10th has reintroduced many of the concepts that the community has previously liked and also those that we have rejected. Below are some examples. lets here what you like and dislike. heres mine:
LIKES:
Reduction of stratagems.
Did we ever even need these? I think not. But progress happened and now they are a part of this game, becoming even integral to some of the less elite factions as alternative to inherent rules.
I like that these have been reduced, but not to the point of 6 per faction and 4 of those are often not worth using. This just wastes complexity budget. But I do welcome the general idea of reducing strategem bloat.
Return of USRs.
These done right could be so much more fluid. Unfortunately the complexity was transferred to otherwise standard profiles. For example multi meltas can have different profiles..?! Even if this only occurs one single time it undermines a players feeling of knowing what a weapon profile is.
Characters joining units.
I have truly missed this from past editions and was initially so happy to hear they were bringing these back. But the way this rule is implemented is so restrictive I can't build what I want from most of my characters leaving them as glorified sergeant equivalents.
Reduced lethality.
To an extent this was needed. And in theory it is good. From what we have seen I'm not convinced this was actually accomplished except for reducing assault lethality.
#makemechgreatagain
Actually I don't like this and I never did buy into this one having played past editions absolutely dominated by mechanized lists. Plenty of 9th edition lists included mech saturation towards the latter part of 9th. Now the pendulum may have swung too far into over correction.
DISLIKES:
Removing player agency.
Forced "choices" and destroying our ability to take ownership of an army through customization is never justified.
I am talking about exactly how to build your army, character restrictions, cookie cutter wargear and unit options, etc. At this rate 11th will have "premade armies" no thought required.
Inflexible unit sizes and configurations.
General removal of customization across the spectrum. aka dumbing down and making the art of list design incredibly bland and samey within a faction.
Forcing every unit into linear 5 or 10 man sizes with no real player choices is a complete cop out to me and shows total disrespect for the player base.
Removal of points costs from wargear.
For players like me who live to brew this is such a disappointment I cannot find any enthusiasm for this edition. Does anyone other than GW really believe all upgrades are equal? Also this does not help casual players and removes a core list building concept of boys before toys.
Loss of faction identity.
Disregard for previous long standing lore by restricting or even deleting options which is really the "theme" of this edition.
It doesn't matter who owns the IP when we are ALL invested in this incredible world.
Inconsistent rules applications.
This puts unnecessary complexity right back into the game. When you cannot trust that a common weapon profile is universal we must still reference/memorize every single profile.
Reduction of assault phase.
This may be proven false as the game evolves but my impression is that this edition is full tilt shooting and mechanized.
Between reduced lethality of assault units, changes to engagement range, increased durability, existence of big guns, and the changes to overwatch, assault is not something most armies will be successful with and that is a real shame. having played extensively through many past editions similar I can say this is not something I feel is healthy for the game.
Removal of the psychic phase.
This could possibly have been elegant. But instead it was an afterthought. Psych powers are now just unit abilities or more shooting profiles.
Proliferation of indirect fire.
FFS guys no one enjoys this rule. Getting shot up with no counter play except to bring your own indirect fire is the sign of a bad mechanic. Please just delete indirect from the game. Restricting all those other aspects I mentioned but then allowing something as unfun as indirect fire to run rampant is just bizarre.
Your first 3 dislikes are essentially the same complaint, and also a pretty weak one. You still have plenty of "agency", you still have the option to choose your units and upgrades, including to choose to not take upgrades if you don't want to or to take units of arbitrary size. If you feel otherwise irs because you have chosen to surrender your agency to min/maxing and optimization of the points system, and that's really on you.
Not being able to take more than one epic hero in your list is a big downer for me. I could understand no more than two or three, but just one? It's just an arbitrary restriction that does nothing to improve the game. I do like how it seems that, besides that previous restriction, you can take as many HQ choices as you want, as long as you abide by the rule of three and keep within your points limits. I find it a very liberating manner of list-building.
ArcaneHorror wrote: Not being able to take more than one epic hero in your list is a big downer for me. I could understand no more than two or three, but just one? It's just an arbitrary restriction that does nothing to improve the game. I do like how it seems that, besides that previous restriction, you can take as many HQ choices as you want, as long as you abide by the rule of three and keep within your points limits. I find it a very liberating manner of list-building.
I thought you could only take each one once (as they were unique) but you could cram as many different ones in your list as points allowed.
ArcaneHorror wrote: Not being able to take more than one epic hero in your list is a big downer for me. I could understand no more than two or three, but just one? It's just an arbitrary restriction that does nothing to improve the game. I do like how it seems that, besides that previous restriction, you can take as many HQ choices as you want, as long as you abide by the rule of three and keep within your points limits. I find it a very liberating manner of list-building.
I thought you could only take each one once (as they were unique) but you could cram as many different ones in your list as points allowed.
And you are correct, core rules page 56:
Only Characters can be given
Enhancements and your army
cannot include more than three
Enhancements in total. No unit can
have more than one Enhancement
and each Enhancement included
in your army must be unique.
Epic Heroes cannot be given any
Enhancements. Your army cannot
include the same Epic Hero more
than once.
Not only does it just say that you can only have one of the same Epic Hero, we can infer that it is possible to have several EHs from the fact that this limit would not be necessary if you only ever could have one EH in total.
Dislikes. Everything else. The army lists and attempts at points are pathetic and should not be given the dignity of acknowledgement. If this was anyone other than GW, they'd be laughed off the internet.
Like: The early reveal of the gaunt reactive movement ability gave me hope that GW were about to make a dynamic, deep game with lots of interactions and non-combat options for winning.
Dislike: They took that away and failed to meet my already gutter-level expectations.
The good;
- free indexes and a push for more digital rules
- a more nuanced morale system, though it still could be more impactful or have different levels of effect
- a push towards fewer rolls and rerolls, though not quite enough
- a more clear split between heavy infantry and vehicles is nice
- reduced lethality is very much needed, it’s silly when units just wipe each other out with no chance for a back and forth. Though it looks like some armies and units didn’t get the memo
- the weapon rules system is nice I think. Instead of being locked to either assault, rapid fire or heavy, weapons can either not have any of those rules or have multiple. It helps give weapons more variability.
-USRs are fine when they actually cover universal rules, though I’d be open to faction special rules that operate in the same way
Things I’m not keen on:
- box based restrictions for units. For me 40k is a modeling and painting hobby where throwing dice down is a nice way to show off your army while feeling good about investing that time into it. Being able to kitbash is a major part of that and it sucks that GW is moving away from that. And not only that, they are inconsistent in its application. I can only assume that some middle manager had this bright idea of 1 box = 1 unit but the rules writers are trying to give us options without them noticing. I’m actually baffled that crisis suits can take loads of ion blasters, while my admech vanguard are basically required to take an arquebus. If the rules restrict us to 3 of any unit, then why not have weapon restrictions based on what’s available in 3 kits? For example, skitarii should go back to being able to take 3 specials of any kind, since after 3 boxes you’ll have 3 of each anyway. Then there’s the Eldar Autarch which has 2 kits and God forbid you try to mix them.
-fixed unit sizes. Again, it impacts modeling, but it also makes list building harder IMO. So I can’t try out different unit sizes for fun. Sometimes 5 man is not enough but 10 is overkill, but now we’re stuck at either end. Also I still don’t like that crisis suits start at 3 models per squad when they could start at 1 model like they used to, which would solve the crisis commander issue. I mean, you can take individual armigers right?
- still don’t like stratagems. These are abilities not tied to models and feel very abstract. They are one of the main reasons 9th got so bad, but here they are again and I don’t trust GW to have restraint in their power. Also why are grenades a strat? That’s lame. Plus if everyone is going to have special rules anyway, why have strats at all?
- army rules are too standardized. Every army gets one army rule, a detachment rule and 6 strats… feels like it hamstrings faction identity. I’d rather have faction special rules as needed rather than trying to shoehorn in exactly one rule per army. Also some are just too strong for no reason.
Likes - CSM seems solid overall and I can play a Cultist army from the main Codex. It's not R&H but with Traitor Guard, Beastmen, and a couple of HQs I'm still looking forward to it.
- Massively reduced Stratagem count.
- Free rules (even if they are a bit of a mess).
Dislikes - The haphazard application of units getting stuff only from what's in the kit box and others getting looser restrictions. Neophyte Hybrids can duplicate both the heavy and special weapon options despite only getting one of each in a box but Legionnaires can't double up on anything.
I could go on a rant about all of the things I dislike, pretty much everything except the core rules, but I am going to call out my biggest annoyance...
They gave Deathleaper that fugly ass coattail thing.
Arbiter_Shade wrote: I could go on a rant about all of the things I dislike, pretty much everything except the core rules, but I am going to call out my biggest annoyance...
They gave Deathleaper that fugly ass coattail thing.
Hah, yeah the skirt hurts. Waiting till they release swarmy in a fleshy cat-eared onesie.
It's an awesome illithid horror though, if you leave off the weird upper scytal backpack at least.
I think my list is pretty similar to dominuschao's.
LIKE
*Reduced lethality in general. Although they seem to have made my dark eldar even squishier than before, and some of the more lethal factions seem more lethal than before (Oaths of Moment, Strands of Fate).So I like this as a stated design goal, but the execution seems questionable.
* Units have jobs/GW is embracing the idea of support units more. I like, for instance, that many troops give you additional benefits when they hold objectives, or that they let you hold onto objectives without camping on them or that my night spinner can debuff an enemy unit instead of just being another flavor of damage dealer.
* USRs are good.
* Less rules clutter. We'll see how long this lasts, but only having a short list of stratagems, detachment abilities, and faction abilities is nice. It seems like there will be less to juggle mentally, and my first impression is that the overall lethality and time taken to resolve strats will be reduced. I could be wrong, but that's how it feels.
* No more psychic phase. I understand why they added it, but it always felt a bit awkward trying to work in special rules that really ought to kick in throughout the round to a single phase. Now, witchfires can just be guns again (now with a keyword for when you want anti-psyker/psychic defense rlues to kick in). A psychic power that helps you in the movement phase can kick in during the movement phase. We could even have psychic reaction powers now if we wanted.
* Enhancements costing points. Makes sense. Like this better than trying to make relics and warlord traits all equally good.
*Mission design seems better? There are still more floating pieces than I'd personally prefer, but at least we aren't juggling 3 secondaries per side plus a primary.
* More abilities to allow for reactions to your opponent's choices.
* I think I like the stratagem usage thing they're doing with leader special rules. Getting to use strats additional times or for free etc.
DISLIKE
* A lot of iconic anti-tank weapons appear to no longer be anti-tank. See: melta. In general, it seems like we're looking at a tank-centric meta, which means people need good anti-tank, which means I'm predicting less list diversity as people are forced to spam the handful of S12+ options their faction has access to.
* The way wargear selection works. Not only is not all wargear created equal, but removing my kabalites' ability to specialize in anti-tank or anti-infantry roles is a real bummer. I'm playing at a disadvantage if I don't field the anti-infantyr special weapons, but it's just giving me two extra profiles to shoot when what I want is another anti-tank gun.
* Related to the above, but it feels like I can't put my own personal touch on a unit's rules at all any more. I can't really change the role my kabalites fill. I can't use exarch powers or pivotal roles to change how harlequins or aspect squads play. Old exarch gear (such as the sunrifle) has largely been removed due to no-model-no-rules. My drukhari characters each have a single unit they're allowed to join even though incubi used to be *the* bodyguard unit for archons, archites (succubae) would still be able to hang out with reavers if GW hadn't decided to arbitrarily take away bikes in 5th edition, and haemonculi can't hang out with grotesques for... reasons? I guess they just didn't want grotesques to ugprade from FNP5+ to FNP4+?
The "ur-dudez" aspect of the game that was always a big draw for me is at an all time low. People complained about GW "writing their lists for them" with formations back in 7th, but at least we could choose how to equip our characters back then and decide which squads they joined.
* Tying specific abilities/psychic powers to specific datasheets feels a little arbitrary. I get what they're going for, but they could probably let characters choose from a list of abilities (and pay points accordingly?) rather than making the winged autarch a mildly worse commander than the foot autarch, etc. Like, I get not wanting biker warlocks to have Quicken, but there's probably a better way to handle this sort of thing.
* This is hopefully just a temporary thing related to the roll-out, but they seem to have wildly missed the mark on balancing faction/detachment abilities against each other. Like, look at Oaths of Moment compared to Dark Pacts. Optimistically, I'd hope that between additional detachments being added and some seasonal updates tweaking the existing abilities, things will balance out over time. But like, part of the point of doing an edition reset is to try and bring everyone back to the same, reasonable power level. Would sincerely enjoy reading an explanation of how they came to some of their design decisions.
* Similar to the above, wtf points costs? I'm excited to use my night spinner, but how on earth did they come to the conclusion that it should be more expensive than a fire prism? Why are retributors priced the way they are when devestators are similar but better?
Overall, the rules for this edition seem like they might be based on a lot of gut-decisions that are going to be adjusted over time.
I'm still excited to give the new rules a try, but I worry that things are going to get stale fast given that I can't really tell my army's story through army creation, wargear selection, etc. It sort of seems like there will be a handful of valid builds even in casual games, and we'll just be going through the motions of rolling dice for cookie cutter units.
Freedom of army choice. Not so much the lack of a formal FoC, but now not needing to learn all my potential Stratagems from Codex and Expansions to know what sort of synergies I can bring to the table.
Sure someone is gonna use it to Cheese. But if they weren’t Cheesing that, they’d just find a different flavour of Cheese. Because for some folk, that is the hobby. And whilst I wouldn’t want to play them, it is a legit part of it.
Everything else? Gonna need to see what a Codex looks like and get some games under my belt.
Dandelion wrote: - army rules are too standardized. Every army gets one army rule, a detachment rule and 6 strats… feels like it hamstrings faction identity. I’d rather have faction special rules as needed rather than trying to shoehorn in exactly one rule per army. Also some are just too strong for no reason.
This is one where I'll accept "Wait and see how the first couple of Codex releases go" - they were clear in all the preview material that we'd only see one detachment per faction at release, with more coming as the books come out, possibly alongside WD. Once the 'Nid and SM books drop, at the very least, we should start to see how that variety is expressed.
Like the digital rules and the chance to learn something new.
Not liking the fixed unit sizes and the points. I have started to throw some lists together and I find that I am either leaving points on the table or having to modify the units I want or take units I don’t want to fill out my points.
I can understand the move to fixed load out options from the box but it doesn’t seem to be consistent across the board which makes me a little bitter about it when it impacts my selections.
Likes:
* I like that I can explode my scarab swarms & then bring them back via a spider.
* I like that you can now assault from Landraiders.
* I like the bit where Drukhari units can hop in & out of Venoms on the same turn.
* I like that my Ork Trucks got cheaper.
* I like that strats have been greatly trimmed.
* I like the "If this character is leading a unit" effects.
** I love being able to remind people that I was correct concerning how Pts/upgrades/building units was going to go.
*** I love seeing the reactions (IRL or online) of those people as they rage against the new paradigm.
**** I love that there's a few people out there at my local shops who've had to reverse their stance on Legends units - now that they're looking at having a shelf full of expensive toys they otherwise won't be able to use.
Dislikes:
* That my Gretchin squads are not Battleline.
* That my Gretchin squads must now include a Runtherd.
* That I cannot take Makari as a separate unit.
* That my Lokust Detroyers come in units of 1, 2, 3, - or 6. What about 4? Why not 5? Just so stupid....
* I'm also a bit annoyed that my Drukari Cronos/Talos unit sizes have gone from 1-3 to now 1-2. That leaves me 6 models sitting on the shelf. :(
* I dislike that my Archons Court must now consist of 1 of each of the 4 members instead of mix/match. all I own are Slythes & a few Medusae. :(
* Not a fan of having to start dedicated transports with something embarked
* Not a fan of Aircraft having to start in reserve.
* the new Combi-weapon
* Deathguard :(
* That I was correct in how building units was going to go.
ccs wrote: **** I love that there's a few people out there at my local shops who've had to reverse their stance on Legends units - now that they're looking at having a shelf full of expensive toys they otherwise won't be able to use.
Ok, that's funny. Kind of a "shoes on the other foot" kinda thing.
ccs wrote: **** I love that there's a few people out there at my local shops who've had to reverse their stance on Legends units - now that they're looking at having a shelf full of expensive toys they otherwise won't be able to use.
Ok, that's funny. Kind of a "shoes on the other foot" kinda thing.
That's one of the reasons I'm happy I want every faction improved and don't hate any. The only model I can think of that I want to see move to legends is Tycho. The Firstborn-replaced-by-primaris I'm pretty neutral on - they can move or they can stay.
Spoiler:
Tycho died before the first Primaris was released
so he can go to legends as he's out of "time" with the rest of the world.
ccs wrote: **** I love that there's a few people out there at my local shops who've had to reverse their stance on Legends units - now that they're looking at having a shelf full of expensive toys they otherwise won't be able to use.
