Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/24 16:28:36


Post by: Siegfriedfr


20/04/2023

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/20/safe-terrain-is-now-simple-terrain-in-the-new-edition-of-warhammer-40000/



Safe Terrain Is Now Simple Terrain in the New Edition of Warhammer 40,000
  • Having the Benefit of Cover will not improve saves of a 3+ or better against weapons with an Armour Penetration characteristic of 0. This means a unit will never have its save improved to 2+ by terrain. Cover is not cumulative.

  • Terrains is now divided into 6 categories : craters, barricades, debris, hills, woods, or ruins.

  • Craters : wholly on top. INFANTRY only

  • Barricades : charges must end within 2" of a enemy unit behind a barricade
    In the Fight phase, attacks can be made trough barricades if units are within 2" of each others
    Cover bonus : INFANTRY only

  • Debris : need to be wholly within. No unit category restriction.

  • Hills, which includes buildings that units can stand on. Model must be not fully visible to every attacker model. No unit category restriction.

  • Woods : need to be wholly within. Model must be not fully visible to every attacker model. Aircraft an Towering models ignore Woods' cover. No unit category restriction for the benefit of Cover.

  • Ruins : need to be wholly within. Model must be not fully visible to every attacker model. Gives +1AP-ranged when standing above 6" of another model. No unit category restriction for the benefit of cover




  • Past Previews :
    Spoiler:


    19/04/2023

    https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/19/transports-are-the-fast-and-flexible-way-to-travel-the-new-edition-in-style/

    Transports Are the Fast and Flexible Way To Travel the New Edition in Style

  • any embarked unit is free to hop out once a transport has moved – provided the vehicle didn’t Advance or Fall Back. They can also shoot, but can’t make a charge, unless they disembark before the vehicle moves

  • open-topped replaced with Firing Deck X : choose one weapon each from a given number of embarked models and the transport will count as if it’s equipped with them for their own shooting attacks.

  • Previously, embarked troops couldn’t benefit from buffs, but now because the transport itself is making the attack, their weapons gain any boosts the vehicle does

  • Rapid Deployment Rule : Some vehicles, however, circumvent the rules entirely with special abilities, such as fast movers like the Impulsor and the Astra Militarum Taurox who can disembark troops even after advancing.

  • The Land Raider reclaims its Assault Ramp – meaning passengers can declare a charge on the same turn they disembark.

  • Minus a couple of exceptions, Space Marine transports no longer care whether a Primaris unit is riding in the back or not. The Rhino, Razorback, and Impulsor are still specialised for certain squad types, and many larger models like Terminators and Gravis-armoured Space Marines still have their own restrictions.

  • Mobile Command Vehicle Rule : Astra Militarum officers can issue orders during the Command Phase from inside a Vehicle

  • Fire Support: re-roll wound for a Unit that disembarked from a Transport this turn






  • 18/04/2023

    https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/18/the-new-edition-of-warhammer-40000-makes-all-the-phases-count/

    The New Edition of Warhammer 40,000 Makes All the Phases Count

  • The Psychic phase and the Morale Phase are now no more

  • psychic powers are used throughout the other phases

  • Smite is used in the the Shooting phase

  • Morale gets sorted in your Command Phase, when you take Battle-shock tests for any units that have taken enough losses.

  • Roll a 2D6 for every unit that’s Below Half-strength – that means they’re a squad with less than half of their starting models, or a single model with less than half of their starting Wounds. You’ll need to roll above your new Leadership characteristic – if you fail, that unit suffers some nasty penalties until your next turn:

  • -OC falls to 0
    -Stratagems cannot be used on that unit
    -if it Falls Back, it must take a test-roll for every model in the unit




    16/04/23

    https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/14/weapons-rules-are-fun-and-flexible-in-the-new-warhammer-40000/


    Weapons Rules Are Fun and Flexible in the New Warhammer 40,000

  • old weapons classifications become weapon abilities

  • A bolt rifle has both the Assault and Heavy abilities

  • auto and stalker bolt rifles, which are now streamlined into the same weapon profile

  • Weapons that shredded through armour on lucky rolls can now share the Devastating Wounds ability instead. This allows them to dish out mortal wounds on a Critical Wound – that’s an unmodified Wound roll of 6
  • .
  • Almost all weapons have had their core statistics changed to help pull their weight in this new, more durable edition – especially those designed to tackle vehicles

  • most guns have not increased in strength, and have often lost a pip of AP

  • the age of “plasma kills everything” is over

  • The melta rifle, for example, gains a bump in Strength and the Melta rule to boost its Damage at short range

  • the Hammerhead’s infamous railgun soars to Strength 20

  • The shuriken cannon picks up Sustained Hits which adds the listed number of extra hits when a Critical Hit is scored – that’s an unmodified Hit roll of 6

  • Twin-linked is back and confers a re-roll to wound






  • 13/04/2023

    https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/13/vehicles-are-even-tougher-in-the-new-edition-of-warhammer-40000/

    Vehicles Are Even Tougher in the New Edition of Warhammer 40,000

    armoured vehicles have been struggling to keep up with the relentless firepower the average Warhammer 40,000 army can throw around. So one major focus in the new edition has been to make those units that should feel tough more meaningfully durable. And that mentality starts with the tanks.

    Almost every vehicle has received a bump in Toughness

    Vehicles are significantly less vulnerable to most infantry-portable weapons, even meltagun blasts.
    the majority of vehicles (and monsters) are beefier than before.

  • Rhino : T7 > T9

  • Repulsor T8> T12

  • Gladiator T8 > T10

  • Storm Speeder T6 > T9


  • Some abilities have been made CORE :

  • Deadly Demise dictates how many mortal wounds are suffered by nearby units when a vehicle explodes

  • Firing Deck how many embarked units can shoot from inside a transport

  • most Vehicles have an OC (Objective Control) of more than 1, meaning that ramming a depleted enemy infantry squad to muscle them off an objective, is an entirely legitimate tactic!


  • Degrading vehicles profiles
    A lot of vehicles used to suffer from characteristics that degraded as they took damage.
  • Most of those now simply suffer a penalty to their hit rolls when reduced to one-third of their starting wounds – leaving big vehicles and monsters in the fight to the last.

  • And many vehicles don’t degrade at all






  • 11/04/2023

    https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/11/leaders-now-join-squads-to-personally-deliver-powerful-boons-in-the-new-warhammer-40000/


    Leaders Now Join Squads To Personally Deliver Powerful Boons in the New Warhammer 40,000

    Leaders
  • Aura bonuses that they used to impart on all nearby troops are gone – in almost all cases the potential to stack them up made balancing the game tricky.

  • your heroes now join a single squad and act as one cohesive unit.

  • the Leader ability unlocks the ability to join a squad

  • This is done before deployment, at the same time as transports are allocated and units are placed in Reserve – the Leader becomes a permanent member of that unit for the whole battle.

  • Each Leader has a short selection of units that they can join, all of them listed on their datasheet

  • Most of the time, only one Leader can join each unit – but as you can see, the Lieutenant is an exception, and can join the same squad as a superior Captain. Plenty of factions have similar low-ranked support Leaders, from Biophagus surgeons to Warlock battle-psykers.

  • The old Look Out, Sir! rule has also been devolved into this new system. Your Leader is kept safe by their Bodyguards, and can usually* be targeted only when everyone else in the squad has breathed their last.


  • Lone Operatives
  • Independent characters may have the Lone Operative ability, which means that they can’t be targeted by ranged attacks unless the attacker is within 12″.

  • Some characters only gain the Lone Operative ability when taking shelter near an appropriate unit




  • 07/04/2023

    https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/07/faction-rules-are-leaner-and-cleaner-in-the-new-edition-of-warhammer-40000/

    Faction Rules Are Leaner and Cleaner in the New Edition of Warhammer 40,000
  • Detachment rules determine how your specific army performs, providing special rules and unique traits, as well as unique Stratagems and Enhancements.

  • Detachments represent a common fighting style for a particular faction

  • more will emerge as new Codexes arrive and armies expand.

  • every Detachment must fit onto a single double-page spread

  • every faction gets an army ability regardless of which Detachment you’re using

  • no Detachment will contain more than six Stratagems

  • -a robust universal menu of 12 Core Stratagems

  • Enhancements replace the old Relics and Warlord Traits, offering a unified list of unique upgrades for each Detachment

  • there are no Core Enhancements – each one is tied to a specific Detachment for a specific faction, tailored to your roster and abilities

  • commanders enhance the unit they’re leading





  • 03/04/2023

    https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/03/warhammer-40000-the-anatomy-of-a-new-datasheet/

    Warhammer 40,000 – The Anatomy of a New Datasheet

    What is OC?

    Objective Control – or OC – is a measure of how well a unit can secure critical locations. each model has an OC characteristic, and to determine who controls an objective, you simply count up the total OC of all models within range. This small but impactful change breathes new life into basic troopstaking and holding ground is a newfound specialty and a clear key to victory.

    Warriors that were previously categorised as Troops will generally have a higher OC than elite units – whose job is not to hold ground, but to strike and move on. Vehicles and Monsters also earn a more substantial OC, so Knights and the like can muscle smaller units off objectives.

    How does Leadership work?

    Leadership is much more impactful in the new edition. Your units’ morale is now gauged with a Battle-shock test. Many factors can force a unit to test for Battle-shock, including being below Half-strength during the Command Phase. Fail and they struggle to capture objectives, use Stratagems, or Fall Back from combat.

    You’ll also notice that Leadership now counts upwards. Our Intercessor has LD 6+ – which is equivalent to his old value of 8.

    What’s happened to WS, BS, S, and A?

    Offensive characteristics are still very much in the game – but they now live on weapon profiles, to help keep datasheets clear and easy to read.

    Weapon profiles explained

    Everything you need to take a shot or a swing at your enemies is now contained in an individual weapon profile – everything from Attacks to Weapon Skill to Damage is all in one place. This means that weapons like power fists, which used to need text to explain that they made things harder to hit, now have their own hit roll statistic.

    Moreover, weapon profiles are tied to individual units – so a chainsword in the hands of a Space Marine is deadlier and easier to hit with than one held by a snivelling cultist.

    The fundamental interactions haven’t changed – equal Strength and Toughness still means you wound on a roll of 4+, and so forth. It’s just that all of a weapon’s quirks are contained in its Core Abilities.

    Many different effects are covered by Core Abilities, from classic weapon types like Assault and Rapid Fire to auto-hits from flame weapons.


    30/03/2023

    https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/03/30/how-army-building-works-in-the-new-edition-of-warhammer-40000/

    How Army Building Works in the New Edition of Warhammer 40,000
    Troops are no longer a tax you must pay to unlock the units you actually want to take

    Battle Size

    There are now three main army sizes: Incursion (1,000 points), Strike Force (2,000 points), and Onslaught (3,000 points). 500-point games are still perfectly possible, of course, but the Warhammer 40,000 Core Rules are optimised for slightly larger forces than that.

    Power Levels are a thing of the past
    – points are now the order of the day.

    Select Detachment Rules

    Instead of choosing a subfaction or constructing your own, you now choose a single set of Detachment rules for your whole army. These include special abilities, Enhancements, Stratagems, and unit restrictions.

    For instance, you might be playing as the Gladius Task Force of the Adeptus Astartes. Your faction gives you the Oath of Moment army rule (more on this next week!) while your Detachment gives you access to six unique Stratagems – on top of the core group in the main rules – as well as four exclusive Enhancements for your Space Marine characters. It also bags you the Combat Doctrines ability, which allows you to pick from three powerful doctrines during your Command phase.

    If you chose to fight with a different Detachment, you’d replace the Strategems, Enhancements and Combat Doctrines with those of the new Detachment.

    Detachment choice will very rarely be tied to an army colour scheme. So while Ultramarines might be the theoretical and practical masters of the Gladius Task Force, other Chapters can use it too – and the same will be true of many other detachments as they are added into the game. This also means that you can try multiple Detachments with a single army. You are not going to be locked into a single Detachment just because you painted your army blue, or red, or yellow.

    This is an incredibly flexible system that will allow for many weird and wonderful armies in future codexes…

    Pick units

    Using the Faction keyword you picked earlier, you now select the units you want to include in your army, with the following stipulations:

    - You must include at least one CHARACTER
    - You can only include one of each named EPIC HERO
    - You can only include up to three units of each datasheet
    - However, you can include up to six units of each datasheet with the BATTLELINE or DEDICATED TRANSPORT keywords
    - Each CHARACTER can only have one Enhancement, you can’t include more than three Enhancements in total, and these must all be different

    And that’s it!

    Select Warlord

    You now choose one CHARACTER as your leader. They gain the WARLORD keyword, and you’re ready to select your missions.

    Now, no Detachment will ever need more than a couple of pages to cover all its unique rules and restrictions, meaning there will never again be any need to waste time flicking through codex pages to find the right rule.


    27/03/2023

    https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/03/27/what-does-simplified-not-simple-mean-for-the-new-edition-of-warhammer-40000/


    What Does ‘Simplified Not Simple’ Mean for the New Edition of Warhammer 40,000?
    - Focus on datasheets
    - Simplify the experience
    - Less decisions before the games; few big choices
    - Psychic phase gone, psykers still have their powers on their datasheets
    - Cut down on the downtime
    - Stratagems will be either reactive, or "Cinematic"
    - In 9th the combination of rules, traits, relics, stratagems would boost units beyond what you could expect
    - Combat Patrols will have their own ecosystem, they will be accessible, and games done in an hour


    24/03/2023

    https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/03/24/10th-edition-warhammer-40000-your-questions-answered/

    10th Edition Warhammer 40,000 – Your Questions Answered!
    Is this a totally new edition?
    the 10th edition of Warhammer 40,000 is a complete revision

    Will it be quicker and easier to play?

    We’ve listened to your feedback and have taken on board all the suggestions we’ve received since the launch of 9th edition. One thing that repeatedly came up was the number of different books you currently need to reference while playing. Thankfully, the days of flicking through multiple books to find the one rule you need are now over! Datasheet Cards for your faction now contain all the information you need to play the game at your fingertips.

    All the rules for your army are now contained exclusively on a single double-page spread, there are also far fewer Stratagems, relics, and special rules to keep track of.
    Universal special rules are back in the game – It doesn’t matter if you’re making a Dimensional Translocation or preparing Death From Below, it’s all a Deep Strike now!

    Core Stratagems are also much more reactive in the new edition. This means there’s less waiting around during your opponent’s turn and plenty more opportunities to attack and defend, even while your opponent is making their moves.

    How easy is it to get into the game?

    we’re introducing the Combat Patrol format. You and your friends can each grab any one Combat Patrol box, download a set of rules that balances your chosen force against any other Combat Patrol box, and you’ll have enough to play a quick, satisfying game against each other straight away.
    It’s a game mode designed to allow new players to get started right with any faction in the game, or for experienced players who want to try a new force without feeling they have to get a huge army.
    We’ll have a lot more on this new way to play in coming articles, including a deeper explanation of how balance is achieved among such disparate forces.

    Are Universal Special Rules returning?

    The short answer is yes! Ultimately the Warhammer Design Studio decided that having the same special rule under a dozen or more separate faction names had become a bit of a barrier to the smooth running of the game – not least because many players simply referred to them by a single name anyway, such as Deep Strike and Feel No Pain.

    Do Vehicle and Monster profiles still degrade as they take damage?

    More or less, though the mechanic has been streamlined. Instead of three separate profiles, there’s a single line on each unit card that still acts like this and explains any penalties incurred when a certain Wounds threshold is reached. More on this soon.

    What is the OC stat?

    OC stands for Objective Control, and it’s a measure of how good a unit is at holding a contested objective. The confusing days of Objective Secured are gone





    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/26 18:09:01


    Post by: MalusCalibur


    Siegfriedfr wrote:
    ...most importantly how long it will last before old habits set back in.


    Until the Space Marine codex is released. So about a month.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/26 18:37:18


    Post by: vipoid


    While I will happily celebrate the death knell of Stratagems, I'm unclear as to why fewer relics is being made out to be a positive thing.

    Given how much wargear has been stripped out, relics are one of the few avenues of customisation available to many characters. Why would I want that reduced even more?


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/26 18:45:30


    Post by: Aash


    So far I am cautiously optimistic with what has been revealed of 10th Ed, but it’s still very early. I’m looking forward to learning more.

    Not sure about the proposed Combat Patrol system though. It’ll be interesting how they plan to balance the various boxes. The necron box has a flyer, and the current GSC box doesn’t really have anything to deal with that for example.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/26 19:03:27


    Post by: PenitentJake


    I really like the fact that I will get to try the new game without spending a penny. Obviously, it won't be the full experience, but it's enough to get a feel for it.

    I like that Crusade continues to exist, though I have concerns.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/26 19:15:12


    Post by: Insectum7


    Adopting a "wait and see" attitude. Will not commit to purchasing anything, and won't change my current painting priorities.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/26 19:20:31


    Post by: Siegfriedfr


     vipoid wrote:
    While I will happily celebrate the death knell of Stratagems, I'm unclear as to why fewer relics is being made out to be a positive thing.

    Given how much wargear has been stripped out, relics are one of the few avenues of customisation available to many characters. Why would I want that reduced even more?


    It's part of the bloat that has been plagging the game since Psychic Awakening.

    There comes a breaking point where too many options turn the game into pure math-hammer. 3 relics in index , expanded in codex, would be alright from my pow.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/26 19:20:46


    Post by: JNAProductions


    Given what I've heard, I'm glad my new force of Tau isn't spamming multiple of the same unit.

    Given what I've heard, I'm dreading what it's gonna do to my Nurgle Daemons, since there's so few units available.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/26 19:23:37


    Post by: alextroy


    Siegfriedfr wrote:
    Altho they basically answered all my gripes about 9th, probably trough that huge poll they made 1-2 years ago, i can't shake the feeling that they will still need to sell new rules somehow, but i don't yet see what the "new" business model will be, and most importantly how long it will last before old habits set back in.
    We can only hope the new business models is more model-centric than codex-centric. If unit rules are free, they don't need to spend lots of time printing new codexes to provide rules for new models.

    Also, if the one-in-one-out rule paradigm holds, I expect they will try to sell us books full of optional army builds rather than new layers of rules. Think less 9th Edition Codex and more Regiments of Renown. Codex World Eaters, while a 9th Edition Codex, could be a glimpse of the future. It has a World Eaters army and a Disciples of the Red Angel army that do not share Legion Trait, Stratagems, or Relics. One has Warlord Traits while the other has Daemonic Infusions.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/26 19:28:17


    Post by: Tsagualsa


     alextroy wrote:
    Siegfriedfr wrote:
    Altho they basically answered all my gripes about 9th, probably trough that huge poll they made 1-2 years ago, i can't shake the feeling that they will still need to sell new rules somehow, but i don't yet see what the "new" business model will be, and most importantly how long it will last before old habits set back in.
    We can only hope the new business models is more model-centric than codex-centric. If unit rules are free, they don't need to spend lots of time printing new codexes to provide rules for new models.

    Also, if the one-in-one-out rule paradigm holds, I expect they will try to sell us books full of optional army builds rather than new layers of rules. Think less 9th Edition Codex and more Regiments of Renown. Codex World Eaters, while a 9th Edition Codex, could be a glimpse of the future. It has a World Eaters army and a Disciples of the Red Angel army that do not share Legion Trait, Stratagems, or Relics. One has Warlord Traits while the other has Daemonic Infusions.


    Perhaps that 'First Founding' art book they did some time ago is a glimpse of things to come - background and art books independent of the codex, and more, but slimmer codexes like the World Eaters book. That could also be a way how they roll out more updates per army without having huge stretches of 'dead time' where all the other factions get new stuff and you are Dark Eldar


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/26 19:29:42


    Post by: Uptonius


     alextroy wrote:
    Siegfriedfr wrote:
    Altho they basically answered all my gripes about 9th, probably trough that huge poll they made 1-2 years ago, i can't shake the feeling that they will still need to sell new rules somehow, but i don't yet see what the "new" business model will be, and most importantly how long it will last before old habits set back in.
    We can only hope the new business models is more model-centric than codex-centric. If unit rules are free, they don't need to spend lots of time printing new codexes to provide rules for new models.

    Also, if the one-in-one-out rule paradigm holds, I expect they will try to sell us books full of optional army builds rather than new layers of rules. Think less 9th Edition Codex and more Regiments of Renown. Codex World Eaters, while a 9th Edition Codex, could be a glimpse of the future. It has a World Eaters army and a Disciples of the Red Angel army that do not share Legion Trait, Stratagems, or Relics. One has Warlord Traits while the other has Daemonic Infusions.

    I'm glad I'm not the only one seeing the writing on the wall. They slipped during the Adepticon announcement... "All the rules will be on one page so all the rules to play Ultramarines will be on a single sheet, to play your first company you'll-" and then he got cut off by the over excited Brit.
    They're just going to make a million different ways to play the same factions. It's formations all over again.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/26 19:34:44


    Post by: Tsagualsa


    Uptonius wrote:
     alextroy wrote:
    Siegfriedfr wrote:
    Altho they basically answered all my gripes about 9th, probably trough that huge poll they made 1-2 years ago, i can't shake the feeling that they will still need to sell new rules somehow, but i don't yet see what the "new" business model will be, and most importantly how long it will last before old habits set back in.
    We can only hope the new business models is more model-centric than codex-centric. If unit rules are free, they don't need to spend lots of time printing new codexes to provide rules for new models.

    Also, if the one-in-one-out rule paradigm holds, I expect they will try to sell us books full of optional army builds rather than new layers of rules. Think less 9th Edition Codex and more Regiments of Renown. Codex World Eaters, while a 9th Edition Codex, could be a glimpse of the future. It has a World Eaters army and a Disciples of the Red Angel army that do not share Legion Trait, Stratagems, or Relics. One has Warlord Traits while the other has Daemonic Infusions.

    I'm glad I'm not the only one seeing the writing on the wall. They slipped during the Adepticon announcement... "All the rules will be on one page so all the rules to play Ultramarines will be on a single sheet, to play your first company you'll-" and then he got cut off by the over excited Brit.
    They're just going to make a million different ways to play the same factions. It's formations all over again.


    It will probably end up working like AoS with scrolls, alliances, regiments of renown and whatever else they're having, it seems to be tolerable enough. Proof of the pudding will be in the tournament scene anyway, if they -again- screw it up and have clearly superior 'formations' or whatever with degenerate bonuses the tournament cracks will soon enough find out.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/26 19:40:10


    Post by: nou


    What I’m the most interested in, is whether the Combat Patrol mode will be adapted or rejected by the community as an additional/alternate tournament format or pick-up „default”. For long I have been an advocate for such fixed lists approach to competition as it can completely level the field, measure the actual gaming skill AND can easily be fine tuned in finite number of events to achieve a proper level of balance. But since it completely removes list building I expect quite fierce opposition from some, if not most competitive players.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/26 19:40:18


    Post by: The Red Hobbit


    Siegfriedfr wrote:
     vipoid wrote:
    While I will happily celebrate the death knell of Stratagems, I'm unclear as to why fewer relics is being made out to be a positive thing.

    Given how much wargear has been stripped out, relics are one of the few avenues of customisation available to many characters. Why would I want that reduced even more?


    It's part of the bloat that has been plagging the game since Psychic Awakening.

    There comes a breaking point where too many options turn the game into pure math-hammer. 3 relics in index , expanded in codex, would be alright from my pow.


    Yeah I was hoping the 3 Relics would be an index thing and there would be more in the codex. Not only is it more fun to build your own HQ with relics as Vipoid mentions, but also there's a lot of fluff built into some of those relics over the years that I'd be disappointed if they went away.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/26 20:21:24


    Post by: Siegfriedfr


    nou wrote:
    What I’m the most interested in, is whether the Combat Patrol mode will be adapted or rejected by the community as an additional/alternate tournament format or pick-up „default”. For long I have been an advocate for such fixed lists approach to competition as it can completely level the field, measure the actual gaming skill AND can easily be fine tuned in finite number of events to achieve a proper level of balance. But since it completely removes list building I expect quite fierce opposition from some, if not most competitive players.


    The WAAC crowd obsessed with math-hammer and buying FOTM minis to shine in tournaments will definitely despise Combat Patrols, who will probably end up as a store-friendly/beer-and-pretzels level of play. Which is good !


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/26 20:46:23


    Post by: nou


    Siegfriedfr wrote:
    nou wrote:
    What I’m the most interested in, is whether the Combat Patrol mode will be adapted or rejected by the community as an additional/alternate tournament format or pick-up „default”. For long I have been an advocate for such fixed lists approach to competition as it can completely level the field, measure the actual gaming skill AND can easily be fine tuned in finite number of events to achieve a proper level of balance. But since it completely removes list building I expect quite fierce opposition from some, if not most competitive players.


    The WAAC crowd obsessed with math-hammer and buying FOMO minis to shine in tournaments will definitely despise Combat Patrols, who will probably end up as a store-friendly/beer-and-pretzels level of play. Which is good !


    Looking at how index era 8th caused a large influx of new players, who didn't know a thing about all things lost from 3rd-7th world, then there is a chance, that 10th will cause the same wave of fresh blood. Many of those players will start in C.P. mode. If C.P. will be properly balanced, then I don't see how you can then convince them, that "git gud" attitude of seal clubbers is a "proper way to play". So perhaps not right out of the gate, but I see a possibility, that those new players, nurtured in a ballanced environment of C.P. will refuse to take a beating after beating from netlisters and enforce a change by simply not participating in the old, toxic habits of the community. We'll see.

    Additionally, the only thing GW has to do to keep C.P. fresh is what they already do anyway - keep rotating C.P. boxes. There is a huge potential to fix a lot of issues with 40K in this. You can then introduce higher point level boxes/fixed lists for those in the rut of "40k is only proper at 2k pts" and voila, you have a trully balanced, properly competitive 40k format and everything else gets moved to narrative/open mode. GW wins as it is them who control supply and demand, so can precisely set production quotas and cut costs. Competitive players because they finally get balance (though I fear many won't like what it really means) and narrative/casual/beer&pretzels players, because they finally get their distinctly separate playground.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/26 20:48:07


    Post by: tneva82


     JNAProductions wrote:
    Given what I've heard, I'm glad my new force of Tau isn't spamming multiple of the same unit.

    Given what I've heard, I'm dreading what it's gonna do to my Nurgle Daemons, since there's so few units available.


    Apart from battleline becoming max 6 not that it changes. No 4 beast of nurgle before either. 3 in 10th, 3 in 9th


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/26 21:49:03


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


     vipoid wrote:
    While I will happily celebrate the death knell of Stratagems, I'm unclear as to why fewer relics is being made out to be a positive thing.

    Given how much wargear has been stripped out, relics are one of the few avenues of customisation available to many characters. Why would I want that reduced even more?
    Because GW makes their changes by swings of a giant pendulum and paradigm shifts. In 8th it was "bespoke bespoke bespoke!". For 10th it's "everything on one page". So we get to suffer having reduced relics on top of virtually no options. And you think what's about to happen to Relics is bad? Imagine what's about to happen to Chaos Legions, Craftworlds, Orky Klanz and everything else that isn't a Loyalist Space Marine.

    Fun™!

     alextroy wrote:
    If unit rules are free...
    Rules are not going to be free. The Indices will be free, because they're invalidating every Codex in the game and want to garner some good will rather than make everyone buy 4 different Index books all over again. But make no mistake, once those are done and dusted, so is the free ride. Codices will begin to appear as normal, hardback and expensive as ever.

    I'd even bet that the "free rules" will be incomplete, missing vital things like army construction rules, scenarios and even terrain rules. So, sure, you can technically play the game with the free rules, but if you want all the rules, better get that wallet out!




    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/26 22:06:56


    Post by: alextroy


    I don't think they will be missing army construction rules
    Army selection is equally straightforward: pick a faction, a warlord, and the units you like (just no more than three of any one type*), and stay within your points limit. That’s it!

    You no longer have to fit your army into a force organisation chart, or compromise on the army you really want. It’s a simple and liberating system, and opens the door to all kinds of fun, thematic or unusual armies.

    These big changes to rules and armies mean that the current range of codexes are being retired. The rules in them don’t work with the new edition, but remember that the rules for all your units will be available free online at launch.
    Note the * is that Battleline units will be up to 6 rather than 3 of one type.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/26 22:31:37


    Post by: MalusCalibur


     alextroy wrote:
    If unit rules are free, they don't need to spend lots of time printing new codexes to provide rules for new models.

    If you want a 40k game with actually free rules rather than the bait-and-switch GW will give everyone *yet again*, may I suggest OPR?


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/26 22:47:39


    Post by: Wayniac


    nou wrote:
    Siegfriedfr wrote:
    nou wrote:
    What I’m the most interested in, is whether the Combat Patrol mode will be adapted or rejected by the community as an additional/alternate tournament format or pick-up „default”. For long I have been an advocate for such fixed lists approach to competition as it can completely level the field, measure the actual gaming skill AND can easily be fine tuned in finite number of events to achieve a proper level of balance. But since it completely removes list building I expect quite fierce opposition from some, if not most competitive players.


    The WAAC crowd obsessed with math-hammer and buying FOMO minis to shine in tournaments will definitely despise Combat Patrols, who will probably end up as a store-friendly/beer-and-pretzels level of play. Which is good !


    Looking at how index era 8th caused a large influx of new players, who didn't know a thing about all things lost from 3rd-7th world, then there is a chance, that 10th will cause the same wave of fresh blood. Many of those players will start in C.P. mode. If C.P. will be properly balanced, then I don't see how you can then convince them, that "git gud" attitude of seal clubbers is a "proper way to play". So perhaps not right out of the gate, but I see a possibility, that those new players, nurtured in a ballanced environment of C.P. will refuse to take a beating after beating from netlisters and enforce a change by simply not participating in the old, toxic habits of the community. We'll see.

    Additionally, the only thing GW has to do to keep C.P. fresh is what they already do anyway - keep rotating C.P. boxes. There is a huge potential to fix a lot of issues with 40K in this. You can then introduce higher point level boxes/fixed lists for those in the rut of "40k is only proper at 2k pts" and voila, you have a trully balanced, properly competitive 40k format and everything else gets moved to narrative/open mode. GW wins as it is them who control supply and demand, so can precisely set production quotas and cut costs. Competitive players because they finally get balance (though I fear many won't like what it really means) and narrative/casual/beer&pretzels players, because they finally get their distinctly separate playground.
    The irony here is combat patrol would actually be balanced because everything is set in stone and identical. Which just goes to prove that the cries of balance are really BS Because what they really want is to come up with the killer combo.

    Honestly I'm not overly thrilled with the combat Patrol idea not because it doesn't sound cool but because in my opinion it should be a better way to play 500 point games not use exactly this box.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/26 22:51:21


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


    Everything identical? That doesn't sound fun at all...


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/26 23:20:42


    Post by: Wayniac


     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    Everything identical? That doesn't sound fun at all...
    but it sounds balanced, and the real test then becomes how good a general you are, not how good your list building "skill" is...

    Or was that a chess reference?


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/26 23:25:32


    Post by: Insectum7


    Wayniac wrote:
     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    Everything identical? That doesn't sound fun at all...
    but it sounds balanced, and the real rest then becomes how good a general you are, not how good your list building "skill" is...
    Sounds terrible. Building lists is incredibly engaging.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/26 23:30:17


    Post by: xeen


    My two cents,

    I love everything that they have been talking about with 10th so far. I am happy that it looks like they are keeping the core 9th mechanics (which I think have been the best yet as to core mechanics) with the only changes the physic phase (little worried at a TS player, but could be implemented well) and the moral phase, which was the worst of the 9th mechanics. I really like the idea of one page army rules, but if you want to play a sub-faction you pick up a different one page of army rules without having to remember what applies to what. I hope the codexes are really an opportunity to flush out sub-factions/formations with their own army rules. I am a little worried about how open army building will be, as whenever they loosen that up it seems to cause an issue. I suspect the competitive play rules will probably tighten that up, as they did in 9th.

    What I hope to see in 10th specifically that has not really been covered:

    Some way of preventing multiple stacking of buffs on a single unit. Something like call all buffs from no matter where (strats, prayers, powers etc.) "Blessings" and units can't be subject to more than one at a time. The stacking of buffs was, to me, the main thing that really hurt 9th edition.

    Like I said above, many different "army rules" for different formations/sub-factions.

    More reactive abilities like that one they previewed for Termagants.

    Everything they have been talking about implemented well.....duh lol.

    What I hope not to see in 10th edition

    Codex wide rules that affect each "army rules" in a codex (i.e. doctrines, wanton, fate dice etc.). This goes with the to many buffs stacking problem. I think a huge error was when they added all the codex rules to the detachment abilities so units were subject to codex rules, detachment rules, buffs from characters, stratagems and so on. It was to much, and I hope they keep it paired down to one (maybe with minor sub parts) "army rule" per sub-faction/formation that changes depending on the sub-faction/formation that a player uses with no over arching Codex wide buff that applies to all "army rules" in a codex, except maybe like small purchasable upgrades like marks of chaos, chapter master, exarch powers or other faction abilities that are akin to those.

    Any mechanic that does "X to hit automatically wounds" army wide. As a person who extensively used Hail of Doom, and have been on the other side of it against Guard and Votann, this is the absolute worst mechanic they ever applied army wide. It is ok when limited to like one character with a relic, or maybe one unit that is pointed to reflect the ability, but army wide this was the WORST rule. I hope it never comes back.

