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.

Sadly I suspect GW missed the Keywords boat and probably should have added Biological and Technological keywords to the units - with some (I'm looking mainly at AdMech) getting both - this lets Medic Types heal BIOLOGICAL and Engineers heal MECHANICAL - poison (BIOLOGICAL) and Ion/Haywire hits MECHANICAL etc.

dominuschao wrote:
Edit- theres plenty we haven't seen so maybe I'll change my perspective. Just haven't liked really anything from 10th. Much as 9th seemed like a shitshow I'll now admit 9th with arks of omen is possibly the most balanced enjoyable 40k I've played out of 7 editions. I'm sad to see it replaced by something that seems.. less.

Its strange how I liked the dumbing down of 7th to 8th, because I thought 7th had grown so terrible.
For all its excesses, I actually like 9th, and so losing a lot feels bad. Yes there's bloat - but from that a lot of scope to make your dudes your dudes.

As various people have said - the problem is with faction mechanics being reduced down to just a couple of abilities, if you don't like them (for power, mechanic and/or fluff reasons) there isn't anywhere to go.
I can imagine the pain token system here could easily be powerful. If undercosted DE could rule the game just as they did through 2021. But for me its neither imaginative or fun (and I felt much the same about the 9th codex). It doesn't fit my vision of how DE work. I'm sure there will be greater synergy in pain tokens within the datasheets, stratagems etc (the same for all the army rules shown) that might be more fun/interesting - but it still feels like a dull foundation to start off with.

Its a similar story with say Tau. I think the "not-markerlights" rule is probably functional. Kauyon is probably functional. But neither inspire or excite me.

The answer unfortunately its probably swapping factions. On the back of this why for example CSM players would look at the Dark Pacts ability and go "that's not me/mine". But I look at it and go "yeah, CSM as imagined via Chaos Gate (the original one), Dawn of War and various other media? I can see it."

How much of the 'bloat' though is the core rules v the codexes?

and how much can be laid directly in the core rules at not having all that many stats, and limiting to a d6 so there isn't that much scope to make things actually all that different in the first place?

its like when they got rid of Int, Wp & Cl as psych stats, at a stroke removing the ability to have models that would stand their ground but were poorly led, or ones that we well led but would spook easily, ones who could be bad at both but by eck they could ignore the effects of magical stuff etc.

or the removal, then thankfully the return of the movement stat?

seems a lot of what the rules writers want to do isn't supported by the core game mechanics, and instead of fix that they start adding special rules

special rules should be special and thus reasonably rare, the keyword faction abilities should be largely part of the core rules or integrated into the stat lines

effect is longer, but more comprehensive and better integrated core rules, and more streamlined army and unit rules

Dysartes wrote:

 The Red Hobbit wrote:
Yeah I assume anti-monster will be on relic weapons or enhancements. I'd all but guarantee a Custodes enhancement or stratagem will be Anti-Monster given their previous rules.

Personally I like that, I think a distinction between Vehicle and Monster will be nice and will make fighting armies in a tournament or crusade pretty meaningful depending on your army. You may rip through a mechanized list one game and then struggle with Tyranid monster mash in another.

When it comes to Anti-Big-Things weapons, some of them should be anti-monster (such as, to a degree, Splinter weapons), some weapons should be anti-vehicle (such as Haywire weapons), while some should be effective against both.

It seems odd that we've seen anti-infantry and anti-vehicle weapons, but no (or virtually no - can't remember everything that's been shown off so far off the top of my head) anti-monster weapons.

I think the weapons that will be effective against both will be any high strength high damage weapon. But I would consider "Anti" weapons to be super effective if that makes sense.

vict0988 wrote:Forget anti-monster, what about cavalry, bikes and beasts? Drukhari splinter weapons have been ruined.

Has there been a preview for cavalry or bikers yet? If the answer is no then we will likely see Infantry+Cavalry or Infantry+Biker keywords.

Valkyrie wrote:

 The Red Hobbit wrote:
I'm not so sure it will be a small difference, we've seen Anti-Vehicle weapons but we haven't seen any Anti-Monster weapons right? If so, they may be opting to make Monsters more resilient than a vehicle by having less weapons that are specifically tuned to killing them.

The Thundercoil Harpoon has both Anti-Vehicle and Anti-Monster, both 4+

Ah, good catch, good to see there's one with both.

