if we're talking lead times, the upcoming tyranid knight scale miniature was being designed in 2017. I have no idea what it looks like, because at the time I found out about it, there were a number of designs under consideration. (source- happy coincidence on a flight out from Birmingham airport when the young lad next to me looked at my white dwarf and said- "my dad designed that!"
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.
Most likely around 2 years ago is when they sat down and said "what are we going to do for 10E rules?" then started discussing the pros and cons of continuing with 9th or throwing it all in the bin. Note that we got the big survey late 2021, which will have helped to steer between the different options that were being considered.
However work on the models for this edition almost certainly began much earlier than that. I bet they had concepts and model prototypes for new Tyranids while most people were still unboxing their copy of Indomitus.
My biggest hope is they abandon trying to appeal to the tournament crowd. Opening a can of worms here but that's a big thing which hurt 9th IMHO. Secondary objectives are trash, the missions are incredibly boring and terrain keywords were overly complicated for what should have been intuitively simple, and to top the smelly pile the accepted terrain layout is the most bland, boring, and uninspiring thing I've ever seen since everything is completely mirrored.
If Gw actually appealed and worked for the Tournament setting it would be a net good thing for the game rules in general.
The problem is GW never caters for tournament players.
The recommended min table size was not based on what tournaments had; it was based on what base size GW could put into existing boxes.
Many events had to adjust to adapt to that (even then they don't have to, the min rec size is only a suggestion, but they have anyway).
The rules are not clearly written in an efficient easy to read format - heck with the bloat and the way GW does rules right now its distinctly anti tournament
The rules are, well, they are not balanced and whilst GW has made improvements their "throw it all out every 3 years" policy means that whatever gains they make during an edition is very short lived.
This isn't like MTG where you've the same rules for 20-30 years which are refined over that time period.
Overread wrote: I
The recommended min table size was not based on what tournaments had; it was based on what base size GW could put into existing boxes.
Many events had to adjust to adapt to that (even then they don't have to, the min rec size is only a suggestion, but they have anyway).
ITC&Co adopted it happily when they realized it leads to bigger profits for them as they can cram more players to same room.
The 9e is been very much tournament edition with the tournament organizers affecting missions and rules.
Balance is going to be wonky regardless of who is in charge though as balance leads to less ££££££ under profit margin.
Overread wrote: I
The recommended min table size was not based on what tournaments had; it was based on what base size GW could put into existing boxes.
Many events had to adjust to adapt to that (even then they don't have to, the min rec size is only a suggestion, but they have anyway).
ITC&Co adopted it happily when they realized it leads to bigger profits for them as they can cram more players to same room.
The 9e is been very much tournament edition with the tournament organizers affecting missions and rules.
Balance is going to be wonky regardless of who is in charge though as balance leads to less ££££££ under profit margin.
The whole "Balance results in less profit" I think is something people throw around a lot but honesty look at GW's core earnings. When they were at their most unbalanced under Kirby with zero attention to anyone and when an FAQ/Errata could come as the edition ended; they profits were VASTLY less than when they released a new edition with everyone getting updated rules at the same time for once.
The argument is that a balanced game means that people don't have to chase the meta and buy the latest and coolest thing.
That might work in some markets; it doesn't work in wargames.
The overwhelming majority of GW's customers are not tournament players.
Of them those who chase the meta regularly talk about how to save money doing it and are often buying secondhand models and, if anything, its best for the paint commission market. The serious meta chasing tournament player isn't buying and building an army over years and keeping that army around; they are buying it as cheaply as they can to use until that meta ends then they sell it on and buy another as cheaply as they can. They are 100% feeding the secondhand market more htan GW's own market.
Secondly the majority of customers don't meta-chase. They buy a one to a few armies and focus on them and them alone. If that army doesn't get updated in ages or is rubbish on the tabletop - those players don't automatically buy another army. If they do they might get one from another GW game system or they might try another "better balanced" game system where their army of choice isn't totally useless or nerfed into oblivion or only has one viable build. They are invested into their armies they aren't chasing meta as cheaply as they can.
GW's core market are army-loyal customers and sure many might have several armies; but they aren't building the latest and greatest every two or three months.
Better balance where most armies can compete on an even footing means more active customers engaging with their armies of choice. Armies that have better internal balance means that GW's sales within an army are more spread out and means that people have more reason to keep investing into their chosen army to increase their diversity and choices. If an army only has one good build then that's the only one people will make and once they've got it they are done; other models won't sell.
Again better balance builds a better system for all in the wargame market. Because the purchases, armies, customer loyalty to them and all are all long term. It's not like a card game where people are happy to rebuild their entire collection every year.
I’ve held off getting back into the gaming side due to 8th and 9th, and needing to get your head round stratagems.
They add an extra layer, and I’m not saying the concept is bad. But the execution was well off. If you didn’t spec your list around stratagems, you were at a significant disadvantage. And I’m not fond of that kind of imposed restriction on my List creativity.
Worse? For someone so long out of practice I’m pretty much a NooB, I’m not sure games would last long enough under such conditions for me to actually learn the ropes. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying “if I am not win second game, game are the faulty”. I accept the learning curve can be steep.
But like X-Wing, if the learning curve is too steep between Beginner and Experienced? I’m gonna be put off. My free time is precious, and I’m none too keen to spend chunks of it being slapped around like something that gets slapped around without me having a chance to understand the why.
Perhaps some of that is GW Till Monkey Legacy. I used to teach the basics, and even provide coaching once someone was more established - when asked of course. But that I don’t think is reasonable to demand from an average opponent. It would be gratefully received, but not everyone is willing or able to do that sort of stuff.
Maybe I’ll take the plunge with 10th. Lord knows I may not have been playing, but I’ve still be collecting. If the army selection is good and straight forward? That’s the first step.
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.
While I think the no Allies option is indeed possible (especially out the gate), I suspect it will be something more similar to AoS since they seem to be drawing a lot of inspiration for 10th from that.
kodos wrote: 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
So when the community says there are too many stratagems, so GW reduces stratagems...
And when the community says there are too many rules, so GW reduces the possible ways you can stack rules...
And they say USRs need to come back, so GW brings them back...
And that morale shouldn't be just losing more models, so GW does that, too...
kodos wrote: 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
So when the community says there are too many stratagems, so GW reduces stratagems...
And when the community says there are too many rules, so GW reduces the possible ways you can stack rules...
And they say USRs need to come back, so GW brings them back...
And that morale shouldn't be just losing more models, so GW does that, too...
Doesn't change rule development but they are more able to sell the game as best thing ever to the guillible people.
See the things noted above are just PR and not actual rules?
The thing is those are problems that GW is fixing based on user feedback; but they are problems GW's rules writers created in the first place.
This is the core of the issue; GW can react to feedback and are more on the ball with it now than in the past; BUT; at the very core they've got a rules writing system that promotes a casual style of writing and rules production which can easily result in issues. From broken balance to systems that are just clunky.
A good example is go back to a 3rd edition codex and see how the information is laid out. Now go look at some 7th and later codex. Notice how the game isn't actually much more complex than it was but that the way GW conveys information changed. Even before you hit them expanding content in expansion books ,the core presentation is messy and that's 100% on GW themselves.
Then you factor in the 3year edition rotation where each time they do it they make big shifts which means all the balance adjustments they performed get thrown out the window. Each new edition basically tries to fix some of the issues of the previous one, whilst often introducing their own.
This is a dance 10 editions old now and many of us are used to the style, quality and nature of what kind of rules GW makes. IT doesn't mean we don't hope that they might have an attitude change ;that managers might realise that sales improve with better rules; that MTG shows how top rules can result in a great system that prints money; that GW gets sales spikes whenever their rules improve; that one of the most quoted reasons for people leaving is to get better rules. etc....
But many of us are realistic with our expectations when the managers, system and staff are the same.
Now it works, GW are BIG, but they are not big because their rules are top rate and there are clear issues with the formal design and testing of their rules systems. Things have improved and perhaps GW are just going to make slow improvements with a really drawn out period; possibly not making big strides unless new skilled staff take over from established ones in key roles (this isn't just the writing staff, but also managers who allocate resources and schedual timescales and such)
Overread wrote: I The recommended min table size was not based on what tournaments had; it was based on what base size GW could put into existing boxes. Many events had to adjust to adapt to that (even then they don't have to, the min rec size is only a suggestion, but they have anyway).
ITC&Co adopted it happily when they realized it leads to bigger profits for them as they can cram more players to same room.
The 9e is been very much tournament edition with the tournament organizers affecting missions and rules.
Balance is going to be wonky regardless of who is in charge though as balance leads to less ££££££ under profit margin.
Don't forget FLG conveniently saying right after they just so happened to be ready to sell mats in that exact size AND that ITC was going to exclusively use that size... so the "minimum" became the "default" because, as per usual, tournament standard infests the locale and subsumes everything else.
H.B.M.C. wrote: 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?
Pretend you're a manager of a project and you gave your team ( GW ) the feedback you give here. Did they listen? I am sure they didn't do everything you would have wanted, but did they listen?
I know people want to put the cart before the horse here - at some point GW will try something silly or execute something poorly. What matters is that there's communication and a path to remediate.
Personally I can't imagine trying to build a product that pleases every facet of people in this hobby. If often feels like people praising HH do so as if some different company made it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wayniac wrote: My biggest hope is they abandon trying to appeal to the tournament crowd. Opening a can of worms here but that's a big thing which hurt 9th IMHO. Secondary objectives are trash, the missions are incredibly boring and terrain keywords were overly complicated for what should have been intuitively simple, and to top the smelly pile the accepted terrain layout is the most bland, boring, and uninspiring thing I've ever seen since everything is completely mirrored.
I love the missions as they are, but I would like to see fewer secondaries. Also, terrain definitely needs a glow-up. I am hopeful they did something smart with cover to make more types of terrain feasible. At the same time with the presumed reduction in lethality terrain doesn't have to shield as much.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 wrote: ITC&Co adopted it happily when they realized it leads to bigger profits for them as they can cram more players to same room.
The 9e is been very much tournament edition with the tournament organizers affecting missions and rules.
Balance is going to be wonky regardless of who is in charge though as balance leads to less ££££££ under profit margin.
*sigh* Being able to have more players in a room is good for players and people at home can play on any size they want. Running a tournament is NOT a money making venture.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Overread wrote: The overwhelming majority of GW's customers are not tournament players.
Just look at Golden Demon. People make dioramas out of $500 of product and those things will never see a table.
Core of the game is very much designed around the whims of the US tournament scene in 9th edition, the fact that Crusade exists doesn't really change that. Boarding actions have only been out for five minutes.
Billicus wrote: Core of the game is very much designed around the whims of the US tournament scene in 9th edition, the fact that Crusade exists doesn't really change that. Boarding actions have only been out for five minutes.
Variant play formats have always kind of been an edition's death knell, like the various versions of Cityfight, Apocalypse etc...
Overread wrote: The thing is those are problems that GW is fixing based on user feedback; but they are problems GW's rules writers created in the first place.
There's that eternal struggle of a 'beer and pretzels' game and this relatively new strive to be a modern game. There are groups of people here that won't one or the other or seemingly more often -- both.
GW still has that 'beer and pretzels' blood in them and it's that sort of stuff that gets really cool things, but lacking restraint.
Then you factor in the 3year edition rotation where each time they do it they make big shifts which means all the balance adjustments they performed get thrown out the window. Each new edition basically tries to fix some of the issues of the previous one, whilst often introducing their own.
I don't see 10th as a huge shift from 9th. It's doing quality of life housekeeping. Balance is out the window, yes, but this setup offers GW a lot less volume of rules so when you look at a faction you can better judge what exactly the problem might be.
that MTG shows how top rules can result in a great system that prints money
MTG has to continually obsolete product to keep it's rules from creating absurd scenarios. Commander reveals some of that, which is why it struggles to be more than a beer and pretzels format itself.
But many of us are realistic with our expectations when the managers, system and staff are the same.
There's a lot of new blood in there. Stu and the often reviled Brandt seem to be pretty strong voices. In no edition prior did you ever have a GW representative on video saying 'these are the things that were wrong and this is what we're doing to try and fix those things'.
Now it works, GW are BIG, but they are not big because their rules are top rate and there are clear issues with the formal design and testing of their rules systems. Things have improved and perhaps GW are just going to make slow improvements with a really drawn out period; possibly not making big strides unless new skilled staff take over from established ones in key roles (this isn't just the writing staff, but also managers who allocate resources and schedual timescales and such)
Yea I would say GW is popular for it's models over it's rules still. 8th and 9th did a lot to draw in new players and those players have a voice. I still don't think GW could ever manage to properly schedule and release codexes on the timelines the accountants want unless they hire a ton more people, but hopefully the replacement rules strategy helps keep that under control.
no, those are reactions to feedback
if someone had learned had learned a lesson about the game, non of those would have been there in the first place
so if this is what the designers learned, nothing will change as they are going to add those kind of "features" for 10th and remove them by user feedback in 11th
MTG has to continually obsolete product to keep it's rules from creating absurd scenarios. Commander reveals some of that, which is why it struggles to be more than a beer and pretzels format itself.
Actually I'd argue that MTG doesn't obsolete rules, it does that with cards.
The actual rules by which the cards function have remained fairly steady. New ones come along, but the very core of the game still plays the same as it did many years ago. A few have been refined over those years and had subtle shifts in how they are described and put into practice - often to avoid new mechanics/cards from creating game breaking situations.
So the actual rules aren't removed, its the cards that are shuffled around - which in Wargame terms is more like shuffling models around whilst keeping the core of the game the same.
This is the issue with GW; their core rules don't stay the same.
Now granted there are complicating factors - for example Wargames typically grow over time in terms of army diversity and collection size. So you do end up with the number of models on the table going up as your buying market matures. Every so often GW do clamp down on this with an edition (current AoS edition did this a lot with troops) as otherwise it can create a barrier to entry.
By all means its not all bad from GW rules and they have improved since changing their operations and approach since Kirby stepped down along with some other shuffles around at GW.
But GW are in a position where they could do and achieve so much more
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 got the impression that detachments are no longer a thing.
If you look at the example Termagants datasheet... There is no battlefield role icon or keyword (e.g. Troops or Battleline).
I'm starting to fear that we're going to see 7th ed. formations again.
Pretend you're a manager of a project and you gave your team ( GW ) the feedback you give here. Did they listen? I am sure they didn't do everything you would have wanted, but did they listen?
I know people want to put the cart before the horse here - at some point GW will try something silly or execute something poorly. What matters is that there's communication and a path to remediate.
Personally I can't imagine trying to build a product that pleases every facet of people in this hobby. If often feels like people praising HH do so as if some different company made it.