Ok, that's funny. Kind of a "shoes on the other foot" kinda thing.
That's one of the reasons I'm happy I want every faction improved and don't hate any. The only model I can think of that I want to see move to legends is Tycho. The Firstborn-replaced-by-primaris I'm pretty neutral on - they can move or they can stay.
Spoiler:
Tycho died before the first Primaris was released
so he can go to legends as he's out of "time" with the rest of the world.
Errmmm....I'm not "getting you", Breton. Are you saying that moving multiple units to Legends is "improving" factions? Or are you just happy that the "pain" is being spread around? If it's the latter, then I'll remind you that it isn't "equal", as the "Legending" of fw options hits some factions harder than others (compare it's effects on CSM to Loyalist, for example).
so he can go to legends as he's out of "time" with the rest of the world.
Errmmm....I'm not "getting you", Breton. Are you saying that moving multiple units to Legends is "improving" factions? Or are you just happy that the "pain" is being spread around? If it's the latter, then I'll remind you that it isn't "equal", as the "Legending" of fw options hits some factions harder than others (compare it's effects on CSM to Loyalist, for example).
No, I'm saying I don't like almost any model moving to legends. Variety is better. And since I don't hate any faction, that doesn't change depending on the faction. I'm not sure how I lost you after I said the only model I'd move to legends is Tycho - and even that is based on the current timeline of the game world which also leads to a more neutral approach to moving Firstborn-replaced-by-Primaris models to legends for the same reason. Are there a lot of Chaos Firstborn models replaced by Primaris that lead you this confusion?
Reduction in subfactions/ rules not locked behind paint schemes.
Tempest-of-war style secondaries
Less lethality? I agree this is generally a good idea. The one game I played so far didnt feel less lethal though. We played Space Marines vs CSM.
Less stratagems/relics/wlt
Certain core stratagems keep things interesting (overwatch, rapid ingress)
Pretty easy to make an army list. I know some bemoan the lack of options but... I made a list in a few minutes on paper; where before I wouldnt even attempt it without battlescribe, and even then it took me forever.
Dislikes:
Free wargear makes WYSIWYG squads harder if you want them to be at their best. IE: No reason not to give this guy a neo-volkite pistol, but do I have it modeled with one? Of course not.
A few too many special rules. I dont think it was necessary for literally every unit to have a special ability.
Removal of the force organization chart (I didnt like Arks of Omen much either). Seems to encourage skew lists even more.
Vehicles/monsters able to gain the benefits of cover is a bit much IMO.
------
To me, I think the good vastly outweighs the bad. Ok, not everything exactly how I wanted it, but I love what I've seen of 10e so far.
so he can go to legends as he's out of "time" with the rest of the world.
Errmmm....I'm not "getting you", Breton. Are you saying that moving multiple units to Legends is "improving" factions? Or are you just happy that the "pain" is being spread around? If it's the latter, then I'll remind you that it isn't "equal", as the "Legending" of fw options hits some factions harder than others (compare it's effects on CSM to Loyalist, for example).
No, I'm saying I don't like almost any model moving to legends. Variety is better. And since I don't hate any faction, that doesn't change depending on the faction. I'm not sure how I lost you after I said the only model I'd move to legends is Tycho - and even that is based on the current timeline of the game world which also leads to a more neutral approach to moving Firstborn-replaced-by-Primaris models to legends for the same reason. Are there a lot of Chaos Firstborn models replaced by Primaris that lead you this confusion?
Ok, now I get what you're saying. And I agree. Thanks for clearing things up.
And the problem with CSM, compared to Loyalists is that the Great Legending has removed so many options ffr CSM that Loyalists can easily replace with their myriad of datasheets. CSM have lost NLOS shooting (Scorpius), heavy MW hitting (Decimators), and, most importantly, drop pods (Dreadclaws). Which have been available since looonngggg before HH even existed (introduced in 2002).
But, since I now know that you oppose these changes, I have no arguments with you about. Just clarifying things as you did.
I like the reduced number of Stratagems, removal of SM Super Doctrines and changing Chapter Tactics to Detachment abilities to make it so paint doesn't change rules.
I dislike datasheets taking up 2 pages. How many rainforests does GW think we have? I like free digital indexes. I hope the game goes fully digital and that books become a collectors item rather than game aides.
I dislike trying to get everyone to try to play the same mission format all the time, instead of having a casual format and a competitive format. I don't want to play against some sweaty nerd who thinks they're a master tactician that's too good for some good old random mission cards every turn in a casual game or play pachinko against someone in a competitive game (although I think I'm skipping competitive again this edition because (like 9th) 10th is not meant for that).
I dislike weapons having individual WS/BS profiles. I like universal abilities, except for the fact that the ones a codex uses aren't in the codex. I like that vehicles and monsters can get a bonus to their shooting for remaining stationary with Heavy without needing a unique ability.
The increase in vehicle durability seems to be working out nicely, no problems so far. The aircraft rules seem awful, easily exploited by the opponent and no benefits to being a flyer other than infinite Movement on a tiny table. Units with FLY not being able to hop over terrain seems weird, but I don't hate it, infantry still being able to move through walls makes it even more strange.
I dislike models not being able to overhang on the lip of a Ruin, it feels too restrictive.
I hate the new rules for charging and piling in. I don't care about you scrubs that can't play the game, gitgud instead celebrating when the game is dumbed down. By the way, you're probably still going to lose because you're bad at the game.
I dislike the amount of re-rolls in the game, it does not feel lesser than the number of re-rolls in 9th. For me, re-rolls should be limited to the CP re-roll Stratagem. It took 50 minutes to handle an Astra Militarum Shooting phase. The re-introduction of twin-linked makes no sense.
I dislike the lack of points costs for options. I dislike the removal of options, including the removal of Warlord Traits and Relics. I mildly dislike how restrictive the rules are with which characters can join which units.
I like the Necrons Detachment ability, enhancements and Stratagems. The Genestealer Cult ambush rules are amazingly fitting.
I dislike that Imotekh needs to be in the middle of the enemy's army to use his storm. I dislike Imotekh, Zahndrekh and Anrakyr not getting My Will Be Done and Obyron not getting Lord's Will and Relentless March (Overlord and Lord abilities respectively).
I don't dislike it yet, but I think the huge numbers of combos in the game is going to make it very imbalanced, having an immortal unit of Necron Warriors has been fun the first couple of times, the third or tenth time?
I actually do like combos when they don't break things, like the 5th edition making everything Dangerous Terrain on the first turn Necrons combo, but Necron Warriors + Ghost Ark + Undying Legions + Reanimation Orb + Canoptek Reanimator + Cryptothralls + Orikan the Diviner feels like too many parts for things to remain balanced.
I dislike the nerf to Veil of Darkness, change its cost to 100 pts for all I care, I want to teleport out of melee and still shoot. FNPs working against Time's Arrow removes the feeling of C'tan being special, now it does the work of a mere 5 Deathmarks and that's the only C'tan power you get for that phase on a Tesseract Vault which is very wimpy in terms of damage output on such a large model. I get that it might feel bad to have a 2+2+ you're dead shooting weapon, but we are talking about a 500 pt sniper here.
I like that Ophydians all have the same weapon profile, same for Skorpekhs. I like gauss getting lethal hits. I dislike Astra Militarum having lethal hits. I like tesla exploding and gauss being lethal on 5s with a Plasmancer. Tesla just wasn't the same without it, I asked for its removal because it couldn't be balanced, but with it being attached to just the Plasmancer's own unit I think it's just a fun and exciting option. I like the Monolith's teleport ability, simple and solid.
I dislike FNPs, Necrons have quite a lot of them. Necrons also have oddly low LD values, but as long as my models aren't running away I don't hate it. The odd lowering of various Necrons Movement values feels hateful and makes M values harder to remember.
vict0988 wrote: I like universal abilities, except for the fact that the ones a codex uses aren't in the codex.
...when did you get a sneak peek at a 10th ed Codex, out of interest?
to be fair codices have never give a USR list so it's proably a safe bet we won't see that change , even though I'd LOOOVE a referance page ion a codex that lists then, save on book flipping
chaos0xomega wrote: Your first 3 dislikes are essentially the same complaint, and also a pretty weak one. You still have plenty of "agency", you still have the option to choose your units and upgrades, including to choose to not take upgrades if you don't want to or to take units of arbitrary size. If you feel otherwise irs because you have chosen to surrender your agency to min/maxing and optimization of the points system, and that's really on you.
And you are actively punished in the rules for doing so.
He did not make a weak argument. Your attempts to explain away the total and utter failings of 10th's points/army construction rules are weak.
vict0988 wrote: I like universal abilities, except for the fact that the ones a codex uses aren't in the codex.
...when did you get a sneak peek at a 10th ed Codex, out of interest?
to be fair codices have never give a USR list so it's proably a safe bet we won't see that change , even though I'd LOOOVE a referance page ion a codex that lists then, save on book flipping
GK digital codex for 7th had them. It's not that hard.
- not being able to add singular models to units. Finding a way of filling out the last 20 or so points is a bit frustrating.
- being limited to the box loadout has made some units less than ideal.
- combi weapons.
- certain factions getting waaaay more love than others at the index level *coughaeldaricough*. I imagine the codes/first wave of points adjustments will alleviate this, but still.
Otherwise I'm overall happy with how 10th is looking from a black and white rules perspective. There's some stuff that initially I wasn't too keen on, but it's grown on me as with every new edition does.
Like: I can play massively tricked out units of crisis suits.
The Observer/Guided rule is a good implementation of the combined arms fluff and co-ordinated doctrine of the Tau.
Dislike: I'd have to be a moron to not play massively tricked out units of crisis suits if I am going to take any Crisis.
Whoever wrote the Observer/Guided rule text should be fired. It is a garbled mess in which they switch which unit they are referring to to then switch back later in the same sentence. It turns what is a very basic interaction into a quagmire to read and understand exactly what is happening on your first reading.
Spoiler:
If your Army Faction is T’au Empire, then in your Shooting phase units from your army can work in pairs to help each other target specific enemy units. When they do this, one unit is the Observer unit and the other is their Guided unit. The enemy they are targeting is called their Spotted unit.
Each time you select this unit to shoot, if it is not an Observer unit, it can use this ability. If it does, select one other friendly unit with this ability that is also eligible to shoot (excluding Fortification, Battleshocked and Observer units). Until the end of the phase, this unit is considered a Guided unit, and that friendly unit is considered an Observer unit. Then select one enemy unit that is visible to both your units to be their Spotted unit.
Until the end of the phase: ■ Each time a model in a Guided unit makes an attack that targets their Spotted unit, improve the Ballistic Skill characteristic of the attack by 1 and, if their Observer unit has the Markerlight keyword, the attack has the [IGNORES COVER] ability. ■ Each time a model in a Guided unit makes an attack that does not target their Spotted unit, worsen the Ballistic Skill characteristic of the attack by 1.
Or, as it could have been written:
When you select a unit to shoot, if that unit was not selected as an Observer previously this phase, you may select another unit to act as an Observer provided the unit selected to be an Observer is eligible to shoot, is not a Fortification, battleshocked, and it was not selected as an Observer previously in this phase. Select one enemy unit that is visible to both the firing unit and the Observer. That enemy unit is Spotted. While resolving ranged attacks against the Spotted unit, the firing unit gains blah blah blah.
vict0988 wrote: I like universal abilities, except for the fact that the ones a codex uses aren't in the codex.
...when did you get a sneak peek at a 10th ed Codex, out of interest?
to be fair codices have never give a USR list so it's proably a safe bet we won't see that change , even though I'd LOOOVE a referance page ion a codex that lists then, save on book flipping
The point being that seems a bit harsh to list something about a Codex as a dislike when we have no proof regarding whether a Codex will include a reference appendix within it.
Equally, this is a point that could've been resolved with reference sheets in Leviathan & starters.
chaos0xomega wrote: Your first 3 dislikes are essentially the same complaint, and also a pretty weak one. You still have plenty of "agency", you still have the option to choose your units and upgrades, including to choose to not take upgrades if you don't want to or to take units of arbitrary size. If you feel otherwise irs because you have chosen to surrender your agency to min/maxing and optimization of the points system, and that's really on you.
And you are actively punished in the rules for doing so.
He did not make a weak argument. Your attempts to explain away the total and utter failings of 10th's points/army construction rules are weak.
Yes thank you.
Most of the responses in this thread, positive and negative are excellent barring that one personal attack.
Anyway if I didn't love this game I would just walk out. Instead I think it is constructive to compile feedback for GW to read. They could tweak this thing in the right ways and make it a decent edition after all. Right now it is too restrictive and still at least equally imbalanced compared to 9th so whats the point of moving forward? I don't see any reason personally except to follow the herd mentality.
Also concerning to me is the obviously vastly under costed units many faction have received. I am assuming to spark some interest and give a template army to play. However we've been there before. These will get nerfed/recosted and then many of those indexes are gutted. Better to speak up now show support for what is liked and point out what is not.
I dislike the lack of points costs for options. I dislike the removal of options, including the removal of Warlord Traits and Relics. I mildly dislike how restrictive the rules are with which characters can join which units.
I like the 0 point swaps, but they need to do better/more to balance the options - because that feeds variety. I also dislike the removal of Warlord Traits and Relics - because again it feeds variety and customization.
I don't dislike it yet, but I think the huge numbers of combos in the game is going to make it very imbalanced, having an immortal unit of Necron Warriors has been fun the first couple of times, the third or tenth time?
I like the huge number of combos, and that they're usually 2-3 unit combos so you're going to have several in your army if you're paying attention. And I'm going to be even more in favor if they can keep all these combos juggling in the air so you actually can mix and match them without any combination of combinations ending up "auto-take".
Likes:
- the "buy in cost" being zero if you have models from a previous edition, in effect apart from the time to download and maybe print a few record sheets just pick up and play
- strategems being cut back, hated how using a bit of equipment or training a unit had got nerfed - they made sense for tactical ideas to show where a commanders focus was, but not "sorry lads we can't fire the guns, that lot over their did it first" stuff
Dislikes:
- lack of "printer friendly" version of the PDFs
I'm giving the download indexes being a bit bland a pass as they appear to be "gets you started" stuff so its fine
holding fire on point costs and fixed unit sizes to see if either change when the codexes come out
Very happy with:
*Core rules
*No more maintaining additional families of books for a small handful of models
Pretty happy with:
*Combat patrol looks good for quick games, low buy in cost for new armies
*New models looking great
Not particularly happy with:
*Consolidating things that had no business being consolidated (van vets entire arsenal, combi weapons probably the worst offenders)
*The usual amount of proofreading and QC
Very unhappy with:
*Doubling down on NMNR
*Taking the laziest route possible to simplified/standardised points
IMO the good outweighs the bad by a significant margin, but..
Spoiler:
There should be no such thing as NMNR, at no point in history have as many 40k models been in production as they have right now. GW could easily give minimal advice on how best to kitbash units, and boom - they sell kits and we have stuff we want.
If you want simple points, no problem. Just do min squad is X, +Y per additional model, +Z for upgrades notable enough to deserve premium points.
If you want simple points, no problem. Just do min squad is X, +Y per additional model, +Z for upgrades notable enough to deserve premium points.
You literally just described how points have previously worked. Your simple points is just how points worked for pretty much the entire lifetime of this game.
If you want simple points, no problem. Just do min squad is X, +Y per additional model, +Z for upgrades notable enough to deserve premium points.
You literally just described how points have previously worked. Your simple points is just how points worked for pretty much the entire lifetime of this game.
And?
People who don't have precisely the approved number of models - sucks to be you.
People who didn't hunt high and low for thunder hammers and lascannons on every model who could pack one - sucks to be you.
People who didn't build their £100+ per model knights packing all the extra missile launchers on - just tell them to git gud.
ArcaneHorror wrote: Oh ok, nvm. That makes sense and make things much better and more fun for listbuilding.
Yeah but it might be better if, like other units, you can take a max of 3 epic heroes. The ability to have more of them than any one type of generic character could be a bit silly.
Unhappy:
-From a getting new players in / enticing old players back perspective there is too much going on between cause and effect IMHO.
Seems like every roll is made twice, modified, subject to several layers of conditional bonuses, triggers, and extra dice rolling all the way down to unique and varied effects and profiles on every single unit...
If you want simple points, no problem. Just do min squad is X, +Y per additional model, +Z for upgrades notable enough to deserve premium points.
You literally just described how points have previously worked. Your simple points is just how points worked for pretty much the entire lifetime of this game.
And?
People who don't have precisely the approved number of models - sucks to be you. People who didn't hunt high and low for thunder hammers and lascannons on every model who could pack one - sucks to be you. People who didn't build their £100+ per model knights packing all the extra missile launchers on - just tell them to git gud.