Breton 809431 11539873 wrote:

I'd just prefer to go the other way - Inject some more variety into the Eldar (and so on) codices. The choices were/are Eldrad and NPC Eldar Character everyone expects to lose and die. Its especially true for armies like GSC. When is the last time anyone read a Black Library novel, or saw a Summer Campaign and said "You know, I think the Genestealers are going to win this one"? Part of that is that the Summer Campaigns are pre-written into a corner. "If this planet falls it'll be the death of the Imperium" ergo the planet will not fall because we're maintaining the Status Quo forever. Maintaining the Status Quo is and should be the goal, but doing so while letting the planet fall from time to time should also be built into the premise. Guilliman, being the master strategist didn't put all his eggs into the Vigilus basket, and sent a strike force of Black Templars and White Scars to liberate the plant Warinus from the (A sub-faction not on the main campaign world). This would also help with the issue of there only being one planet under seige in the galaxy so everyone and their sister is going there thing.

I don't know. I don't read BL stuff in general, and I have no interests in reading about something that is not a human. Marines get stuff, because marines sell, and people want them. They don't even share release windows with other factions. Everything else can get copy past book, be skipped for an edition or get no new models. Marines will get new models every edition, because like unlike people playing other factions, and this does include me to some degree, they are willing to rebuy their army each edition. Anything bar the obligatory faction model line reset,is from GW points of view is a potential waste of time and money. Something astronomicaly bad has have to happen for a marine product to not sell, like the RG christmas box. The lore is marine focused, to such a degree that it GW is willing to give a separate game for just marines. I wouldn't expect that ever to change. Now people at the studio can have pet projects, and if they are influencial enough, they can write stuff like Gav Thorpes eldar series. But a book about lets say orks vs tyranids? Who would buy that comparing to a book about marines vs any of those two, or marines vs marines.

I quite liked the story in the Aphelion Project, hardly an "imperial win", but very well done and showing the true meaning of "its a bit universe, you will not be missed"

Tyel wrote:

Its strange how I liked the dumbing down of 7th to 8th, because I thought 7th had grown so terrible.
For all its excesses, I actually like 9th, and so losing a lot feels bad. Yes there's bloat - but from that a lot of scope to make your dudes your dudes.

As various people have said - the problem is with faction mechanics being reduced down to just a couple of abilities, if you don't like them (for power, mechanic and/or fluff reasons) there isn't anywhere to go.
I can imagine the pain token system here could easily be powerful. If undercosted DE could rule the game just as they did through 2021. But for me its neither imaginative or fun (and I felt much the same about the 9th codex). It doesn't fit my vision of how DE work. I'm sure there will be greater synergy in pain tokens within the datasheets, stratagems etc (the same for all the army rules shown) that might be more fun/interesting - but it still feels like a dull foundation to start off with.

This is basically where I stand as well.

I don't mind the idea of pain tokens but the execution is half-arsed at best. And it's made all the worse by the fact that the detachment ability adds nothing extra whatsoever.

At the very least, I'd argue there should have been more ways to spend Pain Tokens beyond rerolls. Maybe some units will have unique mechanics with them but then that creates the same issue as psychic powers where only specific psykers can cast specific spells. At the very least, I'd like to have a larget pool of options to begin with (similar to how TS get a pool of 5 'spells' - not ideal by any means but a good deal better than just 2).

I also think it would have been more interesting if individual units acquired pain tokens, rather than having them in a static pool. They could either be spent as now (though perhaps more in the moment) or else grant cumulative bonuses like in 5th.

This would also facilitate both differentiating the HQs and giving them additional functions. e.g. Haemonculi could automatically generate Pain Tokens for their unit, whilst Archons could redistribute Pain tokens around them.

I guess they're saving all the Anti-Monster weapons for the Space Wolf rules...

Karol wrote:

Breton 809431 11539873 wrote:

I'd just prefer to go the other way - Inject some more variety into the Eldar (and so on) codices. The choices were/are Eldrad and NPC Eldar Character everyone expects to lose and die. Its especially true for armies like GSC. When is the last time anyone read a Black Library novel, or saw a Summer Campaign and said "You know, I think the Genestealers are going to win this one"? Part of that is that the Summer Campaigns are pre-written into a corner. "If this planet falls it'll be the death of the Imperium" ergo the planet will not fall because we're maintaining the Status Quo forever. Maintaining the Status Quo is and should be the goal, but doing so while letting the planet fall from time to time should also be built into the premise. Guilliman, being the master strategist didn't put all his eggs into the Vigilus basket, and sent a strike force of Black Templars and White Scars to liberate the plant Warinus from the (A sub-faction not on the main campaign world). This would also help with the issue of there only being one planet under seige in the galaxy so everyone and their sister is going there thing.