Let's get the scenario right, though. I am the manager of the project and I have a team with decades of experience and history working for me. While yes, I'd expect the team to listen to my requests and fix what is broken, I'd also expect them to use their experience, history, and context to not simply turn 90 degrees and do the exact opposite of what they did before. I would expect the magnitude of the mistakes to decrease. I don't think that's the case with GW.
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.
Does this mean we're moving to the joys of AoS army building?
"You can customise one character twice or two characters once."
I can almost feel myself nodding off with excitement.
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 got the impression that detachments are no longer a thing.
If you look at the example Termagants datasheet... There is no battlefield role icon or keyword (e.g. Troops or Battleline).
I'm starting to fear that we're going to see 7th ed. formations again.
TBH I thought formations were great as shopping lists. They got out of hand because they couldn't balance them (surprise, surprise) and you had crap like the Decurion and Gladius detachments. But being able to be like "I just bought unit X, if I buy a second box and then unit Y, I can use them together to have a little bonus" was good.
What's more amusing to me is that 7th had Unbound and everyone and their mother HATED it, lambasted it, and laughed at it. But AOO and now 10th edition looks to be going to basically that. Pick what you want, with minimal restriction, and play.
Pretend you're a manager of a project and you gave your team ( GW ) the feedback you give here. Did they listen? I am sure they didn't do everything you would have wanted, but did they listen?
I know people want to put the cart before the horse here - at some point GW will try something silly or execute something poorly. What matters is that there's communication and a path to remediate.
Personally I can't imagine trying to build a product that pleases every facet of people in this hobby. If often feels like people praising HH do so as if some different company made it.
Let's get the scenario right, though. I am the manager of the project and I have a team with decades of experience and history working for me. While yes, I'd expect the team to listen to my requests and fix what is broken, I'd also expect them to use their experience, history, and context to not simply turn 90 degrees and do the exact opposite of what they did before. I would expect the magnitude of the mistakes to decrease. I don't think that's the case with GW.
How many people on the 40k team have been there for years though? I mean sure, the "greats" are gone, but I'm pretty sure they have at least a few people on the team who have been there for years (Cruddace if he's still around?). You would THINK they'd have more of an idea about what works/doesn't work when they've seen the game go from 6th to 7th to 8th to 9th or whatever. Even if it was just 8th to 9th, that should give SOME insight to what works well, what didn't work, etc. But with GW it's really like they never learn from the past.
The problem with totally unbound is that people spam broken stuff.
You can also end up with a situation where armies are built "wrong". Eg all leaders and no troops and such. Which whilst mechanically fine; can start to erode the mental picture of armies doing battle and such.
AoS has been a bit too heavy I feel. I constantly wish they'd break troops up and give cavalry their own slot and a few features and also add some artillery to most factions (its almost a waste of a slot right now).
AoS also doubled down hard this editoin on cutting out big infantry blocks which has both good and bad points to it.
They've also started making alternate weapons very similar to identical, which lowers barrier of entry but at the same time means that you lose some flavour. Your spears and swords do basically the same thing so that cuts down on variety and such.
Thing is 40K has a lot of alternate parts in most kits; so cutting out options isn't really as easily done. That said I could see armies like Tyranids losing some weapon combos on Warriors and Carnifex if just because, certainly the carny, has other options in the army that do those jobs better.
Actually considering the screamer killer is getting its own model kit I'd wager a carnfiex with 4 scything talons is going to be removed
MTG has to continually obsolete product to keep it's rules from creating absurd scenarios. Commander reveals some of that, which is why it struggles to be more than a beer and pretzels format itself.
Actually I'd argue that MTG doesn't obsolete rules, it does that with cards.
The actual rules by which the cards function have remained fairly steady. New ones come along, but the very core of the game still plays the same as it did many years ago. A few have been refined over those years and had subtle shifts in how they are described and put into practice - often to avoid new mechanics/cards from creating game breaking situations.
So the actual rules aren't removed, its the cards that are shuffled around - which in Wargame terms is more like shuffling models around whilst keeping the core of the game the same.
This is the issue with GW; their core rules don't stay the same.
Now granted there are complicating factors - for example Wargames typically grow over time in terms of army diversity and collection size. So you do end up with the number of models on the table going up as your buying market matures. Every so often GW do clamp down on this with an edition (current AoS edition did this a lot with troops) as otherwise it can create a barrier to entry.
By all means its not all bad from GW rules and they have improved since changing their operations and approach since Kirby stepped down along with some other shuffles around at GW.
But GW are in a position where they could do and achieve so much more
Right - they obsolete product.
Another thing about magic - they have to continually add new mechanics and they do so frequently. People don't want the same thing with just new art. The need new and interesting themes and rules to build a deck around.
From today's WarCom article: "We are releasing revamped, restatted, and reconsidered datasheets for every single unit in the game – all free to download at launch and ready to go. You’ll also be able to buy inexpensive packs of these cards at launch'' - I wonder what price will be?
no, those are reactions to feedback
if someone had learned had learned a lesson about the game, non of those would have been there in the first place
so if this is what the designers learned, nothing will change as they are going to add those kind of "features" for 10th and remove them by user feedback in 11th
That feels pedantic and we're sort of getting to the point where we're trying to divine the minds of the people designing rules. Neither of us know if they learned a lesson. What we can see is that they agreed with the feedback and made a change. The difference between the two is totally negligible if the outcome is true and they can stick to it.
Nothing about what I am saying is determinative of the future. I fully realize GW can screw things up in so many ways. This game is a massive juggernaut and the volume of armies now is getting unwieldy. I don't envy anyone trying to make all of this work, but at least I can see they take feedback and act on it.
Regarding the new detachment system (or lack thereof), I find myself wondering what problem they were trying to solve.
The outcome seems barely different from the Arks of Omen detachment they just introduced. I guess if you really, desperately need an army that's nothing but fast attack or heavy support units you can do that now. Yay?
See, I could maybe see this working if they went with the Warmachine system - with each unit being allocated a maximum number that can be included in an army (or unlimited for troop equivalents).
Instead, though, every unit is either max-3 or max-6. Thus, the citizens of a dying race are exactly as plentiful as guardsmen sent to die by the billion, or as the swarms of tyranids that can outnumber the enemy's bullets.
I can't help but be reminded of all the praise people gave for GW making everything bespoke rules in 8th, because it gave them the ability to tweak individual units as needed . . . and then all they ever did was make sweeping changes.
Gene St. Ealer wrote: Let's get the scenario right, though. I am the manager of the project and I have a team with decades of experience and history working for me. While yes, I'd expect the team to listen to my requests and fix what is broken, I'd also expect them to use their experience, history, and context to not simply turn 90 degrees and do the exact opposite of what they did before. I would expect the magnitude of the mistakes to decrease. I don't think that's the case with GW.
I think people should reflect more on the history of GW from 3rd to 7th. It isn't as rosy as nostalgia makes it. That 'experience' was during a time when GW took NO feedback and barely ever attempted to maintain the game through an edition even before the debacle of 7th. The community constantly had to make their own FAQs and point adjustments. Remember comp scores?
There's a lot of new blood on that team based on job openings.
Another thing about magic - they have to continually add new mechanics and they do so frequently. People don't want the same thing with just new art. The need new and interesting themes and rules to build a deck around.
The past several years have been them more rotating mechanics rather than adding new ones. As the cycle goes, you see a certain mechanic become less frequent until the full cycle goes and there's a different set of meta mechanics. It helps that instead of having several similar but different rules, they codified the vast majority of rules(Hexproof, Cycle, Champion, etc. instead of 12 cards having slightly different wordings to do the same thing), almost like USRs.
Those sticky complexities have now been smoothed out, and without losing any of the game’s depth. These much-needed simplifications are substantial enough that, from a rules perspective at least, every ninth edition codex has been rendered obsolete. That’s not to say they’re useless – they’re still bursting with the lore, history, and short stories that define each faction, and until new codexes emerge over the course of the new edition, these books will still be the main repository of the knowledge you need.
- Codexes obsolete
The associated packs of datacards are also obsolete. One of the main vectors for streamlining armies has been to heavily reduce the numbers of Stratagems available to each faction. Gone are the days of shuffling through 50 cards to find the right ability – each army now has a lean list of them included on the double-page spread that defines them.
- Datacards obsolete
You will nevertheless be able to play your chosen army as soon as the new edition lands. We are releasing revamped, restatted, and reconsidered datasheets for every single unit in the game – all free to download at launch and ready to go. You’ll also be able to buy inexpensive packs of these cards at launch.
- Datasheets for everything for free at the start
- Cards for sale, called 'inexpensive'
Boarding Actions, on the other hand, are still going strong. The core rules in Arks of Omen: Abaddon were specifically written to work with the new edition, and the book will remain available for the foreseeable future. All you need to play this tight and tense format of Warhammer 40,000, is this book, the book that contains your own faction rules, and a set of terrain.
Boarding Actions have their own strategems and enhancements that replace warlord traits etc which is probably why they stay compatible and a good indication of the forward direction of travel.
Billicus wrote: Boarding Actions have their own strategems and enhancements that replace warlord traits etc which is probably why they stay compatible and a good indication of the forward direction of travel.
This. Boarding patrol is only missing the basic Core movement, shooting, melee, and morale rules to basically be playable without the 40K Core book.
The past several years have been them more rotating mechanics rather than adding new ones. As the cycle goes, you see a certain mechanic become less frequent until the full cycle goes and there's a different set of meta mechanics. It helps that instead of having several similar but different rules, they codified the vast majority of rules(Hexproof, Cycle, Champion, etc. instead of 12 cards having slightly different wordings to do the same thing), almost like USRs.
They still seem to add a fair bit. Toxic is redone poisonous, but then we have corrupted, attractions, and 'for mirrodin' now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Overread wrote: The problem with totally unbound is that people spam broken stuff.
You can also end up with a situation where armies are built "wrong". Eg all leaders and no troops and such. Which whilst mechanically fine; can start to erode the mental picture of armies doing battle and such.
One of my first concerns on hearing the rules is if hero hammer would make a return. I don't think it will, but if the rules are loose enough we could see some silly, but likely ineffective lists.
oni wrote: The latest article offers zero new information. Annoying.
They pretty much have to spread the information over four weeks until Warhammerfest, and then again eight additional weeks to the pre-order week. They'll take their time with it for sure, although i'd guess the last 4-6 weeks before pre-order will be used to hype the upcoming SM and Tyranid stuff already.
oni wrote: The latest article offers zero new information. Annoying.
They pretty much have to spread the information over four weeks until Warhammerfest, and then again eight additional weeks to the pre-order week. They'll take their time with it for sure, although i'd guess the last 4-6 weeks before pre-order will be used to hype the upcoming SM and Tyranid stuff already.
Yea we'll get there. I'm just super impatient at the moment.
"Effectively, you will only ever need your unit datasheets, the two pages of rules that govern your chosen army (available in your codex, on cards, or digitally), plus the core rules and whatever mission you’re playing."
"Effectively, you will only ever need your unit datasheets, the two pages of rules that govern your chosen army (available in your codex, on cards, or digitally), plus the core rules and whatever mission you’re playing."
They could theoretically just be talking about the app but I hope not even GW is that dumb
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.
Most likely around 2 years ago is when they sat down and said "what are we going to do for 10E rules?" then started discussing the pros and cons of continuing with 9th or throwing it all in the bin. Note that we got the big survey late 2021, which will have helped to steer between the different options that were being considered.
However work on the models for this edition almost certainly began much earlier than that. I bet they had concepts and model prototypes for new Tyranids while most people were still unboxing their copy of Indomitus.
I understand lead times. If you don’t plan in advance then you’re reacting. Which is what 9th feels like, that it was patched to death. I don’t want to go back to a one and done rule set. 9th never felt like it had a chance, that it was continuously poked and prodded so it didn’t have a chance to be its own thing. So there has to be a middle ground between good planning and fixing things when they break on one end and the other end minimal planning with endless layers that don’t work together.
My comment was more to go along with several others about the game turning into a 3 year subscription plan with planned obsolescence.
IIRC when models where hand carved it was a 3 year minimum from start to new model coming out of a mold.
Daedalus81 wrote: That feels pedantic and we're sort of getting to the point where we're trying to divine the minds of the people designing rules. Neither of us know if they learned a lesson. What we can see is that they agreed with the feedback and made a change. The difference between the two is totally negligible if the outcome is true and they can stick to it.
we don't know, we just see the results
but already had the "we listen to the feedback and made the changes" with 8th Edition, the end result is another reset an edition later because changes made, made the game end almost like 7th but in a shorter time
so what happened from 3rd to 7th now happend from 8th to 9th, there is just nothing that makes me believe that something was learned but that the best we to make profit is another reset with the same promises in 3 years
"Effectively, you will only ever need your unit datasheets, the two pages of rules that govern your chosen army (available in your codex, on cards, or digitally), plus the core rules and whatever mission you’re playing."
They could theoretically just be talking about the app but I hope not even GW is that dumb
"Effectively, you will only ever need your unit datasheets, the two pages of rules that govern your chosen army (available in your codex, on cards, or digitally), plus the core rules and whatever mission you’re playing."
They could theoretically just be talking about the app but I hope not even GW is that dumb
You know that's exactly what they mean
Wasn't there also mention of a new app for people to start gaking on before release?
"Effectively, you will only ever need your unit datasheets, the two pages of rules that govern your chosen army (available in your codex, on cards, or digitally), plus the core rules and whatever mission you’re playing."
They could theoretically just be talking about the app but I hope not even GW is that dumb
You know that's exactly what they mean
Wasn't there also mention of a new app for people to start gaking on before release?
There was:
there is a new digital ecosystem coming
digital strategy is baked in and hinges on the redesigned web site, including builder and a new app version
You now have a digital collection. These are small pages with content for every army you have bought and an enhanced shop page for every unit you have collected. There are codes in the boxes and publications to unlock a collected item. The content is usually a codex or vault excerpt, artwork, painting tutorials, but sometimes downloadable wallpapers additional gaming profiles for the unit or a paint scheme showcase
All these profiles are predefined. The weapon choices are made for you. These are only for starter missions
For customizable units, designed for campaign and pick up play, you need the codex. This unlocks all the options in the new app or the army builder in the shop. These builders construct an army roster for you with profiles for each unit. on these generated profiles all the relevant choices you have made, are baked in
If you have collected a codex, you automatically get digital access to additional options released in other publications for the army, for the duration of the edition.
You need a subscription for access to the army builder for anything above starter missions
The core rules are free and the starter mission pack is free. You can play a starter game without a codex or rulebook, just with the profiles in the boxes you have bought
Both a printed version of the profile and a digital code come in the box
Codex publications come with a code, but you can also buy the codes digitally. But this doesn't give you a digital version of the codex, just the unlocks collection page of the army and the units and makes the content available in army builder
When you buy the rulebook or a seasonal rulebook, you get access to further mission packs suited for campaign and more detailed pick up play.