Hey, I think these rules are trash, too. I am just pointing out that your "simple" points, presented as a middle ground between this current abdication of game design and the previous system, are literally just the points system that already existed.
LIKE
- Core rules seem simple enough
- Stat *cards*
- Free access to rules, cards and point costs
- AP and killiness has been toned down
- Strategies have been reigned in
- Everything released all at once
DISLIKE
- Point system is a joke
- Weapon USRs aren't printed out on the bottom/back of the cards
- Too many special abilities on various units
- Army building/outfitting is inconsistent way too complicated
- Once again, the baby has been thrown out with the bathwater, just to make things "different"
ArcaneHorror wrote: Oh ok, nvm. That makes sense and make things much better and more fun for listbuilding.
Yeah but it might be better if, like other units, you can take a max of 3 epic heroes. The ability to have more of them than any one type of generic character could be a bit silly.
Like
-I like most core rules and fixes to terrain etc
-the scenarios and missions are refreshing
Dislike
-points costs
-LoS less fire
-Devastating wounds and Critical wounds etc interactions
-inability to kill anything in the game, even stuff like IG infantry.
Overall this edition is full of changes I'm really happy with. I like the focus on toys over boys. I like giving different weapons different roles instead of trying to balance them out with points. I like the focused stratagems and wide array of list building options.
I think there's notable problems with the implementation. Some options just aren't compelling and players are still going to dominate by spamming whatever obviously underpriced option they can, but overall I like the direction and would have a lot of faith in it if I thought future releases would improve upon it rather than bloat it... but GW is almost certainly going to GW.
ArcaneHorror wrote: Oh ok, nvm. That makes sense and make things much better and more fun for listbuilding.
Yeah but it might be better if, like other units, you can take a max of 3 epic heroes. The ability to have more of them than any one type of generic character could be a bit silly.
This is the most egregious problem I've come across yet with 10th. It's so unbelievably idiotic it has to be a joke.
At this point just turn the game into a CCG already and quit with the pretense the "game' is about the miniatures.
Removal of psychic phase when more interaction was needed.
Psychic powers just becoming weapons pretty much, very boring to me.
loss of varied weapons for many units in a frankly nonsensical manner.
lack of universal special rules due to multiple similar rules with slight variations being on data sheets, either have USR's and use them or why bother.
- most of the core rules
- attaching heroes to units
- Agents of the Imperium
- some factions having very interesting and unique abilities that mechanically alter their game
Dislike:
- not being able to attach heroes to any unit within their category
- loss of granularity in list building
- glaring issues in the indices
The concept of streamlining psychic powers and removing the need for a "psychic phase".
The concept of returning to a stable base of Universal Special Rules.
The concept of removing bloat/the cognitive load of 9th Edition.
The concept of reducing the number of stratagems and giving each army a small amount relevant to the combat style of the detachment.
The concept of ditching Power Level in favour of a singular points system that everyone uses.
The concept of returning twin-linked to the game, rather than just doubling shots on everything.
The Screamer Killer entry. In toto.
Reductions on AP across the board.
Paying points for Warlord Traits/Relics.
Getting rid of the painful terrain rules from 9th.
Dislikes:
The execution of joining characters to units (heavily limiting who they can join, making it so that solo-characters are a liability and not a choice, giving solo characters no real purpose as they can be shot off the table instantly).
The execution of detachments defining an army (so far the ones we've seen really don't*, and the army/detachment rules are in a number of cases basically backwards when it comes to what's central to a faction eg. Oaths of Moment vs Combat Doctrines).
The execution of streamlining psychic powers (now either just glorified weird guns that have a rule that doesn't do anything ("Psychic"), or something that only works when leading a squad).
The execution of returning to a stable base of Universal Special Rules (sure, there are USRs, but then every fething unit has its own snowflake rule, many of which are repeated and could be USRs unto themselves).
The execution of removing bloat/the cognitive load of 9th Edition (overly zealous consolidation of things that did not need it, such as combi-weapons and relics, and the sheer inconsistency of it all - it's fine for Termagants to have Fleshborers, Devourers and Spinefists... but Emperor-forbid we show there's a difference between a Bonesword and a pair of Rending Claws!).
The execution of reducing the number of stratagems and giving each army a small amount relevant to the combat doctrines of the detachment (CP is such a limited resource that I fear most strats will be ignored in favour of the ones that are always useful, like Command Re-Rolls).
The execution of ditching Power Level in favour of a singular points system that everyone uses (they haven't - the current "points" are just Power Level 2.0, are super lazy, inherently imbalanced, and abso-fething-lutely tedious to use**).
The execution of returning twin-linked to the game, rather than just doubling shots on everything (I think it's too far in the other direction. Re-roll To Wound is nice, but the drastic loss of shots for many weapons is too much. I much prefer the old system that we came with back at the start of 4th Edition: re-roll to hit, but on a natural 6 To Hit, you get two hits - so basically Sustained Hits in the current rules, but with a re-roll To hit).
The Carnifex entry. In toto.
Leaving weapons behind in the great reshuffle (Melta-weapons especially, who have been the premiere short-ranged anti-tank gun of the game since the days of Rogue Trader... and now languish behind everything else. Fine if your faction has a wealth of other anti-tank options. Not so hot if you don't. Yes I'm talking about Sisters).
Not paying points for any other type of upgrade. Upgrades. Should. Not. Be. Free.
Introducing a newer type of painful cover rules in 10th. The cover and LOS rules in generally, really. Too simplistic, too broad. And they haven't shook the problems from 8th/9th (there needs to be a limit on what counts on being seen - tips of guns, back banners, tips of claws, antenne - none of these should make a target valid). Plus why doesn't terrain slow you down at all? And why are forests infinitely high? Why does plunging fire specify the 'ground', rather than a more logical distance between shooter and target?
Unknowns:
Missions seem pretty cool, but I'll have to wait until I play a few.
I like the sound of Battleshock, but I'll have to see it in practice.
I am wary about the 3 of anything as it seems less like a real attempt at giving structural freedom and more like a "Rules are hard!" abdication of any attempt at balance.
I like the rules of the melee section. That seems like a good revision of the previous two editions. Again, have to see it in practice to know.
*I know they're the baseline, but I'm referring mainly to Wolves/Templars/Dark Angels here.
**Making lists in 10th is a chore. Every day since the points have come out, before going to bed, I have put together a theoretical list or two (Marines and Tyranids). Every single time it ends with me going "Ok, what costs exactly X points as that's all I have left!" and going over the unhelpful alphabetical list hoping to find something that costs what I have left. Because all variation has been removed. I can't downgrade from a Lascannon to a Missile Launcher to get back 5 points that will let me bring something else. I can reduce a pair of Jump Pack Assault Squads to 8-men each, freeing up enough points for a transport or something somewhere else. It's completely unbalanced, it's absurd, it's stupid, it's inflexible and it is just tedious to use. Making lists was something I did for fun, even if I never intended to use them. Now it's just an exercise in frustration.
vict0988 wrote: Units with FLY not being able to hop over terrain seems weird, but I don't hate it, infantry still being able to move through walls makes it even more strange.
Flying units are often better going around terrain, which I think defeats the purpose of being able to fly.
ArcaneHorror wrote: Oh ok, nvm. That makes sense and make things much better and more fun for listbuilding.
Yeah but it might be better if, like other units, you can take a max of 3 epic heroes. The ability to have more of them than any one type of generic character could be a bit silly.
This is the most egregious problem I've come across yet with 10th. It's so unbelievably idiotic it has to be a joke.
At this point just turn the game into a CCG already and quit with the pretense the "game' is about the miniatures.
So you think...being able to USE the miniatures, means the game isn't about the miniatures anymore. That it would be MORE about the miniatures...if you left that at home. Where they're NOT in the game....
You didn't happen to grow up near a toxic waste dump, did you?
ArcaneHorror wrote: Oh ok, nvm. That makes sense and make things much better and more fun for listbuilding.
Yeah but it might be better if, like other units, you can take a max of 3 epic heroes. The ability to have more of them than any one type of generic character could be a bit silly.
This is the most egregious problem I've come across yet with 10th. It's so unbelievably idiotic it has to be a joke.
At this point just turn the game into a CCG already and quit with the pretense the "game' is about the miniatures.
So you think...being able to USE the miniatures, means the game isn't about the miniatures anymore. That it would be MORE about the miniatures...if you left that at home. Where they're NOT in the game....
You didn't happen to grow up near a toxic waste dump, did you?
did you?
I believe you have misunderstood...
Currently we have warGAME
I'd like it if it was WARGAME....see the difference.
If the game is the whole point then just have cardboard chits/tokens/cards. That way, when the fun-stapo come in and say "no fun for you", it's not really a big deal.
Or are you totally fine with the arbitrary and moronic restrictions?
Are you in the "Let's take 10 smash captains and feth the lore...." camp?
And now you get AoS and 40k to the detriment of the majority that didn't want to have to do anything with age of snore and its mechanics like the new pointssystem
Ya no.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: So you'd rather a different game change to suit what you like? I mean, I love BattleTech. I don't want 40k to be like BattleTech though.
I'm starting to see what people mean when they say that gatekeeping can be important...
Just as you don't accept everyone into a club or ochestra, or fancy restaurant with dresscode, etc., so should you not accept everyone into a gaming comunity.
Likes Battleshock is a neat idea and I'm glad to see they're trying to work it more into the game (which also leads to some upheavals with units previously immune or super high Leadership being very different than before).
Bringing USRs back, and letting characters join squads again
Easier to attain Terrain bonuses.
They actually made a lot of troops desirable without including a troop tax. Bravo
Dislikes Battleshock doesn't feel fully incorporated and I'm puzzled they had it automatically passed in your next Command phase. Could have been a really cool mechanic if you had to keep rolling to recover from battle shock in my opinion. Also, they really shot themselves in the foot by not using a broader array of leadership values, plus the weird oddities of Greyfax having a better leadership than a Primarch or Custodes.
So many copy-pasted rules on the different data sheets they really should have turned those into USRs as well.
TLOS still exists.
I was hoping for a less lethal edition with less rerolls. I have seen lethality go down for Tanks and I have seen rerolls go down for some factions (and thankfully the elimination of most Auras). But they certainly did not deliver what their marketing department promised.
H.B.M.C. wrote:So you'd rather a different game change to suit what you like? I mean, I love BattleTech. I don't want 40k to be like BattleTech though.
I'm starting to see what people mean when they say that gatekeeping can be important...
Hate to tell ya bud, but they have been stealing from AoS with 8th and 9th, and at no point did I say I would rather a different game change to suit what I like. I said I like that are making changes that move it in the direction of the better game, but I understand, reading comprehension is probably hard for you.
The "better game"? So HH?
Also, probably not best to challenge other's "reading comprehension", when basic math causes you such considerations.
As to now, where the AoS points system basically makes everyone NOT having stuck the whole bitzbox f.e. on a legionaire squad to pay the full points for that, whilest i could still be a "pedantic little gakker" and laugh at those that dind't? Also Rule 1 is a thing, look it up.
Not Online!!! wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote: So you'd rather a different game change to suit what you like? I mean, I love BattleTech. I don't want 40k to be like BattleTech though.
I'm starting to see what people mean when they say that gatekeeping can be important...
Just as you don't accept everyone into a club or ochestra, or fancy restaurant with dresscode, etc., so should you not accept everyone into a gaming comunity.
and you also win the award for most ignorant thing I have read today.
And another Rule 1. Listen the only thing ignorant here is your granted wish that 40k becomes AoS to the detriment of allready established 40k groups. just saying.
But nothing about this changed? Now everybody spends the same points, but you can still spot inferior or not taken upgrades?
Not Online!!! wrote: And another Rule 1. Listen the only thing ignorant here is your granted wish that 40k becomes AoS to the detriment of allready established 40k groups. just saying.
Somebody disagreeing with your position or telling you to stop nonsense accusations is not a violation of rule #1. Just hit the report button and let a mod decide if you feel offended.
But nothing about this changed? Now everybody spends the same points, but you can still spot inferior or not taken upgrades?
Not Online!!! wrote: And another Rule 1. Listen the only thing ignorant here is your granted wish that 40k becomes AoS to the detriment of allready established 40k groups. just saying.
Somebody disagreeing with your position or telling you to stop nonsense accusations is not a violation of rule #1. Just hit the report button and let a mod decide if you feel offended.
Calling someone ignorant because he doesn't want something to change and maintain established standards is hardly justifyable, and i'd have let it rest at that if it weren't for the ignorant bit.
The new points system is a bit annoying when you have to fill points and the only way you can do it is via enhancements.
I feel like they ratcheted back infantry-carried AT a bit too much. I know the corresponding boost in vehicle durability was much desired, but it's definitely a tradeoff they made. Not sure I'd call this a 'dislike' as something I need to adjust to. I'm probably going to buy a FOB, I guess.
Custom subfactions are also a loss for flavor, but not a huge one for me. The ones Guard had were often worse than just taking Born Soldiers lol.
Pros
Game flows fast.
List-building, aside from the points issue I mentioned, is easy.
The mechanics don't feel like it disincentivizes you from taking your standard dudes. I could take an Armored Company if I wanted to, but my 95th Rifles are a Recce Regiment, and I want to at least somewhat stick to that fluff.
As long as you ignore every single criticism that everyone has brought up since it was announced, sure.
To be fair, the number of posts is irrelevant. This is probably my 5th or 6th account here and I e been a member longer than all of you. Hell, I didn't see the point of joining up on Dakka at first because ... Why join Dakka when I was physically standing in Dakka Dakka.
I'd say the only complaint is that so far Battleshock feels very anemic.
Personally I like that the points have been simplified, but I also like AoS so take from that what you will.
I've seen suggestions to make battleshock last until the next command phase so that out of phase battleshock can have a larger impact outside stopping end of turn scoring. I'm waiting to play under GT conditions to see how I feel about it.
H.B.M.C. wrote:So you'd rather a different game change to suit what you like? I mean, I love BattleTech. I don't want 40k to be like BattleTech though.
I'm starting to see what people mean when they say that gatekeeping can be important...
Hate to tell ya bud, but they have been stealing from AoS with 8th and 9th, and at no point did I say I would rather a different game change to suit what I like. I said I like that are making changes that move it in the direction of the better game, but I understand, reading comprehension is probably hard for you.
The "better game"? So HH?
Also, probably not best to challenge other's "reading comprehension", when basic math causes you such considerations.
Horus Heresy also isn't good. It's just propped up by only having one faction and about 15 players.
As long as you ignore every single criticism that everyone has brought up since it was announced, sure.
Kinda cuts both ways, many people ignore the positive criticism for the new points system too. It's just polarizing, no reason to rustle jimmies over the internet on.
Top 3 likes/dislikes:
Likes: 1) The new point system - I prefer my minute war gear option point systems in smaller scale games, 40k is too large now.
2) The reduction of faction rules on top of rules on top of rules. Ideally all of the rules for a given unit will be present on their data-card, but that isn't GW m.o. so I'll settle for a vast reduction than complete removal
3) Reduced CP generation and reduced stratagem dependency for unit power.
Dislikes: 1) Power scaling on index release - some factions are vastly more powerful than others and it indicates there is likely little discussion between the individual rules teams.
2) The adherence to the strength vs toughness comparisons that 8th introduced as opposed to reverting back to a simpler algorithm like HH or 7th had. These strength values are just getting more and more bloated as the toughness scales up since you NEED 2x t to wound on 2s, I only see this scaling harder more as they stick with this mess of a system.
3) The scaling toughness made many historically "anti-tank" weapons rather bad at their job. These weapon types likely should have been given "Anti-Tank 4+"
Not to defend the other guy, but all what having 50,000 posts says about you is that you have too much time on your hands, we shouldn't be taking anyones post count as a measure of the value of someones input.
I started writing up an extensive likes / dislikes post for 10th edition, based purely on a rules read. But who am I kidding, I'm not going to play it (old hammer, Prohammer, etc...)!
That said, any motivation I might have had to play it is totally dead because of the point (aka power level) system used.
Sorry GW, but not having points-per-model and the flexibility to fine-tune unit size is just such a colossal brain fart that 10th edition is a non-starter for me. For whatever reason, I despise running 5-model units and almost always use 6 on the low end, and that's just kinda impossible now in many situations. Such a weird change given the legacy of this game and how much of the community (casual and competitive alike) hinges their engagement on list building, which has just been neutered.
I guess they can change this down the road by providing PPMs or even costs for certain war gear upgrades, but it's just strange.
