10th Edition Rumour Roundup - in the grim darkness of the far future, there are only power levels

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.

**H.B.M.C.**

I do wonder how the new edition will handle allies.

alextroy wrote:
The thing I most expect to see in the Indexes and the next line of Codexes is even more NMNR and what the kit instructions build unit restrictions. Not 100%, but a whole lot more than what you saw in the 9th Edition Codexes.

And people wonder why I fear a new Carnifex kit.

And forget Legends. The concession Chaos players got with Jump Pack Lords? Wave goodbye to that...

**alextroy**

We may need to nickname 10th Edition, The Great Culling, but it is possible they will surprise us.

**H.B.M.C.**

The Great Reset: You will have no options and you will be happy.

**drbored**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
The Great Reset: You will have no options and you will be happy.

Wouldn't be surprised.

Watch them have 3 specific Tactical squad datasheets.

One is 10 with flamer and heavy bolter, sgt with chainsword and bolt pistol
One is 10 with plasma gun and missile launcher, sgt with power sword and bolt pistol
One is 10 with melta gun and multi melta, sgt with power fist and plasma pistol

Nothing else.

**Kanluwen**

The concept of "tSports" is a real thing to these people that they use as playtesters and that they have effectively been focusing towards of late.

**Either/Or**

drbored wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
The Great Reset: You will have no options and you will be happy.

Wouldn't be surprised.

Watch them have 3 specific Tactical squad datasheets.

One is 10 with flamer and heavy bolter, sgt with chainsword and bolt pistol
One is 10 with plasma gun and missile launcher, sgt with power sword and bolt pistol
One is 10 with melta gun and multi melta, sgt with power fist and plasma pistol

Nothing else.

No chance. It’s clearly going to be powerfist sgt/flamer/ML, powersword Sgt/plasma/lascannon, and chainsword sgt/melta/HB all as separate data sheets, as decreed 30years ago with the 2nd Ed tactical squad boxes.

**Smaug**

drbored wrote:
stonehorse wrote:
I suspect that 10th will start off well, like how 8th did... then it will quickly become a mess, and then the while process starts again.

It isn't a design flaw, it is a feature as it is a way to justify a new edition every 2-3 years.

This is definitely the pattern that is emerging and it's a system that GW have to be VERY careful with, especially if it is intentional in some way.

The Internet has a long memory, and eventually you could get to a point where the larger population sees the pattern every 3-6 years and then refuses to buy into the next series, because the trust is lost on a larger scale.

GW self-sabotaging late-edition stuff so they can advertise the new edition as 'the best thing ever' is definitely the kind of corporate BS I'd expect out of a larger company. Here's hoping the game designers really are just being misled and try to do better this time around.

Did Nick and Stu just say the quiet part out load in the last interview? That they gave up on 9th a year after it was released and have been working on 10th for the last two years?

**EviscerationPlague**

Smaug wrote:
drbored wrote:
stonehorse wrote:
I suspect that 10th will start off well, like how 8th did... then it will quickly become a mess, and then the while process starts again.

It isn't a design flaw, it is a feature as it is a way to justify a new edition every 2-3 years.

This is definitely the pattern that is emerging and it's a system that GW have to be VERY careful with, especially if it is intentional in some way.

The Internet has a long memory, and eventually you could get to a point where the larger population sees the pattern every 3-6 years and then refuses to buy into the next series, because the trust is lost on a larger scale.

GW self-sabotaging late-edition stuff so they can advertise the new edition as 'the best thing ever' is definitely the kind of corporate BS I'd expect out of a larger company. Here's hoping the game designers really are just being misled and try to do better this time around.

Did Nick and Stu just say the quiet part out load in the last interview? That they gave up on 9th a year after it was released and have been working on 10th for the last two years?

That makes me more curious on how long they worked on 9th itself.

**H.B.M.C.**

During the latter two years of 8th, presumably.

**drbored**

That's part of the challenge of the cycle. By the time Guilliman was released, Abaddon was already boxed up and Angron was being designed.

By the time 10th ed is 1 year old, work on 11th ed will have already started.

**tneva82**

The Power Cosmic wrote:
Platuan4th wrote:
The Power Cosmic wrote:
That video makes me think everything is going to be warbands. In other words, bespoke organizations of units with a few unique special rules and items. You want a Space Marine army? Okay, there's X number of warbands you can take. Pick one.

Tau army? Okay, there's a T'au warband (orange) and a Farsight warband (red), maybe even a Shadowsun warband (white).

