos players got with Jump Pack Lords? Wave goodbye to that...
H.B.M.C. wrote: The Great Reset: You will have no options and you will be happy.
Wouldn't be surprised.
Watch them have 3 specific Tactical squad datasheets.
One is 10 with flamer and heavy bolter, sgt with chainsword and bolt pistol
One is 10 with plasma gun and missile launcher, sgt with power sword and bolt pistol
One is 10 with melta gun and multi melta, sgt with power fist and plasma pistol
H.B.M.C. wrote: The Great Reset: You will have no options and you will be happy.
Wouldn't be surprised.
Watch them have 3 specific Tactical squad datasheets.
One is 10 with flamer and heavy bolter, sgt with chainsword and bolt pistol
One is 10 with plasma gun and missile launcher, sgt with power sword and bolt pistol
One is 10 with melta gun and multi melta, sgt with power fist and plasma pistol
Nothing else.
No chance. It’s clearly going to be powerfist sgt/flamer/ML, powersword Sgt/plasma/lascannon, and chainsword sgt/melta/HB all as separate data sheets, as decreed 30years ago with the 2nd Ed tactical squad boxes.
stonehorse wrote: I suspect that 10th will start off well, like how 8th did... then it will quickly become a mess, and then the while process starts again.
It isn't a design flaw, it is a feature as it is a way to justify a new edition every 2-3 years.
This is definitely the pattern that is emerging and it's a system that GW have to be VERY careful with, especially if it is intentional in some way.
The Internet has a long memory, and eventually you could get to a point where the larger population sees the pattern every 3-6 years and then refuses to buy into the next series, because the trust is lost on a larger scale.
GW self-sabotaging late-edition stuff so they can advertise the new edition as 'the best thing ever' is definitely the kind of corporate BS I'd expect out of a larger company. Here's hoping the game designers really are just being misled and try to do better this time around.
Did Nick and Stu just say the quiet part out load in the last interview? That they gave up on 9th a year after it was released and have been working on 10th for the last two years?
stonehorse wrote: I suspect that 10th will start off well, like how 8th did... then it will quickly become a mess, and then the while process starts again.
It isn't a design flaw, it is a feature as it is a way to justify a new edition every 2-3 years.
This is definitely the pattern that is emerging and it's a system that GW have to be VERY careful with, especially if it is intentional in some way.
The Internet has a long memory, and eventually you could get to a point where the larger population sees the pattern every 3-6 years and then refuses to buy into the next series, because the trust is lost on a larger scale.
GW self-sabotaging late-edition stuff so they can advertise the new edition as 'the best thing ever' is definitely the kind of corporate BS I'd expect out of a larger company. Here's hoping the game designers really are just being misled and try to do better this time around.
Did Nick and Stu just say the quiet part out load in the last interview? That they gave up on 9th a year after it was released and have been working on 10th for the last two years?
That makes me more curious on how long they worked on 9th itself.
The Power Cosmic wrote: That video makes me think everything is going to be warbands. In other words, bespoke organizations of units with a few unique special rules and items. You want a Space Marine army? Okay, there's X number of warbands you can take. Pick one.
Tau army? Okay, there's a T'au warband (orange) and a Farsight warband (red), maybe even a Shadowsun warband (white).
Pretty sure you're confusing Combat Patrol and the base 10th.
I hope not. Maybe the base 40k is just a larger version of what combat patrol ends up being. Like literally larger, 2-3 combat patrols mushed together.
They have literally said army building is pick faction, pick warlord, choose any units you want(max 3 of each except battleline 6), choose relic, done.
Note how you can choose units freely with just rule of 3.
Want to make list of 3 terminator units, 3 outriders, 3 gladiators, 3 eradicators? Fine.
Did Nick and Stu just say the quiet part out load in the last interview? That they gave up on 9th a year after it was released and have been working on 10th for the last two years?
Surprised? Lead times. They have fixed edition/3 years which means they have to start work early. 9e work started about year into 8th and 11th will start next year.
You need to read what lead times are they are now working on last 10th codexes most likely.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: During the latter two years of 8th, presumably.
Yep. That's pretty much spot on. 9e codexes were largely being done during 8e.
Daedalus81 wrote: The institutionalized skills learned from that period are what people are looking forward to now.
I love how you think things are going to change, or that they're learnt anything at all. This is 10th edition - TENTH - and they're still messing it up.
Daedalus81 wrote: The institutionalized skills learned from that period are what people are looking forward to now.
I love how you think things are going to change, or that they're learnt anything at all. This is 10th edition - TENTH - and they're still messing it up.
So you think they're exactly the same as they've always been?
Daedalus81 wrote: The institutionalized skills learned from that period are what people are looking forward to now.
I love how you think things are going to change, or that they're learnt anything at all. This is 10th edition - TENTH - and they're still messing it up.
So you think they're exactly the same as they've always been?
Just compare the interviews, release of 9th they said that this is the Edition were they can put all the crazy ideas they have every 2 minutes into the game
and people were happy to hear that and praised the video of how awesome 9th must be, and it was exactly what we got, a collection of ideas
now they said that the period of crazy ideas ended after a year and they worked on a game, so we might finally got what 8th Edition should have been in the first place
one problem is still that they don't play their own game, so good chance lessons learned are all about writing and not about the game itself
Daedalus81 wrote: The institutionalized skills learned from that period are what people are looking forward to now.
I love how you think things are going to change, or that they're learnt anything at all. This is 10th edition - TENTH - and they're still messing it up.
So you think they're exactly the same as they've always been?
Nah. They got new PR folk.
Doesn't change rule development but they are more able to sell the game as best thing ever to the guillible people.
