Dudeface wrote: Boon for a sacrifice seems fairly apt for most but not all chaos marines, so that's not perfect admittedly, but not sure it's worth a complaint about beyond a passing "that's a bit weird".
I think that, like Oaths of Moment, it'd make a great detachment ability, as opposed to the single common rule that defines the faction as a whole.
Dudeface wrote: Boon for a sacrifice seems fairly apt for most but not all chaos marines, so that's not perfect admittedly, but not sure it's worth a complaint about beyond a passing "that's a bit weird".
I think that, like Oaths of Moment, it'd make a great detachment ability, as opposed to the single common rule that defines the faction as a whole.
Yup, very good way of looking at it.
I'm more bothered with the "omg skitarii are going on the shelf, not worth any points now" type things. We have no points with which to measure these things by, or the points efficiency of sisters anti tank in absence of again, points or rules.
Well, don't you see? Skitarii used to have a 4+ save, which with the abundance of AP-1 weapons in the game often meant that they were saving on a 5+. Now they have a 5+ save, and there are far fewer AP-1 weapons, meaning that they'll often be saving... on a 5+.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Well, don't you see? Skitarii used to have a 4+ save, which with the abundance of AP-1 weapons in the game often meant that they were saving on a 5+. Now they have a 5+ save, and there are far fewer AP-1 weapons, meaning that they'll often be saving... on a 5+.
Wait...
But that's okay because Eldar keep their buffed Guardians!
H.B.M.C. wrote: Well, don't you see? Skitarii used to have a 4+ save, which with the abundance of AP-1 weapons in the game often meant that they were saving on a 5+. Now they have a 5+ save, and there are far fewer AP-1 weapons, meaning that they'll often be saving... on a 5+.
Wait...
But that's okay because Eldar keep their buffed Guardians!
And people think Marine players are entitled...
Yeah, because doing cross-faction comparison with the minimal amount of info we got is sooooo productive.
Tyel wrote: GW seem to have turned their face against Jidmah's old signature of "stand up for science, Orks are not a melee army".
Well, the melee part did need a push and our guns were mostly kept as they are. So I'd argue that GW actually agrees with me, in previous editions the squiglauncha would have been nerfed so hard wouldn't recover till 15th edition.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I think it's odd that Sisters of Silence don't do anything to psykers anymore. Sure, their guns get a bonus when they shoot at then, but the simple presence of a blank as powerful as your average Sister of Silence should terrify psykers. Seems extremely unusual that this was seemingly forgotten about.
It is an index, so one can imagine units are going to be light on rules comparing to the bonuses given by detachmants or codex rules.
At least they're providing factions rules with these indexes...unlike the 8th edition indexes. /shudder
I'm sympathetic to players being annoyed at their units being downgraded, even before costs are known, because having a unit you like become less effective is disappointing even if they get cheaper. It's also annoying if it's a unit that's time-consuming to build and paint, so you don't feel motivated to get more to make up the points shortfall.
I'm not sure why GW decided that Skitarii needed to be made more vulnerable; the 4+ save medium infantry role differentiated them from Guardsmen and made them more akin to Scions, which seems appropriate.
Trickstick wrote: So with the new ork waaagh being "at the start of the battle round", does that mean that if you are going second that you have to do it in the opponents turn? A bit of an interesting 1st vs 2nd consideration for orks now.
catbarf wrote: I'm sympathetic to players being annoyed at their units being downgraded, even before costs are known, because having a unit you like become less effective is disappointing even if they get cheaper. It's also annoying if it's a unit that's time-consuming to build and paint, so you don't feel motivated to get more to make up the points shortfall.
I'm not sure why GW decided that Skitarii needed to be made more vulnerable; the 4+ save medium infantry role differentiated them from Guardsmen and made them more akin to Scions, which seems appropriate.
They're only downgraded or less effective in the context of rules between editions, but this is deliberately an edition designed to reduce layered rules and make things less effective. Maybe I'm just wired up differently but I look at the rules for 10th in isolation of those from 9th generally and consider it as a distinct package, whereas most of the upset is coming from people who apply 9th edition knowledge to the 10th edition rules snippets and come out upset. As I said though, some sympathy to the fact that DG being the durable ones is simply now marines +1T, but that doesn't objectively make it bad in the context of 10th.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 wrote: Efficiency is related to points and compared to other.
Thus can't yet say units got less effctive
This ^^^^
Moreover, the relative efficiency is against a benchmark level set across mission based needs and comparable levels between armies. You could tell me skitarii rangers kill 3 marines a turn and only cost as much as 5 marines for the unit of 10 skitarii. Which in isolation sounds ok, but if every other core infantry only ever manages 1 dead marine or whatever target of choice, they become over efficient relatively. Disclaimer: totally made up numbers.
tneva82 wrote: Efficiency is related to points and compared to other.
Thus can't yet say units got less effctive
Who's talking about efficiency?
If Marines were downgraded to T3/W1/4+ but only 6pts a pop I'm sure we'd have some people proclaiming that ZOMG SO EFFICIENT, but a lot more complaining that they don't like their elite infantry being reduced to near-Guardsman stats.
We're not all tournament players here, solely concerned with what's best for the points. I'm open to seeing the rest of the rules package, but Skitarii being closer to Guardsmen than to Scions feels wrong, and that has zip, zero, nada to do with points efficiency.
I agree with catbarf, if your idea of a unit was "Scion cyborg" and they were downgraded to "IG Cyborg" that's a feel bad moment, even if they undercost them to 5ppm.
tneva82 wrote: Efficiency is related to points and compared to other.
Thus can't yet say units got less effctive
Who's talking about efficiency?
If Marines were downgraded to T3/W1/4+ but only 6pts a pop I'm sure we'd have some people proclaiming that ZOMG SO EFFICIENT, but a lot more complaining that they don't like their elite infantry being reduced to near-Guardsman stats.
We're not all tournament players here, solely concerned with what's best for the points. I'm open to seeing the rest of the rules package, but Skitarii being closer to Guardsmen than to Scions feels wrong, and that has zip, zero, nada to do with points efficiency.
As people love to remind others, the rules are an abstraction to gain approximate placement. The "feel" isn't limited purely to the stat line however, but is unfortunately, entirely subjective.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Red Hobbit wrote: I agree with catbarf, if your idea of a unit was "Scion cyborg" and they were downgraded to "IG Cyborg" that's a feel bad moment, even if they undercost them to 5ppm.
Again, if you identify scions as just being a bs 3+ 4+ save guy then sure, but that's not what they are or were about. It's more than a profile.
catbarf wrote: I'm sympathetic to players being annoyed at their units being downgraded, even before costs are known, because having a unit you like become less effective is disappointing even if they get cheaper. It's also annoying if it's a unit that's time-consuming to build and paint, so you don't feel motivated to get more to make up the points shortfall.
I'm not sure why GW decided that Skitarii needed to be made more vulnerable; the 4+ save medium infantry role differentiated them from Guardsmen and made them more akin to Scions, which seems appropriate.
I don't see the angle on Vanguard as much as I do Blightlord Termies. Those termies with the current info are just boring - none of the weapons are interesting and T6 is just kind of *yawn* on top of M4. Vanguard show actual synergy and options for play that take them well beyond the 'their armor looks tougher than flak' complaints.
Why do we need to distinguish them from guardsmen? They're a different army. I could say that visually Scions look more armored than Vanguard and so the 4+/5+ dichotomy seems appropriate, but I can base none of that in any sort of material science or useful logic. The bionics are seemingly suitably represented as the 6++. Whether or not that invuln will be useful is unknown.
People upset about the armor save are hyperfocused and miss the forest for the trees, in my opinion.
Daedalus81 wrote: Why do we need to distinguish them from guardsmen? They're a different army. I could say that visually Scions look more armored than Vanguard and so the 4+/5+ dichotomy seems appropriate, but I can base none of that in any sort of material science or useful logic. The bionics are seemingly suitably represented as the 6++. Whether or not that invuln will be useful is unknown.
People upset about the armor save are hyperfocused and miss the forest for the trees, in my opinion.
The issue is people thought Skitarii were "X" in the wider 40k food chain - but GW are now saying "no, they are Y" (i.e. worse). Its the same complaint we see on how Necrons keep going down relative to Marines.
Yeah, I generally don't think 'I don't understand why people are upset (or just don't like it), so they shouldn't be' is a productive direction for discussion..
Tyel wrote:The issue is people thought Skitarii were "X" in the wider 40k food chain - but GW are now saying "no, they are Y" (i.e. worse). Its the same complaint we see on how Necrons keep going down relative to Marines.
Voss wrote:Yeah, I generally don't think 'I don't understand why people are upset (or just don't like it), so they shouldn't be' is a productive direction for discussion..
Yea, totally fair criticism, but what do these feelings actually mean? That you don't enjoy your models? That you can't play as well? What's the end result?
And why is no one upset that orks are getting tougher?
Tyel wrote:The issue is people thought Skitarii were "X" in the wider 40k food chain - but GW are now saying "no, they are Y" (i.e. worse). Its the same complaint we see on how Necrons keep going down relative to Marines.
Voss wrote:Yeah, I generally don't think 'I don't understand why people are upset (or just don't like it), so they shouldn't be' is a productive direction for discussion..
Yea, totally fair criticism, but what do these feelings actually mean? That you don't enjoy your models? That you can't play as well? What's the end result?
And why is no one upset that orks are getting tougher?
Human emotions, people have an attachment to what they know and enjoy and fear loss or get angry at regression, nobody is upset orks therefore get tougher as it's an upward shift.
Again though, it's tougher compared to 9th, no context in the wider sense of 10th.
In short, everyone likes to feel empowered and special, that's what they're representing on the tabletop. The changes for some units seem to make that harder for them to maintain the visage or connection they had.
I'm sure if skitarii come out swinging and hit hard with good results people will forget they've lost a point of save.
Chiming in just to correct a statement I have seen thrown around.
Tyranids have a boring army rule because it is one use only and randomic.
That's wrong. That's half of an army rule. Their main army rule is making cheap throw away infantry more disciplined than a Primarch in an edition where everyone and their mothers is forcing battleshock tests on you!
That's VERY fluffy, useful and provides options of play and counterplay.
On the same note, for those asking why sisters don't outright stop psy powers, that's for the same reason why necrons are not immune to poison. Because over the years GW has learned that having silver bullet rules doesn't make for a fun game.
Spoletta wrote: Chiming in just to correct a statement I have seen thrown around.
Tyranids have a boring army rule because it is one use only and randomic.
That's wrong. That's half of an army rule. Their main army rule is making cheap throw away infantry more disciplined than a Primarch in an edition where everyone and their mothers is forcing battleshock tests on you!
That's VERY fluffy, useful and provides options of play and counterplay.
On the same note, for those asking why sisters don't outright stop psy powers, that's for the same reason why necrons are not immune to poison. Because over the years GW has learned that having silver bullet rules doesn't make for a fun game.
Dudeface wrote: Human emotions, people have an attachment to what they know and enjoy and fear loss or get angry at regression,
But is that attachment JUST the armor save? If not, then why does it seem like the problem isn't addressed holistically?
I'm sort of distilling all the complaints into a bucket and I'm sure most individuals have more complex thoughts on the matter, but it feels like those thoughts aren't expressed and we see just this one facet.
nobody is upset orks therefore get tougher as it's an upward shift.
But Snaggas will be tougher than Vanguard by a mile. T5, 5+, 6+++ with the option for a 5++. The most these guys have visually is a shoulder pad. Or are there people upset by this and I've missed it?
Yea, totally fair criticism, but what do these feelings actually mean? That you don't enjoy your models? That you can't play as well? What's the end result?
And why is no one upset that orks are getting tougher?
There aren't many ork players, so there isn't much to be unhappy about.
Karol wrote: GK and 1ksons were saying that AtW is a bad secondary, and it took GW almost 3 years to notice that.
Abhor changed a couple times to soften the points per unit. It didn't stay static that whole time.
the changes were non changes, because you would take them in a regular game vs GK everytime. Because losing a psyker, didn't matter for factions that weren't already beating eldar real hard, and who in deed didn't care if AtW exists. I remember GW fixes to dark repears. They were fixed them every FAQ, up until eldar switched to playing flyer lists. Or when GW was nerfing regular DE stuff, when DE moved on to playing meat mountain.
AtW is/was a secondary which was just bad design. It is like making Imperial/Chaos knights practicaly unable to score in early 9th ed or be shot from behind cover without being able to shot back. As with many things GW does. There is bad and there is BAD.
Tyel wrote: GW seem to have turned their face against Jidmah's old signature of "stand up for science, Orks are not a melee army".
Well, the melee part did need a push and our guns were mostly kept as they are. So I'd argue that GW actually agrees with me, in previous editions the squiglauncha would have been nerfed so hard wouldn't recover till 15th edition.
Dudeface wrote: Human emotions, people have an attachment to what they know and enjoy and fear loss or get angry at regression,
But is that attachment JUST the armor save? If not, then why does it seem like the problem isn't addressed holistically?
I'm sort of distilling all the complaints into a bucket and I'm sure most individuals have more complex thoughts on the matter, but it feels like those thoughts aren't expressed and we see just this one facet.
nobody is upset orks therefore get tougher as it's an upward shift.
But Snaggas will be tougher than Vanguard by a mile. T5, 5+, 6+++ with the option for a 5++. The most these guys have visually is a shoulder pad. Or are there people upset by this and I've missed it?
People expect orks to be tough but lightly armored. These are. (And there's no indication that other orks will get FNP. Ghaz doesn't have it). And largely people got over the T5 adjustment last edition.
So they fall within expectations.
People also expect cyborgs to be better armored and tougher than run of the mill grunts. Vanguard... aren't. So they don't like it. (And reducing AP via protective doctrine doesn't feel like a 4+ save. Too many cases where it doesn't matter)
The fact that two of the less durable factions (eldar and tau) got to keep 4+ saves on their militia and got 4+ given to scouts grinds glass into that expectation.
Plus basic psychology of losing rather than staying the same or gaining is obviously in play.
Tyel wrote:The issue is people thought Skitarii were "X" in the wider 40k food chain - but GW are now saying "no, they are Y" (i.e. worse). Its the same complaint we see on how Necrons keep going down relative to Marines.
Voss wrote:Yeah, I generally don't think 'I don't understand why people are upset (or just don't like it), so they shouldn't be' is a productive direction for discussion..
Yea, totally fair criticism, but what do these feelings actually mean? That you don't enjoy your models? That you can't play as well? What's the end result?
And why is no one upset that orks are getting tougher?
I'm only upset about Orks being tougher when I face them.
Yeah, because doing cross-faction comparison with the minimal amount of info we got is sooooo productive.
In general maybe not, but eldar are a special case in the way how GW treats them. There wasn't a single time in the games history, when they would get a book or new set of rules and didn't instantly become NPE for everyone and an edition breaker. You can have 0 data on eldar on eldar rules and 8 out of 9 edition they would be borderline OP. I think expecting 10 out of 9 is not exaggarated or unproductive.
Dudeface wrote: Human emotions, people have an attachment to what they know and enjoy and fear loss or get angry at regression,
But is that attachment JUST the armor save? If not, then why does it seem like the problem isn't addressed holistically?
I'm sort of distilling all the complaints into a bucket and I'm sure most individuals have more complex thoughts on the matter, but it feels like those thoughts aren't expressed and we see just this one facet.
nobody is upset orks therefore get tougher as it's an upward shift.
But Snaggas will be tougher than Vanguard by a mile. T5, 5+, 6+++ with the option for a 5++. The most these guys have visually is a shoulder pad. Or are there people upset by this and I've missed it?
People expect orks to be tough but lightly armored. These are. (And there's no indication that other orks will get FNP. Ghaz doesn't have it). And largely people got over the T5 adjustment last edition.
So they fall within expectations.
People also expect cyborgs to be better armored and tougher than run of the mill grunts. Vanguard... aren't. So they don't like it. (And reducing AP via protective doctrine doesn't feel like a 4+ save. Too many cases where it doesn't matter)
The fact that two of the less durable factions (eldar and tau) got to keep 4+ saves on their militia and got 4+ given to scouts grinds glass into that expectation.
Plus basic psychology of losing rather than staying the same or gaining is obviously in play.
I think you missed their point. Beast snagga saves went up they were a 6+ armour save, now they get a 5+ loin cloth.
I think you missed their point. Beast snagga saves went up they were a 6+ armour save, now they get a 5+ loin cloth.
I'm aware. I didn't miss it at all. 5+ is a lightly armored save. 6+ has, for most of the game, been entirely worthless, as it got countered so easily (in either save system AP5, or Ap-1). The shift from 6+ to 5+ doesn't really matter much, despite the mathematics, because for those who've been around for a while, 6+ often meant no save. Lightly armored is where they should be and are (especially with the AP mitigation going around). Are they mathematically better? Probably. But it looks right.
Voss wrote: People expect orks to be tough but lightly armored. These are. (And there's no indication that other orks will get FNP. Ghaz doesn't have it). And largely people got over the T5 adjustment last edition. So they fall within expectations.
People also expect cyborgs to be better armored and tougher than run of the mill grunts. Vanguard... aren't. So they don't like it. (And reducing AP via protective doctrine doesn't feel like a 4+ save. Too many cases where it doesn't matter) The fact that two of the less durable factions (eldar and tau) got to keep 4+ saves on their militia and got 4+ given to scouts grinds glass into that expectation.
Plus basic psychology of losing rather than staying the same or gaining is obviously in play.
I appreciate the insight. I think perhaps what I wind up seeing is snippets of these feelings ( from various people ) that aren't as fleshed out as this post might be and I react to those parts in the moment.
I know that Thousand Sons won't be casting spells like I do now ( mostly, anyway ). I can understand losing things I like or preferred about my faction, but at the same time I look forward to what other things I might be able to do instead, which is why I have a hard time connecting with the concern.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
vict0988 wrote: Can anybody sell me on the 5th-ed style charge and pile-in moves we're getting for 10th according to leaks?
Spoiler:
I feel like forcing models into base2base and almost freely getting out of being surrounded is taking away from player agency and dumbs the game down.
Melee hordes have to be trash in 10th right? No ObSec and barely any models get to fight. I'm certainly glad I haven't bought 60 Flayed Ones.
I can't sell you on it. It's probably just their way of determining who is in combat less fiddly and reducing the somewhat healthy extra movement we used to get.
I almost feel like this is going to be a shooting edition - it hinges on whether or not we can walk through certain terrain. Shooting into or out of combat changes the relevancy of it a bit. At the same time melee profiles are not powered down as much as melee. Also, with resurrection abilities all over the place the game won't have enough shooting to deal with all the models that can show up. Coupled with missions promoting control of the mid-table you'll want stuff that is durable and effective in CQC.
vict0988 wrote: Can anybody sell me on the 5th-ed style charge and pile-in moves we're getting for 10th according to leaks?
Spoiler:
I feel like forcing models into base2base and almost freely getting out of being surrounded is taking away from player agency and dumbs the game down.
Melee hordes have to be trash in 10th right? No ObSec and barely any models get to fight. I'm certainly glad I haven't bought 60 Flayed Ones.
Well, its not that few. Its just hard to mock up in text form.
When you charge, you just have to get in engagement range (1"). Then at the start of the fight, your models have a 3" pile-in.
Anyone in base to base OR engagement range can fight.
Also anyone in base to base with models that are base to base with enemies (not engagement range at this step, which personally I find clunky).
Assuming the charging unit wasn't in a single file line when they charged, you've got more or less 11" to play with (in an average charge of 7"). As the fight goes on, both sides must pile in more (unless they're already base to base).
Yeah, because doing cross-faction comparison with the minimal amount of info we got is sooooo productive.
In general maybe not, but eldar are a special case in the way how GW treats them. There wasn't a single time in the games history, when they would get a book or new set of rules and didn't instantly become NPE for everyone and an edition breaker. You can have 0 data on eldar on eldar rules and 8 out of 9 edition they would be borderline OP. I think expecting 10 out of 9 is not exaggarated or unproductive.
Trickstick wrote: If you didn't have engagement range, vertical melee would be broken.
not really, you can easily add a vertical range component, which can then itself also vary, no need for 'special rules' etc, its just part of the weapon profile
vict0988 wrote: I feel like forcing models into base2base and almost freely getting out of being surrounded is taking away from player agency and dumbs the game down.
If you're surrounded in melee and try to retreat, each model that has to move through the enemy dies on a roll of 1-2. If the unit is battleshocked, you have to make that test for every model whether they're surrounded or not. That doesn't sound like almost freely getting out to me.
I don't think it's dumbing-down for the game to lean more into morale and risk management, and less into fiddly and scale-inappropriate gimmicks like exactly placing of each of 30 Termagants to maximize how many enemy models are tri-pointed.
Trickstick wrote: That sounds like engagement range with extra steps.
except without the need to define it, and with the ability to vary it
How would you determine when you were in melee combat with a model? If my melee range is 3" and yours in only 1", am I in melee range with you, even when you can't be in melee range with me? How is a successful charge determined? Have you considered how this will effect units with 40mm+ bases? What about 25mm base units that get a significant advantage over similar units on 32mm?
Age of Sigmar which DOES have ranges on their melee attacks solves this issue by not allowing models to be within 3" (the maximum melee range). If you DO end up inside 3", you're considered 'in combat' and have to deal with everything that comes with that.
It's a good system and works well...EXCEPT it creates absolutely MASSIVE denial zones around units. Two unit sitting next to each other have a full 6.5 inches of 'nope'. This is fine in a predominately melee game, but would need to be accounted for in 40k.
vict0988 wrote: I feel like forcing models into base2base and almost freely getting out of being surrounded is taking away from player agency and dumbs the game down.