Like:
- USRs - apparently simple detachment rules
- unit special rules
- overall following the paradigma of 8th/9th with pretty straightforward base rules instead of the bloated mess I experienced in 6th/7th
- free rules and Indizes
- free points
- crusade still around
- morale seems to apply to everyone, not just orks and Tau
- legends got updated
- reduced lethality (needs testing though)
Dislike:
- there will be an edition change in 3 years for no good reason, changing some things needlessly instead of refining them
- I liked the psychic rules from 8th/ 9th, look like an afterthought now, waiting for a DLC
- no points for upgrades
- no models no rules
- options following Box, but when you're lucky they don’t
- grenade strat... in for another DLC - handling of the Chaos faction...gets worse every edition, even additional Codizes don’t save us and announcements of new models makes you wonder what you'll lose access to next
- still IGOUGO
To be honest a lot of the rules and changes seem cool but the things I don't like I absolutely detest and it might stop me from playing this edition at all. Like I can't even describe how much I dislike the push for character spam, especially with my army, Necrons. That just isn't 40k to me.
I also really don't like the unit size restrictions. These two things together are a big slap in the face to player freedom in list building
Character spam wouldn't be such a thing if there was a reason not to join characters to units. But as it stands, most characters on their own cannot hide and provide no benefits to their forces as all of that is tied to joining units (even many psychic powers). I've got a list for an uncoming game where the main point was to include everything from the Leviathan box, and I just cannot include the Termy Libby as there's just no place for him. He's a liability, not an asset, as he has no unit to lead and his main benefit is lost when he's not leading a unit!
Mezmorki wrote: That said, any motivation I might have had to play it is totally dead because of the point (aka power level) system used.
It really is all it took, right? I've been jazzed about trying out 10th, getting the Levithan box, digging into the new mission deck (like the Open War/Tempest of War decks we have right now), finally getting a proper expansion for my 'Nids for the first time in almost a decade.
And then... *exhale*
The "points" system came out, and the wind was taken from my sales so hard it caused a vacuum and my ship went backwards!
Like I said earlier in the thread, making 10th Ed lists is an absolute chore. To repeat myself, I've been attempting to make 'Nid and Marine lists each night and last night I just gave up. "What costs 50 points? Oh, nothing? Cool. So, I can either come in under points, or drop something else and hope that the next jigsaw piece I pick up actually fits this puzzle!"
The lack of flexibility is what gets to me. As I have said, I used to love building lists just for the fun of it, even if I never intended to use the list. Come up with a theme, or pick a unit that I like and see if I can build a list around that, and then try to make it work - make sacrifices, find new ideas and try them - and see where it gets me. The ability to tweak squad sizes or downgrade weapons is a huge part of that, part of the tweaking that makes list building so much fun for so many people ("I don't have enough for another Dread... but what if I dropped one Aggressor from that unit? Sure they'll be weaker, but I'll have the points!").
And the Razorback is utterly unusable! With the loss of Combat Squads (a rule that, bizarrely, other armies get for their transports), the inability to take 5-man Tactical Squads, and the fact Sternguard are always Tacticus now (invalidating all my Sternguard minis... so thanks GW for that little gem! ) the amount of units you can use a Razorback with has shrunk dramatically.
chaos0xomega wrote: Not to defend the other guy, but all what having 50,000 posts says about you is that you have too much time on your hands, we shouldn't be taking anyones post count as a measure of the value of someones input.
You and the other guy missed the point of why I highlighted the low post count completely. The point wasn't "low post count = not worth listening to". It was "low post count = probably shouldn't start his Dakka career with such angry wild swinging posts."
To perhaps use a different metaphor: Shooting stars burn brightly. And quickly.
I like bringing back USRs and the claim that they'll be keeping army factions a lot more self contained, so that you don't need fifty different books.
I dislike the forced points=power level thing. One of the reasons that I don't like it that isn't a rehash is that it also makes turns take way longer. When your units all have some extra, single weapon, that weapon needs to be rolled separately. In the same time it takes to resolve one of these weapons, you can also roll for your 19 lasguns. Or boltguns or whatever. Now it's stupid not to take the better gun, but that better gun takes a bunch of extra time to handle, multiplied by every single unit.
ERJAK wrote: Horus Heresy also isn't good. It's just propped up by only having one faction and about 15 players.
You really should talk to a professional about these delusions, ERJAK.
Hey man, it's okay. This is a safe place.You don't have to pretend like Horus Heresy isn't just another GW game but with boring models and the same boring faction repeated 20 times. We're all friends here.
The main thing that stuck out to me as nothing improving with 10e when looking at the various rule drops earlier was the dice volume has not changed. They have superficially claimed and attempted to adjust lethality somewhat, yet they did nothing to reduce the volume of dice being thrown around which is where the bulk of 40k's ridiculous lethality and protracted game time comes from. What might have tempted me to get back into 40k is if they rolled back the absurd bloat of attacks and marines went back to just 1 attack default, multishot weapons rolled back to an average of only 1-2 attacks, etc.
Likewise, positioning and movement have not changed at all from 8e or 9e notably, maintaining their archaic status from over thirty years ago. Battleshock is a positive move forward but hardly goes far enough, and without suppressive rules hardly makes sense, units being unable to score is the bare minimum of 'suppressed' or 'shaken' effects expected in a wargame. The fact templates aren't coming back either is disappointing, as is vehicles being magical black boxes with no weaknesses on angles (monsters too for that matter) feeling like a dim choice that prevents older depth from returning. Overall it just looks like a really dumb beer and pretzels version of 8e, only with more imbalances, lethality, and extremely poor editorial work. Woo?
Also regarding GW's desire to streamline the game, I find this old blog post hilarious because, operating on 7th edition rules mind, this change of system would eliminate over half of all dice rolled, greatly speeding up the game, while causing zero statistical shift in unit performance. As I've come to realize though a good system like this likely will never come to pass simply because GW are not a games company, but a model company. Innovation after all, is heresy.
Yeah, they all feel like marines. Because they're all marines. Shocking.
Two 40k players in the local group gave up on picking up heresy because they were confused and scarred by the faction diversity, since the armies actually play differently.
My main problem with 30k is both being really disinterested with 40k fluff permanently now, but that aesthetically they're largely the same armies up against each other (which tbh is a problem with 40k as well half the time). Picking up the marines vs marines game with small subfactions on the side when you're already used to seeing marine releases up to your eyeballs is a rough sell and feels kinda dull.
Wyzilla wrote: My main problem with 30k is both being really disinterested with 40k fluff permanently now, but that aesthetically they're largely the same armies up against each other (which tbh is a problem with 40k as well half the time). Picking up the marines vs marines game with small subfactions on the side when you're already used to seeing marine releases up to your eyeballs is a rough sell and feels kinda dull.
I don't disagree with this too much - convergent design is likely a consequence of battlefield requirements being similar too. So I suppose it gets a pass from me - a T-34 and a Panzer IV are about as different as a Predator and a Leman Russ.
Wyzilla wrote: The main thing that stuck out to me as nothing improving with 10e when looking at the various rule drops earlier was the dice volume has not changed. They have superficially claimed and attempted to adjust lethality somewhat, yet they did nothing to reduce the volume of dice being thrown around which is where the bulk of 40k's ridiculous lethality and protracted game time comes from. What might have tempted me to get back into 40k is if they rolled back the absurd bloat of attacks and marines went back to just 1 attack default, multishot weapons rolled back to an average of only 1-2 attacks, etc.
Likewise, positioning and movement have not changed at all from 8e or 9e notably, maintaining their archaic status from over thirty years ago. Battleshock is a positive move forward but hardly goes far enough, and without suppressive rules hardly makes sense, units being unable to score is the bare minimum of 'suppressed' or 'shaken' effects expected in a wargame. The fact templates aren't coming back either is disappointing, as is vehicles being magical black boxes with no weaknesses on angles (monsters too for that matter) feeling like a dim choice that prevents older depth from returning. Overall it just looks like a really dumb beer and pretzels version of 8e, only with more imbalances, lethality, and extremely poor editorial work. Woo?
Also regarding GW's desire to streamline the game, I find this old blog post hilarious because, operating on 7th edition rules mind, this change of system would eliminate over half of all dice rolled, greatly speeding up the game, while causing zero statistical shift in unit performance. As I've come to realize though a good system like this likely will never come to pass simply because GW are not a games company, but a model company. Innovation after all, is heresy.
Wyzilla wrote: My main problem with 30k is both being really disinterested with 40k fluff permanently now, but that aesthetically they're largely the same armies up against each other (which tbh is a problem with 40k as well half the time). Picking up the marines vs marines game with small subfactions on the side when you're already used to seeing marine releases up to your eyeballs is a rough sell and feels kinda dull.
Mr. Night Lords might like his chaos armies with all the chaos picked clean from them but I just cannot abide by Thousand Sons without Rubrics or Iron Warriors without Obliterators. 30k is just not a setting I would ever be interested in and frankly I doubt many people would be interested in it if it wasn't for 40k.
Wyzilla wrote: The main thing that stuck out to me as nothing improving with 10e when looking at the various rule drops earlier was the dice volume has not changed. They have superficially claimed and attempted to adjust lethality somewhat, yet they did nothing to reduce the volume of dice being thrown around which is where the bulk of 40k's ridiculous lethality and protracted game time comes from. What might have tempted me to get back into 40k is if they rolled back the absurd bloat of attacks and marines went back to just 1 attack default, multishot weapons rolled back to an average of only 1-2 attacks, etc.
I like the return of USRs and the general reduction in stratagems. I like the new Faction/Detachment system as a way of managing future bloat (assuming GW stick to their word on how they'll do it).
My dislikes are almost all around the points and list building. The PL 2.0 points system is unbelievably stupid for reasons that have been very extensively explored, not helped by the patronising corporate-speak WarCom post about it. Other than the points, I'm also finding it incredibly annoying to build lists, for two reasons.
1. The fixed points makes it frustratingly easy to end up with an annoying number of points left and no way to fill them. That means either playing a lot of points down or doing a massive list reorganisation to fit something different in. Previously it was usually a matter of adjusting unit sizes or upgrades across a few units.
2. This may just be down to the PDFs of the datacards, but going through the various units and checking which characters can join which units, what their abilities are, and how they interact with the abilities of units they can join is a real chore. It may get easier as I build more lists and understand which characters go best with each unit but right now it's a really laborious process.
Other than points and list issues, the balance looks to be all over the place. This is the problem with GW trashing their system every so often - they start from scratch again, apparently after having been mindwiped to forget any and all lessons of previous editions (why do so many indirect fire weapons ignore the penalties, for example?)
2. This may just be down to the PDFs of the datacards, but going through the various units and checking which characters can join which units, what their abilities are, and how they interact with the abilities of units they can join is a real chore. It may get easier as I build more lists and understand which characters go best with each unit but right now it's a really laborious process.
Yeah, they all feel like marines. Because they're all marines. Shocking.
Two 40k players in the local group gave up on picking up heresy because they were confused and scarred by the faction diversity, since the armies actually play differently.
Even different Militia armies play differently.
What? How? did they let their hobby knife lie openly?
2. This may just be down to the PDFs of the datacards, but going through the various units and checking which characters can join which units, what their abilities are, and how they interact with the abilities of units they can join is a real chore. It may get easier as I build more lists and understand which characters go best with each unit but right now it's a really laborious process.
Just type up your own reference list.
I can do that, but it seems unnecessarily laborious. I think the biggest problem is things like Chaplains. Previously they all had the same rules, with slightly different stats. The same applied to Captains, Apothecaries, etc. Now I need to know the individual rules for each different type of character. Then I also need to know which units they can join, and what special rule they have (because they all have one!). It's just more to learn overall and seems needlessly frustrating.
Wyzilla wrote: The main thing that stuck out to me as nothing improving with 10e when looking at the various rule drops earlier was the dice volume has not changed. They have superficially claimed and attempted to adjust lethality somewhat, yet they did nothing to reduce the volume of dice being thrown around which is where the bulk of 40k's ridiculous lethality and protracted game time comes from. What might have tempted me to get back into 40k is if they rolled back the absurd bloat of attacks and marines went back to just 1 attack default, multishot weapons rolled back to an average of only 1-2 attacks, etc.
This is kind of a bad take as GW cut in half the number of dice that something like half the weapons in the game can roll by bringing back the concept of "twin-linked" (and applying it to the wound roll rather than the to-hit roll as was the case in older editions), instead of the 8th and 9th edition paradigm of treating those weapons as a multiple of the base weapon.
Wyzilla wrote: The main thing that stuck out to me as nothing improving with 10e when looking at the various rule drops earlier was the dice volume has not changed. They have superficially claimed and attempted to adjust lethality somewhat, yet they did nothing to reduce the volume of dice being thrown around which is where the bulk of 40k's ridiculous lethality and protracted game time comes from. What might have tempted me to get back into 40k is if they rolled back the absurd bloat of attacks and marines went back to just 1 attack default, multishot weapons rolled back to an average of only 1-2 attacks, etc.
This is kind of a bad take as GW cut in half the number of dice that something like half the weapons in the game can roll by bringing back the concept of "twin-linked" (and applying it to the wound roll rather than the to-hit roll as was the case in older editions), instead of the 8th and 9th edition paradigm of treating those weapons as a multiple of the base weapon.
Besides the user-unfriendly points, "Twin-linked" is one of my biggest gripes. Halving the amount of shots to give a reroll to wound...I don't think I've come across a situation in game where I'd rather have a reroll to wound vs. the chance to hit twice.
Wyzilla wrote: The main thing that stuck out to me as nothing improving with 10e when looking at the various rule drops earlier was the dice volume has not changed. They have superficially claimed and attempted to adjust lethality somewhat, yet they did nothing to reduce the volume of dice being thrown around which is where the bulk of 40k's ridiculous lethality and protracted game time comes from. What might have tempted me to get back into 40k is if they rolled back the absurd bloat of attacks and marines went back to just 1 attack default, multishot weapons rolled back to an average of only 1-2 attacks, etc.
This is kind of a bad take as GW cut in half the number of dice that something like half the weapons in the game can roll by bringing back the concept of "twin-linked" (and applying it to the wound roll rather than the to-hit roll as was the case in older editions), instead of the 8th and 9th edition paradigm of treating those weapons as a multiple of the base weapon.
Again, that is a perception thing, just as the reroll cut is a perception thing. Sure GW has massively reduced Rerolls in 40k, but when you know how the older edtions played it still is far too many.
ERJAK wrote: Horus Heresy also isn't good. It's just propped up by only having one faction and about 15 players.
You really should talk to a professional about these delusions, ERJAK.
Hey man, it's okay. This is a safe place.You don't have to pretend like Horus Heresy isn't just another GW game but with boring models and the same boring faction repeated 20 times. We're all friends here.
ERJAK wrote: Horus Heresy also isn't good. It's just propped up by only having one faction and about 15 players.
You really should talk to a professional about these delusions, ERJAK.
Yeah, they don't get it.
30k has my armies actually feeling like they should rather than the gak show that was 9th and now even worse dumpster fire that's upon us.
Only problem in 30k is no xenos(can be rectified).
Yeah, they all feel like marines. Because they're all marines. Shocking.
I'll admit my Salamanders and Emperors Children are Marines so you've got me there. But Militia are Marines? Ad/Mechanicum/us are Marines? Daemons are Marines? Man I really must be playing the game wrong or completely don't understand the stupidity of your statement(thankfully).
So only 2 of my 5 armies I play(no ork rules yet so that would be 6) are Marines, but funnily enuff they ACTUALLY play COMPLETELY different.
Again, that is a perception thing, just as the reroll cut is a perception thing. Sure GW has massively reduced Rerolls in 40k, but when you know how the older edtions played it still is far too many.
Lets just say that GW was very unequal when cutting out re-rolls. In GK everyone lost them, not even Draigo gives re-rolls. On the other hand there are armies that re-rolls everything or almost everything, or just the important stuff. I think people would mind it less to lose their own re-rolls, if other armies didn't kept theirs or had them enhanced.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 810347 11553720 wrote:
Quite a few weapons got shots halved.
Fight twice/shoot twice been going down.
I'm rerolling less dice.
Yes, but that was done to armies that ended up bad. The good armies are still throwing buckets of dice out of LoS, with bonuses, or do devastating wounds, kill stuff in overwatch etc. Although one does have to say that resiliance for some stuff was buffed up too. Vehicles are tough. Wraights for eldar are extremly hard to kill you have to do in more then 2 per turn, or they regenerate by the time it is next turn. It all is just creates an odd sitaution when the haves are blowing whole armies up, and there have to be terrain rules changed, while other armies are fishing for 6s .
Wyzilla wrote: The main thing that stuck out to me as nothing improving with 10e when looking at the various rule drops earlier was the dice volume has not changed. They have superficially claimed and attempted to adjust lethality somewhat, yet they did nothing to reduce the volume of dice being thrown around which is where the bulk of 40k's ridiculous lethality and protracted game time comes from. What might have tempted me to get back into 40k is if they rolled back the absurd bloat of attacks and marines went back to just 1 attack default, multishot weapons rolled back to an average of only 1-2 attacks, etc.