In these formats you can customize your units and the app generates the in-game profiles for you. These profiles are compatible with the starter profiles, but you can make all the decisions
You can theoretically do this by hand if you have the codex, but it is tedious to copy all the rules by hand. Printing your generated profiles from the app is easier
The app has no in-game functionality besides looking at your profiles and the rules
The codex has all the customizable options and build-a-unit datasheets. It unlocks these options in the army builder
You need both the codex and the publication with the mission pack to built an army for the respective kind of mission. at the beginning of the edition the purchase of the warhosts tome gives you access to all the armies at once
Erratas, revised construction datasheets, point adjustments are free for subscribers and released digitally only
The plan is to leave the predefined profiles unchanged for the duration of the edition, but i don't know how this will break cross-compatibility eventually
The army builder can be used for free for the core rules and starter mission pack
A W+ subscription gives you access to all the predefined profiles from all armies without needing to buy all the boxes. But you still need the box to add a unit to your collection for the immersive content
The edition starts with the Vigil of Blood box for hooked players and a series of mini starter boxes for beginners. these can be bought at a time or as a discounted subscription or all at once once they are released. These boxes have the same plastic terrain and units as the veteran box, but also contain tools and paints and step-by-step manuals. buying all boxes gives exactly all the starter box models + hobby items. First box is building two characters. After three boxes you can play the first game with a simple color scheme. The last three boxes are not as dense as the first ones
Grand Tournament packs are released once a year. They are exclusively released as a bundle of booklet and terrain. GT is its separate ecosystem now, with its own rules, profiles and point costs. This pack gives you digitally access to the Grand Tournament unit profiles. It is supposed to be a really tight ruleset. The launch box has a mountain of terrain and will be the most expensive bundle in Gw history. GT is separated in the app from the matched play mission and has its own builder - a reskinned version of the old app. The builder is sleeker because you cannot customize units. It has a clock, a scoresheet and a QR interface to share the scoresheet. The GT section is only available with a code in the pack. Further down the road, annual packs will have only half the terrain
Codex Space Marines, Tyranids, Demons and Orks are with the playtesters, as well as Blood Angels, Space Wolves and White Scars supplements
The launch box has fewer models than in the past, but plastic terrain included. I am paraphrasing: 1 winged jump primaris captain, 1 apothecari toxinmaster, 5 sword jump primaris, 5 veteran intercessors, 5 primaris scouts with grenade launchers, heavy offroad atv, 1 shrike prime, 3 shrikes, 8 termagants with fleshborer, 8 termagants with harpoon, 6 melee gargoyles, dreadnought sized trygon, Mosque style low tech buildings, reinforced with scifi tech and walls, improvised and rugged look, some destroyed old columns and centerpiece angel statue, plastic token set
You will nevertheless be able to play your chosen army as soon as the new edition lands. We are releasing revamped, restatted, and reconsidered datasheets for every single unit in the game – all free to download at launch and ready to go. You’ll also be able to buy inexpensive packs of these cards at launch.
- Datasheets for everything for free at the start
- Cards for sale, called 'inexpensive'.
I wonder if after the new codices come out will they continue the datasheets to be splash releases like AoS warsrolls. If they are one and done prints it could be a barrier to people starting new armies.
You will nevertheless be able to play your chosen army as soon as the new edition lands. We are releasing revamped, restatted, and reconsidered datasheets for every single unit in the game – all free to download at launch and ready to go. You’ll also be able to buy inexpensive packs of these cards at launch.
- Datasheets for everything for free at the start
- Cards for sale, called 'inexpensive'.
I wonder if after the new codices come out will they continue the datasheets to be splash releases like AoS warsrolls. If they are one and done prints it could be a barrier to people starting new armies.
Data cards are going away, so something new ought to take their place.
You will nevertheless be able to play your chosen army as soon as the new edition lands. We are releasing revamped, restatted, and reconsidered datasheets for every single unit in the game – all free to download at launch and ready to go. You’ll also be able to buy inexpensive packs of these cards at launch.
- Datasheets for everything for free at the start
- Cards for sale, called 'inexpensive'.
I wonder if after the new codices come out will they continue the datasheets to be splash releases like AoS warsrolls. If they are one and done prints it could be a barrier to people starting new armies.
The one and done datacards are one of the most annoying things.
You will nevertheless be able to play your chosen army as soon as the new edition lands. We are releasing revamped, restatted, and reconsidered datasheets for every single unit in the game – all free to download at launch and ready to go. You’ll also be able to buy inexpensive packs of these cards at launch.
- Datasheets for everything for free at the start
- Cards for sale, called 'inexpensive'.
I wonder if after the new codices come out will they continue the datasheets to be splash releases like AoS warsrolls. If they are one and done prints it could be a barrier to people starting new armies.
I don't know much about AoS business models, do they make money out of models, like 40k does with Codex/Campaign books ?
"Effectively, you will only ever need your unit datasheets, the two pages of rules that govern your chosen army (available in your codex, on cards, or digitally), plus the core rules and whatever mission you’re playing."
They could theoretically just be talking about the app but I hope not even GW is that dumb
You know that's exactly what they mean
They specifically mentioned the App in the live stream.
Siegfriedfr wrote: I don't know much about AoS business models, do they make money out of models, like 40k does with Codex/Campaign books ?
also 40k makes money primarily with the models, books are just for those who already have enough models to get a steady income from veteran players
but for AoS, you have the free core rules and the free unit rules, you need the Battletome to get the faction rules and Generals Handbook for the extended rules, scenarios etc.
you also get the unit rules on cards and in the Battletome
so basically the new 40k way of rules is identical to AoS, were you still need to buy the rulebook and the codex for full access to the game, despite the announced free core rules and free unit rules
Daedalus81 wrote: That feels pedantic and we're sort of getting to the point where we're trying to divine the minds of the people designing rules. Neither of us know if they learned a lesson. What we can see is that they agreed with the feedback and made a change. The difference between the two is totally negligible if the outcome is true and they can stick to it.
we don't know, we just see the results
but already had the "we listen to the feedback and made the changes" with 8th Edition, the end result is another reset an edition later because changes made, made the game end almost like 7th but in a shorter time
so what happened from 3rd to 7th now happend from 8th to 9th, there is just nothing that makes me believe that something was learned but that the best we to make profit is another reset with the same promises in 3 years
Yes, but I think that under-contextualizes what happened there.
GW media is always going to say 'this is the best edition ever'. The marketing speak isn't useful for determining what is actually going on with the rules. GW listening to the community from 7th to 8th has a different set of problems to fix than the changes of 8th to 9th and those of 9th to 10th.
I won't bother laying out the history as I recall it so I think the best axis to think about the whole transition is the lethality issue. 8th was stupidly lethal - so much so that ITC created it's own rules to alleviate some of it and people playing outside that had a bad time. 9th is less lethal with occasional spikes from books that took advantage of other codexes not possessing their durability updates and a mission set that helps with that. Remember how oppressive AdMech was at the beginning and now that the books are out and AdMech nerfs have been fully reversed they still aren't a problem? GW didn't see-saw on lethality. They've been improving it with missteps along the way.
Also GW has made good on promising on not needing to buy Arks books for rules.
A lot of people have been very coy about where/when the items they bought happened. There was a supposed theft from or of a container back in January or December in Germany--maybe that's where this stuff is all coming from?
A lot of people have been very coy about where/when the items they bought happened. There was a supposed theft from or of a container back in January or December in Germany--maybe that's where this stuff is all coming from?
That's the first i'm hearing of that, is there somewhere i can read up on that?
I want to say it was mentioned on TGA? I've heard nothing more than just a singular mention--I'm only bringing it up as one of these leaked Dantes was from Germany.
Right, problem is how GW solved lethality not that they tried to solve and the timing
10th is in the work for 2 years now, and same as CA updates solved problems that were relevant 6 months prior release, 10th is based on feedback and problems the game had 1,5 years ago
This will give a fresh start of course but the lessons learned from the last 6 months are not there yet but will change 10th in between
Kanluwen wrote: I want to say it was mentioned on TGA? I've heard nothing more than just a singular mention--I'm only bringing it up as one of these leaked Dantes was from Germany.
Eh, no problem, would just have interested me where it happened.
Maybe that leak is enough to trigger their emergency reveal tactics tomorrow, i sure hope it does Although i doubt it as long as it's practically just a name and a number. The leaker does not seem like they wanted to show more, but maybe they change their mind, who knows.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MajorWesJanson wrote: New models, or a bundle set of the Lion with a set of 3 Bladeguard and a DA upgrade sprue?
To be honest, the World Eaters Codex already had this sort of set up, even with a sub-faction.
2 pages, 3 warlord traits/relics in each, possible force restrictions listed, 6 stratagems, different from the others. Played with the core stratagems.
They've been going with the simplified sub-faction rules for a while but I think they've been fluctuating between relics, traits and stratagems til they found what they wanted as their balance.
You know I could live with a data sheet like that especially if I had another sheet that listed all of my units (but I guess that's what the cards that GW's talking about are for).
A lot of people have been very coy about where/when the items they bought happened. There was a supposed theft from or of a container back in January or December in Germany--maybe that's where this stuff is all coming from?
That's the first i'm hearing of that, is there somewhere i can read up on that?
A while back a bunch of Eldar collector coins (the ones you get free at a store for spending £60) appeared on ebay. Not just one or two but an account selling whole boxes of them on.
It got reported and around that time it transpired that GW had suffered a bunch of stock at their main factory being contaminated due to a sewage leak locally. However it seems that some items around then which were set for destruction due to actual or potential contamination were stolen and instead sold on.
This is around the same time a store started selling a large amount of forgeworld models as well.
GW might also have some people stealing from the warehouses; it will happen and the internet means that some are brazen enough to post about it.
And cause stuff has to be distributed around there's every chance that people in the chain get stuff and are posting it online for fun; hoping that they don't get caught out breaking their NDA contacts.
We likely only see this for GW because of the internet prestige and because of GW's scale simply having more people in the process and thus more potential weak points.
DaveC wrote: They are just regular Bladeguard not even any upgrades just a Bone paint scheme.
Very disapointing. Dosent even look like they get a DA upgrade sprue.
I was a bit optimistic on my guess it seems.
Will the Lion only be available in this box, or is this going to be a slightly discounted bundle with the Lion also sold on his own? I could see the box being £65 to £75.
So Lion looks like a bit of a midget compared to Guilliman and Abaddon and 30k Lion then. Disappointing. It would be fine if the standard wasn't already set, maybe better even, but it is so this kind of sucks imo.
Mentlegen324 wrote: I was expecting some sort of unique unit like The Ultarmarines Victrix Guard.
Just 3 normal, non-dark Angels Bladegaurd is boring, a big missed opportunity, and just a baffling decision.
Just because they don't have unique models doesn't mean they won't have unique rules. I'm planning on making some the same way I made Victrix Guard for my Ultras: Primaris Lt. with a Custodes shield, Grey Knight terminator Sword, and a head from the Venerable Dreadnought.
Daedalus81 wrote: Pretend you're a manager of a project and you gave your team ( GW ) the feedback you give here. Did they listen? I am sure they didn't do everything you would have wanted, but did they listen?
Listening and understanding are two different things, and has been long established, GW don't play the same game as the rest of us, so any feedback they've received likely to be misinterpreted or acted on in an impulsive and over-compensatory manner.
I mean, we can see it with their announcement. Cutting down armies to two pages of rules, and absolutely gutting the strats, warlord traits, relics and psychic powers. This is the hard pendulum swing GW that so many of us expect, and that so many of us dread. There's no attempt to engage with or fix the problems of 9th; they just throw them out the window and start with a clean slate, hoping for the best, hoping that maybe this time they'll get it right.
If at first you don't succeed try and try and try and try and try... and 10th edition!
It'll be great this time. Honest! Here have (temporarily) free rules to distract you from the fact that your AUD$80+ hardbacks and expensive card packs are worth less than the paper they're printed on, some only months after they were released. Pay no attention to the fact that we've done this over and over again, and that we were already planning this a year into 9th, and we'll be writing 11th a year into 10th. No, this time - this time! - it'll be good.
Why do you think I get more concerned with what we're losing rather than what we're gaining: What good ideas and fun options did they throw away in an attempt to "fix" something, which they haven't fixed, just replaced with something new.
Daedalus81 wrote: I know people want to put the cart before the horse here - at some point GW will try something silly or execute something poorly. What matters is that there's communication and a path to remediate.
The part that gets me is just how willing people are to accept this announcement as anything different than what came before.
Yes, it's true, not everyone has been in the hobby as long as some of us, so they don't necessarily have the experience or frame of reference to know when GW is blowing smoke, but this isn't rocket surgery: GW has done this before, and GW will do this again. Nothing ever changes with them except the prices.
I mean it's great that Stu Black (that's his surname, right?) is happy about "listening" to the players, and I believe that he believes he's doing the right thing, but as I said, they're just tossing everything overboard and going back to the drawing board and why should we trust that this time it'll be better? And why are you so willing to trust them this time?
Daedalus81 wrote: Personally I can't imagine trying to build a product that pleases every facet of people in this hobby.
This has nothing to do with pleasing "every facet of people in this hobby", so please, don't bother finishing your towering man of straw, because he's unnecessary.
kodos wrote: Or just a marketing trick as people get more excited by secret leaks and rumours than official news
It would help explain why Dante was conveniently leaked so he wouldn't be overshadowed by the Lion and 10th at Adepticon, but the leaker refused to show the datasheet and just hyped the model instead.
kodos wrote: Or just a marketing trick as people get more excited by secret leaks and rumours than official news
It would help explain why Dante was conveniently leaked so he wouldn't be overshadowed by the Lion and 10th at Adepticon, but the leaker refused to show the datasheet and just hyped the model instead.
You'd think they'd want to send it to someone who was a bit better at painting since the paint job seemed very beginner (and Dante's covered in sand). Obviously, they couldn't to someone too good, since that would be suspicious. Thooo, they could have sent it to a popular painter and had required them to say "a fan received this and sent it to me as a gift."
JWBS wrote: So Lion looks like a bit of a midget compared to Guilliman and Abaddon and 30k Lion then. Disappointing. It would be fine if the standard wasn't already set, maybe better even, but it is so this kind of sucks imo.
I posted this (modified version of the release pic) in the Adepticon thread as a comparison. He's at least the same height as Guiliman, potentially taller once you take his pose into account.
Personally I can't imagine trying to build a product that pleases every facet of people in this hobby. If often feels like people praising HH do so as if some different company made it.
The problem has never been trying to please everybody. The problem is them trying to continually reinvent the game. Instead of creating a core product and then using successive editions to refine it, they rewrite large chunks of it each time around. That fixes some problems, removes some stuff that wasn't a problem at all, and adds a new raft of problems. We're about to receive the 10th iteration of the game, and they're still completely rewriting large chunks of the game.