If you're surrounded in melee and try to retreat, each model that has to move through the enemy dies on a roll of 1-2. If the unit is battleshocked, you have to make that test for every model whether they're surrounded or not. That doesn't sound like almost freely getting out to me.
I don't think it's dumbing-down for the game to lean more into morale and risk management, and less into fiddly and scale-inappropriate gimmicks like exactly placing of each of 30 Termagants to maximize how many enemy models are tri-pointed.
How does the new morale rules and you call it risk management test player skill? I'm not sure what you mean by risk management, because 1 Vanguard Veteran dying is almost nothing compared to simply being unable to do it as in 8th or having to pay 2CP and only being able to do it once per turn as in 9th, you were managing two different resources at once, now you're just evaluating whether it's worth the risk of losing on average a third of the models at risk (which could just be a single 0,25 PL model in a 50 PL game.
vict0988 wrote: I feel like forcing models into base2base and almost freely getting out of being surrounded is taking away from player agency and dumbs the game down.
I really hope so, it needs dumbing down a bit. If we are lucky we'll have a few months of closer games between players of a different skill level.
Trickstick wrote: That sounds like engagement range with extra steps.
except without the need to define it, and with the ability to vary it
How would you determine when you were in melee combat with a model? If my melee range is 3" and yours in only 1", am I in melee range with you, even when you can't be in melee range with me? How is a successful charge determined? Have you considered how this will effect units with 40mm+ bases? What about 25mm base units that get a significant advantage over similar units on 32mm?
Age of Sigmar which DOES have ranges on their melee attacks solves this issue by not allowing models to be within 3" (the maximum melee range). If you DO end up inside 3", you're considered 'in combat' and have to deal with everything that comes with that.
It's a good system and works well...EXCEPT it creates absolutely MASSIVE denial zones around units. Two unit sitting next to each other have a full 6.5 inches of 'nope'. This is fine in a predominately melee game, but would need to be accounted for in 40k.
depends how you set the ranges, also I would note that a lot of other games have the concept of a "zone of control" which generally works very well, get within that zone and that unit becomes your primary focus - either fight them or back off, so actually the denial zone starts to be part of the point
obviously it works both ways, say a block of actual combat troops move towards a block of say grots, they can move to within the ZoC of the grots, and even if neither is within actual punching range the grots now have the choices:
- stand still and wait for the inevitable next turn, perhaps shooting but only at the combat troops
- charge the combat troops and bring their destiny a little closer
- back away
and thats basically it
it becomes a way for chaff units to work as a distraction as well, forcing a better unit to pause and deal with them - given this is 40k provide for say a Ld test to ignore a ZoC and fire at or charge another enemy but have it unable to be ignored for movement (basically charge through chaff and anything not chaff shouldn't be able to be ignored anyway)
as for 25mm being better, well it depends what weapons are carried and what range, if 25mm stuff is set to say 1/2" range they are in effect "base to base", stuff on larger bases either getting a greater reach or depending upon better attacks but the smaller base stuff becomes more limited - except perhaps specific dedicated melee 25mm base stuff that probably should be something to worry about
Tyel wrote:The issue is people thought Skitarii were "X" in the wider 40k food chain - but GW are now saying "no, they are Y" (i.e. worse). Its the same complaint we see on how Necrons keep going down relative to Marines.
Voss wrote:Yeah, I generally don't think 'I don't understand why people are upset (or just don't like it), so they shouldn't be' is a productive direction for discussion..
Yea, totally fair criticism, but what do these feelings actually mean? That you don't enjoy your models? That you can't play as well? What's the end result?
The end result is I don't collect or play Necrons anymore, plus a sense of betrayal that GW sold me on a set of ideas and then slowly eroded them away. It's not about winning games or even using the models (if I still had them), it's about a degradation, or sometimes even just changing, a faction or unit identity that I loved.
Hordes of self repairing, elite, hyper-tough killer robots got turned into something more resembling of chaff.
vict0988 wrote: Can anybody sell me on the 5th-ed style charge and pile-in moves we're getting for 10th according to leaks?
Spoiler:
I feel like forcing models into base2base and almost freely getting out of being surrounded is taking away from player agency and dumbs the game down.
Melee hordes have to be trash in 10th right? No ObSec and barely any models get to fight. I'm certainly glad I haven't bought 60 Flayed Ones.
I suspect it's partly down to GW wanting to clean up a bunch of fiddly interactions and also remove some of the counter-intuitive shenanigans from the Fight phase. A lot of 40k players will probably tell you there's lots of nuance to the positioning of models in the Fight phase, but to me it comes off as extremely gimmicky and not particularly thematic or tactically interesting. It's like tri-pointing - not massively obvious at first, but once you figure it out it's also trivially easy to exploit without any real thought going into it.
I think GW saw the sometimes massive amount of extra movement units could get when they charge and fight and wanted to make things clearer and cleaner while curbing that extra movement a bit. I don't think the reduction in number of models fighting will be that large anyway so I don't think it's a huge problem for melee armies. I think we may see many more armies that aren't almost 100% combat now, though, with the reduction in potential to tag other units.
Mr Morden wrote: Actually quite suprised they gave Makari rules and did not just use him as a marker like Tau droneswith his rules folded into Ghaz's main ones?
Well, there aren't any novels where a drone is the protagonist
Mr Morden wrote: Actually quite suprised they gave Makari rules and did not just use him as a marker like Tau droneswith his rules folded into Ghaz's main ones?
Well, there aren't any novels where a drone is the protagonist
vict0988 wrote: How does the new morale rules and you call it risk management test player skill?
Well, now the relevant decisions to melee will be more about how you set up your units before they get into melee, managing threat range, when to pop Overwatch, and whether to risk losing part of the unit by falling back when surrounded or Battleshocked. Skill will manifest as tactical decision-making, not whether you are able to mechanically execute a gimmick.
As opposed to silly gak like deliberately charging short -> exploiting pile-in to tri-point the enemy -> deliberately flubbing attacks -> staying locked safely in melee, where once you've learned the trick it's pretty trivial to execute, and the difference it makes compared to playing the game as intended is massive.
I'm sure there will be much gnashing of teeth on release about how GW is taking all the skill away by making the game about generalship rather than unintended rules exploits. I play a sad song on the world's tiniest violin. A game that doesn't care about the disposition of your squad when a mortar shell lands in their midst shouldn't suddenly be very concerned with the millimeter-precision placement of every trooper once they hit close combat, and the new Battleshock system will make getting out of melee more of a calculated risk and less of a binary 'have you been tri-pointed Y/N'.
vict0988 wrote: How does the new morale rules and you call it risk management test player skill?
Well, now the relevant decisions to melee will be more about how you set up your units before they get into melee, managing threat range, when to pop Overwatch, and whether to risk losing part of the unit by falling back when surrounded or Battleshocked. Skill will manifest as tactical decision-making, not whether you are able to mechanically execute a gimmick.
As opposed to silly gak like deliberately charging short -> exploiting pile-in to tri-point the enemy -> deliberately flubbing attacks -> staying locked safely in melee, where once you've learned the trick it's pretty trivial to execute, and the difference it makes compared to playing the game as intended is massive.
I'm sure there will be much gnashing of teeth on release about how GW is taking all the skill away by making the game about generalship rather than unintended rules exploits. I play a sad song on the world's tiniest violin. A game that doesn't care about the disposition of your squad when a mortar shell lands in their midst shouldn't suddenly be very concerned with the millimeter-precision placement of every trooper once they hit close combat, and the new Battleshock system will make getting out of melee more of a calculated risk and less of a binary 'have you been tri-pointed Y/N'.
Agreed on all points. Do you have any examples for Deliberately flubbing attacks? I haven't run into it personally, I'm guessing it involves choosing a weaker weapon to ensure you are safe in melee for another round?
The Red Hobbit wrote: [Do you have any examples for Deliberately flubbing attacks? I haven't run into it personally, I'm guessing it involves choosing a weaker weapon to ensure you are safe in melee for another round?
Choosing inferior weapons, and/or minimizing the number of models in engagement range, then after making attacks consolidating into tri-pointing to trap the target. It was worse in 8th when every model had access to the basic close combat weapon profile they could use in lieu of their actual weapons.
Also, 10th Ed is making it so that if your pile-in or consolidate distance can get you into base contact, you have to do it. No more spiraling 3" around a unit while technically getting 0.1" closer to the nearest enemy model; if you want to trap a unit you're probably going to have to surround it before you charge.
Frankly, I don't think anything of value is being lost. Play skill shouldn't come from exploiting unintuitive and unintended rules interactions.
The Red Hobbit wrote: [Do you have any examples for Deliberately flubbing attacks? I haven't run into it personally, I'm guessing it involves choosing a weaker weapon to ensure you are safe in melee for another round?
Choosing inferior weapons, and/or minimizing the number of models in engagement range, then after making attacks consolidating into tri-pointing to trap the target. It was worse in 8th when every model had access to the basic close combat weapon profile they could use in lieu of their actual weapons.
Also, 10th Ed is making it so that if your pile-in or consolidate distance can get you into base contact, you have to do it. No more spiraling 3" around a unit while technically getting 0.1" closer to the nearest enemy model; if you want to trap a unit you're probably going to have to surround it before you charge.
Frankly, I don't think anything of value is being lost. Play skill shouldn't come from exploiting unintuitive and unintended rules interactions.
Those are my feelings too. Most of the various tricks are still possible, you just have to work to set them up and they won't automatically happen as they do now.
Agreed on all points. Do you have any examples for Deliberately flubbing attacks? I haven't run into it personally, I'm guessing it involves choosing a weaker weapon to ensure you are safe in melee for another round?
A unit of 8 custodian wardens suddenly switching from using their axes on their players turn, to stabbing stuff with misericordias to avoid getting lit up by the entire opposing army, freeing up the once per game use of stratagems and the CP needed to use those stratagems. Then killing the units "trapped" with axes on the enemy turn.
Wow. Am I crazy, or are the Thousand Sons looking way more spicy than the other previewed factions? Being able to just turn off a unit's armor saves a couple times a game is huge. Plus, Doombolt is kind of terrifying, and Psychic Dominion could ruin an attacking unit's day if they have a high rate of fire. (I'm thinking of swooping hawks here.)
Inferno Bolts going down to AP-1 was a surprise to me though. I thought they'd remain at AP-2 given that they used to be AP3 and that being good at punching through heavy armor has traditionally been one of their main things.
But yeah, this is the first preview where I'm actually excited about each thing previewed.
Psychic dominion only works against psychic attacks. So it could be nasty against something like a warlock conclaive, or maybe som GK unit what spams a ton of those kind of attacks. But not just normal spammed small arms.
The Red Hobbit wrote: [Do you have any examples for Deliberately flubbing attacks? I haven't run into it personally, I'm guessing it involves choosing a weaker weapon to ensure you are safe in melee for another round?
Choosing inferior weapons, and/or minimizing the number of models in engagement range, then after making attacks consolidating into tri-pointing to trap the target. It was worse in 8th when every model had access to the basic close combat weapon profile they could use in lieu of their actual weapons.
Also, 10th Ed is making it so that if your pile-in or consolidate distance can get you into base contact, you have to do it. No more spiraling 3" around a unit while technically getting 0.1" closer to the nearest enemy model; if you want to trap a unit you're probably going to have to surround it before you charge.
Frankly, I don't think anything of value is being lost. Play skill shouldn't come from exploiting unintuitive and unintended rules interactions.
No, it should come from the grand tactical decision to sacrifice a Grot or not to sacrifice a Grot, truly 10th will reward skilful play /sarcasm. Even worse, it's based on randomness, so you can get punished for making the right decision. Terrible game changes.
Why even move miniatures around? Shouldn't we just draw our objectives and then choose which grand tactic we want and then roll a number of dice depending on the mission played and our opponent's grand tactic and whoever rolls highest wins. It occurs to me that all these miniatures are making the game devilishly convoluted and requires a great deal of management that isn't in the interest of me playing grand general /sarcasm.
Nevelon wrote: Psychic dominion only works against psychic attacks. So it could be nasty against something like a warlock conclaive, or maybe som GK unit what spams a ton of those kind of attacks. But not just normal spammed small arms.
Ah! My bad. That makes more sense. Still, Thousand Sons seem like they'll have some potent tools, at least until they run out of psyker units to fuel their rituals.
vict0988 wrote: Even worse, it's based on randomness, so you can get punished for making the right decision.
Yeah, that's how dice-based wargames work. You can influence the odds but not guarantee the outcomes.
If that's a dealbreaker, you shouldn't be playing 40K to begin with, because 10th Ed isn't removing the skill-destroying randumb terrible possibility of rolling 1s to hit.
vict0988 wrote: Even worse, it's based on randomness, so you can get punished for making the right decision.
Yeah, that's how dice-based wargames work. You can influence the odds but not guarantee the outcomes.
If that's a dealbreaker, you shouldn't be playing 40K to begin with, because 10th Ed isn't removing the skill-destroying randumb terrible possibility of rolling 1s to hit.
If you like random mechanics so much you should be playing Yatzee /sarcasm. I edited my previous post, maybe you can find another reason why I should leave the hobby in there now.
Nevelon wrote: Psychic dominion only works against psychic attacks. So it could be nasty against something like a warlock conclaive, or maybe som GK unit what spams a ton of those kind of attacks. But not just normal spammed small arms.
Ah! My bad. That makes more sense. Still, Thousand Sons seem like they'll have some potent tools, at least until they run out of psyker units to fuel their rituals.
It's a fun antiPsyker rule to be sure. I agree with you that or of all the previews 1k Sons has been the most exciting, I'm greatly looking forward to the simplified cabal points. I used a cheat sheet in 9th and even with that it still slowed things down a bit while playing.
Wyldhunt wrote: Wow. Am I crazy, or are the Thousand Sons looking way more spicy than the other previewed factions? Being able to just turn off a unit's armor saves a couple times a game is huge. Plus, Doombolt is kind of terrifying, and Psychic Dominion could ruin an attacking unit's day if they have a high rate of fire. (I'm thinking of swooping hawks here.)
Inferno Bolts going down to AP-1 was a surprise to me though. I thought they'd remain at AP-2 given that they used to be AP3 and that being good at punching through heavy armor has traditionally been one of their main things.
But yeah, this is the first preview where I'm actually excited about each thing previewed.
I'm really happy with them so far. They lost lots of durability from what we can see at the moment, but gained ways to do damage.
As I said elsewhere -- I think Doombolt is the better use of CP over Twist ( strip saves ) since it requires a lot of fire power with low AP for it to be relevant.
Their bolters were AP2 in 9th, but with reductions across the board it makes sense to be AP1 now.
Wyldhunt wrote: Wow. Am I crazy, or are the Thousand Sons looking way more spicy than the other previewed factions? Being able to just turn off a unit's armor saves a couple times a game is huge. Plus, Doombolt is kind of terrifying, and Psychic Dominion could ruin an attacking unit's day if they have a high rate of fire. (I'm thinking of swooping hawks here.)
Inferno Bolts going down to AP-1 was a surprise to me though. I thought they'd remain at AP-2 given that they used to be AP3 and that being good at punching through heavy armor has traditionally been one of their main things.
But yeah, this is the first preview where I'm actually excited about each thing previewed.
Yeah bit surprised at the fact they actually seem ok, was expecting them to get shafted in this update.
Twist is nice, but I very much doubt you'd be using it often. Doing a bit of rough maths my current TS list would have netted me 16CP, now going off the previews it'll be closer to 10, so I doubt I'd have enough CP to use Twist more than once in an entire game.
Don't mind the bolter change, the 5" move is a bit naff but not the end of the world. The smite is a bit odd, just a couple of Ap-3 bolter shots, yet people on FB were saying how amazing and devastating it'll be. Am I missing something?
The main thing that I didn't like was how bland some of it seemed. Ahriman's vast array of psychic potential is now...a single S6 shot?
Valkyrie wrote: Twist is nice, but I very much doubt you'd be using it often. Doing a bit of rough maths my current TS list would have netted me 16CP, now going off the previews it'll be closer to 10, so I doubt I'd have enough CP to use Twist more than once in an entire game.
Don't mind the bolter change, the 5" move is a bit naff but not the end of the world. The smite is a bit odd, just a couple of Ap-3 bolter shots, yet people on FB were saying how amazing and devastating it'll be. Am I missing something?
The main thing that I didn't like was how bland some of it seemed. Ahriman's vast array of psychic potential is now...a single S6 shot?
Well, Ahriman can snipe with that. His disc version will probably have a different spell.
You'll likely have even fewer cabal points, because there's strong incentive for bigger units with that +1 to wound. I imagine other buffs will encourage that as well.
Warpsmite is decent. It's very consistent into infantry and should do 1MW on average and more when you can go fishing with full wound rerolls. Apply Sustained Hits and you'll be able to get 3 to 4 MW if you spike 6s to hit.
I actually feel like both big units and MSU (or a balanced combination) are viable. Going MSU with rubrics means more Cabal Points and more Warpsmites. Big squads get better mileage out of icons (assuming those cost points), rituals, etc.
Warpsmite seems respectable. I'm less scared of it (on paper) than I was of regular smite spam in 9th, and its limited range means you won't likely be tossing a bunch of them out on turn 1, but it seems reliable.
Agreed that Doombolt will generally be the better way to go. But oh boy will it be fun when you have occassion to tell a bunch of Sang Guard or Meganobz that they won't be getting their armor against the dozens of incoming cultist/tzaangor attacks.
(I love my tzaangor models. Here's hoping they're good.)
Daedalus81 wrote: I'm really happy with them so far. They lost lots of durability from what we can see at the moment, but gained ways to do damage.
Anyone else find it weird that a bunch of the noteworthy durability factions got their durability nerfed in an edition where stuff is supposed to be more durable? Necrons, Death Guard, and Thousand Sons are all squishier one way or another. The one exception is Custodes, and feth Custodes.
Daedalus81 wrote: I'm really happy with them so far. They lost lots of durability from what we can see at the moment, but gained ways to do damage.
Anyone else find it weird that a bunch of the noteworthy durability factions got their durability nerfed in an edition where stuff is supposed to be more durable? Necrons, Death Guard, and Thousand Sons are all squishier one way or another. The one exception is Custodes, and feth Custodes.
It makes sense. All those things got added, because there was too much damage. It's why we saw the lopsided army results until almost everyone had a book. Eventually they even had to unwind all of Admech nerfs.
It makes sense. All those things got added, because there was too much damage. It's why we saw the lopsided army results until almost everyone had a book. Eventually they even had to unwind all of Admech nerfs.
fair enough, but given that one of the Rubrics defining abilities, basically since they were introduced, was resilience to small arms, it seems odd that such they made them no tougher than regular marines.
unless that becomes a detachment ability of a future "rubric wall" detachment in Tsons codex....
Daedalus81 wrote: It makes sense. All those things got added, because there was too much damage. It's why we saw the lopsided army results until almost everyone had a book. Eventually they even had to unwind all of Admech nerfs.
Maybe my memory is wrong, but I feel those things were added at the outset of 8th edition rather than because of 9th's excesses?
I want to say Rubrics just being "Marines with a 5++" was how it was in 7th, but I could be wrong there too. (Ditto with Plague Marines being T5 Marines.)
I can see why you wouldn't want to give a 2+ save when lots of stuff is being reduced to AP-1 only. And sort of the same with Plague Marines for why FNP or -1 damage might be a bit good. But it does feel a bit... uninspired.
It makes sense. All those things got added, because there was too much damage. It's why we saw the lopsided army results until almost everyone had a book. Eventually they even had to unwind all of Admech nerfs.
fair enough, but given that one of the Rubrics defining abilities, basically since they were introduced, was resilience to small arms, it seems odd that such they made them no tougher than regular marines.
unless that becomes a detachment ability of a future "rubric wall" detachment in Tsons codex....
Going back to 3.5 when I started I seem to think they had a 5+ invuln, then they went to 2 wounds I think, then back down to 1 + an invuln again, then all is dust. It's not specifically small arms they've been good against, it's switched back and forth with a tendency to surviving heavier weapons. When they lose durability they tend to gain punch iirc over the years.
I want to say Rubrics just being "Marines with a 5++" was how it was in 7th, but I could be wrong there too. (Ditto with Plague Marines being T5 Marines.)
Daedalus81 wrote: It makes sense. All those things got added, because there was too much damage. It's why we saw the lopsided army results until almost everyone had a book. Eventually they even had to unwind all of Admech nerfs.
Maybe my memory is wrong, but I feel those things were added at the outset of 8th edition rather than because of 9th's excesses?
I want to say Rubrics just being "Marines with a 5++" was how it was in 7th, but I could be wrong there too. (Ditto with Plague Marines being T5 Marines.)
I can see why you wouldn't want to give a 2+ save when lots of stuff is being reduced to AP-1 only. And sort of the same with Plague Marines for why FNP or -1 damage might be a bit good. But it does feel a bit... uninspired.
All is Dust was there, but -1D for a strat, -1D on dreads, W2 on Rubrics, W3 on scarabs, and a 5++ across the board came in 9th.
Valkyrie wrote: change, the 5" move is a bit naff but not the end of the world. The smite is a bit odd, just a couple of Ap-3 bolter shots, yet people on FB were saying how amazing and devastating it'll be. Am I missing something?
Maybe detachment bonus buffing those?
