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.
2023/03/31 02:20:24
Subject: 10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Detachments replace FoC and subfactions
I'd much rather wait for them to add a new kit than bastardize the army.
how is it bastardizing them?
If you just put TS into CSM you'd get stuff like Ahriman, Scarabs, Mutants, and Talons.
I loved my Black Legion in 4th with a LoC. I love pure TS even more. If it happens then fine, but the core of TS is that psychic dominance. That said I have absolutely no idea how psychic abilities will feel this edition and it's probably the part I'm most concerned about.
2023/03/31 02:23:18
Subject: Re:10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Detachments replace FoC and subfactions
How do you know that? Black Templars are a supplement for the Marine 'Dex. 1KSons aren't part of the CSM Codex. They're their own Codex.
Because Ksons is still a subfaction of CSM, and the whole point is to simplify and reduce the number of books needed. So it follows that they would fold them back into the CSM book rather then giving them a whole separate codex. Because they can just make it a detachment in The CSM army which is the whole point of this system change.
2023/03/31 02:27:55
Subject: Re:10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Detachments replace FoC and subfactions
Zarathustra Spake wrote: Ksons are going to be a detachment of CSM and will have an enormous list of things they can't bring. All thier psychic options will disappear and will probably be left with 1 spell which is rather crap that they can spam Ala Smite, and they will be left with mediocre choices on HQs assuming you get a choice. All the unique systems like Cabal points are more then likely gone, replaced with a static decision which were "the best".
I don't imagine that is the case at all.
TS will be it's own separate listing as will all other similarly spun off armies. The design of this system isn't exclusionary as in they're not going to make a detachment and say you can't take X/Y/Z. They're going to say if you want this detachment then your Warlord needs to be this and 'Battleline units are as follows'.
Each unit will have their own set of spells. Rubrics will have Smite and something else. Scarabs Smite and something different from Rubrics. These may very well replace the 'reaction' type rules. The real rub is how they handle characters and their spells. You might be forced to take a shaman if say that is the only unit that can cast Weaver. This is less of a problem since there are no slots to restrict selection so you're just pulling in tools where it seems appropriate. In that way you can have Sorcerers be compelling against Exalted without Exalted just being a better Sorcerer.
How do you know that? Black Templars are a supplement for the Marine 'Dex. 1KSons aren't part of the CSM Codex. They're their own Codex.
Because Ksons is still a subfaction of CSM, and the whole point is to simplify and reduce the number of books needed. So it follows that they would fold them back into the CSM book rather then giving them a whole separate codex. Because they can just make it a detachment in The CSM army which is the whole point of this system change.
You took that language too far, I think.
If you wanted to play Warp Meld you needed the TS book and the campaign book. Other armies had it way worse. Too many books in that sense.
Also, too many rules. The goal is to give you a double-sided page for your army that doesn't require any other book to use. Not to consolidate factions.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/03/31 02:29:54
0010/03/31 02:30:55
Subject: 10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Detachments replace FoC and subfactions
Leo_the_Rat wrote: I'm sorry (not sorry) to the space marine players but I tend to look at the various Chapters and think that they're just like Imp Guard. The only difference for a majority of their units is the aesthetics. By that I mean a Space Wolf Tac marine is functionally the same as a Salamander Tac marine. The difference is in how they look. It's just like the guard a Tallaran plasma gunner is the same as a Steel Legion plasma gunner except for the uniform. So why shouldn't GW just fold all of the chapters back into 1 Codex? The units that are unique to a specific chapter could be found in 1 or 2 of the new army sheets. The same could be done for CSM. This would allow GW to put out Codices at a much faster rate and allow people to use their Codex for a longer period of time until 11th Ed.
I mean, the SW grey hunter kits literally come with wargear that tac marines dont come with (and can't take), the grey hunters have a different unit composition and a different set of abilities. I can't tank my tac marines on an objective because they don't have a terminator with a storm shield in the unit and my tac marines are also not jumping into melee the same way because they arnt holding chainswords. RegularTac Marines have rules that grey hunters don't as well (used to be more significant and I wish it still was)
But I see your point. Everything is just a different coloured marine.... you know what, eldar gaurdians are just a different shaped troop choice ... oh and these this ork wagon is just a weird looking transport.
