10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46

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.

**Trickstick**

I scrimp points heavily to get more bodies and hulls in my lists. I'm going to have to see the points to decide if I think taking three of the Guard enhancements is worth it. The +1cp cost seems like a must take. The +1 order could be useful, and the 5+ lethal also. Not sure about the oc buff one.

**alextroy**

Trickstick wrote:
alextroy wrote:
There are no points for Enhancements. Your army can have up to three unique enhancements, one per character and not on Epic Heroes.

Eldar v Guard exhibition game, 13:38:30 in the stream:
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1835751854?t=13h38m30s

"Do they cost points?"
"They cost points, that's how you do enhancements. Enhancements are just points, they are a native part of army building."

That makes no sense? Tell me that isn’t what they really said.

**Dudeface**

alextroy wrote:
Trickstick wrote:
alextroy wrote:
There are no points for Enhancements. Your army can have up to three unique enhancements, one per character and not on Epic Heroes.

Eldar v Guard exhibition game, 13:38:30 in the stream:
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1835751854?t=13h38m30s

"Do they cost points?"
"They cost points, that's how you do enhancements. Enhancements are just points, they are a native part of army building."
That makes no sense? Tell me that isn’t what they really said.

I mean you can click on the timestamped link to hear it yourself.

"Do they cost points?"
"They cost points, that's how you do enhancements. [color=red]Enhancements are just points, they are a native part of army building. There isn't a sperate resource pool to manage them. They're intentionally costed and balanced so that they work very nicely with the enhancements to army building and points costing you guys will see when points release."

They say the can provide cool rules, room for odd things and use up spare points. Mention they work well in the new app.

**Not Online!!!**

New App? Another one? How well will it work this time?

**Daedalus81**

Not Online!!! wrote:
New App? Another one? How well will it work this time?

I explored building an app and I feel really bad for the folks who jumped in late in 9th to try. The logic was really difficult to code out in a clean manner and still keep it extensible for future changes. I imagine GW had the same problems.

10th should make it way easier to accomplish. Whether it works or not...*shrug*

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:
Sorry I mean the max of 3, I understand the no duplicates, but even then there shouldn't be a "best one" if costed correctly.

Yea I think the limit is because it's cheap enough that you can easily take all four and so to give some semblance of choice they restrict it.

**Jidmah**

Daedalus81 wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
New App? Another one? How well will it work this time?

I explored building an app and I feel really bad for the folks who jumped in late in 9th to try. The logic was really difficult to code out in a clean manner and still keep it extensible for future changes. I imagine GW had the same problems.

10th should make it way easier to accomplish. Whether it works or not...*shrug*

In addition, 9th edition's app was build by a supplier with no domain knowledge communicating with people at GW who had little to no experience in managing the development of an app.
GW has been hiring devs ever since then, most likely in order to build a new app in-house with people that know the topic they are coding an app for. Usually for niche topics, this is a much more fruitful approach.

**Not Online!!!**

Jidmah wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
New App? Another one? How well will it work this time?

I explored building an app and I feel really bad for the folks who jumped in late in 9th to try. The logic was really difficult to code out in a clean manner and still keep it extensible for future changes. I imagine GW had the same problems.

10th should make it way easier to accomplish. Whether it works or not...*shrug*

In addition, 9th edition's app was build by a supplier with no domain knowledge communicating with people at GW who had little to no experience in managing the development of an app.
GW has been hiring devs ever since then, most likely in order to build a new app in-house with people that know the topic they are coding an app for. Usually for niche topics, this is a much more fruitful approach.

Otoh, the general available IT infrastructure of GW is lackluster, an often unresponsive site, the FW site is even worse somehow. And let's not forget the warehouse mucking up this bad that it somehow still affected them the whole year more or less?

**Daedalus81**

Not Online!!! wrote:
Otoh, the general available IT infrastructure of GW is lackluster, an often unresponsive site, the FW site is even worse somehow. And let's not forget the warehouse mucking up this bad that it somehow still affected them the whole year more or less?

