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.

Lord Damocles wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
My worry right now is they're going to remove all subfaction flavor in the name of balance

Oh, I wouldn't worry too much about GW doing anything in the name of balance...

Wayniac wrote:
and you won't even HAVE like "Iyanden" or "Biel-tan", you'll just have "Swordwind" (aspect warriors) and "Ghost Warriors" (Wraith units) that are completely generic, so it doesn't matter if you have Iyanden or Saim-Hann or your own craftworld, it behaves the same beyond colors.

Just like in 3rd edition, where that was exactly how Codex: Craftworld Eldar worked. And everybody hated that for being too generic. Right? ...right..?

I'm pretty sure 3rd edition Craftworlds had subfactions, like biel tan got aspects as troops. I'm worried more like 4th edition Chaos.

Nope.
Besides happening to have the name of a Craftworld, they were effectively generic and non-Craftworld specific.

There was never an ASPECT WARRIOR build it was the 4th ed codex that created the ability to make a CRAFTWORLD themed army. by making the base troops in line with the lore around the specific craftworld. I.E. alaitoc could take basic rangers as troops, saim hann could take guardian jet bikes as troops, iyanden could take wraithguard as troops etc...

Flavor came from options (and a little nudge in the shape of army building restrictions). Wildly broken nonsense then as now comes from overperforming units/options and the ability to spam them. Obliterator spam Iron Warriors weren't a problem of having veteran abilities or build your own Daemon Prince rules. It's the ability to lose restrictions and just take more of an overly good unit than other armies. In other words, getting free stuff.

That is not like formations in 7th, you didn't get anything for free. sure you could play IW ( play regularly against somebody who plays that specific 3.5 ed army) and take more than 3 oblits, but you still had to pay the points costs for them. A hard army to fight...but definately not unbeatable, even without using 3rd ed GKs.

Wayniac wrote:
My worry right now is they're going to remove all subfaction flavor in the name of balance, and you won't even HAVE like "Iyanden" or "Biel-tan", you'll just have "Swordwind" (aspect warriors) and "Ghost Warriors" (Wraith units) that are completely generic, so it doesn't matter if you have Iyanden or Saim-Hann or your own craftworld, it behaves the same beyond colors.

I think what's going to happen is the walord is going to be restricted. I know Bonesigner is legends, but I would envision something like if you took one then Wraiths are Battleline.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
My worry right now is they're going to remove all subfaction flavor in the name of balance, and you won't even HAVE like "Iyanden" or "Biel-tan", you'll just have "Swordwind" (aspect warriors) and "Ghost Warriors" (Wraith units) that are completely generic, so it doesn't matter if you have Iyanden or Saim-Hann or your own craftworld, it behaves the same beyond colors.

I really don’t see the problem with that?

I mean, certain things being tied to certain colours benefits no-one. All I really need to know is “which army and detachment” when setting up the board. If I now choose to field startlingly neon pink and green Eldar, I don’t risk Sadact McNeckbeard mithering because “acccckkkkkshually, you can’t be Biel Tan because Biel Tan can only be coloured thusly”.

If I want to switch up my detachment game to game? So what?

My sentiments exactly. A million different subfactions with their own special rules are exactly the reason successive editions have a) been an utter gak show when it comes to balance and power creep b) seen certain full factions languish with a half assed set of sticking plaster rules for the current edition while GW prioritise another bloody colour variant of a faction that has dominated a year of releases.

 Geifer wrote:
This isn't a problem that the 10th ed rules counter. As has already been mentioned/dreaded, we get for example ten detachments and of those one or two will hand out bonuses that go well with units that overperform. We'll just see those detachments because they hand out something for free that's better than what the other things hand of for free.

That's a nice thing about these detachment setups. You can easily tell what unit and what interactions are causing the problem. There's no digging to try and see if they used a custom trait or if they had a pile of relics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dysartes wrote:
They seem determined to bring bad elements from AOS into 40k, so expect the double turn here come 11th.

What bad elements of AoS have we recieved?

I think people are missing something critical; the changing away from color scheme rules is a rules change attempting to address a problem of player behavior.

If I have Ultramarines but feel like playing White Scars today, so what? That’s not some big problem, or even a problem at all. The problem is people insisting you must a bunch of money and time just to try out a different set of rules.