You know what would make the game way way way way easier to balance and promote quick release of data sheets. if there were 6 data sheets. One for troops, one for bikers/cavalry, one for transports, one for walkers, one for HQs and one for tanks. Every single unit that has the same function could use exactly the same rules. Then GW could fold every faction into one codex and each unit that has similar functioning role would just work exactly like every single other unit that serves the same functon. That would be a fun game full of flavour. I mean, if we are just talking about asthetics and things being "functionally the same" why not boil it all down to a single two pages of datasheets that represent each battle field role. I mean, that would fix everything right XD ?
This argument of "oh it's functionally the same, it's just aesthetics" has always been ridiculous to me you can just take that logic layer by layer up until the game has not customization at all. They are only functionally the same if GW makes them that way (and there have been era's where they really wern't). The fact that they are aesthetically different, come with different gear and have always had rules that have them play on the table different is what makes them a different unit, you know, just like every other troop choice in the game, aesthetically different, comes with different gear, and have rules that have them play different on the table.
Some of us are in this hobby for the flavour, if I wanted to play a game where everyone had exactly the same units but different colours I would play chess.
H.B.M.C. wrote: That's a point: They could keep the Cults in a Thousand Sons Codex as that's not really a 'paint job' driven thing. They're already Thousand Sons, not just "blue and gold Chaos Marines".
But the non-Cult Legions? Those have to go! Can't have those around anymore. Too restrictive. Better to make everything 'Counts As'.
By the nature of abstract game mechanics, everything is already counts as.
The idea that a particular colour of sub army needs a set of special rules with their name in the title to legitimise their gameplay seems to be a unique tunnel vision only found amongst Warhammer players.
It's a weird transactional approach where if you don't get something mechanical for a faction then it has no worth.
People with homebrew factions don't seem to have an issue not getting special unique named rules.
What tabletop war games are you playing lol ? Warmahordes, every single warlord/caster effectively acts as a subfaction (and there are more for each faction then I can count), they give you at least one unique ability for the game and changes your entire playstyle... just as one example ... don't get me start on battletech... lets just go slightly adjacent to wargames and talk about DnD ,,, you gonna tell that death domain cleric they can't use eyes of the grave lol. Mtg gives a player 60/100 cards of variables to customize their gameplay and theme with... I mean, people like the army / characters to have the flavour they asked for. People like options. This isn't some weird unique tunnel vision for Warhammer.
This message was edited 10 times. Last update was at 2023/03/31 03:07:20
As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.
RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
2023/03/31 03:27:22
Subject: 10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Detachments replace FoC and subfactions
How do you know that? Black Templars are a supplement for the Marine 'Dex. 1KSons aren't part of the CSM Codex. They're their own Codex.
Hellebore wrote: By the nature of abstract game mechanics, everything is already counts as.
Only if you take 'Counts As' completely out of context and try to apply it to everything in the game. Don't do that.
To put it another way: You know exactly what's meant by 'Counts As'. Don't intentionally muddy the waters by talking about abstractions. It's a red herring at best.
The difference is semantic. Having a detachment called 'fighty doods' that get +1 to wound and having a detachment called 'blood angels' that get +1 to wound has no effect on the game
so why is it suddenly a problem when you now take fighty doods instead of 'blood angels'? The outcome is identical. You're saying that because GW didn't hold your hand in conceptually connecting the mechanic to the faction it means less?
This is no different to the anti USR arguments put forward on here over the last few years. There is no difference between 'deep strike' and 'warp summons' except in the flavour text. I find it a poor argument to use the flavour text as a component of a rule's value.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/03/31 03:29:11
Hellebore wrote: so why is it suddenly a problem when you now take fighty doods instead of 'blood angels'? The outcome is identical. You're saying that because GW didn't hold your hand in conceptually connecting the mechanic to the faction it means less?
This is no different to the anti USR arguments put forward on here over the last few years. There is no difference between 'deep strike' and 'warp summons' except in the flavour text. I find it a poor argument to use the flavour text as a component of a rule's value.
I don't think it's about holding your hand, but rather being the only one to possess that unique combination...if that makes any sense.
Something I enjoy about Thousand Sons is their psychic dominance. If that was instead conveyed by a detachment ( I know it won't be, but I'm just trying to make an example ) then I would feel less inclined to play Thousand Sons as they are no longer unique in that domain.
I won't have a strong opinion on the situation until we see actual codexes though.
2023/03/31 03:43:05
Subject: 10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Detachments replace FoC and subfactions
It's not. People tend to like and have attachments to their chosen faction/s. Simply saying "Yeah none of that matters, just play 'Fighty Dudez' if you played Blood Angels, and now Ravenwing and White Scars are just 'Speedy Dudez', 'cause the difference between them is just semantic, right?" trivialises people's armies.