Exploding hits/auto wounds/mortals as needed
Also vs infantry that's 4+(regardless of t) to wound doing mw
It makes sense. All those things got added, because there was too much damage. It's why we saw the lopsided army results until almost everyone had a book. Eventually they even had to unwind all of Admech nerfs.
fair enough, but given that one of the Rubrics defining abilities, basically since they were introduced, was resilience to small arms, it seems odd that such they made them no tougher than regular marines.
unless that becomes a detachment ability of a future "rubric wall" detachment in Tsons codex....
Hmm. This is a good point. Being suits of haunted armor (and having psyker sergeants) are kind of the main things that make rubricae rubricae. Inferno bolts are neat too, but a rubricae holding a more conventional gun would still be a rubricae. It's the mindless automata with no guts to spill (and the psyker sergeant) that defines them.
These rules seem to be nailing the psyker sergeants, but they don't convey the idea that a rubric marine is harder to kill than a normal marine. I guess you could squint and say that the move to 2 wounds means that normal marines and rubricae are both in the same durability ballpark? Or it could just be that GW didn't want to double-dip on defensive abilities. It looks like our detachment options will be themed around the cults, so I imagine that at least one of the cults will be able to make them -1 to hit or something.
IDK. The rubricae being extra hard to kill is a bit of lore that I really like, but I also never liked their invuln save mechanics (makes them tougher against big guns instead of little guns), and I don't think I'd want them to have a FNP or what have you now. Maybe my tune will change once we have more perspective.
Wyldhunt wrote: Wow. Am I crazy, or are the Thousand Sons looking way more spicy than the other previewed factions? Being able to just turn off a unit's armor saves a couple times a game is huge. Plus, Doombolt is kind of terrifying, and Psychic Dominion could ruin an attacking unit's day if they have a high rate of fire. (I'm thinking of swooping hawks here.)
Inferno Bolts going down to AP-1 was a surprise to me though. I thought they'd remain at AP-2 given that they used to be AP3 and that being good at punching through heavy armor has traditionally been one of their main things.
But yeah, this is the first preview where I'm actually excited about each thing previewed.
I'm really happy with them so far. They lost lots of durability from what we can see at the moment, but gained ways to do damage.
As I said elsewhere -- I think Doombolt is the better use of CP over Twist ( strip saves ) since it requires a lot of fire power with low AP for it to be relevant.
Their bolters were AP2 in 9th, but with reductions across the board it makes sense to be AP1 now.
I'm not sure I agree with doombolt over twist. Twisting something and unloading some Terminator bolters into the unit seems like a perfect and typical use. Flamers as well. Also just putting something to their invuln save if they have a bse 2+ save is super nice on the flamers.
At one point Rubrics were simply immune to weapons below a certain strength. And later Rubrics had 2 wounds before it was cool, and, from what I heard, it signified that they had something going for them.
Overall there seems to be a general line of redefining what various factions are in 10th.
Space Marines have shifted to "And They Shall Oaths of Moment", something that was never a big part of Marines and was invented - IIRC - in a Horus Heresy novel. Sisters of Silence don't appear to do anything to Psykers, which is bizarre. Chaos Marines now constantly kill themselves by entreating the Chaos Gods (one wonders how there are any of them left 10,000 years after the Heresy). Death Guard don't appear to be as tough as they were (and their previous toughness rules weren't just due to 9th lethality). Rubrics are the same (and, again, their inherent high resistance to damage has been around since 3rd Ed). Can you imagine if Waaagh had been a detachment rule rather than a faction rule? Shadow of the Warp may be the most boring rule GW's written in a half decade, but at least it's intrinsic to the Tyranids as a faction.
It's one thing to simplify the rules, but it's another to fundamentally shift the common traits of entire factions.
Nevelon wrote: Psychic dominion only works against psychic attacks. So it could be nasty against something like a warlock conclaive, or maybe som GK unit what spams a ton of those kind of attacks. But not just normal spammed small arms.
It's in any phase, so pop it in the fight phase against GK melee, to effectively neuter that unit's attacks.
Mr Morden wrote: Actually quite suprised they gave Makari rules and did not just use him as a marker like Tau droneswith his rules folded into Ghaz's main ones?
It's because of the Makari led all Grot army.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Sad to see Ghaz get smaller instead of continuing his rise to Prime Ork/Primarch status.
H.B.M.C. wrote: At one point Rubrics were simply immune to weapons below a certain strength. And later Rubrics had 2 wounds before it was cool, and, from I heard, it signified that they had something going for them.
Overall there seems to be a general line of redefining what various factions are in 10th.
Space Marines have shifted to "And They Shall Oaths of Moment", something that was never a big part of Marines and was invented - IIRC - in a Horus Heresy novel. Sisters of Silence don't appear to do anything to Psykers, which is bizarre. Chaos Marines now constantly kill themselves by entreating the Chaos Gods (one wonders how there are any of them left 10,000 years after the Heresy). Death Guard don't appear to be as tough as they were (and their previous toughness rules weren't just due to 9th lethality). Rubrics are the same (and, again, their inherent high resistance to damage has been around since 3rd Ed). Can you imagine if Waaagh had been a detachment rule rather than a faction rule? Shadow of the Warp may be the most boring rule GW's written in a half decade, but at least it's intrinsic to the Tyranids as a faction.
It's one thing to simplify the rules, but it's another to fundamentally shift the common traits of entire factions.
I honestly don't get the negativity towards the SiTW. For a half army rule it is quite nice. Fits well with the theme and adds a powerful resource to the player that must be used at the right moment. Both for gameplay and fluff it seems good.
H.B.M.C. wrote: At one point Rubrics were simply immune to weapons below a certain strength. And later Rubrics had 2 wounds before it was cool, and, from I heard, it signified that they had something going for them.
Overall there seems to be a general line of redefining what various factions are in 10th.
Space Marines have shifted to "And They Shall Oaths of Moment", something that was never a big part of Marines and was invented - IIRC - in a Horus Heresy novel. Sisters of Silence don't appear to do anything to Psykers, which is bizarre. Chaos Marines now constantly kill themselves by entreating the Chaos Gods (one wonders how there are any of them left 10,000 years after the Heresy). Death Guard don't appear to be as tough as they were (and their previous toughness rules weren't just due to 9th lethality). Rubrics are the same (and, again, their inherent high resistance to damage has been around since 3rd Ed). Can you imagine if Waaagh had been a detachment rule rather than a faction rule? Shadow of the Warp may be the most boring rule GW's written in a half decade, but at least it's intrinsic to the Tyranids as a faction.
It's one thing to simplify the rules, but it's another to fundamentally shift the common traits of entire factions.
My patchy memory seems to recall they got ap3 bolters at the same time as the 2nd wound and relentless all at once which gave them a spike, but they've also had several iterations where the extra durability was an invuln, which they still have. To be fair on chaos marines I'm sat here trying to conceptualise a rule that fits better. Their identity would say that veterans of the long war would be good, but at the same time it's not relevant to recently turned renegades etc. just as death to the false emperor suddenly makes no sense if you're playing against xenos or other chaos. So you come back to a generic chaosy thing and the best I can come up with is something weak like "chaotic hatred" and just have something similar to the combat doctrines from the marine detachment that encourages melee to represent that shift in focus.
You've hit upon a real conundrum of concept here: What are Chaos Marines?
Whereas most (not all) Loyalist Space Marines are defined by their use of the Codex Astartes*, Chaos Marines are most defined by their lack of real definition.
So what is a Chaos Space Marine then, conceptually?
A Veteran of the Long War? Well... not renegades. I doubt the Red Corsairs would be counted among the numbers of the original Legions, and there are plenty of Renegade Chapters.
Are they renegades? Sure, a bunch of them are, but the original Legions are far and above that.
Are they Chaos God-worshiping fanatics? Sure, but some of them don't look to the Chaos Gods at all, and some of them are renegades for entirely non-Chaotic reasons.
So is trying to cover something this broad with a single unifying rule perhaps a bad idea? I'd argue it 100% is, and I'd also argue that the solution they've come up with - "Pray until my gun kills me!" - is perhaps the worst summation or distillation possible of what a Chaos Marine is meant to be.
Wanton Slaughter/Massacre/Whatever the Other One Was may not have been the most inspired set of rules - just 'Evil Doctrines' really - but at least they were generic enough to generally cover the temperament of how we see most Chaos Marines. Members of your squad dying at random doesn't seem like a good substitute in my mind.
I enjoy the current CSM faction rule for Chaos worshipping warbands, but it doesn't quite fit the many renegades (and some Legions) who are not as intertwined with the chaos gods. Having more than one CSM faction would fix this.
I've always found it peculiar there are so many separate codexes for loyalists over the years but barely anything until recently with 1k Sons and WE. I guess CSM don't sell nearly as well.
If you don't want to play Chaos Space Marines you should consider playing Space Marines. Let's say you're playing Heart Marines, Marines that aren't douchebags and they decided they don't want to be part of a fascist Imperium so they turn renegade, why shouldn't you continue using the SM rules for them?
I think an interesting dichotomy between Chaos Space Marines and Space Marines would be CSM buffing one of their units to kill everything vs Space Marines buffing everything to kill one thing. Call it Eye of the Gods, but don't give it any downsides and then you can have some more interesting CSM rules in Detachments.
I don't think Oaths of Moment is a problem, it represents the Space Marines coming in and solving a problem and it even shows how Space Marines alone cannot solve every problem at once. It's also a better universal Space Marine rule than Combat Doctrines were because Combat Doctrines aren't fit to represent a first company fighting on its own or a reserve company fighting on its own, therefore íf you wanted rules to represent how the elements of a Tactical Company work together according to the Codex Astartes it should be in a Detachment.
Wyldhunt wrote: Wow. Am I crazy, or are the Thousand Sons looking way more spicy than the other previewed factions? Being able to just turn off a unit's armor saves a couple times a game is huge. Plus, Doombolt is kind of terrifying, and Psychic Dominion could ruin an attacking unit's day if they have a high rate of fire. (I'm thinking of swooping hawks here.)
Inferno Bolts going down to AP-1 was a surprise to me though. I thought they'd remain at AP-2 given that they used to be AP3 and that being good at punching through heavy armor has traditionally been one of their main things.
But yeah, this is the first preview where I'm actually excited about each thing previewed.
I'm really happy with them so far. They lost lots of durability from what we can see at the moment, but gained ways to do damage.
As I said elsewhere -- I think Doombolt is the better use of CP over Twist ( strip saves ) since it requires a lot of fire power with low AP for it to be relevant.
Their bolters were AP2 in 9th, but with reductions across the board it makes sense to be AP1 now.
I'm not sure I agree with doombolt over twist. Twisting something and unloading some Terminator bolters into the unit seems like a perfect and typical use. Flamers as well. Also just putting something to their invuln save if they have a bse 2+ save is super nice on the flamers.
Also at least first few turns you likely can do both.
H.B.M.C. wrote: So is trying to cover something this broad with a single unifying rule perhaps a bad idea? I'd argue it 100% is, and I'd also argue that the solution they've come up with - "Pray until my gun kills me!" - is perhaps the worst summation or distillation possible of what a Chaos Marine is meant to be.
vict0988 wrote: I don't think Oaths of Moment is a problem, it represents the Space Marines coming in and solving a problem and it even shows how Space Marines alone cannot solve every problem at once.
It feels like something pulled out of no where and said to have always been the central unifying aspect of Space Marines, even though it so clearly isn't (it was invented for a different setting FFS!). A bit like Chaos always having guns that kill them if they pray the wrong way.
vict0988 wrote: It's also a better universal Space Marine rule than Combat Doctrines were because Combat Doctrines aren't fit to represent a first company fighting on its own or a reserve company fighting on its own, therefore íf you wanted rules to represent how the elements of a Tactical Company work together according to the Codex Astartes it should be in a Detachment.
Except that, by definition, a 1st Company army would be an outlier, whereas the majority of formations from Codex Chapters would be better covered by something that generally shows how they fight: Codex Astartes doctrines. Because it's the most central and generalist thing associated with Marines.
Like I've said before, Oaths of Moment is a perfectly fine detachment rule, representing a rule given to an army that has come together for a specific thing and everyone in the formation has taken - wait for it... - and oath of moment. Then they fight according to the Codex Astartes (hence, Doctrines).
I don't know how you can praise an ability that gets things mostly right for Space Marines despite it being applied to every army, regardless of whether it fits, while complaining about a CSM rule that is applied to everyone because it doesn't fit some outliers.
I don't think every Space Marine army is constantly making Oaths of Moment, but I think the rules of the ability fits with how Space Marine overall engage with the enemies of the Imperium. You could call the ability Sword of the Emperor instead, unless I am getting things mixed up and that's not what they're referred as.
I do think it is important that CSM and Orks have more random rules than other factions and that CSM have more self-damage than SM. I think the new CSM rule is a little hamfisted but I like where they're going generally.
GK rules. Psycanon is a weaker autocanon, Psilance is a 6 shot stormbolter, psychic powers which did MW now are a 1 shot 18" stormbolter shot, and I assume it is 1 shot per squad member, because if GK purfing flame is 1 hit at str 4, then LoL. Auto advance on 6 is nice. Auto gate is very nice. +2sv is good if someone plays strikes. Unless GK termis are running with +4 inv, and with how GK stratagems seem to be 2CP, power armoured stuff will still be favoured.
All nemezis weapons turned in to one is very bad. No str 8 hammer, no staff, nothing. GM NDKs are good , for GKs, against monsters and vehicles. They will need those re-rolls though hiting on a roll of +4 with their hammer lol.
Stratagems are nice, but better for power armoured stuff as they incentise large squads. All in all comparing to the 1ksons rules, it seems a bit less fun. Could be a lot worse, if GW wanted it. GK better have A LOT of extra CP generators if they are to use any stratagems. Nothing for my terminators directly, leaves me cold after the GK review.
vict0988 wrote: I don't think Oaths of Moment is a problem, it represents the Space Marines coming in and solving a problem and it even shows how Space Marines alone cannot solve every problem at once.
It feels like something pulled out of no where and said to have always been the central unifying aspect of Space Marines, even though it so clearly isn't (it was invented for a different setting FFS!). A bit like Chaos always having guns that kill them if they pray the wrong way.
vict0988 wrote: It's also a better universal Space Marine rule than Combat Doctrines were because Combat Doctrines aren't fit to represent a first company fighting on its own or a reserve company fighting on its own, therefore íf you wanted rules to represent how the elements of a Tactical Company work together according to the Codex Astartes it should be in a Detachment.
Except that, by definition, a 1st Company army would be an outlier, whereas the majority of formations from Codex Chapters would be better covered by something that generally shows how they fight: Codex Astartes doctrines. Because it's the most central and generalist thing associated with Marines.
Like I've said before, Oaths of Moment is a perfectly fine detachment rule, representing a rule given to an army that has come together for a specific thing and everyone in the formation has taken - wait for it... - and oath of moment. Then they fight according to the Codex Astartes (hence, Doctrines).
The thing is some Space Marine don't fight according to the Codex Astartes. Space Wolves are famous for not following the Codex Astartes and they are not alone in the annuals of the Adeptus Astartes.
Oath of Moment might not be the best single phrase for what unifies Space Marines, but the rule itself very much embodies their well known focus on tearing apart the enemy one vital piece at a time.
As for Chaos Space Marines, they have always been known for trafficking with the dwellers of Warp for power. While the rule for Dark Pacts is not the best executed Faction rule of the new edition, it is definitely a thing that unifies Chaos Space Marines.
I'm divided about oaths of moment. On the one hand it fits the "drop in and kill a high value target" concept. On the other hand they just took the doom and guide combo that's been a core cwe trick for literal decades, made it even better and handed it to marines (assuming cwe lost it completely here based on the farseer preview).
Don't get me wrong, the cwe stuff looks fine as far as I can tell. But this still is a bit of a headscratcher for me.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Most Marine Chapters follow the Codex. The idea that they're more defined by Oaths of Moment than the Codex Astartes is ludicrous.
I think the problem here is pretty superficial. They could have called the ability Codex Astartes or Angels of Death, have some slightly different fluff for it (example: "The Codex Astartes dictates that Space Marines must focus down their enemies one at a time, here, this ability does exactly that.") and it had been better for continuity but made no real difference either way.
alextroy wrote: And yet as far as we know, they will be Faction Adeptus Astartes with Oath of Moment as their faction ability.
You really think that the Woofs are going to have the same rules as regular Marines?
alextroy wrote: Would you be happier if they remained the ability Angels of Death, Codex Astartes, Tip of the Spear, or Head of the Snake?
No, I'd be happier if Oaths of Moment was a detachment ability, and that the defining trait that is at the core of Codex Chapters be the Codex Astartes, and thus the shown detachment ability (ie. Codex Doctrines!) became the overall army ability. Because it's more fitting that the Adeptus Astartes use the Codex Astartes as their core concept, rather than something Dan Abnett invented for a HH novel.
But thanks for trying to imply that this is an issue of naming, rather than rules.
(If Oaths of Moment showed up before the first HH novel, please enlighten me)
alextroy wrote: And yet as far as we know, they will be Faction Adeptus Astartes with Oath of Moment as their faction ability.
You really think that the Woofs are going to have the same rules as regular Marines?
Given that the Land Raider datacard with Oath of Moment specifically refers to Wulfen, yes.
As far as we know right now, faction abilities are going to cover all the snowflakes.
They'll get snowflake detachments to choose from (in addition to the standard).
H.B.M.C. wrote: Because it's more fitting that the Adeptus Astartes use the Codex Astartes as their core concept, rather than something Dan Abnett invented for a HH novel.
Wait, what? I thought Oath of Moment was just a special snowflake name for the army ability and not an actual thing in the lore. I can't remember it from any of the Horus Heresy novels.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Because it's more fitting that the Adeptus Astartes use the Codex Astartes as their core concept, rather than something Dan Abnett invented for a HH novel.
Wait, what? I thought Oath of Moment was just a special snowflake name for the army ability and not an actual thing in the lore. I can't remember it from any of the Horus Heresy novels.
Suppose to be in Horus Rising by Dan Abnett,Flight of the Eisenstein by James Swallow ,Garro: Oath of Moment (Audio Book) by James Swallow, Prospero Burns by Dan Abnett
H.B.M.C. wrote: Because it's more fitting that the Adeptus Astartes use the Codex Astartes as their core concept, rather than something Dan Abnett invented for a HH novel.
Wait, what? I thought Oath of Moment was just a special snowflake name for the army ability and not an actual thing in the lore. I can't remember it from any of the Horus Heresy novels.
It comes up a fair number of times.
iirc, they scribble down objectives and oaths while gearing up/loading onto transports and pin the sheets to their armor.
Its more a precursor to purity seals than anything else.
But getting caught up on the ability name. \shrug.
Voss wrote: iirc, they scribble down objectives and oaths while gearing up/loading onto transports and pin the sheets to their armor.
Its more a precursor to purity seals than anything else.
I always understood it to be a wink and a nod to allowing you to use your 40K models to play HH, despite purity seals not being 'era-appropriate'.
Definitely feels like something that has become unexpectedly prominent, and I agree with HBMC that having the Codex-based doctrines be the army rule seems more appropriate.
Voss wrote: iirc, they scribble down objectives and oaths while gearing up/loading onto transports and pin the sheets to their armor.
Its more a precursor to purity seals than anything else.
I always understood it to be a wink and a nod to allowing you to use your 40K models to play HH, despite purity seals not being 'era-appropriate'.
Definitely feels like something that has become unexpectedly prominent, and I agree with HBMC that having the Codex-based doctrines be the army rule seems more appropriate.
Don't forget Bobby G even stated that the codex was more of a set of guidelines than anything and doesn't enforce them stringently.
Voss wrote: iirc, they scribble down objectives and oaths while gearing up/loading onto transports and pin the sheets to their armor.
Its more a precursor to purity seals than anything else.
I always understood it to be a wink and a nod to allowing you to use your 40K models to play HH, despite purity seals not being 'era-appropriate'.
Definitely feels like something that has become unexpectedly prominent, and I agree with HBMC that having the Codex-based doctrines be the army rule seems more appropriate.
Don't forget Bobby G even stated that the codex was more of a set of guidelines than anything and doesn't enforce them stringently.
Don't forget that the Imperium is a religious theocracy where a "set of guidelines" becomes iron law after ten thousand -
Oh wait he's back and can just hit Ctrl+Z on the Imperium's intellectual decay tracking spreadsheet, nvm.
Karol wrote: GK rules. Psycanon is a weaker autocanon, Psilance is a 6 shot stormbolter, psychic powers which did MW now are a 1 shot 18" stormbolter shot, and I assume it is 1 shot per squad member, because if GK purfing flame is 1 hit at str 4, then LoL. Auto advance on 6 is nice. Auto gate is very nice. +2sv is good if someone plays strikes. Unless GK termis are running with +4 inv, and with how GK stratagems seem to be 2CP, power armoured stuff will still be favoured.
All nemezis weapons turned in to one is very bad. No str 8 hammer, no staff, nothing. GM NDKs are good , for GKs, against monsters and vehicles. They will need those re-rolls though hiting on a roll of +4 with their hammer lol.
Stratagems are nice, but better for power armoured stuff as they incentise large squads. All in all comparing to the 1ksons rules, it seems a bit less fun. Could be a lot worse, if GW wanted it. GK better have A LOT of extra CP generators if they are to use any stratagems. Nothing for my terminators directly, leaves me cold after the GK review.
Nemesis being consolidated is a good thing. GK have been some of the most abused weapon sets in the game. The number of times people had to switch has been nuts.
Purifying flame is one per dude. You'll almost certainly be able to get DW on psychic shooting.
Your termies we definitely have a 4++ and will love shunting and not being targetable.
Dudeface wrote: Don't forget Bobby G even stated that the codex was more of a set of guidelines than anything and doesn't enforce them stringently.