Of course, like with any counts as, there is a rational limit. IE if I have painter up Ultramarines but say “this half is White Scars and this half is Raven Guard” that’s not going to work because neither of us is going to keep that straight, not unless I do something else that we agree upon to differentiate.

GW could solve this by saying more or less what I just wrote. With the added caveat that tournaments and events may add additional rules for whatever reason they want, as is normal.

Boosykes wrote:
Looks like they still have too many buffs stacking, on top. Oaths of moment, combat doctarins ect..


Withought some scaffolding for list building sque lists will rule the day the more specific and esoteric the less likely it will be countered.

Looks like balance will suffer.

Hard to tell untill it's out though so wait and see it is I suppose.

I don't think we'll see much stacking. With only 6 strats it's incredibly unlikely that any of them will overlap with each other so that's gone. Oaths is just going to be something like killing a monster gives a CP, your units that fail morale can recover more easily, and OC is increased on the center objective. Doctrines could be the extra AP thing still, but is itself just a single rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

TreeStewges wrote:
I think people are missing something critical; the changing away from color scheme rules is a rules change attempting to address a problem of player behavior.

If I have Ultramarines but feel like playing White Scars today, so what? That’s not some big problem, or even a problem at all. The problem is people insisting you must a bunch of money and time just to try out a different set of rules.

Of course, like with any counts as, there is a rational limit. IE if I have painter up Ultramarines but say “this half is White Scars and this half is Raven Guard” that’s not going to work because neither of us is going to keep that straight, not unless I do something else that we agree upon to differentiate.

GW could solve this by saying more or less what I just wrote. With the added caveat that tournaments and events may add additional rules for whatever reason they want, as is normal.

I think overall people are trying to figure 'how do I establish my identity' as Imperial Fists, Iron Hands, etc. Obviously named characters might be the avenue there, but what if you don't want to take them?

It's just a sort of strange shift from present where it's pretty clear that IF are 'good with bolters' and so on.

 Daedalus81 wrote:


I think overall people are trying to figure 'how do I establish my identity' as Imperial Fists, Iron Hands, etc. Obviously named characters might be the avenue there, but what if you don't want to take them?

It's just a sort of strange shift from present where it's pretty clear that IF are 'good with bolters' and so on.

I always found that sort of thing dubious when it came to 'establishing identity.' It was just rules bonuses for choosing the right color for the units you wanted to use.
Faction identity isn't about what it can give you or what you get for free.

 Asmodai wrote:

Announced earlier on: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/03/23/a-mindblowing-new-edition-of-warhammer-40000-is-coming/


"Codexes will return in time to replace the free rules, but when they do the complexity of the game won’t increase, thanks to a one-in-one-out ethos for army and sub-faction rules. Effectively, you will only ever need your unit datasheets, the two pages of rules that govern your chosen army (available in your codex, on cards, or digitally), plus the core rules and whatever mission you’re playing."

Yikes. Thanks.

 Dysartes wrote:

They seem determined to bring bad elements from AOS into 40k, so expect the double turn here come 11th.

what bad elements do you feel they have brought from AoS?
(i'm not arguing that a double turn in a shooting-centric game would be a good thing)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


I think overall people are trying to figure 'how do I establish my identity' as Imperial Fists, Iron Hands, etc. Obviously named characters might be the avenue there, but what if you don't want to take them?

Simple, bring an army composition that represents their skill at castling up / defending. Lots of heavily armored dudes, low amount of highly mobile units like jump packs or droppods.

(i always mix up wheter Iron warriors or Imperial fists are the defenders or the attackers so if i got it wrong, flip my example around)

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


I think overall people are trying to figure 'how do I establish my identity' as Imperial Fists, Iron Hands, etc. Obviously named characters might be the avenue there, but what if you don't want to take them?

Simple, bring an army composition that represents their skill at castling up / defending. Lots of heavily armored dudes, low amount of highly mobile units like jump packs or droppods.

(i always mix up wheter Iron warriors or Imperial fists are the defenders or the attackers so if i got it wrong, flip my example around)

I have to agree this seems really simple to me and simultaneously how it used to be and how it should be building "your dudes" without having to slap a thousand keywords/tags/labels on them. How many people were angry at GW when they had that stint of "you play the force your army is painted as", likewise in 8.5 with all the blue iron hands etc being criticised.