To repeat something I've been saying since at least 2007: 'Counts As' is never the answer.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/03/31 03:46:31
IMO your position trivialises the agency of the player.
Unless GW explicitly puts the name of their chosen faction in the rule, the player is incapable of doing it themselves or deriving satisfaction from it unless it's given to them.
I mean that's definitely one way to go, but I find it pretty pointless.
GW could literally release fighty doodz and blood angels detachment rules that are identical, making it entirely redundant.
but you're saying that's superior to having just one rule that players get to use?
Your argument is also anti USR in general, as they lack the uniqueness of an army truly reflecting its method of doing that thing.
you're saying that having deep strike and warp summons, sneaky guys, teleport jump, parachute, catapult or whatever is intrinsically better than having one deep strike rule that covers them all because it trivialises the individual prowess of those units?
Let's be real here for a second: Sub-factions aren't going to disappear.
Even assuming that GW does away with specific Chapter / Legion / whatever bonuses, they're going to re-introduce it via detachments. So while it's true that the SM Codex might have the "Fighty Dudez" detachment, the Space Wolf codex will have the "Wolfy like Fightin' Wolves" detachment, which will probably be somethin' akin to "Fight Dudez with +1 to Bark tests. The only way we wouldn't see this is if they made the decision to suddenly re-combine various chapter and legion codex' under one banner. Which they won't do, because GW milks every dollar they can from their shoddy rules.
Everyone can rest assured that their given sub-faction, at least the ones that currently have codex', will get get another codex which has at least one unique detachment to flanderize the hell out of them.
Hellebore wrote: IMO your position trivialises the agency of the player.
Unless GW explicitly puts the name of their chosen faction in the rule, the player is incapable of doing it themselves or deriving satisfaction from it unless it's given to them.
I mean that's definitely one way to go, but I find it pretty pointless.
GW could literally release fighty doodz and blood angels detachment rules that are identical, making it entirely redundant.
but you're saying that's superior to having just one rule that players get to use?
Your argument is also anti USR in general, as they lack the uniqueness of an army truly reflecting its method of doing that thing.
you're saying that having deep strike and warp summons, sneaky guys, teleport jump, parachute, catapult or whatever is intrinsically better than having one deep strike rule that covers them all because it trivialises the individual prowess of those units?
I think it's more nuanced than that, but I currently lack the words to express it properly.
Still I am of two minds and I see the benefits of both.
2023/03/31 04:23:54
Subject: 10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Detachments replace FoC and subfactions
Hellebore wrote: IMO your position trivialises the agency of the player.
Your position renders the background/fluff of the game nothing but window dressing. I want a game where the two are linked intrinsically: The more fluffy your army, the more its rules reflect that.
Hellebore wrote: GW could literally release fighty doodz and blood angels detachment rules that are identical, making it entirely redundant. but you're saying that's superior to having just one rule that players get to use?
I'm saying that nothing was stopping people from doing that before. I chose White Scars for my Primaris army, but they're not White Scars. They're the Iron Paladins, a chapter I created the entire fluff and organisation for. They're White Scars because the rules were simple to remember. I run my own custom force of Chaos Marines, and that means usually running them as Red Corsairs because - wait for it - their rules are easy to remember.
I run Ultramarines however because I like Ultramarines, and if the new rules are basically "Nah. Ultras aren't really a thing now, just play the Gladius Strike Force or the Stormfight Blaster Company or the Rocksmash Assault Unit!" and all these other utterly arbitrary and meaningless distinctions that have been pulled out thin air, I think it robs the game and the factions of some of their flavour, and especially of their meaning.
Or, worse, Ultras remain a thing, but only in armies that contain special characters. That's the nightmare scenario. Ultramarines only exist if Guilliman or Calgar or Tigurious or Cassius are present on the battlefield. World Eaters are only ever 'World Eaters' if Kharn or Angron are there. Ulthwe is only ever Ulthwe if Eldrad is there, and so on. No. We can't do that... that's just awful...
Hellebore wrote: Your argument is also anti USR in general, as they lack the uniqueness of an army truly reflecting its method of doing that thing.
you're saying that having deep strike and warp summons, sneaky guys, teleport jump, parachute, catapult or whatever is intrinsically better than having one deep strike rule that covers them all because it trivialises the individual prowess of those units?