While that makes sense from a sales perspective, because new editions continue to push sales for them, as a player it's frustrating to have to continually re-learn how to play the game.
bullyboy wrote: Why is there no image on the front of the box?
Personally Im holding out hope that this is a fake/not final release version. Along with no image on the box, the box only lists 4 Miniatures: Lion + 3 BGV. The Lion comes with two Watchers, which (correct me if Im wrong) the Deathwing box list as separate miniatures.
Shouldnt this box list 6 Miniatures?
The Lion's Watchers are probably just base decoration and therefore not counted as miniatures... but one can hope...
bullyboy wrote: Why is there no image on the front of the box?
Personally Im holding out hope that this is a fake/not final release version. Along with no image on the box, the box only lists 4 Miniatures: Lion + 3 BGV. The Lion comes with two Watchers, which (correct me if Im wrong) the Deathwing box list as separate miniatures.
Shouldnt this box list 6 Miniatures?
The Lion's Watchers are probably just base decoration and therefore not counted as miniatures... but one can hope...
Difference being deathwing watcher is on individual base. Lion integrated to lion's base.
I don't disagree, just wanted to confirm since I just opened the box.
Edit: Neat bit about the model that isn't readily apparent from the official pics is that the arms sockets are floating frames rather than a solid part of the torso.
I see there is a join running through the middle of those vents on his jet pack. I wish GW would stop doing that kind of thing - it also occurs on some of the HH vehicles (e.g. the back of the launcher on the Skorpius). You don't get a clean join because of the 2 sides are moulded, and it's really hard to clean up properly.
To be fair, Farsight’s rules are pretty decent anyway.
I’m more concerned about The Lions rules. They may have a “don’t care” attitude due to end of edition. Vashtorr was a joke, don’t do the Lion dirty.
JWBS wrote: So Lion looks like a bit of a midget compared to Guilliman and Abaddon and 30k Lion then. Disappointing. It would be fine if the standard wasn't already set, maybe better even, but it is so this kind of sucks imo.
I posted this (modified version of the release pic) in the Adepticon thread as a comparison. He's at least the same height as Guiliman, potentially taller once you take his pose into account.
Yeah well like I said I have my doubts and now I just don't believe it. Aside from posing and mass (Guilliman being chunkier, more stooped, sword aloft, which all have a bearing in making him look larger), he's also smaller according to a rough measurement too, if I'm not mistaken. I like him more than Guilliman and I'll be buying but I'll have to see a direct comparison of both models before I could be convinced they're equal stature.
6th and 7th and 8th and 9th deserved to be flushed down the toilet.
There, I said it.
I just hope they don't do what they did in 8th and start releasing codexes again in a year.
Seriously, how many obsolete copies of codexes do you all have? 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th edition codexes? Maybe skipped one or two generations? What do you do with all these previous edition books? How many campaign books and supplements do you each have that are now coffee table ornaments? Would it be any different if they just released a new codex, other than the fact that you'd have to buy a new book and/or supplement after you trashed the old one?
Some of you are acting like your books didn't become obsolete before, but I know you have a closet shelf somewhere collecting dust with all your old books. Not to mention the BRBs from previous editions.
I went to the store the other day and saw the price sticker on a battlewagon. They wanted $115 USD. For a battlewagon. At least the $50 I'm saving on a new book can offset the cost of these ridiculous annual model price increases.
Eldarain wrote: Not my minis but thought finding him with the same unit might be helpful.
Spoiler:
It's difficult to get a good scale shot, I searched for a while longer than I usually would and couldn't find anything as useful as I'd like. Lots of pics of 30k vs 40k Guilliman.
Seriously, how many obsolete copies of codexes do you all have? 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th edition codexes? Maybe skipped one or two generations? What do you do with all these previous edition books?
Who said they were obsolete? what you do with them is use them.
They are some of the best codexes ever made for the game.
Unless you think some representative from GW is going to come and point a figurative gun to your head an force you to play the current hotness, you can still use them for games of 40K like our group does with our unified 3rd-7th ed rule set or Mezmorki's pro-hammer unified rules.
I own so many of the old codexes (every faction in it's best codex) it is easier to tell you what i do not own a 3rd, 4th, 5th or in the case of armies new to the game in 7th ed codexes that i have with me every single week for gaming in case some players need to use them-
JWBS wrote: So Lion looks like a bit of a midget compared to Guilliman and Abaddon and 30k Lion then. Disappointing. It would be fine if the standard wasn't already set, maybe better even, but it is so this kind of sucks imo.
I didn't think he looked much smaller in the comparison pics? Bearing in mind that Guilliman is basically a big robotic suit and Abaddon is a long-term resident of the Eye of Terror, I think Johnson looks fine. He's slimmer, still much taller than a regular marine, and is probably going to be a badass on the table so I really don't see the problem. There was variation between the primarchs in terms of their height and bulk anyway, and Johnson was just very good at fighting, he wasn't a muscular brute like some of his contemporaries.
JWBS wrote: So Lion looks like a bit of a midget compared to Guilliman and Abaddon and 30k Lion then. Disappointing. It would be fine if the standard wasn't already set, maybe better even, but it is so this kind of sucks imo.
I didn't think he looked much smaller in the comparison pics? Bearing in mind that Guilliman is basically a big robotic suit and Abaddon is a long-term resident of the Eye of Terror, I think Johnson looks fine. He's slimmer, still much taller than a regular marine, and is probably going to be a badass on the table so I really don't see the problem. There was variation between the primarchs in terms of their height and bulk anyway, and Johnson was just very good at fighting, he wasn't a muscular brute like some of his contemporaries.
At least, as far as I'm aware?
Not being ridiculously larger than a Primaris is a plus in my book, he's plenty large enough. Discounting the tactical rock, a bladeguards eye-line is about at his neck/chin, which is fine. According to the HH books, Johnson is 10 foot high, while Primaris sit somewhere between 7 and 8, so he should not totally dwarf them on the tabletop - he looks noticeably bigger, which probably is the right impression, if he were a grotesque giant that was half-again as large as the marines he's riding with that would just seem wrong.
I dunno about canon. In my head canon they're equal, and according to current 30k gamescale Lion is a lot bigger (below) but the caveat is they mostly started smaller and got larger toward the end, not necessarily correlating with fluff. Like I'd say I'd prefer them to be pretty much equal.
Abaddon is a head shorter than Guilliman and he'll be shorter than the Lion too. Lion's looks smaller because of his narrow stance and his front leg being bent.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JWBS wrote: I dunno about canon. In my head canon they're equal, and according to current 30k gamescale Lion is a lot bigger (below) but the caveat is they mostly started smaller and got larger toward the end, not necessarily correlating with fluff. Like I'd say I'd prefer them to be pretty much equal.
That's just down to scale creep. In Unremembered Empire (I think) Guilliman greets the Lion and notices he (Lion) is slightly taller than him, so they're basically the same height.
40K Guilliman is very much not in the standing tall straight up position. Personally I think Guilliman looks a lot bigger despite the wide legs stance.
I agree, but it'll be 5 Flamer guys and 3 Terminators. Plus Hormagaunts.
I think everything in that trailer will be in the box, bar maybe the Norn Thingy, which will be a Silent King style release (with the attendant price tag... ).
Here is a Guilliman repose I did a few years back, combined elements of the 30K model as well. I think the biggest reason people don't like 40K Guilliman is his gakky pose, he looks so much better standing normally.
Also his stupid arm cannon, that thing is awful looking.
Also the massive 60mm base, I hate the trend of "its center-piece model, stick it on 60mm base!" 50mm looks much cleaner imo
Here is a Guilliman repose I did a few years back, combined elements of the 30K model as well. I think the biggest reason people don't like 40K Guilliman is his gakky pose, he looks so much better standing normally.
Also his stupid arm cannon, that thing is awful looking.
Also the massive 60mm base, I hate the trend of "its center-piece model, stick it on 60mm base!" 50mm looks much cleaner imo
Here is a Guilliman repose I did a few years back, combined elements of the 30K model as well. I think the biggest reason people don't like 40K Guilliman is his gakky pose, he looks so much better standing normally.
Also his stupid arm cannon, that thing is awful looking.
Also the massive 60mm base, I hate the trend of "its center-piece model, stick it on 60mm base!" 50mm looks much cleaner imo
Midnightdeathblade wrote: Here is a Guilliman repose I did a few years back, combined elements of the 30K model as well. I think the biggest reason people don't like 40K Guilliman is his gakky pose, he looks so much better standing normally.
Also his stupid arm cannon, that thing is awful looking.
Also the massive 60mm base, I hate the trend of "its center-piece model, stick it on 60mm base!" 50mm looks much cleaner imo
That looks great. The pose is definitely the weakest part of the 40k Guilliman model, I don’t mind the rest of it (especially once the helmets on).
the context was the Magic the Gathering while being around for a long time still uses the same rules, while their card system is similar to the Codex systems but a new Edition does not mean a new game with a different core were everything is replaced
hence the cards that are phased out and replaced are obsolete paper same as a Codex is obsolete paper but of course you can use both at home to play or for certain events without the need to buy something new
Does it actually matter how they do codexes? There are so many that it would take them ~2 years if they released one a month, and we're on a 3-year edition cycle. So either they focus on getting them out, or they delay. It all depends on if they can keep themselves in check for reworking everything with the Codex and adding more nonsense to it. If they can restrain themselves (the ideal situation), then it won't matter so much if they delay a release since you're not getting much on top of the index, which remains the core set and the codex just adds some minor extras.
This is GW, however, so who knows? They have shown for the past 20+ years they can't exercise restraint. And, worse, they show that even if they start with some restraint, they'll change their tune later. So we have two things to watch for:
- Marine and (presumably) Nid codexes being the first, to give a base indication of what the Codex will contain - Codexes roughly 6 months to a year in, so we can see if they stay the same or if they change direction midway through and start adding more crap to the codexes
Gene St. Ealer wrote: Let's get the scenario right, though. I am the manager of the project and I have a team with decades of experience and history working for me. While yes, I'd expect the team to listen to my requests and fix what is broken, I'd also expect them to use their experience, history, and context to not simply turn 90 degrees and do the exact opposite of what they did before. I would expect the magnitude of the mistakes to decrease. I don't think that's the case with GW.
I think people should reflect more on the history of GW from 3rd to 7th. It isn't as rosy as nostalgia makes it. That 'experience' was during a time when GW took NO feedback and barely ever attempted to maintain the game through an edition even before the debacle of 7th. The community constantly had to make their own FAQs and point adjustments. Remember comp scores?
There's a lot of new blood on that team based on job openings.
Not true in 3rd- GW released frequent feedback and rules tweaks in White Dwarf, then compiled in the three Chapter Approved annuals. This interaction was maintained in other game systems like BFG too over this period (1998-2004). 3rd edition is my favourite for tone and lore and I don't think this is a coincidence.
For 40k, this seems to have ended when Andy Chambers stepped down as lead rules developer. The 4th ed rulebook was the last thing he worked on, and the tone and interaction started to shift from there.
Wayniac wrote: Does it actually matter how they do codexes? There are so many that it would take them ~2 years if they released one a month, and we're on a 3-year edition cycle. So either they focus on getting them out, or they delay. It all depends on if they can keep themselves in check for reworking everything with the Codex and adding more nonsense to it. If they can restrain themselves (the ideal situation), then it won't matter so much if they delay a release since you're not getting much on top of the index, which remains the core set and the codex just adds some minor extras.
They don't have to restrain. The codex creep is feature. Not a bug.
Gene St. Ealer wrote: Let's get the scenario right, though. I am the manager of the project and I have a team with decades of experience and history working for me. While yes, I'd expect the team to listen to my requests and fix what is broken, I'd also expect them to use their experience, history, and context to not simply turn 90 degrees and do the exact opposite of what they did before. I would expect the magnitude of the mistakes to decrease. I don't think that's the case with GW.
I think people should reflect more on the history of GW from 3rd to 7th. It isn't as rosy as nostalgia makes it. That 'experience' was during a time when GW took NO feedback and barely ever attempted to maintain the game through an edition even before the debacle of 7th. The community constantly had to make their own FAQs and point adjustments. Remember comp scores?
There's a lot of new blood on that team based on job openings.
Not true in 3rd- GW released frequent feedback and rules tweaks in White Dwarf, then compiled in the three Chapter Approved annuals. This interaction was maintained in other game systems like BFG too over this period (1998-2004). 3rd edition is my favourite for tone and lore and I don't think this is a coincidence.
For 40k, this seems to have ended when Andy Chambers stepped down as lead rules developer. The 4th ed rulebook was the last thing he worked on, and the tone and interaction started to shift from there.
That was also at a time that online communities were either in their absolute infancy or non-existent, so stuff like 'hotfix' pdfs or errata was practically impossible because you had to rely on outlets like printed White Dwarfs or Annuals/Compendiums to reach sizeable numbers of players. Today's state is a luxury compared to that simply because you can roll out stuff like that over the App or whatever. It's not so much that they did not want to take feedback, it was more the case that the lead times involved rendered most of it mute by the time it could be rolled out. 2-3 months of lead time in magazine printing meant that from the decision to make a call for feedback till the release of the reaction to it could easily take a year or more, which was about 1/3 of an editions lifetime...
Not true in 3rd- GW released frequent feedback and rules tweaks in White Dwarf, then compiled in the three Chapter Approved annuals. This interaction was maintained in other game systems like BFG too over this period (1998-2004). 3rd edition is my favourite for tone and lore and I don't think this is a coincidence.
During 3rd edition you could also still write to GW with any rules queries and they would send a letter back with answers and clarifications.
They were written by customer service guys rather than the studio, and were often wrong or contradictory, but it was a nice idea...
Not true in 3rd- GW released frequent feedback and rules tweaks in White Dwarf, then compiled in the three Chapter Approved annuals. This interaction was maintained in other game systems like BFG too over this period (1998-2004). 3rd edition is my favourite for tone and lore and I don't think this is a coincidence.
During 3rd edition you could also still write to GW with any rules queries and they would send a letter back with answers and clarifications.
They were written by customer service guys rather than the studio, and were often wrong or contradictory, but it was a nice idea...
It might have been a Germany-specific thing -at the time Germany had their own WD editiorial team and region-specific content, and the team also did a majority of translations for printed products- but many Codexes and Rulebooks came with pre-printed feedback postcards you could send in for free.
insaniak wrote: During 3rd edition you could also still write to GW with any rules queries and they would send a letter back with answers and clarifications.
"Ask a Roolzboy a question, and you will get three answers, each one different and wrong." - ancient Eldar saying.
Haighus wrote: I particularly appreciated the attempts to explain reasoning for many decisions...