And then in the same breath said "But Oaths of Moment? Yeah you should all be doing that all the time. I mean, that's kind of what Space Marines are all about!"
Nemesis being consolidated is a good thing. GK have been some of the most abused weapon sets in the game. The number of times people had to switch has been nuts.
Purifying flame is one per dude. You'll almost certainly be able to get DW on psychic shooting.
Your termies we definitely have a 4++ and will love shunting and not being targetable.
I don't know str 6 in melee , no hammers seems really bad in a world with custodes terminators with t7, and vehicles with t8+. Especialy as the rest of the weapons are str 4 ap0 or ap 1. P Flame even if cast by strikes or interceptors will still be max 10 extra stormbolters shots at 18" range. It will not scale well for terminators or paladins, and I don't think GK need more str 4 shots. Even my terminator lists didn't need it. Well I hope that terminators get something too. But for two editions I have see them cost twice the points for half the efficiency of a strike. If they get +4 inv, I won't be sad about it for sure.
alextroy wrote: Space Wolves are famous for not following the Codex Astartes and they are not alone in the annuals of the Adeptus Astartes.
How is this relevant? Space Wolves are getting their own book
And they shouldn't
They had one since 2ed. If they don't get one then non faction should.
They were in fact the first ever Warhammer 40k codex. If that isnt a reason to keep it around for tradition sake I don't know what is.
I've decades of memories now of the various marines complaining at each other because they haven't got new generic tank A or weapon B is better in the new codex and they have to wait their turn.
But I guess they've decided not to iterate there either...
Yeah, I feel as much as it caused problems in chaos land they made an effort to make it so there isn't as much shared between them, but for the loyalists it's a much larger swathe of the unit choices, which outs it back firmly into "1 book and a supplement". Or as this is, "unlock these units extra, here's your new rules and a selection of detachments et al.
Which is part of the problem. Is it so hard to just have "Marines gone loco" as a unit entry itself? Do we NEED Death Company by name because otherwise it's not Blood Angels?
Lord Clinto wrote: Just noticed that the GK Teleport Assault rule only specifies "Grey Knights" units; wonder if we have incoming Remove and Deep Strike Land Raiders?
It specifies 'Grey Knight units with this ability' - they just need to leave it off the Datasheet, like they did with the Custodes Army Rule and SoS.
Dudeface wrote: Don't forget Bobby G even stated that the codex was more of a set of guidelines than anything and doesn't enforce them stringently.
And then in the same breath said "But Oaths of Moment? Yeah you should all be doing that all the time. I mean, that's kind of what Space Marines are all about!"
Lord Clinto wrote: Just noticed that the GK Teleport Assault rule only specifies "Grey Knights" units; wonder if we have incoming Remove and Deep Strike Land Raiders?
It specifies 'Grey Knight units with this ability' - they just need to leave it off the Datasheet, like they did with the Custodes Army Rule and SoS.
Good point.
Purgation Squad shows the "Core: Deep Strike" and "Faction: Teleport Assault". So I guess the datasheet will determine if they can use it.
Which is part of the problem. Is it so hard to just have "Marines gone loco" as a unit entry itself? Do we NEED Death Company by name because otherwise it's not Blood Angels?
yes, because DC is different from lets say Wulfen. Same way DW terminators are different from Wolfguard or how SG is different from TWC.
Which is part of the problem. Is it so hard to just have "Marines gone loco" as a unit entry itself? Do we NEED Death Company by name because otherwise it's not Blood Angels?
Yes, yes we do need Death Company to be their own thing.
Arachnofiend wrote: Credit where it's due, Grey Knights teleporting around like Dawn of War termies is actually pretty cool. Not a word I use for that faction very often.
I know it's flanderised, but it I also like that they're not Thousand Sons, but Grey ( and no lopsided daemon rules ). I think they've done a decent job so far of making each army feel different on it's face.
Chaos is simple strong leaders. That's what every chaos warbands has in common Including the ols legions(demon primarchs) it is litteraly what holds their fighting forces together. The most giften, the strongest, the smartest the most blessed by the gods. It obvious in all the books all the lore.
Regular space marines fallow the authority the chapter master is listened to becuse he is the chapter master, not because he is the best fighter (though he is usually very good at fightinng) he dosent need to be the smartest, he dosent need to be the best. Chaos should have a strong undisputed leader of their warbands and everything is built around that.
A mechanic where they acheve goals and are blessed for the rest of the match by the gods would also be cool.
Boosykes wrote: Chaos is simple strong leaders. That's what every chaos warbands has in common Including the ols legions(demon primarchs) it is litteraly what holds their fighting forces together. The most giften, the strongest, the smartest the most blessed by the gods. It obvious in all the books all the lore.
Regular space marines fallow the authority the chapter master is listened to becuse he is the chapter master, not because he is the best fighter (though he is usually very good at fightinng) he dosent need to be the smartest, he dosent need to be the best. Chaos should have a strong undisputed leader of their warbands and everything is built around that.
A mechanic where they acheve goals and are blessed for the rest of the match by the gods would also be cool.
Not all of the Traitor Legions are led by a Daemon Primarch. And some are known for their distrust and rebellion against leadership. the "Gods'. AVE DOMINUS NOX!!
Gadzilla666 wrote: But, apparently, not the Chaos Gods loving Word Bearers, and the Chaos Gods ignoring Night Lords. Because, apparently, all CSM are now Word Bearers.
(Seriously, are the 40k writers just trying to push CSM players into 30k now)
It really seems that way. Just look at the Night Lords legion rules, as well as their inductii. They were written by someone who honest to his gets what the legion is supposed to be and how it should play, and who took the time to make them both thematic and useful at once.
GK teleport shenanigans are pretty cool I guess, but the army doesn't feel like an army of psykers like it did before.
Obviously when the dex comes, there will be a detachment that does feel like an army of psykers- after seeing Ksons, I now know that GW can do it despite the curb stomping of psychic rules, so I'm sure one of our detachments will make it possible.
Could be waiting awhile for that dex though.
In the meantime, Here we are! Oh, nope, we're actually over here. (No we aren't).
Gadzilla666 wrote: But, apparently, not the Chaos Gods loving Word Bearers, and the Chaos Gods ignoring Night Lords. Because, apparently, all CSM are now Word Bearers.
(Seriously, are the 40k writers just trying to push CSM players into 30k now)
It really seems that way. Just look at the Night Lords legion rules, as well as their inductii. They were written by someone who honest to his gets what the legion is supposed to be and how it should play, and who took the time to make them both thematic and useful at once.
Yeah. It definitely feels like the 30k writers actually understand the Traitor Legions better than the 40k writers.
Edit: And to an extreme scale where the 8th is concerned.
I'm convinced that different teams wrote different parts of this book and never spoke to one another during the development process. Their inconsistency is hair-tearingly frustrating.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I'm convinced that different teams wrote different parts of this book and never spoke to one another during the development process. Their inconsistency is hair-tearingly frustrating.
In it we get the rules for disembarking from a destroyed transport:
Deploy within 3".
Roll a D6 for each model.
For each 1, the unit suffers a MW.
If a model cannot deploy within 3", it can deploy within 6", but the unit suffers a MW on a 1-3 rather than a 1.
Why the hell isn't Desperate Breakout using the exact same mechanic?
Rather than insta-killing models regardless of toughness/wounds/save on a 1-2, you cause Mortal Wounds on a 1-2.
Why not use the same damned mechanic rather than creating a weird new method of causing damage that ignores all the basic rules of causing damage?
It's so fething frustrating...
Because they are not the same game situation.
In one case you are talking about a transport being popped. Normal event. A player put stuff into a transport and the other player destroyed it. If they had used the desperate escape rules for disembarking no one would use transports because it would be too dangerous. It is too much of an advantage given to the attacker for not that special of an achievement.
On the other hand you have the case of battleshocked unit trying to run away from melee. Creating that situation is a lot harder for the attacker, and rewarding him with "maybe some MW" doesn't give him an incentive to pursue this game situation. To create a game with real tactical choices, you have to balance how much an impact a certain move can bring to the table with how difficult is for a player to pull that move.
At the moment they are balanced. If they did it like you proposed, the game would be worse, because you would remove for a player the option of trying to trap a unit with a combined assault of melee units and battleshock sources.
Spoletta wrote: Because they are not the same game situation.
So we need two different sets of mechanics to determine how people die from being caught in something (exploding transport vs melee) with wildly differing outcomes (MW vs insta-death regardless of wounds) but having combi-weapons with different profiles is just a bridge too far!
Spoletta wrote: On the other hand you have the case of battleshocked unit trying to run away from melee. Creating that situation is a lot harder for the attacker, and rewarding him with "maybe some MW" doesn't give him an incentive to pursue this game situation. To create a game with real tactical choices, you have to balance how much an impact a certain move can bring to the table with how difficult is for a player to pull that move.
I don't believe you. I think causing MW to 1/3rd of the unit is a pretty hefty penalty for being able to run away.
This is the same situation, especially on a game of this scale: It's units being caught in a dangerous situation where getting out safely is impossible and it will result in damage to the unit in some degree. The difference is one is scalable and uses and existing mechanic inherent to the rules of the game whereas the other invents an entirely new method of killing things that circumvents all existing rules and doesn't scale.
There is no need to differentiate these two situations with entirely different mechanics.
Spoletta wrote: Because they are not the same game situation.
So we need two different sets of mechanics to determine how people die from being caught in something (exploding transport vs melee) with wildly differing outcomes (MW vs insta-death regardless of wounds) but having combi-weapons with different profiles is just a bridge too far!
Spoletta wrote: On the other hand you have the case of battleshocked unit trying to run away from melee. Creating that situation is a lot harder for the attacker, and rewarding him with "maybe some MW" doesn't give him an incentive to pursue this game situation. To create a game with real tactical choices, you have to balance how much an impact a certain move can bring to the table with how difficult is for a player to pull that move.
I don't believe you. I think causing MW to 1/3rd of the unit is a pretty hefty penalty for being able to run away.
It is for W1 models.
But if you manage to Battleshock a squad of Allarus Custodians, get them in melee, and force them to fall back, you'd need a squad of 12 to kill ONE.
Tougher things shouldn't just insta-die like that.
JNAProductions wrote: But if you manage to Battleshock a squad of Allarus Custodians, get them in melee, and force them to fall back, you'd need a squad of 12 to kill ONE.
If you manage to battleshock a high discipline unit like Allarus AND put them in a situation where they have to run, you shouldn't be rewarded with one wound on one guy.
That's a get out of prison free ticket. That's bad for the game.
Also I still don't understand why in your mind a transport being popped and a unit running for their lives while surrounded are the same game situation.
Tougher things shouldn't just insta-die like that.
JNAProductions wrote: But if you manage to Battleshock a squad of Allarus Custodians, get them in melee, and force them to fall back, you'd need a squad of 12 to kill ONE.
Yes. And?
It'd be a bit like Damage 1 lascannons, they'd feel awful to use. If after Battleshocking a squad of Allarus Custodians by using a Relic and an ability and a bit of luck they still had zero chance of suffering real consequences it would feel bad.
Tougher things shouldn't just insta-die like that.
JNAProductions wrote: But if you manage to Battleshock a squad of Allarus Custodians, get them in melee, and force them to fall back, you'd need a squad of 12 to kill ONE.
Yes. And?
With a Leadership of 6+, you've got a just over 40% chance of making them fail a Battleshock test with a -1 penalty, such as from a Screamer Killer's Plasma.
If they maintain their current max size of 6, then if you manage to get them to take a Battleshock test, fail it, charge them, survive their melee, and concentrate enough force to threaten them or catch them in a position where they need to fall back to get somewhere else, you'd expect to half-kill ONE Allarus, from a max-sized squad.
Actually, scratch that. You'd expect to do one wound, since they have a 4+++ against Mortals.
The odds of doing no mortal wounds to a six-man squad? Just over one in three.
Killing one? Fourth fifths of a percent.
Again-this is already a tough situation. You're not likely to Battleshock them even with a penalty to their roll.
You're not likely to force them to fall back while Battleshocked, since their melee is pretty good and they can't hold objectives, so there's not even much point in falling back onto an objective or something.
So if you pull that all off... I don't think it's unreasonable to think you should have better than two in three odds of doing ANY damage, and better than one in five odds of doing evne half the wounds of one singular model.
alextroy wrote: Space Wolves are famous for not following the Codex Astartes and they are not alone in the annuals of the Adeptus Astartes.
How is this relevant? Space Wolves are getting their own book
And they shouldn't
They had one since 2ed. If they don't get one then non faction should.
They were in fact the first ever Warhammer 40k codex. If that isnt a reason to keep it around for tradition sake I don't know what is.
Well Tradition in and of itself isn't really a reason to keep a codex around, but they're deviation is.
Harlequins and Eldar are different factions in the same Codex.
I think that Generic Marines and Viking Marines can be in the same 'Dex too.
Harlequinns are closer to Inquisition/Imperial Agents than a seperate faction but I'm ok with splitting out the Harlies. More fluff is always nice.
Technically the Harlequin army list is older than the craft world army list anyway. They both had army lists in the second half of 1st Ed but Harlequins was out in WD first.
Spoletta wrote: On the other hand you have the case of battleshocked unit trying to run away from melee. Creating that situation is a lot harder for the attacker, and rewarding him with "maybe some MW" doesn't give him an incentive to pursue this game situation. To create a game with real tactical choices, you have to balance how much an impact a certain move can bring to the table with how difficult is for a player to pull that move.
There is no choice here because being Battleshocked has no effect on the unit's fighting ability: if the Battleshocked is good at melee then it won't run away just stay and fight, and if it isn't then it is dead anyway and it doesn't matter how it will lose its models. Here also note that Battleshocked unit you charge stop being Battleshocked before they Fall Back and then they have to become Battleshocked again to trigger that massed Desperate Escape - you basically have to drop them under half strength with your charge and pray for a fail on the BS check (heh) but if you mess up that unit so hard then the other player has no real reason to bother and will Fall Back knowing that their unit is already fugged. It feels like a pretty extreme case to matter, but when it does it (literally) randomly drops the hammer blow.
Boosykes wrote: Chaos is simple strong leaders. That's what every chaos warbands has in common Including the ols legions(demon primarchs) it is litteraly what holds their fighting forces together. The most giften, the strongest, the smartest the most blessed by the gods. It obvious in all the books all the lore.
Regular space marines fallow the authority the chapter master is listened to becuse he is the chapter master, not because he is the best fighter (though he is usually very good at fightinng) he dosent need to be the smartest, he dosent need to be the best. Chaos should have a strong undisputed leader of their warbands and everything is built around that.
A mechanic where they acheve goals and are blessed for the rest of the match by the gods would also be cool.
Not all of the Traitor Legions are led by a Daemon Primarch. And some are known for their distrust and rebellion against leadership. the "Gods'. AVE DOMINUS NOX!!
But they are led by a strong leader that's my point.
It's clear you cant have a chaos fighting force withought leaders holding them together and how does someone become leader in a chaos war and? By being the strongest. We need more focused on our leaders.
While I agree, I think the one nice thing about Chaos is the lack of named characters means that your Chaos Lord is the leader of the warband and has less "must include" units to compete with.
On a related note, is there a list out there of all the named Chaos Characters that have migrated into Legends? I feel like I haven't seen anyone besides Abbadon, Ahriman and DG Characters fielded in years.
I completely forgot that was a thing For some reason I thought there was someone besides the Vrak's Chaos characters that was moving into legends. Must have been a rumor mill.
I completely forgot that was a thing For some reason I thought there was someone besides the Vrak's Chaos characters that was moving into legends. Must have been a rumor mill.
JNAProductions wrote: It is for W1 models. But if you manage to Battleshock a squad of Allarus Custodians, get them in melee, and force them to fall back, you'd need a squad of 12 to kill ONE.
A possible fix would be rolling for the unit's total wound count, not model count. So Custodians would be rolling 4 per model.
Or make battleshock stronger by not allowing Fall Back at all (I think I would prefer that one).
But well inconsistent rules has been on of those eternal GW issues.
Yeah. It definitely feels like the 30k writers actually understand the Traitor Legions better than the 40k writers.
Edit: And to an extreme scale where the 8th is concerned.
Well traitor legions are half of the 30k factions while in 40k they are mostly subfactions for one faction. And the few ones that get to be their own faction are defined more by their God than by their Legion.
So it is kinda a given that 30k allows a far deeper understanding of the Traitor Legions.
Yeah. It definitely feels like the 30k writers actually understand the Traitor Legions better than the 40k writers.
Edit: And to an extreme scale where the 8th is concerned.
Well traitor legions are half of the 30k factions while in 40k they are mostly subfactions for one faction. And the few ones that get to be their own faction are defined more by their God than by their Legion.
So it is kinda a given that 30k allows a far deeper understanding of the Traitor Legions.
That argument only works if you haven't been around long enough to remember the 3.5 Chaos codex and the Traitor Legions supplement. Gw has represented the Traitor Legions just fine even when they're "subfactions". We have the evidence.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I'm convinced that different teams wrote different parts of this book and never spoke to one another during the development process. Their inconsistency is hair-tearingly frustrating.
In it we get the rules for disembarking from a destroyed transport:
Deploy within 3".
Roll a D6 for each model.
For each 1, the unit suffers a MW.
If a model cannot deploy within 3", it can deploy within 6", but the unit suffers a MW on a 1-3 rather than a 1.
Why the hell isn't Desperate Breakout using the exact same mechanic?
Rather than insta-killing models regardless of toughness/wounds/save on a 1-2, you cause Mortal Wounds on a 1-2.
Why not use the same damned mechanic rather than creating a weird new method of causing damage that ignores all the basic rules of causing damage?
It's so fething frustrating...
The two situations aren't actually analagous. Transports are very common and something GW wants to encourage the use of, while still modelling some sort of danger for the passengers when they're destroyed. The destruction of the model isn't really something the owning player has any control over. Combine those two factors and having a less lethal situation in the case of transport destruction makes sense. OTOH, falling back from combat is always a choice for the owning player, so putting in place a harsher punishment for that choice has some degree of justification to it.
Of course, we can debate whether the magnitude of the effects and the mechanics are the right ones, but it's not like there's some objective truth that means both situations have to be the same.
JNAProductions wrote: Harlequins and Eldar are different factions in the same Codex.
I think that Generic Marines and Viking Marines can be in the same 'Dex too.
Eldar a side faction. Ultramarines alone have more special characters, then eldar combined probably. And there would still be all the IF, RG, CF, SW, BA, IH special characters, their special type of units we are talking tens of pages of rules, and GW also wants to show pictures of stuff. Even before the obligatory 2-3 detachment rules for every marine faction, their own relics, warlord traits, specific stratagems the book would be huge. Such a space marine codex would be the proverbial 1000 pages long.
It would be a bit like saying that tau, all eldar and orks, tyranids and necrons too should be in one book. Because they are all xeno.
JNAProductions wrote: Harlequins and Eldar are different factions in the same Codex.
I think that Generic Marines and Viking Marines can be in the same 'Dex too.
Eldar a side faction. Ultramarines alone have more special characters, then eldar combined probably. And there would still be all the IF, RG, CF, SW, BA, IH special characters, their special type of units we are talking tens of pages of rules, and GW also wants to show pictures of stuff. Even before the obligatory 2-3 detachment rules for every marine faction, their own relics, warlord traits, specific stratagems the book would be huge. Such a space marine codex would be the proverbial 1000 pages long.
It would be a bit like saying that tau, all eldar and orks, tyranids and necrons too should be in one book. Because they are all xeno.
Not if GW removed some of the special characters from these chapters. SW really don't need a dozen SC, and IH, RG, WS, IF and Salamanders literally have a single SC each and no special units. That was mainly so they'd have something to put in their supplements. Even the special units that DA, BA and BT have are easily replicated through the regular SM units and maybe one or two additional rules or equipment options. SW are maybe a little different, but probably not so different you couldn't get close to them just using the SM codex.
As an example, BA have Death Company and Sanguinary Guard as their special units. Both can be represented using the Vanguard Veteran unit entry and a couple of special rules and minor equipment option changes. As a BA player I wouldn't be opposed to that approach. Nor would I bemoan the removal of Tycho as a SC, for example.
Slipspace wrote: To repeat what I said in the N&R thread, these rules feel like a step backwards to me. Removing everything except Light Cover puts us right back to 8th and seems to make terrain less impactful overall. I would at least have liked to see them keep Dense as its own type of terrain.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
oni wrote: Just a thought... I was looking at the new Dataslates and it occurred to me that there is no unit composition listed. The min/max number of models is easily handled in the points listing, but what about default wargear, available wargear upgrades and their quantities? I'm thinking that the index/codex datasheet will have more detail than the reference cards and the examples we're seeing are the cards.
The key thing to remember about the dataslates is they're effectively a playing aid. They're designed to allow you to use the unit on the battlefield and it's assumed everything will be WYSIWYG. All the pre-game stuff you need to know like default equipment, options and unit size will be in the Codex/Index as that's not directly relevant once you're at the table.
Getting cover in 8th edition was so difficult we almost did not play with it. Units early qualified for it.
Now if any part of the model is in cover, it gets cover.
So that same tip of a banner pole that let's you completely annihilate an entire squad that you cannot acually see also provides cover if you can see the entire squad execpt for that banner pole.
Or the entire unit can be standing on the open, but if one member of an attacking squad cannot see the tip of one model's gun barrel, because it's behind a wall... the unit has cover.
Getting cover on 10th will be easy, so easy in fact I expect most attacks will be made at units in cover.