I don't know. I don't read BL stuff in general, and I have no interests in reading about something that is not a human.

I recommend Day of Ascension by Adrian Tchaikovsky. It very much humanizes the GSC via the Cultists, and they do kinda win. Certainly not without a cost, and certainly not an obvious, victorious uprising. Karol, I think you'd like it because the way you sometimes describe your meta, I feel like you're living in the oppressive Imperium, and the story of folks rebelling against that... Well it just feels like something you'd dig.

As for Breton- I think the Eldar could have had more flexibility in 9th- for example I hated the lack of a generic Corsair HQ and their exclusion from Ynarri, despite Yvraine herself walking the Path of the Corsair. I hated the fact that in two editions GW hasn't bothered to advance the Ynarri story- say by adding a single infantry unit of dedicated Ynarri soldiers.

But I do take some exception to the comment about the disposable Farseer. Again, it's my Bias as a Crusade player, but for me, by the time I'm fielding a Farseer, it has walked at least one path and maxed out another, and attained a rank of at least heroic... And a Faseer with that many Battle Honours and Path Abilities can and will take the Pepsi Challenge with Eldrad any day of the week and twice on Sundays. Heroic and Legendary generic HQ's are never expendable, throwaway character. While they'll never stand up to a Primarch, they'll go toe to toe with a named equivalent.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Mechanically, it can be awkward when you face daemons or tyranids and your splinters are suddenly good against both the enemy's big stuff and their little stuff.

This may be why the Screamer Killer was T9 and not T10. Not for this poison specifically, but the limited amount of anti-tank that is also anti-monster.

It's also interesting to see the Venom at T6. They're creating a broader range of vehicles, which should make weapon selection more interesting.

T6/7 - Light
T8/9 - Medium
T10/11 - Heavy
T12/13 - Superheavy
T14 - Titans

Voss wrote:
So at the pace given, some folks are going into 2025 still waiting.

Yea, not ideal. Hopefully they splash in more. I know my buddy who plays Deathskulls can't give a single crap about the Ork detachment.

Dudeface wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
Forget anti-monster, what about cavalry, bikes and beasts? Drukhari splinter weapons have been ruined.

Logic serves they're likely also going to be infantry, monster or vehicles alongside those keywords.

Ehhh. I doubt that.

PenitentJake wrote:
I recommend Day of Ascension by Adrian Tchaikovsky.

Is that the one where the girlboss main protag becomes a super special Magus and the villain is Techpriest Deadpool?

Webbers seem very useful now. Lose a squad, bring it back within 12 and go fishing for 6s again.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I guess they're saving all the Anti-Monster weapons for the Space Wolf rules...

Ughh watch them get every key word on everything because Space Wulfs

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Webbers seem very useful now. Lose a squad, bring it back within 12 and go fishing for 6s again.

Seems bad, to be honest. That isn't far enough to keep enemies out of 9" and trashing your ambush marker, and crit fishing for 6s off d6 attacks is...dubious, at best.

Voss wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Webbers seem very useful now. Lose a squad, bring it back within 12 and go fishing for 6s again.

Seems bad, to be honest. That isn't far enough to keep enemies out of 9" and trashing your ambush marker, and crit fishing for 6s off d6 attacks is...dubious, at best.

Hmm, yea. You'll want to place it back a bit, but popping them behind cover somewhere and moving up and shooting could work. Units popping in at the end of my move phase will be disorienting.

I really think the GSC are going to be annoying as hell to play against. Personally I'm happy Crossfire is gone (almost half of the GSC Units couldn't benefit or contribute to the rule).


I'm assuming that since they specifically used the "Deep Strike" words for returning units that you will have to deploy 9" or more from an enemy unit.

Notice that the only other stipulation is that at least one model touches the Cult Ambush marker though; you can place them back away from the enemy a little bit (say 12" from an enemy) and then creep up to 9" during redeploy, if you want.

The Ambush units also come back in the enemy's turn so you will have your own Movement phase to move them however you want. No need to creep them closer, they will just get shot and charged into pieces (then come back again).

 Dysartes wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
So extreme anti-infantry is being used to show the poisoned nature of Dark Eldar weaponry.

I'm surprised just how few anti-monster things we've seen.

Gotta keep the Eldar Studio Guy's Wraith constructs safe from this "Anti-" stuff, after all.

After all, Chainfists lose their effectiveness the moment they touch wraithbone!

I think Cult Ambush is an example of an interesting rule.

I don't know how powerful it will be - as people say it will probably vary from opponent to opponent. Which may be a balance issue. But at least it makes you think rather than going full cookie cutter every game.