Their use of fluff to justify rules mechanics was endlessly frustrating.
"Being angry can't make a jump pack fly faster" was their idiotic reasoning (ie. not at all based in the rules) for why Daemonic Flight wasn't affected by Blood Rage. Never mind the fact that Daemonic Flight was an abstracted mutation that could represent wings as well as jump packs.
"It was a misprint!" was their justification for changing Oblits from T5 to T4(5). Utter rot.
Tsagualsa wrote: 2-3 months of lead time in magazine printing meant that from the decision to make a call for feedback till the release of the reaction to it could easily take a year or more, which was about 1/3 of an editions lifetime...
Well more like 1/5. GW didn't have 3 year cycle then. 5 years 2nd ed, 6 for 3rd. Next 2 were 4 years. Then it became to 2-3 year cycle.
Haighus wrote: I particularly appreciated the attempts to explain reasoning for many decisions...
Their use of fluff to justify rules mechanics was endlessly frustrating.
"Being angry can't make a jump pack fly faster" was their idiotic reasoning (ie. not at all based in the rules) for why Daemonic Flight wasn't affected by Blood Rage. Never mind the fact that Daemonic Flight was an abstracted mutation that could represent wings as well as jump packs.
"It was a misprint!" was their justification for changing Oblits from T5 to T4(5). Utter rot.
Eh, some bad calls doesn't mean a lack of reasoning isn't generally worse than no reasoning. The bad call would have happened either way.
In the absence of any substantial 10th edition news, here's some speculation on the Screamer-Killer size, based on the flimsy assumption that they wanted their trailer to have a correct scale of everything:
New short video from Valrak: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4wruO7lmig Mostly just talking about the disappointing Lion's Guard box, but he mentions that there apparently is a complete leak of the 10th edition book online somewhere, so be prepared!
One thing I have not seen posited about the new Terminators...the Storm Bolters...do we think the barrels come pre moulded with holes? They look shallower and wider than traditional hand drilled barrels to me.
MajorWesJanson wrote: I wonder if this will be an ETB sprue version like the Assault Intercessors or Outriders.
Yeah. The poses are repeated between the different colour schemes, and the shoulder pads aren’t as separated as a full kit would be - looks like the arms are one piece.
Call me a grognard, but man, those are the best SM models GW released since I can't even tell when. And I say that as someone who adores the basic Primaris marines.
NAVARRO wrote: Yeah same poses. Wonder if this is not going to be one of those monopose with weird awkward cuts.
Arms look like they go on flat on both sides. Probably not much more complicated than the Space Marine Heroes versions I would think though.
Bet this unit is what shows up in the Elite and Command edition Starters, but not the recruit.
H.B.M.C. wrote: This has nothing to do with pleasing "every facet of people in this hobby", so please, don't bother finishing your towering man of straw, because he's unnecessary.
I don't think that's a strawman at all. There are people here that would clearly prefer a full reverse back to old editions. There are others who would prefer an even greater narrative focus and no tournament style rules - beer and pretzels only. It'd be quite difficult to please everyone.
Listening and understanding are two different things, and has been long established, GW don't play the same game as the rest of us, so any feedback they've received likely to be misinterpreted or acted on in an impulsive and over-compensatory manner.
This makes the assumption that they don't understand. That is unknowable.
Yes, there are / were designers who had a more beer and pretzels approach to design and balance - an actual part of the community as noted above. It seems pretty evident to me that there are new people that have established a more tempering influence.
So many people have opinions on things that stand in opposition. Often people hate tournament rules, but want balance and more options and more narrative terrain.
Cutting down armies to two pages of rules, and absolutely gutting the strats, warlord traits, relics and psychic powers. This is the hard pendulum swing GW that so many of us expect, and that so many of us dread. There's no attempt to engage with or fix the problems of 9th; they just throw them out the window and start with a clean slate, hoping for the best, hoping that maybe this time they'll get it right.
Wait, are you saying there's not too many stratagems? There isn't too much AP? There isn't too much bloat?
What then are the problems of 9th and how would you fix them?
When you say there's not an attempt to engage it sounds a lot to me like 'they aren't doing exactly what I want them to do' even when they're directly addressing items that have been common complaints on this forum.
It'll be great this time. Honest! Here have (temporarily) free rules to distract you from the fact that your AUD$80+ hardbacks and expensive card packs are worth less than the paper they're printed on, some only months after they were released. Pay no attention to the fact that we've done this over and over again, and that we were already planning this a year into 9th, and we'll be writing 11th a year into 10th. No, this time - this time! - it'll be good.
You'll get no opposition from me on GW's fairly bs book release model.
But aside from that? 8th was great, despite it's flaws. 9th was great, despite it's flaws. And so were 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th - despite their own numerous flaws. All those things were enjoyable in the time that I played them and people largely wouldn't be here if they didn't also.
but as I said, they're just tossing everything overboard and going back to the drawing board and why should we trust that this time it'll be better? And why are you so willing to trust them this time?
But that's hyperbole, right? They didn't toss everything overboard. This is the same system, but just reduced to be more manageable.
The Tyranid codex was a really great book with some fantastic ideas, but it was also a huge minefield of rules interactions that become incredibly hard to juggle.
I am going to miss being able to pick my Cults. I don't know how they will reintroduce these things.
I don't know how I feel about not being able to choose my spells, but I do welcome the ability for psyker light armies to still be effective instead of being perma-denied by me.
I will miss a lot of my relics. I didn't take most of them, but I did like thinking about using them.
No one is expecting people to trust a corporation, but there's being cautious and there's being negative. I choose to be cautious and optimistic, because that's how I prefer to approach my hobby in an increasingly gakky world. I prefer to doomscroll outside of Warhammer.
Here is a Guilliman repose I did a few years back, combined elements of the 30K model as well. I think the biggest reason people don't like 40K Guilliman is his gakky pose, he looks so much better standing normally.
Also his stupid arm cannon, that thing is awful looking.
Also the massive 60mm base, I hate the trend of "its center-piece model, stick it on 60mm base!" 50mm looks much cleaner imo
New short video from Valrak: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4wruO7lmig Mostly just talking about the disappointing Lion's Guard box, but he mentions that there apparently is a complete leak of the 10th edition book online somewhere, so be prepared!
New short video from Valrak: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4wruO7lmig Mostly just talking about the disappointing Lion's Guard box, but he mentions that there apparently is a complete leak of the 10th edition book online somewhere, so be prepared!
Time to monitor 4chan!
I specifically meant 'Be prepared and don't jump on the first obvious fake'
New short video from Valrak: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4wruO7lmig Mostly just talking about the disappointing Lion's Guard box, but he mentions that there apparently is a complete leak of the 10th edition book online somewhere, so be prepared!
Time to monitor 4chan!
And I'd like to thank the brave souls that do while I'm at work and can't access it as well. Being on my phone for hours on end ain't a good look LOL
New short video from Valrak: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4wruO7lmig Mostly just talking about the disappointing Lion's Guard box, but he mentions that there apparently is a complete leak of the 10th edition book online somewhere, so be prepared!
Time to monitor 4chan!
I specifically meant 'Be prepared and don't jump on the first obvious fake'
Given Saturday is the day of lying liars who lie, its time to go into the mode where everything posted is potentially a 'joke'
MajorWesJanson wrote: I wonder if this will be an ETB sprue version like the Assault Intercessors or Outriders.
Yeah. The poses are repeated between the different colour schemes, and the shoulder pads aren’t as separated as a full kit would be - looks like the arms are one piece.
Also unit wide tactical rocks, don't really recall those outside of ETB kits.
Because Primarch I guess.
I guess they have Devil May Cry on the Rock or something, because Johnson is just doing swordmaster style moves.
It seems he doesn't have guns though, which is a good thing because then he'll just do Rain Storm across the battlefield.
No shooting and no durability like Abaddon. Honestly it's probably overkill for anything but the hardest units so it's kind of meh.
To say Abby has shooting is a bit generous, but okay.
I believe he meant that like Abaddon, Johnson has no shooting nor durability.
Which does seem to be the case; He only has a 4+ invul with no resurrection compared to Roboute who has a 3+ invul and that revive ability, he only has T6 compared to Morty's T8 and Magnus's T7 and he much fewer wounds than both of them. Oh, and no psionics at all.
Still pretty silly that he has 10 attacks though. I can't help imagining him doing Million Stab, because how else would that work?
Interesting that he has LD11. I think that's the first time a model has a LD stat greater than 10? Not counting Mob Rule, obviously.
Those rules really don't fit the model. That random sword is better than Drach'nyen, and the shield is really underwhelming.
I would think that he would have a much more balanced offensive and defensive loadout given his major relic is the shield. Mortals on a save of 6+ is pretty corny for the emperor's shield.
Also, he would get completely flattened by Abaddon in two turns of close combat with those rules.
No shooting and no durability like Abaddon. Honestly it's probably overkill for anything but the hardest units so it's kind of meh.
To say Abby has shooting is a bit generous, but okay.
I believe he meant that like Abaddon, Johnson has no shooting nor durability.
Which does seem to be the case; He only has a 4+ invul with no resurrection compared to Roboute who has a 3+ invul and that revive ability, he only has T6 compared to Morty's T8 and Magnus's T7 and he much fewer wounds than both of them. Oh, and no psionics at all.
Still pretty silly that he has 10 attacks though. I can't help imagining him doing Million Stab, because how else would that work?
Interesting that he has LD11. I think that's the first time a model has a LD stat greater than 10? Not counting Mob Rule, obviously.
No shooting and no durability like Abaddon. Honestly it's probably overkill for anything but the hardest units so it's kind of meh.
To say Abby has shooting is a bit generous, but okay.
Right, but the whole sheet is a cumulative thing. Abby has phase limited damage, 0 damage once per turn, and -1 to wound under most cases where it matters.
His melee is a bit worse, but he does have shooting and lots of extra durability to cover that gap.
Lord Damocles wrote: Ah yes: The Emperor's Shield. That well known relic that we're all aware of, and totally hasn't just been made up because Big Dude #2 had a free hand.
You know how in RPGs you give your companions gear you don't want or need anymore? Maybe it's like that.
Lord Damocles wrote: Ah yes: The Emperor's Shield. That well known relic that we're all aware of, and totally hasn't just been made up because Big Dude #2 had a free hand.
I mean, it's in this well-known artwork if you can accept that the Emperor is about 45 meters tall:
Not many people know that, but the Emperor class titan is called that because just like the Emperor's, his legs could fit whole companies of guardsmen inside
Usually you parry with a sword, not with a shield. It's a fencing move.
Shield parries are a Dark Souls thing.
It's a figure of speech, but yes, you could broadly deflect a sword stroke with a shield, the same as you could with a sword. They don't use shields in traditional fencing unless it's HEMA, but in HEMA obviously they use shields to deflect and follow up with a sword blow, control the opponent's weapon, or use the shield to provide cover while striking in much the same way as you would with a sword.
The point is, you would think his defensive rules would be encompassed by his shield. If it says 4+ invulnerable save, that says to me that's probably what he gets. Maybe they'll add a -1 to hit in close combat or something to his datasheet.
Lord Damocles wrote: Ah yes: The Emperor's Shield. That well known relic that we're all aware of, and totally hasn't just been made up because Big Dude #2 had a free hand.
Spoiler:
Oh, right. The Emperor's Shield. The Shield of the Emperor, the Shield chosen especially to be wielded by the Emperor, the Emperor's Shield. That Shield?
Sorry, I saw your post and this is immediately where my mind went to.
Usually you parry with a sword, not with a shield. It's a fencing move.
Shield parries are a Dark Souls thing.
It's a figure of speech, but yes, you could broadly deflect a sword stroke with a shield, the same as you could with a sword. They don't use shields in traditional fencing unless it's HEMA, but in HEMA obviously they use shields to deflect and follow up with a sword blow, control the opponent's weapon, or use the shield to provide cover while striking in much the same way as you would with a sword.
The point is, you would think his defensive rules would be encompassed by his shield. If it says 4+ invulnerable save, that says to me that's probably what he gets. Maybe they'll add a -1 to hit in close combat or something to his datasheet.
Fair enough, a shield could be used that way, yes.
I was thinking along more of the traditional parry, as used in fencing, because he is known as the "Duelist"
When I hear duelist, I think fencing.
As for the shield, I'm not sure it would encompass all defensive rules. Against ranged, sure, but specifically in melee? That would be when he could use a hypothetical parry move.
Lord Damocles wrote: Ah yes: The Emperor's Shield. That well known relic that we're all aware of, and totally hasn't just been made up because Big Dude #2 had a free hand.
It’s from his pre-Emperor time. Isn’t he Saint George? One of those gates on Terra has a giant mural of him fighting a serpent
Lord Damocles wrote: Ah yes: The Emperor's Shield. That well known relic that we're all aware of, and totally hasn't just been made up because Big Dude #2 had a free hand.
The Emperor has always been shown with a shield, though.
The one on his shoulder....and his equipment is capable of changing size to fit the user.
Lord Damocles wrote: Ah yes: The Emperor's Shield. That well known relic that we're all aware of, and totally hasn't just been made up because Big Dude #2 had a free hand.
The Emperor has always been shown with a shield, though.
The one on his shoulder....and his equipment is capable of changing size to fit the user.
At this point of empowerment it's practically a demonic gift of the God-Emperor, i'd wager.
Also, nobody seems to bat an eyelid at mysterious forest-based warp teleportation, but a fancy shield for a swordsman is just a bridge too far...
Lord Damocles wrote: Ah yes: The Emperor's Shield. That well known relic that we're all aware of, and totally hasn't just been made up because Big Dude #2 had a free hand.
The Emperor has always been shown with a shield, though.
The one on his shoulder....and his equipment is capable of changing size to fit the user.
Back in MY DAY, the Emperor and all his Primarchs were the same size as other humans, and could blend in with the population if they weren't all the time being awesomely badass.
If the Emps can undergo 40 years of scale creep, why not the little shield he had on his shoulder?
"We heard you all think 40k is too lethal, so we are toning it down..."
"...Also btw the Lion has 10 WS2+ S10 AP-5 4 damage attacks, or 20 WS2+ S6 AP-3 2 damage attacks."
In the world of Abaddon, the Avatar of Khaine etc this is much of a muchness, but it does feel a bit silly, even if as Daedalus says it will just annihilate something for massive overkill a lot of the time.
The model looks great, but I wonder how many folks will be willing to remove @ 10 Terminators from their lists to field him? I'm assuming a 300-350 points cost.
Tyel wrote: "We heard you all think 40k is too lethal, so we are toning it down..."
"...Also btw the Lion has 10 WS2+ S10 AP-5 4 damage attacks, or 20 WS2+ S6 AP-3 2 damage attacks."