    Faction specific secondaries (if secondaries remain a thing in competitive play). Again one of the major problems with ninth had to do with faction secondaries for some factions being to easy and some to hard. Everyone should just pick from the same set. Also no more abhor the witch. That is just free points against TS and GK.

    Physic powers reduced down to mostly mediocre shooting attacks outside of a couple that are absolutely must take good. This is what happened in 3-5th when most powers were just worse shooting attacks, and the only ones that were worth a damn were always takes, like lash, doom, guide. I hope things like doom and guide are still there, but hopefully other powers will be usable and the shooting attacks will actually be worth taking.

    Different rules and stats for what are the same unit across different codex (i.e. Land raiders being T9 in CSM but not TS etc.) It is really easy to fix that with digital data sheets (crap, I could fix that now with my PDF editor in like an hour).

    Hopefully 10th will be as fun as I had playing 9th, and be even better.






    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 00:06:51


    Post by: Gadzilla666


    *looks at 10th edition article*

    Yeeeehhhh .......you guys have fun with this. Personally, I'm so glad that I switched to HH.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 00:07:04


    Post by: nou


    H.B.M.C. wrote:Everything identical? That doesn't sound fun at all...


    Insectum7 wrote:
    Wayniac wrote:
     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    Everything identical? That doesn't sound fun at all...
    but it sounds balanced, and the real rest then becomes how good a general you are, not how good your list building "skill" is...
    Sounds terrible. Building lists is incredibly engaging.


    Oh, but you will still very much be able to play freeform 40K. GW went all in and removed virtually all restrictions from listbuilding - this is now as close as possible to the dreaded 7th ed unbound as rule of three allows. Remember how everybody ridiculed unbound as devoid of any understanding of game design and balance? It is the only way of list building now and anyone is free to turn his min-max game to 11 or build the niche army he always dreamt of. But in doing so he now will have to accept, that freedom comes at a cost of being vastly less balanced than fixed lists format.

    So if C.P. ever grows mainstream, everybody will have to show their true colours. That is IMO the greatest reveal about 10th to date - taking the skeleton of fake strive for balance out of the closet and puting it on display.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 00:15:13


    Post by: JNAProductions


    You do realize that people can have multiple desires, right?

    I want 40k to be balanced.
    I also want 40k to have customization, and lots of it.

    I understand that these are, if not mutually exclusive, still hard to get together. But that doesn’t invalidate desires.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 00:25:33


    Post by: Hellebore


     Gadzilla666 wrote:
    *looks at 10th edition article*

    Yeeeehhhh .......you guys have fun with this. Personally, I'm so glad that I switched to HH.


    This post right here is perhaps one of the greatest examples of marine privilege in 40k...


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 00:27:54


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


    Combat Patrol is a "method of play" dreamt up by a marketing department who realised the "Open Play" was terribly flimsy concept, but without a third play method "Two Ways to Play" just sounds anemic.

    It's especially telling as it requires virtually no new product outlay than they already have, as they already produce Combat Patrols*. Hell, I'd put money on the notion that the brief was "Must only use existing boxed army SKUs" and that it specifically had to require no further accessories.

    I get that GW wants to lower the barrier to entry, but this whole notion of a "balanced" game that just comes in a single box is marketing hogwash. Even putting aside my rampant levels of cynicism, I just astonished that there are people here falling for it.

    *The only 'new' product would come from replacing existing Combat Patrols, such as the Tyranid one once the new Gaunts hit.

     Hellebore wrote:
    marine privilege
    That's not a thing. Don't try to make that a thing.




    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 00:56:48


    Post by: nou


     JNAProductions wrote:
    You do realize that people can have multiple desires, right?

    I want 40k to be balanced.
    I also want 40k to have customization, and lots of it.

    I understand that these are, if not mutually exclusive, still hard to get together. But that doesn’t invalidate desires.


    Balance and differently efficient choices to min-max within are indeed mutually exclusive on a very fundamental level. There is literally no way to balance a desire for the things to be imbalanced in the first place. Competitive players of 40k don't simply want choices to exist - they want those choices to be meaningful - some better than others. That is the whole point of "list building as a skill". And without enough of this "skill" there is literally nothing preventing a "less skilled" player to build a crap army and then cry that the game is imbalanced. C.P. gets rid of this fundamental flaw. Yes, in doing so it gets rid of player agency during pre-game setup, but at the same time vastly increases player agency at game time. Don't worry, GW will never put this as the default mode, but it is so much more than "marketing BS". This is actually the most informed game design decision GW has ever made and a step towards making 40k an actual e-sport.

    Playerbase "only" has to accept what it always struggled to understand - there is, has been, and always will be more than one way to play 40k.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 00:57:52


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


    But he didn't say "differently efficient choices to min-max within".

    Did you ever forget that aside from list-building being a "skill", list building is also "fun"?

    nou wrote:
    Playerbase "only" has to accept what it always struggled to understand - there is, has been, and always will be more than one way to play 40k.
    Has that ever been in question? The difference is we didn't need GW to codify it with some goofy marketing speak tied to box-army releases.



    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 01:14:57


    Post by: catbarf


    nou wrote:
    Balance and differently efficient choices to min-max within are indeed mutually exclusive on a very fundamental level. There is literally no way to balance a desire for the things to be imbalanced in the first place. Competitive players of 40k don't simply want choices to exist - they want those choices to be meaningful - some better than others. That is the whole point of "list building as a skill". And without enough of this "skill" there is literally nothing preventing a "less skilled" player to build a crap army and then cry that the game is imbalanced. C.P. gets rid of this fundamental flaw. Yes, in doing so it gets rid of player agency during pre-game setup, but at the same time vastly increases player agency at game time. Don't worry, GW will never put this as the default mode, but it is so much more than "marketing BS". This is actually the most informed game design decision GW has ever made and a step towards making 40k an actual e-sport.

    Playerbase "only" has to accept what it always struggled to understand - there is, has been, and always will be more than one way to play 40k.


    You're making up your own definitions and then telling us they're mutually exclusive.

    I like Chain of Command's army-building system, where you pick a predefined platoon (whose contents are fixed) which then confers a number of support assets that you can choose from. It's a pretty balanced system and it still gives you some freedom to configure your force for the mission in question, which lets you pick assets to suit your preferences and is fun. Not particularly complicated.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 01:33:16


    Post by: Insectum7


     H.B.M.C. wrote:


     Hellebore wrote:
    marine privilege
    That's not a thing. Don't try to make that a thing.
    Oh it's definitely a thing. More attention, more releases, often taking things that other factions pioneered and just making it betterererer.

    The observation is pretty clear. HH exists but is also a "No xenos allowed" affair.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    nou wrote:
    H.B.M.C. wrote:Everything identical? That doesn't sound fun at all...


    Insectum7 wrote:
    Wayniac wrote:
     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    Everything identical? That doesn't sound fun at all...
    but it sounds balanced, and the real rest then becomes how good a general you are, not how good your list building "skill" is...
    Sounds terrible. Building lists is incredibly engaging.


    Oh, but you will still very much be able to play freeform 40K. GW went all in and removed virtually all restrictions from listbuilding - this is now as close as possible to the dreaded 7th ed unbound as rule of three allows. Remember how everybody ridiculed unbound as devoid of any understanding of game design and balance? It is the only way of list building now and anyone is free to turn his min-max game to 11 or build the niche army he always dreamt of. But in doing so he now will have to accept, that freedom comes at a cost of being vastly less balanced than fixed lists format.

    So if C.P. ever grows mainstream, everybody will have to show their true colours. That is IMO the greatest reveal about 10th to date - taking the skeleton of fake strive for balance out of the closet and puting it on display.
    I don't understand this post. C. P. Is what?


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 01:45:14


    Post by: aphyon


    My basic reaction-Meh

    It already looks like garbage-

    .command points and stratagems...yep still there, just toned down a bit- that is a big non-starter.
    .vehicles still are not vehicles-non starter\
    .alternating weapon performance for the same weapon based on the unit carrying it...biomorphing nids makes sense. a bolter none at all.

    Wee they brought back USRs the one thing they did right.


    I have better editions and other better games to play.
    9th is effectively dead at me store and has been for a while, Battle Tech however is huge as is FOW, Infinity among others.



    H.B.M.C. wrote:
     vipoid wrote:
    While I will happily celebrate the death knell of Stratagems, I'm unclear as to why fewer relics is being made out to be a positive thing.

    Given how much wargear has been stripped out, relics are one of the few avenues of customisation available to many characters. Why would I want that reduced even more?
    Because GW makes their changes by swings of a giant pendulum and paradigm shifts. In 8th it was "bespoke bespoke bespoke!". For 10th it's "everything on one page". So we get to suffer having reduced relics on top of virtually no options. And you think what's about to happen to Relics is bad? Imagine what's about to happen to Chaos Legions, Craftworlds, Orky Klanz and everything else that isn't a Loyalist Space Marine.

    Fun™!

     alextroy wrote:
    If unit rules are free...
    Rules are not going to be free. The Indices will be free, because they're invalidating every Codex in the game and want to garner some good will rather than make everyone buy 4 different Index books all over again. But make no mistake, once those are done and dusted, so is the free ride. Codices will begin to appear as normal, hardback and expensive as ever.

    I'd even bet that the "free rules" will be incomplete, missing vital things like army construction rules, scenarios and even terrain rules. So, sure, you can technically play the game with the free rules, but if you want all the rules, better get that wallet out!




    Bingo. it is the rebuy all your books time again, and how long do you think it will take them to destroy USRs again with bloat via 7th ed?

    This is a glaring issue because GW has expanded the game space so much with so many factions bloat is nearly inevitable to try and differentiate the various armies now in the game.



    Gadzilla666 wrote: *looks at 10th edition article*

    Yeeeehhhh .......you guys have fun with this. Personally, I'm so glad that I switched to HH.


    To bad they already destroyed HH with 2.0 it doesn't even look close to what Alan created.


    The observation is pretty clear. HH exists but is also a "No xenos allowed" affair.


    Officially true....however thats more of what the players want to do.....HH 1.0 is fully compatible with 7th ed codexes for armies that were and could have been encountered in the HH era. minus a few newer named characters I.E. eldar, dark eldar, ORKs, necrons


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 03:59:46


    Post by: alextroy


    Not sure why there is all this preemptive hate for the 10th edition version of Combat Patrol.

    Is it a case of the game designers and the marketing team getting together to make a product? Yes.

    Is that a bad thing? No.

    The point is to make an easy way into the game for new players and provide an easy way for older players to expand their army choices. Yes, it is about making GW more money. But either GW makes money or GW disappears and takes the game with them.

    The question is will it provide a way to grow the player base and provide a nice alternative to the sandbox that is higher points levels of 40K? If yes on either points, good job design team. If they manage to do both, bully to GW.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 04:22:25


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


    It's because we're not buying it.

    GW can talk a good game, but they've yet to design one.



    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 04:28:21


    Post by: ccs


     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    It's because we're not buying it.

    GW can talk a good game, but they've yet to design one.



    Not true. The LotR stuff is pretty damned good.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 05:23:07


    Post by: AnomanderRake


    ccs wrote:
     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    It's because we're not buying it.

    GW can talk a good game, but they've yet to design one.



    Not true. The LotR stuff is pretty damned good.


    LotR is a solid narrative game, but I find it breaks down pretty fast when people start taking it too seriously in much the same way as 40k does (e.g. there are "normal, baseline humans/orcs", but nobody ever plays normal baseline humans/orcs so you find lists tailored to dealing with elves, dwarves, Morannon Orcs, etc. in the same way that Space Marines are supposed to be special but are also the most popular thing and it has weird effects on the meta). In my experience of playing both GW and non-GW games with people of varying levels of competitiveness the overwhelming impression I get is that GW just isn't that good at playing their own games; they work fine under ideal conditions, but you find edge cases the designers didn't think of pretty fast if you go off the beaten track, whereas if you go off the beaten track in, say, Infinity or Crisis Protocol the game still works to the point that I'd be staggered if I could come up with a game situation that they hadn't seen in playtest.

    Disclaimer: This is my impression, not a statement of absolute fact.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 05:40:41


    Post by: EviscerationPlague


    Siegfriedfr wrote:
     vipoid wrote:
    While I will happily celebrate the death knell of Stratagems, I'm unclear as to why fewer relics is being made out to be a positive thing.

    Given how much wargear has been stripped out, relics are one of the few avenues of customisation available to many characters. Why would I want that reduced even more?


    It's part of the bloat that has been plagging the game since Psychic Awakening.

    There comes a breaking point where too many options turn the game into pure math-hammer. 3 relics in index , expanded in codex, would be alright from my pow.

    There really aren't a lot of Relics though. Granted there's obvious duds (why take the Spartean, right?) but overall there's not a lot of redundancy and niches get filled. Mostly the problem is making all relics cost the same. That's fixed with either point costs or letting characters take up to two Relics (my personal fix).


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 05:55:37


    Post by: kodos


     alextroy wrote:
    But either GW makes money or GW disappears and takes the game with them.
    no, the game will stay
    that is the main advantage of selling physical books with all the rules, no matter what happens with the company, you already have the game at home and no one can take it away from you

     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    nou wrote:
    Playerbase "only" has to accept what it always struggled to understand - there is, has been, and always will be more than one way to play 40k.
    Has that ever been in question? The difference is we didn't need GW to codify it with some goofy marketing speak tied to box-army releases.
    well, in this case it is simply GW doing the copy&paste what everyone else is doing

    Faction Starter Boxes that are all the same price and contain all the same amount of points are on the list what people wants for ~20 years now but GW never got it right. One problem often being that there were not enough standard units for regular army lists. Think it was in 7th were instead of changing the boxes, GW changed to rules to add special formations so you could play with the box without buying anything else (and some of them being so powerful that they found their way into regular 2k lists)

    Everyone else is doing them, for easy entry into the game and a cheap start for the models. Pre-Made Army lists are a thing simply because this is aimed for new people who don't know anything and just want to start playing

    by now it was a GW thing that a Faction Starter meant you cannot play a simple intro game against each other because the amount of points per box were very different, there were not enough troop/standard units and/or the power level was off

    so they try this again, copy&paste what others do without understanding why they are doing it


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 06:23:11


    Post by: tauist


    Please do not spam the forum.



    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 06:28:07


    Post by: ccs


     AnomanderRake wrote:
    ccs wrote:
     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    It's because we're not buying it.

    GW can talk a good game, but they've yet to design one.



    Not true. The LotR stuff is pretty damned good.


    LotR is a solid narrative game, but I find it breaks down pretty fast when people start taking it too seriously in much the same way as 40k does (e.g. there are "normal, baseline humans/orcs", but nobody ever plays normal baseline humans/orcs so you find lists tailored to dealing with elves, dwarves, Morannon Orcs, etc. in the same way that Space Marines are supposed to be special but are also the most popular thing and it has weird effects on the meta). In my experience of playing both GW and non-GW games with people of varying levels of competitiveness the overwhelming impression I get is that GW just isn't that good at playing their own games; they work fine under ideal conditions, but you find edge cases the designers didn't think of pretty fast if you go off the beaten track, whereas if you go off the beaten track in, say, Infinity or Crisis Protocol the game still works to the point that I'd be staggered if I could come up with a game situation that they hadn't seen in playtest.

    Disclaimer: This is my impression, not a statement of absolute fact.


    Nothing you said refutes my claim & experience that the LotR stuff IS a pretty good game.

    It's also not news that if you play with people who take things too seriously/intend to break a game that you'll have a poor time. Doesn't matter what game.
    Heck, I know someone who can (probably) ruin Crisis Protocol for you.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 06:57:55


    Post by: tneva82


     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    Everything identical? That doesn't sound fun at all...


    If players want balance that's what it needs be. One box that is balanced.

    The moment you want freedom of army list building you admit you don't want balanced game. "somewhat in the same star system to balance" level rather.

    But people want to mathhammer the broken army. Even when it's kindergarden level. People need to be able to tell them they somehow outsmarted others.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 07:04:04


    Post by: kodos


    of course, there are only 2 options as balance cannot exist otherwise

    PS: and we don't even know if those boxes are "balanced"
    just because GW says so does not mean anything

    but hey, lets claim that balance without pre-made lists is impossible to feed the GW narrative that they don't need to invest anything into their rules because making them better is impossible anyway


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 07:19:55


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


    ccs wrote:
     AnomanderRake wrote:
    Disclaimer: This is my impression, not a statement of absolute fact.
    Nothing you said refutes my claim & experience that the LotR stuff IS a pretty good game.
    And neither of you seem to understand that it was a quippy line, and not something that truly requires a great depth of explanation or exploration.

    This is why you shouldn't explain jokes, folks.

    tneva82 wrote:
    The moment you want freedom of army list building you admit you don't want balanced game.
    I don't believe that's true at all and I'd ask you back up your statement so that it is more than assertion that we should take on faith alone.

    You've just made a bad generation made from poor observations to draw flawed conclusions.

     kodos wrote:
    well, in this case it is simply GW doing the copy&paste what everyone else is doing
    And, right from the outset, they're doing it in the typical GW way: Ass backwards. They're starting with the boxes, and building the rules around that. It's just doomed from the outset.

     kodos wrote:
    Faction Starter Boxes that are all the same price and contain all the same amount of points are on the list what people wants for ~20 years now but GW never got it right.
    I'd like to believe that when other companies released their faction starter boxes that they took the time to curate them. GW, on the other hand, I'm more than certain, is just one department saying "See these boxes we already sell? Make that a game!".



    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 07:39:40


    Post by: Not Online!!!


     Insectum7 wrote:
     H.B.M.C. wrote:


     Hellebore wrote:
    marine privilege
    That's not a thing. Don't try to make that a thing.
    Oh it's definitely a thing. More attention, more releases, often taking things that other factions pioneered and just making it betterererer.

    The observation is pretty clear. HH exists but is also a "No xenos allowed" affair.




    ?

    Afaik and i talked to Gad, he isn't opposed to Xenos in 30k, regardless of fan dexes or count as Milita/ ruinstorm or official. Indeed he and many others wish GW would get on with it to diversify the faction pool more than it is in 30k.

    He (and me) is just more in favour of indeepth rules and mechanically better interactions than what 40k offers. And i am also of the opinion that the new datasheet doesn't look enticing one bit.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 08:09:56


    Post by: Gadzilla666


    Hellebore wrote:
     Gadzilla666 wrote:
    *looks at 10th edition article*

    Yeeeehhhh .......you guys have fun with this. Personally, I'm so glad that I switched to HH.


    This post right here is perhaps one of the greatest examples of marine privilege in 40k...

    Suuurreeee........total privilege caused from playing Night Lords for 21 years. What with all of our 0 special characters and units in 40k. Massive "privilege", right there.

    Not Online!!! wrote:
     Insectum7 wrote:
     H.B.M.C. wrote:


     Hellebore wrote:
    marine privilege
    That's not a thing. Don't try to make that a thing.
    Oh it's definitely a thing. More attention, more releases, often taking things that other factions pioneered and just making it betterererer.

    The observation is pretty clear. HH exists but is also a "No xenos allowed" affair.




    ?

    Afaik and i talked to Gad, he isn't opposed to Xenos in 30k, regardless of fan dexes or count as Milita/ ruinstorm or official. Indeed he and many others wish GW would get on with it to diversify the faction pool more than it is in 30k.

    He (and me) is just more in favour of indeepth rules and mechanically better interactions than what 40k offers. And i am also of the opinion that the new datasheet doesn't look enticing one bit.

    Ayup. I absolutely can't wait for Xenos rules for 30k. Official or fan created. It's all about the core rules for me. And I want as many players, playing as many factions, involved as possible. It's just more fun, IMO.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 08:17:25


    Post by: kodos


     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    And, right from the outset, they're doing it in the typical GW way: Ass backwards. They're starting with the boxes, and building the rules around that. It's just doomed from the outset.
    [....]I'd like to believe that when other companies released their faction starter boxes that they took the time to curate them. GW, on the other hand, I'm more than certain, is just one department saying "See these boxes we already sell? Make that a game!".

    yeah, they see what sells for others and make the same with the least amount of investment
    and simple looking at the preview pictures I would say that they are everything but balanced, at least what non-40k players understand by that term (might be still better than the regular game)

    GW wants something similar to the SAGA 4 point Starter Armies, or the Kings of War Ambush sets, so lets see of it works "this time"


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 08:41:11


    Post by: JohnnyHell


     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    GW, on the other hand, I'm more than certain, is just one department saying "See these boxes we already sell? Make that a game!".



    I mean, yep, that’s exactly what will have happened. Product first is and always has been GW’s way.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 10:09:04


    Post by: Wayniac


    I am disappointed they're not doing more to make 500 point games more interesting WITHOUT tying it to the box. Like it should be a variation of the original Combat Patrol/40k in 40 Minutes/Lunchhammer concept with restrictions and such to reel things in. Similar I guess to the boarding actions but playing mostly like a regular game. So maybe things like no more than 1 vehicle (excluding transports) or dreadnought (or equivalent), and so on.

    However I stand by what I said before: making the combat patrol style locked in means it can, in theory, be as balanced as GW could do since there's very few options. The counter argument is about freedom, and while this is true, it proves that competitive players don't actually want balance. They want "system mastery" to let them show their "skill" in picking the best options. Yes, list building is fun. But it's also unbalanced no matter what, even if GW could balance it.

    I'm still super skeptical about basically making Unbound the default for army building. Kind of shocked people praised that when unbound was panned in 7th as being ridiculous. It will be interesting to see if the competitive subset adds restrictions since we all know that will quickly take over as the main way people play no matter what the default actually is.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 10:22:07


    Post by: tneva82


     kodos wrote:
    of course, there are only 2 options as balance cannot exist otherwise

    PS: and we don't even know if those boxes are "balanced"
    just because GW says so does not mean anything

    but hey, lets claim that balance without pre-made lists is impossible to feed the GW narrative that they don't need to invest anything into their rules because making them better is impossible anyway


    It is impossible...

    Or yeah how you are going to account lascannon being more expensive than heavy bolter if you then face all infantry force You can't claim lascannon is worth same points whether you face tank or grot...

    If you want real balance rather than close enough approximation you have to have fixed list. That's just kindergarden level obvious fact.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 10:28:00


    Post by: Tyel


    Wayniac wrote:
    I'm still super skeptical about basically making Unbound the default for army building. Kind of shocked people praised that when unbound was panned in 7th as being ridiculous. It will be interesting to see if the competitive subset adds restrictions since we all know that will quickly take over as the main way people play no matter what the default actually is.


    I think the issue is that the game has been quasi-unbound for a long time.
    "I want a lot of heavy support options."
    "Okay I'll take a patrol and a Spearhead detachment".
    I've now got 8 Heavy Support slots - and 4 slots for everything else. Okay I had to take an extra HQ and troops choice - but its not exactly a massive burden.

    The Arks of Omen detachment is arguably a bit more restrictive - but I'm not sure it makes a huge difference. Is an army composed of say 9-10 fast attack or 9-10 heavy support units obviously broken versus one with 6 of these and a mix of other units? If say HS choices were better point for point perhaps - but I'm not sure they are these days. Once you move beyond a mindset that these units are where a list's "power" should come from, there's no obvious reason for the restriction.

    I don't really think anything on the whole Combat Patrol business. Its GW probably thinking (not unreasonably) that a lot of new players begin by getting a combat patrol box. And their friends also get combat patrol boxes. So a game system that better facilitates playing them together makes sense. I doubt it will have anything like perfect balance - but it might be closer than playing them into each other at the moment.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 10:37:44


    Post by: kodos


    tneva82 wrote:

    It is impossible...

    Or yeah how you are going to account lascannon being more expensive than heavy bolter if you then face all infantry force You can't claim lascannon is worth same points whether you face tank or grot...
    if you want the play the white knight you can do better than that
    you just missed the chance that GW should balance the meta by adjusting the price of the models so that no one can ever bring a pure infantry force or a pure tank army

    but I guess in your world you pay different for a spoon or a table knife depending on what you order?
    so a restaurant should charge 1€ for a spoon of you order a Steak and 100€ for the spoon because you ordered a Soup?

    otherwise, how would the restaurant make up the value of a knife or spoon if they don't know what you are going to order
    might even be that the need to bring both to the table and have equal stock of both ready to use, what a stupid idea totally impossible


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 11:15:24


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


    Tyel wrote:
    think the issue is that the game has been quasi-unbound for a long time.
    "I want a lot of heavy support options."
    "Okay I'll take a patrol and a Spearhead detachment".
    I've now got 8 Heavy Support slots - and 4 slots for everything else. Okay I had to take an extra HQ and troops choice - but its not exactly a massive burden.
    I've been saying that the FOC was pointless from the moment you could use CP just to buy more slots, so yeah, this change GW are making doesn't seem to mean a whole hell of a lot from a practicality standpoint.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 11:55:55


    Post by: Hellebore


     H.B.M.C. wrote:


     Hellebore wrote:
    marine privilege
    That's not a thing. Don't try to make that a thing.




    I'll define my terms:

    Privilege (in the context of choosing factions in 40k) is where you are supplied with continual units, upgrades and options, updates to existing models while other factions still use 25 year old models and have less unit choices than one faction has models for its lieutenant unit. It's where different colour schemes for a faction are given whole chunks of production, books and units. It's where an entire separate game exists with extensive resources just to provide a playground for those factions and yet they still take up most of the bandwidth for the core game.

    In this context, choosing space marines when playing 40k grants you a massive privilege in how accessible the game is, how much support and variety you are afforded, the sheer range of options available and an expectation of endless material support.

    To choose any other faction is to deliberately hobble yourself in terms of model options, content, game opportunities or even just the basic expectation of 25 year old models being replaced when marines have released an entire game with plastic support.

    In a social game where people ostensibly choose their own faction as part of a gaming community, marine players are so beyond privileged it's crazy.





    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 12:56:32


    Post by: VladimirHerzog


     Hellebore wrote:
     Gadzilla666 wrote:
    *looks at 10th edition article*

    Yeeeehhhh .......you guys have fun with this. Personally, I'm so glad that I switched to HH.


    This post right here is perhaps one of the greatest examples of marine privilege in 40k...


    Or Guard
    Or Ademch
    Or Imperial/Chaos Knights
    Or Custodes
    Or Demons

    HH isnt purely about Marines (tho it does skew heavily towards imperium/Chaos, so i feel for Xenos players)


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     H.B.M.C. wrote:


     Hellebore wrote:
    marine privilege
    That's not a thing. Don't try to make that a thing.




    also this


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    tneva82 wrote:

    The moment you want freedom of army list building you admit you don't want balanced game. "somewhat in the same star system to balance" level rather.


    This is such a gak take, idk where that sentiment comes from.....

    In a perfect world, i should be able to bring litterally any list and still feel like i can accomplish something in game, now i know that won't ever be true (good luck winning with only grot hordes). But the reality is that GW should make any list written by someone with basic game knowledge work.



    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 13:20:44


    Post by: Daedalus81


     JohnnyHell wrote:
     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    GW, on the other hand, I'm more than certain, is just one department saying "See these boxes we already sell? Make that a game!".



    I mean, yep, that’s exactly what will have happened. Product first is and always has been GW’s way.


    Here's the thing with CP - it will be it's own ecosystem. For those boxes to remain balanced they have to ignore every balance tweak that happens outside of it. That's why they have their own datasheets. It is entirely self contained.

    These are 'products they already sell' that they deliberately designed and wrote rules for to function in that context. Just because people saw them come out before 10th was announced doesn't mean they were ad-hoc repurposed. In fact them making the box changes to be ready in advance of the release would be the correct thing to do.

    Whether not they'll be successful is a different thing, but the cynicism is off the charts.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 13:27:48


    Post by: JohnnyHell


    I mean, they’re value/9th detachment-fit boxes, retrofitted into a new game mode. The game mode may well work and be fun but the origins are very clear here.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 13:29:37


    Post by: Daedalus81


    Wayniac wrote:
    I'm still super skeptical about basically making Unbound the default for army building. Kind of shocked people praised that when unbound was panned in 7th as being ridiculous. It will be interesting to see if the competitive subset adds restrictions since we all know that will quickly take over as the main way people play no matter what the default actually is.


    It's quite likely that 'matched play' will not be so loose, but I can only guess on how they'll accomplish that.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 13:31:33


    Post by: Dysartes


     alextroy wrote:
    I don't think they will be missing army construction rules
    Army selection is equally straightforward: pick a faction, a warlord, and the units you like (just no more than three of any one type*), and stay within your points limit. That’s it!

    You no longer have to fit your army into a force organisation chart, or compromise on the army you really want. It’s a simple and liberating system, and opens the door to all kinds of fun, thematic or unusual armies.

    These big changes to rules and armies mean that the current range of codexes are being retired. The rules in them don’t work with the new edition, but remember that the rules for all your units will be available free online at launch.
    Note the * is that Battleline units will be up to 6 rather than 3 of one type.

    What "type" are Termagants, based on what we've seen so far?


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 13:39:55


    Post by: VladimirHerzog


     Dysartes wrote:
     alextroy wrote:
    I don't think they will be missing army construction rules
    Army selection is equally straightforward: pick a faction, a warlord, and the units you like (just no more than three of any one type*), and stay within your points limit. That’s it!

    You no longer have to fit your army into a force organisation chart, or compromise on the army you really want. It’s a simple and liberating system, and opens the door to all kinds of fun, thematic or unusual armies.

    These big changes to rules and armies mean that the current range of codexes are being retired. The rules in them don’t work with the new edition, but remember that the rules for all your units will be available free online at launch.
    Note the * is that Battleline units will be up to 6 rather than 3 of one type.

    What "type" are Termagants, based on what we've seen so far?


    unknown since its not information thats relayed on the datasheet. But its most probably gonna be battleline considering their historic role.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 13:48:23


    Post by: Tittliewinks22


    Pretty stoked that they are adopting more design choices from Age of Sigmar.

    The one that really excites my play group is the reduced number of relics/traits etc. While at first glance this could seem like a reduction in choice, it really isn't. In AoS they reduced the number of relics/spells/traits/etc that you have access too, but they did so by cutting all the unused fluff ones and made every option in the book an actual useful choice.

    Much rather have less options, but each option is viable, than a dozen options but only 30% of them are useable.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 13:51:58


    Post by: VladimirHerzog


    Tittliewinks22 wrote:
    Pretty stoked that they are adopting more design choices from Age of Sigmar.

    The one that really excites my play group is the reduced number of relics/traits etc. While at first glance this could seem like a reduction in choice, it really isn't. In AoS they reduced the number of relics/spells/traits/etc that you have access too, but they did so by cutting all the unused fluff ones and made every option in the book an actual useful choice.

    Much rather have less options, but each option is viable, than a dozen options but only 30% of them are useable.



    ehh, theres still duds in AoS sadly.

    But yeah, having the game closer to AoS will probably make it more enjoyable for me


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 14:05:14


    Post by: Tittliewinks22


     VladimirHerzog wrote:

    ...In a perfect world, i should be able to bring litterally any list and still feel like i can accomplish something in game...



    I think this is an unreasonable ask of any game. I cannot recall any game (tabeltop or otherwise) that can meet this demand. Every game that has a competitive community devolves into meta tier lists. The only possible way to have a "balanced" game is if both players have access to the exact same resources. For 40k, if you also make objective scoring and casualty removal happen at the end of a battle round (after both players have moved/countered) then you could be closer to balance as well.

     VladimirHerzog wrote:

    ehh, theres still duds in AoS sadly.
    But yeah, having the game closer to AoS will probably make it more enjoyable for me

    Of course, but seeing them cull a lot of the fluff and keep the good ones while buffing a few others really has made AoS more enjoyable


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 14:07:20


    Post by: Daedalus81


     JohnnyHell wrote:
    I mean, they’re value/9th detachment-fit boxes, retrofitted into a new game mode. The game mode may well work and be fun but the origins are very clear here.


    It can be both, really. I imagine people will find that units will operate differently from the main game.

    Anyway, it's another interesting experiment with a lot of glowy words from GW and there will be no shortage of people lining up to kick it in the nuts if it doesn't work.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     VladimirHerzog wrote:
    unknown since its not information thats relayed on the datasheet. But its most probably gonna be battleline considering their historic role.


    My assumption is that battleline will be defined by the army so that stuff like Ravenwing might see bikes be battleline, which is why we don't see it on the termagant sheet. Just guessing though.



    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 14:09:51


    Post by: VladimirHerzog


    Tittliewinks22 wrote:
     VladimirHerzog wrote:

    ...In a perfect world, i should be able to bring litterally any list and still feel like i can accomplish something in game...



    I think this is an unreasonable ask of any game. I cannot recall any game (tabeltop or otherwise) that can meet this demand. Every game that has a competitive community devolves into meta tier lists.


    Yeah, as i pointed out litterally after the part you quoted....


    Tittliewinks22 wrote:

    The only possible way to have a "balanced" game is if both players have access to the exact same resources. For 40k, if you also make objective scoring and casualty removal happen at the end of a battle round (after both players have moved/countered) then you could be closer to balance as well.


    Bruh, theres more than 40k in the wargaming sphere, and many other games don't feel as unbalanced as 40k, which is really the only thing we're asking for. Not a perfect 50% winrate for everything, but being close enough to it while also having multiple possible builds with factions. 40k isnt chess, trying to force players to a single list isn't gonna get traction except as a cheap "test the hobby" entrpoint.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 14:17:54


    Post by: oni


    Combat Patrol intrigues me. I like the idea of dipping my toes into other armies and playing small, quick games. That said, I can't shake this feeling that it's basically a re-wrapping and reintroduction of 7th ed. formations. You pick a formation box; I pick a formation box... let's play. That formations are more-or-less making a return, combined with the 7th ed. Unbound army creation and that stratagems are still a thing... all make it difficult to get excited.