ERP is a different beast. It's such an obnoxious deployment that it almost never goes well.

Generally my advice as a high level IT manager is that you never expect things to go to plan. How you react and recover from issues is what separates the good from the bad.

**Jidmah**

Not Online!!! wrote:
Otoh, the general available IT infrastructure of GW is lackluster, an often unresponsive site, the FW site is even worse somehow. And let's not forget the warehouse mucking up this bad that it somehow still affected them the whole year more or less?

None of those things were built in-house. For the web-stores we specifically know it was build by a company owned by the former CEO's wife, so chances are that the company wasn't picked for it's high quality software.

And to be frank, neither web stores nor warehouse management systems are a niche applications. With today's shortage of professional personal, it makes little sense to insource that.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Daedalus81 wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Otoh, the general available IT infrastructure of GW is lackluster, an often unresponsive site, the FW site is even worse somehow. And let's not forget the warehouse mucking up this bad that it somehow still affected them the whole year more or less?

ERP is a different beast. It's such an obnoxious deployment that it almost never goes well.

Generally my advice as a high level IT manager is that you never expect things to go to plan. How you react and recover from issues is what separates the good from the bad.

Agree 100%

**Not Online!!!**

Jidmah wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Otoh, the general available IT infrastructure of GW is lackluster, an often unresponsive site, the FW site is even worse somehow. And let's not forget the warehouse mucking up this bad that it somehow still affected them the whole year more or less?

None of those things were built in-house. For the web-stores we specifically know it was build by a company owned by the former CEO's wife, so chances are that the company wasn't picked for it's high quality software.

And to be frank, neither web stores nor warehouse management systems are a niche applications. With today's shortage of professional personal, it makes little sense to insource that.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Daedalus81 wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Otoh, the general available IT infrastructure of GW is lackluster, an often unresponsive site, the FW site is even worse somehow. And let's not forget the warehouse mucking up this bad that it somehow still affected them the whole year more or less?

ERP is a different beast. It's such an obnoxious deployment that it almost never goes well.

Generally my advice as a high level IT manager is that you never expect things to go to plan. How you react and recover from issues is what separates the good from the bad.

Agree 100%

All i get from this is, that gw is nepotistic and unable or unwilling to find or pay decent personell.
What makes you then confident, that they hire competent people for the inhouse developped app?

**Daedalus81**

Not Online!!! wrote:
All i get from this is, that gw is nepotistic and unable or unwilling to find or pay decent personell.
What makes you then confident, that they hire competent people for the inhouse developped app?

The nepotism was the prior CEO. I don't make any claims to how successful they could be - just that the reduced complexity can help to make it more successful.

**Jidmah**

Not Online!!! wrote:
All i get from this is, that gw is nepotistic and unable or unwilling to find or pay decent personell.

If that's all what you got from this, I don't think there is a point in continuing a discussion on how software project management works, sorry.

GW had a bunch of job offers for open positions in the area of app and cloud development which have little by little disappeared over the last few years, and I doubt that a company creating one of the biggest nerd hobbies there is has any trouble finding motivated developers.

**EviscerationPlague**

Jidmah wrote:
finding motivated developers.

Motivated =/= Skilled

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

Nah I'm sure this time their army builder program will be great!

**EviscerationPlague**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Nah I'm sure this time their army builder program will be great!

I'd rather use a significantly out of date Battlescribe over whatever GW craps out

**GameKnave**

EviscerationPlague wrote:

I'd rather use a significantly out of date Battlescribe over whatever GW craps out

The BS authors have publicly stated that they're not intending to enter any 10e data until they have an editor that isn't buggy, so BS might not be an option for 10e at all.

We're seeing headway with getting 10e into Rosterizer, though.