Tyel wrote:
I think Cult Ambush is an example of an interesting rule.

I don't know how powerful it will be - as people say it will probably vary from opponent to opponent. Which may be a balance issue. But at least it makes you think rather than going full cookie cutter every game.

It definitely seems like GSC would prefer to go second perhaps? Gives them a final turn of stuff popping in with no reprisals.

 AtoMaki wrote:
The Ambush units also come back in the enemy's turn so you will have your own Movement phase to move them however you want. No need to creep them closer, they will just get shot and charged into pieces (then come back again).

Really good point!

Some people are maybe not following the timing on Cult Ambush.

Phases where your units could be destroyed:
Opponent shooting phase.
Opponent fight phase.
Your own fight phase (mildly unlikely)
Your own shooting phase (very unlikely).

During the phase you die, you place the marker.

You re-appear at the end of the opponent's next movement phase.

So, if your opponent goes first the usual scenario is you are killed by your opponent on their 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th turn and re-appear in your opponent's 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th turn and get to move with your unit in your own 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th turn.

But, if you go first the usual scenario is you are killed by your opponent on their 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th turn and re-appear in your opponent's 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th turn and get to move with your unit in your own 3rd (killed in their 1st), 4th (killed in their 2nd) or 5th turn (killed in their 3rd). If you were killed in their 4th turn, then you re-appear in their 5th turn movement phase which is the final turn of the game.

In all scenarios, if you die in their 5th turn you aren't coming back (unless there is a special rule yet to be revealed).


My general thoughts about this are will none INFANTRY/MOUNTED squads get the rule? As GSC INFANTRY/MOUNTED are incredibly squishy, especially if they lose some of their 9th special sauce like the can't be wounded on 2s and bikes get a 6+++ custom cult.

 AtoMaki wrote:

Is that the one where the girlboss main protag becomes a super special Magus and the villain is Techpriest Deadpool?

Not the way I would describe it but basically yes.

Tyel wrote:

dominuschao wrote:
Edit- theres plenty we haven't seen so maybe I'll change my perspective. Just haven't liked really anything from 10th. Much as 9th seemed like a shitshow I'll now admit 9th with arks of omen is possibly the most balanced enjoyable 40k I've played out of 7 editions. I'm sad to see it replaced by something that seems.. less.

Its strange how I liked the dumbing down of 7th to 8th, because I thought 7th had grown so terrible.
For all its excesses, I actually like 9th, and so losing a lot feels bad. Yes there's bloat - but from that a lot of scope to make your dudes your dudes.

As various people have said - the problem is with faction mechanics being reduced down to just a couple of abilities, if you don't like them (for power, mechanic and/or fluff reasons) there isn't anywhere to go.
I can imagine the pain token system here could easily be powerful. If undercosted DE could rule the game just as they did through 2021. But for me its neither imaginative or fun (and I felt much the same about the 9th codex). It doesn't fit my vision of how DE work. I'm sure there will be greater synergy in pain tokens within the datasheets, stratagems etc (the same for all the army rules shown) that might be more fun/interesting - but it still feels like a dull foundation to start off with.

Its a similar story with say Tau. I think the "not-markerlights" rule is probably functional. Kauyon is probably functional. But neither inspire or excite me.

The answer unfortunately its probably swapping factions. On the back of this why for example CSM players would look at the Dark Pacts ability and go "that's not me/mine". But I look at it and go "yeah, CSM as imagined via Chaos Gate (the original one), Dawn of War and various other media? I can see it."

This is more in reply to the first comment: Balanced? Tell me you don't play Sisters, Admech, or Greyknights without telling me you don't play Sisters, Admech, or Greyknights.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I guess they're saving all the Anti-Monster weapons for the Space Wolf rules...

Ughh watch them get every key word on everything because Space Wulfs

This feels accurate, sadly.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
So extreme anti-infantry is being used to show the poisoned nature of Dark Eldar weaponry.

I'm surprised just how few anti-monster things we've seen.

Gotta keep the Eldar Studio Guy's Wraith constructs safe from this "Anti-" stuff, after all.

After all, Chainfists lose their effectiveness the moment they touch wraithbone!

Yeah, the keyword stuff feels like a very delicate set of mechanics. I await to see how it plays out, but it sure seems rife with opportunity for over-design. Chainfists would be a good example.