While I enjoy the previews of Warhammer Community I have to say the PR speak is unbearably grating. Every article can be summed up with "Can you believe that latest thing is actually the greatest thing ever???"
I get that's the easiest way to boost SEO nowadays but it's very tiresome to read, even for someone who tries not to be cynical.
Surprised? Lead times. They have fixed edition/3 years which means they have to start work early. 9e work started about year into 8th and 11th will start next year.
You need to read what lead times are they are now working on last 10th codexes most likely.
It is not a mistake i referenced the GW design model as a roller coaster you are constantly riding/chasing.
They have literally said army building is pick faction, pick warlord, choose any units you want(max 3 of each except battleline 6), choose relic, done
That's fantastic for
.power gamers
.tournament players
.new players
Terrible for the fans of the expanded universe and epic thematic play as in finding like minded players to enjoy a game with.
I can look at the 3.5 chaos codex, 4th ed black templar codex, 4th ed ork codex and i can feel the love for the universe from the design team who were also gamers. everything in the last 3 editions is nothing but what was famously said by GW-model company first that happens to have a game attached to it-.
aphyon wrote: I can look at the 3.5 chaos codex, 4th ed black templar codex, 4th ed ork codex and i can feel the love for the universe from the design team who were also gamers. everything in the last 3 editions is nothing but what was famously said by GW-model company first that happens to have a game attached to it.
Conversely, I can look at both the Tyranid Codices that Cruddace wrote, and can see a man writing something not because he wants to, but because he has to.
Then there was that paradigm shift of design that came with whichever Ork book it was where they suddenly went to big page-filling colour photos and a lot less artwork. That was a low point, certainly.
And there are people who genuinely thing that 10th is going to fix things...
Daedalus81 wrote: So you think they're exactly the same as they've always been?
A group of people who don't understand the game they've written? Yes. That's exactly what I think.
But let me pose another question to you: Do you know the definition of insanity?
tneva82 wrote: They have literally said army building is pick faction, pick warlord, choose any units you want(max 3 of each except battleline 6), choose relic, done.
They didn't say max 3 of each unit, they said max 3 of each "type" - and have yet to define what they mean by "type".
Is "type" based of battlefield role, off a keyword, off something else entirely? Are the Gladiator variants one type or three? Is "Aspect Warrior" a type?
What happens with units that are 1/detachment today? Are they suddenly fine to field 3x?
H.B.M.C. wrote: I do wonder how the new edition will handle allies.
Likely unpopular opinion? Other than Chaos, I hope they just don’t. And I make that concession because it’s long established I don’t like Chaos being broken down as they are into faction and sub faction, and not a riot of choices.
tneva82 wrote: They have literally said army building is pick faction, pick warlord, choose any units you want(max 3 of each except battleline 6), choose relic, done.
They didn't say max 3 of each unit, they said max 3 of each "type" - and have yet to define what they mean by "type".
Is "type" based of battlefield role, off a keyword, off something else entirely? Are the Gladiator variants one type or three? Is "Aspect Warrior" a type?
What happens with units that are 1/detachment today? Are they suddenly fine to field 3x?
I didn't clock that and processed it as being unit as well to be fair. I can't see how else type would be reasonably defined here in the context of their other updates, other than unit card in the primary.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I do wonder how the new edition will handle allies.
Likely unpopular opinion? Other than Chaos, I hope they just don’t. And I make that concession because it’s long established I don’t like Chaos being broken down as they are into faction and sub faction, and not a riot of choices.
GSC? They lost guard sales from me due to the wonky ass allied rules that looked like they'd be unsupported at the drop of a hat.
Also sold off chaos armies in the past because they ceased to be functional to the ying-yang of ally rules existing/not.
On GSC? Just whack their IG Options into the Codex.
Chaos just needs to be less stratified. Yes former Legions can still field cohesive forces. No argument or beef with that. But likewise, a World Eater Lord may well have launched their own bonkers ape mental crusade, attracting other, non-Khornate opportunists in his wake, so give but a single example.
It would be a mighty arse single tome and no mistake. But I’d strongly argue “so what?”.
Chaos just needs to be less stratified. Yes former Legions can still field cohesive forces. No argument or beef with that. But likewise, a World Eater Lord may well have launched their own bonkers ape mental crusade, attracting other, non-Khornate opportunists in his wake, so give but a single example.
It would be a mighty arse single tome and no mistake. But I’d strongly argue “so what?”.
You'd get many peoples money including mine.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Billicus wrote: Type is clearly analagous to battlefield role if battleline is a "type" in the context of that statement, no?
The issue is that flies in the face of:
You no longer have to fit your army into a force organisation chart, or compromise on the army you really want. It’s a simple and liberating system, and opens the door to all kinds of fun, thematic or unusual armies.
There supposedly are no roles, because if there were, you'd have an organisational chart by proxy.
You no longer have to fit your army into a force organisation chart, or compromise on the army you really want. It’s a simple and liberating system, and opens the door to all kinds of fun, thematic or unusual armies.
There supposedly are no roles, because if there were, you'd have an organisational chart by proxy.
That statement seems worrying, just like their utterance that Stratagems should allow for 'cinematic actions' - 'Thematic' usually means either unplayable or broken beyond belief, and 'Cinematic' often means 'gamebreaking' too. The removal of the glut of stratagems is a good move, but if the remaining ones contain game-changing, swingy 'cinematic' nonsense then they still don't have understood the core of the problem. At the moment we're getting mixed messages here, on one hand they say stuff like this, on the other they say they want to prevent 'gotcha' moments. We'll have to wait, but my optimism is quickly fading.