    Moving BS and WS to the weapon profile gives me hesitation also. They claim they're eliminating redundancy, but then introduce what will be the most redundantly printed thing ever. The BS and WS traits could be printed once on the unit stat line; instead, they've chosen to print it X number of times for each weapon option. With the reintroduction of USR's it makes even less sense. If you want a weapon to be -1 or more To Hit... the old USR was called Unwieldy. I cannot see the practicality or a benefit; it just screams incompetence. I sincerely hope that there's something about the new design that we aren't yet aware of that justifies this change.

    I am also concerned about what the missions will look like since that smug PoS Mike Brandt is still in the picture.

    I want to be excited, but for the first time ever (playing since 2nd ed.) I am having a difficult time getting excited for a new edition change.



    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 14:20:01


    Post by: nordsturmking


    News from the video:
    more stratagems that allow you to do something in your opponent's turn.
    Psychic phase no longer exists. Psychic powers are written on the psyker's datacard
    no more buff stacking with relic strat warlord trait on a unit.

    the last part i like the most.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 14:36:49


    Post by: PenitentJake


    Tittliewinks22 wrote:
    Pretty stoked that they are adopting more design choices from Age of Sigmar.

    The one that really excites my play group is the reduced number of relics/traits etc. While at first glance this could seem like a reduction in choice, it really isn't. In AoS they reduced the number of relics/spells/traits/etc that you have access too, but they did so by cutting all the unused fluff ones and made every option in the book an actual useful choice.

    Much rather have less options, but each option is viable, than a dozen options but only 30% of them are useable.


    And in a competitive, stand alone pick-up game, that's certainly true.

    But what I've been trying to get people to remember for three years or so is that this isn't the only way the game is played. The great thing about relics that a competitive player would never take is that you can use them as objectives in narrative battles so that an objective isn't just an abstract game mechanic, but an actual item.

    In our campaign, territories need to be occupied by a detachment in order to be held, so there are a lot of characters- If I'm holding 5 terriotries, I've got five commanders- more than you'd be likely to have in 2k Matched game.

    Some relics may not be powerful, but they fit a theme. In a non-competitive campaign that last a year or so, you get to indulge in all of that stuff.



    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 14:44:21


    Post by: RaptorusRex


    PenitentJake wrote:
    Tittliewinks22 wrote:
    Pretty stoked that they are adopting more design choices from Age of Sigmar.

    The one that really excites my play group is the reduced number of relics/traits etc. While at first glance this could seem like a reduction in choice, it really isn't. In AoS they reduced the number of relics/spells/traits/etc that you have access too, but they did so by cutting all the unused fluff ones and made every option in the book an actual useful choice.

    Much rather have less options, but each option is viable, than a dozen options but only 30% of them are useable.


    And in a competitive, stand alone pick-up game, that's certainly true.

    But what I've been trying to get people to remember for three years or so is that this isn't the only way the game is played. The great thing about relics that a competitive player would never take is that you can use them as objectives in narrative battles so that an objective isn't just an abstract game mechanic, but an actual item.

    In our campaign, territories need to be occupied by a detachment in order to be held, so there are a lot of characters- If I'm holding 5 terriotries, I've got five commanders- more than you'd be likely to have in 2k Matched game.

    Some relics may not be powerful, but they fit a theme. In a non-competitive campaign that last a year or so, you get to indulge in all of that stuff.



    Crusade's complex rules were an impediment to narrative games, not an aid.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 14:44:54


    Post by: catbarf


    If you're already using a homebrew campaign system and aren't concerned with balance, you can pretty easily make up your own relics.

    You don't need GW to spoonfeed you rules to have a narrative. Especially not at the detriment of casual and competitive play.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 15:19:22


    Post by: oni


    Watched the video. My hot take is...

    1. We're returning to how older editions (3rd, 4th and 5th ed. era) handled psychers; where there is no pshychic phase and no psychic disciplines. Psychic powers are now unit 'actions' done at a specific point as described in the power. Also, the number of powers and the powers themselves are limited and specific to the unit.

    2. Stratagems are still very much a thing and there will still be a lot of them. Not as much as 9th ed., probably more like 8th ed. There is the Core strats. (but more of them) + faction strats. (they said average quantity is 6 faction strats,). So, I surmise each faction will have access to a total of around 20 stratagems. Still far too many in my opinion.

    3. We'll be returning to 5th ed. era army construction where your warlord will unlock certain things (e.g. more stratagems (yup, even more), army rules (yup, even more) and possibly what units count towards Battleline). So, we're not pairing down as hard as we're being led to believe.



    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 15:23:59


    Post by: Wayniac


    some notes from the video:

    been working on it for 2 years
    community has said rules are in loads of diff places/hard to keep track of
    "tried to focus on the datasheets, make those the one stop shop"
    stratagems should be reactions or one-off cinematic things ("impactful")
    "still has a lot of depth and decisions, but less decisions before the game"
    "fewer big choices before the game" and "[those decisions] unlocks rules/stratagems"
    "not flicking through 30 odd stratagems"
    psychic powers on sheet (sounds kinda like command abilities in AOS?)
    "cut down on downtime"
    USRs specifically mention deeps strike, FNP
    "common language for rules is important"
    ON BLOAT: Studio has a clear process for adding rules, and mentions if they added detachments, it would replace something. Want to limit stuff on top of stuff
    calls out "gotcha moments"
    hyped combat patrol for both beginners and if you want to get a game done within an hour


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 15:27:39


    Post by: Dai


    Doesnt seem like its for me but wasnt expecting it to be, will continue enjoying older editions and other games. Am looking forward to the box set reveal and wether theyll do a big value box like at start of 9th


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 15:28:28


    Post by: VladimirHerzog


     oni wrote:
    Watched the video. My hot take is...

    3. We'll be returning to 5th ed. era army construction where your warlord will unlock certain things (e.g. more stratagems (yup, even more), army rules (yup, even more) and possibly what units count towards Battleline). So, we're not pairing down as hard as we're being led to believe.



    they specifically said that those extra rules would be "instead" and not "in addition".

    So there will be a specific ruleset for Ultramarine first company and Ultramarine second company, with each completely independent (that sentence is an example by me, not them)


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 15:38:22


    Post by: Dudeface


     oni wrote:
    Watched the video. My hot take is...

    1. We're returning to how older editions (3rd, 4th and 5th ed. era) handled psychers; where there is no pshychic phase and no psychic disciplines. Psychic powers are now unit 'actions' done at a specific point as described in the power. Also, the number of powers and the powers themselves are limited and specific to the unit.

    2. Stratagems are still very much a thing and there will still be a lot of them. Not as much as 9th ed., probably more like 8th ed. There is the Core strats. (but more of them) + faction strats. (they said average quantity is 6 faction strats,). So, I surmise each faction will have access to a total of around 20 stratagems. Still far too many in my opinion.

    3. We'll be returning to 5th ed. era army construction where your warlord will unlock certain things (e.g. more stratagems (yup, even more), army rules (yup, even more) and possibly what units count towards Battleline). So, we're not pairing down as hard as we're being led to believe.



    1. Yes

    2. No? If there are 14 or so core strats, if all 23 factions(?) Have access to those same 14, it's hardly a huge mental load and they'll be generically applicable which is good.

    3. The "yes more" is the only layer of rules and strats mentioned. You really want to misrepresent what they say to justify being angry here.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 15:39:03


    Post by: Daedalus81


    edit : got covered


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 15:39:24


    Post by: Voss


     oni wrote:

    Moving BS and WS to the weapon profile gives me hesitation also. They claim they're eliminating redundancy, but then introduce what will be the most redundantly printed thing ever. The BS and WS traits could be printed once on the unit stat line; instead, they've chosen to print it X number of times for each weapon option. With the reintroduction of USR's it makes even less sense. If you want a weapon to be -1 or more To Hit... the old USR was called Unwieldy. I cannot see the practicality or a benefit; it just screams incompetence. I sincerely hope that there's something about the new design that we aren't yet aware of that justifies this change.


    Honestly, the mess that is the tyranid codex (particularly the twenty odd varieties of 'talons') justifies this change (same with the piles and piles of space marine bolters).

    With the new system, they don't have to keep writing and adding and subtracting and rewriting weapons to brute force their way to an approximation of game design. They can just assign appropriate numbers that produce desired design outcomes.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 15:40:59


    Post by: Dudeface


    Voss wrote:
     oni wrote:

    Moving BS and WS to the weapon profile gives me hesitation also. They claim they're eliminating redundancy, but then introduce what will be the most redundantly printed thing ever. The BS and WS traits could be printed once on the unit stat line; instead, they've chosen to print it X number of times for each weapon option. With the reintroduction of USR's it makes even less sense. If you want a weapon to be -1 or more To Hit... the old USR was called Unwieldy. I cannot see the practicality or a benefit; it just screams incompetence. I sincerely hope that there's something about the new design that we aren't yet aware of that justifies this change.


    Honestly, the mess that is the tyranid codex (particularly the twenty odd varieties of 'talons') justifies this change (same with the piles and piles of space marine bolters).

    With the new system, they don't have to keep writing and adding and subtracting and rewriting weapons to brute force their way to an approximation of game design. They can just assign appropriate numbers that produce desired design outcomes.


    The other angle being how things interact with modifiers, a USR giving you -1 to hit atm means that a bunch of other stuff of totally irrelevant.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 15:45:28


    Post by: Eldarsif


     nordsturmking wrote:


    Psychic phase no longer exists. Psychic powers are written on the psyker's datacard


    Basically a lot like the universal Command Abilities in AoS. I really like that approach as it gives me agency how to react to my opponent to some extent.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    Wayniac wrote:

    USRs specifically mention deeps strike, FNP


    I imagine the USRs are going to be those who the community treated as a USR despite their varying names. That includes namely Deep Strike and FNP. I could imagine scout being on the list as well, but overall I imagine the USR list to be tiny.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 16:00:28


    Post by: Tittliewinks22


    PenitentJake wrote:

    And in a competitive, stand alone pick-up game, that's certainly true.

    But what I've been trying to get people to remember for three years or so is that this isn't the only way the game is played. The great thing about relics that a competitive player would never take is that you can use them as objectives in narrative battles so that an objective isn't just an abstract game mechanic, but an actual item.

    In our campaign, territories need to be occupied by a detachment in order to be held, so there are a lot of characters- If I'm holding 5 terriotries, I've got five commanders- more than you'd be likely to have in 2k Matched game.

    Some relics may not be powerful, but they fit a theme. In a non-competitive campaign that last a year or so, you get to indulge in all of that stuff.



    Sounds like your play group is making up their own missions because the cookie cutter missions that GW offers do not fit within your play groups narrative tastes... what is stopping your group from also creating their own relics?



    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 16:15:02


    Post by: oni


    Voss wrote:
     oni wrote:

    Moving BS and WS to the weapon profile gives me hesitation also. They claim they're eliminating redundancy, but then introduce what will be the most redundantly printed thing ever. The BS and WS traits could be printed once on the unit stat line; instead, they've chosen to print it X number of times for each weapon option. With the reintroduction of USR's it makes even less sense. If you want a weapon to be -1 or more To Hit... the old USR was called Unwieldy. I cannot see the practicality or a benefit; it just screams incompetence. I sincerely hope that there's something about the new design that we aren't yet aware of that justifies this change.


    Honestly, the mess that is the tyranid codex (particularly the twenty odd varieties of 'talons') justifies this change (same with the piles and piles of space marine bolters).

    With the new system, they don't have to keep writing and adding and subtracting and rewriting weapons to brute force their way to an approximation of game design. They can just assign appropriate numbers that produce desired design outcomes.


    I do not see how these are relatable. The bolt guns and talons have no effect on unit BS or WS.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 16:48:50


    Post by: catbarf


     oni wrote:
    Voss wrote:
     oni wrote:

    Moving BS and WS to the weapon profile gives me hesitation also. They claim they're eliminating redundancy, but then introduce what will be the most redundantly printed thing ever. The BS and WS traits could be printed once on the unit stat line; instead, they've chosen to print it X number of times for each weapon option. With the reintroduction of USR's it makes even less sense. If you want a weapon to be -1 or more To Hit... the old USR was called Unwieldy. I cannot see the practicality or a benefit; it just screams incompetence. I sincerely hope that there's something about the new design that we aren't yet aware of that justifies this change.


    Honestly, the mess that is the tyranid codex (particularly the twenty odd varieties of 'talons') justifies this change (same with the piles and piles of space marine bolters).

    With the new system, they don't have to keep writing and adding and subtracting and rewriting weapons to brute force their way to an approximation of game design. They can just assign appropriate numbers that produce desired design outcomes.


    I do not see how these are relatable. The bolt guns and talons have no effect on unit BS or WS.


    The talons do have lots of different varieties of re-rolls, number of attacks per profile, and raw stats. They've got special rules tied to them because the game doesn't have a clean way of making some weapons more accurate or striking more. Having special rules (including USRs) to represent those traits is a perfect example of how not to use special rules- they're essentially raw stat changes that only need special rules because of how the game is formatted, rather than because they actually do something special.

    Putting the to-hit, strength, and attacks directly on the weapon profile does a couple of beneficial things. It allows those values to be tweaked independently, so options can be differentiated and balanced against one another without having to explicitly reference a core statline. It's also cleaner to simply read left-to-right and have all your relevant offensive characteristics on a single line, not having to bounce between the weapon stats, the model stats, and the weapon special rules to compute the final value.

    It does mean that they can no longer make a single profile for a piece of wargear and make that available to all units that share that piece of wargear, but GW's been moving away from that model for a long time already. In old editions you had a short list of common wargear and then unit stats that made use of that wargear, in 8th/9th you had huge sprawling lists of wargear with seven different scything talons or eighty-six bolt weapons, and now everything will be bespoke to each unit but also readily available on the datasheet so you don't need to deal with the full list at all.

    (Also FWIW I prefer the old model from a design standpoint- simple ranged weapon profiles, and melee weapons that just add abilities to your base melee profile- but I'll happily take this new approach over how 9th currently does it)


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 17:09:49


    Post by: Voss


     oni wrote:
    Voss wrote:
     oni wrote:

    Moving BS and WS to the weapon profile gives me hesitation also. They claim they're eliminating redundancy, but then introduce what will be the most redundantly printed thing ever. The BS and WS traits could be printed once on the unit stat line; instead, they've chosen to print it X number of times for each weapon option. With the reintroduction of USR's it makes even less sense. If you want a weapon to be -1 or more To Hit... the old USR was called Unwieldy. I cannot see the practicality or a benefit; it just screams incompetence. I sincerely hope that there's something about the new design that we aren't yet aware of that justifies this change.


    Honestly, the mess that is the tyranid codex (particularly the twenty odd varieties of 'talons') justifies this change (same with the piles and piles of space marine bolters).

    With the new system, they don't have to keep writing and adding and subtracting and rewriting weapons to brute force their way to an approximation of game design. They can just assign appropriate numbers that produce desired design outcomes.


    I do not see how these are relatable. The bolt guns and talons have no effect on unit BS or WS.


    Consider each weapon as a package, rather than a group of unrelated stats. From a game design standpoint, it solves a lot of issues that GW has been struggling with (what's been mentioned already, but also +/- modifiers, bonus attacks for merely having the weapon, even if you don't use it, and all sorts of conditional stuff. Plus a lot of nitpicking with GW's terrible rules writing goes away, especially in the realm of stacking modifiers that defy mathematical principles. Don't know about you, but I don't miss the days of people arguing about whether S4 +1 x2 equals 9 or 10, depending on when the +1 happens).

    As catbarf mentioned, there is a benefit to the old, original system, but you need a common list of weapons rather than the sprawling excesses of the last few editions.

    Given the editions stated goals, I like it. This simplifies a lot of issues with rules writing, stacking bonuses (and player's selective reading) in a pretty broad stroke: these are the numbers, the end.
    Now its going to be a problem if GW starts writing exceptions, but that's always true. At least they seem more aware of that this time.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 17:18:16


    Post by: catbarf


    Voss wrote:
    Don't know about you, but I don't miss the days of people arguing about whether S4 +1 x2 equals 9 or 10, depending on when the +1 happens).


    Or a weapon hitting at -1 but then it doesn't matter because the target has a 'hit at -1' ability anyways and modifiers don't stack etc etc.

    Having weapon profiles bespoke for each unit rather than 'universal' is undoubtedly going to cause some of the same problems that bespoke abilities rather than USRs did ('wtf, why is this unit's bolter S5?'), but I think this is the best way to handle the giant mess of weapon profiles and, more importantly, will be cleaner in actual play. And at least any subtle differences in stats will be visible numbers and keywords, rather than subtleties of wording like 're-roll any' versus 're-roll misses'.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 17:26:47


    Post by: Apple fox


    I don’t like they have removed WS/BS from the stat line as I think referencing them should be available for the game.
    Even if they put the stat used on the weapon profile itself again if they really needed.
    But I not really that optimistic anymore.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 17:36:38


    Post by: Brickfix


    I like some of the stuff spoonfed to us. My main complaint about 9th edition was the abundance of army rules, subjaction rules, and how they interacted with warlord traits, relics and strategems. The current approach appears to be less cluttered. But I'm still afraid they may add all this right back in once the first few codices dropped ...


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 17:38:12


    Post by: Dudeface


    Apple fox wrote:
    I don’t like they have removed WS/BS from the stat line as I think referencing them should be available for the game.
    Even if they put the stat used on the weapon profile itself again if they really needed.
    But I not really that optimistic anymore.


    Why? What do you benefit from having a static profile that doesn't match the weapons on the card?


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 17:59:04


    Post by: Asmodai


    Making WS/BS dependent on the weapon seems sensible to me. A marksman is likely to be more accurate firing their sniper rifle than when falling back to their pistol.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 18:02:08


    Post by: Brickfix


    In Dropzone different weapons had different accuracy on the same vehicle, I really don't mind either way though. If in prevents extra rules, I'm all for it


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 18:30:49


    Post by: Cryonicleech


    Tbh at this point having watched several editions come and go, I'm just excited to get some armies on the table and play through the early datacard/index ecosystem. Once codexes and bloat come back in though, I imagine everyone will probably fall off, similar to what happened with 8th.

    I won't give it a ringing endorsement until I finally get to read the core rules, but at least GW remembered their success with 8th by keeping initial entry relatively easy/simple.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 19:00:52


    Post by: oni


    Brickfix wrote:
    In Dropzone different weapons had different accuracy on the same vehicle, I really don't mind either way though. If in prevents extra rules, I'm all for it


    So instead of remembering one or two additional USR's that can be broadly applied across the entire game, you prefer to remember potentially hundreds of varying stat values?



    I still have not read a convincing reason why having the BS and WS on the weapon profile is good.

    @Voss; @Catbarf: Surely the both of you are not suggesting that a weapon should hit on a fixed value regardless of who / what is wielding it.



    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 19:02:37


    Post by: JNAProductions


     oni wrote:
    Brickfix wrote:
    In Dropzone different weapons had different accuracy on the same vehicle, I really don't mind either way though. If in prevents extra rules, I'm all for it


    So instead of remembering one or two additional USR's that can be broadly applied across the entire game, you prefer to remember potentially hundreds of varying stat values?



    I still have not read a convincing reason why having the BS and WS on the weapon profile is good.

    @Voss; @Catbarf: Surely the both of you are not suggesting that a weapon should hit on a fixed value regardless of who / what is wielding it.

    It's just moving where the hit value is.
    What's the difference between remembering "Marines hit on a 3+, Powerfist has a -1 penalty" and "Marines hit on a 3+, but with a Powerfist a 4+"?

    Back in 3rd-7th with comparative WS, we would've lost something there. But that was already lost in the translation from 7th to 8th.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 19:09:05


    Post by: VladimirHerzog


     oni wrote:


    I still have not read a convincing reason why having the BS and WS on the weapon profile is good.



    Its simple : it reduces clutter on the datasheet and gives more ways to modify a unit.

    No more "Turret weapon" rule, just give it straight up +1 BS on the stat itself
    No more "you get -1 to hit with that weapons" on powerfists
    No more "sniper rifle that hits on a 6" on guardsmen

    Now theyre able to properly stat weapons independently of the base unit. Much cleaner and better approach


    OH and since theyre providing us with cards as game aids, it means that figuring out the attack sequence is gonna be litterally one line instead of needing to alternate between the unit's stats and the weapon's stats (yeah, thats a tiny microscopic amount of time saved but its still a difference)


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 19:18:01


    Post by: oni


     JNAProductions wrote:
     oni wrote:
    Brickfix wrote:
    In Dropzone different weapons had different accuracy on the same vehicle, I really don't mind either way though. If in prevents extra rules, I'm all for it


    So instead of remembering one or two additional USR's that can be broadly applied across the entire game, you prefer to remember potentially hundreds of varying stat values?



    I still have not read a convincing reason why having the BS and WS on the weapon profile is good.

    @Voss; @Catbarf: Surely the both of you are not suggesting that a weapon should hit on a fixed value regardless of who / what is wielding it.

    It's just moving where the hit value is.
    What's the difference between remembering "Marines hit on a 3+, Powerfist has a -1 penalty" and "Marines hit on a 3+, but with a Powerfist a 4+"?

    Back in 3rd-7th with comparative WS, we would've lost something there. But that was already lost in the translation from 7th to 8th.


    Having the BS and WS in the weapon profile means:
    1. There cannot be weapon options beyond what is specifically listed on a datasheet. There is no insignificant number of units where all weapon options do not / cannot fit.
    2. A repository list of weapons cannot be done, compounding issue no.1.

    Something is being sacrificed to make this new profile workable.



    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 19:26:13


    Post by: VladimirHerzog


     oni wrote:


    Having the BS and WS in the weapon profile means:
    1. There cannot be weapon options beyond what is specifically listed on a datasheet. There is no insignificant number of units where all weapon options do not / cannot fit.
    2. A repository list of weapons cannot be done, compounding issue no.1.

    Something is being sacrificed to make this new profile workable.



    yes, thats the whole point of the datasheet, all the rules are in the same spot.....

    Its a feature, not a bug.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 19:45:23


    Post by: Dudeface


     oni wrote:
     JNAProductions wrote:
     oni wrote:
    Brickfix wrote:
    In Dropzone different weapons had different accuracy on the same vehicle, I really don't mind either way though. If in prevents extra rules, I'm all for it


    So instead of remembering one or two additional USR's that can be broadly applied across the entire game, you prefer to remember potentially hundreds of varying stat values?



    I still have not read a convincing reason why having the BS and WS on the weapon profile is good.

    @Voss; @Catbarf: Surely the both of you are not suggesting that a weapon should hit on a fixed value regardless of who / what is wielding it.

    It's just moving where the hit value is.
    What's the difference between remembering "Marines hit on a 3+, Powerfist has a -1 penalty" and "Marines hit on a 3+, but with a Powerfist a 4+"?

    Back in 3rd-7th with comparative WS, we would've lost something there. But that was already lost in the translation from 7th to 8th.


    Having the BS and WS in the weapon profile means:
    1. There cannot be weapon options beyond what is specifically listed on a datasheet. There is no insignificant number of units where all weapon options do not / cannot fit.
    2. A repository list of weapons cannot be done, compounding issue no.1.

    Something is being sacrificed to make this new profile workable.



    Can you give us your top 10 of units where you can't fit them all on? I'm wagering the bulk are marine units who need some options consolidating anyway imo.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 19:46:08


    Post by: Deadnight


    Strongly lean towards KISS here, rather than bloated complexity and excess book keeping.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 20:09:17


    Post by: ccs


    Dudeface wrote:
     oni wrote:
     JNAProductions wrote:
     oni wrote:
    Brickfix wrote:
    In Dropzone different weapons had different accuracy on the same vehicle, I really don't mind either way though. If in prevents extra rules, I'm all for it


    So instead of remembering one or two additional USR's that can be broadly applied across the entire game, you prefer to remember potentially hundreds of varying stat values?



    I still have not read a convincing reason why having the BS and WS on the weapon profile is good.

    @Voss; @Catbarf: Surely the both of you are not suggesting that a weapon should hit on a fixed value regardless of who / what is wielding it.

    It's just moving where the hit value is.
    What's the difference between remembering "Marines hit on a 3+, Powerfist has a -1 penalty" and "Marines hit on a 3+, but with a Powerfist a 4+"?

    Back in 3rd-7th with comparative WS, we would've lost something there. But that was already lost in the translation from 7th to 8th.


    Having the BS and WS in the weapon profile means:
    1. There cannot be weapon options beyond what is specifically listed on a datasheet. There is no insignificant number of units where all weapon options do not / cannot fit.
    2. A repository list of weapons cannot be done, compounding issue no.1.

    Something is being sacrificed to make this new profile workable.



    Can you give us your top 10 of units where you can't fit them all on? I'm wagering the bulk are marine units who need some options consolidating anyway imo.


    I'd suggest you all just go read an actual AoS data card. There's plenty of room on the standard card. And they CAN (and do) make multi-page cards. Picture on one side, stats on the next 3 sides.
    If you can, take a look at the Belekor or mega- gargant cards.
    I'm sure even the plague marines loadout restrictions will fit.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/27 23:47:16


    Post by: PenitentJake


     catbarf wrote:
    If you're already using a homebrew campaign system and aren't concerned with balance, you can pretty easily make up your own relics.

    You don't need GW to spoonfeed you rules to have a narrative. Especially not at the detriment of casual and competitive play.


    Yes, if I wanted to spend my time making up 5-10 extra relics per faction I certainly could do that. A lot faster when I don't have to though, right?

    Yes, if I wanted to invent five trials to achieve Sainthood, I could. A lot easier when I don't have to though, right?

    If I wanted to invent 12 Dark Eldar territories to capture, I could. So much better that I don't have to though, right? More time to just play.

    Seriously CB, you don't need GW to spoonfeed you either- why don't you make up you your own game?

    Dude, I respect you. You post a lot of intelligent stuff on this board, and even when I disagree, I see the value of your commentary. I am shocked that you can't see the advantages of having so many ready made tools when you're running campaigns for people. It's like the Monster Manual for D&D, in that no GM uses EVERY monster in the book... But people are glad they are there, even when they aren't used, because who knows what's in the next campaign.

    Surely someone who has made so many good points in the past can see this?


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/28 00:09:18


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


    I own every published adventure for all the 40k RPGs, yet I have never run a single one. Every time I got one of those books, the first thing I did was jump to the back at the "Adversaries" sections to see what new rules for bad guys, monsters and other NPCs were included. "What did we get this time?" was a common phrase when a new book showed up.

    I see Crusade in much the same way. It's a lot of "stuff" that's there for anyone to use at any time. It's a whole structure, or it's a jumping off point, or it's a bit of spice for something you've already got running. I don't see it as a detriment to casual/competitive play. How could it be?


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/28 01:16:09


    Post by: PenitentJake


    Thanks HBMC- I'm glad someone else sees it the way I do.

    Crusade isn't perfect, and I'm not saying it can't be improved- some factions have AWESOME content... Like the Drukhari are far and away the winners of Crusade content.

    But other factions could have more fleshed out long term goals. Anyway, I know it's not a Crusade thread, and I won't hijack it more than I already have...

    PS- Unfortunately I didn't buy as many of the Dark Heresy RPG books as I should have- I only have the Core book and the supplement that lets you create Sisters PCs. They are both excellent, and I still use them as big books of 40k ideas. Seeing how the Sisters progress and earn access to special character subclasses really helped me envision how a convent would function, and how a sister could grow from Novitiate to Palatine.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/28 04:24:20


    Post by: Daedalus81


    I haven't done Crusade yet, because it seems so messy, but future me is happy to have it when my kids are older.



    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/28 06:29:31


    Post by: Dolnikan


    I did do crusade and there were fun elements to it, but to ke it quickly became more bloat. I also don't really like how you the xp system just leads to more and more power and does a lot to encourage more death star kind of units.

    Finally, the faction specific mechanics in some cases could make for great campaigns but they just aren't interactive at all. You for instance take over planets or the like but that doesn't have an effect on anyone else and also pushes you into one specific storyline.

    So for me at least, Crusade doesn't really add much if anything as a campaign system.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/28 06:47:57


    Post by: Apple fox


     Dolnikan wrote:
    I did do crusade and there were fun elements to it, but to ke it quickly became more bloat. I also don't really like how you the xp system just leads to more and more power and does a lot to encourage more death star kind of units.

    Finally, the faction specific mechanics in some cases could make for great campaigns but they just aren't interactive at all. You for instance take over planets or the like but that doesn't have an effect on anyone else and also pushes you into one specific storyline.

    So for me at least, Crusade doesn't really add much if anything as a campaign system.


    I do think crusades big issue is GW not knowing what it wanted it to ever be, and marketing made it sound worse often enough.
    It was also more on a system with too much as mentioned, if they actually manage to reign it in crusade maybe a great expansion for campaign play. Would be good as a few books that all offer different experience that interact better for sure I feel.

    For why BS/WS on the stat line, so it can be referenced. Terrain based weapons, narrative as well if it comes up.
    It’s also not going to be modified often and the space can be used on weapons easy enough now, I also feel it’s just as easy to modify from the main stat as it is for weapon the change brings.
    It’s a change that was not really a issue and just ads other things anyway.
    Not a big deal.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/28 10:02:31


    Post by: Wayniac


    I tried crusade but dropped out when people were taking hard hitting lists to crusade games. Not fun facing custodes full of forgeworld stuff or the like in what was meant to be a fun narrative thing


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/28 10:29:53


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


    That's not the fault of Crusade though...


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/28 13:08:07


    Post by: Wayniac


    True, but if Crusade had more restrictions... in any event I think the system itself is great and hope they can improve on it.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/28 13:25:12


    Post by: PenitentJake


    A lot of good points here...

     Daedalus81 wrote:
    I haven't done Crusade yet, because it seems so messy, but future me is happy to have it when my kids ate older.


    I actually agree with this- if any of my Crusades hit 100PL, I'm sure I'll find the book keeping to be a chore. At 25-50PL it's no biggie, but I could see it getting cumbersome.

     Dolnikan wrote:
    I did do crusade and there were fun elements to it, but to ke it quickly became more bloat. I also don't really like how you the xp system just leads to more and more power and does a lot to encourage more death star kind of units.


    It certainly can. I only take upgrades that reflect the narrative... So for example if I earn a battle honour during a fight where all of my kills came from shooting attacks, I won't purchase a BH that buffs WS even if that's numerically advantageous... But there's nothing that forces or even explicitly recommends that people play that way- I just do it cuz it's what I do.

     Dolnikan wrote:

    Finally, the faction specific mechanics in some cases could make for great campaigns but they just aren't interactive at all. You for instance take over planets or the like but that doesn't have an effect on anyone else and also pushes you into one specific storyline.


    I somewhat agree here too, although it's different from faction to faction. Planet conquering is something that could really be improved. If you combine the rules for System design from Tau with planet designs from both GSC and Nids, you create a system full of planets that can be fought over by all 3 factions.

    The Commorragh stuff is super interactive, but works best in Drukhari vs Drukhari games, making it a bit weird.

    GK Nemsis Daemon units are probably the most interactive content.


    Apple fox wrote:


    I do think crusades big issue is GW not knowing what it wanted it to ever be


    Kinda agree here too- the idea that you can play Crusade against people who aren't also playing Crusade did require certain compromises that may have adversly affected Crusade on Crusade battles. I think GW should lean into narrative mode, with the caveat that most of us can figure out fair(ish) ways to use our Crusade force in a game of matched play. I've done it a couple times- I suppressed all of my Crusade upgrades and used Secondaries like my opponent (rather than Agendas), but I still went through the post battle sequence to pick up RP and I still chose a unit to be marked for greatness. A few of the long-term goal quests can still be given attention during game play even without Agendas in the mix.

    Leaning into narrative mode would allow GW to do things like add a campaign system to the Crusade rules. As it currently exists, we have seen a few suggested campaign systems added into Crusade through a combination of Mission Packs and Hard-back campaign books, and this is certainly better than not campaign system at all... But it is a bit inelegant, because it changed from season to season- meaning you needed extra books to do it, and there was never a baseline campaign system in the BRB that stayed static.

     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    That's not the fault of Crusade though...


    Obviously, I agree. But careful brother- pretty soon adversaries of Crusade will be accusing you of blaming people for playing wrong, and you might be accused of being an apologist or a white knight.

    In any case, I've got my fingers crossed for a big book of Crusade dropping alongside the BRB- something that contains all the generic Crusade of the current BRB plus a few well developed campaign systems that remain consistent options throughout the lifespan of the edition, plus all the bespoke content for every faction, so that every faction can get the full Crusade experience even before their dex arrives.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/28 14:37:51


    Post by: vipoid


     catbarf wrote:
    If you're already using a homebrew campaign system and aren't concerned with balance, you can pretty easily make up your own relics.

    You don't need GW to spoonfeed you rules to have a narrative. Especially not at the detriment of casual and competitive play.


    Catbarf, I agree with an awful lot of your posts. I think you make some very intelligent and eloquent points.

    But this is one case where I think you're being very unfair.

    Given that relics are one of the few avenues of customisation we have left, I don't think it's unreasonable to want to keep the variety that exists currently.