ERJAK wrote:

Tyel wrote:

dominuschao wrote:
Edit- theres plenty we haven't seen so maybe I'll change my perspective. Just haven't liked really anything from 10th. Much as 9th seemed like a shitshow I'll now admit 9th with arks of omen is possibly the most balanced enjoyable 40k I've played out of 7 editions. I'm sad to see it replaced by something that seems.. less.

Its strange how I liked the dumbing down of 7th to 8th, because I thought 7th had grown so terrible.
For all its excesses, I actually like 9th, and so losing a lot feels bad. Yes there's bloat - but from that a lot of scope to make your dudes your dudes.

As various people have said - the problem is with faction mechanics being reduced down to just a couple of abilities, if you don't like them (for power, mechanic and/or fluff reasons) there isn't anywhere to go.
I can imagine the pain token system here could easily be powerful. If undercosted DE could rule the game just as they did through 2021. But for me its neither imaginative or fun (and I felt much the same about the 9th codex). It doesn't fit my vision of how DE work. I'm sure there will be greater synergy in pain tokens within the datasheets, stratagems etc (the same for all the army rules shown) that might be more fun/interesting - but it still feels like a dull foundation to start off with.

Its a similar story with say Tau. I think the "not-markerlights" rule is probably functional. Kauyon is probably functional. But neither inspire or excite me.

The answer unfortunately its probably swapping factions. On the back of this why for example CSM players would look at the Dark Pacts ability and go "that's not me/mine". But I look at it and go "yeah, CSM as imagined via Chaos Gate (the original one), Dawn of War and various other media? I can see it."

This is more in reply to the first comment: Balanced? Tell me you don't play Sisters, Admech, or Greyknights without telling me you don't play Sisters, Admech, or Greyknights.

@Tyel- I missed your reply earlier. but you nailed it. My buddies that play tau and csm have exactly those feelings (and I'm also XX legion). 9th was ugly for a bit and likely could still be if there was no player consensus. But overall with arks I feel 9th gives many viable ways win with most armies so its almost impossible to pick a dominant army for long. I also feel the depth is there so if I don't like an aspect of my army it isn't just straight to the shelf.


@ERJAK- Lol no, I mean yes I don't. Bought a sisters army the dex before this current one, sold it without playing a game. Played GK draigo centstar for a minute in 7th during the nuclear arms race. I put this last one up there with voting for Bill Clinton. I'm not proud but I'll admit it.

Anyway GSC seems at least interesting. No real stinkers and some decent tools for 10th. Guess I can't personally complain about this one much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I guess they're saving all the Anti-Monster weapons for the Space Wolf rules...

Ughh watch them get every key word on everything because Space Wulfs

This feels accurate, sadly.

Amen to that.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Mechanically, it can be awkward when you face daemons or tyranids and your splinters are suddenly good against both the enemy's big stuff and their little stuff.

This may be why the Screamer Killer was T9 and not T10. Not for this poison specifically, but the limited amount of anti-tank that is also anti-monster.

It's also interesting to see the Venom at T6. They're creating a broader range of vehicles, which should make weapon selection more interesting.

T6/7 - Light
T8/9 - Medium
T10/11 - Heavy
T12/13 - Superheavy
T14 - Titans

How so? I'm actually a bit worried that spreading out the vehicles like this potentially makes weapon selection *less* interesting because you're compelled to grab as many high strength anti-tank guns as possible while the midling-strength guns are viewed as less desirable due to the potential for a bad matchup.

For instance, in 9th, I can take a blaster on my kabalites and be confident that said blaster will be a threat to whatever my opponent brings to the table. Even if he brings out a land raider, I'll be wounding it at least half the time. In 10th, the previews have me wondering if I should even bother with blasters. Sure, they'll work fine against T7 or less, but they'll be less valuable than before against T8, and they might be straight up bad against T9+ (single shot, only wounds 1/3rd of the time). So in this, admittedly very specific, example, we're going from having multiple worthwhile weapon choices to blasters maybe possibly not being worth it. (Depending on what we don't know, points costs, etc.)

No one wants to spend a bunch of points on S8 plasma only to find out their opponent's list is full of T9.

Doesn't that mean Ghaz is as tough as a Vyper?

Karol wrote:
Who would buy that comparing to a book about marines vs any of those two, or marines vs marines.

Ork players. Nid Players. People who love a good Cockney accent. People tired of the cookie cutter. Its one thing to know that for this loss over here, the Imperium will get an offsetting victory over there to maintain the status quo, its another to know that they're going to get the victory right here.

Commissioning one guy to make one book is a lot less investment than doing an Orks v Nids starter box. Though GW has famously undershot the true sales potential of their non-marine model lines (lol sisters).