In the world of Abaddon, the Avatar of Khaine etc this is much of a muchness, but it does feel a bit silly, even if as Daedalus says it will just annihilate something for massive overkill a lot of the time.
Ironically, even though Abaddon does less raw damage, Abaddon could easily down Lion if the rules revealed so far are all there is. Just did some quick mathhammer.
Tyel wrote: "We heard you all think 40k is too lethal, so we are toning it down..."
"...Also btw the Lion has 10 WS2+ S10 AP-5 4 damage attacks, or 20 WS2+ S6 AP-3 2 damage attacks."
In the world of Abaddon, the Avatar of Khaine etc this is much of a muchness, but it does feel a bit silly, even if as Daedalus says it will just annihilate something for massive overkill a lot of the time.
Ironically, even though Abaddon does less raw damage, Abaddon could easily down Lion if the rules revealed so far are all there is. Just did some quick mathhammer.
Yeah, hopefully The Lion also has some wound-lock mechanism as well.
I’m just going to say it…. The terminators are dull. Not a bad thing for most chapters but I’d much rather stick with Deathwing box with all the extra goodness.
As for the Lion, really shocked he doesn’t have more of a defensive capability. -1 to hit for swordsmanship etc.
He’s a blender but I truly expected better defensive stats, and yes, the shield is pretty weak. No wonder the Emperor didn’t use it!
Tyel wrote: "We heard you all think 40k is too lethal, so we are toning it down..."
"...Also btw the Lion has 10 WS2+ S10 AP-5 4 damage attacks, or 20 WS2+ S6 AP-3 2 damage attacks."
In the world of Abaddon, the Avatar of Khaine etc this is much of a muchness, but it does feel a bit silly, even if as Daedalus says it will just annihilate something for massive overkill a lot of the time.
I am super curious on how they'll handle datasheets of big hitters like this. It'd be nice if they tossed us the 10th datasheet at the same time as these ones.
bullyboy wrote: I’m just going to say it…. The terminators are dull. Not a bad thing for most chapters but I’d much rather stick with Deathwing box with all the extra goodness.
As for the Lion, really shocked he doesn’t have more of a defensive capability. -1 to hit for swordsmanship etc.
He’s a blender but I truly expected better defensive stats, and yes, the shield is pretty weak. No wonder the Emperor didn’t use it!
I suspect these are ETB, and may not be the general release unit.
But I do appreciate they seem better proportioned, and the shoulders look to be more realistically positioned.
bullyboy wrote: I’m just going to say it…. The terminators are dull. Not a bad thing for most chapters but I’d much rather stick with Deathwing box with all the extra goodness.
As for the Lion, really shocked he doesn’t have more of a defensive capability. -1 to hit for swordsmanship etc.
He’s a blender but I truly expected better defensive stats, and yes, the shield is pretty weak. No wonder the Emperor didn’t use it!
I suspect these are ETB, and may not be the general release unit.
But I do appreciate they seem better proportioned, and the shoulders look to be more realistically positioned.
I'm almost certain they are ETB, I don't recall a multi build unit (not character) with tactical rocks, and several of the termis have them.
Edit: I still believe they are ETB, if for nothing less than they are almost certain to be included in the launch box, and those have been ETB for several editions now. However I will not the Eliminators and Blade guard to a lesser extent have tactical rock in the multipart kits, however, they are also a single model per small sprue and are three man kits. I can't see them taking that approach to a five man termi box.
At some point, there has to a game - somewhere - that takes it's narrative inspiration from the Battle Royales from the Anchorman movies. All the Primarchs returned and with their Chapter buddies.
"The rumour engine has it that you're about to be spanked by a superior Chapter; THE DARK ANGELS!"
Tyel wrote: "We heard you all think 40k is too lethal, so we are toning it down..."
"...Also btw the Lion has 10 WS2+ S10 AP-5 4 damage attacks, or 20 WS2+ S6 AP-3 2 damage attacks."
In the world of Abaddon, the Avatar of Khaine etc this is much of a muchness, but it does feel a bit silly, even if as Daedalus says it will just annihilate something for massive overkill a lot of the time.
I'm not one to defend GW, but this IS an iteration for his release at the end of the edition.
Ya not a fan of wird forest path stuff why not just have him do what he always does perma kill demons and be too fast to be hit/ block everthing? O and smack heads off.
Also why is the emperor's sheild so weak? Up to 3 mortals on rolls of 6??? 4++??? Lame.
I think the small shield on the emperor in the painting is meant to be a Besagew, not an actual shield. A part of the armor to protect the armpit in medieval armor. The Lion’s shield does look different too. Imho
Grzzldgamerps5 wrote: I think the small shield on the emperor in the painting is meant to be a Besagew, not an actual shield. A part of the armor to protect the armpit in medieval armor. The Lion’s shield does look different too. Imho
That was the joke...because the emperor never uses or is even said to have a shield in any of the lore or art prior to the current era.
He had (in 3rd ed at least) the "Tempest Blade", and his powerfist/built in special storm bolter "Purity Fist/Purgator".....little hard to use a shield with that loadout.
The Emperor is depicted with a shield on the eternity gate, which I'm pretty sure is at least early 90's artwork. It could be a ceremonial thing that he never used in battle.
drbored wrote: The very last thing to come out of 9th, Lion's profile, for the 2-3 months we'll use it before it all gets Indexed anyway.
Will be interesting to see the difference in the Index and then the eventual Dark Angels codex/supplement.
Will many people get to use those stats in 9th?
I thought I read he was coming out in a limited edition box (as per usual GW practice now), then will be released 'later'. Isn't that usually a few months? We'll be in 10th by then.
xttz wrote: The Emperor is depicted with a shield on the eternity gate, which I'm pretty sure is at least early 90's artwork. It could be a ceremonial thing that he never used in battle.
I assume you mean this image of a greco/roman visage of the emperor striking down the dragon of chaos.
This is interpretive art built after his internment on the golden throne. nowhere that i am aware of did he ever use(or need) a shield, ceremonial or otherwise.
The Emperor had a vault of weapons that he chose from. He had favorites, and older stuff he got better versions of over time. Remember he gave Leman Russ his old spear, and I don't remember any artwork with a spear holding Emperor.
cuda1179 wrote: The Emperor had a vault of weapons that he chose from. He had favorites, and older stuff he got better versions of over time. Remember he gave Leman Russ his old spear, and I don't remember any artwork with a spear holding Emperor.
Like the Primarchs and other high dignitaries, he surely got and gave a constant stream of gifts, tributes, spoils of war and the like, with a lot of wargear surely among them. He also crafted stuff himself quite regularly during the great crusade, or had it crafted specifically for the Primarchs.
drbored wrote: The very last thing to come out of 9th, Lion's profile, for the 2-3 months we'll use it before it all gets Indexed anyway.
Will be interesting to see the difference in the Index and then the eventual Dark Angels codex/supplement.
Will many people get to use those stats in 9th?
I thought I read he was coming out in a limited edition box (as per usual GW practice now), then will be released 'later'. Isn't that usually a few months? We'll be in 10th by then.
The people who buy the limited edition box will still be able to use him in 9th, even if it is a limited time.
xttz wrote: The Emperor is depicted with a shield on the eternity gate, which I'm pretty sure is at least early 90's artwork. It could be a ceremonial thing that he never used in battle.
I assume you mean this image of a greco/roman visage of the emperor striking down the dragon of chaos.
This is interpretive art built after his internment on the golden throne. nowhere that i am aware of did he ever use(or need) a shield, ceremonial or otherwise.
Spoiler:
For what it's worth - it's generally said that this shows The Emperor as Saint George slaying the dragon.
I don't know if we can say for certain that art was commissioned post his internment on the golden throne anyway. This "he's never ever ever had a shield before" thing is inaccurate at best I think
Did the Emporer fight on the front lines in his wars of conquest? Yes
Do we know an account of every single one of those battles in detail? No
Is it safe to assume at one point he may have used a Shield? Yes or No... Depends how incredibly anal you are about lore needing a verified citation at all times.
Billicus wrote: I don't know if we can say for certain that art was commissioned post his internment on the golden throne anyway. This "he's never ever ever had a shield before" thing is inaccurate at best I think
The artwork is from 2nd edition, by John Blanche, and depicts the Eternity Gate.
It is also noticeably older than any of the fluff around the C'tan and the Void Dragon - the 'Dragon' in this case is Horus, depicted as the treasonous Serpent, and also as the Beast of Revelation from the biblical apocalypse. You'll notice that the whole artwork includes a lot of christian symbols, for example several of the allegorical figures associated with the evangelists, or a slightly modified Shield of Trinity.
Back in the day, Horus was often called 'The Serpent' because snakes and serpents are strongly associated with treachery and deceit, this got more subdued or lost later on when the Horus Heresy background was fleshed out.
C'tan and Necrons arrived roughly a decade to fifteen years after this image was made, so in this case the relevance of the St.George-like pose is purely allegoric and metaphorical, even though later autors picked it up and retroactively intergrated it.
But let's get the really important part out of the way first:
WarCom wrote:Power Levels are a thing of the past – points are now the order of the day.
Good riddance!
I mean, "Epic Hero" isn't the title I'd've chosen, but whatever...
Anyway, 3 of the same Datasheet. So right now that could mean, for instance, 9 Gladiators in a single army. I have to imagine that the sheer amount of datasheets will go down. This would also mean that highly flexible units will be limited, whereas units with set, unchangeable wargear but small amounts of variants would be more flexible (eg. say there was a Marine tank that had a choice of turrets, and then 3 of the same Marine tank that was split over 3 different data sheets).
Either way, this seems like there could be some issues here. This is basically "take whatever you want" with some relatively minor restrictions, and I can't see there being any real balance in there. I expect exceptions to exceptions within the first FAQ.
The part I don't like though is this:
WarCom wrote:For instance, you might be playing as the Gladius Task Force of the Adeptus Astartes. Your faction gives you the Oath of Moment army rule (more on this next week!) while your Detachment gives you access to six unique Stratagems – on top of the core group in the main rules – as well as four exclusive Enhancements for your Space Marine characters. It also bags you the Combat Doctrines ability, which allows you to pick from three powerful doctrines during your Command phase.
If you chose to fight with a different Detachment, you’d replace the Strategems, Enhancements and Combat Doctrines with those of the new Detachment.
Detachment choice will very rarely be tied to an army colour scheme. So while Ultramarines might be the theoretical and practical masters of the Gladius Task Force, other Chapters can use it too – and the same will be true of many other detachments as they are added into the game. This also means that you can try multiple Detachments with a single army. You are not going to be locked into a single Detachment just because you painted your army blue, or red, or yellow.
Firstly, congratulations, your Chapter/Craftworld/Legion/etc. is meaningless now. You're just a paint job. Secondly, Detachments is a dirty word, and the stink of 7th Ed hasn't gone away.
Thirdly, what if I don't want to play a "Gladius Task Force" - a completely made up bit of fluff nonsense that you have arbitrarily attached special rules and strats to - and just want to fething play Ultramarines, or Deathwatch, or whatever? You've just said that my colour-scheme (ie. the Chapter I chose) means nothing, so... how do I play my army rather than these made-up nonsense formations?
And you know that within a day the best formations will be found and we'll be back to square one and people acting dumbfounded in "Metawatch" articles going "What we didn't expect was how few of the Formations people would use. To combat this we've changed blah blah blah...".
I'm cautiously optimistic myself. On the surface, it seems basically like 7th edition Unbound + Detachments (but not Formations), but I'm skeptical only because it seems a little TOO open and that means wide open to abuse. I mean, we know all too well that without restrictions the comp players will come up with the filthiest lists imaginable, so it becomes a question if the tournament pack will further refine this or not. Also curious if the subfaction-specific things will change certain parts. E.g. white scars detachment would treat bikers as battleline.
I dunno, it seems to be open to silly nonsense. For example, it looks like you can have an army of nothing but characters.
Note that it says at least one character, but up to three datasheets.
That means you have 3 of each non-special character.
Most armies have multiple character options.
So for Necrons I can have nothing but 3 skorpekh lords, 3 lokhust lords, 3 Overlords on a CCB, 3 Wardens, 24 crypteks, divided between Technomancers, Plasmamancers and Chronomancers and psychomancers (assuming the Dynastic advisors rules are still in place), 3 lords, and 3 overlords on foot.
Is it optimal? Probably not.
Is it silly as hell? Yes.
Wayniac wrote: I'm cautiously optimistic myself. On the surface, it seems basically like 7th edition Unbound + Detachments (but not Formations), but I'm skeptical only because it seems a little TOO open and that means wide open to abuse. I mean, we know all too well that without restrictions the comp players will come up with the filthiest lists imaginable, so it becomes a question if the tournament pack will further refine this or not. Also curious if the subfaction-specific things will change certain parts. E.g. white scars detachment would treat bikers as battleline.
But…and I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you? If everyone has the same lack of restriction, depending what is and isn’t battleline, army to army? You’re not necessarily going to be disadvantaged in terms of army selection options.
Mind, I see a difference between a Codex offering powerful combos, and a Codex offering only one powerful combo among the dross.
It also bags you the Combat Doctrines ability, which allows you to pick from three powerful doctrines during your Command phase.
If you chose to fight with a different Detachment, you’d replace the Strategems, Enhancements and Combat Doctrines with those of the new Detachment.
That's very close to where they lose me, that bulls**t multi-phase doctrine thing that many armies got and that feels like the 'phases' of some WoW raid boss or whatever is extremely unnecessary and very bad for mental load - if they now got dozens of variants of that for all sorts of formations it's just too much for my poor, addled brain. I don't like it, it turns a game into work for me.
Yeah that's my main concern with what they've revealed right now. No restrictions at all has been shown to be hugely bad, worse than having restrictions in the first place.
Getting some bad vibes from 4th edition Chaos here...
I’m guessing this means no more Troops/Elites/Fast Attack etc?
Looks like it, which is a pity.
There will most likely be a replacement term for them though that might have some rules interactions, like how Troops are now Battleline.
So 6 strats. 'Enhancements' will be a combination of relics and traits it seems.
Also no allies except summoned daemons, knights, and brood.
The only rules marines get in Gladius are Oaths and Combat Doctrines.
And it sounds like every datasheet is going to have a special ability so I wonder if stuff like Angels of Death will be USR somewhere or on the datasheet.
I’m guessing this means no more Troops/Elites/Fast Attack etc?
Looks like it, which is a pity.
There will most likely be a replacement term for them though that might have some rules interactions, like how Troops are now Battleline.
I wish they kept the old terms though.
Dunno, the weakness of the FOC has always been some armies having crap to middling troops, with all the juicy stuff crammed into Elites.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Anyway, 3 of the same Datasheet. So right now that could mean, for instance, 9 Gladiators in a single army.