If I am somehow misinterpreting the very generous LOS/cover rules on 10th please let me know.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Now if any part of the model is in cover, it gets cover.
So that same tip of a banner pole that let's you completely annihilate an entire squad that you cannot acually see also provides cover if you can see the entire squad execpt for that banner pole.
Or the entire unit can be standing on the open, but if one member of an attacking squad cannot see the tip of one model's gun barrel, because it's behind a wall... the unit has cover.
Getting cover on 10th will be easy, so easy in fact I expect most attacks will be made at units in cover.
If I am somehow misinterpreting the very generous LOS/cover rules on 10th please let me know.
As far as i understood it, 'Benefit of Cover' operates on a per-model basis exclusively, so the whole unit 'gets cover' for as many attacks as you can allocate against that hypothetical one obscured model before it croaks, and the rest of the attacks go on without BOC. It's dumb, because these situations probably mean you have to slow-roll until the coverdude is gone.
Other than that, banner poles et al. are not a problem that popped up just now - it's more of a player-problem than a rule problem. If you play with the sort of people that gets unpleasant about these things, no amount of specification in the rules is going to save you from asshattery: the asshattery just becomes about a given model fitting the specification instead of more general problems. You can't have reasonable solutions with unreasonable players.
We only have the definition "Partially visible" and "Fully visible". We don't know what they mean.
Even if the rules say that e.g. banners or antennas do not count, a determined asshat will just start to argue if any given thing falls under stuff that does not count or is something else. There's just no winning these discussion or preventing them from coming up - what usually prevents them is both sides acting in good faith, having an unspoken social contract that the point of the game is to have fun and an understanding that rules-lawyering the edge cases too much harms that.
Tsagualsa wrote: Even if the rules say that e.g. banners or antennas do not count...
From what we've seen from the "How to play 40k" leaks, it's any part of the model, so banners and antennas sadly.
I hope we're wrong about this.
And if cover is on a model by model basis (and hopefully LOS as well), then that could be better. Still pretty wild that terrain doesn't slow you down at all (unless it's height related). They wanted simple and not simplistic, but still... that's silly.
The official previews have done a very poor job of explaining the basics of 10th edition so far. Hopefully that is what they have planned to fill the time once they finish the faction previews next week.
I would also not worry too much about the leaked information, as until we see all the pages we don't know what they missed in their leak.
But, dense cover in 9th was silly and people just accepted the abstraction and got on with their lives. I'm sure most of us will manage to do the same in 10th.
We only have the definition "Partially visible" and "Fully visible". We don't know what they mean.
Even if the rules say that e.g. banners or antennas do not count, a determined asshat will just start to argue if any given thing falls under stuff that does not count or is something else. There's just no winning these discussion or preventing them from coming up - what usually prevents them is both sides acting in good faith, having an unspoken social contract that the point of the game is to have fun and an understanding that rules-lawyering the edge cases too much harms that.
Yes but a simple phrase that says "do not count antennas or banners when determining LOS" would remove a lot of those interactions to begin with.
The Red Hobbit wrote: Yes but a simple phrase that says "do not count antennas or banners when determining LOS" would remove a lot of those interactions to begin with.
I know that 5th had a rule like that, where you couldn't target a model if all you could see was "...a weapon, an antenna, a banner or some other ornament...wing and tail..."
I guess we will know in a couple of weeks. Plus there is always a chance that some of the leaks were from draft copies, which have some minor differences from the final versions.
The Red Hobbit wrote: Yes but a simple phrase that says "do not count antennas or banners when determining LOS" would remove a lot of those interactions to begin with.
I know that 5th had a rule like that, where you couldn't target a model if all you could see was "...a weapon, an antenna, a banner or some other ornament...wing and tail..."
I guess we will know in a couple of weeks. Plus there is always a chance that some of the leaks were from draft copies, which have some minor differences from the final versions.
Just use a plain pushfit marine or even a stack of bases at the appropriate height as 'dummy' for contentious cases - eleminates all problems with antennas, eyestalks, tactical rocks, tentacles, wings, prehensile slaaneshi *attachments* or whatever.
They won't prevent them being los because "arguments" that apparently occur and hold up every game for hours over any slightly potentially debatable issue. See templates etc.
Dai wrote: They won't prevent them being los because "arguments" that apparently occur and hold up every game for hours over any slightly potentially debatable issue. See templates etc.
Templates were perfectly designed to cause arguments because it is almost impossible for both players to see the parallax the same way.
Tsagualsa wrote: Just use a plain pushfit marine or even a stack of bases at the appropriate height as 'dummy' for contentious cases - eleminates all problems with antennas, eyestalks, tactical rocks, tentacles, wings, prehensile slaaneshi *attachments* or whatever.
One of the common ways to handle LOS in other games is to use TLOS, but projecting a cylinder (typically the width of the base) up to a given height rather than going by the model itself. That gets you straightforward establishment of line-of-sight in a cluttered, vertically dynamic environment (something mechanical line-of-sight systems can struggle with), but without the actual sculpt being relevant. Infinity makes it work pretty well.
But 40K is stuck in this archaic system where the static pose of your model matters, prone snipers can't so much as kneel to see over sandbags, inspiring your men with a sword held aloft is a great way to get them all killed by bullets bending around intervening obstacles, 'modeling for advantage' is something people actually worry about, and we get these stupid arguments over which elements of a fictional space alien man are decorative and which constitute valid targets for attack.
At least I haven't seen any indication of 10th using '25% obscured' or other impossible-to-objectively-assess measurements.
Dai wrote: They won't prevent them being los because "arguments" that apparently occur and hold up every game for hours over any slightly potentially debatable issue. See templates etc.
To be fair, template disputes weren't generally hours-long affairs. They usually got resolved quickly (with a roll-off if nothing else), but there was frequently a certain amount of going along with your opponent's count even if you didn't necessarily 100% agree for the sake of being a good sport and keeping things moving. Which got annoying over time.
It's not that anyone was trying to cheat anyone else, but it chafed a little and left many of us wishing there was a more cut-and-dry system in place.
Dai wrote: They won't prevent them being los because "arguments" that apparently occur and hold up every game for hours over any slightly potentially debatable issue. See templates etc.
To be fair, template disputes weren't generally hours-long affairs. They usually got resolved quickly (with a roll-off if nothing else), but there was frequently a certain amount of going along with your opponent's count even if you didn't necessarily 100% agree for the sake of being a good sport and keeping things moving. Which got annoying over time.
It's not that anyone was trying to cheat anyone else, but it chafed a little and left many of us wishing there was a more cut-and-dry system in place.
It was a problem more for people who don't like confrontation and so someone who was more willing to take advantage of someone would benefit more.
Granted I was being a bit of a snarky arse, apologies but I imagine that nevertheless any part of the model will grant line of sight and that this will be the reason. Will be pleasantly surprised if not
JNAProductions wrote: Harlequins and Eldar are different factions in the same Codex.
I think that Generic Marines and Viking Marines can be in the same 'Dex too.
Eldar a side faction. Ultramarines alone have more special characters, then eldar combined probably. And there would still be all the IF, RG, CF, SW, BA, IH special characters, their special type of units we are talking tens of pages of rules, and GW also wants to show pictures of stuff. Even before the obligatory 2-3 detachment rules for every marine faction, their own relics, warlord traits, specific stratagems the book would be huge. Such a space marine codex would be the proverbial 1000 pages long.
It would be a bit like saying that tau, all eldar and orks, tyranids and necrons too should be in one book. Because they are all xeno.
I'd just prefer to go the other way - Inject some more variety into the Eldar (and so on) codices. The choices were/are Eldrad and NPC Eldar Character everyone expects to lose and die. Its especially true for armies like GSC. When is the last time anyone read a Black Library novel, or saw a Summer Campaign and said "You know, I think the Genestealers are going to win this one"? Part of that is that the Summer Campaigns are pre-written into a corner. "If this planet falls it'll be the death of the Imperium" ergo the planet will not fall because we're maintaining the Status Quo forever. Maintaining the Status Quo is and should be the goal, but doing so while letting the planet fall from time to time should also be built into the premise. Guilliman, being the master strategist didn't put all his eggs into the Vigilus basket, and sent a strike force of Black Templars and White Scars to liberate the plant Warinus from the (A sub-faction not on the main campaign world). This would also help with the issue of there only being one planet under seige in the galaxy so everyone and their sister is going there thing.
Breton wrote: Maintaining the Status Quo is and should be the goal, but doing so while letting the planet fall from time to time should also be built into the premise.
That would take actual effort with worldbuilding and such, not just putting on paper whatever the writer has on their mind at the given moment.
Breton wrote: Maintaining the Status Quo is and should be the goal, but doing so while letting the planet fall from time to time should also be built into the premise.
That would take actual effort with worldbuilding and such, not just putting on paper whatever the writer has on their mind at the given moment.
I'm willing to suggest we expect at least that much effort.
Bad in what context? There's barely any units shown, they get to hand out easy rerolls and their weapons/profiles aren't horrid. We also have no points.
tneva82 wrote: Every time new faction focus comes out complaining begins. At least every faction gets to be miserable
People tend to look at what they had so when profile looks worse than it was in 9e it's time to complain.
Or people say "makb game less lethal!" And then complain when damage output of own army dropped. "i mean make other armies damage output worse!"
This is a large part of the problem, the game is going through a reductionist phase in terms of lethality and offensive stats largely, alongside options, so people are literally only losing stuf rather than gaining which is inherently negative. Pair that with the innate of wanting to be the best or have an advantage (it's only human), then yes each preview will suck to that factions owners.
Bad in that its completely lackluster. And still tries to force design decisions around taking all 3 HQ choices.
The strat they revealed sucks.
PFP and empowered through pain both I was hoping for more. Those are the defining rules no? But both faction rule and army rule total up to spend tokens on reroll adv/charge/hits.
Blaster became worse by virtue of game wide increases in toughness while blasters remain s8.
Whats good from the spoiler?
Splinter weaponry goes to assault 2 and anti 3+ which is probably what it should have been to start with. My bet is it won't matter much. Not like we don't know how an ap 0 bolter profile performs by now. This change mostly removes the benefit light armoured t3 armies were getting from splinter fire. It still won't win games.
Venoms weaponry hardly changed, the unvuln is now meaningless but they confer a reembark so I guess thats good.
And lastly it seems BS was not worsened like some other factions so maybe that can be considered positive.
Overall nothing to inspire me for drukhari in 10th so far.
tneva82 wrote: Every time new faction focus comes out complaining begins. At least every faction gets to be miserable
People tend to look at what they had so when profile looks worse than it was in 9e it's time to complain.
Or people say "makb game less lethal!" And then complain when damage output of own army dropped. "i mean make other armies damage output worse!"
This is a large part of the problem, the game is going through a reductionist phase in terms of lethality and offensive stats largely, alongside options, so people are literally only losing stuf rather than gaining which is inherently negative. Pair that with the innate of wanting to be the best or have an advantage (it's only human), then yes each preview will suck to that factions owners.
Well with this preview my Drukhari infantry gained a way to be combat squaded.
Not sure how usefull that's going to prove to me, but it's a +.
dominuschao wrote: Bad in that its completely lackluster. And still tries to force design decisions around taking all 3 HQ choices.
The strat they revealed sucks.
PFP and empowered through pain both I was hoping for more. Those are the defining rules no? But both faction rule and army rule total up to spend tokens on reroll adv/charge/hits.
Blaster became worse by virtue of game wide increases in toughness while blasters remain s8.
Whats good from the spoiler?
Splinter weaponry goes to assault 2 and anti 3+ which is probably what it should have been to start with. My bet is it won't matter much. Not like we don't know how an ap 0 bolter profile performs by now. This change mostly removes the benefit light armoured t3 armies were getting from splinter fire. It still won't win games.
Venoms weaponry hardly changed, the unvuln is now meaningless but they confer a reembark so I guess thats good.
And lastly it seems BS was not worsened like some other factions so maybe that can be considered positive.
Overall nothing to inspire me for drukhari in 10th so far.
Well... what did you want? 2 shot anti infantry 3+ ap-2 d2 splinter rifles with devastating wounds on and t10 raiders with a -1 to hit and 5+ for them to fire out of whilst moving 14" a turn with full rerolls to hit?
tneva82 wrote: Every time new faction focus comes out complaining begins. At least every faction gets to be miserable
People tend to look at what they had so when profile looks worse than it was in 9e it's time to complain.
Or people say "makb game less lethal!" And then complain when damage output of own army dropped. "i mean make other armies damage output worse!"
If this is directed at my post I did not ask for less lethal or anything like that. I rarely post but I want to be heard so when GW reads these forums or if then they get feedback. I like the current book and current state of the game. I see this new direction as the same old reset bs they have been pulling since I started in 3rd so ya I'm salty. And I am also looking at what my army does well and does not. Anti tank can be a problem historically, so when blasters a staple of drukhari anti tank get worse by mech getting tougher that is concerning to me. Venoms already see little play and now I don't see that changing. Invuln reduced to 6+ and BS to 4+ unless they remain stationary shows a lack of understanding of drukhari warfare by GW to me. Unless they plan on making them incredibly cheap. Or the game much less lethal which by the other spoilers I'm not really seeing it. Sure the HWB looks better in some respects, but ap1 offsets that, and access is limited. Same for dark lances although at least they scaled those better. I also see hints in the release such as splitting units pre battle. Will GW let units of 5 split? We don't know but doubtful. So this to me says squad sizes have changed and likely increased. None of these things are very inspiring to me so far.
tneva82 wrote: Every time new faction focus comes out complaining begins. At least every faction gets to be miserable
People tend to look at what they had so when profile looks worse than it was in 9e it's time to complain.
Or people say "makb game less lethal!" And then complain when damage output of own army dropped. "i mean make other armies damage output worse!"
This is a large part of the problem, the game is going through a reductionist phase in terms of lethality and offensive stats largely, alongside options, so people are literally only losing stuf rather than gaining which is inherently negative. Pair that with the innate of wanting to be the best or have an advantage (it's only human), then yes each preview will suck to that factions owners.
I admit, I'm guilty of this to a degree (I still don't see a good way for Sisters to deal with anything tougher than T9 Rhino Chassis), but in my defense, my biggest gripe was an apples to apples comparison with Strand of Fate where Eldar are getting a massively superior copy of the miracle dice mechanic. Do you know how much better miracle dice would be if we just had all of them at the beginning of the game? I don't care if we get 5-10 TIMES the number of dice Eldar do over the course of the game, Strands are still way better.
dominuschao wrote: Bad in that its completely lackluster. And still tries to force design decisions around taking all 3 HQ choices.
The strat they revealed sucks.
PFP and empowered through pain both I was hoping for more. Those are the defining rules no? But both faction rule and army rule total up to spend tokens on reroll adv/charge/hits.
Blaster became worse by virtue of game wide increases in toughness while blasters remain s8.
Whats good from the spoiler?
Splinter weaponry goes to assault 2 and anti 3+ which is probably what it should have been to start with. My bet is it won't matter much. Not like we don't know how an ap 0 bolter profile performs by now. This change mostly removes the benefit light armoured t3 armies were getting from splinter fire. It still won't win games.
Venoms weaponry hardly changed, the unvuln is now meaningless but they confer a reembark so I guess thats good.
And lastly it seems BS was not worsened like some other factions so maybe that can be considered positive.
Overall nothing to inspire me for drukhari in 10th so far.
Well... what did you want? 2 shot anti infantry 3+ ap-2 d2 splinter rifles with devastating wounds on and t10 raiders with a -1 to hit and 5+ for them to fire out of whilst moving 14" a turn with full rerolls to hit?
Is that your wishlist for your anti infantry? Cmon now man I didn't ask for that.
I just want.. something I can get behind. Honestly I couldn't really care less about that profile. But the army rule and detachment rules those seem to be the meat and gravy of the armies now. So thats what I have to work with until somewhere around the end of 2024 or beyond when we get a full dex.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As Erjak referenced.. Aeldari. Those are some decent maybe OP faction/army rules but a cool mechanic anyways.
dominuschao wrote: Bad in that its completely lackluster. And still tries to force design decisions around taking all 3 HQ choices.
The strat they revealed sucks.
PFP and empowered through pain both I was hoping for more. Those are the defining rules no? But both faction rule and army rule total up to spend tokens on reroll adv/charge/hits.
Blaster became worse by virtue of game wide increases in toughness while blasters remain s8.
Whats good from the spoiler?
Splinter weaponry goes to assault 2 and anti 3+ which is probably what it should have been to start with. My bet is it won't matter much. Not like we don't know how an ap 0 bolter profile performs by now. This change mostly removes the benefit light armoured t3 armies were getting from splinter fire. It still won't win games.
Venoms weaponry hardly changed, the unvuln is now meaningless but they confer a reembark so I guess thats good.
And lastly it seems BS was not worsened like some other factions so maybe that can be considered positive.
Overall nothing to inspire me for drukhari in 10th so far.
Well... what did you want? 2 shot anti infantry 3+ ap-2 d2 splinter rifles with devastating wounds on and t10 raiders with a -1 to hit and 5+ for them to fire out of whilst moving 14" a turn with full rerolls to hit?
Is that your wishlist for your anti infantry? Cmon now man I didn't ask for that.
I just want.. something I can get behind. Honestly I couldn't really care less about that profile. But the army rule and detachment rules those seem to be the meat and gravy of the armies now. So thats what I have to work with until somewhere around the end of 2024 or beyond when we get a full dex.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As Erjak referenced.. Aeldari. Those are some decent maybe OP faction/army rules but a cool mechanic anyways.
PFP could of been so cool but its just not.
Idk maybe I'm just smoking hopium again.
I don't know, you're complaining about things that just don't seem that bad to anyone outside the army, you could argue the army rules are a little dull or convoluted, or even uninspired. But they're not bad. I think it's too early to make a judgement on the venom but it's role will come down to points value I think.
For my own armies, I'm happy with the profiles shown, I do have some gsc as well but I've realistic hopes there for tomorrow.
I can see that as someone who doesn't play drukhari. And honestly thats how I see some other complaints about armies I have no personal investment in.
I play many armies so its not end times for me but drukhari is by far my favorite to field. And they are very nuanced. For example forcing triple specific HQs to access that strat or unlock part of the army rule is just bad design and unnecessary. Apply that to a faction you play and it would probably piss you off. Taking choices away is poor game design. And to stretch it a bit I can see this leading to things like archons can only join kabalite units. So no archon with grots.
Edit- theres plenty we haven't seen so maybe I'll change my perspective. Just haven't liked really anything from 10th. Much as 9th seemed like a shitshow I'll now admit 9th with arks of omen is possibly the most balanced enjoyable 40k I've played out of 7 editions. I'm sad to see it replaced by something that seems.. less.
The triple HQ thing is Detachment specific, so if you don't want to take the HQs then don't play that Detachment. Or play the Detachment, don't take the HQs you don't want to take (still getting the pain tokens for the HQs you did take), and just don't use the Stratagem.
The only thing at the moment that says you have to have all three HQs is the strat.
Afrodactyl wrote: The triple HQ thing is Detachment specific, so if you don't want to take the HQs then don't play that Detachment.
What are the alternative detachments?
At the moment, there isn't one. But that's because they've only previewed one Detachment per faction and not because there won't be other detachments.
But I've also already explained that you can still run the same Detachment but without the different, still get the benefits, and just ignore the strat.
Consider there is something that exists, lets call it a complexity budget that GW is operating from. And they have stated it, something to the effect of all rules will fit on 2 pages.I am taking this into account when I read these articles.
So I am unhappy with how that budget is being spent.
Going over the article a few times I've found some other tidbits to be happy about and then more not so much.
I believe DE has lost advance + charge. that is a massive hit to the current playstyle. Not something that can be made up for with anything in this release. Definitely not by splinter weaponry.
Venoms and actually splinter weaponry in general will be difficult to justify in this edition I believe, which is shaping up to be mech and monster heavy. Splinterfire is now anti infantry not simply wounds on set value for non vehicles like current. So it received the buff it needed an edition late.
Shredders are flamers now so maybe they will see some play but then they are now ap 0 so probably fairly niche use.
My current feeling is that if raiders receive the assault vehicle treatment then mechanized assault will be back on the menu after several editions and I adore this playsyle (depending on how friendly destroyed results are/not). And venoms won't have much use in that case.
Either way if the haemie stays similar to now then it is a handicap to include one.
Also concerned for how the HQs weaponry plays out. Currently both the good HQs require both a trait and a relic meaning 2 augments.
Overall drukhari is a faction easy to break in either direction.
tneva82 wrote: Every time new faction focus comes out complaining begins. At least every faction gets to be miserable
People tend to look at what they had so when profile looks worse than it was in 9e it's time to complain.
Or people say "makb game less lethal!" And then complain when damage output of own army dropped. "i mean make other armies damage output worse!"
This is a large part of the problem, the game is going through a reductionist phase in terms of lethality and offensive stats largely, alongside options, so people are literally only losing stuf rather than gaining which is inherently negative. Pair that with the innate of wanting to be the best or have an advantage (it's only human), then yes each preview will suck to that factions owners.
I admit, I'm guilty of this to a degree (I still don't see a good way for Sisters to deal with anything tougher than T9 Rhino Chassis), but in my defense, my biggest gripe was an apples to apples comparison with Strand of Fate where Eldar are getting a massively superior copy of the miracle dice mechanic. Do you know how much better miracle dice would be if we just had all of them at the beginning of the game? I don't care if we get 5-10 TIMES the number of dice Eldar do over the course of the game, Strands are still way better.