I never said anything about USRs. And what I'm arguing has nothing to do with USRs. And if you know anything about me you'll know I've been a champion of codified and scalable USRs for years. I'm in favour of writing as few unique special unit rules as humanly possible.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2023/03/31 04:28:07
It will be interesting to see how GW decides to handle the Big 4 (5? 6?) Space Marine Chapters even in the Index stage. They all have units that are not shared with the other Chapters, so how do they appear in the rules and what restrictions will there be on using them?
That being said, this Counts As talk is pure . There is absolutely no reason none of the Space Marine chapters (we are ignoring you, Grey Knights) would not field a Gladius Strike Force. It is the Codex Astartes organizational standard for operations. Do we really need 11 variations of the same detachment so that we can slap a Founding Chapter (plus Black Templars and Deathwatch) name on it for each one? It doesn't appear we will have chapter specific traits, except maybe on chapter specific units, so why not have all the chapters jump in one the same pool?
2023/03/31 04:32:40
Subject: Re:10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Detachments replace FoC and subfactions
Zarathustra Spake wrote: Ksons are going to be a detachment of CSM and will have an enormous list of things they can't bring. All thier psychic options will disappear and will probably be left with 1 spell which is rather crap that they can spam Ala Smite, and they will be left with mediocre choices on HQs assuming you get a choice. All the unique systems like Cabal points are more then likely gone, replaced with a static decision which were "the best".
I don't imagine that is the case at all.
TS will be it's own separate listing as will all other similarly spun off armies. The design of this system isn't exclusionary as in they're not going to make a detachment and say you can't take X/Y/Z. They're going to say if you want this detachment then your Warlord needs to be this and 'Battleline units are as follows'.
Each unit will have their own set of spells. Rubrics will have Smite and something else. Scarabs Smite and something different from Rubrics. These may very well replace the 'reaction' type rules. The real rub is how they handle characters and their spells. You might be forced to take a shaman if say that is the only unit that can cast Weaver. This is less of a problem since there are no slots to restrict selection so you're just pulling in tools where it seems appropriate. In that way you can have Sorcerers be compelling against Exalted without Exalted just being a better Sorcerer.
"Instead of choosing a subfaction or constructing your own, you now choose a single set of Detachment rules for your whole army. These include special abilities, Enhancements, Stratagems, and unit restrictions."
This is the whole related paragraph Ksons don't need a whole codex unless they expand the model line quite a bit. They need maybe 3 detachments. That's it. Now IF they expand the line and add in other things they might do that. But, expect it to be quite a wait.
How do you know that? Black Templars are a supplement for the Marine 'Dex. 1KSons aren't part of the CSM Codex. They're their own Codex.
Because Ksons is still a subfaction of CSM, and the whole point is to simplify and reduce the number of books needed. So it follows that they would fold them back into the CSM book rather then giving them a whole separate codex. Because they can just make it a detachment in The CSM army which is the whole point of this system change.
You took that language too far, I think.
If you wanted to play Warp Meld you needed the TS book and the campaign book. Other armies had it way worse. Too many books in that sense.
Also, too many rules. The goal is to give you a double-sided page for your army that doesn't require any other book to use. Not to consolidate factions.
54 stratagems, 54 Warlord traits, 54 relics, seems like a bit much for a single army that focuses on psychic powers. Maybe just roll it into the CSM Codex with one or two detachments which will cover most of what they need.
2023/03/31 04:37:34
Subject: Re:10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Detachments replace FoC and subfactions
alextroy wrote: That being said, this Counts As talk is pure .
No it's not. Making the fluff pointless isn't a good thing. Fluff and rules should work hand in hand. They should be inseparable. 'Counts As' runs counter to that. Hell, it's almost in the name.
alextroy wrote: There is absolutely no reason none of the Space Marine chapters (we are ignoring you, Grey Knights) would not field a Gladius Strike Force.
I never made the argument that they shouldn't, and I don't recall anyone else making that argument either.
What I did say was that a "Gladius Strike Force" is a meaningless title pulled out of no where. It doesn't mean anything. What relation does it have to the fluff? Why would one Chapter favour it over another, or not favour it, or always field it, or never field it. Would a "Gladius Strike Force" in a White Scar army be different to one in a Space Wolf force? Well, if "White Scars" and "Space Wolves" don't exist in the new rules, and are just replaced with these meaningless formation names, then I guess that won't matter. And the game will be worse for it.
Now compare that to Ultramarines, Imperial Fists, White Scars, Dark Angels, and so on. We know those armies stand for. We know what their doctrines and proclivities are. I'd rather use this 2 page spread thing to better represent these factions, rather than trivialise them and essentially turn everything into Generic Marine Chapter.
