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.

https://spikeybits.com/2023/02/rumors-more-big-10th-edition-40k-rules-changes.html

Personally i don’t think sun faction rules provide that much flavor tbh.
I don’t think I’d notice much difference using IF vs UM even with their doctrines.

To me most of an army’s flavor comes from the units taken, and for specific subfactions from their unique characters and units.
For example is anyone going to play BA in a massively different manner without their chapter doctrine? No, they won’t.
Did the chapter doctrine change massively change how BA played from before 9th or even 8th? As far as I can tell not really. The way people play BA has been basically the same since 3rd. I think the biggest change was the end of rhino rush…

johnpjones1775 wrote:
https://spikeybits.com/2023/02/rumors-more-big-10th-edition-40k-rules-changes.html

Personally i don’t think sun faction rules provide that much flavor tbh.
I don’t think I’d notice much difference using IF vs UM even with their doctrines.

To me most of an army’s flavor comes from the units taken, and for specific subfactions from their unique characters and units.
For example is anyone going to play BA in a massively different manner without their chapter doctrine? No, they won’t.
Did the chapter doctrine change massively change how BA played from before 9th or even 8th? As far as I can tell not really. The way people play BA has been basically the same since 3rd. I think the biggest change was the end of rhino rush…

Not sure how much faith I have in these rumors, but I'd be okay with those changes if the rumors are true. Simplifying things, removing some of the layers of buffs and the number of strats floating around in a given game would all be good.

"Subfactions are gone and replaced with custom traits," just sounds like what the latest IG 'dex did, and I like that approach. It lets you customize your playstyle a bit, but you don't lock faction X players from using the exact same rules every game. (Which is extra awkward when the rules GW gave your faction don't match your own vision of what makes that faction interesting.) Let me represent my Ulthwe force with anything from psychic buffs to deepstriking benefits to guardian buffs, but give me extra Ulthwe flavor when I field Eldrad? Sounds good to me.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
https://spikeybits.com/2023/02/rumors-more-big-10th-edition-40k-rules-changes.html

Personally i don’t think sun faction rules provide that much flavor tbh.
I don’t think I’d notice much difference using IF vs UM even with their doctrines.

To me most of an army’s flavor comes from the units taken, and for specific subfactions from their unique characters and units.
For example is anyone going to play BA in a massively different manner without their chapter doctrine? No, they won’t.
Did the chapter doctrine change massively change how BA played from before 9th or even 8th? As far as I can tell not really. The way people play BA has been basically the same since 3rd. I think the biggest change was the end of rhino rush…

Not sure how much faith I have in these rumors, but I'd be okay with those changes if the rumors are true. Simplifying things, removing some of the layers of buffs and the number of strats floating around in a given game would all be good.

"Subfactions are gone and replaced with custom traits," just sounds like what the latest IG 'dex did, and I like that approach. It lets you customize your playstyle a bit, but you don't lock faction X players from using the exact same rules every game. (Which is extra awkward when the rules GW gave your faction don't match your own vision of what makes that faction interesting.) Let me represent my Ulthwe force with anything from psychic buffs to deepstriking benefits to guardian buffs, but give me extra Ulthwe flavor when I field Eldrad? Sounds good to me.

Idk about other factions but marines already had custom doctrines

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
https://spikeybits.com/2023/02/rumors-more-big-10th-edition-40k-rules-changes.html

Personally i don’t think sun faction rules provide that much flavor tbh.
I don’t think I’d notice much difference using IF vs UM even with their doctrines.

To me most of an army’s flavor comes from the units taken, and for specific subfactions from their unique characters and units.
For example is anyone going to play BA in a massively different manner without their chapter doctrine? No, they won’t.
Did the chapter doctrine change massively change how BA played from before 9th or even 8th? As far as I can tell not really. The way people play BA has been basically the same since 3rd. I think the biggest change was the end of rhino rush…

Not sure how much faith I have in these rumors, but I'd be okay with those changes if the rumors are true. Simplifying things, removing some of the layers of buffs and the number of strats floating around in a given game would all be good.

"Subfactions are gone and replaced with custom traits," just sounds like what the latest IG 'dex did, and I like that approach. It lets you customize your playstyle a bit, but you don't lock faction X players from using the exact same rules every game. (Which is extra awkward when the rules GW gave your faction don't match your own vision of what makes that faction interesting.) Let me represent my Ulthwe force with anything from psychic buffs to deepstriking benefits to guardian buffs, but give me extra Ulthwe flavor when I field Eldrad? Sounds good to me.