This is kind of a bad take as GW cut in half the number of dice that something like half the weapons in the game can roll by bringing back the concept of "twin-linked" (and applying it to the wound roll rather than the to-hit roll as was the case in older editions), instead of the 8th and 9th edition paradigm of treating those weapons as a multiple of the base weapon.
In 9th edition a Predator with 4 lascannons needed to roll 4 dice to hit and 4 dice to wound. A quad las Predator in 10th needs to roll 1 dice to hit, 1 dice to wound, re-roll the wound roll, roll 2 more dice to hit and roll to wound with those two dice, terrible game design. Where might re-rolling speed up the game? In cases where the alternative is rolling huge numbers of dice, but do Ork Boys have twin-linked as opposed to 40+ attacks? That's not mentioning that twin-linked does not have the same outcome as twice the shots, twin-linked is now an anti-vehicle keyword.
In 9th edition a Predator with 4 lascannons needed to roll 4 dice to hit and 4 dice to wound. A quad las Predator in 10th needs to roll 1 dice to hit, 1 dice to wound, re-roll the wound roll, roll 2 more dice to hit and roll to wound with those two dice, terrible game design. Where might re-rolling speed up the game? In cases where the alternative is rolling huge numbers of dice, but do Ork Boys have twin-linked as opposed to 40+ attacks? That's not mentioning that twin-linked does not have the same outcome as twice the shots, twin-linked is now an anti-vehicle keyword.
Nope. Only 1/3 las canons is twin linked. So you can speed roll hit and damage for the sponson canons just like 9th.
For the turret, you only get one shot, but if your first attempt to wound fails, you get a second attempt. Assuming that SOME of your turret shots wound on the first attempt, you're actually rolling fewer dice in 10th (though you're also only getting 3 shots instead of 4).
I personally like this in a higher toughness meta better than 4 shots, especially when I split fire. I could throw the sponson shot at <=T12 where I need 4's to wound and throw the sponson at >T12 where I need 5's. In 9th, any of my 4 shots was as good as any of the others, so there's no capacity to match the right weapon to the job, you're just picking targets.
I should note: as per the predator annihilator datacard, any wounding hit DOES reroll 1's on damage, so you do potentially get more dice there.
Yeah, they all feel like marines. Because they're all marines. Shocking.
Two 40k players in the local group gave up on picking up heresy because they were confused and scarred by the faction diversity, since the armies actually play differently.
Even different Militia armies play differently.
Yeah, some marines punch marines, some marines shoot marines. Very diverse. Sure are.
Wyzilla wrote: The main thing that stuck out to me as nothing improving with 10e when looking at the various rule drops earlier was the dice volume has not changed. They have superficially claimed and attempted to adjust lethality somewhat, yet they did nothing to reduce the volume of dice being thrown around which is where the bulk of 40k's ridiculous lethality and protracted game time comes from. What might have tempted me to get back into 40k is if they rolled back the absurd bloat of attacks and marines went back to just 1 attack default, multishot weapons rolled back to an average of only 1-2 attacks, etc.
This is kind of a bad take as GW cut in half the number of dice that something like half the weapons in the game can roll by bringing back the concept of "twin-linked" (and applying it to the wound roll rather than the to-hit roll as was the case in older editions), instead of the 8th and 9th edition paradigm of treating those weapons as a multiple of the base weapon.
Besides the user-unfriendly points, "Twin-linked" is one of my biggest gripes. Halving the amount of shots to give a reroll to wound...I don't think I've come across a situation in game where I'd rather have a reroll to wound vs. the chance to hit twice.
Gods, I would. Re-rolling to hit and then failing to wound anyway is a pinnacle 'feels bad' moment, especially on bigger guns.
The further steps away from attack resolution, the less valuable the dice, because there's another failure point coming up. With attack rolls, I'd much rather just have more attacks than re-rolls.
ERJAK wrote: Horus Heresy also isn't good. It's just propped up by only having one faction and about 15 players.
You really should talk to a professional about these delusions, ERJAK.
Hey man, it's okay. This is a safe place.You don't have to pretend like Horus Heresy isn't just another GW game but with boring models and the same boring faction repeated 20 times. We're all friends here.
ERJAK wrote: Horus Heresy also isn't good. It's just propped up by only having one faction and about 15 players.
You really should talk to a professional about these delusions, ERJAK.
Yeah, they don't get it.
30k has my armies actually feeling like they should rather than the gak show that was 9th and now even worse dumpster fire that's upon us.
Only problem in 30k is no xenos(can be rectified).
Yeah, they all feel like marines. Because they're all marines. Shocking.
I'll admit my Salamanders and Emperors Children are Marines so you've got me there. But Militia are Marines? Ad/Mechanicum/us are Marines? Daemons are Marines? Man I really must be playing the game wrong or completely don't understand the stupidity of your statement(thankfully).
So only 2 of my 5 armies I play(no ork rules yet so that would be 6) are Marines, but funnily enuff they ACTUALLY play COMPLETELY different.
It's cool that they let you play the NPC factions, even though they don't matter. Hey when your punch marines punch your other punch marines, do you still just fill in an excel spreadsheet because initiative as a rule removes player agency and renders you a spectator to your own game?
In 9th edition a Predator with 4 lascannons needed to roll 4 dice to hit and 4 dice to wound. A quad las Predator in 10th needs to roll 1 dice to hit, 1 dice to wound, re-roll the wound roll, roll 2 more dice to hit and roll to wound with those two dice, terrible game design. Where might re-rolling speed up the game? In cases where the alternative is rolling huge numbers of dice, but do Ork Boys have twin-linked as opposed to 40+ attacks? That's not mentioning that twin-linked does not have the same outcome as twice the shots, twin-linked is now an anti-vehicle keyword.
Nope. Only 1/3 las canons is twin linked. So you can speed roll hit and damage for the sponson canons just like 9th.
For the turret, you only get one shot, but if your first attempt to wound fails, you get a second attempt. Assuming that SOME of your turret shots wound on the first attempt, you're actually rolling fewer dice in 10th (though you're also only getting 3 shots instead of 4).
I personally like this in a higher toughness meta better than 4 shots, especially when I split fire. I could throw the sponson shot at <=T12 where I need 4's to wound and throw the sponson at >T12 where I need 5's. In 9th, any of my 4 shots was as good as any of the others, so there's no capacity to match the right weapon to the job, you're just picking targets.
I should note: as per the predator annihilator datacard, any wounding hit DOES reroll 1's on damage, so you do potentially get more dice there.
You are rolling dice up to 6 times now because the twin-linked weapon cannot be rolled together with the sponsons, before you rolled dice 2 times, you might be rolling fewer dice at a time, but it is still takes far longer overall. If you could just roll 10 dice once to see how much damage a Predator did then that would be the fastest way of the three methods.
Wyzilla wrote: The main thing that stuck out to me as nothing improving with 10e when looking at the various rule drops earlier was the dice volume has not changed. They have superficially claimed and attempted to adjust lethality somewhat, yet they did nothing to reduce the volume of dice being thrown around which is where the bulk of 40k's ridiculous lethality and protracted game time comes from. What might have tempted me to get back into 40k is if they rolled back the absurd bloat of attacks and marines went back to just 1 attack default, multishot weapons rolled back to an average of only 1-2 attacks, etc.
This is kind of a bad take as GW cut in half the number of dice that something like half the weapons in the game can roll by bringing back the concept of "twin-linked" (and applying it to the wound roll rather than the to-hit roll as was the case in older editions), instead of the 8th and 9th edition paradigm of treating those weapons as a multiple of the base weapon.
Besides the user-unfriendly points, "Twin-linked" is one of my biggest gripes. Halving the amount of shots to give a reroll to wound...I don't think I've come across a situation in game where I'd rather have a reroll to wound vs. the chance to hit twice.
The whole point is to reduce lethality...
Guess you could just halve the shots and not give anything back
But you can't reduce lethality without making weapons actually worse at killing stuff. So removing shots is right step. It also fastens up game as a bonus.
Wyzilla wrote: The main thing that stuck out to me as nothing improving with 10e when looking at the various rule drops earlier was the dice volume has not changed. They have superficially claimed and attempted to adjust lethality somewhat, yet they did nothing to reduce the volume of dice being thrown around which is where the bulk of 40k's ridiculous lethality and protracted game time comes from. What might have tempted me to get back into 40k is if they rolled back the absurd bloat of attacks and marines went back to just 1 attack default, multishot weapons rolled back to an average of only 1-2 attacks, etc.
This is kind of a bad take as GW cut in half the number of dice that something like half the weapons in the game can roll by bringing back the concept of "twin-linked" (and applying it to the wound roll rather than the to-hit roll as was the case in older editions), instead of the 8th and 9th edition paradigm of treating those weapons as a multiple of the base weapon.
In 9th edition a Predator with 4 lascannons needed to roll 4 dice to hit and 4 dice to wound. A quad las Predator in 10th needs to roll 1 dice to hit, 1 dice to wound, re-roll the wound roll, roll 2 more dice to hit and roll to wound with those two dice, terrible game design. Where might re-rolling speed up the game? In cases where the alternative is rolling huge numbers of dice, but do Ork Boys have twin-linked as opposed to 40+ attacks? That's not mentioning that twin-linked does not have the same outcome as twice the shots, twin-linked is now an anti-vehicle keyword.
Aah yes. You are always going to roll for wound. Always going to reroll.
And wtf? You add up dices for OTHER WEAPONS to other weapons?
Okay so 9e you had total of 8 dice total.
Here you then 3 dice to hit, 3 dice to wound, 1 dice to reroll so 7 dice total.
Of course somehow you always fail to wound on first roll...
Lol.
Your method is flat out wrong. You got halved shots on 1 gun. The other guns are same so no change there. So right there you get halved hit dice amount which means you will roll less wound rolls also and of course the reroll doesn't even come to play.
Funny how you factor in sponson weapons only for 10e dice rolling but conveniently ignored them for 9e. Bad faith argument and twisting of numbers to max Any reasonable person doesn't even factor sponsons when talking does change to the main gun add or reduce dice rolling.
tneva82 wrote: Here you then 3 dice to hit, 3 dice to wound, 1 dice to reroll so 7 dice total.
You can't mix the twin-linked (TL) with the non-TL weapons because you don't get to re-roll all wound rolls on the sponsons, only the 1s. But I guess cheaters like you don't care about rules. The fact is you can't mix the sponsons with the non-sponsons and you get re-rolls where you did not have re-rolls before, so rolling attacks for a quad las Predator is going to take longer. I even forgot the re-roll 1s for the sponsons so I was clearly not doing anything to the MAX.
Previously you had to roll to hit 100% of the time roll to wound 99% of the time. Either way it's done really fast.
Now you have a 100% chance of rolling to hit for the TL lascannon with a 44% chance of rolling to wound once, 22% chance of rolling to wound twice. 100% chance of rolling to hit for the lascannon sponsons, 68% chance of rolling to wound once for the lascannon sponsons 21% chance of rolling to wound twice for the lascannon sponsons.
On average you needed to pick up your dice 1,99 times (1-2 times in total) in 9th edition, 3,98 times (2-6 times) in 10th. What a devil I am with my math, clearly this is great game design /sarcasm.
tneva82 wrote: Here you then 3 dice to hit, 3 dice to wound, 1 dice to reroll so 7 dice total.
You can't mix the twin-linked (TL) with the non-TL weapons because you don't get to re-roll all wound rolls on the sponsons, only the 1s. But I guess cheaters like you don't care about rules. The fact is you can't mix the sponsons with the non-sponsons and you get re-rolls where you did not have re-rolls before, so rolling attacks for a quad las Predator is going to take longer. I even forgot the re-roll 1s for the sponsons so I was clearly not doing anything to the MAX.
Previously you had to roll to hit 100% of the time roll to wound 99% of the time. Either way it's done really fast.
Now you have a 100% chance of rolling to hit for the TL lascannon with a 44% chance of rolling to wound once, 22% chance of rolling to wound twice. 100% chance of rolling to hit for the lascannon sponsons, 68% chance of rolling to wound once for the lascannon sponsons 21% chance of rolling to wound twice for the lascannon sponsons.
On average you needed to pick up your dice 1,99 times (1-2 times in total) in 9th edition, 3,98 times (2-6 times) in 10th. What a devil I am with my math, clearly this is great game design /sarcasm.
Your mind is going to be blown when you discover the concept of differently coloured dice.
tneva82 wrote: Here you then 3 dice to hit, 3 dice to wound, 1 dice to reroll so 7 dice total.
You can't mix the twin-linked (TL) with the non-TL weapons because you don't get to re-roll all wound rolls on the sponsons, only the 1s. But I guess cheaters like you don't care about rules. The fact is you can't mix the sponsons with the non-sponsons and you get re-rolls where you did not have re-rolls before, so rolling attacks for a quad las Predator is going to take longer. I even forgot the re-roll 1s for the sponsons so I was clearly not doing anything to the MAX.
Previously you had to roll to hit 100% of the time roll to wound 99% of the time. Either way it's done really fast.
Now you have a 100% chance of rolling to hit for the TL lascannon with a 44% chance of rolling to wound once, 22% chance of rolling to wound twice. 100% chance of rolling to hit for the lascannon sponsons, 68% chance of rolling to wound once for the lascannon sponsons 21% chance of rolling to wound twice for the lascannon sponsons.
On average you needed to pick up your dice 1,99 times (1-2 times in total) in 9th edition, 3,98 times (2-6 times) in 10th. What a devil I am with my math, clearly this is great game design /sarcasm.
Your mind is going to be blown when you discover the concept of differently coloured dice.
Yeah, I totally missed that in the core rules, was it page 37 or 42? /sarcasm Bad rules are bad whether you can hack the game to work around them or not. Like FNP against multi-Damage weapons is atrocious even if you can just re-roll successful FNP rolls for D2 weapons if your unit is made up of 1W models. Here's an idea, quad las Predators were not a problem, the fact that they got 2 extra Toughness makes up for the fact that lascannons got an extra point of damage, so they still wouldn't become glass cannons or something like that. Here's an idea, 4 lascannons, no re-rolls and an ability that adds 2 to the Strength of ranged weapons. Simplified, not simping.
It's cool that they let you play the NPC factions, even though they don't matter. Hey when your punch marines punch your other punch marines, do you still just fill in an excel spreadsheet because initiative as a rule removes player agency and renders you a spectator to your own game?
Stahp ERJAK, you just keep digging the hole deeper. You're usually right when discussing things you are knowledgeable about; you are obviously not knowledgeable about 30k.
As long as you ignore every single criticism that everyone has brought up since it was announced, sure.
To be fair, the number of posts is irrelevant. This is probably my 5th or 6th account here and I e been a member longer than all of you.
Prove it.
I actually took some time and forgot to take a screenshot while caught up in a journey down memory lane.
Uh ... You can use the Wayback Machine to look at Dakka pre-2006 and see pics of me at some of the mega-battles. Mostly Armageddon 3 and the Tyranid Invasion.
As long as you ignore every single criticism that everyone has brought up since it was announced, sure.
To be fair, the number of posts is irrelevant. This is probably my 5th or 6th account here and I e been a member longer than all of you.
Prove it.
I actually took some time and forgot to take a screenshot while caught up in a journey down memory lane.
Uh ... You can use the Wayback Machine to look at Dakka pre-2006 and see pics of me at some of the mega-battles. Mostly Armageddon 3 and the Tyranid Invasion.
After three games I can say I am not a fan of the new 'fly' mechanic. It is very fiddly trying to measure ranges measuring up and over items. Angling a tape measure can be challenging at times.
When I played my Space Marines, ,I roll a lot of dice due to Oath of Moment game mechanic. Also, Desolation Marines inherently had me rolling a lot of dice.
Aeldari was less dice but heard lots of groaning about a Wraithknight but giving a pass to unkillable Lychguard units if fighting them without using devastating wounds.
Sorry to interrupt but I’ve been following this thread and I have to ask - Where is all this unprovoked aggression coming from? The other poster made the claim to illustrate a point, it wasn’t some assertion of authority, they’re not demanding anything from you in return or claiming the high ground. I think you need to go outside for a bit. Not everything needs to be a slapfight with winners and losers.
Sorry to interrupt but I’ve been following this thread and I have to ask - Where is all this unprovoked aggression coming from? The other poster made the claim to illustrate a point, it wasn’t some assertion of authority, they’re not demanding anything from you in return or claiming the high ground. I think you need to go outside for a bit. Not everything needs to be a slapfight with winners and losers.
Welcome to Dakka. No one believes anything here unless they have proof. Even a universal truth like "You roll a lot of dice in 40k compared to other systems" would be met with someone asking for statistical data on the amount of dice rolling done in 40k compared to other games.
Some people dislike other people. Makes stuff you are okey, when said by a friend or family, extremly offensive it is said by someone you don't like. For example I don't think I can get mad at Deadalus, or how or what he writes.