    And I especially don't want the selection to be effectively made by whatever tournament players take most. Because it is all but guaranteed to result in the surviving artefacts being the most boring ones currently available. I don't want to see all the fun and flavourful options cut just because Timmy Tournament Tits picks the bland-but-effective option every single time.

    Moreover, I'm not even seeing the gain here. Keeping artefacts means that narrative players (as well as those willing to sacrifice power for fun/flavour) get to keep their options. I doubt tournament players really care that much because most can probably tell very quickly which artefacts are strongest and so just ignore the rest. Whereas removing artefacts helps... fans of One-Page-Rules, I guess?

    Now if you want to argue that many artefacts should just be standard wargear, I'd be 100% behind you. But we both know there's more chance of me riding a winged marshmallow to the Potato Kingdom than there is of GW reversing their policy of NMNR. Thus, artefacts and WLTs remain the only real source of customisation for many characters. I really don't want to see that vanish just so that a £35 book can be a page shorter.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/28 15:24:36


    Post by: Gangland


    Call me crazy but I find current Crusade easier to keep track of than current matched play.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/28 15:48:39


    Post by: oni


    Any amount of in game bookkeeping is undesirable.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/28 16:18:51


    Post by: Gangland


     oni wrote:
    Any amount of in game bookkeeping is undesirable.

    Most of the Crusade book keeping is outside of the game.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/28 16:31:11


    Post by: VladimirHerzog


     Gangland wrote:
    Call me crazy but I find current Crusade easier to keep track of than current matched play.


    You're crazy, Crusade basically ADDS on top of matched play lol


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     Gangland wrote:
     oni wrote:
    Any amount of in game bookkeeping is undesirable.

    Most of the Crusade book keeping is outside of the game.


    no it's not? Its pretty much only your requisition points and faction-specific points that are ONLY outside the game

    Once you use them to buy more units, or upgrade some, it becomes in-game.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/28 16:58:11


    Post by: Gangland


     VladimirHerzog wrote:
     Gangland wrote:
    Call me crazy but I find current Crusade easier to keep track of than current matched play.


    You're crazy, Crusade basically ADDS on top of matched play lol


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     Gangland wrote:
     oni wrote:
    Any amount of in game bookkeeping is undesirable.

    Most of the Crusade book keeping is outside of the game.


    no it's not? Its pretty much only your requisition points and faction-specific points that are ONLY outside the game

    Once you use them to buy more units, or upgrade some, it becomes in-game.

    To your first point: And match play now changes every 6 months while crusade has largely stayed the same. If I look for a match play game I have to check off what mission pack and what new stuff that mission pack has and the new wording of the secondaries and which secondaries I can actually take... Crusade can just ask a power level and we can iron out the mission at game time.

    Second point: This has to do with semantics as what constitutes "in game." Out of action tests and upgrades/marks/XP I consider out of the "game."


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/28 17:08:41


    Post by: catbarf


    vipoid wrote:
     catbarf wrote:
    If you're already using a homebrew campaign system and aren't concerned with balance, you can pretty easily make up your own relics.

    You don't need GW to spoonfeed you rules to have a narrative. Especially not at the detriment of casual and competitive play.


    Catbarf, I agree with an awful lot of your posts. I think you make some very intelligent and eloquent points.

    But this is one case where I think you're being very unfair.

    Given that relics are one of the few avenues of customisation we have left, I don't think it's unreasonable to want to keep the variety that exists currently.

    And I especially don't want the selection to be effectively made by whatever tournament players take most. Because it is all but guaranteed to result in the surviving artefacts being the most boring ones currently available. I don't want to see all the fun and flavourful options cut just because Timmy Tournament Tits picks the bland-but-effective option every single time.

    Moreover, I'm not even seeing the gain here. Keeping artefacts means that narrative players (as well as those willing to sacrifice power for fun/flavour) get to keep their options. I doubt tournament players really care that much because most can probably tell very quickly which artefacts are strongest and so just ignore the rest. Whereas removing artefacts helps... fans of One-Page-Rules, I guess?

    Now if you want to argue that many artefacts should just be standard wargear, I'd be 100% behind you. But we both know there's more chance of me riding a winged marshmallow to the Potato Kingdom than there is of GW reversing their policy of NMNR. Thus, artefacts and WLTs remain the only real source of customisation for many characters. I really don't want to see that vanish just so that a £35 book can be a page shorter.


    My issue is that relics/WLTs in their current form encapsulate a number of the problems of 8th/9th, and cutting down on the list of relics available is in line with the streamlining that 10th is promising.

    -Relics/WLTs don't have any corporeal existence on the tabletop. In a game otherwise largely driven by WYSIWYG, they're a 'trap card' upgrade that can have atypical/unpredictable effects. Granted, they're nowhere near as obfuscated as stratagems (ie, you can actually ask 'what does that guy do?' and get a straight answer), but more possibilities for a single model the greater the risk of gotchas. Ideally, as you say I'd love to just have a bunch of wargear options that all go on the model, but again as you say NMNR rears its ugly head. I don't know why saying that my guy has a bolt pistol when the model has a laspistol is verboten, while saying he has the Magic Necklace of Sundering despite the model having no such item is okay, but whatever.

    -On top of that, each faction and each subfaction and each RoR getting their own relics and WLTs adds a considerable amount of design overhead for GW to manage. If the goal is to reduce how much stuff each faction has that requires balancing, then paring down stratagems without doing the same for relics/WLTs would be going halfway.

    -And maybe most importantly, the fact that they're all treated as equivalent in value (no points cost) makes both of the above just a mess, because effectiveness varies so wildly. They're also prone to wombo-combos where stacking the right relics, WLTs, and stratagems punches way above their weight.

    Also, I think it's misleading to frame the issue as whether GW should keep all the WLTs/relics or just keep the good/competitive ones and throw out the rest. Until the edition releases and tournament results start coming in, GW won't know what the good ones are; if they had that level of ability to assess balance, there wouldn't be 'good' and 'bad' options to begin with. So given that we're looking at a totally new edition with new rules and undoubtedly new and untested balance, the question isn't 'should GW just discard all the bad options?', it's more 'should GW curate the options to a smaller set?'. Based on AOS, I'm inclined to think that GW is capable of giving you better balanced, more fluffy, more fun options at the cost of fewer of them.

    That said, I 100% agree with the concern that as GW has stripped out lots of options for customization over the years, and relics/WLTs represent an opportunity to customize Your Dude to be something other than a generic profile. I also would like to see lots of options for character customization. However, I think there are better ways to go about it than the current system.

    One of the things that bugs me about the current WLT system is that you don't really have that many options. You get a couple for your faction and then a flanderized one for your subfaction, so opportunity for personalization is limited to a handful of stereotypes. Then with the relics, you have a bunch of options, but many have generic effects with counterparts in other armies, or are simply better versions of normal weapons. I'd much rather have an extensive list of universal WLTs and relics available to any army- more options for your characters, but still less stuff for GW to balance against one another or avoid unwanted interactions- and then a couple of army-specific ones. That's the way they're going with stratagems, and the same approach could work for WLTs/relics. Throw in the option to master-craft a weapon (seriously, there's no reason that should be off the table if upgrading my power sword to the Claw of the Desert Tigers is fine) and you'd have more options with less design overhead.

    And maybe I am being unfair, but I think Jake's position here is somewhat contradictory. If he's already okay with creating his own campaign system with extensive rules for territory control, then making up relics for the armies to fight over should be trivial in comparison. It's literally just buffs, and by his own admission he's not concerned with balance. As far as custom content goes, that's pretty straightforward stuff, and he has the opportunity to tailor them to the conflict his narrative is telling.

    FWIW I would be completely fine with having something like a curated set of WLTs/relics for casual or competitive play, and then a more extensive list for narrative play without the pretense of being balanced or the expectation that they'll be valid for tournaments. But I don't see that happening right out the gate. Might be a good candidate for a community-created content pack.

    (Also GW could just assign points costs, and then there'd be an obvious balance lever that would make the current giant sprawling mess of relics and WLTs more manageable, but I'm assuming that isn't in the cards either)


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/28 18:00:20


    Post by: Voss


     oni wrote:
     JNAProductions wrote:
     oni wrote:
    Brickfix wrote:
    In Dropzone different weapons had different accuracy on the same vehicle, I really don't mind either way though. If in prevents extra rules, I'm all for it


    So instead of remembering one or two additional USR's that can be broadly applied across the entire game, you prefer to remember potentially hundreds of varying stat values?



    I still have not read a convincing reason why having the BS and WS on the weapon profile is good.

    @Voss; @Catbarf: Surely the both of you are not suggesting that a weapon should hit on a fixed value regardless of who / what is wielding it.

    It's just moving where the hit value is.
    What's the difference between remembering "Marines hit on a 3+, Powerfist has a -1 penalty" and "Marines hit on a 3+, but with a Powerfist a 4+"?

    Back in 3rd-7th with comparative WS, we would've lost something there. But that was already lost in the translation from 7th to 8th.


    Having the BS and WS in the weapon profile means:
    1. There cannot be weapon options beyond what is specifically listed on a datasheet. There is no insignificant number of units where all weapon options do not / cannot fit.
    2. A repository list of weapons cannot be done, compounding issue no.1.

    Something is being sacrificed to make this new profile workable.


    1- Examples, please. The single sample datacard presented is a huge swath of blank space. I suspect the list of units where this is impossible is very, very small indeed, even barring multiple card options. (I can see the space marine and imperial guard heavy weapons lists just being cards in their own right if they _really_ need space) Keep in mind this is a post 8th/9th world, where options for a lot of units were already culled.

    2- A repository list neither compounds issue no 1 nor is it impossible. I can think of a few ways to do it off the top of my head (including just a placeholder character (*) that indicates referencing the datacard, the formula (User or User+1) to having no stat changes for characters, so that getting a captain's pin no longer magically makes someone a sharpshooter)

    Solutions to the problems you're imagining strike me as easy to find.


    @Voss; @Catbarf: Surely the both of you are not suggesting that a weapon should hit on a fixed value regardless of who / what is wielding it.

    No? Its on the datacard for a specific unit. The BS/WS for a different unit can obviously be different.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/28 18:14:37


    Post by: Strg Alt


    Having "Box set vs. Box set" battles is an asinine idea hatched from the ill brain of a marketing manger. This proves game designers are treated like crap in that company otherwise it wouldn´t come to such an embarrassing development.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/28 18:18:36


    Post by: Gangland


     Strg Alt wrote:
    Having "Box set vs. Box set" battles is an asinine idea hatched from the ill brain of a marketing manger. This proves game designers are treated like crap in that company otherwise it wouldn´t come to such an embarrassing development.

    Eh, seems like a decent way to give new players the ability to get into the game together while not being shoe horned by what is in the starter. It is gw though so...


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/28 18:40:32


    Post by: oni


    Voss wrote:
     oni wrote:
     JNAProductions wrote:
     oni wrote:
    Brickfix wrote:
    In Dropzone different weapons had different accuracy on the same vehicle, I really don't mind either way though. If in prevents extra rules, I'm all for it


    So instead of remembering one or two additional USR's that can be broadly applied across the entire game, you prefer to remember potentially hundreds of varying stat values?



    I still have not read a convincing reason why having the BS and WS on the weapon profile is good.

    @Voss; @Catbarf: Surely the both of you are not suggesting that a weapon should hit on a fixed value regardless of who / what is wielding it.

    It's just moving where the hit value is.
    What's the difference between remembering "Marines hit on a 3+, Powerfist has a -1 penalty" and "Marines hit on a 3+, but with a Powerfist a 4+"?

    Back in 3rd-7th with comparative WS, we would've lost something there. But that was already lost in the translation from 7th to 8th.


    Having the BS and WS in the weapon profile means:
    1. There cannot be weapon options beyond what is specifically listed on a datasheet. There is no insignificant number of units where all weapon options do not / cannot fit.
    2. A repository list of weapons cannot be done, compounding issue no.1.

    Something is being sacrificed to make this new profile workable.


    1- Examples, please. The single sample datacard presented is a huge swath of blank space. I suspect the list of units where this is impossible is very, very small indeed, even barring multiple card options. (I can see the space marine and imperial guard heavy weapons lists just being cards in their own right if they _really_ need space) Keep in mind this is post 8th/9th world, where options for a lot of units were already culled.

    2- A repository list neither compounds issue no 1 nor is it impossible. I can think of a few ways to do it off the top of my head (including just a placeholder character (*) that indicates referencing the datacard, the formula (User or User+1) to having no stat changes for characters, so that getting a captain's pin no longer magically makes someone a sharpshooter)

    Solutions to the problems you're imagining strike me as easy to find.


    1. The quintessential example is the SM Tactical Squad (30+ weapons). Other units where I can see a possible issue are: CSM Legionaries (21+ weapons), DG Plague Marines (18+ weapons), GSC Neophyte Hybrids (17+ weapons).

    2. It's absolutely impossible to have a repository list. Reference what? There is no unit BS or WS characteristic. So, reference another weapon profile? What if the datasheet has two or more different values? User or User+1... How? There is no unit Strength characteristic anymore.



    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/28 18:47:32


    Post by: ccs


     VladimirHerzog wrote:
     Gangland wrote:
    Call me crazy but I find current Crusade easier to keep track of than current matched play.


    You're crazy, Crusade basically ADDS on top of matched play lol


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     Gangland wrote:
     oni wrote:
    Any amount of in game bookkeeping is undesirable.

    Most of the Crusade book keeping is outside of the game.


    no it's not? Its pretty much only your requisition points and faction-specific points that are ONLY outside the game

    Once you use them to buy more units, or upgrade some, it becomes in-game.


    That's not book keeping. That's just reading your newly edited stat block. The same as you would in matched play if you had some upgrade/option. and somehow you manage that don't you?

    I suppose you could claim the various agendas where you have to keep a tally during play for this & a tally for that, & a tally for some other thing in order to determine your end game bonus xp is book keeping though.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/28 18:49:16


    Post by: Tsagualsa


     oni wrote:


    1. The quintessential example is the SM Tactical Squad (30+ weapons). Other units where I can see a possible issue are: CSM Legionaries (21+ weapons), DG Plague Marines (18+ weapons), GSC Neophyte Hybrids (17+ weapons).



    If they want a dirty fix they'll just split such units up into multiple entries, Tactical Assault Squad, Tactial Support Squad, Tactical Superiority Squad, Fireteam etc. with a handful of options each, and call it a day. You may even have different squad abilities for these, that's your tactical depth right there! Am gud gehm dezigns.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/28 18:49:50


    Post by: Dudeface


    ccs wrote:
     VladimirHerzog wrote:
     Gangland wrote:
    Call me crazy but I find current Crusade easier to keep track of than current matched play.


    You're crazy, Crusade basically ADDS on top of matched play lol


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     Gangland wrote:
     oni wrote:
    Any amount of in game bookkeeping is undesirable.

    Most of the Crusade book keeping is outside of the game.


    no it's not? Its pretty much only your requisition points and faction-specific points that are ONLY outside the game

    Once you use them to buy more units, or upgrade some, it becomes in-game.


    That's not book keeping. That's just reading your newly edited stat block. The same as you would in matched play if you had some upgrade/option. and somehow you manage that don't you?

    I suppose you could claim the various agendas where you have to keep a tally during play for this & a tally for that, & a tally for some other thing in order to determine your end game bonus xp is book keeping though.


    I think they're suggesting that as you add the stuff to the unit card outside of game, it still requires a discussion and changes to the unit in game. It's extra cognitive load for anyone but the owner potentially to remember all their extra things.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/28 18:50:44


    Post by: VladimirHerzog


     oni wrote:


    1. The quintessential example is the SM Tactical Squad (30+ weapons). Other units where I can see a possible issue are: CSM Legionaries (21+ weapons), DG Plague Marines (18+ weapons), GSC Neophyte Hybrids (17+ weapons).

    2. It's absolutely impossible to have a repository list. Reference what? There is no unit BS or WS characteristic. So, reference another weapon profile? What if the datasheet has two or more different values? User or User+1... How? There is no unit Strength characteristic anymore.



    let's just (unironically) fething wait and see.... for sure GW has found a solution to these bloated datasheet.



    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/28 18:58:58


    Post by: Dudeface


     oni wrote:


    1. The quintessential example is the SM Tactical Squad (30+ weapons). Other units where I can see a possible issue are: CSM Legionaries (21+ weapons), DG Plague Marines (18+ weapons), GSC Neophyte Hybrids (17+ weapons).



    All of those could stand to have some options consolidated/lost

    For tac marines: ditch grav weapons and count them as their plasma equivalents (4), I could see an argument in the name of streamlining to make "combi-weapon" a different profiled gun without each variant (2), crunch astartes chainsword and all power weapons into "Astartes light melee weapon" (4 - put lightning claw in here for now), fists and hammers into "Astartes heavy melee weapon" (1). That's 11 shaved off out the gates, although I'm being harsh there.

    For neophytes webbers could just be flamers, the melee weapons can be condensed to "melee weapon" and you could proably combine the shotguns and autoguns into "cultists weapons" if required with a single profile, but I understand reticence there.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/28 19:01:33


    Post by: EviscerationPlague


    Dudeface wrote:
     oni wrote:


    1. The quintessential example is the SM Tactical Squad (30+ weapons). Other units where I can see a possible issue are: CSM Legionaries (21+ weapons), DG Plague Marines (18+ weapons), GSC Neophyte Hybrids (17+ weapons).



    All of those could stand to have some options consolidated/lost

    For tac marines: ditch grav weapons and count them as their plasma equivalents

    Grav has no need to exist, agreed


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/28 19:04:49


    Post by: Gangland


    ccs wrote:
     VladimirHerzog wrote:
     Gangland wrote:
    Call me crazy but I find current Crusade easier to keep track of than current matched play.


    You're crazy, Crusade basically ADDS on top of matched play lol


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     Gangland wrote:
     oni wrote:
    Any amount of in game bookkeeping is undesirable.

    Most of the Crusade book keeping is outside of the game.


    no it's not? Its pretty much only your requisition points and faction-specific points that are ONLY outside the game

    Once you use them to buy more units, or upgrade some, it becomes in-game.


    That's not book keeping. That's just reading your newly edited stat block. The same as you would in matched play if you had some upgrade/option. and somehow you manage that don't you?

    I suppose you could claim the various agendas where you have to keep a tally during play for this & a tally for that, & a tally for some other thing in order to determine your end game bonus xp is book keeping though.

    Which is essentially secondaries.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/28 21:30:44


    Post by: PenitentJake


    Again, the story-based gamer is going to get you every time:

    You can't call a Grav weapon a plasma weapon- plasma has two settings and can blow up, which is a story event. When my Sisters superior have the plasma pistols blow up, do you know what that means?

    It means the Emperor is expressing disapproval and someone needs to swear a Penitent oath to come back to the light.

    How is a neophyte supposed to let his purestrain brothers convert a webbed guardsman into a new brood brother if some balance-at-all-costs game-must-be-simple type says, "Naw webbers are just flamers cuz simple."

    As others have suggested, if you want to knock even more equipment options out of the game, do it to your competitive ruleset and leave our narrative sandbox alone thank you.

    "Man, knights, bishops, rooks AND a queen? Rules bloat! This game should just be checkers!"


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/28 21:42:42


    Post by: Heafstaag


    I hope they do something about the missions. I don't know what, but all the missions feel like they are similar, with having terrain in basically the same place, and objectives in the same place, etc...

    I don't know exactly what, but secondaries are lame, the maelstrom type game mode is a bit more fun, but still lame.

    Giving some missions something similar to 7th ed fantasy victory conditions would be great. You tally up how many points of the enemy's army you killed, and your opponent does the same, and you see who got more.

    If I recall if you were within a certain amount of points it was a draw.

    If people feel like adding certain things to spice it up then make objectives worth so many points at the end, or killing the warlord worth so many points, etc.

    Just some thoughts.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/28 21:51:33


    Post by: Voss


     oni wrote:
    Voss wrote:
     oni wrote:
     JNAProductions wrote:
     oni wrote:
    Brickfix wrote:
    In Dropzone different weapons had different accuracy on the same vehicle, I really don't mind either way though. If in prevents extra rules, I'm all for it


    So instead of remembering one or two additional USR's that can be broadly applied across the entire game, you prefer to remember potentially hundreds of varying stat values?



    I still have not read a convincing reason why having the BS and WS on the weapon profile is good.

    @Voss; @Catbarf: Surely the both of you are not suggesting that a weapon should hit on a fixed value regardless of who / what is wielding it.

    It's just moving where the hit value is.
    What's the difference between remembering "Marines hit on a 3+, Powerfist has a -1 penalty" and "Marines hit on a 3+, but with a Powerfist a 4+"?

    Back in 3rd-7th with comparative WS, we would've lost something there. But that was already lost in the translation from 7th to 8th.


    Having the BS and WS in the weapon profile means:
    1. There cannot be weapon options beyond what is specifically listed on a datasheet. There is no insignificant number of units where all weapon options do not / cannot fit.
    2. A repository list of weapons cannot be done, compounding issue no.1.

    Something is being sacrificed to make this new profile workable.


    1- Examples, please. The single sample datacard presented is a huge swath of blank space. I suspect the list of units where this is impossible is very, very small indeed, even barring multiple card options. (I can see the space marine and imperial guard heavy weapons lists just being cards in their own right if they _really_ need space) Keep in mind this is post 8th/9th world, where options for a lot of units were already culled.

    2- A repository list neither compounds issue no 1 nor is it impossible. I can think of a few ways to do it off the top of my head (including just a placeholder character (*) that indicates referencing the datacard, the formula (User or User+1) to having no stat changes for characters, so that getting a captain's pin no longer magically makes someone a sharpshooter)

    Solutions to the problems you're imagining strike me as easy to find.


    1. The quintessential example is the SM Tactical Squad (30+ weapons). Other units where I can see a possible issue are: CSM Legionaries (21+ weapons), DG Plague Marines (18+ weapons), GSC Neophyte Hybrids (17+ weapons).

    2. It's absolutely impossible to have a repository list. Reference what? There is no unit BS or WS characteristic. So, reference another weapon profile? What if the datasheet has two or more different values? User or User+1... How? There is no unit Strength characteristic anymore.

    Ok... Referencing the BS or WS is easy. Its right there on the cards. Just because its not in the top stat block doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If you think that space marines units aren't still going to hit on 3+ with most of their weapons (ie, not power fist type weapons), I think you are expecting something completely different from what we're getting.

    User/User+1 was still referencing WS/BS. Not strength (which... given the context I feel odd explaining). Because, again, aside from clumsy weapons (like power fists), its going to be standard to the point of being universal, at least for units in that army. And on the datasheets for units where it isn't (hence bringing up user in the first place). Strength is another 'already solved' problem (though I know a fair few people don't like the solution. A Chainsword is not an Astartes Chainsword. The latter will be S4, always. the <whatever they called it> chainsword in the Guard army will be S3.

    Anyway, that was just one of several possible examples of how to handle a army-wide reference. The other was dropping a footnote reference to look at the relevant datacard. It isn't hard.

    Another approach is the GW way, where characters' weapons have different names than unit weapons. 'Relic' and 'master crafted' and all that stuff. So a character's 'relic boltgun' will be have a BS of 2+ while a unit's 'boltgun' will have a BS of 3+. A character only 'relic powerfist' will hit on 3+, a unit's 'powerfist' will hit on 4+. No confusion, easy to do in an army-wide reference chart if you absolutely need to have one.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/28 22:15:23


    Post by: vipoid


     catbarf wrote:

    My issue is that relics/WLTs in their current form encapsulate a number of the problems of 8th/9th, and cutting down on the list of relics available is in line with the streamlining that 10th is promising.

    -Relics/WLTs don't have any corporeal existence on the tabletop. In a game otherwise largely driven by WYSIWYG, they're a 'trap card' upgrade that can have atypical/unpredictable effects. Granted, they're nowhere near as obfuscated as stratagems (ie, you can actually ask 'what does that guy do?' and get a straight answer), but more possibilities for a single model the greater the risk of gotchas. Ideally, as you say I'd love to just have a bunch of wargear options that all go on the model, but again as you say NMNR rears its ugly head. I don't know why saying that my guy has a bolt pistol when the model has a laspistol is verboten, while saying he has the Magic Necklace of Sundering despite the model having no such item is okay, but whatever.


    I get what you mean about artefacts/WLTs being a strange deviation from the otherwise ridiculously strict NMNR policy.

    However, since I despise NMNR with a passion, this isn't a negative for me. If anything, the negative is that GW aren't willing to stick NMNR in a woodchipper where it belongs.


     catbarf wrote:

    -On top of that, each faction and each subfaction and each RoR getting their own relics and WLTs adds a considerable amount of design overhead for GW to manage. If the goal is to reduce how much stuff each faction has that requires balancing, then paring down stratagems without doing the same for relics/WLTs would be going halfway.


    This is fair. And honestly I don't like some relics/WLTs being subfaction-exclusive. However, I'd rather most of those relics were just added to the standard pool, rather than being deleted to save a single page of space.


     catbarf wrote:

    -And maybe most importantly, the fact that they're all treated as equivalent in value (no points cost) makes both of the above just a mess, because effectiveness varies so wildly. They're also prone to wombo-combos where stacking the right relics, WLTs, and stratagems punches way above their weight.


    I agree 100%.

    However, to my mind the solution is to have Relics/WLTs be bought with points (something I have repeatedly argued for), rather than just reducing the available pool.


     catbarf wrote:

    Also, I think it's misleading to frame the issue as whether GW should keep all the WLTs/relics or just keep the good/competitive ones and throw out the rest. Until the edition releases and tournament results start coming in, GW won't know what the good ones are; if they had that level of ability to assess balance, there wouldn't be 'good' and 'bad' options to begin with. So given that we're looking at a totally new edition with new rules and undoubtedly new and untested balance, the question isn't 'should GW just discard all the bad options?', it's more 'should GW curate the options to a smaller set?'. Based on AOS, I'm inclined to think that GW is capable of giving you better balanced, more fluffy, more fun options at the cost of fewer of them.


    Let's be honest here - GW is talking utter bollocks when they say that the edition is being built from the ground up.

    Furthermore, GW might not know what will be strong in the next edition (though they could just ask a tournament player, as they can usually tell what's broken with a 10-second look at the relic page), but they already know which relics are taken in this edition.

    Do you really think they wouldn't just run with that list and discard everything else? Especially since, despite their claims, I'm 99% certain the artefacts in this "completely new and 100% different to anything that came before it" edition will just be rehashed based on their current abilities.


     catbarf wrote:

    That said, I 100% agree with the concern that as GW has stripped out lots of options for customization over the years, and relics/WLTs represent an opportunity to customize Your Dude to be something other than a generic profile. I also would like to see lots of options for character customization. However, I think there are better ways to go about it than the current system.


    Absolutely agreed.


     catbarf wrote:

    One of the things that bugs me about the current WLT system is that you don't really have that many options. You get a couple for your faction and then a flanderized one for your subfaction, so opportunity for personalization is limited to a handful of stereotypes. Then with the relics, you have a bunch of options, but many have generic effects with counterparts in other armies, or are simply better versions of normal weapons. I'd much rather have an extensive list of universal WLTs and relics available to any army- more options for your characters, but still less stuff for GW to balance against one another or avoid unwanted interactions- and then a couple of army-specific ones. That's the way they're going with stratagems, and the same approach could work for WLTs/relics. Throw in the option to master-craft a weapon (seriously, there's no reason that should be off the table if upgrading my power sword to the Claw of the Desert Tigers is fine) and you'd have more options with less design overhead.


    I certainly wouldn't object to taking some of the oft-repeated WLTs/Relics and putting them together into a generic pool that all factions have access to, and then using the faction WLTs/Relics for more unusual/faction-specific ones.

    It seems more efficient than having 36 slight variations on 'each time you spend a CP, generate a CP on a 5+'.


     catbarf wrote:

    And maybe I am being unfair, but I think Jake's position here is somewhat contradictory. If he's already okay with creating his own campaign system with extensive rules for territory control, then making up relics for the armies to fight over should be trivial in comparison. It's literally just buffs, and by his own admission he's not concerned with balance. As far as custom content goes, that's pretty straightforward stuff, and he has the opportunity to tailor them to the conflict his narrative is telling.


    I get where you're coming from. That being said, it could be a case of Jake making a campaign system because GW either doesn't have one or else it's wholly inadequate for his purposes. Thus, he might not want extra busywork of also having to invent new relics because GW threw a pile of them in the bin.


     catbarf wrote:

    FWIW I would be completely fine with having something like a curated set of WLTs/relics for casual or competitive play, and then a more extensive list for narrative play without the pretense of being balanced or the expectation that they'll be valid for tournaments. But I don't see that happening right out the gate. Might be a good candidate for a community-created content pack.


    The issue here is that so many tables use the 'competitive play' rules as the default. So a lot of the time, rules specifically limited to narrative games might as well not exist (especially if you're just turning up somewhere with a list in the hopes of finding an opponent). Each to their own but I'd prefer if we didn't confine the fun rules to narrative games only.


     catbarf wrote:

    (Also GW could just assign points costs, and then there'd be an obvious balance lever that would make the current giant sprawling mess of relics and WLTs more manageable, but I'm assuming that isn't in the cards either)


    As above, I would love for relics to go back to just costing points (same with WLTs) and basically just working the same as standard wargear but with a 1/army limit. Buying them with CP seems to create an awful lot of issues for no real gain.

    Anyway, I really appreciate you taking the time to respond and elaborate a lot more on your original point.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 06:13:10


    Post by: The Red Hobbit


    Exalted, I think there's a number of good reasons for keeping up artifacts. I'm hopeful that if matched play devolves into 3 Relics options per faction then the remaining relics are relegated to the Crusade players.

    I started doing Crusade last year and found it to be some of the most fun I've had in the game in a while.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 07:45:34


    Post by: Dysartes


    Dudeface wrote:
     oni wrote:


    1. The quintessential example is the SM Tactical Squad (30+ weapons). Other units where I can see a possible issue are: CSM Legionaries (21+ weapons), DG Plague Marines (18+ weapons), GSC Neophyte Hybrids (17+ weapons).



    All of those could stand to have some options consolidated/lost

    For tac marines: ditch grav weapons and count them as their plasma equivalents (4), I could see an argument in the name of streamlining to make "combi-weapon" a different profiled gun without each variant (2), crunch astartes chainsword and all power weapons into "Astartes light melee weapon" (4 - put lightning claw in here for now), fists and hammers into "Astartes heavy melee weapon" (1). That's 11 shaved off out the gates, although I'm being harsh there.

    For neophytes webbers could just be flamers, the melee weapons can be condensed to "melee weapon" and you could proably combine the shotguns and autoguns into "cultists weapons" if required with a single profile, but I understand reticence there.

    Yeah, that attitude (and approach to design) can get in the bin where it belongs. Bloody consolidationists, always wanting to strip fun and flavour out of the game.

    Using the Termagant sheet with the three ranged weapons as a guide, I estimate the cut-off point for a single-sided unit datacard is 11-12 weapons, one of which being whatever the default HTH profile for the unit is - after all, without baseline stats, you don't have an inherent melee profile any more. Using that as a guide, I counted 9 units in the new Imperial Guard book that don't fit in that template alone, and that's without considering units (such as Gaunt's Ghosts) which won't fit in that template due to their volume of special rules, though I appreciate they may get reworked so some of those may not have quite as many special rules in the future.

    Heck, every unit that has frag & krak grenades (or their faction equivalent) is already going to use two of those weapon slots up if a datacard is meant to show all their weapon information.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 09:17:51


    Post by: Karol


    Voss 809431 11510957 wrote:

    Another approach is the GW way, where characters' weapons have different names than unit weapons. 'Relic' and 'master crafted' and all that stuff. So a character's 'relic boltgun' will be have a BS of 2+ while a unit's 'boltgun' will have a BS of 3+. A character only 'relic powerfist' will hit on 3+, a unit's 'powerfist' will hit on 4+. No confusion, easy to do in an army-wide reference chart if you absolutely need to have one.


    And then you get a unit that can take regular and buffed and faction specific weapons. And suddenly the weapon options for lets say wolf guard are a page+ long. And that is assuming power armoured and terminator armoured elite units, like lets say wolf guard, are listed as a separate option. And then those WG are a leader option for squads, so every weapon option they can have should be on the squads data sheet too.

    GW would have to do a purge of everything that makes units fun for the things to work. Most marines would have it good, because their books will come first, so they won't have to wait a long time for an update to the bland index rules. But lets say GK or 1ksons could be made to wait a year or two, and on top of weapons GW would have to fit not-psychic power rules on each squads data sheet.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 09:36:27


    Post by: Tsagualsa


    Karol wrote:
    Voss 809431 11510957 wrote:

    Another approach is the GW way, where characters' weapons have different names than unit weapons. 'Relic' and 'master crafted' and all that stuff. So a character's 'relic boltgun' will be have a BS of 2+ while a unit's 'boltgun' will have a BS of 3+. A character only 'relic powerfist' will hit on 3+, a unit's 'powerfist' will hit on 4+. No confusion, easy to do in an army-wide reference chart if you absolutely need to have one.


    And then you get a unit that can take regular and buffed and faction specific weapons. And suddenly the weapon options for lets say wolf guard are a page+ long. And that is assuming power armoured and terminator armoured elite units, like lets say wolf guard, are listed as a separate option. And then those WG are a leader option for squads, so every weapon option they can have should be on the squads data sheet too.