Pretty sure you're confusing Combat Patrol and the base 10th.

I hope not. Maybe the base 40k is just a larger version of what combat patrol ends up being. Like literally larger, 2-3 combat patrols mushed together.

They have literally said army building is pick faction, pick warlord, choose any units you want(max 3 of each except battleline 6), choose relic, done.

Note how you can choose units freely with just rule of 3.

Want to make list of 3 terminator units, 3 outriders, 3 gladiators, 3 eradicators? Fine.

**Daedalus81**

EviscerationPlague wrote:

That makes me more curious on how long they worked on 9th itself.

I forgot where it was said, but 9th started a year from 8th. Remember how phoned in the 8th necron codex was?

**tneva82**

Smaug wrote:

Did Nick and Stu just say the quiet part out load in the last interview? That they gave up on 9th a year after it was released and have been working on 10th for the last two years?

Surprised? Lead times. They have fixed edition/3 years which means they have to start work early. 9e work started about year into 8th and 11th will start next year.

You need to read what lead times are

they are now working on last 10th codexes most likely.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

H.B.M.C. wrote:
During the latter two years of 8th, presumably.

Yep. That's pretty much spot on. 9e codexes were largely being done during 8e.

**Daedalus81**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
During the latter two years of 8th, presumably.

Yes, really. That's the timelines they work on to layout, plan, and execute.

It's precisely why you see their ideas develop during the editions.

The institutionalized skills learned from that period are what people are looking forward to now.

And the reality is GW was working on the community complaints months to years ago, too.

**H.B.M.C.**

Daedalus81 wrote:
The institutionalized skills learned from that period are what people are looking forward to now.

I love how you think things are going to change, or that they're learnt anything at all. This is 10th edition - TENTH - and they're still messing it up.

**Daedalus81**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
The institutionalized skills learned from that period are what people are looking forward to now.

I love how you think things are going to change, or that they're learnt anything at all. This is 10th edition - TENTH - and they're still messing it up.

So you think they're exactly the same as they've always been?

**EviscerationPlague**

Daedalus81 wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:

That makes me more curious on how long they worked on 9th itself.

I forgot where it was said, but 9th started a year from 8th. Remember how phoned in the 8th necron codex was?

I try not to think about it.

**kodos**

Daedalus81 wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
The institutionalized skills learned from that period are what people are looking forward to now.

I love how you think things are going to change, or that they're learnt anything at all. This is 10th edition - TENTH - and they're still messing it up.

So you think they're exactly the same as they've always been?

Just compare the interviews, release of 9th they said that this is the Edition were they can put all the crazy ideas they have every 2 minutes into the game
and people were happy to hear that and praised the video of how awesome 9th must be, and it was exactly what we got, a collection of ideas

now they said that the period of crazy ideas ended after a year and they worked on a game, so we might finally got what 8th Edition should have been in the first place

one problem is still that they don't play their own game, so good chance lessons learned are all about writing and not about the game itself

**tneva82**

Daedalus81 wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
The institutionalized skills learned from that period are what people are looking forward to now.

I love how you think things are going to change, or that they're learnt anything at all. This is 10th edition - TENTH - and they're still messing it up.

So you think they're exactly the same as they've always been?

Nah. They got new PR folk.

Doesn't change rule development but they are more able to sell the game as best thing ever to the guillible people.

**The Red Hobbit**

While I enjoy the previews of Warhammer Community I have to say the PR speak is unbearably grating. Every article can be summed up with "Can you believe that latest thing is actually the greatest thing ever???"

I get that's the easiest way to boost SEO nowadays but it's very tiresome to read, even for someone who tries not to be cynical.

**aphyon**

Surprised? Lead times. They have fixed edition/3 years which means they have to start work early. 9e work started about year into 8th and 11th will start next year.

You need to read what lead times are they are now working on last 10th codexes most likely.

It is not a mistake i referenced the GW design model as a roller coaster you are constantly riding/chasing.

They have literally said army building is pick faction, pick warlord, choose any units you want(max 3 of each except battleline 6), choose relic, done

That's fantastic for
.power gamers
.tournament players
.new players

Terrible for the fans of the expanded universe and epic thematic play as in finding like minded players to enjoy a game with.

I can look at the 3.5 chaos codex, 4th ed black templar codex, 4th ed ork codex and i can feel the love for the universe from the design team who were also gamers. everything in the last 3 editions is nothing but what was famously said by GW-model company first that happens to have a game attached to it-.