There is also topics. CCS for example treates legends as just another set of rules. For some of us, it is just a ban list. Makes certain arguments more heated. But in the end it is internet, so meh.
Wyzilla wrote: The main thing that stuck out to me as nothing improving with 10e when looking at the various rule drops earlier was the dice volume has not changed. They have superficially claimed and attempted to adjust lethality somewhat, yet they did nothing to reduce the volume of dice being thrown around which is where the bulk of 40k's ridiculous lethality and protracted game time comes from. What might have tempted me to get back into 40k is if they rolled back the absurd bloat of attacks and marines went back to just 1 attack default, multishot weapons rolled back to an average of only 1-2 attacks, etc.
This is kind of a bad take as GW cut in half the number of dice that something like half the weapons in the game can roll by bringing back the concept of "twin-linked" (and applying it to the wound roll rather than the to-hit roll as was the case in older editions), instead of the 8th and 9th edition paradigm of treating those weapons as a multiple of the base weapon.
Hardly, considering most small arms or even heavy weapons have access to multiple shots in bulk, tanks not only still maintain a glut of fire but have creeping numbers of mounts which only further increases the dice bucket, and 10th's efforts to reduce the dice buckets of 10e when it comes to melee turned out to be a joke. To glance over yonder to Warhammer Fantasy 6th, likely the peak of GW tight game design, the amount of dice rolled for models is usually only a whopping one in most contexts unless it happens to be highly elite or using a special ranged weapon such as repeater crossbows. Any idea of dice volume being cut down can be rendered easily moot by glancing at the stats of primarchs, mere marines, or ork shootahs. All of it should be dramatically curtailed, and could even be done in a manner to not even shift current statistics of longevity if GW wanted to cling to this rather tissue-level durability of nuHammer.
They could have just given the 8th apocalypse ruleset a bit of polish and called it a day if they wanted to reduce rolls. It had vastly reduced dice rolling and meaningful anti-tank/anti-infantry weapons, among other things.
I actually took some time and forgot to take a screenshot while caught up in a journey down memory lane.
Uh ... You can use the Wayback Machine to look at Dakka pre-2006 and see pics of me at some of the mega-battles. Mostly Armageddon 3 and the Tyranid Invasion.
I'm still cranky about what they did to meltaguns. I struggle to come up with any situation where they are preferable to Plasma guns. Maybe against exactly T9 targets?
Paimon wrote: I'm still cranky about what they did to meltaguns. I struggle to come up with any situation where they are preferable to Plasma guns. Maybe against exactly T9 targets?
Bear in mind that Hazardous happens after shooting. You can't reroll out of it except with CP, which is very valuable now. So you will lose models shooting plasma while trying to keep up with melta.
Beyond that many models exist in the T8 and T9 range as well as those with a 3+ or better and no invuln. Finally, you have models with W3/4/5/6 that will take a minimum of 2+ wounds from plasma, but potentially less from melta.
Paimon wrote: I'm still cranky about what they did to meltaguns. I struggle to come up with any situation where they are preferable to Plasma guns. Maybe against exactly T9 targets?
Bear in mind that Hazardous happens after shooting. You can't reroll out of it except with CP, which is very valuable now. So you will lose models shooting plasma while trying to keep up with melta.
Beyond that many models exist in the T8 and T9 range as well as those with a 3+ or better and no invuln. Finally, you have models with W3/4/5/6 that will take a minimum of 2+ wounds from plasma, but potentially less from melta.
Yep Gravis, Terminators, Assorted Destroyers, Wraith-X, Raiders, Ravagers, Medium-Large Bugs and so on.
While you roll for hazardous after shooting, you also only roll once for each weapon, not once for each shot. With plasma being both 24" range, and rapid fire, you're going to be safer, and shoot more, more often. And a 15% (with option to reroll) chance to lose a model to hazardous is much less punishing than a 100% chance that you're much closer to everything that your opponent has that can kill you.
The Goonhammer article showing the data mined info about unit toughness and saves pretty clearly shows a significant valley for toughness 7 and 8. If Toughness 8 and 9 are the only thing we look at, that's around 38% of the data sheets. 47% of vehicles have 10 or higher toughness, which means that the two have the same chance to wound. To be fair, you're right about the AP making a difference, 3+ saves are the most common by far for both toughness ranges (again only for vehicles). But invulnerable saves are common enough that that's not much of a gap as you think.
Against T3 and T4 units with 1 and 2 wounds, plasma is head and shoulders better. Between 5 and 7, it's better against 2 wound units, and melta closes the gap as wounds climb. At least the ceiling does. At 12 inches, each plasma is threatening 4 damage, while the Melta's average is 3.5. That obviously goes up when in half range for Meltas, but if we count that, then we also need to count the extra shots that Plasma gets outside of 12 inches.
If you tell me I can have a weapon that way better against infantry, and basically the same against everything else except light vehicles, I'm gonna take that one over the one that shoots less, at shorter range, and that is only better against an incredibly small sliver of the field.
Caveat: I'm a sisters player, so a lot of my salt is that Melta is the only high strength gun I have, and it's now outclassed by a lot. If the Melta Rule added to both Strength and Damage, I think I'd have been fine with how things turned out. Or if they gave it strength 10, even if only on the multi-meltas.
It's going to be very meta dependent. There may be fewer units with T8/9, but if those units are selected the meta will lean.
In 9th I literally never saw any model die to overcharge due to rerolls so at least with this system it's a present threat. And the choice may come down to which weapon fits best tactically with the armies other units instead of which is more effective. A good thing, I think.
My main gripe is that there is a lot more overlap between what the Plasma gun and the Meltagun are good at dealing with, but the plasma gun is way better at the bottom end, while melta lost a lot of it's top end. And Sisters basically just don't get access to plasma, so they're stuck with melta, even when it's worse.
I think the top end has to get fixed before we can properly see how effective some of these other weapons will be. There's too much chaos making melta look weaker than it is.
Consider the following math for the moment though :
This is against a less-optimal target for melta - something with a 4++. At the end of this shooting you'll statistically lose a PG wielder. PG would be half of that at range and Melta would be 50%+ higher in short.
I think what people value is the range more than anything, but that provides less damage with more opportunities to lose models. Half of that 5.2 is 2.6, which means roughly more than one shot got through. It is worth to maybe get a wound or two through for the chance to lose models? I guess it depends on what tools you have to reliably deliver models.
There's also the matter of cover, which makes 3+ saves a 5+ instead of a 6+ against PG. Those MG above go from 68% to kill a Scout Sentinel to 56% ( -18% ). The PG go from 69.5% to 49% ( - 30% ). The net effect of cover is much greater if there's no invulnerable to mess with the curve and with cover being easier to achieve it can be a relevant consideration.
I return to the Leviathan assembly instructions, where there are clearly set differences between Melta and Plasma.
Melta has Anti-Vehicle 4+, and Plasma has Anti-Monster 4+.
If GW just used the rules they created in a more comprehensive manner, then we'd have clear distinctions for weapon roles and we wouldn't have the melta problem, or the plasma conundrum.
Daedalus81 wrote: It's going to be very meta dependent. There may be fewer units with T8/9, but if those units are selected the meta will lean.
In 9th I literally never saw any model die to overcharge due to rerolls so at least with this system it's a present threat. And the choice may come down to which weapon fits best tactically with the armies other units instead of which is more effective. A good thing, I think.
In my last game Kairos exploded to a hazardous roll made while he had 1 wound left so it's definitely something that can happen lol
BertBert wrote: With all the issues 10th has, I have to admit I really like those kinds of USRs, because it allows for an easy implementation of specific niches.
I do as well, even if it has knock-on problems such as how that interacts with Devastating Wounds, as well as more specific things like like what role do Grav weapons have if Melta is Anti-Vehicle and Plasma is Anti-Monster?
The unfortunate answer is "It doesn't have a role", because Grav never really had a role when they awkwardly shoe-horned it into 40k to give Space Marines a new hat something they didn't own and suddenly had to buy.
That's why I'd make 'Grav' a rule unto itself, and it's something that could go with other factions as well (AdMech and Votaan make sense as a start), and just have it as "The To Wound roll of weapons with the [Grav] ability is equal to the unit's armour save". So 2+ save = 2+ To Wound, whereas a 5+ save = a 5+ to wound. Goes back a bit to what Grav was kind of like, in that the heavier something was, the more vulnerable it was to Graviton weaponry.
BertBert wrote: With all the issues 10th has, I have to admit I really like those kinds of USRs, because it allows for an easy implementation of specific niches.
I do as well, even if it has knock-on problems such as how that interacts with Devastating Wounds, as well as more specific things like like what role do Grav weapons have if Melta is Anti-Vehicle and Plasma is Anti-Monster?
The unfortunate answer is "It doesn't have a role", because Grav never really had a role when they awkwardly shoe-horned it into 40k to give Space Marines a new hat something they didn't own and suddenly had to buy.
That's why I'd make 'Grav' a rule unto itself, and it's something that could go with other factions as well (AdMech and Votaan make sense as a start), and just have it as "The To Wound roll of weapons with the [Grav] ability is equal to the unit's armour save". So 2+ save = 2+ To Wound, whereas a 5+ save = a 5+ to wound. Goes back a bit to what Grav was kind of like, in that the heavier something was, the more vulnerable it was to Graviton weaponry.
OR Grav Weapons can just be alternative models for Plasma.
Not everything needs a bespoke rule, and Grav is absolutely proof of that.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I return to the Leviathan assembly instructions, where there are clearly set differences between Melta and Plasma.
Melta has Anti-Vehicle 4+, and Plasma has Anti-Monster 4+.
If GW just used the rules they created in a more comprehensive manner, then we'd have clear distinctions for weapon roles and we wouldn't have the melta problem, or the plasma conundrum.
That actually would have been nice - Melta at Anti-Vehicle 4+ makes more sense than Grav at Anti-Vehicle 2+. I think they bailed on the Plasma-ANTI-Monster because then it starts hitting the Primarchs, Greater Daemons, and other named Faces Of The Franchise.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Seems like a dumb reason not to give plasma Anti-Monster.
Anti-Monster is a weirdly rare ability. Giving that to plasma would give it a real niche.
Not giving people a shortcut into deleting all those centerpiece HQ type models is a very good reason. It just wasn't the best way to fix it. Better to make Plasma Anti-Monster and change those models they want to exclude to BRUTE keywords instead of MONSTER with BRUTE getting all the rules for MONSTER without the keyword shortcut. Another example of GW not taking full advantage of their keyword system I suppose.
You added more rules though. A whole additional keyword to solve a solution that could be fixed by just removing 'Monster' from things that aren't monsters.
H.B.M.C. wrote: You added more rules though. A whole additional keyword to solve a solution that could be fixed by just removing 'Monster' from things that aren't monsters.
So you're saying delete MONSTER from the Primarchs, the Hive Tyrants, etc so there's next to no rules for them in the movement phase? I get you keep wanting to turn this into Checkers 40,000 so your default kneejerk reaction is to object to anything that doesn't delete 99% of the rules but those models still need a classification keyword since most movement rules revolve around that keyword - plus most of the time it doesn't add another rule, it adds one to two words to an existing rule:
For example:
The only exception to this is
when moving Monster or Vehicle models; such models cannot
be moved over other friendly Monster or Vehicle models and
turns into:
The only exception to this is
when moving Monster, BRUTE or Vehicle models; such models cannot
be moved over other friendly Monster, BRUTE or Vehicle models and
Emphasis added to the changes.
Have you tried actually reading what people say, and giving it thought before dismissing it because it MAY "add rules"?
H.B.M.C. wrote: I'd rather find a way to give something a role than cut it from the game. Besides, Grav weapons have models, so...
The model isn't being cut from the game though, and it's cutting a rule that had too much overlap with niches filled to begin with.
That's like saying making the Relic Power Weapon a default for the Terminator Captain got rid of Power Axes and such. Sometimes, especially for HQ level models, consolidation works for such conversion purposes. After all, what Captain has a super lowly regular ol' Power Weapon to begin with? They should all be at that upper level, whereas Vanguard Vets choosing between Swords vs Axes makes sense as mooks.
You simply have to know when to consolidate and when not to. GW throws darts at a board to determine it though.
But a Grav-Gun isn't a Plasma Gun, and a Power Axe is still a power weapon.
What you're actually arguing is to make the Plasma Gun and the Grav-Gun into "Generic Anti-Monster Gun". That's more consolidationist nonsense.
Breton wrote: So you're saying delete MONSTER from the Primarchs, the Hive Tyrants, etc so there's next to no rules for them in the movement phase?
I said removing Monster from things that aren't Monsters. A Hive Tyrant is a Monster. How did you miss that? I was talking about Primarchs, and that sort of thing - the Epic heroes that have been saddled with 'Monster' in this edition for no reason. Monsters would keep Monster, because that makes sense.
And of course I wouldn't leave them without a rule. They'd be Infantry. Duh!
Breton wrote: I get you keep wanting to turn this into Checkers 40,000...
I don't, I haven't the faintest idea where you get that idea, and your continued attempts to paint me as an unthinking simpleton who only understands checkers and not complex mechanics has reached the point where I will no longer put up with it. I'm done with you.
H.B.M.C. wrote: But a Grav-Gun isn't a Plasma Gun, and a Power Axe is still a power weapon.
What you're actually arguing is to make the Plasma Gun and the Grav-Gun into "Generic Anti-Monster Gun". That's more consolidationist nonsense.
That's really all Grav WAS though, it just had the added bonus of throwing out easy glancing hits for 6th-7th just because. Grav Cannon just had Shred because GW never made rules to try to sell models.
Really though, you haven't presented a good argument to keep Grav as a profile around, just merely that it needs a bespoke rule because model exists. Bespoke is fine once in a while, not for every blasted kit.
As well, it kinda ignores my point of how great consolidation can work vs GW's implementation via cutting a head off a chicken and seeing where the body lands. You'll see I haven't defended new Combi-Weapons once.
watched a few games last night, I have to say the idea of the card deck being how you build your scenario being part of the actual rules is something I like and seemed reasonably well done
looks like it will reward a careful read through of the possibilities and taking account of the requirements to score VP in how an army is put together
I'm not enjoying the distinct lack of rules buffing Deathwatch against Xenos. One whole unit has buffs to fighting Xenos. Also not a fan of the seemingly random and weird condensing of profiles.
That being said, having played a game with the DW, they were fun. I need to do some tweaking to the army in some places but certain aspects are quite fun. Having far fewer Stratagems is a huge part of this I think. Sure some are still going to be a dud from time to time but when I've got 6 options instead of like 50 of which I can only use half, it's far more useful.
Gert wrote: I'm not enjoying the distinct lack of rules buffing Deathwatch against Xenos. One whole unit has buffs to fighting Xenos. Also not a fan of the seemingly random and weird condensing of profiles.
That being said, having played a game with the DW, they were fun. I need to do some tweaking to the army in some places but certain aspects are quite fun. Having far fewer Stratagems is a huge part of this I think. Sure some are still going to be a dud from time to time but when I've got 6 options instead of like 50 of which I can only use half, it's far more useful.
The problem with Deathwatch having rules specifically targeting xenos is that there is no way to balance that on a grander scale. It is technically rock-paper-scissor nonsense that is factionwide and should not be a part of the game.
Gert wrote: I'm not enjoying the distinct lack of rules buffing Deathwatch against Xenos. One whole unit has buffs to fighting Xenos. Also not a fan of the seemingly random and weird condensing of profiles.
That being said, having played a game with the DW, they were fun. I need to do some tweaking to the army in some places but certain aspects are quite fun. Having far fewer Stratagems is a huge part of this I think. Sure some are still going to be a dud from time to time but when I've got 6 options instead of like 50 of which I can only use half, it's far more useful.
The problem with Deathwatch having rules specifically targeting xenos is that there is no way to balance that on a grander scale. It is technically rock-paper-scissor nonsense that is factionwide and should not be a part of the game.
I'd go farther and say Deathwatch as an independent army should probably not really be part of the game, as well as Grey Knight. In my opinion, these forces should act more like a reservoir of Special Forces and Operatives, where you draw the odd Killteam, Character or Squad or a small allied Detachment from. Whole armies of them are very hard to do both fluff-accurate and balanced, either the Demonhunters are not that good at hunting Demons or they're overpowered in some cases and overcosted in others.
Gert wrote: I'm not enjoying the distinct lack of rules buffing Deathwatch against Xenos. One whole unit has buffs to fighting Xenos. Also not a fan of the seemingly random and weird condensing of profiles.
That being said, having played a game with the DW, they were fun. I need to do some tweaking to the army in some places but certain aspects are quite fun. Having far fewer Stratagems is a huge part of this I think. Sure some are still going to be a dud from time to time but when I've got 6 options instead of like 50 of which I can only use half, it's far more useful.