    GW would have to do a purge of everything that makes units fun for the things to work. Most marines would have it good, because their books will come first, so they won't have to wait a long time for an update to the bland index rules. But lets say GK or 1ksons could be made to wait a year or two, and on top of weapons GW would have to fit not-psychic power rules on each squads data sheet.


    The solution for stuff like Wolf Guard or other units that operate on similar principles would probably be to threat them like 'mini characters', i.e. they have their own datasheet with options and get attached to squads somehow. It is entirely unnecessary to reprint their glut of options on every squad datasheet, if that glut will continue to exist at all.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 09:38:33


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


    Dudeface wrote:
    For tac marines: ditch grav weapons and count them as their plasma equivalents (4), I could see an argument in the name of streamlining to make "combi-weapon" a different profiled gun without each variant (2), crunch astartes chainsword and all power weapons into "Astartes light melee weapon" (4 - put lightning claw in here for now), fists and hammers into "Astartes heavy melee weapon" (1). That's 11 shaved off out the gates, although I'm being harsh there.
    Posts like this should be the real reason we use the ignore feature.

    Removing flavour and options. Why would you want to do that? God... I disagree with not just every word, but every letter of your post. Even the punctuation is offensive.



    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 09:46:06


    Post by: Not Online!!!


    afaik he is also one of the few that likes the accursed weapons for chosen and Terminators.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 10:24:22


    Post by: Wayniac


    Not Online!!! wrote:
    afaik he is also one of the few that likes the accursed weapons for chosen and Terminators.
    hey now I like that myself. Mainly because they never give all the options so you are forced to source bits, 3d print, or have a hodgepodge squad with no synergy. I'd rather have the former than the latter any day.

    It also help with balance. A HUGE part of the problem with 40k is the umpteen options for every unit. Compare to AOS where it's like a choice of one or two weapons and maybe 1 per 5/10 special weapons. Much easier to balance and rewards creativity. In AOS if the unit only has a sword it doesn't matter if I convert mine to have an axe; there's no confusion what it's equipped with.

    So I'd argue while losing options would absolutely suck, it may very well be what's needed to kill the bloat. The massive options are why 40k is so bloated.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 10:29:25


    Post by: Tsagualsa


    Wayniac wrote:
    Not Online!!! wrote:
    afaik he is also one of the few that likes the accursed weapons for chosen and Terminators.
    hey now I like that myself. Mainly because they never give all the options so you are forced to source bits, 3d print, or have a hodgepodge squad with no synergy. I'd rather have the former than the latter any day.

    It also help with balance. A HUGE part of the problem with 40k is the umpteen options for every unit. Compare to AOS where it's like a choice of one or two weapons and maybe 1 per 5/10 special weapons. Much easier to balance and rewards creativity. In AOS if the unit only has a sword it doesn't matter if I convert mine to have an axe; there's no confusion what it's equipped with.

    So I'd argue while losing options would absolutely suck, it may very well be what's needed to kill the bloat.


    IMHO one of the main problems of 40k is that it's stuck in some conventions/unstated design principles that derive directly from their economic model and purpose (e.g. 'The fundamental unit of gameplay is the single model on an individual base, and every single model matters and is a meaningful unit). Meanwhile, the size of games goes ever up, both in number of models as well as the literal size of indivdual models and their impact on the game. We are either swiftly reaching, or are beyond, the point that the game can support both super-models like Knights, Primarch-level characters etc. and have meaningful representation of stuff like the minute differences between n types of hand weapons, four different pistols and so on. Extremely situational equipment like smoke launchers or melta bombs already falls into that void, with it being a stratagem right now just being the 'crutch' of the day to solve that problem.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 10:34:50


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


    Wayniac wrote:
    The massive options are why 40k is so bloated.
    Wayniac wrote:
    So I'd argue while losing options would absolutely suck, it may very well be what's needed to kill the bloat. The massive options are why 40k is so bloated.
    Options aren't what's causing the bloat. Every Primaris Marine unit having a slightly different bolter by default is bloat. 12 different types of Scything Talons is bloat. 40 strats in 7 broad categories per Codex is bloat. Space Marines having 10+ psychic disciplines is bloat.

    An option between a Meltagun, Plasma Gun and Flamer is nothing compared to that.

    And the answer, despite what some people may want to do, isn't to just cut everything. Then you've got the opposite problem, where everything is the same and it's boring. Bloat's bad, but I'll take bloat over boring.




    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 10:37:13


    Post by: Wayniac


    Tsagualsa wrote:
    Wayniac wrote:
    Not Online!!! wrote:
    afaik he is also one of the few that likes the accursed weapons for chosen and Terminators.
    hey now I like that myself. Mainly because they never give all the options so you are forced to source bits, 3d print, or have a hodgepodge squad with no synergy. I'd rather have the former than the latter any day.

    It also help with balance. A HUGE part of the problem with 40k is the umpteen options for every unit. Compare to AOS where it's like a choice of one or two weapons and maybe 1 per 5/10 special weapons. Much easier to balance and rewards creativity. In AOS if the unit only has a sword it doesn't matter if I convert mine to have an axe; there's no confusion what it's equipped with.

    So I'd argue while losing options would absolutely suck, it may very well be what's needed to kill the bloat.


    IMHO one of the main problems of 40k is that it's stuck in some conventions/unstated design principles that derive directly from their economic model and purpose (e.g. 'The fundamental unit of gameplay is the single model on an individual base, and every single model matters and is a meaningful unit). Meanwhile, the size of games goes ever up, both in number of models as well as the literal size of indivdual models and their impact on the game. We are either swiftly reaching, or are beyond, the point that the game can support both super-models like Knights, Primarch-level characters etc. and have meaningful representation of stuff like the minute differences between n types of hand weapons, four different pistols and so on. Extremely situational equipment like smoke launchers or melta bombs already falls into that void, with it being a stratagem right now just being the 'crutch' of the day to solve that problem.
    That's been the issue with them making the size larger and larger. 40k was originally a platoon/company level game, so you cared about individual weaponry. Epic was an army-level game so you abstracted all that junk as you didn't need to care if a squad had a missile launcher or heavy bolter, it was irrelevant at that scale. But now we have some mishmash of scales and they are trying to have one set of rules for both.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 11:00:18


    Post by: Strg Alt


     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    Wayniac wrote:
    The massive options are why 40k is so bloated.
    Wayniac wrote:
    So I'd argue while losing options would absolutely suck, it may very well be what's needed to kill the bloat. The massive options are why 40k is so bloated.
    Options aren't what's causing the bloat. Every Primaris Marine unit having a slightly different bolter by default is bloat. 12 different types of Scything Talons is bloat. 40 strats in 7 broad categories per Codex is bloat. Space Marines having 10+ psychic disciplines is bloat.

    An option between a Meltagun, Plasma Gun and Flamer is nothing compared to that.

    And the answer, despite what some people may want to do, isn't to just cut everything. Then you've got the opposite problem, where everything is the same and it's boring. Bloat's bad, but I'll take bloat over boring.




    Deleting unnecessary weapon profiles is only the first step. The next one would be to reduce factions from over twenty to about six. This would drastically reduce bloat and make the game far easier to balance for any dev. Many franchises have only about six different factions and they are fine but 40K needs to be the black sheep in that regard.

    There is also the method of sharing equipment among factions which are more closely related like SM, Imps & Squats during 2nd 40K. So you had Rhinos, Land Raiders and other mundane gear like grenades available for all of them greatly reducing the magnitude of weapons which we have today.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 11:09:42


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


    Reducing factions? These suggestions are getting worse...


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 11:13:05


    Post by: Tsagualsa


     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    Reducing factions? These suggestions are getting worse...


    If that whole marketing spiel about 'only needing two pages to play any given army' is true, they seem to move in the opposite direction. If you only need two pages to have a specific army or detachment, it stands to reason that stuff like Death Company armies or whatever will be rolled out in seasonal or support products just because they can and it's easy.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 11:16:03


    Post by: Wayniac


     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    Reducing factions? These suggestions are getting worse...
    And yet the game is worse for them existing. They have a point. The most I've seen in many games is like 12 or so. Warmachine had: Cygnar, Khador, Menoth, Cryx, Scyrah, Cyriss, Mercenaries (technically 3 mini factions?), Hordes had: Circle, Everblight, skorne, Trollblood, Minions, Grymkin (2 mini factions), then later they added Infernals, I think that might be all for now at least. So what, 12, maybe 16 if you count each of the Merc/Minion factions? And they balanced that well enough (with some exceptions) by having everything updated at once, and sourcebooks only adding a few minor things and it being for most/all the factions, not individual codexes that update say Cygnar, but Menoth has to wait a year to get anything new.

    I don't know enough about Infinity to know how many they have, but I do know Bolt action and Legion have less but that's due to the source material (can't really make up countries fighting in WW2...) but That's how GW should have done stuff. Adding more and more factions isn't a good thing, it's a bad one.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    Tsagualsa wrote:
     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    Reducing factions? These suggestions are getting worse...


    If that whole marketing spiel about 'only needing two pages to play any given army' is true, they seem to move in the opposite direction. If you only need two pages to have a specific army or detachment, it stands to reason that stuff like Death Company armies or whatever will be rolled out in seasonal or support products just because they can and it's easy.
    Them adding all those weird fringe cases as armies of renown or whatever, and 100% optional, wouldn't be bad as supplemental. But not as a primary thing, since it'll just bloat the game even more.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 11:52:43


    Post by: Dudeface


    Not Online!!! wrote:afaik he is also one of the few that likes the accursed weapons for chosen and Terminators.


    Damn straight within reason, model how you like, have a generic improved/good profile and away you go. It was good enough for 3 editions of the game previously and power axe/sword/maul all just maths out to one being default better depending on wielder anyway.

    H.B.M.C. wrote:
    Wayniac wrote:
    The massive options are why 40k is so bloated.
    Wayniac wrote:
    So I'd argue while losing options would absolutely suck, it may very well be what's needed to kill the bloat. The massive options are why 40k is so bloated.
    Options aren't what's causing the bloat. Every Primaris Marine unit having a slightly different bolter by default is bloat. 12 different types of Scything Talons is bloat. 40 strats in 7 broad categories per Codex is bloat. Space Marines having 10+ psychic disciplines is bloat.

    An option between a Meltagun, Plasma Gun and Flamer is nothing compared to that.

    And the answer, despite what some people may want to do, isn't to just cut everything. Then you've got the opposite problem, where everything is the same and it's boring. Bloat's bad, but I'll take bloat over boring.


    If you remove the words "scything talons" and just made them the naked melee profile for the unit on the card such as "Trygon teeth and caws" does that smooth it out? I'd also argue the umpteen bolter variants are about as well used and defined as the myriad power weapons at this point. They can be condensed because they're not actually different enough to be relevant any more. By all means keep claws, fists and hammer out, but there's no shame in returning to power weapons as a generic type at this point imo. Even with my suggestions above, which you adamantly hate, the tac squad would still have 2 pistol options, 2/3 melee options and 3 ranged options for the squad sergeant, 3 special weapons and 5 heavy weapons to pick from. Do you really need grav weapons which are basically just plasma with lower strength but more shots?


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 12:10:46


    Post by: PenitentJake


     Strg Alt wrote:

    The next one would be to reduce factions from over twenty to about six. This would drastically reduce bloat and make the game far easier to balance for any dev. Many franchises have only about six different factions and they are fine but 40K needs to be the black sheep in that regard.


    Wayniac wrote:
     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    Reducing factions? These suggestions are getting worse...
    And yet the game is worse for them existing.


    The game is certainly LESS BALANCED for having them, and for some players, that does mean WORSE.

    But for many of us, balance is A consideration as opposed to THE consideration. Many of us are okay with BALANCED ENOUGH.

    And does anyone else think that the number of subfactions in 40k might be the reason it dominates the market? You can talk about Warmahordes all you want, but they're a blip on the radar for this industry. Ditto on Infinity, or Command and Conquer, or Dust, or any of the other games people talk about here. And I'm not saying that those games aren't good- I bet they're all really fun, and of course they're more balanced. But they are all so limited in what they offer by way of comparison that if they were the only game you had, you'd be bored in a decade if not five years.

    40k on the other hand has enough in it to keep people playing for life. And it does keep people playing for life. Not all, but some. And new people keep joining too.

    Fortunately, GW knows this, so no one who advocates for a mere 6-10 factions will ever get their way. You might get a "40K Arena" variant that includes only 6-10 factions. But if you did, your store might still keep playing regular old 40k, in which case you spend an edition or two pissing and moaning about how broken that thing was rather than playing the varient they created to cater to you... until 5-10 years later the 6-10 faction tournament variant faded into obscurity or disappeared completely, like all games that are limited to 6-10 factions eventually do.

    Meanwhile, 40k will outlive all of us. And all the other games that sacrifice scope for balance.



    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 12:34:26


    Post by: ERJAK


    Heafstaag wrote:
    I hope they do something about the missions. I don't know what, but all the missions feel like they are similar, with having terrain in basically the same place, and objectives in the same place, etc...

    I don't know exactly what, but secondaries are lame, the maelstrom type game mode is a bit more fun, but still lame.

    Giving some missions something similar to 7th ed fantasy victory conditions would be great. You tally up how many points of the enemy's army you killed, and your opponent does the same, and you see who got more.

    If I recall if you were within a certain amount of points it was a draw.

    If people feel like adding certain things to spice it up then make objectives worth so many points at the end, or killing the warlord worth so many points, etc.

    Just some thoughts.


    So your idea to make missions more interesting is...kill points? Really? The least interesting mission mechanic ever is what's gonna fix missions.

    Dude, if you're talking about adding 'slay the warlord' as 'spicing things up' ...you've just made some doggak boring missions.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 12:40:01


    Post by: Voss


    Wayniac wrote:
    Not Online!!! wrote:
    afaik he is also one of the few that likes the accursed weapons for chosen and Terminators.
    hey now I like that myself. Mainly because they never give all the options so you are forced to source bits, 3d print, or have a hodgepodge squad with no synergy. I'd rather have the former than the latter any day.

    Same. I fully expect power weapons to go the same way. And I'll be glad to go back to that, rather than the constant yo-yo effect of swords>axes, then axes>swords then swords>axes and maces always sucking except for a few corner cases of high toughness and bad armor.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 12:44:27


    Post by: ERJAK


     Strg Alt wrote:
    Having "Box set vs. Box set" battles is an asinine idea hatched from the ill brain of a marketing manger. This proves game designers are treated like crap in that company otherwise it wouldn´t come to such an embarrassing development.


    This is the dumbest thing I think anyone has ever said on this website.

    "Hey guys, what if we made a game mode where people can buy a basic starter set and play them against each other in a way that's fun? It would work as an easy introduction to the hobby and the game while making starting an army less intimidating!"

    "REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE WHY U HAVE ILLL BRAIN?!?? ONLY BIG MEATY GAMERZ DESERVEPLAY GAEM!!!!"


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 12:51:32


    Post by: Lord Damocles


     Gangland wrote:
     Strg Alt wrote:
    Having "Box set vs. Box set" battles is an asinine idea hatched from the ill brain of a marketing manger. This proves game designers are treated like crap in that company otherwise it wouldn´t come to such an embarrassing development.

    Eh, seems like a decent way to give new players the ability to get into the game together while not being shoe horned by what is in the starter. It is gw though so...

    Instead everyone is short horned by what is in the combat patrol box.

    I hope little Timmy wans a bajillion Poxwalkers and no tanks.

    Non-problem totally solved! Much improvement. Many wow.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 12:53:02


    Post by: CthuluIsSpy


    PenitentJake wrote:
     Strg Alt wrote:

    The next one would be to reduce factions from over twenty to about six. This would drastically reduce bloat and make the game far easier to balance for any dev. Many franchises have only about six different factions and they are fine but 40K needs to be the black sheep in that regard.


    Wayniac wrote:
     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    Reducing factions? These suggestions are getting worse...
    And yet the game is worse for them existing.


    The game is certainly LESS BALANCED for having them, and for some players, that does mean WORSE.

    But for many of us, balance is A consideration as opposed to THE consideration. Many of us are okay with BALANCED ENOUGH.

    And does anyone else think that the number of subfactions in 40k might be the reason it dominates the market? You can talk about Warmahordes all you want, but they're a blip on the radar for this industry. Ditto on Infinity, or Command and Conquer, or Dust, or any of the other games people talk about here. And I'm not saying that those games aren't good- I bet they're all really fun, and of course they're more balanced. But they are all so limited in what they offer by way of comparison that if they were the only game you had, you'd be bored in a decade if not five years.

    40k on the other hand has enough in it to keep people playing for life. And it does keep people playing for life. Not all, but some. And new people keep joining too.

    Fortunately, GW knows this, so no one who advocates for a mere 6-10 factions will ever get their way. You might get a "40K Arena" variant that includes only 6-10 factions. But if you did, your store might still keep playing regular old 40k, in which case you spend an edition or two pissing and moaning about how broken that thing was rather than playing the varient they created to cater to you... until 5-10 years later the 6-10 faction tournament variant faded into obscurity or disappeared completely, like all games that are limited to 6-10 factions eventually do.

    Meanwhile, 40k will outlive all of us. And all the other games that sacrifice scope for balance.



    What do you mean by subfactions? If you mean minor nonsense like Ynnari (which no one plays) or Inquisition (which I'm not sure even exists?) then yeah no, they're not why 40k dominates the market.

    40k dominates the market because it's been around for over 30 years, has a bat-gak, over the top setting that's been memed to hell. Being about to build and paint your army how you want also helps.

    It does have a decent variety of armies, but if you break it down into what people actually play there's only about 12 I think? Maybe a couple of more?

    If you count every variation of Space Marine chapter you do get into silly territory, but that's not really variety now is it?
    It's just another color of marine with some special equipment and special snowflake rules.
    You might as well just give a hundred models a different hat and gun and say you have hundred separate armies.

    Having such variety is certainly nice to have as it does give the players options, but I don't think its as important as you make it out to be.

    The way I see it, if the sub-faction has nothing really going for it or is pretty one note, then it should be folded into a main faction.

    So knights, Talons of the Emperor and the Inquisition should just be a LoW option available to all Imperials and Harlequins should be available to DE and CWE as they used to be.

    Ynnari has potential to be something unique, but if they continue to do nothing with them they should either be dropped or become some unique unit type for DE and CWE like Harlies.

    GSC are probably unique enough to not really be a subfaction but a faction in their own right.

    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    Voss wrote:
    Wayniac wrote:
    Not Online!!! wrote:
    afaik he is also one of the few that likes the accursed weapons for chosen and Terminators.
    hey now I like that myself. Mainly because they never give all the options so you are forced to source bits, 3d print, or have a hodgepodge squad with no synergy. I'd rather have the former than the latter any day.

    Same. I fully expect power weapons to go the same way. And I'll be glad to go back to that, rather than the constant yo-yo effect of swords>axes, then axes>swords then swords>axes and maces always sucking except for a few corner cases of high toughness and bad armor.

    Yeah, that's something they added in 6th (I think? Might have been 7th) and it was just as awkward back then.
    That's a bit too much granularity.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 13:16:45


    Post by: Dysartes


    Wayniac wrote:
     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    Reducing factions? These suggestions are getting worse...
    And yet the game is worse for them existing.

    You're damn right that the game is worse for these consolidationists existing.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 13:18:31


    Post by: Tsagualsa


     Dysartes wrote:
    Wayniac wrote:
     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    Reducing factions? These suggestions are getting worse...
    And yet the game is worse for them existing.

    You're damn right that the game is worse for these consolidationists existing.


    Can we please not stoop to othering and labeling people for their opinion on model soldiers? Or wishing that they'd cease to exist? That's a little harsh for talking about a hobby.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 13:46:04


    Post by: Daedalus81


     CthuluIsSpy wrote:


    What do you mean by subfactions? If you mean minor nonsense like Ynnari (which no one plays) or Inquisition (which I'm not sure even exists?) then yeah no, they're not why 40k dominates the market.

    40k dominates the market because it's been around for over 30 years, has a bat-gak, over the top setting that's been memed to hell. Being about to build and paint your army how you want also helps.

    It does have a decent variety of armies, but if you break it down into what people actually play there's only about 12 I think? Maybe a couple of more?

    If you count every variation of Space Marine chapter you do get into silly territory, but that's not really variety now is it?
    It's just another color of marine with some special equipment and special snowflake rules.
    You might as well just give a hundred models a different hat and gun and say you have hundred separate armies.

    Having such variety is certainly nice to have as it does give the players options, but I don't think its as important as you make it out to be.

    The way I see it, if the sub-faction has nothing really going for it or is pretty one note, then it should be folded into a main faction.

    So knights, Talons of the Emperor and the Inquisition should just be a LoW option available to all Imperials and Harlequins should be available to DE and CWE as they used to be.

    Ynnari has potential to be something unique, but if they continue to do nothing with them they should either be dropped or become some unique unit type for DE and CWE like Harlies.

    GSC are probably unique enough to not really be a subfaction but a faction in their own right.


    A couple points of order :

    Ynnari are about 1.5 to 3% of the field, which is the same as Blood Angels, DE, and others. They are not rare.

    Pretty much every single army is represented in tournaments right now and even if you wanted to group DA / DW / SW / BA / GK, CK / IK, and TS / DG / WE into their respective "parent" factions you still have 16...



    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 14:43:28


    Post by: EviscerationPlague


     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    Wayniac wrote:
    The massive options are why 40k is so bloated.
    Wayniac wrote:
    So I'd argue while losing options would absolutely suck, it may very well be what's needed to kill the bloat. The massive options are why 40k is so bloated.
    Options aren't what's causing the bloat. Every Primaris Marine unit having a slightly different bolter by default is bloat. 12 different types of Scything Talons is bloat. 40 strats in 7 broad categories per Codex is bloat. Space Marines having 10+ psychic disciplines is bloat.

    An option between a Meltagun, Plasma Gun and Flamer is nothing compared to that.

    And the answer, despite what some people may want to do, isn't to just cut everything. Then you've got the opposite problem, where everything is the same and it's boring. Bloat's bad, but I'll take bloat over boring.



    Yeah but Grav has no reason to exist. Making them alternative Plasma models is perfectly reasonable.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 14:47:30


    Post by: CthuluIsSpy


     Daedalus81 wrote:
     CthuluIsSpy wrote:


    What do you mean by subfactions? If you mean minor nonsense like Ynnari (which no one plays) or Inquisition (which I'm not sure even exists?) then yeah no, they're not why 40k dominates the market.

    40k dominates the market because it's been around for over 30 years, has a bat-gak, over the top setting that's been memed to hell. Being about to build and paint your army how you want also helps.

    It does have a decent variety of armies, but if you break it down into what people actually play there's only about 12 I think? Maybe a couple of more?

    If you count every variation of Space Marine chapter you do get into silly territory, but that's not really variety now is it?
    It's just another color of marine with some special equipment and special snowflake rules.
    You might as well just give a hundred models a different hat and gun and say you have hundred separate armies.

    Having such variety is certainly nice to have as it does give the players options, but I don't think its as important as you make it out to be.

    The way I see it, if the sub-faction has nothing really going for it or is pretty one note, then it should be folded into a main faction.

    So knights, Talons of the Emperor and the Inquisition should just be a LoW option available to all Imperials and Harlequins should be available to DE and CWE as they used to be.

    Ynnari has potential to be something unique, but if they continue to do nothing with them they should either be dropped or become some unique unit type for DE and CWE like Harlies.

    GSC are probably unique enough to not really be a subfaction but a faction in their own right.


    A couple points of order :

    Ynnari are about 1.5 to 3% of the field, which is the same as Blood Angels, DE, and others. They are not rare.

    Pretty much every single army is represented in tournaments right now and even if you wanted to group DA / DW / SW / BA / GK, CK / IK, and TS / DG / WE into their respective "parent" factions you still have 16...


    How is 3% not rare? That's still a pretty small percentage. I'm more surprised that so few play Blood Angels and Dark Eldar, considering how I see more of them.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 15:04:27


    Post by: VladimirHerzog


     CthuluIsSpy wrote:

    How is 3% not rare? That's still a pretty small percentage. I'm more surprised that so few play Blood Angels and Dark Eldar, considering how I see more of them.


    theres ~26 factions in 40k according to google.

    26/100 gives us a 3.8% playrate if every faction was even.

    (don't quote me on that tho, i suck at statistics)


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 15:12:29


    Post by: Daedalus81


     CthuluIsSpy wrote:
    How is 3% not rare? That's still a pretty small percentage. I'm more surprised that so few play Blood Angels and Dark Eldar, considering how I see more of them.


    Partially it's because the field is so diverse right now. This is one of the few times in history that you can play most any army and do reasonably well.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 15:12:40


    Post by: Tyel


    SM (x10+)
    Grey Knights
    Custodes
    Sisters of Battle
    Ad Mech
    Imperial Guard
    Knights
    Chaos Knights
    CSM
    Thousand Sons
    Death Guard
    World Eaters
    Daemons
    CWE
    Dark Eldar
    Harlequins
    Ynnari
    Tyranids
    GSC
    Orks
    Tau
    Necrons
    Votann

    So 23 by my count. Obviously more if you want to separate out BA/DA/SW/DW/BT etc. I'm not sure I'd treat Ynnari as a thing in themselves for the same reason.

    Clearly if you assume Marines are 20% (at least), that's 80/22=3.63% for everyone else.

    In practice you've got say Marines at 20%, Guard at 10%, Custodes and Daemons at say 6-7%~. So its more like 57.5%/19=3%


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 15:28:03


    Post by: CthuluIsSpy


     Daedalus81 wrote:
     CthuluIsSpy wrote:
    How is 3% not rare? That's still a pretty small percentage. I'm more surprised that so few play Blood Angels and Dark Eldar, considering how I see more of them.


    Partially it's because the field is so diverse right now. This is one of the few times in history that you can play most any army and do reasonably well.

    I'm assuming you mean in tournaments.
    Which is still great, mind you, as it does indicate that the game is actually somewhat balanced, but that still doesn't really reflect how often the army is actually played. How do I know that some armies are over-represented or under-represented in a tournament?


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    Tyel wrote:
    SM (x10+)
    Grey Knights
    Custodes
    Sisters of Battle
    Ad Mech
    Imperial Guard
    Knights
    Chaos Knights
    CSM
    Thousand Sons
    Death Guard
    World Eaters
    Daemons
    CWE
    Dark Eldar
    Harlequins
    Ynnari
    Tyranids
    GSC
    Orks
    Tau
    Necrons
    Votann

    So 23 by my count. Obviously more if you want to separate out BA/DA/SW/DW/BT etc. I'm not sure I'd treat Ynnari as a thing in themselves for the same reason.

    Clearly if you assume Marines are 20% (at least), that's 80/22=3.63% for everyone else.

    In practice you've got say Marines at 20%, Guard at 10%, Custodes and Daemons at say 6-7%~. So its more like 57.5%/19=3%


    That looks about right. That is kind of nuts how about half of the factions are some flavor of marine. So much for being the rarest army in the setting I guess.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 15:31:22


    Post by: VladimirHerzog


     CthuluIsSpy wrote:

    That looks about right. That is kind of nuts how about half of the factions are some flavor of marine. So much for being the rarest army in the setting I guess.


    and people love to dog on 30k for being a marine-only game lol

    "You better start believing in marine-only games, you're in one"


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 15:34:37


    Post by: Eldarsif


     CthuluIsSpy wrote:
     Daedalus81 wrote:
     CthuluIsSpy wrote:
    How is 3% not rare? That's still a pretty small percentage. I'm more surprised that so few play Blood Angels and Dark Eldar, considering how I see more of them.


    Partially it's because the field is so diverse right now. This is one of the few times in history that you can play most any army and do reasonably well.

    I'm assuming you mean in tournaments.
    Which is still great, mind you, as it does indicate that the game is actually somewhat balanced, but that still doesn't really reflect how often the army is actually played. How do I know that some armies are over-represented or under-represented in a tournament?



    It is at least some data that Daedalus can use. Your claim was that nobody plays Ynnari, which you have no data on.

    Sincerely,
    Ynnari player


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 15:37:23


    Post by: Wayniac


    ERJAK wrote:
    Heafstaag wrote:
    I hope they do something about the missions. I don't know what, but all the missions feel like they are similar, with having terrain in basically the same place, and objectives in the same place, etc...

    I don't know exactly what, but secondaries are lame, the maelstrom type game mode is a bit more fun, but still lame.

    Giving some missions something similar to 7th ed fantasy victory conditions would be great. You tally up how many points of the enemy's army you killed, and your opponent does the same, and you see who got more.

    If I recall if you were within a certain amount of points it was a draw.

    If people feel like adding certain things to spice it up then make objectives worth so many points at the end, or killing the warlord worth so many points, etc.

    Just some thoughts.


    So your idea to make missions more interesting is...kill points? Really? The least interesting mission mechanic ever is what's gonna fix missions.

    Dude, if you're talking about adding 'slay the warlord' as 'spicing things up' ...you've just made some doggak boring missions.
    The missions ARE similar, they're basically the same nonsense with the ITC secondaries baked into the base rules thanks to the tournament players having the loudest voices.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 15:39:09


    Post by: VladimirHerzog


    yeah the current missions are sooooo fething boring and the main reason i've dropped 40k

    variations of

    "Hold 1, Hold 2, Hold more" + secondaries that are basically picked during listbuilding isnt interesting.

    AoS has much more interesting mission even if its only because they each have a twist on top of the basic hold1-2-more. And battle tactics >>>>>> secondaries


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 15:40:02


    Post by: CthuluIsSpy


     Eldarsif wrote:
     CthuluIsSpy wrote:
     Daedalus81 wrote:
     CthuluIsSpy wrote:
    How is 3% not rare? That's still a pretty small percentage. I'm more surprised that so few play Blood Angels and Dark Eldar, considering how I see more of them.


    Partially it's because the field is so diverse right now. This is one of the few times in history that you can play most any army and do reasonably well.

    I'm assuming you mean in tournaments.
    Which is still great, mind you, as it does indicate that the game is actually somewhat balanced, but that still doesn't really reflect how often the army is actually played. How do I know that some armies are over-represented or under-represented in a tournament?



    It is at least some data that Daedalus can use. Your claim was that nobody plays Ynnari, which you have no data on.

    Sincerely,
    Ynnari player

    It was admittedly an exaggeration on my part. They still seem to be really uncommon and woefully underdeveloped for an army that was supposed to be a major part of the Psychic Awakening.
    I suppose, based on my observations, that they could be comparable to Sisters of Battle before that army finally received something from Games Workshop. There's people who play them somewhere in the world, but chances are you're not going to meet one unless you're really lucky.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 15:43:11


    Post by: Insectum7


    Wayniac wrote:
     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    Reducing factions? These suggestions are getting worse...
    And yet the game is worse for them existing. . .
    No it f***ing isn't.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 15:52:01


    Post by: evil_kiwi_60


    The funny thing about cutting factions is that everyone who suggests it, never assumes their army is going to get cut. Obviously their stuff will stay. All that extra stuff from some other group needs to go though.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 16:03:40


    Post by: oni


     VladimirHerzog wrote:
    yeah the current missions are sooooo fething boring and the main reason i've dropped 40k

    variations of

    "Hold 1, Hold 2, Hold more" + secondaries that are basically picked during listbuilding isnt interesting.

    AoS has much more interesting mission even if its only because they each have a twist on top of the basic hold1-2-more. And battle tactics >>>>>> secondaries


    100%

    They've never been any good. I've been pointing out their design flaws from day 1. But... Tourny-gakkers.

    Above all else, the 10th ed. missions are what I'm most curious about. I fear that because that smug feth-stick Mike Brandt is still around that we're in for another edition of the most poorly designed missions to have ever been conceived.



    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 16:05:59


    Post by: nou


     evil_kiwi_60 wrote:
    The funny thing about cutting factions is that everyone who suggests it, never assumes their army is going to get cut. Obviously their stuff will stay. All that extra stuff from some other group needs to go though.


    This.

    I don’t mind gazilion of factions/subfactions existing, but what I do mind is that some of them are openly treated like children of worse gods and neglected entirely or partially for literal decades. Meanwhile a single „megafaction” wearing power armour is so oversupportef it tires even some players of this faction. And given that even large unique chapters like BA, DA and SW have less players than Eldar or Guard * it is seriously annoying and what drives me and my group away from official 40k and makes us spending our money on 3rd party models.

    * (I don’t have time to find a link, but there is an European statistics site which has this kind of tournament data aggregated over more than a decade).


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 16:13:23


    Post by: CthuluIsSpy


     evil_kiwi_60 wrote:
    The funny thing about cutting factions is that everyone who suggests it, never assumes their army is going to get cut. Obviously their stuff will stay. All that extra stuff from some other group needs to go though.

    Well, what else are you going to cut? You can't drop Votann, because they just got released and they do have a decent roster. Eldar and Dark Eldar are staples of the setting along with Orks, Chaos, Imperial Guard and Space Marines.
    Sisters of Battle are getting more of the limelight after being neglected for a couple of decades and they seem to have a fairly developed roster.
    Tyranids and Necrons are also a pretty big part of the setting, being existential threats and they've also been around for a while and have developed rosters.
    GSC and Ad Mech seem to be shaping up nicely, having their own identities, aesthetics and unit variety.
    Custodes...do have an army. Most of it seems to be forgeworld but its still an army. Personally I think having them as an independent force on the tabletop is a mistake, but they do seem to have a decent bit of unit variety.