**H.B.M.C.**

aphyon wrote:
I can look at the 3.5 chaos codex, 4th ed black templar codex, 4th ed ork codex and i can feel the love for the universe from the design team who were also gamers. everything in the last 3 editions is nothing but what was famously said by GW-model company first that happens to have a game attached to it.

Conversely, I can look at both the Tyranid Codices that Cruddace wrote, and can see a man writing something not because he wants to, but because he has to.

Then there was that paradigm shift of design that came with whichever Ork book it was where they suddenly went to big page-filling colour photos and a lot less artwork. That was a low point, certainly.

And there are people who genuinely thing that 10th is going to fix things...

Daedalus81 wrote:
So you think they're exactly the same as they've always been?

A group of people who don't understand the game they've written? Yes. That's exactly what I think.

But let me pose another question to you: Do you know the definition of insanity?

**Dysartes**

tneva82 wrote:
They have literally said army building is pick faction, pick warlord, choose any units you want(max 3 of each except battleline 6), choose relic, done.

They didn't say max 3 of each unit, they said max 3 of each "type" - and have yet to define what they mean by "type".

Is "type" based of battlefield role, off a keyword, off something else entirely? Are the Gladiator variants one type or three? Is "Aspect Warrior" a type?

What happens with units that are 1/detachment today? Are they suddenly fine to field 3x?

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
I do wonder how the new edition will handle allies.

Likely unpopular opinion? Other than Chaos, I hope they just don’t. And I make that concession because it’s long established I don’t like Chaos being broken down as they are into faction and sub faction, and not a riot of choices.

**Dudeface**

Dysartes wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
They have literally said army building is pick faction, pick warlord, choose any units you want(max 3 of each except battleline 6), choose relic, done.

They didn't say max 3 of each unit, they said max 3 of each "type" - and have yet to define what they mean by "type".

Is "type" based of battlefield role, off a keyword, off something else entirely? Are the Gladiator variants one type or three? Is "Aspect Warrior" a type?

What happens with units that are 1/detachment today? Are they suddenly fine to field 3x?

I didn't clock that and processed it as being unit as well to be fair. I can't see how else type would be reasonably defined here in the context of their other updates, other than unit card in the primary.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
I do wonder how the new edition will handle allies.

Likely unpopular opinion? Other than Chaos, I hope they just don’t. And I make that concession because it’s long established I don’t like Chaos being broken down as they are into faction and sub faction, and not a riot of choices.

GSC? They lost guard sales from me due to the wonky ass allied rules that looked like they'd be unsupported at the drop of a hat.

Also sold off chaos armies in the past because they ceased to be functional to the ying-yang of ally rules existing/not.

**Billicus**

Type is clearly analagous to battlefield role if battleline is a "type" in the context of that statement, no?

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

On GSC? Just whack their IG Options into the Codex.

Chaos just needs to be less stratified. Yes former Legions can still field cohesive forces. No argument or beef with that. But likewise, a World Eater Lord may well have launched their own bonkers ape mental crusade, attracting other, non-Khornate opportunists in his wake, so give but a single example.

It would be a mighty arse single tome and no mistake. But I’d strongly argue “so what?”.

**Dudeface**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
On GSC? Just whack their IG Options into the Codex.

Chaos just needs to be less stratified. Yes former Legions can still field cohesive forces. No argument or beef with that. But likewise, a World Eater Lord may well have launched their own bonkers ape mental crusade, attracting other, non-Khornate opportunists in his wake, so give but a single example.

It would be a mighty arse single tome and no mistake. But I’d strongly argue “so what?”.

You'd get many peoples money including mine.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Billicus wrote:
Type is clearly analagous to battlefield role if battleline is a "type" in the context of that statement, no?

The issue is that flies in the face of:

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

There supposedly are no roles, because if there were, you'd have an organisational chart by proxy.

**Tsagualsa**

Dudeface wrote:

The issue is that flies in the face of:

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

There supposedly are no roles, because if there were, you'd have an organisational chart by proxy.

That statement seems worrying, just like their utterance that Stratagems should allow for 'cinematic actions' - 'Thematic' usually means either unplayable or broken beyond belief, and 'Cinematic' often means 'gamebreaking' too. The removal of the glut of stratagems is a good move, but if the remaining ones contain game-changing, swingy 'cinematic' nonsense then they still don't have understood the core of the problem. At the moment we're getting mixed messages here, on one hand they say stuff like this, on the other they say they want to prevent 'gotcha' moments. We'll have to wait, but my optimism is quickly fading.

**Billicus**

True, it does lack internal logic but it's only marketing fluff after all