The problem with Deathwatch having rules specifically targeting xenos is that there is no way to balance that on a grander scale. It is technically rock-paper-scissor nonsense that is factionwide and should not be a part of the game.
It depends on the scale, a little salt enhances flavor, too much drowns out other flavors.
Eldarsif wrote: The problem with Deathwatch having rules specifically targeting xenos is that there is no way to balance that on a grander scale. It is technically rock-paper-scissor nonsense that is factionwide and should not be a part of the game.
A Stratagem or an Enhancement could have been added that targets Xenos units but as it stands the only thing that makes the Deathwatch (the Xenos hunting Chamber Militant of the Ordo Xenos) anti-Xenos are the Deathwatch Veterans unit that gets re-rolls to hit.
Should Thousand Sons not get bonuses for using psychic powers? Should Genestealer Cults not get rules to represent Cult uprisings? Why does every other 40k army get rules that reflect their background, yet Deathwatch doesn't?
I'm not asking for the entire army to get re-rolls or bonuses against Xenos armies but come on, one unit? It's very disappointing.
Gert wrote: I'm not enjoying the distinct lack of rules buffing Deathwatch against Xenos. One whole unit has buffs to fighting Xenos. Also not a fan of the seemingly random and weird condensing of profiles.
That being said, having played a game with the DW, they were fun. I need to do some tweaking to the army in some places but certain aspects are quite fun. Having far fewer Stratagems is a huge part of this I think. Sure some are still going to be a dud from time to time but when I've got 6 options instead of like 50 of which I can only use half, it's far more useful.
The problem with Deathwatch having rules specifically targeting xenos is that there is no way to balance that on a grander scale. It is technically rock-paper-scissor nonsense that is factionwide and should not be a part of the game.
It depends on the scale, a little salt enhances flavor, too much drowns out other flavors.
Well, both Deathwatch and Grey Knights evolved from a single squad you could ally in that was especially good against a single type of enemy to full-blown armies with full model ranges, and the first GK codex was no-holds-barred especially, ridiculously geared towards fighting Daemons and so-so at best against everything else, to the point you could have hundreds of points sunk into stuff that was of no use whatsoever if the enemy did not bring a lot of Daemons, or none at all. It got toned down from there, but then stuff like the Nemesis Dreadknight et al were added to artificially inflate what used to be a one-trick pony into a full range. Deathwatch are even worse, their concept is pretty much 'Marines+' with a cool flyer and some characters thrown in, and mixed squads as a gimmick. And i say this as a fan of Deathwatch starting from the original INQ54 Brother Artemis on
H.B.M.C. wrote: I'd rather find a way to give something a role than cut it from the game. Besides, Grav weapons have models, so...
I'm much happier with "Long Vigil Melee Weapons" than having mechanical advantages to running a Power Sword/Mace/Axe/etc. Feels way more free to run my weapon of choice.
Eldarsif wrote: The problem with Deathwatch having rules specifically targeting xenos is that there is no way to balance that on a grander scale. It is technically rock-paper-scissor nonsense that is factionwide and should not be a part of the game.
A Stratagem or an Enhancement could have been added that targets Xenos units but as it stands the only thing that makes the Deathwatch (the Xenos hunting Chamber Militant of the Ordo Xenos) anti-Xenos are the Deathwatch Veterans unit that gets re-rolls to hit.
Should Thousand Sons not get bonuses for using psychic powers? Should Genestealer Cults not get rules to represent Cult uprisings? Why does every other 40k army get rules that reflect their background, yet Deathwatch doesn't?
I'm not asking for the entire army to get re-rolls or bonuses against Xenos armies but come on, one unit? It's very disappointing.
It's one unit, but its also THE unit. Lets not pretend its an army with a ton of bespoke units to pick from. Personally I'm overall very happy with Deathwatch in 10th. I wish the Spectrus KT had a little more synergy and didn't lose so many interesting rules (there's no good 10th model), but overall it's great. I think a lot of the anit-Xenos flavor is still there, even if its not specifically called out. A lot of our rules are great at dealing with the kind of stuff that is traditionally Xenos. Hellfire rounds are good against monsters and large infantry blobs; Purgatus is designed to pick out Synapse. There's a lot of stuff that's good against Xenos; it just is no longer ONLY good against Xenos.
Surely if it's not specifically anti-Xenos then it's not there? As it stands a Deathwatch army will do just as well against Daemons or Sisters of Battle as against a Xenos army.
From a game balance perspective that's nice but when the other non-Codex Chapters get rules that compliment their background really well (especially Templars with the Vows) it's just a bit disappointing, especially considering the army rule is essentially just a rules clarification for how to determine unit toughness and transport capacity while the rest all get Oath of Moment and something that gives buffs to the entire army.
Again, I'm still having fun playing Deathwatch but they've reached the point where GW could just put the few explicitly Deathwatch kits (Artemis, Veterans, Watchmaster, Team Cassius, Blackstar) into the main Marine rules because there's no real substance to the army difference barring an exceptionally good Stratagem.
Definitely liking the new mission deck. Massive improvement over 9e boredom.
Battleshock good and loving armies not being immune to it. Was pleasant surprise having to worry about morale with marines despite it kicking me in teeth
Breton wrote: So you're saying delete MONSTER from the Primarchs, the Hive Tyrants, etc so there's next to no rules for them in the movement phase?
I said removing Monster from things that aren't Monsters. A Hive Tyrant is a Monster. How did you miss that? I was talking about Primarchs, and that sort of thing - the Epic heroes that have been saddled with 'Monster' in this edition for no reason. Monsters would keep Monster, because that makes sense.
And of course I wouldn't leave them without a rule. They'd be Infantry. Duh!
Breton wrote: I get you keep wanting to turn this into Checkers 40,000...
I don't, I haven't the faintest idea where you get that idea, and your continued attempts to paint me as an unthinking simpleton who only understands checkers and not complex mechanics has reached the point where I will no longer put up with it. I'm done with you.
Well for starters, you make yourself sound like an unthinking simpleton.
Guilliman and the other primarchs have been a MONSTER for as long as they've been around. It's what gives them Big Guns, moving over other models, and so on that their giant bases need to get around. Secondly, making The Primarchs INFANTRY puts them into a transports like a Rhino etc and is another one of the reasons they've been MONSTERS since they were initially released. Third up, we have the inconsistency of protecting the central large HQ model represented by a Primarch from the Anti-Monster shortcut, but not the central large HQ model represented by a Hive Tyrant or Swarm Lord etc? I thought you were just bitching about inconsistencies?
Have you actually read all these rules you hate? Did someone have to read them to you? Do you understand them?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gert wrote: I'm not enjoying the distinct lack of rules buffing Deathwatch against Xenos. One whole unit has buffs to fighting Xenos. Also not a fan of the seemingly random and weird condensing of profiles.
That being said, having played a game with the DW, they were fun. I need to do some tweaking to the army in some places but certain aspects are quite fun. Having far fewer Stratagems is a huge part of this I think. Sure some are still going to be a dud from time to time but when I've got 6 options instead of like 50 of which I can only use half, it's far more useful.
The problem is Preferred Enemy is so tough to get working, and the skills should transfer over at least a little. I mean just for an example, lets say their Faction rule is everthing has Anti-Xenos 4+ - (and all the Xenos races on the webpage get the Xenos keyword so it works) - when you're in a pickup game against non-xenos your faction ability spends all day twiddling it's thumbs, whereas if your Carnifex Killer Squad has Anti-Monster, it can still do some work against a Greater Daemon, and your Falcon Grav Tank Hunters can still put in some work against Exorcists and Predators and such. They've done it before... at one point the Ultramarines Tyranic War Veterans had a special rule that was basically punching a carnifex in the mount so it would swallow a grenade - and it worked on any monster like Greater Daemons and such (I think this was before monsters were MONSTER) - so they had a purpose outside of a prepared narrative game. That's what they should be doing with Deathwatch. Tailoring the units for the xenos archetypes - squads that do well against Guardians/Gaunts/Gants etc... squads that do well against Wraith/Carnifex/etc as a generic target not a specific Anti-Nids.
H.B.M.C. wrote: But a Grav-Gun isn't a Plasma Gun, and a Power Axe is still a power weapon.
What you're actually arguing is to make the Plasma Gun and the Grav-Gun into "Generic Anti-Monster Gun". That's more consolidationist nonsense.
That's really all Grav WAS though, it just had the added bonus of throwing out easy glancing hits for 6th-7th just because. Grav Cannon just had Shred because GW never made rules to try to sell models.
Really though, you haven't presented a good argument to keep Grav as a profile around, just merely that it needs a bespoke rule because model exists. Bespoke is fine once in a while, not for every blasted kit.
As well, it kinda ignores my point of how great consolidation can work vs GW's implementation via cutting a head off a chicken and seeing where the body lands. You'll see I haven't defended new Combi-Weapons once.
The reason(s) to keep Grav is:
Its one of the GW/40 "Four Elements" theme. It needs to get floated out to the rest of the factions, not removed. Each faction should have some las, flamer, melta, plasma, and grav. Each faction should rank and use those elements differently but they should be there - for example Death Guard have diseased fire which is stronger and could be more comparable to Marine Grav (or what Marine Grav should be). Meanwhile Marines took Las and instead of the AAA Batteries Guardsmen use, hooked it up to the nuclear power station in their backpack
because of what Grav was SUPPOSED to be. It was supposed to target those mid-tier INFANTRY without intruding on the design space of the other weapons - then became too good at other targets like tanks - and now inexplicably has flat D2 or D3, and Anti-Vehicle2+ on it instead of the Melta where you'd expect it. It shouldn't be what it currently is, but it should be there.
Between Plasma and Grav one should be the Anti-Monster, and one should be the midrange Infantry version of a Heavy Bolter. The Heavy Bolter itself should probably drop back down to 1W and go up in shots - with probably some sort of BLAST mechanic. It is the "chaff mower" (think T3/T4 W1, squad size 20) the Grav Gun should instead choke on a "horde" squad like Boyz or Gants/Gaunts, and ping off the tougher stuff like Rhinos and up(T9+, W10+), but melt the midtier infantry (Think T5/T6, W3 or 4). Plasma should burn through the upper tier monsters (T8-11, W10ish) - not the actual Daemon Prince(s) because its a character, but things like the Daemon Princes. Melta gets the Anti-Vehicle and even then only 3+ or 4+. Each of these elements should have a role - and each faction should swap those roles around a bit for flavor - And each role should also have some generic "guns" they overlap with. Auto/Assault cannons into the Grav targets, Frag into the Heavy Bolter targets, Krak into the plasma, Lascannons into the Melta.
Sledgehammer wrote: Aircraft are just vehicles that cant be charged. It just feels uninspired and lazy.
In some ways Aircraft are inspired. In some ways Aircraft play on the same board but in a different fourth dimension that can only be crossed in specific ways. In most ways they didn't really take full advantage of the idea, stopped haflway through the concept and then tacked on a couple bandaids that only served to open the wound even further.
H.B.M.C. wrote: And of course I wouldn't leave them without a rule. They'd be Infantry. Duh!
God can you imagine how much ridicule GW would get if Angron's datasheet had "infantry" in its keywords
Except he wouldn't be. He'd be a Monster. Because he's a giant, fething winged daemon.
Ah, so this is just privilege for loyalist primarchs specifically then.
Hey, don't get me wrong, I'd love to stick Guilliman in a Land Raider or a Storm Raven (the semi-sarcastic/parody fantasy of Guilliman hugging the back ramp of the Storm Raven with the Dreadnaught crane hooked into his belt has been around for years) but even then it was the Dreadnaught part of the Storm Raven not the 1 INFATNRY model part. It IS possible Vipoid didn't scroll back far enough to see someone suggest replacing MONSTER on the Primarchs with INFANTRY and thus did not understand the question because that suggestion and its ramifications are so completely utterly ridiculous.
Sledgehammer wrote: Aircraft are just vehicles that cant be charged. It just feels uninspired and lazy.
No, they can't pivot before moving and have to move 20+". I'm guessing aircraft are trash, we'll see.
Aircraft haven't really changed themselves. I think the Aircraft rules were lifted straight out of 9th and dropped into 10th en masse. The Timing of the pivot changed, and the Deployment Screw You rule may be new or it may be from one of the Chapter Approved I missed. The main differences will be a few stat-lines, and Anti-Fly - especially on a handful of likely to be popular Primaris Marine stuff. Outside of the Primaris tanks/Dreads anti-fly is pretty sparse and usually only on the dedicated AA or aircraft models themselves.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Racerguy180 wrote: They're not freakin daemons, so yeah they wouldn't be monsters. They'd just be bulky.
For those missing the context involved: This is a discussion revolving around the scarcity of Anti-Monster compared to many of the other ANTI-s- Anti-Monster is likely rare because most of the Faction Centerpiece "Face of the Franchise" models are MONSTER keyworded, and for gameplay as well as sales based reasons GW is unlikely to want a shortcut system like Anti-X to reliably delete any faction HQ's, especially the "Face of the Franchise" famous ones.
Primarchs already ARE MONSTERs. They (and the Daemon Primarchs) and some/most/all of the Nid "HQ", the Avatar, and some/most/all of any other MONSTER keyworded HQ's I can't think of shouldn't be MONSTER's, so that GW can roll out ANTI-MONSTER keywords as easily as they rolled out ANTI-Infantry, ANTI-VEHICLE and so on. The Winged Hive Tyrant can get neither. The Tervigon can get neither. Anti-INFANTRY works because almost all the INFANTRY CHARACTERS are LEADERs, LONE OPERATIVEs, or both. Many of the MONSTER HQ's cannot be LEADERs and may or may not get LONE OPERATIVEs - in fact none of the three DAEMON PRIMARCHs can get either protection, so an Anti-Monster Drop Pod Bomb would absolutely pulp them at will becoming a no-brainer God forbid you get an Anti-Monster Devastating Wounds bomb.
I suggested that when GW rolls out Anti-Monster, that would also be the time to replace MONSTER on those types of Monster-HQ-Character models with something else like BRUTE, and then add BRUTE to all the rules next to MONSTER thus making them MONSTERS without vulnerability to ANTI-Monster. Someone else for some inexplicable reason thought that adding a third keyword to a list in the four or five already existing rules would "add more rules" and when I pointed out MONSTER as a generic categoy keyword is where these models get most of the rules about their movement thought we should just change these monsters to INFANTRY so Primarchs could just use those rules - thus someone understandingly laughing at the idea of Angron riding in a Rhino being something that would be mocked had GW done it.
H.B.M.C. wrote: But a Grav-Gun isn't a Plasma Gun, and a Power Axe is still a power weapon.
What you're actually arguing is to make the Plasma Gun and the Grav-Gun into "Generic Anti-Monster Gun". That's more consolidationist nonsense.
Breton wrote: So you're saying delete MONSTER from the Primarchs, the Hive Tyrants, etc so there's next to no rules for them in the movement phase?
I said removing Monster from things that aren't Monsters. A Hive Tyrant is a Monster. How did you miss that? I was talking about Primarchs, and that sort of thing - the Epic heroes that have been saddled with 'Monster' in this edition for no reason. Monsters would keep Monster, because that makes sense.
And of course I wouldn't leave them without a rule. They'd be Infantry. Duh!
catbarf wrote: Not using the ANTI-MONSTER keyword because Timmy will be sad if Guilliman gets yeeted by a plasma cannon seems like a really artificial problem.
It's a multi-stage made up problem, if the problem is Guillimangron Lion El'Mortarithrakka dying too easily then put adequate saves, abilities and protections on these models instead of artifically restricting design space.
catbarf wrote: Not using the ANTI-MONSTER keyword because Timmy will be sad if Guilliman gets yeeted by a plasma cannon seems like a really artificial problem.
Except it's not just Guilliman. Its many/most of the MONSTER CHARACTERs that would throw the entire balance of Warlord/Character based objectives, let alone the general play value of these models and such out of whack. INFANTRY CHARACTERS are generally protected by LEADER or LONE OPERATIVE, giving them massed target protection and ablative bodies. Many/Most Monters get neither, just the protection of increased durabiltiy. ANTI-MONSTER pretty much ignores that increased durability leaving them no real protection.
H.B.M.C. wrote: And of course I wouldn't leave them without a rule. They'd be Infantry. Duh!
God can you imagine how much ridicule GW would get if Angron's datasheet had "infantry" in its keywords
Except he wouldn't be. He'd be a Monster. Because he's a giant, fething winged daemon.
Ah, so this is just privilege for loyalist primarchs specifically then.
I wasn't the one who said Primarchs shouldn't be Monsters.
catbarf wrote: Not using the ANTI-MONSTER keyword because Timmy will be sad if Guilliman gets yeeted by a plasma cannon seems like a really artificial problem.
The concept of streamlining psychic powers and removing the need for a "psychic phase".