So give us a White Scar 2 page spread, and a White Scar Superfast Bikey Bikeness Bike Assault formation that shows them using more bikes. And have a separate one for Ravenwing, as they're not the same as White Scar Bikers. Have a 1st Company 2 page spread, but damn well make sure that the Deathwing have their own.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/03/31 04:39:57
Zarathustra Spake wrote: Ksons are going to be a detachment of CSM and will have an enormous list of things they can't bring. All thier psychic options will disappear and will probably be left with 1 spell which is rather crap that they can spam Ala Smite, and they will be left with mediocre choices on HQs assuming you get a choice. All the unique systems like Cabal points are more then likely gone, replaced with a static decision which were "the best".
I don't imagine that is the case at all.
TS will be it's own separate listing as will all other similarly spun off armies. The design of this system isn't exclusionary as in they're not going to make a detachment and say you can't take X/Y/Z. They're going to say if you want this detachment then your Warlord needs to be this and 'Battleline units are as follows'.
Each unit will have their own set of spells. Rubrics will have Smite and something else. Scarabs Smite and something different from Rubrics. These may very well replace the 'reaction' type rules. The real rub is how they handle characters and their spells. You might be forced to take a shaman if say that is the only unit that can cast Weaver. This is less of a problem since there are no slots to restrict selection so you're just pulling in tools where it seems appropriate. In that way you can have Sorcerers be compelling against Exalted without Exalted just being a better Sorcerer.
"Instead of choosing a subfaction or constructing your own, you now choose a single set of Detachment rules for your whole army. These include special abilities, Enhancements, Stratagems, and unit restrictions."
This is the whole related paragraph Ksons don't need a whole codex unless they expand the model line quite a bit. They need maybe 3 detachments. That's it. Now IF they expand the line and add in other things they might do that. But, expect it to be quite a wait.
How do you know that? Black Templars are a supplement for the Marine 'Dex. 1KSons aren't part of the CSM Codex. They're their own Codex.
Because Ksons is still a subfaction of CSM, and the whole point is to simplify and reduce the number of books needed. So it follows that they would fold them back into the CSM book rather then giving them a whole separate codex. Because they can just make it a detachment in The CSM army which is the whole point of this system change.
You took that language too far, I think.
If you wanted to play Warp Meld you needed the TS book and the campaign book. Other armies had it way worse. Too many books in that sense.
Also, too many rules. The goal is to give you a double-sided page for your army that doesn't require any other book to use. Not to consolidate factions.
54 stratagems, 54 Warlord traits, 54 relics, seems like a bit much for a single army that focuses on psychic powers. Maybe just roll it into the CSM Codex with one or two detachments which will cover most of what they need.
...TS don't have 54 traits and relics. They have 17 relics and 15 traits. If they have Cults in 10th they still won't have 54.
TS have 24 datasheets when I ignore all of Forgeworld and duplicated things like Predators.
People have been making entire TS lists for like...6 years now. So it absolutely has enough volume to exist.
9 of those datasheets are unique to the army with 2 named characters. Blood Angels have 17 unique of which 10 are characters and 8 of those are named.
Take the named characters out of both and you have 7 vs 9. Hardly a huge gap there.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/03/31 05:02:16
2023/03/31 05:12:41
Subject: Re:10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Detachments replace FoC and subfactions
Is it such a horrible thing that you define your chapter by the units you take instead of the special rules you get?
All Astartes use the Gladius Strike Force, which is just a fancy way of saying half a Tactical Company (a demi-Company of a Captain or Chaplin, 3 Tactical Squads, a fast attack squad (Assault Marine, Bikes, land speeders), and a Devastator Squad, plus support elements. Depending upon your Chapter, how you deploy and support that force will change.
White Scars love the tactical flexibility created by speed. All the Gladius Strike Force squads are in transports or are inherently mobile. They are most likely to use a Bike Squad as their fast attack element. They will supplement with more Bikes and vehicle mounted squads. They are less likely to bring Assault Marines with Jump Packs and slow elements like Dreadnoughts and non-vehicle artillery. Not having a you are fast rule doesn't make such a force less White Scars.
Conversely, Imperial Fist are famous for their acumen in siege warfare. They are more likely to concentrate on firepower by using tanks and artillery as support elements. They will also bring elements great for breaking sieges like Gravis and Centurion units. Are they somehow not Imperial Fist for lack of hits better with bolters rule?