Idk about other factions but marines already had custom doctrines

Most factions have "custom traits? available for their subfactions. So for instance, I can either play one of the craftworlds with pre-defined rules, or I can mix and match two of the "far-flung craftworld" traits to make rules for a craftworld that doesn't have traits. Just like marines can either use "Salamander" rules, or they can pick two from a list of custom traits.

What the latest AM 'dex did (as I understand it) is just stop including the pre-defined options. So instead of having the option to use the "Salamander" rules or the "custom chapter" rules, you would just always do the latter and decide yourself which of those custom traits are the best fit for your Salamanders army.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
https://spikeybits.com/2023/02/rumors-more-big-10th-edition-40k-rules-changes.html

Personally i don’t think sun faction rules provide that much flavor tbh.
I don’t think I’d notice much difference using IF vs UM even with their doctrines.

To me most of an army’s flavor comes from the units taken, and for specific subfactions from their unique characters and units.
For example is anyone going to play BA in a massively different manner without their chapter doctrine? No, they won’t.
Did the chapter doctrine change massively change how BA played from before 9th or even 8th? As far as I can tell not really. The way people play BA has been basically the same since 3rd. I think the biggest change was the end of rhino rush…

Not sure how much faith I have in these rumors, but I'd be okay with those changes if the rumors are true. Simplifying things, removing some of the layers of buffs and the number of strats floating around in a given game would all be good.

"Subfactions are gone and replaced with custom traits," just sounds like what the latest IG 'dex did, and I like that approach. It lets you customize your playstyle a bit, but you don't lock faction X players from using the exact same rules every game. (Which is extra awkward when the rules GW gave your faction don't match your own vision of what makes that faction interesting.) Let me represent my Ulthwe force with anything from psychic buffs to deepstriking benefits to guardian buffs, but give me extra Ulthwe flavor when I field Eldrad? Sounds good to me.

Idk about other factions but marines already had custom doctrines

Most factions have "custom traits? available for their subfactions. So for instance, I can either play one of the craftworlds with pre-defined rules, or I can mix and match two of the "far-flung craftworld" traits to make rules for a craftworld that doesn't have traits. Just like marines can either use "Salamander" rules, or they can pick two from a list of custom traits.

What the latest AM 'dex did (as I understand it) is just stop including the pre-defined options. So instead of having the option to use the "Salamander" rules or the "custom chapter" rules, you would just always do the latter and decide yourself which of those custom traits are the best fit for your Salamanders army.

Sort of. Guard have preset units, Cadians, Catachan, and krieg. Each specific unit gets a subfaction, but over all there’s no more set Cadian sun faction outside of Cadian specific units like the CSTs, and castellans.

So how does that differ anyway to using rules for whatever subfactioe you prefer anyway?

This is going to suck.

Yay! What makes subfactions different is their special units.

Awesome Dark Angels!
Awesome Space Wolves!
Awesome Blood Angels!

But hey, not so good news for every non-marine faction- you get one or two subfactions, each defined by the inclusion of a single character model. Other than that? Everything else in your dex is generic.

But feth you nids, and GSC- you don't have ANY models that are unique to subfactions, so your whole army gets to be generic.

Just like every edition from 2-7. Marines matter. Other armies are an afterthought. No thanks. If the game is halfway decent two years into its run once the flavour has been put back, and there are credible rumours that 11th will be a 10.5 I might think about looking into it.

Even then, only if we get a Crusade equivalent, a good Drukhari update, another Eldar update, Emperor's Children and Imperial Agents.

But this 10th ed Index crap? It'll take at least two years to get remotely interesting enough for my tastes.

PenitentJake wrote:
This is going to suck.

Yay! What makes subfactions different is their special units.

Awesome Dark Angels!
Awesome Space Wolves!
Awesome Blood Angels!

But hey, not so good news for every non-marine faction- you get one or two subfactions, each defined by the inclusion of a single character model. Other than that? Everything else in your dex is generic.

But feth you nids, and GSC- you don't have ANY models that are unique to subfactions, so your whole army gets to be generic.