    So what does that leave you? Well, it leaves you with Ynnari, who have to borrow units from Eldar and Dark Eldar, knights, whose armies consist of 1-2 models which is pretty silly, and all of those marine chapters which don't really need a separate codex anymore because of the keyword and <faction> mechanics.

    If anything needs trimming it's those. Not deletion, mind you, because losing units is bad, but merging them with a larger faction.
    Personally I would prefer them to develop Ynnari though and actually give them some units of their own with their own aesthetic style. It is kind of sad that there was furor over them during the release of eighth ed that didn't really amount to anything.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 16:13:48


    Post by: Asmodai


    With the 10th approach to subfactions seemingly being a two page spread with 3-4 paragraphs of rules, 3 relics, a warlord trait and 6 strategems, having a bunch of them doesn't seem to be much of a problem.

    In practice, it'll be pretty quick to memorize the half-dozen or so that people in my Crusade group will be using for their armies.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 16:27:04


    Post by: Tyran


    The question with subfactions is if Space Marines chapters get the subfaction treatment of only being two pages or they get the "entire supplements dedicated to each one of them" treatment.

    There is where most of the (sub)faction bloat is located.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 16:30:25


    Post by: oni


    So is it known or was it alluded to if the indexes will have the 2-page faction rules or if the indexes are paired down more and the 2-page faction rules will be in the codexes?


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 16:51:01


    Post by: Insectum7


     Ct. 4dxqgr+huluIsSpy wrote:
     evil_kiwi_60 wrote:
    The funny thing about cutting factions is that everyone who suggests it, never assumes their army is going to get cut. Obviously their stuff will stay. All that extra stuff from some other group needs to go though.

    Well, what else are you going to cut?
    You start by cutting and consolidating all the Bolter variants. Then you consolidate silly things like Predator Destructor and Predator Annihilator together. Then you intelligently mash much of the bespoke special rules ointo USRs, then you very aggressively do the same for Strats, WL traits, etc. Then take a hard look at weapon profiles across the board. Is there a "Blight Axe", "Blood Axe", "Wolf Axe", and "Skull Axe" that all do about the same thing? Generify it.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 16:56:26


    Post by: CthuluIsSpy


     Insectum7 wrote:
     Ct. 4dxqgr+huluIsSpy wrote:
     evil_kiwi_60 wrote:
    The funny thing about cutting factions is that everyone who suggests it, never assumes their army is going to get cut. Obviously their stuff will stay. All that extra stuff from some other group needs to go though.

    Well, what else are you going to cut?
    You start by cutting and consolidating all the Bolter variants. Then you consolidate silly things like Predator Destructor and Predator Annihilator together. Then you intelligently mash much of the bespoke special rules ointo USRs, then you very aggressively do the same for Strats, WL traits, etc. Then take a hard look at weapon profiles across the board. Is there a "Blight Axe", "Blood Axe", "Wolf Axe", and "Skull Axe" that all do about the same thing? Generify it.

    Yeah, that'll do too.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 17:02:23


    Post by: Daedalus81


     VladimirHerzog wrote:
    yeah the current missions are sooooo fething boring and the main reason i've dropped 40k

    variations of

    "Hold 1, Hold 2, Hold more" + secondaries that are basically picked during listbuilding isnt interesting.

    AoS has much more interesting mission even if its only because they each have a twist on top of the basic hold1-2-more. And battle tactics >>>>>> secondaries


    I fell like this really misrepresents the missions.

    Recover the Relics - kill units
    Tear Down Their Icons - plant and defuse explosives
    Data Scry-Salvage - hack terminals
    Abandoned Sanctuaries - king of the hill
    Conversion - breakthrough
    etc

    What secondaries you can easily give up happens at list building. What you choose to score does not.



    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 17:05:13


    Post by: Byte


     JNAProductions wrote:
    You do realize that people can have multiple desires, right?

    I want 40k to be balanced.
    I also want 40k to have customization, and lots of it.

    I understand that these are, if not mutually exclusive, still hard to get together. But that doesn’t invalidate desires.


    I know my girlfriend does...


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 17:33:44


    Post by: Platuan4th


    ERJAK wrote:
     Strg Alt wrote:
    Having "Box set vs. Box set" battles is an asinine idea hatched from the ill brain of a marketing manger. This proves game designers are treated like crap in that company otherwise it wouldn´t come to such an embarrassing development.


    This is the dumbest thing I think anyone has ever said on this website.


    Especially since pretty much every single modern non-historical game has a similar "Starter box" method of play, many with similar simplified version of the system to do it.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 17:35:12


    Post by: VladimirHerzog


     Daedalus81 wrote:


    I fell like this really misrepresents the missions.

    Recover the Relics - kill units
    Tear Down Their Icons - plant and defuse explosives
    Data Scry-Salvage - hack terminals
    Abandoned Sanctuaries - king of the hill
    Conversion - breakthrough
    etc

    What secondaries you can easily give up happens at list building. What you choose to score does not.



    Yeah i did oversimplify, still, thats what the missions mostly amount to.

    Recover the Relics : were you not already planning on killing stuff, so these extra points are just given "for free:
    Tear down their icons : More of that kind of mission please.
    Data scry : basically "hold more++ (and don't lose your home objective)"
    Abandoned sanctuaries : its just a hold mission with a specific objective being more important, i'm neutral towards it
    Conversion : basically hold more again, with a focus on being able to push through your opponent
    Scouring :basically hold more again
    Tide of conviction : basically hold more again
    Death and zeal : basically hold more again
    Secure missing artifacts : weird hold more again

    My problem is that the "twists" are mostly just a different way to hold more.

    If i compare them to the AoS ones :

    Prize of Gallet : 5 objectives start inactive, player going second choses to activate one
    realmstone cache : 1 objective in the middle of the board, explodes into two random positions on round 3
    Battleline drawn : table quarters are the objectives (kinda boring but it still gives a different vibe to the basic "hold more")
    Lurkers below : control all 3 objectives starting on round 3 and you insta win the game (sounds cool, is actually poop)
    In the presence of idols : each player has units with idols in them, you get more points for killing idol's units with idol'd units (and idols give morale bonuses)
    the nidus path : basic mission but you get clue-like shortcuts from opposing corners of the board
    Only the worthy : non named-foot characters get UberObsec (meh, feths over some armies hard)
    Path of a chamption : control an objective outside your territory and you get to pick two battle tactics this turn
    Jaws of gallet bjectives slowly get removed from the battlefield
    ours for the taking : classic hold more mission with the furthest objectives are worth more
    twists and turns : gak mission lol
    positions over power : 2 objectives on the board edge dissapear after round 4


    the difference is that in AoS, the board itself changes in many missions, and because battle tactics are picked mid-game, you have to always think ahead and try to predict if you should do an easy one right now , or keep it for later to try and score when tactics are getting harder.

    Sure, all AoS missions use the same hold1-2-more but they all feel different, asking me to hold1-2-more + do an action here and there doesnt feel different or like you're playing through a story, AoS has that cinematic feel (oh no, the realmstone cache just blew up, a landslide destroyed these objectives, gallet itself is eating the objectives, etc.)





    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     Platuan4th wrote:
    ERJAK wrote:
     Strg Alt wrote:
    Having "Box set vs. Box set" battles is an asinine idea hatched from the ill brain of a marketing manger. This proves game designers are treated like crap in that company otherwise it wouldn´t come to such an embarrassing development.


    This is the dumbest thing I think anyone has ever said on this website.


    Especially since pretty much every single modern non-historical game has a similar "Starter box" method of play, many with similar simplified version of the system to do it.


    yeah lol, combat patrol finally gives a clear answer for when i get asked "how should i start 40k?". Before it was still "get a start collecting" but i had to explain that the balance might be wayy off until they bought more stuff, now 40k can be approached like a boardgame, where you pick up two combat patrols, paint them up and you can do some quick games once in a while (great for casuals). I fully expect GW to release a "combat patrol terrain" box eventually so that with 3 boxes, you get an easy setup.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 18:04:02


    Post by: Daedalus81


    Some of those AoS missions do sound interesting. A few of the mechanics seem a bit too random and punishing if a roll goes wrong.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 18:14:03


    Post by: Voss


     Tyran wrote:
    The question with subfactions is if Space Marines chapters get the subfaction treatment of only being two pages or they get the "entire supplements dedicated to each one of them" treatment.

    There is where most of the (sub)faction bloat is located.

    It entirely depends how they do it.

    Currently subfactions get all the main faction stuff plus all their own stuff.
    If they only get their own stuff in trade for losing main faction stuff, its much less terrible. That seems to be what they're implying when they talk about 2 pages of army rules and detachments. If they can stick to it, it'll largely be fine (unless they make unbalanced trades of good for bad or bad for good).

    Personally I think the ideal is, for example, Dark Angels get Dark Angels strats/traits/etc and no Space Marine strats/traits/etc, mega doctrines go away (or doctrines become a specific chapter's thing).

    I just don't want to see dumb decisions like trading away 'and they shall no no fear' for +1 to hit, especially if you can MSU and not care about morale anyway.


    I guess I have to say I'm using 'trade' loosely. I'm not expecting a straight trait swap pot luck, or any capacity to customize army rules (yet, and hopefully never).
    Just that we will be given a set of rules for <Space Marines> (or just <Ultramarines>, their successors and unknown successors) who get these pages of army rules and <Dark Angels> get those pages of army rules. Combat squads and 'no fear' nonsense will probably show up on both, but other than really basic things like that, the army rules will be discrete.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 18:14:37


    Post by: VladimirHerzog


     Daedalus81 wrote:
    Some of those AoS missions do sound interesting. A few of the mechanics seem a bit too random and punishing if a roll goes wrong.


    oh yeah, theyre not perfect by any means, i just find them more interesting than the 40k ones. The biggest part is probably the battle tactic/secondaries system tbh


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 18:17:51


    Post by: vipoid


     CthuluIsSpy wrote:
     evil_kiwi_60 wrote:
    The funny thing about cutting factions is that everyone who suggests it, never assumes their army is going to get cut. Obviously their stuff will stay. All that extra stuff from some other group needs to go though.

    Well, what else are you going to cut? You can't drop Votann, because they just got released and they do have a decent roster. Eldar and Dark Eldar are staples of the setting along with Orks, Chaos, Imperial Guard and Space Marines.


    I don't know, you probably could cut Dark Eldar entirely.

    They're already a faction that has gained no new units in about 13 years, whilst haemorrhaging the units and options they once had.

    The GW marketing team could boast that they have streamlined the codex down to its purest form.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 18:21:58


    Post by: Voss


     vipoid wrote:
     CthuluIsSpy wrote:
     evil_kiwi_60 wrote:
    The funny thing about cutting factions is that everyone who suggests it, never assumes their army is going to get cut. Obviously their stuff will stay. All that extra stuff from some other group needs to go though.

    Well, what else are you going to cut? You can't drop Votann, because they just got released and they do have a decent roster. Eldar and Dark Eldar are staples of the setting along with Orks, Chaos, Imperial Guard and Space Marines.


    I don't know, you probably could cut Dark Eldar entirely.

    They're already a faction that has gained no new units in about 13 years, whilst haemorrhaging the units and options they once had.

    The GW marketing team could boast that they have streamlined the codex down to its purest form.

    Great news! They won't be cut.
    The precedent was established with Harlequins and Ynnari and foreshadowed by the multi-use corsair kit: welcome to your place as the latest Craftworlds subfaction.


    Though actually, this is a great opportunity to bust those two subfactions back out of that book and give them completely distinct army rules.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 18:22:57


    Post by: dadx6


     catbarf wrote:
    Voss wrote:
    Don't know about you, but I don't miss the days of people arguing about whether S4 +1 x2 equals 9 or 10, depending on when the +1 happens).


    Or a weapon hitting at -1 but then it doesn't matter because the target has a 'hit at -1' ability anyways and modifiers don't stack etc etc.

    Having weapon profiles bespoke for each unit rather than 'universal' is undoubtedly going to cause some of the same problems that bespoke abilities rather than USRs did ('wtf, why is this unit's bolter S5?'), but I think this is the best way to handle the giant mess of weapon profiles and, more importantly, will be cleaner in actual play. And at least any subtle differences in stats will be visible numbers and keywords, rather than subtleties of wording like 're-roll any' versus 're-roll misses'.


    This is a great point. If the plan is for Power Swords on Space Marines to be WS 3+ and Power Fists on Space Marines to be 4+ then when attacking a unit that gets a "-1 to hit in close combat" modifier, suddenly Space Marines are only hitting on 5's, and a comparable Imperial Guardsman (sgt, for example) would be hitting on a 6.

    Which gives them room to make power fists incredibly powerful, like AP -4, D4 or something on a Space Marine, and AP-3, D3 on a Guard SGT. Heck, they could even change them to be (S x3) and have them tearing open vehicles more easily. I'm not sure my analysis is the most accurate, but I think it gives them a lot of options to tweak to provide for more "cinematic moments" which they are really keen on (and which do make WH40K a lot of fun!).


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 18:43:03


    Post by: EviscerationPlague


     dadx6 wrote:
     catbarf wrote:
    Voss wrote:
    Don't know about you, but I don't miss the days of people arguing about whether S4 +1 x2 equals 9 or 10, depending on when the +1 happens).


    Or a weapon hitting at -1 but then it doesn't matter because the target has a 'hit at -1' ability anyways and modifiers don't stack etc etc.

    Having weapon profiles bespoke for each unit rather than 'universal' is undoubtedly going to cause some of the same problems that bespoke abilities rather than USRs did ('wtf, why is this unit's bolter S5?'), but I think this is the best way to handle the giant mess of weapon profiles and, more importantly, will be cleaner in actual play. And at least any subtle differences in stats will be visible numbers and keywords, rather than subtleties of wording like 're-roll any' versus 're-roll misses'.


    This is a great point. If the plan is for Power Swords on Space Marines to be WS 3+ and Power Fists on Space Marines to be 4+ then when attacking a unit that gets a "-1 to hit in close combat" modifier, suddenly Space Marines are only hitting on 5's, and a comparable Imperial Guardsman (sgt, for example) would be hitting on a 6.

    Which gives them room to make power fists incredibly powerful, like AP -4, D4 or something on a Space Marine, and AP-3, D3 on a Guard SGT. Heck, they could even change them to be (S x3) and have them tearing open vehicles more easily. I'm not sure my analysis is the most accurate, but I think it gives them a lot of options to tweak to provide for more "cinematic moments" which they are really keen on (and which do make WH40K a lot of fun!).

    I'm all for stacking modifiers so I have no problem with a Marine Sarge hitting only on a 5+ with a Power Fist at times. As long as there's a good amount of ways to naturally stack positive modifiers (as the problem with 8th was tons of negative but almost no positive) I'm all on board.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 18:51:28


    Post by: Daedalus81


     dadx6 wrote:
    This is a great point. If the plan is for Power Swords on Space Marines to be WS 3+ and Power Fists on Space Marines to be 4+ then when attacking a unit that gets a "-1 to hit in close combat" modifier, suddenly Space Marines are only hitting on 5's, and a comparable Imperial Guardsman (sgt, for example) would be hitting on a 6.

    Which gives them room to make power fists incredibly powerful, like AP -4, D4 or something on a Space Marine, and AP-3, D3 on a Guard SGT. Heck, they could even change them to be (S x3) and have them tearing open vehicles more easily. I'm not sure my analysis is the most accurate, but I think it gives them a lot of options to tweak to provide for more "cinematic moments" which they are really keen on (and which do make WH40K a lot of fun!).


    Well, back in 8th you could totally make plasma explode on 3s or 4s with all the stacking.

    I don't think the new setup should allow for PF to be stronger. They're fine as is and if your opponent brings something that makes them whiff then it's a tactical thing rather than a balance consideration.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 18:57:34


    Post by: vict0988


    @catbarf what fun WL traits and relics are there in AOS?

    Once per turn, you can re-roll 1 hit roll or 1 wound roll for an attack made by the bearer, or 1 save roll for an attack that targets the bearer.

    This general can run and still charge in the same turn.

    Can you tell who this relic and trait belongs to or what they represent?

    How is it better than "Each time the bearer fights, it makes 2 additional attacks with this weapon." or "Each time this WARLORD makes a melee attack, you can re-roll the wound roll."?


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 19:16:36


    Post by: Lobokai


     Hellebore wrote:
     Gadzilla666 wrote:
    *looks at 10th edition article*

    Yeeeehhhh .......you guys have fun with this. Personally, I'm so glad that I switched to HH.


    This post right here is perhaps one of the greatest examples of marine privilege in 40k...


    Pft. Yes... they are the Emperor's chosen and the reason HH exists... so yes, the game built on only really using marines would have "marine privilege"... and the fact that an entire 2nd game exists just to cater to marines is a pretty hard telegraph that there's a wee bit of design preference towards them throughout the line. I love playing my Eldar, but I need to be content that I'm a supporting character in the main story arc when I do... I'm fine being Gordon or Alfred in Batman's saga... but I'd be foolish to whine when the spotlights not equally on me.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 21:17:54


    Post by: Lord Damocles


     evil_kiwi_60 wrote:
    The funny thing about cutting factions is that everyone who suggests it, never assumes their army is going to get cut. Obviously their stuff will stay. All that extra stuff from some other group needs to go though.

    I have Blood Angels, Deathwatch, Death Guard (as 'major factions'), and I think that they should all be cut.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 21:40:48


    Post by: Lobokai


     evil_kiwi_60 wrote:
    The funny thing about cutting factions is that everyone who suggests it, never assumes their army is going to get cut. Obviously their stuff will stay. All that extra stuff from some other group needs to go though.


    We need 4 Marine Factions: Wolves, Grey Knights and DW, Codex, Chaos (and put the Knights in there)... have warlords make a sub-faction choice that gives a set bonus to their force

    2 Eldar
    1 Chaos
    1 Guard +Inquisition
    1 Silent/Sororitas/Custodes
    1 Ork
    1 Tau
    1 Squats
    1 Admech +Knights
    etc

    14 ish factions is plenty




    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 21:45:17


    Post by: EviscerationPlague


     Lobukia wrote:
     evil_kiwi_60 wrote:
    The funny thing about cutting factions is that everyone who suggests it, never assumes their army is going to get cut. Obviously their stuff will stay. All that extra stuff from some other group needs to go though.


    We need 4 Marine Factions: Wolves, Grey Knights and DW, Codex, Chaos (and put the Knights in there)... have warlords make a sub-faction choice that gives a set bonus to their force

    2 Eldar
    1 Chaos
    1 Guard +Inquisition
    1 Silent/Sororitas/Custodes
    1 Ork
    1 Tau
    1 Squats
    1 Admech +Knights
    etc

    14 ish factions is plenty



    Wolves don't need their own Codex, since certain entries (Marine Calvary, Terminators with just Power Weapons, etc.) should be generic to begin with. The only two Loyalist Scum armies that need separation are Deathwatch and Grey Knights due to themselves needing to be balanced with Inquisition in mind.



    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 22:25:09


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


     Platuan4th wrote:
    ERJAK wrote:
     Strg Alt wrote:
    Having "Box set vs. Box set" battles is an asinine idea hatched from the ill brain of a marketing manger. This proves game designers are treated like crap in that company otherwise it wouldn´t come to such an embarrassing development.
    This is the dumbest thing I think anyone has ever said on this website.
    Especially since pretty much every single modern non-historical game has a similar "Starter box" method of play, many with similar simplified version of the system to do it.
    The difference being that those games make their boxes specifically for the "box vs box" method.

    GW is just looking at an existing product and trying to square peg/round hole a game out it.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 22:36:24


    Post by: Heafstaag


    ERJAK wrote:
    Heafstaag wrote:
    I hope they do something about the missions. I don't know what, but all the missions feel like they are similar, with having terrain in basically the same place, and objectives in the same place, etc...

    I don't know exactly what, but secondaries are lame, the maelstrom type game mode is a bit more fun, but still lame.

    Giving some missions something similar to 7th ed fantasy victory conditions would be great. You tally up how many points of the enemy's army you killed, and your opponent does the same, and you see who got more.

    If I recall if you were within a certain amount of points it was a draw.

    If people feel like adding certain things to spice it up then make objectives worth so many points at the end, or killing the warlord worth so many points, etc.

    Just some thoughts.


    So your idea to make missions more interesting is...kill points? Really? The least interesting mission mechanic ever is what's gonna fix missions.

    Dude, if you're talking about adding 'slay the warlord' as 'spicing things up' ...you've just made some doggak boring missions.


    Yes, as those are the most fun games, generally. Like who cares who controls a random spot on the board on turn 3? I care about who claims the field at the end of the game.

    Anyways, I hope that's a type of mission. Totally fine with having various types.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 22:45:12


    Post by: Voss


     H.B.M.C. wrote:
     Platuan4th wrote:
    ERJAK wrote:
     Strg Alt wrote:
    Having "Box set vs. Box set" battles is an asinine idea hatched from the ill brain of a marketing manger. This proves game designers are treated like crap in that company otherwise it wouldn´t come to such an embarrassing development.
    This is the dumbest thing I think anyone has ever said on this website.
    Especially since pretty much every single modern non-historical game has a similar "Starter box" method of play, many with similar simplified version of the system to do it.
    The difference being that those games make their boxes specifically for the "box vs box" method.

    GW is just looking at an existing product and trying to square peg/round hole a game out it.


    Eh. Given the lead time for work on the new edition (~2 years ago, they kinda said during the recent video) and when the combat patrols were introduced, that isn't necessarily true.

    It might even explain some of the weird ones. (Thousand Sons and Death Guard...)

    That, of course, doesn't mean they will be any approximation of balanced, but the 'this is random marketing crap with existing boxes' isn't that obvious.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/29 23:39:23


    Post by: EviscerationPlague


    Voss wrote:
     H.B.M.C. wrote:
     Platuan4th wrote:
    ERJAK wrote:
     Strg Alt wrote:
    Having "Box set vs. Box set" battles is an asinine idea hatched from the ill brain of a marketing manger. This proves game designers are treated like crap in that company otherwise it wouldn´t come to such an embarrassing development.
    This is the dumbest thing I think anyone has ever said on this website.
    Especially since pretty much every single modern non-historical game has a similar "Starter box" method of play, many with similar simplified version of the system to do it.
    The difference being that those games make their boxes specifically for the "box vs box" method.

    GW is just looking at an existing product and trying to square peg/round hole a game out it.


    Eh. Given the lead time for work on the new edition (~2 years ago, they kinda said during the recent video)

    It makes me wary since, when I asked the question of lead time to write 9th, I got the same answer of about ~2 years. That doesn't bode well for "not obviously marketing".

    I'm always willing to be proven wrong but their track record leaves a lot to be desired.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 00:57:33


    Post by: Daedalus81


     Lord Damocles wrote:
     evil_kiwi_60 wrote:
    The funny thing about cutting factions is that everyone who suggests it, never assumes their army is going to get cut. Obviously their stuff will stay. All that extra stuff from some other group needs to go though.

    I have Blood Angels, Deathwatch, Death Guard (as 'major factions'), and I think that they should all be cut.


    Keep your hands off Thousand Sons. I ain't goin' back!


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 01:03:40


    Post by: VladimirHerzog


     Daedalus81 wrote:
     Lord Damocles wrote:
     evil_kiwi_60 wrote:
    The funny thing about cutting factions is that everyone who suggests it, never assumes their army is going to get cut. Obviously their stuff will stay. All that extra stuff from some other group needs to go though.

    I have Blood Angels, Deathwatch, Death Guard (as 'major factions'), and I think that they should all be cut.


    Keep your hands off Thousand Sons. I ain't goin' back!


    Tbh i wouldnt be mad if Thousand Sons just became "Your squad leaders get psychic powers" for CSM


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 01:05:18


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


     Daedalus81 wrote:
    Keep your hands off Thousand Sons. I ain't goin' back!
    Ultimately an army with two pages of rules has a lot going for it.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 01:10:07


    Post by: Platuan4th


     VladimirHerzog wrote:
     Daedalus81 wrote:
     Lord Damocles wrote:
     evil_kiwi_60 wrote:
    The funny thing about cutting factions is that everyone who suggests it, never assumes their army is going to get cut. Obviously their stuff will stay. All that extra stuff from some other group needs to go though.

    I have Blood Angels, Deathwatch, Death Guard (as 'major factions'), and I think that they should all be cut.


    Keep your hands off Thousand Sons. I ain't goin' back!


    Tbh i wouldnt be mad if Thousand Sons just became "Your squad leaders get psychic powers" for CSM


    Gonna strip them of all weapon options for that real 3.5 feel, too?


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 01:19:59


    Post by: Gadzilla666


     VladimirHerzog wrote:
     Daedalus81 wrote:
     Lord Damocles wrote:
     evil_kiwi_60 wrote:
    The funny thing about cutting factions is that everyone who suggests it, never assumes their army is going to get cut. Obviously their stuff will stay. All that extra stuff from some other group needs to go though.

    I have Blood Angels, Deathwatch, Death Guard (as 'major factions'), and I think that they should all be cut.


    Keep your hands off Thousand Sons. I ain't goin' back!


    Tbh i wouldnt be mad if Thousand Sons just became "Your squad leaders get psychic powers" for CSM

    And their dreadnoughts (optionally, of course). Which is something that they have, in a game where they share a rulebook with the other 8 Traitor Legions. Sharing the same book doesn't necessarily have to mean losing options. In fact, for some, it can mean having more.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 01:29:03


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


    I mean, screw it, why even have Chaos Marines at this point? All these options are just ruining the game!!!

    A single Marine profile (2+ save if in Terminator armour, for some variety... thought on second thought that might be too much bloat), and all Marines/CSMs are the same.



    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 01:50:55


    Post by: Daedalus81


    EviscerationPlague wrote:
    It makes me wary since, when I asked the question of lead time to write 9th, I got the same answer of about ~2 years. That doesn't bode well for "not obviously marketing".

    I'm always willing to be proven wrong but their track record leaves a lot to be desired.


    The first CP was Tau in Jan of '22. It could be either scenario, really.

    But none of that really matters. Either it will be balanced or it won't be.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 01:51:55


    Post by: Gadzilla666


    Don't. Give them. Ideas.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 02:02:44


    Post by: Daedalus81


     H.B.M.C. wrote:
     Daedalus81 wrote:
    Keep your hands off Thousand Sons. I ain't goin' back!
    Ultimately an army with two pages of rules has a lot going for it.


    *shrug* I have no idea how much they'll be able to cram. Most of the stuff was in the Cults, which you usually only took one of anyway so really it's just trimming strats.

    I just went down a bit of a mental rabbit hole on strats.

    If there's going to be 3 to 6 of these things the units they affect will greatly affect list building choices ( strats did that already, but with other options to counterbalance ). Will the index armies be really dull to avoid creating listbuilding bottlenecks?

    Or will the purpose of army strats be different given that reactions are a thing?


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 02:18:53


    Post by: alextroy


    CthuluIsSpy wrote:
    Tyel wrote:
    SM (x10+)
    Grey Knights

    Custodes
    Sisters of Battle
    Ad Mech
    Imperial Guard
    Knights
    Chaos Knights
    CSM
    Thousand Sons
    Death Guard
    World Eaters

    Daemons
    CWE
    Dark Eldar
    Harlequins
    Ynnari
    Tyranids
    GSC
    Orks
    Tau
    Necrons
    Votann

    So 23 by my count. Obviously more if you want to separate out BA/DA/SW/DW/BT etc. I'm not sure I'd treat Ynnari as a thing in themselves for the same reason.

    Clearly if you assume Marines are 20% (at least), that's 80/22=3.63% for everyone else.

    In practice you've got say Marines at 20%, Guard at 10%, Custodes and Daemons at say 6-7%~. So its more like 57.5%/19=3%


    That looks about right. That is kind of nuts how about half of the factions are some flavor of marine. So much for being the rarest army in the setting I guess.
    6 Out of 23 is really far from about half. I suppose you can add in Custodes and Sisters of Battle to make it 8 out of 23, but that is still a bit of hyperbole there.

    Now is you add in 10 variants of Space Marines to your count, then I guess 15 out of 33 is close to half. That is kinda scary. GW has nearly half the actually printed as their own publication Codexes and Codex Supplements dedicated to actual Astartes. And we are still short Codex Emperor's Children!

    Codex Space Marines
    Codex Grey Knights
    Codex Supplement Black Templars
    Codex Supplement Blood Angels
    Codex Supplement Deathwatch
    Codex Supplement Imperial Fist
    Codex Supplement Iron Hands
    Codex Supplement Raven Guard
    Codex Supplement Salamanders
    Codex Supplement Space Wolves
    Codex Supplement Ultramarines
    Codex Supplement White Scars
    Codex Chaos Space Marines
    Codex Death Guard
    Codex Thousand Sons
    Codex World Eaters


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 02:49:02


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


     Daedalus81 wrote:
    *shrug* I have no idea how much they'll be able to cram.
    Yeah you really weren't around for the Pete Haines era, were you?

     Daedalus81 wrote:
    Most of the stuff was in the Cults, which you usually only took one of anyway so really it's just trimming strats.
    In an ideal world there the cults would keep their rules/strats/relics (cut-down to 10th size, that is), so if you want to play Cult of [Whatever], you'd go to their 2 page spread and it'd show you everything you have, and you wouldn't need to look at all the others.

    But it won't be that. It'll be 1KSons, and then a page for some special formation that has to include Magnus, and then another for Ahriman.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 03:35:35


    Post by: Daedalus81


     H.B.M.C. wrote:
     Daedalus81 wrote:
    *shrug* I have no idea how much they'll be able to cram.
    Yeah you really weren't around for the Pete Haines era, were you?


    3rd? For sure. I just figure they want to follow more modern layouts!


    In an ideal world there the cults would keep their rules/strats/relics (cut-down to 10th size, that is), so if you want to play Cult of [Whatever], you'd go to their 2 page spread and it'd show you everything you have, and you wouldn't need to look at all the others.

    But it won't be that. It'll be 1KSons, and then a page for some special formation that has to include Magnus, and then another for Ahriman.


    Possible, but GW does like writing lots of rules, so....



    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 06:39:40


    Post by: EviscerationPlague


     Daedalus81 wrote:
     Lord Damocles wrote:
     evil_kiwi_60 wrote:
    The funny thing about cutting factions is that everyone who suggests it, never assumes their army is going to get cut. Obviously their stuff will stay. All that extra stuff from some other group needs to go though.

    I have Blood Angels, Deathwatch, Death Guard (as 'major factions'), and I think that they should all be cut.


    Keep your hands off Thousand Sons. I ain't goin' back!

    You're not going back to having more options available vs "oh you get Cultists But Different" and the Mutalith?


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 08:05:48


    Post by: Karol


    EviscerationPlague 809431 11511592 wrote:
    You're not going back to having more options available vs "oh you get Cultists But Different" and the Mutalith?


    Yes, what wonderful "more" options. Here you go now you can have pox walkers in your 1ksons army. And we are going to optimise the codex not for someone playing a 1ksons build, but a soup, which may mean that the only 1ksons model worth taking could be a tzeench DP or Ahriman.

    Marines had that in 8th. When the codex was writen so well, that building the army started with taking of the loyal 32, followed by taking of a raven castellan and then taking minimum marines, legal. So many options it was mind blowing, how fun it was.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 10:39:37


    Post by: Wayniac


     Platuan4th wrote:
     VladimirHerzog wrote:
     Daedalus81 wrote:
     Lord Damocles wrote:
     evil_kiwi_60 wrote:
    The funny thing about cutting factions is that everyone who suggests it, never assumes their army is going to get cut. Obviously their stuff will stay. All that extra stuff from some other group needs to go though.

    I have Blood Angels, Deathwatch, Death Guard (as 'major factions'), and I think that they should all be cut.


    Keep your hands off Thousand Sons. I ain't goin' back!


    Tbh i wouldnt be mad if Thousand Sons just became "Your squad leaders get psychic powers" for CSM


    Gonna strip them of all weapon options for that real 3.5 feel, too?
    yes lol

    Chaos as a whole should get similar things, like having all their weapons be more daemonic. For example the norm should be having those tainted bolters and flamers. Thousand sons gimmick should be the more resilient Rubrics and psykers all over.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 11:16:26


    Post by: CthuluIsSpy


    Yeah, you'd think that after 10,000 years Chaos equipment would have also mutated or have undergone design changes rather than just being heresy era armaments.

    Don't they have forges and factories in the Warp? You mean to tell me not one of them can make a new gun?
    I understand the Imperium not innovating or inventing, but you'd think Chaos would be the opposite and start making all sorts of bizarre weapons, because, well, Chaos.

    They really shouldn't just be using bolters at this point.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 11:37:17


    Post by: Tsagualsa


     CthuluIsSpy wrote:
    Yeah, you'd think that after 10,000 years Chaos equipment would have also mutated or have undergone design changes rather than just being heresy era armaments.

    Don't they have forges and factories in the Warp? You mean to tell me not one of them can make a new gun?
    I understand the Imperium not innovating or inventing, but you'd think Chaos would be the opposite and start making all sorts of bizarre weapons, because, well, Chaos.

    They really shouldn't just be using bolters at this point.


    That is a question that has moved players ever since 3rd edition, and spawned the following vignette, from Aron Dembski-Bowden, no less:

    Dude – Where’s my Land Speeder?

    “Dude, Horus just croaked. What now?”