I've been thinking about this for a while - it's good to finally know it's on datasheet at least.
With the new datasheet format they could more easily consolidate. Instead of needing a special rule for the Lancer's gun the datasheet just shows it at BS2.
So someone can still do a dreadnought army with 3 contemptors and 3 redemptors or w/e, but not 9 redemptors.
But otherwise like you mentioned this is an area where they could really screw the system if some armies get the same repetitive datasheets allowing more selections for spam.
Daedalus81 wrote: With the new datasheet format they could more easily consolidate. Instead of needing a special rule for the Lancer's gun the datasheet just shows it at BS2.
I thought the same thing, but it strengthens the idea of mono-pose optionless kits (non-modular Ork Buggies make more sense under this system than, say, the Carnifex kit!) and unless they consolidate data slates then we could see some very silly armies (Orks can take 3 Deff Dreads, but Marines can take 24* Dreads!).
This is a dark path...
[EDIT]: Plus the cynic in me cannot see this as a change made for the benefit of the game, for balance, or anything like that. More options for more things in your army sounds like "Find a way to make them buy more stuff" from someone above who doesn't give a gak about the rules. This is "Make the Wraithknight cheaper so more people buy it!" levels of bull gak.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Dunno, the weakness of the FOC has always been some armies having crap to middling troops, with all the juicy stuff crammed into Elites.
I am curious on how they'll make troops more appealing. It sounds good, at least.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Anyway, 3 of the same Datasheet. So right now that could mean, for instance, 9 Gladiators in a single army.
So someone can still do a dreadnought army with 3 contemptors and 3 redemptors or w/e, but not 9 redemptors.
We certainly know why the Closecombaticus Redemptor, the Shooticus and Sir Mixalot are all 'different' units instead of variant loadouts of one base entry...
H.B.M.C. wrote: Anyway, 3 of the same Datasheet. So right now that could mean, for instance, 9 Gladiators in a single army.
I've been thinking about this for a while - it's good to finally know it's on datasheet at least.
With the new datasheet format they could more easily consolidate. Instead of needing a special rule for the Lancer's gun the datasheet just shows it at BS2.
So someone can still do a dreadnought army with 3 contemptors and 3 redemptors or w/e, but not 9 redemptors.
But otherwise like you mentioned this is an area where they could really screw the system if some armies get the same repetitive datasheets allowing more selections for spam.
I for one would like a return of the old generic Cryptek datasheet, with the different disciplines being represented through gear.
That would avoid being able to take 12 crypteks which may be increased to 24, provided Dynastic Advisors is still a thing.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Dunno, the weakness of the FOC has always been some armies having crap to middling troops, with all the juicy stuff crammed into Elites.
I am curious on how they'll make troops more appealing. It sounds good, at least.
very high OC stat is my guess. And the only ones able to do actions (if those are still a thing) maybe?
and yeah, consolidating all those "same but with a different loadout" units would do wonders and i am fully expecting it to become a thing
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Dunno, the weakness of the FOC has always been some armies having crap to middling troops, with all the juicy stuff crammed into Elites.
I am curious on how they'll make troops more appealing. It sounds good, at least.
very high OC stat is my guess. And the only ones able to do actions (if those are still a thing) maybe?
and yeah, consolidating all those "same but with a different loadout" units would do wonders and i am fully expecting it to become a thing
I don't think the consolidation might be on the datasheet side, but rather the detachment side. We see this in AoS quite a bit, where a Warscroll Battalion lets you put 0-3 of <Insert Keyword Here> Heroes or 3-6 <Insert Unit Keyword in Bold Here> when it's a unit with multiple options(Vanguard-Raptors for Stormcast Eternals, for example).
IE:
A Space Marine Pew Pew Detachment can take up to 0-3 Redemptor Dreadnoughts of any type.
I don't think the consolidation might be on the datasheet side, but rather the detachment side. We see this in AoS quite a bit, where a Warscroll Battalion lets you put 0-3 of <Insert Keyword Here> Heroes or 3-6 <Insert Unit Keyword in Bold Here> when it's a unit with multiple options(Vanguard-Raptors for Stormcast Eternals, for example).
IE:
A Space Marine Pew Pew Detachment can take up to 0-3 Redemptor Dreadnoughts of any type.
you can have units outside of detachments in AoS tho, detachments are simply how you purchase certain buffs for your army.
I don't think the consolidation might be on the datasheet side, but rather the detachment side. We see this in AoS quite a bit, where a Warscroll Battalion lets you put 0-3 of <Insert Keyword Here> Heroes or 3-6 <Insert Unit Keyword in Bold Here> when it's a unit with multiple options(Vanguard-Raptors for Stormcast Eternals, for example).
IE:
A Space Marine Pew Pew Detachment can take up to 0-3 Redemptor Dreadnoughts of any type.
you can have units outside of detachments in AoS tho, detachments are simply how you purchase certain buffs for your army.
so if it was a 1-to-1 copy of the AoS system, you could bring
3 Shooty redemptors -> buy a buff
3 melee redemptors -> buy a buff
3 hybrid redemptors -> buy a buff
I reckon your chosen detachment will define your Battleline, without otherwise altering a units data card info.
For instance, Iyanden may allow Wraith Constructs to count as Battleline, but not tinker with their OC rating. This would allow you to theme quite nicely, without entirely removing the usefulness of Guardians, assuming they have a solid OC rating,
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: For instance, Iyanden may allow Wraith Constructs to count as Battleline, but not tinker with their OC rating. This would allow you to theme quite nicely, without entirely removing the usefulness of Guardians, assuming they have a solid OC rating,
I hope they have the balls to make changes to organisation and what counts and doesn't count as "Battleline" depending on the type of army you're taking. And this also assumes that Iyanden is something that continues to exist, rather than the "Ghost Warrior Warhost" or some other such nonsense name that they pull out of thing air.
I’m guessing this means no more Troops/Elites/Fast Attack etc?
Looks like it, which is a pity.
There will most likely be a replacement term for them though that might have some rules interactions, like how Troops are now Battleline.
I wish they kept the old terms though.
Dunno, the weakness of the FOC has always been some armies having crap to middling troops, with all the juicy stuff crammed into Elites.
Most of the time you would find the cheapest troop so you could focus on the meat of the army. Want to use some sweet Eldar Aspect Warriors? They come with 15 rangers that you have to have.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: For instance, Iyanden may allow Wraith Constructs to count as Battleline, but not tinker with their OC rating. This would allow you to theme quite nicely, without entirely removing the usefulness of Guardians, assuming they have a solid OC rating,
I hope they have the balls to make changes to organisation and what counts and doesn't count as "Battleline" depending on the type of army you're taking. And this also assumes that Iyanden is something that continues to exist, rather than the "Ghost Warrior Warhost" or some other such nonsense name that they pull out of thing air.
Since they are calling it Battleline I imagine they are importing some of the rulings from AoS. In AoS certain type of heroes can make certain units into Battleline. F.ex. if I have a Herald on Bloodcrusher my Bloodcrushers become battleline. A subfaction in Idoneth makes Leviadons into Battlelines and so on and so on.
I fully expect some armies to have their subfactions replaced with detachments based on army concepts that literally no one asked for. Like a detachment for Haarken Wordlclaimer's warband but nothing for Night Lords.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: For instance, Iyanden may allow Wraith Constructs to count as Battleline, but not tinker with their OC rating. This would allow you to theme quite nicely, without entirely removing the usefulness of Guardians, assuming they have a solid OC rating,
I hope they have the balls to make changes to organisation and what counts and doesn't count as "Battleline" depending on the type of army you're taking. And this also assumes that Iyanden is something that continues to exist, rather than the "Ghost Warrior Warhost" or some other such nonsense name that they pull out of thing air.
Eh, you can get annoyed at naming all you want, but explicitly not linking rules to paint instead of the heavily implied rules linked to paint of 9th, well it’s a net positive. You can now (theoretically) easily run a Biel Tan Wraithhost if that’s where your fluff/models loves intersect, without anyone having a whinge. That’s cool.
Abadabadoobaddon wrote: I fully expect some armies to have their subfactions replaced with detachments based on army concepts that literally no one asked for. Like a detachment for Haarken Wordlclaimer's warband but nothing for Night Lords.
Why get caught up by the name if it's a set of rules that give you what you want? i.e. if "worldtakers" undoubtedly does a load of stuff for jump pack units etc, then you'd just pick it for night lords?
I don't think the consolidation might be on the datasheet side, but rather the detachment side. We see this in AoS quite a bit, where a Warscroll Battalion lets you put 0-3 of <Insert Keyword Here> Heroes or 3-6 <Insert Unit Keyword in Bold Here> when it's a unit with multiple options(Vanguard-Raptors for Stormcast Eternals, for example).
IE:
A Space Marine Pew Pew Detachment can take up to 0-3 Redemptor Dreadnoughts of any type.
you can have units outside of detachments in AoS tho, detachments are simply how you purchase certain buffs for your army.
so if it was a 1-to-1 copy of the AoS system, you could bring
3 Shooty redemptors -> buy a buff
3 melee redemptors -> buy a buff
3 hybrid redemptors -> buy a buff
in your overall army if you wanted
Warhammer Community wrote:Instead of choosing a subfaction or constructing your own, you now choose a single set of Detachment rules for your whole army. These include special abilities, Enhancements, Stratagems, and unit restrictions.
In AoS, WSB are optional. It does not look to be the same here.
Frankly? I think people might want to peek at the "Armies of Renown" we had been getting. Those seem to very, very, very much match what this has talked about today.
Not that anyone asked, but you’re getting My Thoughts So Far Summarised.
1. Army Selection is looking nice and flexible. Even without fancy Dan detachment rules, we’ll have a lot of freedom in what we can be arsed to paint and field.
2. Even with said Fancy Dan Detachment, any Stratagems we might want to use aren’t playing hide and seek. But are instead just there, on the sheet.
3. This is pleasing unto Nuggan. I won’t need a degree in Army Building to cobble something together.
4. No I don’t expect this to create perfect balance. Yes there will still be ways to abuse things. But that’s something I’ve long accepted as a fundamental truth of 40K.
5. This makes it easier for people to get into, and indeed easier to make us spend more money, as army builds are less slaved to a restrictive FOC. For instance, even without Fancy Dan Detachment, I can shake up an Eldar list by swapping out a Guardian unit for an Aspect, whereas currently, I also need to worry about which FOC slot is being swapped out.
I don't think the consolidation might be on the datasheet side, but rather the detachment side. We see this in AoS quite a bit, where a Warscroll Battalion lets you put 0-3 of <Insert Keyword Here> Heroes or 3-6 <Insert Unit Keyword in Bold Here> when it's a unit with multiple options(Vanguard-Raptors for Stormcast Eternals, for example).
IE:
A Space Marine Pew Pew Detachment can take up to 0-3 Redemptor Dreadnoughts of any type.
A) units don't have to be in detachment in aos B) not really all that specific. Hero, artillery, monster, hero with max 9 wounds, rest is standard. Some army specific like khorne mortal hero.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Maybe, 40k used to do that in 4th ed.
Warbosses could take Nobs as troops, for example.
Maybe Necrons will finally get Battleline Canoptek or Destroyers then to go with Cryptek armies and Destroyer cults respectively.
I don't see why 10th ed wouldn't have that. That was the point of Unbound, and when GW "reined" it back in, we got the specialist detachments that don't need Troops to facilitate the same thing. Arks of Omen are basically back to Unbound. GW very much likes for people to have the option to buy the models they want without any restrictions create the army of their dreams with no regard for how it affects the game. I have my doubts that this design brief is going away again. It's too profitable.
I don't think the consolidation might be on the datasheet side, but rather the detachment side. We see this in AoS quite a bit, where a Warscroll Battalion lets you put 0-3 of <Insert Keyword Here> Heroes or 3-6 <Insert Unit Keyword in Bold Here> when it's a unit with multiple options(Vanguard-Raptors for Stormcast Eternals, for example).
IE:
A Space Marine Pew Pew Detachment can take up to 0-3 Redemptor Dreadnoughts of any type.
A) units don't have to be in detachment in aos B) not really all that specific. Hero, artillery, monster, hero with max 9 wounds, rest is standard. Some army specific like khorne mortal hero.
No battalion fop vanquard raptors for example.
A) They do in 40k.
B) Nope, absolutely specific when you look at book battalions.
Vanguard-Raptors may not have their own battalion, but in the Vanguard Justicar Conclave you're given their name in bold to represent that you can take both variants to meet that criteria.
Abadabadoobaddon wrote: I fully expect some armies to have their subfactions replaced with detachments based on army concepts that literally no one asked for. Like a detachment for Haarken Wordlclaimer's warband but nothing for Night Lords.
Why get caught up by the name if it's a set of rules that give you what you want? i.e. if "worldtakers" undoubtedly does a load of stuff for jump pack units etc, then you'd just pick it for night lords?
It won't give the rules you want though. It will focus on Haarken, Obliterators and Venomcrawlers because those were the contents of the latest box set they threw together.
My worry right now is they're going to remove all subfaction flavor in the name of balance, and you won't even HAVE like "Iyanden" or "Biel-tan", you'll just have "Swordwind" (aspect warriors) and "Ghost Warriors" (Wraith units) that are completely generic, so it doesn't matter if you have Iyanden or Saim-Hann or your own craftworld, it behaves the same beyond colors.
Wayniac wrote: My worry right now is they're going to remove all subfaction flavor in the name of balance
Oh, I wouldn't worry too much about GW doing anything in the name of balance...
Wayniac wrote: and you won't even HAVE like "Iyanden" or "Biel-tan", you'll just have "Swordwind" (aspect warriors) and "Ghost Warriors" (Wraith units) that are completely generic, so it doesn't matter if you have Iyanden or Saim-Hann or your own craftworld, it behaves the same beyond colors.
Just like in 3rd edition, where that was exactly how Codex: Craftworld Eldar worked. And everybody hated that for being too generic. Right? ...right..?
Wayniac wrote: My worry right now is they're going to remove all subfaction flavor in the name of balance, and you won't even HAVE like "Iyanden" or "Biel-tan", you'll just have "Swordwind" (aspect warriors) and "Ghost Warriors" (Wraith units) that are completely generic, so it doesn't matter if you have Iyanden or Saim-Hann or your own craftworld, it behaves the same beyond colors.
I really don’t see the problem with that?
I mean, certain things being tied to certain colours benefits no-one. All I really need to know is “which army and detachment” when setting up the board. If I now choose to field startlingly neon pink and green Eldar, I don’t risk Sadact McNeckbeard mithering because “acccckkkkkshually, you can’t be Biel Tan because Biel Tan can only be coloured thusly”.
If I want to switch up my detachment game to game? So what?
Wayniac wrote: My worry right now is they're going to remove all subfaction flavor in the name of balance
Oh, I wouldn't worry too much about GW doing anything in the name of balance...