I could go on, but the main point is does GW need to provide special bonuses with a chapter name slapped on them for you to have flavor in your army? Or can you do the work yourself by fielding an army that matches your vision of the chapter?
2023/03/31 05:13:48
Subject: 10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Detachments replace FoC and subfactions
Ultramarines were originally the literal default, vanilla chapter, and the only thing making them stand out was the characters. They were the example of a codex chapter, and every other codex chapter was essentially Ultramarines with a different paint scheme.
4th ed, as always, did it best. The chapter traits allowed you to make your own chapter with a touch of flavor, and the codex prescribed which traits were assigned to which named chapter. That was a great system.
So give us a White Scar 2 page spread, and a White Scar Superfast Bikey Bikeness Bike Assault formation that shows them using more bikes. And have a separate one for Ravenwing, as they're not the same as White Scar Bikers. Have a 1st Company 2 page spread, but damn well make sure that the Deathwing have their own.
And you're part of the problem here with bloat. Deathwing don't need their own special snowflake rules.
2023/03/31 05:54:48
Subject: 10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Detachments replace FoC and subfactions
That's not bloat. You know what the bloat of 9th is - 40+ Strats, half as many psychic powers divided up between a bunch of factions, all with specific warlord traits and relics on top of the standard ones for the Codex. Plus rules for those factions, and rules for taking only that faction and so on. And then having rules on top of that that allow you to mix different abilities without counting against your "purity bonus" and everything else that makes players go cross-eyed.
Being able to take a Deathwing army and have the rules represent that and show that it's different from a Codex Chapter's 1st Company isn't anywhere near as "bloat" as the above. Stop trying to redefine bloat as having a few different options. Next you'll be saying Tactical Squads are bloated because they have 4 different special weapons to chose from.
alextroy wrote: Is it such a horrible thing that you define your chapter by the units you take instead of the special rules you get?
If it makes everything "Generic Marine" and "Generic Eldar" or "Generic Ork"... then yes!
Different armies should behave differently, and not just because of the specific makeup of units they take.
alextroy wrote: I could go on, but the main point is does GW need to provide special bonuses with a chapter name slapped on them for you to have flavor in your army? Or can you do the work yourself by fielding an army that matches your vision of the chapter?
And what if these arbitrary formations leave something out? For instance, the current set up (max 6 transports) kills Mechanised Guard armies dead in their tracks. What if the book doesn't have a Mechanised Guard 2 page spread?
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2023/03/31 05:58:38
How do you know that? Black Templars are a supplement for the Marine 'Dex. 1KSons aren't part of the CSM Codex. They're their own Codex.
Because Ksons is still a subfaction of CSM, and the whole point is to simplify and reduce the number of books needed. So it follows that they would fold them back into the CSM book rather then giving them a whole separate codex. Because they can just make it a detachment in The CSM army which is the whole point of this system change.
Have they said flat out they will reduce # of books?
Players might WISH for less books but GW wants to sell more books.
Can you point GW saying flat out they will sell less books for players? Or is this just your conjure?
GW's goal is always to sell more. Not less. Doesn't matter if it's one page they want to sell they want to sell you that one page more as a whole codex. The whole point of GW is sell sell sell sell sell sell sell sell sell sell sell sell.
Just in case you haven't figured it out yet. They want you to buy as many books as they feasibly can. More books to sell, more profits for GW. As long as GW makes up more profit by selling more books they will sell more books.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/03/31 06:20:49
2024 painted/bought: 109/109
2023/03/31 06:40:19
Subject: Re:10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Detachments replace FoC and subfactions
Zarathustra Spake wrote: Ksons are going to be a detachment of CSM and will have an enormous list of things they can't bring. All thier psychic options will disappear and will probably be left with 1 spell which is rather crap that they can spam Ala Smite, and they will be left with mediocre choices on HQs assuming you get a choice. All the unique systems like Cabal points are more then likely gone, replaced with a static decision which were "the best".
I don't imagine that is the case at all.
TS will be it's own separate listing as will all other similarly spun off armies. The design of this system isn't exclusionary as in they're not going to make a detachment and say you can't take X/Y/Z. They're going to say if you want this detachment then your Warlord needs to be this and 'Battleline units are as follows'.
Each unit will have their own set of spells. Rubrics will have Smite and something else. Scarabs Smite and something different from Rubrics. These may very well replace the 'reaction' type rules. The real rub is how they handle characters and their spells. You might be forced to take a shaman if say that is the only unit that can cast Weaver. This is less of a problem since there are no slots to restrict selection so you're just pulling in tools where it seems appropriate. In that way you can have Sorcerers be compelling against Exalted without Exalted just being a better Sorcerer.