    Abaddon re-tied his topknot. He totally had an idea. “I totally have an idea,” he said. The Traitor Legions looked on expectantly. “Here’s what we do. We run away.”

    Many helmed heads nodded. This seemed a wise course of action.

    “Good idea,” said Erebus.

    ‘Hush.” Abaddon frowned at the interruption. “But I think we should leave behind our jetbikes, Dreadclaws, Whirlwinds, Landspeeders – pretty much all anti-grav technology, really – as well as our bikes, attack bikes, and pretty much anything else we’ve used so far.”

    Fewer helms nodded this time. “Dude,” said Lucius the Eternal, “we might need all that stuff. Some of that stuff is rad.”

    “Nah, I’ve made up my mind. Let’s just go.”

    “But…”

    “Let’s. Just. Go.” Abaddon waved the Talon of Horus. Its scythe-blade fingers made clickety-click sounds.

    “Okay, let’s just go,” agreed Lucius.

    Kharn wasn’t so easily placated. “What about Cyclone Launchers? Because I saw those in Horus Heresy: Collected Visions, so we must be using th–”

    “I feel like I’m talking to myself, here.” Abaddon pointed a claw at the World Eater. It poked Kharn in the eye.

    “Ow, Jesus, man. Okay, okay. We’ll go.”

    “Yeah, that’s what I thought.”

    Abaddon pimp-walked from the room, strutting like he owned the place.

    “Hey, what about this conversion beamer?” asked Typhus. “Couldn’t we use these in Rogue Trader? These are awesome. They go, like, FWOOOOOSH.”

    “Leave it!” Abaddon’s voice called from the other room. Typhus put it down, grumbling.

    Fabius Bile sort of shrugged. “So, uh, can I come with you guys? Because I was checking the passenger lists, and none of the Legions are taking their Apothecaries. I mean… don’t you need us?”

    Lucius patted his brother on the shoulder. “It’s okay, man. We’ll allude to the Apothecaries in the background text. I mean, you won’t get to ever do anything, but you’ll sort of be there in the fluff, y’know? A bit? Maybe?”

    “Balls to this. I’m leaving the Legion. I’ll make my own rules.”

    Kharn snorted. “Your rules will be lame for competitive play. Just watch. And people will call you Fabulous Bill.”

    The Traitors walked from the chamber, out to the landing pad. It was deserted.

    “Uh, Abbs?”

    Abaddon turned to Ahriman. “S’up?”

    “Um.” The Thousand Son gestured to the empty landing pad. “Where are all our gunships?”

    Abaddon ignored him. “Weren’t you red a minute ago?”

    “We’re blue now. It’s… it’s this whole… thing. Look, seriously, where are our Thunderhawks?”

    “Oh, right. Them.” Abaddon toyed with his topknot, swishing it back and forth, like a kitten with a fluffy toy. “We won’t need those. We can run everywhere and stuff. Or push Rhinos out of hangers and ride them through the atmosphere. It’ll be cool.”

    The Traitors shared a glance. This wasn’t going well. Abaddon noticed their hesitation, and sought to calm them. “Relaaaaax. I’ll invent new stuff. Like… spider robots with daemons in, and they have claws and stuff. They’ll defile things. Maybe they can be called Defilotrons. It’ll be sweet. And they’ll have a gun on their chests, and tiny little heads. What? Why are you looking at me like that? You just wait. We’ll rock this place all to hell.”


    https://objectivesecured.com.au/dude-wheres-my-land-speeder-why-chaos-is-missing-all-the-cool-stuff-in-40k/


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 11:58:44


    Post by: CthuluIsSpy


    It would have been interesting to see them field corrupted and daemonic versions of, I dunno, Volkite weapons rather than just poorly maintained 10,000 year old bolters.

    Just imagine a Heresy era jetbike that has a parasitic daemon fused to it.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 12:10:46


    Post by: Wayniac


     CthuluIsSpy wrote:
    It would have been interesting to see them field corrupted and daemonic versions of, I dunno, Volkite weapons rather than just poorly maintained 10,000 year old bolters.

    Just imagine a Heresy era jetbike that has a parasitic daemon fused to it.
    This may veer offtopic a bit but my thought process has always been that Traitor Legions (specifically, if I had my way Renegades would be a totally different codex) should be one of two things:

    1) Focus on mostly HH-era stuff, almost bridging a gap between HH and 40k. Slightly boring though when you consider the warp.

    2) Focus more on occult/daemon-tainted weaponry. Have everything, or almost everything, infused with the warp and daemonic influences. Hereteks and Dark Mechanicum and all those guys should be constantly messing around with things, almost nothing should be "standard". They sort of did some of this with having like Baleflamers, Ectoplasma, Hades autocannon etc. but should have done more. Chaos shouldn't have "flamers", it should only be Baleflamers that are different (it's not called that but the TSons flamer is basically what it should be). They shouldn't have Plasma Guns, but Ectoplasma that has some slight variation. Soulshatter Lascannons (like on the updated Predator Annihilator), hades autocannons, stuff like that. All their bolters should be warp infused. Basically in my head, TRAITOR LEGIONS should be more elite, like closer to Grey Knights than Ultramarines, to reflect the fact that they are mostly the same guys as from the Heresy, so they're more elite. Chosen should be your baseline. On the flipside Renegade chapters should basically be like an addendum to the Marine codex, representing more recent converts who would have access to more modern things (e.g. storm bolters, assault cannons). Like really, Chaos Renegades should be a "two page spread" in the marine codex, not part of CSM.

    But I digress...


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 12:19:25


    Post by: Daedalus81


    EviscerationPlague wrote:
    You're not going back to having more options available vs "oh you get Cultists But Different" and the Mutalith?


    Tell me you don't play Thousand Sons without telling me you don't play Thousand Sons.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     CthuluIsSpy wrote:
    Yeah, you'd think that after 10,000 years Chaos equipment would have also mutated or have undergone design changes rather than just being heresy era armaments.

    Don't they have forges and factories in the Warp? You mean to tell me not one of them can make a new gun?
    I understand the Imperium not innovating or inventing, but you'd think Chaos would be the opposite and start making all sorts of bizarre weapons, because, well, Chaos.

    They really shouldn't just be using bolters at this point.


    Well...CSM shouldn't be marines, but spiky. And they do make new weapons...

    https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/chaos-space-marines-warpforged-venomcrawler-and-obliterators-2022
    https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Chaos-Space-Marines-Vex-Machinator-2019
    https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Chaos-Space-Marines-Heldrake-2019
    https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Chaos-Space-Marines-Forgefiend-2019


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 12:27:41


    Post by: CthuluIsSpy


     Daedalus81 wrote:
    EviscerationPlague wrote:
    You're not going back to having more options available vs "oh you get Cultists But Different" and the Mutalith?


    Tell me you don't play Thousand Sons without telling me you don't play Thousand Sons.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     CthuluIsSpy wrote:
    Yeah, you'd think that after 10,000 years Chaos equipment would have also mutated or have undergone design changes rather than just being heresy era armaments.

    Don't they have forges and factories in the Warp? You mean to tell me not one of them can make a new gun?
    I understand the Imperium not innovating or inventing, but you'd think Chaos would be the opposite and start making all sorts of bizarre weapons, because, well, Chaos.

    They really shouldn't just be using bolters at this point.


    Well...CSM shouldn't be marines, but spiky. And they do make new weapons...

    https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/chaos-space-marines-warpforged-venomcrawler-and-obliterators-2022
    https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Chaos-Space-Marines-Vex-Machinator-2019
    https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Chaos-Space-Marines-Heldrake-2019
    https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Chaos-Space-Marines-Forgefiend-2019

    Yeah, they make some new stuff, but their rank and file are still armed with bolters that aren't even in good condition. You'd think they would use something a little more unique to them.
    Imo, every single piece of CSM should be either be some overtly daemonic perversion of imperial gear or something really esoteric.
    For an army called Chaos they really are just spikey marines with some crazy stuff but mostly what the imperials have but worse.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 13:04:17


    Post by: Daedalus81


    Making another weapon profile that is a "bolter" but not a bolter seems like rearranging the chairs on the titanic. They do have the chaincannon and the tome though.

    They also have better flamers and a tier of lascannons that sit above loyalists, but no idea if flamers will stay like that in the new rules.



    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 13:37:54


    Post by: VladimirHerzog


     Platuan4th wrote:


    Gonna strip them of all weapon options for that real 3.5 feel, too?


    what weapon option lol?


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     H.B.M.C. wrote:

    But it won't be that. It'll be 1KSons, and then a page for some special formation that has to include Magnus, and then another for Ahriman.


    except thats litterally how they said it would NOT work...

    If Ultramarines gets a double sided rules ref sheet and Ultramarines First company get a different double-sided rules ref sheet, i think its pretty fair to assume each cult will have its own sheet that is exclusive to the rest (and yeah, we might get one that wants you to bring Magnus but who cares really?)


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    Karol wrote:

    Yes, what wonderful "more" options. Here you go now you can have pox walkers in your 1ksons army. And we are going to optimise the codex not for someone playing a 1ksons build, but a soup, which may mean that the only 1ksons model worth taking could be a tzeench DP or Ahriman.


    Thats obviously not whats gonna happen... IF they bring TS back into CSM, their rules would obviously say "you cannot take units that do not have the TZEENTCH keyword".....

    But yeah, theres no shot theyre actually putting the cult legions back in the CSM codex anyway


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 15:20:15


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


     VladimirHerzog wrote:
    except thats litterally how they said it would NOT work...
    They haven't said how it works. They've been nothing but vague the entire time.

     VladimirHerzog wrote:
    If Ultramarines gets a double sided rules ref sheet and Ultramarines First company get a different double-sided rules ref sheet, i think its pretty fair to assume each cult will have its own sheet that is exclusive to the rest (and yeah, we might get one that wants you to bring Magnus but who cares really?)
    Each Cult will have its own double-page spread? 18 pages of rules? You're mighty optimistic there.

    No we're getting fluff-driven arbitrary nonsense. You play a "Gladius Task Force", whatever the feth that is. Likely just some bs they've made up that will be as ephemeral as everything else in the fluff these days.

    Based upon that article, Chapters aren't even a thing! Just paint jobs.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 15:28:33


    Post by: VladimirHerzog


     H.B.M.C. wrote:

    Based upon that article, Chapters aren't even a thing! Just paint jobs.


    man, you sound overly pessimistic.... its heavy as feth.

    Chapters are a worse system than detachment rules... Just because you're a white scar doesnt mean you forgot how to use multiple dreadnoughts/tanks.
    If you wan't a "fluffy" all bikers list, i'm sure there will be a detachment for it.

    Oh ,and thats 100% only a Marine problem, pretty much no other faction has the same amount of difference between subfactions represented in the rules anyway.



    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 15:47:55


    Post by: Gangland


     Lord Damocles wrote:
     Gangland wrote:
     Strg Alt wrote:
    Having "Box set vs. Box set" battles is an asinine idea hatched from the ill brain of a marketing manger. This proves game designers are treated like crap in that company otherwise it wouldn´t come to such an embarrassing development.

    Eh, seems like a decent way to give new players the ability to get into the game together while not being shoe horned by what is in the starter. It is gw though so...

    Instead everyone is short horned by what is in the combat patrol box.

    I hope little Timmy wans a bajillion Poxwalkers and no tanks.

    Non-problem totally solved! Much improvement. Many wow.

    Did little Timmy just ChadKing you into only playing combat patrol with his Death Guard box that he ChadKing'd GW into giving him extra poxwalkers in? Little Timmy sounds sick as hell, I hope he continues to bully you into only playing combat patrol games all of 10th.

    Of course you could... just not play combat patrol so you have the full range of options? Don't strain yourself too hard on that question.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 16:08:49


    Post by: Siegfriedfr


    Siegfriedfr wrote:


    https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/03/30/how-army-building-works-in-the-new-edition-of-warhammer-40000/


    For the new edition, the rules team have tried to incentivise the use of a wider range of units by ensuring that each one has a cool, unique ability to bring to the field. Troops are no longer a tax you must pay to unlock the units you actually want to take – but you’ll absolutely still be seeing plenty of classic front line squads showing up on the field.

    Battle Size

    There are now three main army sizes: Incursion (1,000 points), Strike Force (2,000 points), and Onslaught (3,000 points). 500-point games are still perfectly possible, of course, but the Warhammer 40,000 Core Rules are optimised for slightly larger forces than that.*

    Power Levels are a thing of the past
    – points are now the order of the day.

    Select Detachment Rules

    Here’s where the differences begin to show themselves. Instead of choosing a subfaction or constructing your own, you now choose a single set of Detachment rules for your whole army. These include special abilities, Enhancements, Stratagems, and unit restrictions.

    For instance, you might be playing as the Gladius Task Force of the Adeptus Astartes. Your faction gives you the Oath of Moment army rule (more on this next week!) while your Detachment gives you access to six unique Stratagems – on top of the core group in the main rules – as well as four exclusive Enhancements for your Space Marine characters. It also bags you the Combat Doctrines ability, which allows you to pick from three powerful doctrines during your Command phase.

    If you chose to fight with a different Detachment, you’d replace the Strategems, Enhancements and Combat Doctrines with those of the new Detachment.

    Detachment choice will very rarely be tied to an army colour scheme. So while Ultramarines might be the theoretical and practical masters of the Gladius Task Force, other Chapters can use it too – and the same will be true of many other detachments as they are added into the game. This also means that you can try multiple Detachments with a single army. You are not going to be locked into a single Detachment just because you painted your army blue, or red, or yellow.

    This is an incredibly flexible system that will allow for many weird and wonderful armies in future codexes…

    Pick units


    Using the Faction keyword you picked earlier, you now select the units you want to include in your army, with the following stipulations:

    - You must include at least one CHARACTER
    - You can only include one of each named EPIC HERO
    - You can only include up to three units of each datasheet
    - However, you can include up to six units of each datasheet with the BATTLELINE or DEDICATED TRANSPORT keywords
    - Each CHARACTER can only have one Enhancement, you can’t include more than three Enhancements in total, and these must all be different

    And that’s it!

    Select Warlord

    You now choose one CHARACTER as your leader. They gain the WARLORD keyword, and you’re ready to select your missions.

    Now, no Detachment will ever need more than a couple of pages to cover all its unique rules and restrictions, meaning there will never again be any need to waste time flicking through codex pages to find the right rule.


    I gotta say, this sound really exciting...


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 16:14:12


    Post by: ccs


     VladimirHerzog wrote:
     H.B.M.C. wrote:

    Based upon that article, Chapters aren't even a thing! Just paint jobs.


    man, you sound overly pessimistic.... its heavy as feth.

    Chapters are a worse system than detachment rules... Just because you're a white scar doesnt mean you forgot how to use multiple dreadnoughts/tanks.
    If you wan't a "fluffy" all bikers list, i'm sure there will be a detachment for it.


    The Chapters didn't forget, it's the players who forgot/refused to use other units. And they will continue to do so.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 16:17:41


    Post by: Asmodai


    ccs wrote:
     VladimirHerzog wrote:
     H.B.M.C. wrote:

    Based upon that article, Chapters aren't even a thing! Just paint jobs.


    man, you sound overly pessimistic.... its heavy as feth.

    Chapters are a worse system than detachment rules... Just because you're a white scar doesnt mean you forgot how to use multiple dreadnoughts/tanks.
    If you wan't a "fluffy" all bikers list, i'm sure there will be a detachment for it.


    The Chapters didn't forget, it's the players who forgot/refused to use other units. And they will continue to do so.


    It's a nice step back from the Flanderization.

    I don't think you can blame Blood Angels players for leaning into melee when all their rules have been melee-focused for 20 years.

    Now a Blood Angels player can take the Artillery Company Detachment and be at the same level rules-wise with Imperial Fists if they decide they want to field a bunch of Whirlwinds.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 16:19:14


    Post by: SamusDrake


    Bit concerned on the battle sizes, but willing to hear them out on Combat Patrols before acting rationally...


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 16:24:45


    Post by: catbarf


    ccs wrote:
     VladimirHerzog wrote:
     H.B.M.C. wrote:

    Based upon that article, Chapters aren't even a thing! Just paint jobs.


    man, you sound overly pessimistic.... its heavy as feth.

    Chapters are a worse system than detachment rules... Just because you're a white scar doesnt mean you forgot how to use multiple dreadnoughts/tanks.
    If you wan't a "fluffy" all bikers list, i'm sure there will be a detachment for it.


    The Chapters didn't forget, it's the players who forgot/refused to use other units. And they will continue to do so.


    When painting your force a certain color meant you were locked into your subfaction bonus being better melee, yeah no kidding you refused to take ranged specialists. Blood Angels armies didn't even take their own tank because they had zero synergy with the subfaction specialty; that isn't the fault of players, it's an artifact of poor subfaction design that overtly encourages flanderized army composition.

    Having detachments tied to playstyles or themes rather than just the subfaction itself is a positive change and in line with what we've seen in recent codices, like Astra Militarum. If you want to keep playing the archetypical version of a subfaction there's nothing stopping you from taking the 'appropriate' detachment.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 16:25:25


    Post by: Gangland


    SamusDrake wrote:
    Bit concerned on the battle sizes, but willing to hear them out on Combat Patrols before acting rationally...

    My best guess is if you want to play 500pt games outside of what comes in the box sets you could either use the incursion rules or whatever scenarios come with combat patrol. I don't see how they could unit lock scenarios for Combat Patrol when there are so many boxes and factions to account for. We will see though.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 16:33:52


    Post by: alextroy


    That’s easy. Different detachment and unit datasheet specifically for Combat Patrol designed to balance say Combat Patrol Space Marines with Combat Patrol Gene Stealer Cults.

    Take a look at them and tell me who you are betting on in 9th Edition 40K.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 16:37:05


    Post by: EviscerationPlague


     catbarf wrote:
    ccs wrote:
     VladimirHerzog wrote:
     H.B.M.C. wrote:

    Based upon that article, Chapters aren't even a thing! Just paint jobs.


    man, you sound overly pessimistic.... its heavy as feth.

    Chapters are a worse system than detachment rules... Just because you're a white scar doesnt mean you forgot how to use multiple dreadnoughts/tanks.
    If you wan't a "fluffy" all bikers list, i'm sure there will be a detachment for it.


    The Chapters didn't forget, it's the players who forgot/refused to use other units. And they will continue to do so.

    Having detachments tied to playstyles or themes rather than just the subfaction itself is a positive change and in line with what we've seen in recent codices, like Astra Militarum. If you want to keep playing the archetypical version of a subfaction there's nothing stopping you from taking the 'appropriate' detachment.

    It's similar to how the 5th edition Marine codex worked with Special Characters. They sorta modified how you played and you were heavily encouraged to mix and match to represent your dude. So take that with "mix and match" traits with just enough variety and it's theoretically a good system.

    At minimum, it's at least not really the problem with the Guard codex.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 16:39:00


    Post by: Unit1126PLL


    Yeouch, those army build rules have broken two thirds of my armies, unless I start changing my lore. Oi vey.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 16:40:44


    Post by: ccs


     Asmodai wrote:
    ccs wrote:
     VladimirHerzog wrote:
     H.B.M.C. wrote:

    Based upon that article, Chapters aren't even a thing! Just paint jobs.


    man, you sound overly pessimistic.... its heavy as feth.

    Chapters are a worse system than detachment rules... Just because you're a white scar doesnt mean you forgot how to use multiple dreadnoughts/tanks.
    If you wan't a "fluffy" all bikers list, i'm sure there will be a detachment for it.


    The Chapters didn't forget, it's the players who forgot/refused to use other units. And they will continue to do so.


    It's a nice step back from the Flanderization.

    I don't think you can blame Blood Angels players for leaning into melee when all their rules have been melee-focused for 20 years.


    Clearly you've never read a BA codex. Yes, they have a CC focus (special rules & bespoke kits) on a # of their iconic units. They ALSO have always had full access to all the generic dreds, predators, speeders, Dev squads, Tac squads, flyers etc etc etc every other chapter has. And they're no worse at using them. BA players don't HAVE to make a CC oriented army to be effective. They CHOOSE to. And they will continue to make that same choice. It doesn't matter wether their rules are in a book or on a card.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 16:42:36


    Post by: tneva82


    ccs wrote:
     VladimirHerzog wrote:
     H.B.M.C. wrote:

    Based upon that article, Chapters aren't even a thing! Just paint jobs.


    man, you sound overly pessimistic.... its heavy as feth.

    Chapters are a worse system than detachment rules... Just because you're a white scar doesnt mean you forgot how to use multiple dreadnoughts/tanks.
    If you wan't a "fluffy" all bikers list, i'm sure there will be a detachment for it.


    The Chapters didn't forget, it's the players who forgot/refused to use other units. And they will continue to do so.


    The chapter rules penalised hard taking units chapters should be using but didn't benefit from free rule you got.

    Players played way gw wanted. Pick unit to spam, pick subfaction that gelps them most.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    ccs wrote:
     Asmodai wrote:
    ccs wrote:
     VladimirHerzog wrote:
     H.B.M.C. wrote:

    Based upon that article, Chapters aren't even a thing! Just paint jobs.


    man, you sound overly pessimistic.... its heavy as feth.

    Chapters are a worse system than detachment rules... Just because you're a white scar doesnt mean you forgot how to use multiple dreadnoughts/tanks.
    If you wan't a "fluffy" all bikers list, i'm sure there will be a detachment for it.


    The Chapters didn't forget, it's the players who forgot/refused to use other units. And they will continue to do so.


    It's a nice step back from the Flanderization.

    I don't think you can blame Blood Angels players for leaning into melee when all their rules have been melee-focused for 20 years.


    Clearly you've never read a BA codex. Yes, they have a CC focus (special rules & bespoke kits) on a # of their iconic units. They ALSO have always had full access to all the generic dreds, predators, speeders, Dev squads, Tac squads, flyers etc etc etc every other chapter has. And they're no worse at using them. BA players don't HAVE to make a CC oriented army to be effective. They CHOOSE to. And they will continue to make that same choice. It doesn't matter wether their rules are in a book or on a card.


    Yes they have access. Tell me how amazing devastators and predators are with +1 to wound yey! Such a great buff!

    You will lose going against shooty army as they have same devastator unit datasheet that costs same but is better.

    If rules don't penalize you they don't have to choose so. Now you are choosing to lose games if you take it.

    But imagine shock horror game be balanced and not autolosing because you took predators and devastators in ba army?

    Free bonus rules have to die. Either rule goes away or it costs. Ba devastator should cost less than ih devastator as they are worse.

    Sucks but that's how gw wants game to be played and most players can calculate 1+1=2 to see what units are worth using with each free rule.

    In 10th no doubt same with detachments. Pick unit(s) you want to spam, pick detachment thingie that gives best free rule for them.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 16:55:33


    Post by: VladimirHerzog


     Unit1126PLL wrote:
    Yeouch, those army build rules have broken two thirds of my armies, unless I start changing my lore. Oi vey.


    how so?


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 16:55:53


    Post by: jaredb


    I'm really interested in the concept of the detachments, be cool to try out different rules with the same set of models, but not have to remember all of them at once.

    I wonder if the 10th edition codex books will have a handful of generic detachments, and then one or two for the main subfactions.

    Really hard to get a good idea of things until we get the PDF of unit datasheets and what detachments we have access to. But, I am really excited about this. I much prefer having two pages of all the rules/enhancements/strats I need, instead of bits and bobs all over the place and overlapping.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 16:57:17


    Post by: VladimirHerzog


    ccs wrote:

    Clearly you've never read a BA codex. Yes, they have a CC focus (special rules & bespoke kits) on a # of their iconic units. They ALSO have always had full access to all the generic dreds, predators, speeders, Dev squads, Tac squads, flyers etc etc etc every other chapter has. And they're no worse at using them. BA players don't HAVE to make a CC oriented army to be effective. They CHOOSE to. And they will continue to make that same choice. It doesn't matter wether their rules are in a book or on a card.


    Does the Baal predator truly benefit from getting +1 to wound when it charges? No.

    So yeah, it's the rules fault for making a unit that is lore-friendly to the faction but gets no real bonuses from the codex


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 16:58:49


    Post by: Gangland


     alextroy wrote:
    That’s easy. Different detachment and unit datasheet specifically for Combat Patrol designed to balance say Combat Patrol Space Marines with Combat Patrol Gene Stealer Cults.

    Take a look at them and tell me who you are betting on in 9th Edition 40K.

    Hm, fair point, you just download the detachment for the box and there. Not knowing what these detachments will look like though I can't say how easy it will be to modify for more customized 500pt lists but I'd wager it be easy enough to modify, say the incursion detachments to fit 500pts if anyone so wants, or maybe even modify the patrol detachment you get will be viable.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 17:15:14


    Post by: Wayniac


    (Also said this in the N&R thread). My worry is this is going to go back to the 3rd edition days where your chapter/legion/etc. didn't matter at all, beyond colors. You had no tactical differences and played exactly the same.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 17:31:45


    Post by: catbarf


    Wayniac wrote:
    (Also said this in the N&R thread). My worry is this is going to go back to the 3rd edition days where your chapter/legion/etc. didn't matter at all, beyond colors. You had no tactical differences and played exactly the same.


    This is more like 4th Ed, where you could pick what traits you wanted for your army and they weren't locked to your color scheme.

    That was a high water mark for army personalization and theming.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 17:40:58


    Post by: VladimirHerzog


    Wayniac wrote:
    (Also said this in the N&R thread). My worry is this is going to go back to the 3rd edition days where your chapter/legion/etc. didn't matter at all, beyond colors. You had no tactical differences and played exactly the same.


    You'll still be able to make fluffy subfaction-specific lists... Just because Ultramarines can now also do a biker-centric list doesnt mean white scars arent relevant anymore


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 18:29:09


    Post by: vipoid


    Siegfriedfr wrote:
    Siegfriedfr wrote:


    https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/03/30/how-army-building-works-in-the-new-edition-of-warhammer-40000/


    For the new edition, the rules team have tried to incentivise the use of a wider range of units by ensuring that each one has a cool, unique ability to bring to the field. Troops are no longer a tax you must pay to unlock the units you actually want to take – but you’ll absolutely still be seeing plenty of classic front line squads showing up on the field.

    Battle Size

    There are now three main army sizes: Incursion (1,000 points), Strike Force (2,000 points), and Onslaught (3,000 points). 500-point games are still perfectly possible, of course, but the Warhammer 40,000 Core Rules are optimised for slightly larger forces than that.*

    Power Levels are a thing of the past
    – points are now the order of the day.

    Select Detachment Rules

    Here’s where the differences begin to show themselves. Instead of choosing a subfaction or constructing your own, you now choose a single set of Detachment rules for your whole army. These include special abilities, Enhancements, Stratagems, and unit restrictions.

    For instance, you might be playing as the Gladius Task Force of the Adeptus Astartes. Your faction gives you the Oath of Moment army rule (more on this next week!) while your Detachment gives you access to six unique Stratagems – on top of the core group in the main rules – as well as four exclusive Enhancements for your Space Marine characters. It also bags you the Combat Doctrines ability, which allows you to pick from three powerful doctrines during your Command phase.

    If you chose to fight with a different Detachment, you’d replace the Strategems, Enhancements and Combat Doctrines with those of the new Detachment.

    Detachment choice will very rarely be tied to an army colour scheme. So while Ultramarines might be the theoretical and practical masters of the Gladius Task Force, other Chapters can use it too – and the same will be true of many other detachments as they are added into the game. This also means that you can try multiple Detachments with a single army. You are not going to be locked into a single Detachment just because you painted your army blue, or red, or yellow.

    This is an incredibly flexible system that will allow for many weird and wonderful armies in future codexes…

    Pick units


    Using the Faction keyword you picked earlier, you now select the units you want to include in your army, with the following stipulations:

    - You must include at least one CHARACTER
    - You can only include one of each named EPIC HERO
    - You can only include up to three units of each datasheet
    - However, you can include up to six units of each datasheet with the BATTLELINE or DEDICATED TRANSPORT keywords
    - Each CHARACTER can only have one Enhancement, you can’t include more than three Enhancements in total, and these must all be different

    And that’s it!

    Select Warlord

    You now choose one CHARACTER as your leader. They gain the WARLORD keyword, and you’re ready to select your missions.

    Now, no Detachment will ever need more than a couple of pages to cover all its unique rules and restrictions, meaning there will never again be any need to waste time flicking through codex pages to find the right rule.


    I gotta say, this sound really exciting...


    Indeed. I can almost feel myself nodding off with excitement.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 18:39:56


    Post by: Wayniac


    Wouldn't it be hilarious if World Eaters and TSons (Death Guard are a lot harder because they were given almost all unique stuff) were thrown back into just Chaos Space Marines with a themed detachment instead of their own full codex?


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 18:50:20


    Post by: Dysartes


    Wayniac wrote:
    Wouldn't it be hilarious if World Eaters and TSons (Death Guard are a lot harder because they were given almost all unique stuff) were thrown back into just Chaos Space Marines with a themed detachment instead of their own full codex?

    No, it would be exactly the opposite of hilarious.

    And I don't collect either of them.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 18:50:39


    Post by: VladimirHerzog


    Wayniac wrote:
    Wouldn't it be hilarious if World Eaters and TSons (Death Guard are a lot harder because they were given almost all unique stuff) were thrown back into just Chaos Space Marines with a themed detachment instead of their own full codex?


    i'd welcome it, give my thousand sons some options ffs


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 18:58:06


    Post by: Siegfriedfr


    Wayniac wrote:
    Wouldn't it be hilarious if World Eaters and TSons (Death Guard are a lot harder because they were given almost all unique stuff) were thrown back into just Chaos Space Marines with a themed detachment instead of their own full codex?


    Codexes will obviously include faction-specific detachements which will fulfill people' lore and fluff boners. No reason for gloom and doom.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 19:05:16


    Post by: Ravajaxe


    Wayniac wrote:
    Wouldn't it be hilarious if World Eaters and TSons (Death Guard are a lot harder because they were given almost all unique stuff) were thrown back into just Chaos Space Marines with a themed detachment instead of their own full codex?
    I don't think this will happen now that CSM armies have loads of specific units and characters.

    However I could see all loyalist SM chapters rolled into one codex, then being granted several generic detachments available to all chapters. The Gladius Task Force being the example given in GW's article. Each detachment would have its tactical orientation, but without excluding unit types, and without being tied to one chapter. Then you would have codex supplements, that describe BA, SW, UM, DA etc... specific epic heroes, and the few specific units. Another advantage I could foresee is the greater compatibility with primaris marine's range. This range is way less chapter specific than the firstborn ranges. So by rolling all chapters in one generic codex containing all detachments organisations, there will be less constraints, less confusions for newbies and more simplicity to manage the power levels. Your tactical orientation would be untied from the colour scheme.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 19:07:17


    Post by: Tittliewinks22


     Ravajaxe wrote:
    I don't think this will happen now that CSM armies have loads of specific units and characters.

    I think only Death Guard have a roster of unique units suitable to sustain a standalone army. The other 3 god's have a splashing of flavor... hell Tzeentch even has to pull from the mortal realms to bolster the numbers lol


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 19:11:46


    Post by: Daedalus81


     catbarf wrote:
    When painting your force a certain color meant you were locked into your subfaction bonus being better melee, yeah no kidding you refused to take ranged specialists. Blood Angels armies didn't even take their own tank because they had zero synergy with the subfaction specialty; that isn't the fault of players, it's an artifact of poor subfaction design that overtly encourages flanderized army composition.

    Having detachments tied to playstyles or themes rather than just the subfaction itself is a positive change and in line with what we've seen in recent codices, like Astra Militarum. If you want to keep playing the archetypical version of a subfaction there's nothing stopping you from taking the 'appropriate' detachment.


    I think where people struggle is that BA has units that define them. Imperial Fists ( as my frequent example ) doesn't have that same benefit, but then that's why BA have their own codex.

    Perhaps in the codex there will be a 'bolter drill' detachment that IF players will enjoy, but isn't locked to them. I don't think any of this is bad - it all just feels a bit different.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     Unit1126PLL wrote:
    Yeouch, those army build rules have broken two thirds of my armies, unless I start changing my lore. Oi vey.


    What broke for you?


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    ccs wrote:
    BA players don't HAVE to make a CC oriented army to be effective. They CHOOSE to. And they will continue to make that same choice. It doesn't matter wether their rules are in a book or on a card.


    I mean when you get bonuses when charging you're not likely to choose otherwise, right?

    Stratagems are still going to spoil this a bit and I am not sure if they'll be strategic or tactical, but ones that target specific units will likely shape army building in a similar fashion.



    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 19:26:39


    Post by: Type40


    Wayniac wrote:
    Wouldn't it be hilarious if World Eaters and TSons (Death Guard are a lot harder because they were given almost all unique stuff) were thrown back into just Chaos Space Marines with a themed detachment instead of their own full codex?


    I could 100% see this happening. SW used to have just as many, if not more, unique kits and data sheets as DG. Then GW rolled out all the generic primaris and started treating it all as "just the same army." In fact, they are still selling the blood claw/grey hunter kit, SW dreadnought, SW terminators and all that stuff. If SW are going to be "just another marine faction" then why couldnt it happen to DG. It took one edition worth of releases and rules rewrites to go from every single data sheet and kit in this codex is uniquely flavored for this army (7th) to now you share units with another army (8th) to you are a subfaction (9th) and now just, you are a marine (now) . I think it will be quite logical for that to start happening to the chaos sub-factions as well when GW starts getting board of supporting their variety of rule books. Another example is harlequins, it was a big deal when they got their own codex, GW and their hype team made it sound like their range would increase over the next several years, instead, no range increase and they are an addendum to the eldar dex. Honestly, I 100% would not be surprised by this.