Wayniac wrote: and you won't even HAVE like "Iyanden" or "Biel-tan", you'll just have "Swordwind" (aspect warriors) and "Ghost Warriors" (Wraith units) that are completely generic, so it doesn't matter if you have Iyanden or Saim-Hann or your own craftworld, it behaves the same beyond colors.
Just like in 3rd edition, where that was exactly how Codex: Craftworld Eldar worked. And everybody hated that for being too generic. Right? ...right..?
I'm pretty sure 3rd edition Craftworlds had subfactions, like biel tan got aspects as troops. I'm worried more like 4th edition Chaos.
Wayniac wrote: My worry right now is they're going to remove all subfaction flavor in the name of balance, and you won't even HAVE like "Iyanden" or "Biel-tan", you'll just have "Swordwind" (aspect warriors) and "Ghost Warriors" (Wraith units) that are completely generic, so it doesn't matter if you have Iyanden or Saim-Hann or your own craftworld, it behaves the same beyond colors.
All this flavour talk is just wanting free bonus rules to break game and resulting in unfluffy armies like all wraith iyanden and all bike white scars etc. Armibs that wouldn't be thing really but as they get most okt of free rule# players minmax thosn.
Armies were more flavourful before subfaction rules. Now it's pick unit you want to spam and then pick subfaction that boosts it most. One day red marines are blood angels, next dark angels, then grey knights.
Trouble with 4th Ed Chaos was that Codex was truly standout. It had options well beyond what others had.
If everyone is granted that flexibility? The problem is much reduced. Indeed, we may find Extreme Theme Lists (Extheme?) actually meta’ing each other out.
For instance, Knights right now can be problematic, because few armies can field significant amounts of tough Anti-Tank. Now? You, hypothetically for now of course, risk running into someone fielding a shedload of Predators, which field as individual units despite being bought in squadrons. And in turn, said Predator force risks coming up against lots of cheap infantry they simply cannot contest objectives against.
Sorry if this feels like I’m dunking on you, I promise I’m not.
I feel that whilst gameplay side that might feel like a small change, I think its a huge thing that GW is no longer splitting itself along two different point systems when designing things nor putting the rules together. HECK maybe this means we might actually get points back on the unit details page!
I think its a sign of an attitude change and one I approve of
Wayniac wrote: My worry right now is they're going to remove all subfaction flavor in the name of balance, and you won't even HAVE like "Iyanden" or "Biel-tan", you'll just have "Swordwind" (aspect warriors) and "Ghost Warriors" (Wraith units) that are completely generic, so it doesn't matter if you have Iyanden or Saim-Hann or your own craftworld, it behaves the same beyond colors.
All this flavour talk is just wanting free bonus rules to break game and resulting in unfluffy armies like all wraith iyanden and all bike white scars etc. Armibs that wouldn't be thing really but as they get most okt of free rule# players minmax thosn.
Armies were more flavourful before subfaction rules. Now it's pick unit you want to spam and then pick subfaction that boosts it most. One day red marines are blood angels, next dark angels, then grey knights.
Yeah, having "Swordwind" and "Ghost Warriors" rules has exactly the same effect on the tabletop as Biel-tan or Iyanden rules.
The only difference is that it doesn't punish or restrict people for the paint scheme they picked 3 editions ago.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Anyway, 3 of the same Datasheet. So right now that could mean, for instance, 9 Gladiators in a single army.
I've been thinking about this for a while - it's good to finally know it's on datasheet at least.
With the new datasheet format they could more easily consolidate. Instead of needing a special rule for the Lancer's gun the datasheet just shows it at BS2.
So someone can still do a dreadnought army with 3 contemptors and 3 redemptors or w/e, but not 9 redemptors.
But otherwise like you mentioned this is an area where they could really screw the system if some armies get the same repetitive datasheets allowing more selections for spam.
I for one would like a return of the old generic Cryptek datasheet, with the different disciplines being represented through gear.
That would avoid being able to take 12 crypteks which may be increased to 24, provided Dynastic Advisors is still a thing.
1. The Necron codex hasn't been released yet for 10th.
2. The Cryptek section for the 5th edition codex is about the same amount of stuff as the four different entries of Crypteks to be frank.
Wayniac wrote: My worry right now is they're going to remove all subfaction flavor in the name of balance
Oh, I wouldn't worry too much about GW doing anything in the name of balance...
Wayniac wrote: and you won't even HAVE like "Iyanden" or "Biel-tan", you'll just have "Swordwind" (aspect warriors) and "Ghost Warriors" (Wraith units) that are completely generic, so it doesn't matter if you have Iyanden or Saim-Hann or your own craftworld, it behaves the same beyond colors.
Just like in 3rd edition, where that was exactly how Codex: Craftworld Eldar worked. And everybody hated that for being too generic. Right? ...right..?
I'm pretty sure 3rd edition Craftworlds had subfactions, like biel tan got aspects as troops. I'm worried more like 4th edition Chaos.
Nope.
Besides happening to have the name of a Craftworld, they were effectively generic and non-Craftworld specific.
I feel that whilst gameplay side that might feel like a small change, I think its a huge thing that GW is no longer splitting itself along two different point systems when designing things nor putting the rules together. HECK maybe this means we might actually get points back on the unit details page!
I think its a sign of an attitude change and one I approve of
tneva82 wrote: Armies were more flavourful before subfaction rules.
Were they, though? The much praised 3.5 Chaos Codex was built around subfactions and is considered one of the most flavorful codexes ever printed.
Also one of the most wildly broken.
Flavor came from options (and a little nudge in the shape of army building restrictions). Wildly broken nonsense then as now comes from overperforming units/options and the ability to spam them. Obliterator spam Iron Warriors weren't a problem of having veteran abilities or build your own Daemon Prince rules. It's the ability to lose restrictions and just take more of an overly good unit than other armies. In other words, getting free stuff.
This isn't a problem that the 10th ed rules counter. As has already been mentioned/dreaded, we get for example ten detachments and of those one or two will hand out bonuses that go well with units that overperform. We'll just see those detachments because they hand out something for free that's better than what the other things hand of for free.
The hope is that over time GW may tune back the overperformers and raise up the underperformers to get all detachments somewhat close to each other. That's the ideal for those looking for balance and it might be more achievable now than ever before. At the same time it comes at the cost of customization because in order to stay manageable in such a way the detachments come in predefined parcels because the underlying idea doesn't change. It's about handing out free bonuses. You can't hand out free stuff and expect flavor at the same time.
I feel that whilst gameplay side that might feel like a small change, I think its a huge thing that GW is no longer splitting itself along two different point systems when designing things nor putting the rules together. HECK maybe this means we might actually get points back on the unit details page!
I think its a sign of an attitude change and one I approve of
Today power levels, tomorrow AoS's double turn, and then? We'll soon run out of complete nonsense to drop? What are we going to complain about then?
I am still worried. I just looked at the old 3e chaos codex (NOT 3.5) and it was playable (even somewhat enjoyable) but bland as all hell.
Your choice of legion literally did not matter beyond what color your guys were. Alpha Legion played identically to Iron Warriors who played identically to Night Lords.
For all the OP parts of 3.5, it actually let each legion behave differently.
I feel that whilst gameplay side that might feel like a small change, I think its a huge thing that GW is no longer splitting itself along two different point systems when designing things nor putting the rules together. HECK maybe this means we might actually get points back on the unit details page!
I think its a sign of an attitude change and one I approve of
Today power levels, tomorrow AoS's double turn, and then? We'll soon run out of complete nonsense to drop? What are we going to complain about then?
Oh gods I'd love the doubleturn in AoS to vanish if just so I don't have to hear about how having 2 full activation turns in an alternate army activation game is "balanced and ok".
xttz wrote: The Emperor is depicted with a shield on the eternity gate, which I'm pretty sure is at least early 90's artwork. It could be a ceremonial thing that he never used in battle.
I assume you mean this image of a greco/roman visage of the emperor striking down the dragon of chaos.
This is interpretive art built after his internment on the golden throne. nowhere that i am aware of did he ever use(or need) a shield, ceremonial or otherwise.
Spoiler:
Yeah, technically, we've never seen him with a shield, but the guy is a perpetual is basically as old as humanity itself, so it isn't implausible for example that he used a shield during the Unification Wars or simply that he had one crafted at some point for his personal use. It's equally implausible that he was always in his golden suit of armor with the same two weapons throughout his entire life.
I mean, during the Heresy he gave Russ a spear. We've never seen him chilling with a spear, but there it was.
Hell, maybe it was the one in the above artwork in the spoiler tag.
I feel that whilst gameplay side that might feel like a small change, I think its a huge thing that GW is no longer splitting itself along two different point systems when designing things nor putting the rules together. HECK maybe this means we might actually get points back on the unit details page!
I think its a sign of an attitude change and one I approve of
Absolutely. No more narrative nonsense.
See I have nothing against narrative, if anything I feel like GW never actually did enough for narrative as a game format.
Their "3 ways to play" was basically pointless.
Matched play is just regular 100% bog standard normal Warhammer
Narrative play was just 100% bog standard normal Warhammer with perhaps some linked missions/story/campaign elements which could affect your army composition choices.
Open play was just bog standard "do whatever the freaking heck you want because you're the gamers and its your game" which people have been doing for years.
Powerlevel was something else and whilst on one front it was a neat idea - make the game simpler to get into to lower the barrier of entry; on the other it was pointless because, well, it had no semblance of balance to it. It was born of the same management that thought "no points" in AoS was a good idea.
I'd openly welcome if GW could give Narrative more bite; more elements within codex to latch onto and build storytelling into the games and such to promote it more.
Overread wrote: I'd openly welcome if GW could give Narrative more bite; more elements within codex to latch onto and build storytelling into the games and such to promote it more.
Yeah, they should do some actual campaigns and stuff. What they did was basically useless.
People were saying a few pages ago that GW said they WERE going to bring back codexes. I have not seen this, and I've read the WarCom articles as well as watched the stream.
They seemed to be saying the codexes are gone and they said the old ones are obsolete, where did they announce that they are going to eventually be releasing new codexes?
The only thing I've seen is that they're going to be releasing rules on "inexpensive" datasheet/strategem cards for quick reference shortly after release, that's it. I took that to mean the same thing as on the digital rules, just so you have it on a card on the tabletop.
TedNugent wrote: People were saying a few pages ago that GW said they WERE going to bring back codexes. I have not seen this, and I've read the WarCom articles as well as watched the stream.
They seemed to be saying the codexes are gone and they said the old ones are obsolete, where did they announce that they are going to eventually be releasing new codexes?
The only thing I've seen is that they're going to be releasing rules on "inexpensive" datasheet/strategem cards for quick reference shortly after release, that's it. I took that to mean the same thing as on the digital rules, just so you have it on a card on the tabletop.
"Codexes will return in time to replace the free rules, but when they do the complexity of the game won’t increase, thanks to a one-in-one-out ethos for army and sub-faction rules. Effectively, you will only ever need your unit datasheets, the two pages of rules that govern your chosen army (available in your codex, on cards, or digitally), plus the core rules and whatever mission you’re playing."
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: For instance, Iyanden may allow Wraith Constructs to count as Battleline, but not tinker with their OC rating. This would allow you to theme quite nicely, without entirely removing the usefulness of Guardians, assuming they have a solid OC rating,
I hope they have the balls to make changes to organisation and what counts and doesn't count as "Battleline" depending on the type of army you're taking. And this also assumes that Iyanden is something that continues to exist, rather than the "Ghost Warrior Warhost" or some other such nonsense name that they pull out of thing air.
Eh, you can get annoyed at naming all you want, but explicitly not linking rules to paint instead of the heavily implied rules linked to paint of 9th, well it’s a net positive. You can now (theoretically) easily run a Biel Tan Wraithhost if that’s where your fluff/models loves intersect, without anyone having a whinge. That’s cool.
Agreed. They surpassed my expectations in this area, and can easily open more detachment concepts people think are missing at the start.
I didn't expect them to walk away from paint=rules, but very glad to leave that mess behind.
The potential for Outriders but you don't have to Dark Angels, White Scars or Sam Hain to really do it right is a vast improvement.
I expect they'll eventually have to clamp down on rule of 3 (especially for characters and aircraft (again)), but the FOC charts have been a mess for multiple editions and the age of omens detachment was stupidly exploitable already. This feels like a sidegrade than something worse (or better)
The anti power level sentiment here is baffling, it was an option that you didn’t have to use but it seems to have upset a lot of people.
I’m betting the all new points only system will be more like AoS points where it’s fixed for a unit regardless of options, so basically power level times 10.
I feel that whilst gameplay side that might feel like a small change, I think its a huge thing that GW is no longer splitting itself along two different point systems when designing things nor putting the rules together. HECK maybe this means we might actually get points back on the unit details page!
I think its a sign of an attitude change and one I approve of
Today power levels, tomorrow AoS's double turn, and then? We'll soon run out of complete nonsense to drop? What are we going to complain about then?
Oh gods I'd love the doubleturn in AoS to vanish if just so I don't have to hear about how having 2 full activation turns in an alternate army activation game is "balanced and ok".
They seem determined to bring bad elements from AOS into 40k, so expect the double turn here come 11th.
Andykp wrote: The anti power level sentiment here is baffling, it was an option that you didn’t have to use but it seems to have upset a lot of people.
I’m betting the all new points only system will be more like AoS points where it’s fixed for a unit regardless of options, so basically power level times 10.
The problem with power level was
1) It was placed on the unit cards. That isn't a problem in itself, but GW chose to put the least used point system on the unit cards; whilst the most heavily used (esp by users on this site) was scatter shot through the rest of the book. So power-level was "stealing" the prime information point.
2) It had zero balance. A fully equipped unit with every optional extra cost the same in power level points as one that was barebones. This created a situation where how much you could use and enjoy it varied a lot on your local scene.
In the end the idea had merit - a simpler points system - but because it didn't strip out or simplify any element of army building; it never really achieved anything. It was pointless because you didn't make selecting a unit any simpler; nor upgrading it any simpler; it was purely just reducing the maths in the pre-game phase.
IF it had come with things like "under PL no unit can take upgrades" or even a separate means to add upgrades up and such then it could have had more merit.
There was also a long fear that GW would push powerlevel like they pushed other things - eg the Doubleturn in AoS or the initial no points system in AoS - and that we'd lose points and the game would become more simplified in ways that cut out choices, options and variety in the armies; would invalidate varied unit compositions and would create a very chaotic gaming scene with very limited ways to balance different types of player together (that guy who always takes every upgrade and that guy who doesn't would not be best matchups etc)
they are now working on last 10th codexes most likely.
so the "minimum" became the "default" because, as per usual, tournament standard infests the locale and subsumes everything else.
).
