Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
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
Ex-Mantic Rules Committees: Kings of War, Warpath
"The Emperor is obviously not a dictator, he's a couch." Starbuck: "Why can't we use the starboard launch bays?"
Engineer: "Because it's a gift shop!"
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.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2023/06/29 09:43:15
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
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".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/06/29 10:09:26
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.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
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.
2023/06/29 15:13:44
Subject: Re:What aspects of 10th do you like/dislike
"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.
Ayn Rand "We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the consequences of evading reality"
2023/06/29 15:18:34
Subject: Re:What aspects of 10th do you like/dislike
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/06/29 18:01:51
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/06/29 22:59:46
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
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.
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/06/30 03:30:46