Don't worry, the Eldar players will show up to tell you it's fine and why their army is actually hard to play LOL
Afrodactyl wrote: At the moment, there isn't one. But that's because they've only previewed one Detachment per faction and not because there won't be other detachments.
Unless you know differently, new detachments are something you get with a codex. So for DE that's at least a year away.
So no, for the foreseeable future there are no alternative detachments.
Afrodactyl wrote: But I've also already explained that you can still run the same Detachment but without the different, still get the benefits, and just ignore the strat.
What benefits?
dominuschao wrote: Consider there is something that exists, lets call it a complexity budget that GW is operating from. And they have stated it, something to the effect of all rules will fit on 2 pages.I am taking this into account when I read these articles.
So I am unhappy with how that budget is being spent.
Going over the article a few times I've found some other tidbits to be happy about and then more not so much.
I believe DE has lost advance + charge. that is a massive hit to the current playstyle. Not something that can be made up for with anything in this release. Definitely not by splinter weaponry.
Venoms and actually splinter weaponry in general will be difficult to justify in this edition I believe, which is shaping up to be mech and monster heavy. Splinterfire is now anti infantry not simply wounds on set value for non vehicles like current. So it received the buff it needed an edition late.
Shredders are flamers now so maybe they will see some play but then they are now ap 0 so probably fairly niche use.
My current feeling is that if raiders receive the assault vehicle treatment then mechanized assault will be back on the menu after several editions and I adore this playsyle (depending on how friendly destroyed results are/not). And venoms won't have much use in that case.
Either way if the haemie stays similar to now then it is a handicap to include one.
Also concerned for how the HQs weaponry plays out. Currently both the good HQs require both a trait and a relic meaning 2 augments.
Overall drukhari is a faction easy to break in either direction.
^Agreed with all the above.
I look forward to HQs still requiring 2 enhancements each in order to be actually worth a damn.
Dark Eldar detachment could have the most OP enhancements in the game. Unlikely, sure, but it is an unknown at this point. As with every rule we have seen so far, without the whole picture you can't be 100% sure how things are going to end up.
I'm not saying it won't be bad btw, just we don't know yet.
Yea I can see that being one of the first rules they break to add double enhancements back.
And then I read statements from the article like this:
"The Venom’s light carrying capacity often made it difficult to squeeze an entire squad onto its deck. In the new edition, you won’t have to – you can split your Kabalites or Wyches into two units, boarding one on the Venom while the other makes its own way.."
Wtf are they even talking about? The capacity is perfect. Unit sizes were fine. The issue was relevance, and then cost, and to lesser extent durability. These guys are out of touch with their own game.
dominuschao wrote: Yea I can see that being one of the first rules they break to add double enhancements back.
And then I read statements from the article like this:
"The Venom’s light carrying capacity often made it difficult to squeeze an entire squad onto its deck. In the new edition, you won’t have to – you can split your Kabalites or Wyches into two units, boarding one on the Venom while the other makes its own way.."
Wtf are they even talking about? The capacity is perfect. Unit sizes were fine. The issue was relevance, and then cost, and to lesser extent durability. These guys are out of touch with their own game.
Perhaps it's alluding to Warriors and Wyches now having minimum unit sizes of 10?
That is true. So a squad could potentially include 2 blasters 1 dark lance inside a venom.
Seems okay.
To me we have this option with full squads in raiders and they saw use primarily as trueborn for very specific purpose but when that need was over they aren't taken. Much of that is cost though.
In 10th I could enjoy a pseudo old version trueborn build that would be real nice in theory. Assuming blasters are worth it. Wounding basic transports on 5s isn't a lot of incentive though and the splinter cannons are looking even less relevant then in 9th.
Member when the Dark Lance was an actual anti-tank weapon to be feared and not just a Lascanon ......I do. Now it loses 12" range and adds.....+1 damage....what a load of bullgak
Member when the Dark Lance was an actual anti-tank weapon to be feared and not just a Lascanon ......I do. Now it loses 12" range and adds.....+1 damage....what a load of bullgak
Ironically, from their first 3rd edition codex onwards, a major complaint was that the Dark Lance was no longer 'just a lascannon'...
For anyone who wants a summary approach to the article..
Drukhari spoiler summary
Spoiler:
Army rules- PFP and empowered through pain = 3 tokens generated at start of battle for strike force, +1 per HQ type, not per HQ (thank you clarification). Typically 4-6 tokens.
Tokens are spent per phase per unit to confer rerolls to 1 of these: adv/charge/hits. Must destroy enemy units or cause failed battle shock to acquire more tokens. Now real potential to "blow ur wad" early.
Army wide advance + charge most likely gone. Replacement alluded to in the article is a wych cult units only stratagem allowing adv + charge.
No mention of list building restrictions for kabal/cult/coven i.e. no mention of these keywords on venom. Could mean less restrictive list design? Related to:
No mention of HQ restrictions such as kabal/cult/coven unit joining via leader, or potential for lone operative characters.
Units: Venom- +1 toughness (to t6), -1 invuln (to 6++) still 4+ armour -1 to hit, fire deck 6 (same as open topped). Now stock with deep strike.
Athletic aerialists: Confer reembark ability end of combat phase to eligible infantry wholly within 6”.
Confer a combat squad like ability to wyches and kabs possibly as an unlock, alluding to larger base unit sizes unless GW allows splitting squads of 5 which seems unlikely.
Kabalites- 6++ stock now, move 8" (up from 7"). Has sticky obsec.
Weapons: Splinter cannon- s3, anti infantry 3+, sustained hits 1.
Twin splinter rifle- s2, anti infantry 3+, assault, rapid fire 1, twin linked.
Splinter rifle- s2, anti infantry 3+, assault. 2 shots.
Splinter weapons are now essentially poisoned tongue but anti-infantry only now, vs anti-all but vehicle/titanic.
Blast pistol- reduced to 3d. Remains 6”.
Blaster- remains s8, +1 damage.
Dark lance- s12, reduced to ap3, damage down/side graded to d6 +1 (from d3 +3).
Hmm. The drukhari preview doesn't seem terrible, but the main feeling it leaves me with is *nervousness*?
Splinters wounding on a 3+ isn't actually huge against marines, but it probably lets us clear out light infantry without having to commit to melee. So that's nice. Much discussion about how to represent poison has been had in the past. This is an okay approach.
Damage Dd3 on the blast pistol is a little heart-breaking, but okay. Reduced lethality. Will probably just field more splinter pistols/rifles and fewer blast pistols. Blasters only being S8, based on what we've seen so far, seems like they'll struggle to reliably wound tougher enemy vehicles. Which is the thing they (as baby lance weapons) are kind of supposed to be good at. Our army is full of poison weapons that may as well not roll against vehicles, so the dark light is supposed to pick up the slack. The dark lance itself seems fine.
"Sybarite weapons" continues the trend of reduced flavorful options and triggers nostalgic flashbacks the customizable characters and squad leaders of yester-year. That said, their profile seems... fine. Probably wouldn't give up a rifle or pay points for it. You definitely aren't supposed to get kabalites into melee, and the days of cheeky sybarites punching above their weight class with blast pistols and melee gear are gone. (Not that that was ever optimized, but it was a fun option in casual games.) I guess I'll use my kitted out sybarites as archons going forward?
On the plus side, the "Sadistic Raiders" rule is a welcome addition and should do a lot to let drukhari feel mobile instead of hunkering down on an objective like a sluggish mon-keigh.
I feel like I should be more excited about this version of Power From Pain. We're back to being rewarded for hurting and killing things, which has been one of my asks for a while. Using it to run faster and get to-hit rerolls makes sense for how the pain-eating is described in lore. Maybe it's just too abstract to hit the same way? FNP 4+ and Furious Charge probably made *less* fluff sense back in 5th edition, but they were really tangible. Or maybe it's just because the pain tokens aren't attached to specific units so they don't feel "invigorated" until you spend the tokens. I'll probably warm up to this.
Venom combat squads aren't inherently bad, but they're also not something I was asking for. The fact that we got them anyway makes me worry that our minimum squad sizes are going up to 10, which would be annoying. Assuming kabalites retain the ability to take 2 specials and a heavy in a 10 man squad, I guess you could have fun divvying up your squads between transports, but sticking all your darklight eggs in a single venom basket seems like a good way to lose a lot of expensive models fast.
The 6+ invuln kind of hurts. In an edition where they're reducing lethality, they took away our main form of defense. Well, I guess they just halved its effectiveness, but a 6+ invuln almost seems worse than no invuln. I wonder how many points GW would shave off the cost if they just took the invuln away entirely? Hopefully Stealth will help balance things out, but I doubt it. Maybe there will be a speed-centric detachment that gives our vehicles better invulns if they move/advance?
Hopping back into transports after you kill stuff is neat. But like, I don't think that venom is going to last long enough to for it to offer much protection to incoming attacks on your opponent's turn. I guess the point is just to get around the "you can't embark/disembark in the same turn" rule so you can zip over to another target on the following turn. Incubi mighit like this?
Haywire remains spicy vehicle poison. Which is fine. Ye olde haywire rules were one of my favorite things in the game (trading the ability to actually kill a vehicle reliably for reliably stunning it instead). The mortal wound versions of haywire lost that magic for me, and this hasn't brought it back. But that's a me problem.
Lelith seems stabby. So that's nice.
Alliance of Agony seems pretty meh. It's a kill-more-betterer strat that sort of implies all three of our generic HQs will remain different flavors of beatstick. Which is a little disappointing if true. Especially if they don't return some customization options to the haemi. I was hoping our HQs would get harlequin/exarch-style special rule options. So let the archon choose between a beatstick rule, a buff-your-raiders rule, and a smart-guy-coordinating-things rule. Let the haemi choose between leaning into healing/buffing his expirements, having his own little collection of hyperlethal poison/arcane gear, and turning himself into a melee monster with various body mods. Let the succubus choose between being a duelist, a speed junkie, and a hunt-leader (support for MSU wyches/beasts).
Overall, there just isn't much in there that makes me excited to play the faction. There *are* a few things in there (the BP changes, combat squad venoms, the venom invulns) that make me wonder/worry about GW's understanding of the faction/what they have planned for them.
vipoid wrote: Does the stratagem imply that Archons, Succubi and Hameonculi will all be lone-operatives, do you think?
That would be a little weird, right? Sticking an archon in a squad of incubi or warriors and a succubus with a squad of wyches, etc. seems pretty intuitive.
Because I don't consider 'Here is your 1 HQ. Here is the 1 unit it is permitted to join.' to be remotely fun.
There's only so much you can do with an army that is as old as Dark Eldar - they stem from a vastly different design philosophy, don't have that many units, and fewer yet that are currently available to purchase, and suffer further from basically being three subfactions that - due to their old desing philosophy - were not really meant to intermix on the unit level. It's just a shambles, and probably will remain so until they get a substantial relaunch and redesign.
I really feel like they should have done more to make the index detachments more generic. Drukhari are getting the worst of it for sure with the detachment dictating that you must play all three subfactions but they're far from the only one getting pretty heavy listbuilding mandates.
The previews for SM, CSM, and Tyranids made me believe they did this properly but it's pretty clear they did not think about how the index phase of the game's lifespan will affect listbuilding at all.
Arachnofiend wrote: I really feel like they should have done more to make the index detachments more generic. Drukhari are getting the worst of it for sure with the detachment dictating that you must play all three subfactions but they're far from the only one getting pretty heavy listbuilding mandates.
The previews for SM, CSM, and Tyranids made me believe they did this properly but it's pretty clear they did not think about how the index phase of the game's lifespan will affect listbuilding at all.
It doesn't dictate that you must do anything, you can take 3 archon, no haemy or succubus, but you just get less benefit.
To address a common misinterpretation RE: triple HQ:
Some people (ie in the summary) are saying you get additional pain tokens for your HQ units. This isn't exactly true.
You get ONE extra pain token for each TYPE of HQ you include. 3 Archons does not net you 3 additional pain tokens, and the wording in the summary posted earlier in the thread seems to imply otherwise.
This also means NOT taking tripple HQ doesn't JUST prevent you from using the strat, it also limits the amount of starting pain tokens you get. Want to field a Kabal army?
Well, not only do you lose the strat, you also get to start with a measly 2 PT, where someone who does go tripple can use the strat and start with 4 PT (which is the maximum starting PT based on what was previewed). Someone who selects 2/3 TYPES of HQ can't use the strat, but they get to start with 3 PT instead of 2.
They thing that no one is saying yet (because most people here prefer to play 2k anyways) is how bad these rules are for smaller game sizes. At 2k, it's easy to bring a Kabal, a Cult and a Coven on the raid. At 1k? Not quite as easy. And sure, 10th killed support for 500 point games (unless it's Combat Patrol or Arks of Omen), but if you were playing at 500 points as say, a starting point for a Crusade, these rules are even worse.
Any index detachment should be as scalable as possible, because it's what we're all stuck with 'til dex time.
These abilities do not scale well.
I didn't particularly like what I saw here, but I do acknowledge that it could have been worse.
Because I don't consider 'Here is your 1 HQ. Here is the 1 unit it is permitted to join.' to be remotely fun.
There's only so much you can do with an army that is as old as Dark Eldar - they stem from a vastly different design philosophy, don't have that many units, and fewer yet that are currently available to purchase, and suffer further from basically being three subfactions that - due to their old desing philosophy - were not really meant to intermix on the unit level. It's just a shambles, and probably will remain so until they get a substantial relaunch and redesign.
I don't feel like that's a fair take. The various factions mixed and matched all the time back in the day. Fifth edition wyches loved having a haemonculus attached to give them a pain token so they could tarpit their first target better. Before they took away our bike options, archites could absolutely hang out with reavers and bike haemis. The Baron (an archon on the run) was frequently found hanging with hellions, and wyches loved the extra drugs the Duke brought to the party.
They got the "three subfactions" thing about right in 5th edition when they gave kabals/cults/covens a two generic HQs and a troop unit each. Since then, emphasizing the differences between those subfactions has had really mixed results. The 7th edition covens splat was pretty neat, but the 9th edition codex had to bend over backwards to let you use all the units in your book together without penalizing you for it. The wonkiness of the subfactions wasn't a problem back in the day; it's the way they leaned into it in editions where allies were more forgiving and haven't really pulled back on that since allies became punishing again that's the issue.
But really, it shouldn't be a big deal to let archons hang out with grotesques or wyches if they want to. And we're really, really overdue to be given our bikes/boards/wings.
Nightlord1987 wrote: Between Chapter Approved and White Dwarf I don't think it will be long before we see alternative Detachments for the non codex armies.
Nah that will be for various differnt Marine ones like their WD one - Tomekeepers is it? Maybe if another faction gets new models they may tie it in then.
Seems like an incentive to write balanced lists. You get a bonus for taking all 3 leaders. Those leaders probably have some synergies with their own types, so you are incentivised to take some of them too. It seems to be part of a general trend against simply finding the most effective unit and stacking it.
Because I don't consider 'Here is your 1 HQ. Here is the 1 unit it is permitted to join.' to be remotely fun.
There's only so much you can do with an army that is as old as Dark Eldar - they stem from a vastly different design philosophy, don't have that many units, and fewer yet that are currently available to purchase, and suffer further from basically being three subfactions that - due to their old desing philosophy - were not really meant to intermix on the unit level. It's just a shambles, and probably will remain so until they get a substantial relaunch and redesign.
I don't feel like that's a fair take. The various factions mixed and matched all the time back in the day. Fifth edition wyches loved having a haemonculus attached to give them a pain token so they could tarpit their first target better. Before they took away our bike options, archites could absolutely hang out with reavers and bike haemis. The Baron (an archon on the run) was frequently found hanging with hellions, and wyches loved the extra drugs the Duke brought to the party.
They got the "three subfactions" thing about right in 5th edition when they gave kabals/cults/covens a two generic HQs and a troop unit each. Since then, emphasizing the differences between those subfactions has had really mixed results. The 7th edition covens splat was pretty neat, but the 9th edition codex had to bend over backwards to let you use all the units in your book together without penalizing you for it. The wonkiness of the subfactions wasn't a problem back in the day; it's the way they leaned into it in editions where allies were more forgiving and haven't really pulled back on that since allies became punishing again that's the issue.
But really, it shouldn't be a big deal to let archons hang out with grotesques or wyches if they want to. And we're really, really overdue to be given our bikes/boards/wings.
Because I don't consider 'Here is your 1 HQ. Here is the 1 unit it is permitted to join.' to be remotely fun.
There's only so much you can do with an army that is as old as Dark Eldar - they stem from a vastly different design philosophy, don't have that many units, and fewer yet that are currently available to purchase, and suffer further from basically being three subfactions that - due to their old desing philosophy - were not really meant to intermix on the unit level. It's just a shambles, and probably will remain so until they get a substantial relaunch and redesign.
I don't feel like that's a fair take. The various factions mixed and matched all the time back in the day. Fifth edition wyches loved having a haemonculus attached to give them a pain token so they could tarpit their first target better. Before they took away our bike options, archites could absolutely hang out with reavers and bike haemis. The Baron (an archon on the run) was frequently found hanging with hellions, and wyches loved the extra drugs the Duke brought to the party.
They got the "three subfactions" thing about right in 5th edition when they gave kabals/cults/covens a two generic HQs and a troop unit each. Since then, emphasizing the differences between those subfactions has had really mixed results. The 7th edition covens splat was pretty neat, but the 9th edition codex had to bend over backwards to let you use all the units in your book together without penalizing you for it. The wonkiness of the subfactions wasn't a problem back in the day; it's the way they leaned into it in editions where allies were more forgiving and haven't really pulled back on that since allies became punishing again that's the issue.
But really, it shouldn't be a big deal to let archons hang out with grotesques or wyches if they want to. And we're really, really overdue to be given our bikes/boards/wings.
I think it's more of the granular design philosophy they want with the focus on each datasheet. Instead of giving out a buff that's middling because it can be attached to anything, they want stronger buffs that are targeted toward a smaller pool of units. This allows a bit easier balance and allows for stronger abilities since you are only balancing against that subset.
The way to fix this of course would be to have more models to help fill in this gap.
@Mr Morden: I'm flattered! I accept praise in the form of post exaltations.
Trickstick wrote: Seems like an incentive to write balanced lists. You get a bonus for taking all 3 leaders. Those leaders probably have some synergies with their own types, so you are incentivised to take some of them too. It seems to be part of a general trend against simply finding the most effective unit and stacking it.
I'm not sure "balanced" is the right word here. No one is complaining about people taking thematic triple succubus lists to represent the canon lore that cults are generally lead by a trio of succubae. I imagine my opponent would thank me for fielding a trio of haemonculi in an all-coven force rather than splashing in a more optimized archon.
Incentivizing us to field one of each HQ type encourages us to build lists with a variety of units, but whether or not that variety is more balanced remains to be seen. And if it *is* more balanced, that kind of implies there's an OP kabal, cult, or coven unit that they probably should have balanced directly rather than trying to get people to buy less of them by investing in wracks or whatever. What this *does* do is discourage people from playing monofaction lists. Ex: If I want to run my Poison Tongue kabal and their mercenary allies (incubi, scourges, mandrakes) without inviting any succubae or haemis along, I'm at a 2 pain token penalty compared to the guy who happened to want to bring those units anyway.
It doesn't seem like a big deal to me, but it's fair that not everyone wants to run an archon, haemonculus, succubus, warrior, wych, and wrack unit at the center of every army.
Because I don't consider 'Here is your 1 HQ. Here is the 1 unit it is permitted to join.' to be remotely fun.
There's only so much you can do with an army that is as old as Dark Eldar - they stem from a vastly different design philosophy, don't have that many units, and fewer yet that are currently available to purchase, and suffer further from basically being three subfactions that - due to their old desing philosophy - were not really meant to intermix on the unit level. It's just a shambles, and probably will remain so until they get a substantial relaunch and redesign.
I don't feel like that's a fair take. The various factions mixed and matched all the time back in the day. Fifth edition wyches loved having a haemonculus attached to give them a pain token so they could tarpit their first target better. Before they took away our bike options, archites could absolutely hang out with reavers and bike haemis. The Baron (an archon on the run) was frequently found hanging with hellions, and wyches loved the extra drugs the Duke brought to the party.
They got the "three subfactions" thing about right in 5th edition when they gave kabals/cults/covens a two generic HQs and a troop unit each. Since then, emphasizing the differences between those subfactions has had really mixed results. The 7th edition covens splat was pretty neat, but the 9th edition codex had to bend over backwards to let you use all the units in your book together without penalizing you for it. The wonkiness of the subfactions wasn't a problem back in the day; it's the way they leaned into it in editions where allies were more forgiving and haven't really pulled back on that since allies became punishing again that's the issue.
But really, it shouldn't be a big deal to let archons hang out with grotesques or wyches if they want to. And we're really, really overdue to be given our bikes/boards/wings.
I think it's more of the granular design philosophy they want with the focus on each datasheet. Instead of giving out a buff that's middling because it can be attached to anything, they want stronger buffs that are targeted toward a smaller pool of units. This allows a bit easier balance and allows for stronger abilities since you are only balancing against that subset.
The way to fix this of course would be to have more models to help fill in this gap.
That's fair. Or, if you let the characters choose from a list of options like I pitched above, you could just tie the squad buff options to certain keywords, unit types, etc. So if you want to give the haemonculus the option to be a support character who buffs the characteristics of his squad but only want him to do that with wracks and grots rather than, say, incubi, you just include that limitation in the wording for his hypothetical squad-buffing rule.
I'd like to see some lore advancments like maybe Vect cuts a deal with slanesh. Personally I'm not a fan of the yannari lore. I would like to see a greater split between dark eldar and eldat not a consolidation into one faction.