That article on GW is interesting.

So 1,000 & 2,000 & 3,000 point lists!?! They even were discouraging 500 pt games. Want games bigger.

Calling it now - they already increased points list with that 3,000 mark & will LOWER individual model points costs. This in turn will have people buy even more (new version) minis to fill the lists.

Works out nice for my planned swarm Tyranid list for 10th edition.

Grzzldgamerps5 wrote:
That article on GW is interesting.

So 1,000 & 2,000 & 3,000 point lists!?! They even were discouraging 500 pt games. Want games bigger.

Calling it now - they already increased points list with that 3,000 mark & will LOWER individual model points costs. This in turn will have people buy even more (new version) minis to fill the lists.

Works out nice for my planned swarm Tyranid list for 10th edition.

They're not discouraging anything. They even have a format for 500 points. Also all these point levels were previously supported. Standard games will be 2K.

TreeStewges wrote:
Of course, like with any counts as, there is a rational limit. IE if I have painter up Ultramarines but say “this half is White Scars and this half is Raven Guard” that’s not going to work because neither of us is going to keep that straight, not unless I do something else that we agree upon to differentiate.

That's what company colors are for. Totally reasonable for the 6th company and the 9th to fight side-by-side using different tactics.

Kind of never been in the group of people who forced blue Marines to be Ultramarines - and thought everyone else had moved on 3-5 years ago.

In principle making detachments be your subfaction makes some sense. Personally I have some concerns how it might interact with "your dudes" - but trying to make certain faction archetypes viable rather than "play best faction goodstuff and like it" is no bad thing.

The concern I think is going to be indexification. How many detachments are the various factions going to get out the gate - and will they be stuck for around for two years with mediocre ones? Are say "Index Eldar" really going to get 5 options out the gate, 6 maybe if you include Ynnari?

Grzzldgamerps5 wrote:
That article on GW is interesting.

So 1,000 & 2,000 & 3,000 point lists!?! They even were discouraging 500 pt games. Want games bigger.

Calling it now - they already increased points list with that 3,000 mark & will LOWER individual model points costs. This in turn will have people buy even more (new version) minis to fill the lists.

Works out nice for my planned swarm Tyranid list for 10th edition.

500 points? Play Kill Team. Because games can have a minimum practical points limit. Where whatever balance exists is thrown off because of minimum costs.

Consider 3rd Ed Necrons. For 500 points? I’d get 2 x 10 Necron Warriors, and a Necron Lord, and 20 points change for a bit of Wargear. You could absolutely use that in a 500 point game. But after two or three, you’re into strong boredom territory, and either given up or expanded your force. And as your collection grows, you want to field more of it at the same time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyel wrote:
Kind of never been in the group of people who forced blue Marines to be Ultramarines - and thought everyone else had moved on 3-5 years ago.

In principle making detachments be your subfaction makes some sense. Personally I have some concerns how it might interact with "your dudes" - but trying to make certain faction archetypes viable rather than "play best faction goodstuff and like it" is no bad thing.

The concern I think is going to be indexification. How many detachments are the various factions going to get out the gate - and will they be stuck for around for two years with mediocre ones? Are say "Index Eldar" really going to get 5 options out the gate, 6 maybe if you include Ynnari?

All going to depend on what the Detachments look like, particularly as it seems the available Stratagems are entirely tied to said Detachment. If they allow strongly themed lists go be practical, without overly limiting? Might be about nice.

Definitely something we don’t have enough proper info on just yet.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Grzzldgamerps5 wrote:
That article on GW is interesting.

So 1,000 & 2,000 & 3,000 point lists!?! They even were discouraging 500 pt games. Want games bigger.

Calling it now - they already increased points list with that 3,000 mark & will LOWER individual model points costs. This in turn will have people buy even more (new version) minis to fill the lists.

Works out nice for my planned swarm Tyranid list for 10th edition.

They're not discouraging anything. They even have a format for 500 points. Also all these point levels were previously supported. Standard games will be 2K.

Just going off what I read -

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

Grzzldgamerps5 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Grzzldgamerps5 wrote:
That article on GW is interesting.

So 1,000 & 2,000 & 3,000 point lists!?! They even were discouraging 500 pt games. Want games bigger.