    I know this is sometimes a hot take on here, but, just like people enjoy playing separate chaos factions for their marines, I picked space wolves originally because they had unique kits and a unique play style/set of rules compared to every other loyalist marine faction (once upon a time, they didnt have a single data-sheet that was the same and 90% of their kits were unique) and since then they slowly told me "no, Type 40, you have to play vanilla marines, and if you don't like it you can go back to the couch you rode in on."


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 19:28:43


    Post by: Daedalus81


    Siegfriedfr wrote:
    Wayniac wrote:
    Wouldn't it be hilarious if World Eaters and TSons (Death Guard are a lot harder because they were given almost all unique stuff) were thrown back into just Chaos Space Marines with a themed detachment instead of their own full codex?


    Codexes will obviously include faction-specific detachements which will fulfill people' lore and fluff boners. No reason for gloom and doom.


    Maybe. The statement from GW could be what they plan for the future or it could just be for what is coming right now. But I get the sense that most people would prefer this more loose affiliation.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 19:30:51


    Post by: Some_Call_Me_Tim


    Yeah it’s the same deal with deathwatch, they were sorta their own thing in 7th and 8th then gw just decided they didn’t like them anymore and threw em in with the rest of the gak, and now due to Primaris silly nonsense we’re not allowed good special issue ammo even


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 19:31:43


    Post by: Dudeface


     VladimirHerzog wrote:
    Wayniac wrote:
    Wouldn't it be hilarious if World Eaters and TSons (Death Guard are a lot harder because they were given almost all unique stuff) were thrown back into just Chaos Space Marines with a themed detachment instead of their own full codex?


    i'd welcome it, give my thousand sons some options ffs


    I mean, what options from the main book do you expect they'd pick up whilst maintaining the fluff? Or are you happy to play "chaos legionnaires with a special rule" again?


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 19:31:45


    Post by: Daedalus81


     VladimirHerzog wrote:
    i'd welcome it, give my thousand sons some options ffs


    Booooo! Cast your spells and like it!

    But seriously what options would you take that they don't have that wouldn't absolutely break the theme of the army?

    What would actually happen is the best TS units would get poached and the rest will die. Just like in 8th where everyone took Ahriman for a while.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     Type40 wrote:
    I could 100% see this happening.


    I will bet money that it doesn't.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 19:37:47


    Post by: vipoid



    - Each CHARACTER can only have one Enhancement, you can’t include more than three Enhancements in total, and these must all be different


    By the way, are Enhancements Artefacts and Warlord Traits or is this some new thing for 10th?


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 19:42:57


    Post by: Dudeface


     vipoid wrote:

    - Each CHARACTER can only have one Enhancement, you can’t include more than three Enhancements in total, and these must all be different


    By the way, are Enhancements Artefacts and Warlord Traits or is this some new thing for 10th?


    They are, in AoS it's the term for relics, traits and mount traits etc.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 19:44:42


    Post by: Type40


     Daedalus81 wrote:
     VladimirHerzog wrote:
    i'd welcome it, give my thousand sons some options ffs


    I will bet money that it doesn't.


    I'd bet money that by 11th it does lol. What makes chaos so special that it wont follow the same trends as every other sub faction in the game. Watch the "primaris of chaos" start to come out,,, then you'll know you are doomed. Everyone who plays a chaos faction will need the hot new generic unit... then it will be "oh, everyone just plays the same units with different colours" . I honestly do not see the difference between a DG terminator and a 7th SW terminator, or a DG marine squad and 7th SW grey hunter squad. DG has unique wargear and kits for these units, so did space wolves. It's all just marines with different colours right. Unique units, same, unique tanks(space wolf flyers ?) same, unique specialist units, same. I don't know, the way chaos is being handled gives me strong SW and deathwatch vibes.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 19:50:02


    Post by: Ravajaxe


    Dudeface wrote:
     vipoid wrote:

    - Each CHARACTER can only have one Enhancement, you can’t include more than three Enhancements in total, and these must all be different


    By the way, are Enhancements Artefacts and Warlord Traits or is this some new thing for 10th?


    They are, in AoS it's the term for relics, traits and mount traits etc.
    This also means we would not be allowed to find a combo between a relic and a warlord trait for our HQ character. There will just be one "enhancement" available.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 19:50:46


    Post by: Dysartes


     Type40 wrote:
    (once upon a time, they didnt have a single data-sheet that was the same and 90% of their kits were unique)

    Minor point of order, but they've always had some data-sheet/unit profiles in common with other SM forces - Rhino, Land Raider, Predator, etc.

    Infantry was almost always distinct to some degree before Primaris showed up, but there have always been common elements in the vehicle pool.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 19:53:18


    Post by: Type40


     Dysartes wrote:
     Type40 wrote:
    (once upon a time, they didnt have a single data-sheet that was the same and 90% of their kits were unique)

    Minor point of order, but they've always had some data-sheet/unit profiles in common with other SM forces - Rhino, Land Raider, Predator, etc.

    Infantry was almost always distinct to some degree before Primaris showed up, but there have always been common elements in the vehicle pool.


    Land raider, Rhino, predator, etc are all DG units they share and SW had some unique vehicles (although they are flyers)... so again,,, same. But yes,,, the shared vehicles are the 10 % of the 90% ... but even the SW dreadnoughts were unique.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    I am salty, I apologize for that coming out lol. I miss playing a unique faction XD. And it was a slow boiling frog situation that turned the wolves into exactly the same as every other SM army. 10th seems to be just that final nail. I was holding on, but it's time to give up. "I am a marine player." There I said it,,,, I am disgusted with what I have become XD... but jokes aside. The new edition does look interesting, I just hope I don't have to retire ALL my 6000 points of FB too soon.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 20:20:21


    Post by: EviscerationPlague


    Dudeface wrote:
     vipoid wrote:

    - Each CHARACTER can only have one Enhancement, you can’t include more than three Enhancements in total, and these must all be different


    By the way, are Enhancements Artefacts and Warlord Traits or is this some new thing for 10th?


    They are, in AoS it's the term for relics, traits and mount traits etc.

    Ah yes, because both a Relic AND Warlord Trait is super breaking on one character. Not a ploy to sell named characters at all.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 20:28:17


    Post by: alextroy


    Actually, yes they are. Are you not aware of all the warlord trait + relic builds that have taken characters from zero to hero?


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 20:40:59


    Post by: vipoid


     Ravajaxe wrote:
    This also means we would not be allowed to find a combo between a relic and a warlord trait for our HQ character. There will just be one "enhancement" available.


    Oh joy of joys. I look forward to an edition of utterly bland characters with all of 1 option each.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 20:45:22


    Post by: Dudeface


     vipoid wrote:
     Ravajaxe wrote:
    This also means we would not be allowed to find a combo between a relic and a warlord trait for our HQ character. There will just be one "enhancement" available.


    Oh joy of joys. I look forward to an edition of utterly bland characters with all of 1 option each.


    You mean 1 selection each? It's entirely possible some detachments might allow 2 to stack.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 20:46:55


    Post by: EviscerationPlague


     alextroy wrote:
    Actually, yes they are. Are you not aware of all the warlord trait + relic builds that have taken characters from zero to hero?

    In extreme circumstances? Yeah I don't really care. The issue has been mainline units and the strats they can get on top of army rules. Any character afterwards was just a mere bonus.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 20:50:38


    Post by: Ravajaxe


    Dudeface wrote:
     vipoid wrote:
     Ravajaxe wrote:
    This also means we would not be allowed to find a combo between a relic and a warlord trait for our HQ character. There will just be one "enhancement" available.


    Oh joy of joys. I look forward to an edition of utterly bland characters with all of 1 option each.


    You mean 1 selection each? It's entirely possible some detachments might allow 2 to stack.

    Not only ONE "enhancement" per character, without stacking, but also three "enhancements" per army at the very max. We have been granted too much customization, the results have not been pleasing to GW, soon we will be punished for all these sins.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 20:57:20


    Post by: Dudeface


     Ravajaxe wrote:
    Dudeface wrote:
     vipoid wrote:
     Ravajaxe wrote:
    This also means we would not be allowed to find a combo between a relic and a warlord trait for our HQ character. There will just be one "enhancement" available.


    Oh joy of joys. I look forward to an edition of utterly bland characters with all of 1 option each.


    You mean 1 selection each? It's entirely possible some detachments might allow 2 to stack.

    Not only ONE "enhancement" per character, without stacking, but also three "enhancements" par army at the very max. We have been granted too much customization, the results have not been pleasing to GW, soon we will be punished for all these sins.


    I honestly don't see the problem. Too many people all claim GW is incompetent and can't write rules or balance them, they stand a better chance with fewer things to juggle. lets face it how often were people taking more than 3 traits relics? If they were how often were they stacked onto the super character?


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 21:04:54


    Post by: Unit1126PLL


     VladimirHerzog wrote:
     Unit1126PLL wrote:
    Yeouch, those army build rules have broken two thirds of my armies, unless I start changing my lore. Oi vey.


    how so?


    My Superheavy Tank Regiment's only real Character models (the keyword, not the English word) are in the Regimental H&S Company. Either I am not using my Superheavy tanks in a detachment, or I am bringing a regimental commander, her command tank, her support staff... or her XO and some staff. Or just damn the fluff and bring like, 1 character with no staff or anything whatsoever because the easiest way to coordinate a Superheavy Tank Company is apparently on foot a few yards away.

    My Armageddon Steel Legion has 12 chimeras at 2k, and likely won't be able to field more than six. So uh, 1k points it is then I guess.

    My daemons are probably fine. For now.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 21:19:51


    Post by: Some_Call_Me_Tim


    Characters who don’t have any wargear choices are going to start really sucking in the way of customization now, looking at you mega armor boss


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 21:22:33


    Post by: Ravajaxe


     Unit1126PLL wrote:
     VladimirHerzog wrote:
     Unit1126PLL wrote:
    Yeouch, those army build rules have broken two thirds of my armies, unless I start changing my lore. Oi vey.


    how so?


    My Superheavy Tank Regiment's only real Character models (the keyword, not the English word) are in the Regimental H&S Company. Either I am not using my Superheavy tanks in a detachment, or I am bringing a regimental commander, her command tank, her support staff... or her XO and some staff. Or just damn the fluff and bring like, 1 character with no staff or anything whatsoever because the easiest way to coordinate a Superheavy Tank Company is apparently on foot a few yards away.

    My Armageddon Steel Legion has 12 chimeras at 2k, and likely won't be able to field more than six. So uh, 1k points it is then I guess.

    My daemons are probably fine. For now.

    I symathise with your disappointment. Building and painting six tauroxes (ouch ! ) to compensate is not a happy prospect. For infantry you could still count 6 as regular infantry squads, and six as cadians with 2 special weapons. Not ideal. But adding artillery and LRBT 's to your army shoud easily do the trick to reach 2k points, while obtaining greater firepower.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 21:31:06


    Post by: Unit1126PLL


     Ravajaxe wrote:
     Unit1126PLL wrote:
     VladimirHerzog wrote:
     Unit1126PLL wrote:
    Yeouch, those army build rules have broken two thirds of my armies, unless I start changing my lore. Oi vey.


    how so?


    My Superheavy Tank Regiment's only real Character models (the keyword, not the English word) are in the Regimental H&S Company. Either I am not using my Superheavy tanks in a detachment, or I am bringing a regimental commander, her command tank, her support staff... or her XO and some staff. Or just damn the fluff and bring like, 1 character with no staff or anything whatsoever because the easiest way to coordinate a Superheavy Tank Company is apparently on foot a few yards away.

    My Armageddon Steel Legion has 12 chimeras at 2k, and likely won't be able to field more than six. So uh, 1k points it is then I guess.

    My daemons are probably fine. For now.

    I symathise with your disappointment. Building and painting six tauroxes (ouch ! ) to compensate is not a happy prospect. For infantry you could still count 6 as regular infantry squads, and six as cadians with 2 special weapons. Not ideal. But adding artillery and LRBT 's to your army shoud easily do the trick to reach 2k points, while obtaining greater firepower.


    I could, but it is hard to be a Mechanized Infantry company when half your combat power or more comes from... well, not the Mechanized Infantry.

    And sure I could change my lore, but I thought this army build system offered more freedom, not less!


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 21:34:16


    Post by: PenitentJake


     VladimirHerzog wrote:
    Wayniac wrote:
    Wouldn't it be hilarious if World Eaters and TSons (Death Guard are a lot harder because they were given almost all unique stuff) were thrown back into just Chaos Space Marines with a themed detachment instead of their own full codex?


    i'd welcome it, give my thousand sons some options ffs


    I wish people would use adjectives in front of the word "Options".

    Putting Ksons back in the CSM dex might give you access to some Unit Options that you don't have right now.

    But I just bought the Ksons dex today so that I could continue to play the fluffy version of the game once everybody else transitions to the stale cardboard but balanced and easy to play game that's coming. And I see that in the Ksons dex, you've got 9 powers in each of two disciplines plus a bespoke power for each cult that you can choose from.

    Enjoy the handful of extra units you get to pick when every psychic power from your army is chosen for you.

    Enjoy not having cults, because now you just get detachments like everyone else- assuming you get your own dex.

    Until that article today, I thought I might be okay with 10th, but I'm less optimistic now. Subfactions should matter. Now they don't.

    But of course, you can bet you @$$ there will be a bespoke BA, DA and SW dex with its own detachments, because Space Marine subfactions have always mattered and always will.

    I also love how competitive types call "not getting a bonus" a penalty. As someone pointed out, BA always had access to SM artillery- they just didn't get bonuses- meaning their artillery was just as good as any chapter who ALSO didn't get a bonus to artillery... which is most SM.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 21:40:15


    Post by: VladimirHerzog


    Dudeface wrote:
     VladimirHerzog wrote:
    Wayniac wrote:
    Wouldn't it be hilarious if World Eaters and TSons (Death Guard are a lot harder because they were given almost all unique stuff) were thrown back into just Chaos Space Marines with a themed detachment instead of their own full codex?


    i'd welcome it, give my thousand sons some options ffs


    I mean, what options from the main book do you expect they'd pick up whilst maintaining the fluff? Or are you happy to play "chaos legionnaires with a special rule" again?


    If they bring it back in the main book, it would be silly to still give them access to only the units they currently have.

    So yes, i would love having the option to bring Havocs, possessed, bikers, jetpacks,etc.
    Oh and as i said earlier in one of the currently active threads, if it means that our legion trait is litterally just "squad leaders (and DREADNOUGHTS PLEASE FFS GW) are psykers", i'd be happy


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 21:41:36


    Post by: Ravajaxe


    I'm pretty optimistic about thousand sons being in their own codex in 10th edition. You will certainly lose many psy powers and special snowflake rules, but to be honest with you, I don't think it is a bad move. TS codex, among nearly all others from late 9th, is a nightmare to cope with as an opponent.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 21:41:48


    Post by: VladimirHerzog


     Daedalus81 wrote:
     VladimirHerzog wrote:
    i'd welcome it, give my thousand sons some options ffs


    Booooo! Cast your spells and like it!

    But seriously what options would you take that they don't have that wouldn't absolutely break the theme of the army?

    What would actually happen is the best TS units would get poached and the rest will die. Just like in 8th where everyone took Ahriman for a while.



    Heavy weapons mainly (and no, it doesnt break the theme of the army, we already have soulreapers and missile launchers, don't give me that "rubricae are too dumb to use heavy weapons")


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    EviscerationPlague wrote:

    Ah yes, because both a Relic AND Warlord Trait is super breaking on one character. Not a ploy to sell named characters at all.


    yes, its more variables to balance around on one model, and can make units overperform a lot than a vanilla unit.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     Unit1126PLL wrote:
     VladimirHerzog wrote:
     Unit1126PLL wrote:
    Yeouch, those army build rules have broken two thirds of my armies, unless I start changing my lore. Oi vey.


    how so?


    My Superheavy Tank Regiment's only real Character models (the keyword, not the English word) are in the Regimental H&S Company. Either I am not using my Superheavy tanks in a detachment, or I am bringing a regimental commander, her command tank, her support staff... or her XO and some staff. Or just damn the fluff and bring like, 1 character with no staff or anything whatsoever because the easiest way to coordinate a Superheavy Tank Company is apparently on foot a few yards away.

    My Armageddon Steel Legion has 12 chimeras at 2k, and likely won't be able to field more than six. So uh, 1k points it is then I guess.

    My daemons are probably fine. For now.


    if GW desisgns detachments properly (like they do in AoS), all of those might be possible


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    PenitentJake wrote:

    Enjoy not having cults, because now you just get detachments like everyone else- assuming you get your own dex.

    Until that article today, I thought I might be okay with 10th, but I'm less optimistic now. Subfactions should matter. Now they don't.


    Detachment - Cult of Mutation
    Detachment - Cult of Time
    Detachment - Cult of Manipulation
    ...

    why do you think those WON'T be a thing?

    And yeah, we have lots of spells thats fine with me, but i still want to play more variety of power armor instead of spamming 3 datasheet


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 21:53:46


    Post by: vipoid


     Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
    Characters who don’t have any wargear choices are going to start really sucking in the way of customization now, looking at you mega armor boss


    This is my main concern. It's probably not so bad for those characters that can still cover most bases with wargear, but for ones with no or one-dimensional wargear selections this is going to be boring as feth.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 22:02:28


    Post by: Type40


    PenitentJake wrote:


    I also love how competitive types call "not getting a bonus" a penalty. As someone pointed out, BA always had access to SM artillery- they just didn't get bonuses- meaning their artillery was just as good as any chapter who ALSO didn't get a bonus to artillery... which is most SM.


    I don't know about BA, but in 7th, SW had access to land raiders, rhino's, predators, vindicators and whirlwinds (everything but the whirlwinds are exactly what TS shares with the other CSM faction) otherwise it was all unique datasheets and mostly unique kits. SW did not have access to all the fancy new marine crap, like centurions, that cannon thing, etc etc etc. Primaris was when things started to be shared and it wasn't until 9th that SW got the rest of the artillery.

    But again, I don't know what BA looked like back in 7th. I was playing wolves in 7th and CSM back in 4-5th and didn't play 6th.

    Also, I care little about competitive play. For me, it's more like, I was sold a unique faction. I didn't sign up for vanilla marines. I don't mind having limitations. I don't mind if my army sucks compared to others (I mean within reason, I still like to win some casual games). I don't mind if the rules are supported less often. Just give me the faction you sold me in first place. Let me have the flavor and unique kits. That's what GW told me they were. That's what I was playing when I first started the faction. That's what the CSM factions have become while SW went in the completely opposite direction. I mean, at least don't retire them. I guess I can always play older editions. So, when I look at each CSM sub faction codex, I see exactly what SWs were in 7th and I just have to say, if they can do it to one army, they can do it to another.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 22:10:16


    Post by: Wayniac


     VladimirHerzog wrote:
     Daedalus81 wrote:
     VladimirHerzog wrote:
    i'd welcome it, give my thousand sons some options ffs


    Booooo! Cast your spells and like it!

    But seriously what options would you take that they don't have that wouldn't absolutely break the theme of the army?

    What would actually happen is the best TS units would get poached and the rest will die. Just like in 8th where everyone took Ahriman for a while.



    Heavy weapons mainly (and no, it doesnt break the theme of the army, we already have soulreapers and missile launchers, don't give me that "rubricae are too dumb to use heavy weapons")


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    EviscerationPlague wrote:

    Ah yes, because both a Relic AND Warlord Trait is super breaking on one character. Not a ploy to sell named characters at all.


    yes, its more variables to balance around on one model, and can make units overperform a lot than a vanilla unit.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     Unit1126PLL wrote:
     VladimirHerzog wrote:
     Unit1126PLL wrote:
    Yeouch, those army build rules have broken two thirds of my armies, unless I start changing my lore. Oi vey.


    how so?


    My Superheavy Tank Regiment's only real Character models (the keyword, not the English word) are in the Regimental H&S Company. Either I am not using my Superheavy tanks in a detachment, or I am bringing a regimental commander, her command tank, her support staff... or her XO and some staff. Or just damn the fluff and bring like, 1 character with no staff or anything whatsoever because the easiest way to coordinate a Superheavy Tank Company is apparently on foot a few yards away.

    My Armageddon Steel Legion has 12 chimeras at 2k, and likely won't be able to field more than six. So uh, 1k points it is then I guess.

    My daemons are probably fine. For now.


    if GW desisgns detachments properly (like they do in AoS), all of those might be possible


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    PenitentJake wrote:

    Enjoy not having cults, because now you just get detachments like everyone else- assuming you get your own dex.

    Until that article today, I thought I might be okay with 10th, but I'm less optimistic now. Subfactions should matter. Now they don't.


    Detachment - Cult of Mutation
    Detachment - Cult of Time
    Detachment - Cult of Manipulation
    ...

    why do you think those WON'T be a thing?

    And yeah, we have lots of spells thats fine with me, but i still want to play more variety of power armor instead of spamming 3 datasheet
    Even if those are a thing you're most likely not getting those until your codex it's very doubtful those will be in the index


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 22:27:13


    Post by: VladimirHerzog


    Wayniac wrote:
    Even if those are a thing you're most likely not getting those until your codex it's very doubtful those will be in the index


    well yeah, no gak. The game is getting a much needed reset, i don't expect GW of all companies to give us a complete package on day1 (tho i wish they did, but "muh shareholders")


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 22:30:35


    Post by: EviscerationPlague


     VladimirHerzog wrote:

    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    EviscerationPlague wrote:

    Ah yes, because both a Relic AND Warlord Trait is super breaking on one character. Not a ploy to sell named characters at all.


    yes, its more variables to balance around on one model, and can make units overperform a lot than a vanilla unit.

    It's like y'all didn't pay attention to what happened with the Nephilim hit to CP along with Relics + Warlord Traits.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 23:16:33


    Post by: VladimirHerzog


    EviscerationPlague wrote:
     VladimirHerzog wrote:

    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    EviscerationPlague wrote:

    Ah yes, because both a Relic AND Warlord Trait is super breaking on one character. Not a ploy to sell named characters at all.


    yes, its more variables to balance around on one model, and can make units overperform a lot than a vanilla unit.

    It's like y'all didn't pay attention to what happened with the Nephilim hit to CP along with Relics + Warlord Traits.


    How is what i said any less true because people valued CP more than traits/relics in that season?


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 23:19:41


    Post by: Daedalus81


     Type40 wrote:
     Daedalus81 wrote:
     VladimirHerzog wrote:
    i'd welcome it, give my thousand sons some options ffs


    I will bet money that it doesn't.


    I'd bet money that by 11th it does lol. What makes chaos so special that it wont follow the same trends as every other sub faction in the game. Watch the "primaris of chaos" start to come out,,, then you'll know you are doomed. Everyone who plays a chaos faction will need the hot new generic unit... then it will be "oh, everyone just plays the same units with different colours" . I honestly do not see the difference between a DG terminator and a 7th SW terminator, or a DG marine squad and 7th SW grey hunter squad. DG has unique wargear and kits for these units, so did space wolves. It's all just marines with different colours right. Unique units, same, unique tanks(space wolf flyers ?) same, unique specialist units, same. I don't know, the way chaos is being handled gives me strong SW and deathwatch vibes.


    Literally all of the spin off chaos factions are models that are 6 years old or less and CSM were just redone. There is no primaris for chaos.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    EviscerationPlague wrote:
    Ah yes, because both a Relic AND Warlord Trait is super breaking on one character. Not a ploy to sell named characters at all.





    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    PenitentJake wrote:
    I wish people would use adjectives in front of the word "Options".

    Putting Ksons back in the CSM dex might give you access to some Unit Options that you don't have right now.




    If I want to play Black Legion I'll play CSM. Unit options do not always make an army.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     VladimirHerzog wrote:
    Heavy weapons mainly (and no, it doesnt break the theme of the army, we already have soulreapers and missile launchers, don't give me that "rubricae are too dumb to use heavy weapons")


    I'd much rather wait for them to add a new kit than bastardize the army.



    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 23:38:37


    Post by: Type40


     Daedalus81 wrote:


    Literally all of the spin off chaos factions are models that are 6 years old or less and CSM were just redone. There is no primaris for chaos.


    Right, just like space wolves at the beginning of 7th XD ... same same same. I mean,,,, exactly 6 years before 7th for the terminator kit. fenerisian wolves, cyberwolves, SW company ancient, 15 unit bloodclaws kit were 2 years before 7th. 4 names characters, thunderwolf cavalery, 1.5 years before 7th. Grey hunter/blood claws kit was 1 year before 7th, stormwolf same year as 7th, SW dreadnaught, cyberwolf, wulfen, iron priest, 3 named characters same year as 7th ... the only kits that were older then 6 years were the scouts, grimnar on foot, and the termie rune priest... 3 kits (except the same kind of vehicles that CSM shares all round too)... .... hmmm .... CSM subfactions are exactly where SWs were in 7th .... In fact,,, its almost identical. That's funny,,,, thanks for pointing out how similar the situation is XD. Weird that SWs had an almost identical variety of new unique kits, data sheets and excluded units to the main faction as all the CSM subfactions do now... in fact... SWs had more unique units then some of CSM subfactions ... Having kits "just re-done" didn't stop GW in the past... I give the CSM subfactions until 11th at the latest.

    p.s. no primaris equivalent YET.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 23:43:19


    Post by: Daedalus81


    They're redone to the new scale. CSM was literally last year. They're not getting replaced.



    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 23:44:25


    Post by: Type40


     Daedalus81 wrote:
    They're redone to the new scale. CSM was literally last year. They're not getting replaced.



    And SW also just had kits made a year before before being folded in... I don't see your point.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 23:48:36


    Post by: Daedalus81


    You enjoy your conspiracies. Don't forget to check back in.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 23:55:09


    Post by: Type40


     Daedalus81 wrote:
    You enjoy your conspiracies. Don't forget to check back in.


    I mean, I agree that it would upset a lot of players. I agree that it wouldn't really make sense to fold them back in. I agree that it would SUCK. But they HAVE done it before. It is in fact an almost 1 to 1 comparison. Same variety of differences, same variety of kits, same age of kits, same types of exclusions of access to main faction kits, same variety of unique wargear/army rules and etc. But then everyone screams "they are just marines but a different colour" and bamb, no more unique faction. I don't want that to happen to your special snowflakes, but again, I just don't see the difference. They did it to my snowflakes and at some point GW will decide they can sell more models if they make vanilla models for 5 codexs instead of releasing 5 kits/rulesets and that's the road I assume they will follow again. Why wouldn't they ? they have done it before.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/30 23:57:48


    Post by: EviscerationPlague


     VladimirHerzog wrote:
    EviscerationPlague wrote:
     VladimirHerzog wrote:

    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    EviscerationPlague wrote:

    Ah yes, because both a Relic AND Warlord Trait is super breaking on one character. Not a ploy to sell named characters at all.


    yes, its more variables to balance around on one model, and can make units overperform a lot than a vanilla unit.

    It's like y'all didn't pay attention to what happened with the Nephilim hit to CP along with Relics + Warlord Traits.


    How is what i said any less true because people valued CP more than traits/relics in that season?

    Because the supposed hit did nothing to the topping armies and proved the problem was said army rules and units themselves?

    And yeah when they make the player only start with 6CP, no gak they can't use them on characters.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/31 00:05:59


    Post by: Gadzilla666


     Daedalus81 wrote:
    If I want to play Black Legion I'll play CSM. Unit options do not always make an army.

    Ah, the plight of all of the Undivided Legions in 40k since late 4th edition (with the brief reprieve of Traitor Legions, of course).


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/31 00:29:18


    Post by: Platuan4th


     Daedalus81 wrote:

    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     VladimirHerzog wrote:
    Heavy weapons mainly (and no, it doesnt break the theme of the army, we already have soulreapers and missile launchers, don't give me that "rubricae are too dumb to use heavy weapons")


    I'd much rather wait for them to add a new kit than bastardize the army.



    Look, I just want Rubrics to be able to have 3 Heavy or Special Weapons in any combination again.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/31 00:43:15


    Post by: VladimirHerzog


     Daedalus81 wrote:


    I'd much rather wait for them to add a new kit than bastardize the army.




    how is it bastardizing them?


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/31 00:49:47


    Post by: PenitentJake


     VladimirHerzog wrote:



    Detachment - Cult of Mutation
    Detachment - Cult of Time
    Detachment - Cult of Manipulation
    ...

    why do you think those WON'T be a thing?


    Well, obviously I don't know for sure. My suspicion comes from today's article - when they said detachments wouldn't be based on paintjob, I took that to mean subfactions, because for most of us, paintjob IS part of subfaction identity. The Gladius example also seemed to ignore subfaction.

    But who knows- these very well could be Ksons detachments.

    I shouldn't be reacting to every warcom article- it could be alright. I mean, I for sure know I'm losing options because unlike most people, I LIKED having lots of strategems, lots of relics, lots of WL Traits including bespoke subfaction versions because I see all of those things as options... But I'm still hopeful that whatever is on it's way might still be somewhat worthwhile?

    Like there's a chance that it could have ENOUGH detail... Like if I'm encouraging people to be content with balanced enough, I should try to be content with detailed enough?


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/31 01:13:07


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


    That's a point: They could keep the Cults in a Thousand Sons Codex as that's not really a 'paint job' driven thing. They're already Thousand Sons, not just "blue and gold Chaos Marines".

    But the non-Cult Legions? Those have to go! Can't have those around anymore. Too restrictive. Better to make everything 'Counts As'.



    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/31 01:46:08


    Post by: Zarathustra Spake


    IDK why people are pretending they weren't explicit with how the system will work. Subfactions are going to use detachments for thier special rules, rather then getting rules and detachments unto themselves. Here is the related sentence; "Instead of choosing a subfaction or constructing your own, you now choose a single set of Detachment rules for your whole army." that's pretty cut and dry pretending like a "Cult of Time detachment" is going to happen in less than 2 years is laughable.

    Ksons are going to be a detachment of CSM and will have an enormous list of things they can't bring. All thier psychic options will disappear and will probably be left with 1 spell which is rather crap that they can spam Ala Smite, and they will be left with mediocre choices on HQs assuming you get a choice. All the unique systems like Cabal points are more then likely gone, replaced with a static decision which were "the best".

    Personally I play Black Templars and given that my subfaction requires access to certain units which no other SM army has access to and "the index will have one detachment per army" I'm likely to be forced to play a generic space marine army with a "Melee detachment"

    The up side is my army will probably be near impossible to win with since because of the 1 for 1 swap on rules, an army that focuses on melee combat with no psykers and set litanies from chaplins means there is exactly one way to build my army for it to have a snowballs chance in hell to win. And the chances that my army will be the thing that wins from the start will are below 1%.

    Looking at this now I'm starting to see hybrid factions are going to suffer the most given that they will be the last in line to get any kind of real selection when it comes to detachments. And on top of that will be seriously lacking when it comes to power given they will never get an extra rules to make up for thier lack of power in other areas.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/31 01:50:44


    Post by: Hellebore


     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    That's a point: They could keep the Cults in a Thousand Sons Codex as that's not really a 'paint job' driven thing. They're already Thousand Sons, not just "blue and gold Chaos Marines".

    But the non-Cult Legions? Those have to go! Can't have those around anymore. Too restrictive. Better to make everything 'Counts As'.



    By the nature of abstract game mechanics, everything is already counts as.

    The idea that a particular colour of sub army needs a set of special rules with their name in the title to legitimise their gameplay seems to be a unique tunnel vision only found amongst Warhammer players.

    It's a weird transactional approach where if you don't get something mechanical for a faction then it has no worth.

    People with homebrew factions don't seem to have an issue not getting special unique named rules.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/31 01:56:03


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


    Zarathustra Spake wrote:
    Ksons are going to be a detachment of CSM...
    How do you know that? Black Templars are a supplement for the Marine 'Dex. 1KSons aren't part of the CSM Codex. They're their own Codex.

     Hellebore wrote:
    By the nature of abstract game mechanics, everything is already counts as.
    Only if you take 'Counts As' completely out of context and try to apply it to everything in the game. Don't do that.

    To put it another way: You know exactly what's meant by 'Counts As'. Don't intentionally muddy the waters by talking about abstractions. It's a red herring at best.



    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/31 02:12:08


    Post by: Leo_the_Rat


    I'm sorry (not sorry) to the space marine players but I tend to look at the various Chapters and think that they're just like Imp Guard. The only difference for a majority of their units is the aesthetics. By that I mean a Space Wolf Tac marine is functionally the same as a Salamander Tac marine. The difference is in how they look. It's just like the guard a Tallaran plasma gunner is the same as a Steel Legion plasma gunner except for the uniform. So why shouldn't GW just fold all of the chapters back into 1 Codex? The units that are unique to a specific chapter could be found in 1 or 2 of the new army sheets. The same could be done for CSM. This would allow GW to put out Codices at a much faster rate and allow people to use their Codex for a longer period of time until 11th Ed.


    10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46 @ 2023/03/31 02:15:48


    Post by: PenitentJake


     Hellebore wrote:


    People with homebrew factions don't seem to have an issue not getting special unique named rules.


    If they are content to not have special rules with their names on them, they wouldn't be houserulers, would they?

    They'd be content to just play like everyone else. You don't houserule unless you find the regular rules unsatisfying.