Boosykes wrote: I'd like to see some lore advancments like maybe Vect cuts a deal with slanesh. Personally I'm not a fan of the yannari lore. I would like to see a greater split between dark eldar and eldat not a consolidation into one faction.
That would be pretty out of character for Vect and would probably go over about as well as Lelith being a Slaanesh worshipper in that C.S. Goto novel. But some lore advancement/exploration would be nice. They pulled the lever by having Kheradruakh's skull collection expand Aelindrach in Fall of Biel-Tan. It would be interesting to see how that has impacted the dark city and how that ongoing daemon incursion is going. Plus, Lady Malys has been making some moves in the background for a while now (including sponsoring Yvraine). It would be nice to revisit some of those hooks and do something with them.
Chaos eldar. Make it happen.
Narratively, they've been a thing for a long while. They just don't pop up much. Unless you mean you want models/rules for them. In which case, they can get in in line behind exodites and think about how they're going to be distinct and interesting enough to warrant their place on the release schedule.
They thing that no one is saying yet (because most people here prefer to play 2k anyways) is how bad these rules are for smaller game sizes. At 2k, it's easy to bring a Kabal, a Cult and a Coven on the raid. At 1k? Not quite as easy. And sure, 10th killed support for 500 point games (unless it's Combat Patrol or Arks of Omen), but if you were playing at 500 points as say, a starting point for a Crusade, these rules are even worse.
Any index detachment should be as scalable as possible, because it's what we're all stuck with 'til dex time.
These abilities do not scale well.
I didn't particularly like what I saw here, but I do acknowledge that it could have been worse.
Gw rules never scale well. If you want different sizes to work better house rule.
Afrodactyl wrote: At the moment, there isn't one. But that's because they've only previewed one Detachment per faction and not because there won't be other detachments.
Unless you know differently, new detachments are something you get with a codex. So for DE that's at least a year away.
So no, for the foreseeable future there are no alternative detachments.
Afrodactyl wrote: But I've also already explained that you can still run the same Detachment but without the different, still get the benefits, and just ignore the strat.
What benefits?
It is essentially a guarantee that there will be more than one Detachment per faction in the release index. There will then be further detachments with the Codexes.
It also goes both ways; where's your source for there not being any other detachments? To say there's going to be no other detachments whatsoever until the codexes is a bit overdramatic considering they have officially revealed very little about the game.
As far as the benefits go, you still get the extra starting pain token per each type of HQ. So you're still getting your PFP benefits with a straightforward way of boosting your starting amount. Even if you only take one of the HQs it's still a benefit over the zero you'd get otherwise.
And even if there is only the one Detachment per faction in the index, you still get the extra pain token(s). Be grateful you have a Detachment rule that's playing into your faction's main mechanic, and leave the naysaying until after the index comes out. There's no point in throwing the whole faction out when we've basically only seen two datasheets and an army rule.
Afrodactyl wrote: At the moment, there isn't one. But that's because they've only previewed one Detachment per faction and not because there won't be other detachments.
Unless you know differently, new detachments are something you get with a codex. So for DE that's at least a year away.
So no, for the foreseeable future there are no alternative detachments.
Afrodactyl wrote: But I've also already explained that you can still run the same Detachment but without the different, still get the benefits, and just ignore the strat.
What benefits?
It is essentially a guarantee that there will be more than one Detachment per faction in the release index. There will then be further detachments with the Codexes.
It also goes both ways; where's your source for there not being any other detachments? To say there's going to be no other detachments whatsoever until the codexes is a bit overdramatic considering they have officially revealed very little about the game.
As far as the benefits go, you still get the extra starting pain token per each type of HQ. So you're still getting your PFP benefits with a straightforward way of boosting your starting amount. Even if you only take one of the HQs it's still a benefit over the zero you'd get otherwise.
And even if there is only the one Detachment per faction in the index, you still get the extra pain token(s). Be grateful you have a Detachment rule that's playing into your faction's main mechanic, and leave the naysaying until after the index comes out. There's no point in throwing the whole faction out when we've basically only seen two datasheets and an army rule.
GW literally told us that the index rules only have one detachment!
The Index Cards released at the dawn of the new edition will each come with one Detachment, representing a common fighting style for a particular faction, and more will emerge as new Codexes arrive and armies expand.
(emphasis mine)
And compared to the other factions’ core detachment bonus, the DE one is both one of the weakest and I think the only one that requires specific models to be included in the army. It is pretty bad!
Well I apologise for not remembering a single line from an article from two months ago. There's no need for the snarky remarks, people make mistakes. Unfortunately I don't have the last two months of WarCom articles burned into my memory.
Regardless, my overall point about the Detachment rule and it only being beneficial for Drukhari stands. Just how beneficial you want it to be is up to you when you build your list.
Thinking back to the terrain preview, the changes to splinter weapons might be a bigger deal than I thought.
Plunging fire seems to work for vehicles, and the rules for shooting out of a transport basically treat the guns as belonging to the transport. Plus, venoms (and presumably raiders) have PFP.
So splinter shots coming out of a raider on a ruin will be hitting on 3+ (rerolling 1's for a pain token), wounding on 3+, and be AP-1 instead of AP0.
I haven't crunched the numbers, but that seems like it might actually be respectable, especially against targets with lighter armor.
Then again, it just now dawned on me that "anti-infantry" probably means that poison no longer kicks in against monstrous creatures, bikers, cavalry, etc. So some of our preferred high-toughness targets of the past might no longer care about splinters.
dominuschao wrote: I can see that as someone who doesn't play drukhari. And honestly thats how I see some other complaints about armies I have no personal investment in.
I play many armies so its not end times for me but drukhari is by far my favorite to field. And they are very nuanced. For example forcing triple specific HQs to access that strat or unlock part of the army rule is just bad design and unnecessary. Apply that to a faction you play and it would probably piss you off. Taking choices away is poor game design. And to stretch it a bit I can see this leading to things like archons can only join kabalite units. So no archon with grots.
Edit- theres plenty we haven't seen so maybe I'll change my perspective. Just haven't liked really anything from 10th. Much as 9th seemed like a shitshow I'll now admit 9th with arks of omen is possibly the most balanced enjoyable 40k I've played out of 7 editions. I'm sad to see it replaced by something that seems.. less.
I get it. Ahriman isn't a boss caster like he used to be. Things are changing and it's just different. I imagine we'll get a better idea of how things come together with the demo games this week.
The whole realspace raid this is just this particular detachment so it sucks to be stuck for the moment, but that's the index life.
No one appears to be much of a "boss caster" anymore, with each character getting a shooting attack with a keyword that doesn't really do anything, and maybe some get another ability they can use to give a buff to something.
Psychic powers are basically not a thing in 10th until they either do a Endless Spell expansion or 11th rolls around and they realise they swung the pendulum waaaay too hard.
Nightlord1987 wrote: Between Chapter Approved and White Dwarf I don't think it will be long before we see alternative Detachments for the non codex armies.
It'd be nice if Chapter Approved reverted back to what it used to be, rather than just an All Tournaments All The Time book.
Wyldhunt wrote: Thinking back to the terrain preview, the changes to splinter weapons might be a bigger deal than I thought.
Plunging fire seems to work for vehicles, and the rules for shooting out of a transport basically treat the guns as belonging to the transport. Plus, venoms (and presumably raiders) have PFP.
So splinter shots coming out of a raider on a ruin will be hitting on 3+ (rerolling 1's for a pain token), wounding on 3+, and be AP-1 instead of AP0.
I haven't crunched the numbers, but that seems like it might actually be respectable, especially against targets with lighter armor.
Then again, it just now dawned on me that "anti-infantry" probably means that poison no longer kicks in against monstrous creatures, bikers, cavalry, etc. So some of our preferred high-toughness targets of the past might no longer care about splinters.
Splinter rifles are probably the most upgraded weapon so far, but they forced it into infantry to keep it from being too much.
10 splinter rifles at long used to do 1.1 to marines and now they do 3. It could work well if infantry is favored more over dreadnoughts / monsters. You can go to town on Custodes compared to other small arms.
Squadding in venoms seems pretty great with those spare rifle models still being somewhat useful. And then since transport buffs transfer you can empower the venom and the models inside for a fun little dakka boat. No idea if that'd be worthwhile though.
H.B.M.C. wrote: So extreme anti-infantry is being used to show the poisoned nature of Dark Eldar weaponry.
I'm surprised just how few anti-monster things we've seen.
Well. "Extreme." Against most infantry, it's basically the same as getting shot at by tau pulse rifles with less range and a better BS. The AP from plunging fire is theoretically available to everyone, though our flying, open-topped transports mean we'll probably be better at using it than most.
The more I think about it, the more I hope splinter weapons become "anti-non-vehicle" or something. If my poison is good enough for a space wolf, it should be good enough for his Fenrisian wolf and T-Cav friends too. I can understand moving away from letting it impact monsters though. Mechanically, it can be awkward when you face daemons or tyranids and your splinters are suddenly good against both the enemy's big stuff and their little stuff. Fluff-wise, you can hand waive it as a smaller dosage (for the monster's size) being insufficient to cause immediate harm.
Boosykes wrote: Ya just one detachment per faction on release.
That's why some folks are upset that their detachment buff looks lame.
Exactly. And access to only 6 strats total we could reasonably assume those strats would maybe be a little more meaningful.. But instead some factions so far have had 1/6 wasted, in our case on a trap build.
I started out thinking splinter weapons seem decent at first.
But then consider they are hardly different from what we already have that doesn't see play. i.e. poisoned tongue with longer double tap range but now can't scratch the paint on bikes/monsters/cavalry/vehicles/titanic even swarms! lol. So nurglings are wounded on 5s. Anti infantry on poison is just way too niche now to be bringing in any concentration.
PFP tokens are also going to evaporate too quickly, just like venoms.
Can we destroy a unit per token? If not then the exchange rate of 1 token for 1 unit means there goes the only army rules by t2.
I'm guessing many will spend a couple tokens t1 on ravagers so thats maybe 1 token back? Not that rerolls isn't potent it is. Maybe not in a marines full rerolls every turn or twice with guiliman sort of way, but still potent while it lasts (so these won't be spent on splinter shots).
Its that the mechanic sucks as the only army rule. I look at daemons for what a solid army rule could look like.
Then there is the question of assault delivery. At this point it mostly hinges on if raiders get an assault vehicle rule or not. I would love that for grots. But probably not since that would make exactly 1 wych unit too fast with a strat. So instead every other infantry won't be fast enough. Also the timing on PFP sucks. Spend a precious token at the start of the phase.. and then make it the first time anyway lol.
Meanwhile durability has actually decreased for the known units in an edition where durability is on the rise. While the new overwatch strat that looks pretty harsh on glass hammer assault armies is gonna be more relevant than previous.
To me these latest rules changes are just bizarre.
It seems pretty clear that they are separating weapons more distinctly across target types.
With increased toughness and strength, they've created ~4 bands of attack type - light, medium, heavy and superheavy.
infantry, heavy infantry, vehicles/monsters, big vehicles/monsters.
This makes everything easier to balance, as they have less crossover utility. Weapons like the missile launcher will be less common but more valuable for that flexibility.
so we see infantry are carrying mostly anti infantry weapons, with some anti heavier infantry/light vehicle.
But really only the lascannon/lance equivalents are now actually vehicle threats. Most ranged anti tank seems to be attached to other tanks.
This will encourage diversity in list building and model use, rather than being able to take infantry units that can effectively take on all comers.
It's a bit more rock paper scissors, but should hypothetically balance easier.
Tanks carry ton of anti-infantry weapons so mechanized lists won't have any issue killing foot soldier lists. There definitely seems to be a haves and have nots in terms of who gets to kill tanks with their infantry; space marines of both varieties will be totally fine bringing as many lascannons as they please without a single tank, meanwhile sisters don't seem to have any solution for killing a land raider. I do not understand why melta was not made one of the anti-tank weapons.
H.B.M.C. wrote: So extreme anti-infantry is being used to show the poisoned nature of Dark Eldar weaponry.
I'm surprised just how few anti-monster things we've seen.
I still get the feeling they're setting up a Rock-Paper-Scissors i.e. Characters and Monster types (so Dreads etc not necessarily the MONSTER keyword) eat infantry, infantry eats vehicles, vehicles eat characters/Monsters - as an example, I'm not sure what the actual chain looks like though. It could be Monsters eat infantry, Vehicles eat monsters, infantry doesn't eat anything, but scores the points so you'll need Monsters and Vehicles to support them - Vehicles to eat the other guy's monsters, Monsters to eat the other guy's infantry. Some of them may also break the paradigm out of "tradition" i.e. the Land Raider Crusader eats infantry not monsters or vehicles, while the Land Raider (Original) does Vehicles to keep their armament/historical preferred target in play.
dominuschao wrote: I can see that as someone who doesn't play drukhari. And honestly thats how I see some other complaints about armies I have no personal investment in.
I play many armies so its not end times for me but drukhari is by far my favorite to field. And they are very nuanced. For example forcing triple specific HQs to access that strat or unlock part of the army rule is just bad design and unnecessary. Apply that to a faction you play and it would probably piss you off. Taking choices away is poor game design. And to stretch it a bit I can see this leading to things like archons can only join kabalite units. So no archon with grots.
Edit- theres plenty we haven't seen so maybe I'll change my perspective. Just haven't liked really anything from 10th. Much as 9th seemed like a shitshow I'll now admit 9th with arks of omen is possibly the most balanced enjoyable 40k I've played out of 7 editions. I'm sad to see it replaced by something that seems.. less.
I get it. Ahriman isn't a boss caster like he used to be. Things are changing and it's just different. I imagine we'll get a better idea of how things come together with the demo games this week.
The whole realspace raid this is just this particular detachment so it sucks to be stuck for the moment, but that's the index life.
Only for some. The detachment and faction abilities are very 'have and have not.' Some synergize real well (Chaos Knights), others are random bobbles of gak (Ad Mech). Others are a bit weak or superior in one or the other. (I'm still not sure that DG making objectives sticky and gross actually does anything at all if the enemy bothers to contest them).
It also matters where the Codex release falls. AdMech having their terrible rad bombardment detachment rule doesn't matter as much, because they're codex #3 or #4. Others are stuck with whatever slop they're given for a year or more. In a few cases, its probably going to be 2 years (9 codexes are on the table up to next spring. Even ignoring snowflake marines, which we can't because DA are part of the favored 9, we've got 21 factions + imperial agents. So at the pace given, some folks are going into 2025 still waiting.
If assault can effectively fill AT role that could reduce list building constraints for non meq. Or rather more specialized factions with less broad access to AT. And maybe GW is intending that for sisters, drukhari, GK, daemons etc.
I know it is currently my game plan. However this is in a mech lite or medium meta. 10th is feeling like I'll need to lean in harder but the plan got worse.
My perspective is same as Voss. Judging from the ordering of the spoilers I'm looking at 2025 for a dex.
Arachnofiend wrote: Tanks carry ton of anti-infantry weapons so mechanized lists won't have any issue killing foot soldier lists. There definitely seems to be a haves and have nots in terms of who gets to kill tanks with their infantry; space marines of both varieties will be totally fine bringing as many lascannons as they please without a single tank, meanwhile sisters don't seem to have any solution for killing a land raider. I do not understand why melta was not made one of the anti-tank weapons.
I'm not sure of this - the Lascannon may be the premier man-portable anti-tank weapon but I'm not convinced man portable anti-tank weapons will be good. A Dev squad still maxes out at four lascannon which (likely) means four shots. 12 if you max your slots. And its still what S12 vs T12 now instead of S9 vs T8? IG Tanks will put out about that much or more. Then they have their Superheavies which will likely do better with just their main gun. A SM Vindicator with a Demolisher Cannon will likely put out more. Gulliman's Hand of Dominion(melee) is more than two Dev Sqads on it's own. Its still early but my initial read is that 4 guys running around with Lascannon/Melta may not be the threat to tanks that it used to be. You'll probably still want something like that to pop the light tanks/medium vehicles (Rhinos, Chimera, Trukks, Storm Speeders and such) but if you want to go after the Main Battle Tank or bigger units - Land Raiders and above type stuff, Knights, Monoliths, Guard Super Heavies, etc. I think you need to pack some vehicles or monsters of your own. I don't think the Take All Comers list is going to be Infantry Only this time around - unless you're planning on punching the tanks. Obviously we haven't seen the points, or all the books/etc yet so that may change. Assuming similar points ratios between units i.e. two Dev Squads for about 1 Land Raider, a Leman Russ and a half or so for a Land Raider, two land raiders per TITANIC Knight - you get the idea assuming whatever Unit Y costs, its going to be about the same relative value to Unit Z: Assuming that's the case - and remembering that we're not limited to 3 or 6(-9) Heavy/Elite/whatever Slots - Rule of 3, Shots per Point efficiency, and S v T looks to be playing a bigger role this time around - while man portable just doesn't have the S.
Assuming Joe DevastatorMarine's Lascannon is half of a Godhammer Lascannon - he and his 3 buddies get 4 shots, 3 hit one misses, Oathed to 4 hits (as we totally wash Heavy, Oath, and stood still) - wounds on 5's for 1 wounding hit and some change oathed to two. Doing D6+1 Damage per wounding hit. 7 damage. Very Roughly. And a third of that is going to go away from a 2+ -3 save - vs a Rhino they get four shots, 3 hits, oathed to 4, wound on 3's = 3 wounding hits and change about 10.5 + some damage losing 1/6th on a 3+ -3 for about 9 out the 10 (+Oath damage) wounds the Rhino has likely 1 turn-ing the Rhino (but only because you oath'ed which is unlikely) . Assuming Land Raiders retain a similar statline to the Repulsors only with a 2+, 3 hits, 4 hits, 2 Wounding hits, Oathed into 3 Wounding Hits again about 10-11 damage -1/3 = 7-8 Or Half the Life.
Now, your various Melta are likely wounding on 5's, with a Melta 2 (or so boost you're almost going to need a Drop Pod to get within the 9" unless its pintle mounted on a Land Raider) i.e. D6+2 vs the Lascannon D6+1. Melta is likely not the flavor of the month this edition - my condolences to Fire Dragons. Man Portable Plasma will also be wounding on 5's, possibly even 6's when S7 - for a Flat 1/2 damage. I haven't seen Grav yet - but that could be it. Auto/Assault Cannon have looked decent too. Edit to Add: But they're still not Tank Killers, they're just light vehicle or below efficiency experts.
H.B.M.C. wrote: So extreme anti-infantry is being used to show the poisoned nature of Dark Eldar weaponry.
I'm surprised just how few anti-monster things we've seen.
Gotta keep the Eldar Studio Guy's Wraith constructs safe from this "Anti-" stuff, after all.
I'm surprised/disappointed that Splinter weapons didn't get Anti-Monster 5+, or something like that, to go with the Anti-Infantry 3+.
And the Twin Splinter Rifle on the Venom ending up with a higher ROF compared to a single one at short range (thanks to the Rapid Fire) seems odd - I think the other T/L weapons we've seen so far have kept the same ROF, haven't they?
H.B.M.C. wrote: So extreme anti-infantry is being used to show the poisoned nature of Dark Eldar weaponry.
I'm surprised just how few anti-monster things we've seen.
Gotta keep the Eldar Studio Guy's Wraith constructs safe from this "Anti-" stuff, after all.
I'm surprised/disappointed that Splinter weapons didn't get Anti-Monster 5+, or something like that, to go with the Anti-Infantry 3+.
And the Twin Splinter Rifle on the Venom ending up with a higher ROF compared to a single one at short range (thanks to the Rapid Fire) seems odd - I think the other T/L weapons we've seen so far have kept the same ROF, haven't they?
?? Wraithguard are Currently Infantry, so they're wounding them on 3+! Unless they're changing them to monsters?
The only thing this won't work on is the wraithlord/knight, but they've always been in a weird position where they're technological but treated as monsters. now the difference between vehicles and monsters is relatively small, so it's not as important what you are.
The rapid fire thing for the twin rifles was an odd thing, maybe they're trying to give them better stats given how weak twin linked is these days?
Speaking of wraith lords/knights, if they stick to the paradigm then they should hopefully look something like this:
WLORD
M8" T10 W10 Sv3+ LD6+ OC4
WKNIGHT
M12" T12 W20 Sv3+ LD6+ OC10
The ballistus dred is listed with T10 which is 3 higher than the redemptor, but I doubt we'll see the lord go up to T11 in the same way... The knight always had less wounds than the imperial ones, but the same toughness.
However they both had the -1 damage reduction so maybe we could see that appear as extra wounds/toughness on their profiles? If they were T11 and T13 respectively they'd be slightly more resilient.
I'm not so sure it will be a small difference, we've seen Anti-Vehicle weapons but we haven't seen any Anti-Monster weapons right? If so, they may be opting to make Monsters more resilient than a vehicle by having less weapons that are specifically tuned to killing them.
The Red Hobbit wrote: I'm not so sure it will be a small difference, we've seen Anti-Vehicle weapons but we haven't seen any Anti-Monster weapons right? If so, they may be opting to make Monsters more resilient than a vehicle by having less weapons that are specifically tuned to killing them.
Perhaps Anti-Vehicle will = Anti-Monster though that doesn't bode well for Primarchs and such. Or perhaps they're purposely avoiding anti-monster because of the Primarchs, Hive Tyrants and such?
Yeah I assume anti-monster will be on relic weapons or enhancements. I'd all but guarantee a Custodes enhancement or stratagem will be Anti-Monster given their previous rules.