"Instead of choosing a subfaction or constructing your own, you now choose a single set of Detachment rules for your whole army. These include special abilities, Enhancements, Stratagems, and unit restrictions."
This is the whole related paragraph Ksons don't need a whole codex unless they expand the model line quite a bit. They need maybe 3 detachments. That's it. Now IF they expand the line and add in other things they might do that. But, expect it to be quite a wait.
How do you know that? Black Templars are a supplement for the Marine 'Dex. 1KSons aren't part of the CSM Codex. They're their own Codex.
Because Ksons is still a subfaction of CSM, and the whole point is to simplify and reduce the number of books needed. So it follows that they would fold them back into the CSM book rather then giving them a whole separate codex. Because they can just make it a detachment in The CSM army which is the whole point of this system change.
You took that language too far, I think.
If you wanted to play Warp Meld you needed the TS book and the campaign book. Other armies had it way worse. Too many books in that sense.
Also, too many rules. The goal is to give you a double-sided page for your army that doesn't require any other book to use. Not to consolidate factions.
54 stratagems, 54 Warlord traits, 54 relics, seems like a bit much for a single army that focuses on psychic powers. Maybe just roll it into the CSM Codex with one or two detachments which will cover most of what they need.
...TS don't have 54 traits and relics. They have 17 relics and 15 traits. If they have Cults in 10th they still won't have 54.
TS have 24 datasheets when I ignore all of Forgeworld and duplicated things like Predators.
People have been making entire TS lists for like...6 years now. So it absolutely has enough volume to exist.
9 of those datasheets are unique to the army with 2 named characters. Blood Angels have 17 unique of which 10 are characters and 8 of those are named.
Take the named characters out of both and you have 7 vs 9. Hardly a huge gap there.
Yes, which could all be fit in 3 to 4 detachments. There could be more of a reason if they expanded the models. But as of right now I don't see why they would make a codes for 3 detachments.
How do you know that? Black Templars are a supplement for the Marine 'Dex. 1KSons aren't part of the CSM Codex. They're their own Codex.
Because Ksons is still a subfaction of CSM, and the whole point is to simplify and reduce the number of books needed. So it follows that they would fold them back into the CSM book rather then giving them a whole separate codex. Because they can just make it a detachment in The CSM army which is the whole point of this system change.
Have they said flat out they will reduce # of books?
Players might WISH for less books but GW wants to sell more books.
Can you point GW saying flat out they will sell less books for players? Or is this just your conjure?
GW's goal is always to sell more. Not less. Doesn't matter if it's one page they want to sell they want to sell you that one page more as a whole codex. The whole point of GW is sell sell sell sell sell sell sell sell sell sell sell sell.
Just in case you haven't figured it out yet. They want you to buy as many books as they feasibly can. More books to sell, more profits for GW. As long as GW makes up more profit by selling more books they will sell more books.
The whole premise of 10th is reduce the number of books people need. Most chaos players have more then 1 chaos armies, so rather then having a deamons book, a CSM Book, and a TS book. Instead you can have a CSM Book and a Deamons book and have most of what you need for any chaos army.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/03/31 06:50:16
2023/03/31 07:15:23
Subject: 10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Detachments replace FoC and subfactions
H.B.M.C. wrote: That's not bloat. You know what the bloat of 9th is - 40+ Strats, half as many psychic powers divided up between a bunch of factions, all with specific warlord traits and relics on top of the standard ones for the Codex. Plus rules for those factions, and rules for taking only that faction and so on. And then having rules on top of that that allow you to mix different abilities without counting against your "purity bonus" and everything else that makes players go cross-eyed.
Being able to take a Deathwing army and have the rules represent that and show that it's different from a Codex Chapter's 1st Company isn't anywhere near as "bloat" as the above. Stop trying to redefine bloat as having a few different options. Next you'll be saying Tactical Squads are bloated because they have 4 different special weapons to chose from.
It absolutely is, and it's part of why we 5 different Terminator entries, and they didn'tneed rules on top of rules on top of rules. Condense it all. Dark Angels aren't special.
Also regarding Tacticals I'm for removing Grav as a weapon entry so that should answer that question.
2023/03/31 07:17:58
Subject: 10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Detachments replace FoC and subfactions
I think its extremely unlikely Thousand Sons are incorporated back into CSM. I think its much more likely they get just one Detachment with the indexes.