Calling it now - they already increased points list with that 3,000 mark & will LOWER individual model points costs. This in turn will have people buy even more (new version) minis to fill the lists.

Works out nice for my planned swarm Tyranid list for 10th edition.

They're not discouraging anything. They even have a format for 500 points. Also all these point levels were previously supported. Standard games will be 2K.

Just going off what I read -

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

Which is a good thing. 1000 points is the minimum 40k works at, as otherwise you have Kill Team or Necromunda.

The only downside to that is a brand new player is more likely to have 500 points then be told hey you have to spend a few hundred dollars to get a thousand. Although presumably that's what the combat Patrol format will take care of

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Your faction gives you the Oath of Moment army rule (more on this next week!) while your Detachment gives you access to six unique Stratagems – on top of the core group in the main rules – as well as four exclusive Enhancements for your Space Marine characters. It also bags you the Combat Doctrines ability, which allows you to pick from three powerful doctrines during your Command phase.

Admittedly I'm only on my first coffee of the morning, but this sounds like an awful lot of additional guff to keep track of...

 insaniak wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Your faction gives you the Oath of Moment army rule (more on this next week!) while your Detachment gives you access to six unique Stratagems – on top of the core group in the main rules – as well as four exclusive Enhancements for your Space Marine characters. It also bags you the Combat Doctrines ability, which allows you to pick from three powerful doctrines during your Command phase.

Admittedly I'm only on my first coffee of the morning, but this sounds like an awful lot of additional guff to keep track of...

If I’m reading it right, it’s all defined by the Detachment, so on the same data sheet thing. So it does bring various bits and bobs, but it sounds like the presentation will be simplified.

 insaniak wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Your faction gives you the Oath of Moment army rule (more on this next week!) while your Detachment gives you access to six unique Stratagems – on top of the core group in the main rules – as well as four exclusive Enhancements for your Space Marine characters. It also bags you the Combat Doctrines ability, which allows you to pick from three powerful doctrines during your Command phase.

Admittedly I'm only on my first coffee of the morning, but this sounds like an awful lot of additional guff to keep track of...

Its six Strats when compared to... 60? more?

Combat doctrines that exist now (but no super doctrine)

Oath of the Moment we don't know, but given the rejection of color = rules, it likely replaces Chapter Tactics

4 Enhancements replace all of warlord traits, relics and etc.

Its very definitely a lot less to keep track of.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Your faction gives you the Oath of Moment army rule (more on this next week!) while your Detachment gives you access to six unique Stratagems – on top of the core group in the main rules – as well as four exclusive Enhancements for your Space Marine characters. It also bags you the Combat Doctrines ability, which allows you to pick from three powerful doctrines during your Command phase.

Admittedly I'm only on my first coffee of the morning, but this sounds like an awful lot of additional guff to keep track of...

If I’m reading it right, it’s all defined by the Detachment, so on the same data sheet thing. So it does bring various bits and bobs, but it sounds like the presentation will be simplified.

Given that Synapse is the faction rule printed on the Termagant datasheet, it seems likely that it'll be common across all detachments and only one of the rules will change.

I guess marines will have Oath of Moment on all their datasheets.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
They seem determined to bring bad elements from AOS into 40k, so expect the double turn here come 11th.

What bad elements of AoS have we recieved?

My top 3 (or at least 2.5)?
- Fixed to-hit values instead of a reworked comparison table in melee. Gretchin should not be hitting The Lion (based on what we've seen so far) as easily as they hit a Guardsman or Guardian. At least they've not dragged fixed to-wound values across... yet.
- Mortal Wounds (especially coupled with GW's lack of discipline on handing them out).
- The whole Command Point mess (which I think was AOS before 40k, but it was 6 years ago so I might be mis-remembering that).

I think you have two such Datsheets.

First is your Faction, with your Universal Faction Rules (so, ATSKNF, Transhuman Physiology).

Second is your Detachment. Which I think are 40K takes on HH Rites of War.

I look forward to actually seeing what they look like. Because its a neat idea easily ruined by poor layout.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Grzzldgamerps5 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Grzzldgamerps5 wrote:
That article on GW is interesting.

So 1,000 & 2,000 & 3,000 point lists!?! They even were discouraging 500 pt games. Want games bigger.