Personally I like that, I think a distinction between Vehicle and Monster will be nice and will make fighting armies in a tournament or crusade pretty meaningful depending on your army. You may rip through a mechanized list one game and then struggle with Tyranid monster mash in another.
The Red Hobbit wrote: Yeah I assume anti-monster will be on relic weapons or enhancements. I'd all but guarantee a Custodes enhancement or stratagem will be Anti-Monster given their previous rules.
Personally I like that, I think a distinction between Vehicle and Monster will be nice and will make fighting armies in a tournament or crusade pretty meaningful depending on your army. You may rip through a mechanized list one game and then struggle with Tyranid monster mash in another.
When it comes to Anti-Big-Things weapons, some of them should be anti-monster (such as, to a degree, Splinter weapons), some weapons should be anti-vehicle (such as Haywire weapons), while some should be effective against both.
It seems odd that we've seen anti-infantry and anti-vehicle weapons, but no (or virtually no - can't remember everything that's been shown off so far off the top of my head) anti-monster weapons.
The Red Hobbit wrote: I'm not so sure it will be a small difference, we've seen Anti-Vehicle weapons but we haven't seen any Anti-Monster weapons right? If so, they may be opting to make Monsters more resilient than a vehicle by having less weapons that are specifically tuned to killing them.
The Thundercoil Harpoon has both Anti-Vehicle and Anti-Monster, both 4+
Sadly I suspect GW missed the Keywords boat and probably should have added Biological and Technological keywords to the units - with some (I'm looking mainly at AdMech) getting both - this lets Medic Types heal BIOLOGICAL and Engineers heal MECHANICAL - poison (BIOLOGICAL) and Ion/Haywire hits MECHANICAL etc.
dominuschao wrote: Edit- theres plenty we haven't seen so maybe I'll change my perspective. Just haven't liked really anything from 10th. Much as 9th seemed like a shitshow I'll now admit 9th with arks of omen is possibly the most balanced enjoyable 40k I've played out of 7 editions. I'm sad to see it replaced by something that seems.. less.
Its strange how I liked the dumbing down of 7th to 8th, because I thought 7th had grown so terrible.
For all its excesses, I actually like 9th, and so losing a lot feels bad. Yes there's bloat - but from that a lot of scope to make your dudes your dudes.
As various people have said - the problem is with faction mechanics being reduced down to just a couple of abilities, if you don't like them (for power, mechanic and/or fluff reasons) there isn't anywhere to go.
I can imagine the pain token system here could easily be powerful. If undercosted DE could rule the game just as they did through 2021. But for me its neither imaginative or fun (and I felt much the same about the 9th codex). It doesn't fit my vision of how DE work. I'm sure there will be greater synergy in pain tokens within the datasheets, stratagems etc (the same for all the army rules shown) that might be more fun/interesting - but it still feels like a dull foundation to start off with.
Its a similar story with say Tau. I think the "not-markerlights" rule is probably functional. Kauyon is probably functional. But neither inspire or excite me.
The answer unfortunately its probably swapping factions. On the back of this why for example CSM players would look at the Dark Pacts ability and go "that's not me/mine". But I look at it and go "yeah, CSM as imagined via Chaos Gate (the original one), Dawn of War and various other media? I can see it."
How much of the 'bloat' though is the core rules v the codexes?
and how much can be laid directly in the core rules at not having all that many stats, and limiting to a d6 so there isn't that much scope to make things actually all that different in the first place?
its like when they got rid of Int, Wp & Cl as psych stats, at a stroke removing the ability to have models that would stand their ground but were poorly led, or ones that we well led but would spook easily, ones who could be bad at both but by eck they could ignore the effects of magical stuff etc.
or the removal, then thankfully the return of the movement stat?
seems a lot of what the rules writers want to do isn't supported by the core game mechanics, and instead of fix that they start adding special rules
special rules should be special and thus reasonably rare, the keyword faction abilities should be largely part of the core rules or integrated into the stat lines
effect is longer, but more comprehensive and better integrated core rules, and more streamlined army and unit rules
The Red Hobbit wrote: Yeah I assume anti-monster will be on relic weapons or enhancements. I'd all but guarantee a Custodes enhancement or stratagem will be Anti-Monster given their previous rules.
Personally I like that, I think a distinction between Vehicle and Monster will be nice and will make fighting armies in a tournament or crusade pretty meaningful depending on your army. You may rip through a mechanized list one game and then struggle with Tyranid monster mash in another.
When it comes to Anti-Big-Things weapons, some of them should be anti-monster (such as, to a degree, Splinter weapons), some weapons should be anti-vehicle (such as Haywire weapons), while some should be effective against both.
It seems odd that we've seen anti-infantry and anti-vehicle weapons, but no (or virtually no - can't remember everything that's been shown off so far off the top of my head) anti-monster weapons.
I think the weapons that will be effective against both will be any high strength high damage weapon. But I would consider "Anti" weapons to be super effective if that makes sense.
vict0988 wrote:Forget anti-monster, what about cavalry, bikes and beasts? Drukhari splinter weapons have been ruined.
Has there been a preview for cavalry or bikers yet? If the answer is no then we will likely see Infantry+Cavalry or Infantry+Biker keywords.
Valkyrie wrote:
The Red Hobbit wrote: I'm not so sure it will be a small difference, we've seen Anti-Vehicle weapons but we haven't seen any Anti-Monster weapons right? If so, they may be opting to make Monsters more resilient than a vehicle by having less weapons that are specifically tuned to killing them.
The Thundercoil Harpoon has both Anti-Vehicle and Anti-Monster, both 4+
Ah, good catch, good to see there's one with both.
I'd just prefer to go the other way - Inject some more variety into the Eldar (and so on) codices. The choices were/are Eldrad and NPC Eldar Character everyone expects to lose and die. Its especially true for armies like GSC. When is the last time anyone read a Black Library novel, or saw a Summer Campaign and said "You know, I think the Genestealers are going to win this one"? Part of that is that the Summer Campaigns are pre-written into a corner. "If this planet falls it'll be the death of the Imperium" ergo the planet will not fall because we're maintaining the Status Quo forever. Maintaining the Status Quo is and should be the goal, but doing so while letting the planet fall from time to time should also be built into the premise. Guilliman, being the master strategist didn't put all his eggs into the Vigilus basket, and sent a strike force of Black Templars and White Scars to liberate the plant Warinus from the (A sub-faction not on the main campaign world). This would also help with the issue of there only being one planet under seige in the galaxy so everyone and their sister is going there thing.
I don't know. I don't read BL stuff in general, and I have no interests in reading about something that is not a human. Marines get stuff, because marines sell, and people want them. They don't even share release windows with other factions. Everything else can get copy past book, be skipped for an edition or get no new models. Marines will get new models every edition, because like unlike people playing other factions, and this does include me to some degree, they are willing to rebuy their army each edition. Anything bar the obligatory faction model line reset,is from GW points of view is a potential waste of time and money. Something astronomicaly bad has have to happen for a marine product to not sell, like the RG christmas box. The lore is marine focused, to such a degree that it GW is willing to give a separate game for just marines. I wouldn't expect that ever to change. Now people at the studio can have pet projects, and if they are influencial enough, they can write stuff like Gav Thorpes eldar series. But a book about lets say orks vs tyranids? Who would buy that comparing to a book about marines vs any of those two, or marines vs marines.
I quite liked the story in the Aphelion Project, hardly an "imperial win", but very well done and showing the true meaning of "its a bit universe, you will not be missed"
Its strange how I liked the dumbing down of 7th to 8th, because I thought 7th had grown so terrible.
For all its excesses, I actually like 9th, and so losing a lot feels bad. Yes there's bloat - but from that a lot of scope to make your dudes your dudes.
As various people have said - the problem is with faction mechanics being reduced down to just a couple of abilities, if you don't like them (for power, mechanic and/or fluff reasons) there isn't anywhere to go.
I can imagine the pain token system here could easily be powerful. If undercosted DE could rule the game just as they did through 2021. But for me its neither imaginative or fun (and I felt much the same about the 9th codex). It doesn't fit my vision of how DE work. I'm sure there will be greater synergy in pain tokens within the datasheets, stratagems etc (the same for all the army rules shown) that might be more fun/interesting - but it still feels like a dull foundation to start off with.
This is basically where I stand as well.
I don't mind the idea of pain tokens but the execution is half-arsed at best. And it's made all the worse by the fact that the detachment ability adds nothing extra whatsoever.
At the very least, I'd argue there should have been more ways to spend Pain Tokens beyond rerolls. Maybe some units will have unique mechanics with them but then that creates the same issue as psychic powers where only specific psykers can cast specific spells. At the very least, I'd like to have a larget pool of options to begin with (similar to how TS get a pool of 5 'spells' - not ideal by any means but a good deal better than just 2).
I also think it would have been more interesting if individual units acquired pain tokens, rather than having them in a static pool. They could either be spent as now (though perhaps more in the moment) or else grant cumulative bonuses like in 5th.
This would also facilitate both differentiating the HQs and giving them additional functions. e.g. Haemonculi could automatically generate Pain Tokens for their unit, whilst Archons could redistribute Pain tokens around them.
I'd just prefer to go the other way - Inject some more variety into the Eldar (and so on) codices. The choices were/are Eldrad and NPC Eldar Character everyone expects to lose and die. Its especially true for armies like GSC. When is the last time anyone read a Black Library novel, or saw a Summer Campaign and said "You know, I think the Genestealers are going to win this one"? Part of that is that the Summer Campaigns are pre-written into a corner. "If this planet falls it'll be the death of the Imperium" ergo the planet will not fall because we're maintaining the Status Quo forever. Maintaining the Status Quo is and should be the goal, but doing so while letting the planet fall from time to time should also be built into the premise. Guilliman, being the master strategist didn't put all his eggs into the Vigilus basket, and sent a strike force of Black Templars and White Scars to liberate the plant Warinus from the (A sub-faction not on the main campaign world). This would also help with the issue of there only being one planet under seige in the galaxy so everyone and their sister is going there thing.
I don't know. I don't read BL stuff in general, and I have no interests in reading about something that is not a human.
I recommend Day of Ascension by Adrian Tchaikovsky. It very much humanizes the GSC via the Cultists, and they do kinda win. Certainly not without a cost, and certainly not an obvious, victorious uprising. Karol, I think you'd like it because the way you sometimes describe your meta, I feel like you're living in the oppressive Imperium, and the story of folks rebelling against that... Well it just feels like something you'd dig.
As for Breton- I think the Eldar could have had more flexibility in 9th- for example I hated the lack of a generic Corsair HQ and their exclusion from Ynarri, despite Yvraine herself walking the Path of the Corsair. I hated the fact that in two editions GW hasn't bothered to advance the Ynarri story- say by adding a single infantry unit of dedicated Ynarri soldiers.
But I do take some exception to the comment about the disposable Farseer. Again, it's my Bias as a Crusade player, but for me, by the time I'm fielding a Farseer, it has walked at least one path and maxed out another, and attained a rank of at least heroic... And a Faseer with that many Battle Honours and Path Abilities can and will take the Pepsi Challenge with Eldrad any day of the week and twice on Sundays. Heroic and Legendary generic HQ's are never expendable, throwaway character. While they'll never stand up to a Primarch, they'll go toe to toe with a named equivalent.
Wyldhunt wrote: Mechanically, it can be awkward when you face daemons or tyranids and your splinters are suddenly good against both the enemy's big stuff and their little stuff.
This may be why the Screamer Killer was T9 and not T10. Not for this poison specifically, but the limited amount of anti-tank that is also anti-monster.
It's also interesting to see the Venom at T6. They're creating a broader range of vehicles, which should make weapon selection more interesting.
T6/7 - Light
T8/9 - Medium
T10/11 - Heavy
T12/13 - Superheavy
T14 - Titans
Voss wrote: So at the pace given, some folks are going into 2025 still waiting.
Yea, not ideal. Hopefully they splash in more. I know my buddy who plays Deathskulls can't give a single crap about the Ork detachment.
Daedalus81 wrote: Webbers seem very useful now. Lose a squad, bring it back within 12 and go fishing for 6s again.
Seems bad, to be honest. That isn't far enough to keep enemies out of 9" and trashing your ambush marker, and crit fishing for 6s off d6 attacks is...dubious, at best.
Daedalus81 wrote: Webbers seem very useful now. Lose a squad, bring it back within 12 and go fishing for 6s again.
Seems bad, to be honest. That isn't far enough to keep enemies out of 9" and trashing your ambush marker, and crit fishing for 6s off d6 attacks is...dubious, at best.
Hmm, yea. You'll want to place it back a bit, but popping them behind cover somewhere and moving up and shooting could work. Units popping in at the end of my move phase will be disorienting.
I really think the GSC are going to be annoying as hell to play against. Personally I'm happy Crossfire is gone (almost half of the GSC Units couldn't benefit or contribute to the rule).
I'm assuming that since they specifically used the "Deep Strike" words for returning units that you will have to deploy 9" or more from an enemy unit.
Notice that the only other stipulation is that at least one model touches the Cult Ambush marker though; you can place them back away from the enemy a little bit (say 12" from an enemy) and then creep up to 9" during redeploy, if you want.
The Ambush units also come back in the enemy's turn so you will have your own Movement phase to move them however you want. No need to creep them closer, they will just get shot and charged into pieces (then come back again).
I think Cult Ambush is an example of an interesting rule.
I don't know how powerful it will be - as people say it will probably vary from opponent to opponent. Which may be a balance issue. But at least it makes you think rather than going full cookie cutter every game.
Tyel wrote: I think Cult Ambush is an example of an interesting rule.
I don't know how powerful it will be - as people say it will probably vary from opponent to opponent. Which may be a balance issue. But at least it makes you think rather than going full cookie cutter every game.
It definitely seems like GSC would prefer to go second perhaps? Gives them a final turn of stuff popping in with no reprisals.
AtoMaki wrote: The Ambush units also come back in the enemy's turn so you will have your own Movement phase to move them however you want. No need to creep them closer, they will just get shot and charged into pieces (then come back again).
Some people are maybe not following the timing on Cult Ambush.
Phases where your units could be destroyed:
Opponent shooting phase.
Opponent fight phase.
Your own fight phase (mildly unlikely)
Your own shooting phase (very unlikely).
During the phase you die, you place the marker.
You re-appear at the end of the opponent's next movement phase.
So, if your opponent goes first the usual scenario is you are killed by your opponent on their 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th turn and re-appear in your opponent's 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th turn and get to move with your unit in your own 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th turn.
But, if you go first the usual scenario is you are killed by your opponent on their 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th turn and re-appear in your opponent's 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th turn and get to move with your unit in your own 3rd (killed in their 1st), 4th (killed in their 2nd) or 5th turn (killed in their 3rd). If you were killed in their 4th turn, then you re-appear in their 5th turn movement phase which is the final turn of the game.
In all scenarios, if you die in their 5th turn you aren't coming back (unless there is a special rule yet to be revealed).
My general thoughts about this are will none INFANTRY/MOUNTED squads get the rule? As GSC INFANTRY/MOUNTED are incredibly squishy, especially if they lose some of their 9th special sauce like the can't be wounded on 2s and bikes get a 6+++ custom cult.
dominuschao wrote: Edit- theres plenty we haven't seen so maybe I'll change my perspective. Just haven't liked really anything from 10th. Much as 9th seemed like a shitshow I'll now admit 9th with arks of omen is possibly the most balanced enjoyable 40k I've played out of 7 editions. I'm sad to see it replaced by something that seems.. less.
Its strange how I liked the dumbing down of 7th to 8th, because I thought 7th had grown so terrible.
For all its excesses, I actually like 9th, and so losing a lot feels bad. Yes there's bloat - but from that a lot of scope to make your dudes your dudes.
As various people have said - the problem is with faction mechanics being reduced down to just a couple of abilities, if you don't like them (for power, mechanic and/or fluff reasons) there isn't anywhere to go.
I can imagine the pain token system here could easily be powerful. If undercosted DE could rule the game just as they did through 2021. But for me its neither imaginative or fun (and I felt much the same about the 9th codex). It doesn't fit my vision of how DE work. I'm sure there will be greater synergy in pain tokens within the datasheets, stratagems etc (the same for all the army rules shown) that might be more fun/interesting - but it still feels like a dull foundation to start off with.
Its a similar story with say Tau. I think the "not-markerlights" rule is probably functional. Kauyon is probably functional. But neither inspire or excite me.
The answer unfortunately its probably swapping factions. On the back of this why for example CSM players would look at the Dark Pacts ability and go "that's not me/mine". But I look at it and go "yeah, CSM as imagined via Chaos Gate (the original one), Dawn of War and various other media? I can see it."
This is more in reply to the first comment: Balanced? Tell me you don't play Sisters, Admech, or Greyknights without telling me you don't play Sisters, Admech, or Greyknights.
H.B.M.C. wrote: So extreme anti-infantry is being used to show the poisoned nature of Dark Eldar weaponry.
I'm surprised just how few anti-monster things we've seen.
Gotta keep the Eldar Studio Guy's Wraith constructs safe from this "Anti-" stuff, after all.
After all, Chainfists lose their effectiveness the moment they touch wraithbone!
Yeah, the keyword stuff feels like a very delicate set of mechanics. I await to see how it plays out, but it sure seems rife with opportunity for over-design. Chainfists would be a good example.
dominuschao wrote: Edit- theres plenty we haven't seen so maybe I'll change my perspective. Just haven't liked really anything from 10th. Much as 9th seemed like a shitshow I'll now admit 9th with arks of omen is possibly the most balanced enjoyable 40k I've played out of 7 editions. I'm sad to see it replaced by something that seems.. less.
Its strange how I liked the dumbing down of 7th to 8th, because I thought 7th had grown so terrible.
For all its excesses, I actually like 9th, and so losing a lot feels bad. Yes there's bloat - but from that a lot of scope to make your dudes your dudes.
As various people have said - the problem is with faction mechanics being reduced down to just a couple of abilities, if you don't like them (for power, mechanic and/or fluff reasons) there isn't anywhere to go.
I can imagine the pain token system here could easily be powerful. If undercosted DE could rule the game just as they did through 2021. But for me its neither imaginative or fun (and I felt much the same about the 9th codex). It doesn't fit my vision of how DE work. I'm sure there will be greater synergy in pain tokens within the datasheets, stratagems etc (the same for all the army rules shown) that might be more fun/interesting - but it still feels like a dull foundation to start off with.
Its a similar story with say Tau. I think the "not-markerlights" rule is probably functional. Kauyon is probably functional. But neither inspire or excite me.
The answer unfortunately its probably swapping factions. On the back of this why for example CSM players would look at the Dark Pacts ability and go "that's not me/mine". But I look at it and go "yeah, CSM as imagined via Chaos Gate (the original one), Dawn of War and various other media? I can see it."
This is more in reply to the first comment: Balanced? Tell me you don't play Sisters, Admech, or Greyknights without telling me you don't play Sisters, Admech, or Greyknights.
@Tyel- I missed your reply earlier. but you nailed it. My buddies that play tau and csm have exactly those feelings (and I'm also XX legion). 9th was ugly for a bit and likely could still be if there was no player consensus. But overall with arks I feel 9th gives many viable ways win with most armies so its almost impossible to pick a dominant army for long. I also feel the depth is there so if I don't like an aspect of my army it isn't just straight to the shelf.
@ERJAK- Lol no, I mean yes I don't. Bought a sisters army the dex before this current one, sold it without playing a game. Played GK draigo centstar for a minute in 7th during the nuclear arms race. I put this last one up there with voting for Bill Clinton. I'm not proud but I'll admit it.
Anyway GSC seems at least interesting. No real stinkers and some decent tools for 10th. Guess I can't personally complain about this one much.
Wyldhunt wrote: Mechanically, it can be awkward when you face daemons or tyranids and your splinters are suddenly good against both the enemy's big stuff and their little stuff.
This may be why the Screamer Killer was T9 and not T10. Not for this poison specifically, but the limited amount of anti-tank that is also anti-monster.
It's also interesting to see the Venom at T6. They're creating a broader range of vehicles, which should make weapon selection more interesting.
T6/7 - Light
T8/9 - Medium
T10/11 - Heavy
T12/13 - Superheavy
T14 - Titans
How so? I'm actually a bit worried that spreading out the vehicles like this potentially makes weapon selection *less* interesting because you're compelled to grab as many high strength anti-tank guns as possible while the midling-strength guns are viewed as less desirable due to the potential for a bad matchup.
For instance, in 9th, I can take a blaster on my kabalites and be confident that said blaster will be a threat to whatever my opponent brings to the table. Even if he brings out a land raider, I'll be wounding it at least half the time. In 10th, the previews have me wondering if I should even bother with blasters. Sure, they'll work fine against T7 or less, but they'll be less valuable than before against T8, and they might be straight up bad against T9+ (single shot, only wounds 1/3rd of the time). So in this, admittedly very specific, example, we're going from having multiple worthwhile weapon choices to blasters maybe possibly not being worth it. (Depending on what we don't know, points costs, etc.)
No one wants to spend a bunch of points on S8 plasma only to find out their opponent's list is full of T9.
Karol wrote: Who would buy that comparing to a book about marines vs any of those two, or marines vs marines.
Ork players. Nid Players. People who love a good Cockney accent. People tired of the cookie cutter. Its one thing to know that for this loss over here, the Imperium will get an offsetting victory over there to maintain the status quo, its another to know that they're going to get the victory right here.
Commissioning one guy to make one book is a lot less investment than doing an Orks v Nids starter box. Though GW has famously undershot the true sales potential of their non-marine model lines (lol sisters).
the "Gods'. AVE DOMINUS NOX!! 
I completely forgot that was a thing 