The concept of returning to a stable base of Universal Special Rules.
The concept of removing bloat/the cognitive load of 9th Edition.
The concept of reducing the number of stratagems and giving each army a small amount relevant to the combat style of the detachment.
The concept of ditching Power Level in favour of a singular points system that everyone uses.
The concept of returning twin-linked to the game, rather than just doubling shots on everything.
The Screamer Killer entry. In toto.
Reductions on AP across the board.
Paying points for Warlord Traits/Relics.
Getting rid of the painful terrain rules from 9th.
Dislikes:
The execution of joining characters to units (heavily limiting who they can join, making it so that solo-characters are a liability and not a choice, giving solo characters no real purpose as they can be shot off the table instantly).
The execution of detachments defining an army (so far the ones we've seen really don't*, and the army/detachment rules are in a number of cases basically backwards when it comes to what's central to a faction eg. Oaths of Moment vs Combat Doctrines).
The execution of streamlining psychic powers (now either just glorified weird guns that have a rule that doesn't do anything ("Psychic"), or something that only works when leading a squad).
The execution of returning to a stable base of Universal Special Rules (sure, there are USRs, but then every fething unit has its own snowflake rule, many of which are repeated and could be USRs unto themselves).
The execution of removing bloat/the cognitive load of 9th Edition (overly zealous consolidation of things that did not need it, such as combi-weapons and relics, and the sheer inconsistency of it all - it's fine for Termagants to have Fleshborers, Devourers and Spinefists... but Emperor-forbid we show there's a difference between a Bonesword and a pair of Rending Claws!).
The execution of reducing the number of stratagems and giving each army a small amount relevant to the combat doctrines of the detachment (CP is such a limited resource that I fear most strats will be ignored in favour of the ones that are always useful, like Command Re-Rolls).
The execution of ditching Power Level in favour of a singular points system that everyone uses (they haven't - the current "points" are just Power Level 2.0, are super lazy, inherently imbalanced, and abso-fething-lutely tedious to use**).
The execution of returning twin-linked to the game, rather than just doubling shots on everything (I think it's too far in the other direction. Re-roll To Wound is nice, but the drastic loss of shots for many weapons is too much. I much prefer the old system that we came with back at the start of 4th Edition: re-roll to hit, but on a natural 6 To Hit, you get two hits - so basically Sustained Hits in the current rules, but with a re-roll To hit).
The Carnifex entry. In toto.
Leaving weapons behind in the great reshuffle (Melta-weapons especially, who have been the premiere short-ranged anti-tank gun of the game since the days of Rogue Trader... and now languish behind everything else. Fine if your faction has a wealth of other anti-tank options. Not so hot if you don't. Yes I'm talking about Sisters).
Not paying points for any other type of upgrade. Upgrades. Should. Not. Be. Free.
Introducing a newer type of painful cover rules in 10th. The cover and LOS rules in generally, really. Too simplistic, too broad. And they haven't shook the problems from 8th/9th (there needs to be a limit on what counts on being seen - tips of guns, back banners, tips of claws, antenne - none of these should make a target valid). Plus why doesn't terrain slow you down at all? And why are forests infinitely high? Why does plunging fire specify the 'ground', rather than a more logical distance between shooter and target?
Unknowns:
Missions seem pretty cool, but I'll have to wait until I play a few.
I like the sound of Battleshock, but I'll have to see it in practice.
I am wary about the 3 of anything as it seems less like a real attempt at giving structural freedom and more like a "Rules are hard!" abdication of any attempt at balance.
I like the rules of the melee section. That seems like a good revision of the previous two editions. Again, have to see it in practice to know.
*I know they're the baseline, but I'm referring mainly to Wolves/Templars/Dark Angels here.
**Making lists in 10th is a chore. Every day since the points have come out, before going to bed, I have put together a theoretical list or two (Marines and Tyranids). Every single time it ends with me going "Ok, what costs exactly X points as that's all I have left!" and going over the unhelpful alphabetical list hoping to find something that costs what I have left. Because all variation has been removed. I can't downgrade from a Lascannon to a Missile Launcher to get back 5 points that will let me bring something else. I can reduce a pair of Jump Pack Assault Squads to 8-men each, freeing up enough points for a transport or something somewhere else. It's completely unbalanced, it's absurd, it's stupid, it's inflexible and it is just tedious to use. Making lists was something I did for fun, even if I never intended to use them. Now it's just an exercise in frustration.
vict0988 wrote: Units with FLY not being able to hop over terrain seems weird, but I don't hate it, infantry still being able to move through walls makes it even more strange.
Flying units are often better going around terrain, which I think defeats the purpose of being able to fly.
I found this to be pretty accurate.
Oter big things for me:
Legending the Daemon Engines (well, the Brass Scorpion)
The way keywords spread to the unit interacts with Anti-
Wildly inconsistent treatment of epic characters
Alpharuis is able to hide amongst his legion, does that mean that he is super short, basically a dwarf amongst his peers, or should all of his legion be monsters?
Ghazkull is classed as Infantry, for example. He is the biggest and baddest Ork warboss currently walking around in the setting. His model is easily equal in size to the non-daemon primarchs.
So, no, it is not stupid to suggest that maybe the Primarchs should be Infantry.
A Town Called Malus wrote: So, no, it is not stupid to suggest that maybe the Primarchs should be Infantry.
Yeah but it might do something with plasma guns that's unfair or whatever. *shrugs*
Seriously, the "Anti-Monster" thing isn't even my idea. It comes right out of the Leviathan instruction booklet. I think it's a great way of differentiating Plasma and giving it a niche beyond "generally better than the rest".
Alpharuis is able to hide amongst his legion, does that mean that he is super short, basically a dwarf amongst his peers, or should all of his legion be monsters?
Ghazkull is classed as Infantry, for example. He is the biggest and baddest Ork warboss currently walking around in the setting. His model is easily equal in size to the non-daemon primarchs.
So, no, it is not stupid to suggest that maybe the Primarchs should be Infantry.
Alpharius is actually described as short for a Primarch
But yes, if Ghaz can be 'Infantry' then Primarchs could (and probably should) be as well.
Alpharuis is able to hide amongst his legion, does that mean that he is super short, basically a dwarf amongst his peers, or should all of his legion be monsters?
Ghazkull is classed as Infantry, for example. He is the biggest and baddest Ork warboss currently walking around in the setting. His model is easily equal in size to the non-daemon primarchs.
So, no, it is not stupid to suggest that maybe the Primarchs should be Infantry.
Alpharius is actually described as short for a Primarch
But yes, if Ghaz can be 'Infantry' then Primarchs could (and probably should) be as well.
Also Alpharius son's were described as overly big for astartes standards. Hence the whole impersonating Alpharius shenanigans being an valid option.
Alpharuis is able to hide amongst his legion, does that mean that he is super short, basically a dwarf amongst his peers, or should all of his legion be monsters?
Ghazkull is classed as Infantry, for example. He is the biggest and baddest Ork warboss currently walking around in the setting. His model is easily equal in size to the non-daemon primarchs.
So, no, it is not stupid to suggest that maybe the Primarchs should be Infantry.
Alpharius is actually described as short for a Primarch
But yes, if Ghaz can be 'Infantry' then Primarchs could (and probably should) be as well.
Also Alpharius son's were described as overly big for astartes standards. Hence the whole impersonating Alpharius shenanigans being an valid option.
Didn't a novel kinda describe him as having a power to sorta "blend in" with people?
Alpharuis is able to hide amongst his legion, does that mean that he is super short, basically a dwarf amongst his peers, or should all of his legion be monsters?
Ghazkull is classed as Infantry, for example. He is the biggest and baddest Ork warboss currently walking around in the setting. His model is easily equal in size to the non-daemon primarchs.
So, no, it is not stupid to suggest that maybe the Primarchs should be Infantry.
Alpharius is actually described as short for a Primarch
But yes, if Ghaz can be 'Infantry' then Primarchs could (and probably should) be as well.
Also Alpharius son's were described as overly big for astartes standards. Hence the whole impersonating Alpharius shenanigans being an valid option.
Didn't a novel kinda describe him as having a power to sorta "blend in" with people?
Possible. He can do weird stuff with his blood, it sort of works as a potion that lets regular Marines become more Alpharius-y for some time, but eventually wanes. Corax has some weird invisibility field as well, and Curze has some hide-in-any-shadow-thingy.
"Loss of faction identity.
Disregard for previous long standing lore by restricting or even deleting options which is really the "theme" of this edition.
It doesn't matter who owns the IP when we are ALL invested in this incredible world."
GW owns the property, not you. If the head writer decides Space Wolves now wield Wolf Hammers covered in Wolf Skins while shooting Wolf Bullets from their Wolf Guns and the Wolf Bullets themselves are covered in Wolf Bone cultivated from Rabbits, then you have zero say in the ownership of that.
The only real say you have as a customer is with your wallet.
Other than that, this is an Index edition, and Index editions always start out stripped bare. Once you get your codex, you'll get your army's Identity back. For now, we have get-you-by rules.
Alpharuis is able to hide amongst his legion, does that mean that he is super short, basically a dwarf amongst his peers, or should all of his legion be monsters?
Ghazkull is classed as Infantry, for example. He is the biggest and baddest Ork warboss currently walking around in the setting. His model is easily equal in size to the non-daemon primarchs.
So, no, it is not stupid to suggest that maybe the Primarchs should be Infantry.
Alpharius is actually described as short for a Primarch
But yes, if Ghaz can be 'Infantry' then Primarchs could (and probably should) be as well.
Ghaz just switched. He used to be a MONSTER. Probably should still be. They were working him up to be a Primarch equivalent for Orks, but it looks like they're going to abandon that, which is too bad.
For this scale of game, the only aircraft on the board should be hovering/helicopter sort of thing. Unless you want to do a sideboard with an Aeronautic battle simultaneously going on.
Actual aircraft doing strafing/bombing runs on the board shouldn't be handled by having the model loitering on the board.
For that sort of thing, should be something like select a side the attack comes from, select the unit(s) to target, perform anti-air attacks, then resolve the strafe/bomb run. At best, the aircraft should be a marker where the attack is coming from and by what.
Stormonu wrote: For this scale of game, the only aircraft on the board should be hovering/helicopter sort of thing. Unless you want to do a sideboard with an Aeronautic battle simultaneously going on.
Actual aircraft doing strafing/bombing runs on the board shouldn't be handled by having the model loitering on the board.
For that sort of thing, should be something like select a side the attack comes from, select the unit(s) to target, perform anti-air attacks, then resolve the strafe/bomb run. At best, the aircraft should be a marker where the attack is coming from and by what.
Unfortunately the entire point of having them in the game is to create a cool model to loiter on the board.
Stormonu wrote: For this scale of game, the only aircraft on the board should be hovering/helicopter sort of thing. Unless you want to do a sideboard with an Aeronautic battle simultaneously going on.
Actual aircraft doing strafing/bombing runs on the board shouldn't be handled by having the model loitering on the board.
For that sort of thing, should be something like select a side the attack comes from, select the unit(s) to target, perform anti-air attacks, then resolve the strafe/bomb run. At best, the aircraft should be a marker where the attack is coming from and by what.
That's how it was handled with 3rd edition vehicle desing rules, aircraft did strafing runs between board edges unless they had VTOL capacity or were landers. Most WW2 games (e.g. FoW and such) handle it in such a way as well, possibly with the exception of gliders, or voluntarily slow-flying recon/spotter planes. In many games, you can 'buy' different levels of air support, from sporadic/erratic raids to constant support up to priority air support or whatever. Add in Interceptors etc. and you basically have an air combat subgame. Epic 40k handled it relatively well as well, flyers started off-board, could be dispatched with various missions (Close Air Support, Patrol & Intercept, Landing etc.) that got expanded later on with rules for airmobile detachments (e.g. Tyranid Gargoyles etc.) and off-board counterasset missions (i.e. raids on enemy reserves, attacks against enemy airfields to disrupt their air operations).
catbarf wrote: Not using the ANTI-MONSTER keyword because Timmy will be sad if Guilliman gets yeeted by a plasma cannon seems like a really artificial problem.
Except it's not just Guilliman. Its many/most of the MONSTER CHARACTERs that would throw the entire balance of Warlord/Character based objectives, let alone the general play value of these models and such out of whack. INFANTRY CHARACTERS are generally protected by LEADER or LONE OPERATIVE, giving them massed target protection and ablative bodies. Many/Most Monters get neither, just the protection of increased durabiltiy. ANTI-MONSTER pretty much ignores that increased durability leaving them no real protection.
Okay, but so what?
If the entire purpose of ANTI-MONSTER is that it kills Monsters, why is having ANTI-MONSTER kill Monsters that are also Characters a problem?
I mean, that strikes me as like saying that it's problematic that mortal wounds exist, because they kill Monster Characters that rely on the protection of armor and invuln saves. Yeah? And? That's kinda what they're there for?
If those Characters who are Monsters need to be immune to weapons that specifically counter Monsters, maybe they shouldn't be Monsters? Just seems weird to say that an entire game mechanic can't be used because of how it would impact an edge case.
catbarf wrote: Not using the ANTI-MONSTER keyword because Timmy will be sad if Guilliman gets yeeted by a plasma cannon seems like a really artificial problem.
Except it's not just Guilliman. Its many/most of the MONSTER CHARACTERs that would throw the entire balance of Warlord/Character based objectives, let alone the general play value of these models and such out of whack. INFANTRY CHARACTERS are generally protected by LEADER or LONE OPERATIVE, giving them massed target protection and ablative bodies. Many/Most Monters get neither, just the protection of increased durabiltiy. ANTI-MONSTER pretty much ignores that increased durability leaving them no real protection.
Okay, but so what?
If the entire purpose of ANTI-MONSTER is that it kills Monsters, why is having ANTI-MONSTER kill Monsters that are also Characters a problem?
Because characters that are easier to kill because they're monsters (once Anti-Monster rolls out to everyone) throws off the balance for things like Assassination secondaries. Every Infantry Character that I've checked has either LONE OPERATIVE or LEADER to make people work for the Character killing secondaries. Many (but not all) of the MONSTERs that are also CHARACTERs don't have either - their "protection" that makes you work for it is T11, 10+W sorts of stat bands lowering the number of weapons that can inflict damage reliably- Anti-Monster 4+ on Plasma drops their effective T to 7 or 8 and gives people a shortcut to those secondaries. Remember all the complaints about double dipping secondaries with TSons etc?
I mean, that strikes me as like saying that it's problematic that mortal wounds exist, because they kill Monster Characters that rely on the protection of armor and invuln saves. Yeah? And? That's kinda what they're there for?
If those Characters who are Monsters need to be immune to weapons that specifically counter Monsters, maybe they shouldn't be Monsters? Just seems weird to say that an entire game mechanic can't be used because of how it would impact an edge case.
That was my suggestion - Change the Character Monsters they want to protect (or all of them for consistency) to a new keyword that gets added to the Monster rules (like Big Guns Never Tire) that already exist. So the Primarchs, Daemon Princes, Hive Tyrants etc get the BRUTE (as an example) keyword. BRUTEs do everything monsters do, but don't get tagged by the Anti-Monster keyword maintaining the existing balance for Secondaries/bonuses/drawbacks that target MONSTER CHARACTERs, while still allowing the rollout of Anti-Monster for things like the Rank and File Carnifex.
Another thing i like having played few games is how players can plao random secondaries oi fixed and it's not huge isske. Fined probablw pliggtow weaker but not much. And fixed hurts skew armies.
Why should monstrous characters be immune to anti-monster weapons? My crisis commanders don't get a special "not-vehicle but all the advantages of vehicle" keyword.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Why should monstrous characters be immune to anti-monster weapons? My crisis commanders don't get a special "not-vehicle but all the advantages of vehicle" keyword.
Because they're not Space Marines and thus don't get And They Shall Know No Unfavourable Rules Changes.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Why should monstrous characters be immune to anti-monster weapons? My crisis commanders don't get a special "not-vehicle but all the advantages of vehicle" keyword.
As I mentioned above, because they have LEADER or LONE OPERATIVE. The only real outlier Non-MONSTER CHARACTERs I've found in an admittedly cursory look are Longstrike and less so Chronus.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Why should monstrous characters be immune to anti-monster weapons? My crisis commanders don't get a special "not-vehicle but all the advantages of vehicle" keyword.
Because they're not Space Marines and thus don't get And They Shall Know No Unfavourable Rules Changes.
Psst the Loyalist Space Marine Primarchs both have access to LONE OPERATIVE - this would hurt Nids and Chaos far more. Not paying attention or doing the basic research so you could take an inaccurate cheap shot at the faction you hate did not do your credibility any favors.
Not to defend the other guy, but all what having 50,000 posts says about you is that you have too much time on your hands, we shouldn't be taking anyones post count as a measure of the value of someones input. 