Calling it now - they already increased points list with that 3,000 mark & will LOWER individual model points costs. This in turn will have people buy even more (new version) minis to fill the lists.

Works out nice for my planned swarm Tyranid list for 10th edition.

They're not discouraging anything. They even have a format for 500 points. Also all these point levels were previously supported. Standard games will be 2K.

Just going off what I read -

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

Which is a good thing. 1000 points is the minimum 40k works at, as otherwise you have Kill Team or Necromunda.

This is a good thing they aknowledge this lower limit. I'm a big fan of the 1000 points format (provided it is played on a decent table of 48" by 48", traditional for this format), and I'm happy GW will still provide support for it. If 500 points is all one's has, Kill team of the combat patrol missions will fit better until one's has a bigger force.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
They seem determined to bring bad elements from AOS into 40k, so expect the double turn here come 11th.

What bad elements of AoS have we recieved?

My top 3 (or at least 2.5)?
- Fixed to-hit values instead of a reworked comparison table in melee. Gretchin should not be hitting The Lion (based on what we've seen so far) as easily as they hit a Guardsman or Guardian. At least they've not dragged fixed to-wound values across... yet.
- Mortal Wounds (especially coupled with GW's lack of discipline on handing them out).
- The whole Command Point mess (which I think was AOS before 40k, but it was 6 years ago so I might be mis-remembering that).

Counter point, 40k kicked off mortal wounds with destroyer weapons. Command points came in 8th first in 2017, they then appeared in AoS 2.0 in 2018.

Dudeface wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
They seem determined to bring bad elements from AOS into 40k, so expect the double turn here come 11th.

What bad elements of AoS have we recieved?

My top 3 (or at least 2.5)?
- Fixed to-hit values instead of a reworked comparison table in melee. Gretchin should not be hitting The Lion (based on what we've seen so far) as easily as they hit a Guardsman or Guardian. At least they've not dragged fixed to-wound values across... yet.
- Mortal Wounds (especially coupled with GW's lack of discipline on handing them out).
- The whole Command Point mess (which I think was AOS before 40k, but it was 6 years ago so I might be mis-remembering that).

Counter point, 40k kicked off mortal wounds with destroyer weapons. Command points came in 8th first in 2017, they then appeared in AoS 2.0 in 2018.

Well in my remembering of destroyer weapons in 7th, it was rather a case of "If I roll a 2+ on my destroyer, your unit is instantly destroyed, no saves, you are screwed !".
The current mortal wounds are more "granular"...

Voss wrote:
Its six Strats when compared to... 60? more?

6 unique strategems on top of however many are in the rulebook.

But yeah, I think I was misreading it as your army having the Oath, six strategems, 4 enhancements and a doctrine... which sounds like a lot. I'm assuming it all makes a bit more sense to those who have actually been playing 9th edition.

 Ravajaxe wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
They seem determined to bring bad elements from AOS into 40k, so expect the double turn here come 11th.

What bad elements of AoS have we recieved?

My top 3 (or at least 2.5)?
- Fixed to-hit values instead of a reworked comparison table in melee. Gretchin should not be hitting The Lion (based on what we've seen so far) as easily as they hit a Guardsman or Guardian. At least they've not dragged fixed to-wound values across... yet.
- Mortal Wounds (especially coupled with GW's lack of discipline on handing them out).
- The whole Command Point mess (which I think was AOS before 40k, but it was 6 years ago so I might be mis-remembering that).

Counter point, 40k kicked off mortal wounds with destroyer weapons. Command points came in 8th first in 2017, they then appeared in AoS 2.0 in 2018.

Well in my remembering of destroyer weapons in 7th, it was rather a case of "If I roll a 2+ on my destroyer, your unit is instantly destroyed, no saves, you are screwed !".
The current mortal wounds are more "granular"...

Yeah pretty much, mortal wounds are just dialled back D weapons.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
They seem determined to bring bad elements from AOS into 40k, so expect the double turn here come 11th.

What bad elements of AoS have we recieved?

My top 3 (or at least 2.5)?
- Fixed to-hit values instead of a reworked comparison table in melee. Gretchin should not be hitting The Lion (based on what we've seen so far) as easily as they hit a Guardsman or Guardian. At least they've not dragged fixed to-wound values across... yet.

Why not? They're a pretty big target for a lowly grot, so it'd be pretty hard to miss.