(edit: yeah yeah, I know non-characters can't be warlords; we're trimming out some of the cruft from re-using our 9e manifest. heh)

**EviscerationPlague**

GameKnave wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:

I'd rather use a significantly out of date Battlescribe over whatever GW craps out

The BS authors have publicly stated that they're not intending to enter any 10e data until they have an editor that isn't buggy, so BS might not be an option for 10e at all.

We're seeing headway with getting 10e into Rosterizer, though.

Ain't ever heard of Rosterizer, but I guess I'll have to check it out.

**ERJAK**

Bugeater already banned Eldar for 10th until a FAQ errata.

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

Why?

**Dudeface**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Why?

They're not, the event is June 24th and the site says that they're playing using 9th unless 10th is formally released by 17th.

**The Red Hobbit**

40k Bugeater GT Update!
With the upcoming release of 10th we wanted to send out a quick announcement as we are getting a lot of questions about which edition we are using.
If the points and datasheets are available for digital download on or before June 16th we will use 10th Edition Rules. If that happens we will make another announcement shortly after in regards to list due dates/missions etc. Also, following the precedent from the community and other events in the past, we will not be allowing Aeldari at our event until GW releases a FAQ/Errata for them.
If they release one we will revisit this and update if needed.
If all of the points and datasheets are not out by June 16th, we will be using 9th edition with the current GT pack that is in place.
Hope to see everyone on the 24th and 25th of June!

Here's the full text from their facebook.

I surmise there is a lot of heartburn about how easy it is for Support D-Cannon to dump 8 MW via indirect fire thanks to Strands of Fate + a backfield Farseer.

**Daedalus81**

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Jidmah wrote:
finding motivated developers.

Motivated =/= Skilled

I'll take motivated over skilled. I've had programmers that were incredibly skilled, but couldn't take direction at all.

**Jidmah**

Daedalus81 wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
Jidmah wrote:
finding motivated developers.

Motivated =/= Skilled

I'll take motivated over skilled. I've had programmers that were incredibly skilled, but couldn't take direction at all.

Same. Motivated > Skilled. A motivated developer will eventually become skilled more often than not.

**Sarigar**

Hopefully, if army building is easier, the updated/new app to build an army will work a bit better. I didn't have issues building a DA army, but had multiple issues building an Aeldari army on the GW app.

**VladimirHerzog**

EviscerationPlague wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
Nah I'm sure this time their army builder program will be great!

I'd rather use a significantly out of date Battlescribe over whatever GW craps out

Honestly, the AoS app works pretty well IMO and is a much better UI than battlescribe

Automatically Appended Next Post:

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Why?

BrainletMeme.jpeg

They think premptively banning Eldar is the same as the premptive Votann ban that happened last year.

Except we have seen like 5% of the whole game for Eldar, and Votann were fully leaked a month before their release, in an edition that we knew everything about

**Lord Clinto**

Acknowledging the Aeldari problem: Would changing the wording so that "Fate" dice used as a "6" do not count as an unmodified 6 help at all?

**VladimirHerzog**

Lord Clinto wrote:
Acknowledging the Aeldari problem: Would changing the wording so that "Fate" dice used as a "6" do not count as an unmodified 6 help at all?

we litterally don't even know IF its gonna be a problem yet.

**Matt.Kingsley**

I don't think it's even a problem, though I say that without knowing the full picture.

**ERJAK**

Matt.Kingsley wrote:
I don't think it's even a problem, though I say that without knowing the full picture.

I mean, they took Miracle Dice, already a very good mechanic, and then made it massively better. It's basically like if they gave Space Marine Oath of Moment and then gave Tau Oaths of Moments where it's the same rule except they get to choose 3 units and also get extra attacks.

Like, yeah, it COULD be totally fine, but that's a scary place to start the conversation.

**Hellebore**

Assuming they haven't borked it, I expect them to cost a lot more.

Fragile profiles with marine points costs, offset by them being very good at doing their jobs.