The idea of superbooks seems unrealistic to me given the amount of lore and datasheets you would have. (Assuming they'll have datasheets and this isnt all online.)
2023/03/31 07:33:10
Subject: 10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion
Insectum7 wrote: Adopting a "wait and see" attitude. Will not commit to purchasing anything, and won't change my current painting priorities.
That's the wise course of action - On the one hand, they sure sound like they're turning Chess into Checkers at the behest of the common man - on the other its not unheard of for salesmen to urinate on your back and tell you it's raining.
If they really are turning Chess into Checkers it's going to backfire. If they're taking marching orders from the players, its going to backfire even harder. Losing all the distinctness from the subfactions as people realizing no special snowflakes means THEIR special snowflake will also go away is just going to be the opening salvo.
My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings.
2023/03/31 07:37:28
Subject: 10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Detachments replace FoC and subfactions
Tyel wrote: I think its extremely unlikely Thousand Sons are incorporated back into CSM. I think its much more likely they get just one Detachment with the indexes.
The idea of superbooks seems unrealistic to me given the amount of lore and datasheets you would have. (Assuming they'll have datasheets and this isnt all online.)
I'm waiting for the Loyalists to go ape-feces over getting condensed into a single "faction" while the Chaos Legions are being more and more split out into their own factions with their own special units and rules tailored to their flavor etc.
My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings.
2023/03/31 07:48:52
Subject: 10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Detachments replace FoC and subfactions
Tyel wrote: I think its extremely unlikely Thousand Sons are incorporated back into CSM. I think its much more likely they get just one Detachment with the indexes.
The idea of superbooks seems unrealistic to me given the amount of lore and datasheets you would have. (Assuming they'll have datasheets and this isnt all online.)
I'm waiting for the Loyalists to go ape-feces over getting condensed into a single "faction" while the Chaos Legions are being more and more split out into their own factions with their own special units and rules tailored to their flavor etc.
Image how wild they'll get when Tau and their allied races get that kinda treatment. Kroot actually being back!
Let alone Orks, Necrons, or Tyranids.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/03/31 07:49:40
213PL 60PL 12PL 9-17PL (she/her)
2023/03/31 08:18:31
Subject: 10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Detachments replace FoC and subfactions
Tyel wrote: I think its extremely unlikely Thousand Sons are incorporated back into CSM. I think its much more likely they get just one Detachment with the indexes.
The idea of superbooks seems unrealistic to me given the amount of lore and datasheets you would have. (Assuming they'll have datasheets and this isnt all online.)
I'm waiting for the Loyalists to go ape-feces over getting condensed into a single "faction" while the Chaos Legions are being more and more split out into their own factions with their own special units and rules tailored to their flavor etc.
Image how wild they'll get when Tau and their allied races get that kinda treatment. Kroot actually being back!
Let alone Orks, Necrons, or Tyranids.
That would be an interesting and schadenfreude filled version of "Be Careful What You Wish For", but I doubt it. I don't imagine Tau would miss their Vespids much, but the Kroot would likely be missed. Lootas going Deathskull only, but carrying over the main Orky Doctrine thing that won't synergize with them at all because they spun off after it was already established. Ask yourself - given how often GW does the bare minimum instead of actively investigating if the next step is required - How much will be left behind in the main rules, or the two pager faction sheet that no longer makes any sense? If all the subfactions now play the same, why will we still have subfaction keywords?
My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings.
2023/03/31 08:32:58
Subject: 10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Detachments replace FoC and subfactions
Except they very clearly are and have been treated as such for literal decades. Just because you don't think they should be doesn't mean they are.
If the deathwing rules are on the unique deathwing unit entry, then what are they at the next level up? A company of terminators? Much like a 1st company?
EviscerationPlague wrote: Also regarding Tacticals I'm for removing Grav as a weapon entry so that should answer that question.
You're a consolidationist. You want to remove flavour and options from the game. You are anti-fun.
And now you're telling people they have fun wrong.
. There is absolutely no reason none of the Space Marine chapters (we are ignoring you, Grey Knights) would not field a Gladius Strike Force. It is the Codex Astartes organizational standard for operations. Do we really need 11 variations of the same detachment so that we can slap a Founding Chapter (plus Black Templars and Deathwatch) name on it for each one? It doesn't appear we will have chapter specific traits, except maybe on chapter specific units, so why not have all the chapters jump in one the same pool?
60PL 
12PL 