Just like every edition from 2-7. Marines matter. Other armies are an afterthought. No thanks. If the game is halfway decent two years into its run once the flavour has been put back, and there are credible rumours that 11th will be a 10.5 I might think about looking into it.

Even then, only if we get a Crusade equivalent, a good Drukhari update, another Eldar update, Emperor's Children and Imperial Agents.

But this 10th ed Index crap? It'll take at least two years to get remotely interesting enough for my tastes.

-edited-

it literally says there will be mix and match custom army traits you can use, as well as extra flavor based on what HQs you have...it really isn't that different than how it is now, except a blood angels player can have rapid assault, and whirlwind of rage for chapter traits, and still have access to all BA named characters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
So how does that differ anyway to using rules for whatever subfactioe you prefer anyway?

i think the biggest way is that marines for example lose access to all named characters if they use a successor chapter with custom traits currently, so under the new method you could play blood angels, pick the rapid assault and whirlwind of rage traits, and still have access to all named BA characters, who will then give some sort of buffs that make the army even more unique than just the chapter traits do.

Honestly I think this is great, all my factions I don’t think gained anything from current.

And didn’t help with flavour so much, tied paint to much to mini selections and really just hurt 40k.
So many factions and sub factions are supposed to be quite diverse, and the factions that lack that diversity probably shouldn’t have sub faction rules anyway.

I do still think it’s kinda awquard, and probably still meh unless GW gets together and does it well. I don’t want my army to be stuck running specific builds where taking a unit that doesn’t fit Nice into a category that my faction has makes it worse for “Flavour”.

Why do people keep thinking the Index would be the end? When they went to Indexes the first time did we stay with Indexes?

it literally says there will be mix and match custom army traits you can use, as well as extra flavor based on what HQs you have...it really isn't that different than how it is now, except a blood angels player can have rapid assault, and whirlwind of rage for chapter traits, and still have access to all BA named characters.

Yes, it does, but right now we have those PLUS subfaction traits, plus subfaction relic, strat and warlord traits. And OF COURSE that's going to sound excessive to Space Marines, who have had multiple unique units for multiple subfactions since second edition. Heck, to a space marine player, it is excessive when you're already so spoiled for choice and so celebrated in the fiction and lore.

But when you're playing Sisters and your only sub-faction models all come from the same Order, or you're playing Nids or GSC where there are NO subfaction units at all... Believe me, you might actually appreciate the relic, the WL Trait and the strat... Because it's literally ALL you've got. All of these things give you an idea what a character from the subfaction might look like, or how they might behave on the battlefield, and it might be all you have to go on. The relic, and sometimes the WL trait can be great conversion opportunities, since you weren't lucky enough to get even a single HQ for your subfaction of choice; you can create that model, and you know that other subfaction nerds will recognize it for what it is... Because GW isn't going to do it for you.

And these differences of opinion about how simple the game should or should not be aren't just a product of faction choice, they're a product of preferred game size and type. A person who likes 2k pick-up games probably is going to prefer a simpler game. A person who prefers slow-grow escalation campaigns over the course of long a narrative arc is probably going to want as many optional materials as we can get our hands on, knowing we're only going to use some of those options in very specific types of stories, and that we can safely ignore the tools we choose not to use.

I am always a bit surprised how few people know the AoS system.

AoS 3.0 cut down the subfaction trait down heavily. Nowadays it is more about buffing a certain playstyle(like a shark build for Idoneth or a turtle build) instead of a generic armywide subfaction rule.

Personally I like it as it feels less heavy handed than the regular 40k way of locking you into only one subfaction trait until the heat death of the universe. Something like Bloody Rose becomes "Zephyrim get +1 to attack on charge/etc" instead of everything and their mother suddenly going melee crazy.

>the game is more generic
How is that even possible?

 Eldarsif wrote:
I am always a bit surprised how few people know the AoS system.

AoS 3.0 cut down the subfaction trait down heavily. Nowadays it is more about buffing a certain playstyle(like a shark build for Idoneth or a turtle build) instead of a generic armywide subfaction rule.

Personally I like it as it feels less heavy handed than the regular 40k way of locking you into only one subfaction trait until the heat death of the universe. Something like Bloody Rose becomes "Zephyrim get +1 to attack on charge/etc" instead of everything and their mother suddenly going melee crazy.

Yeah, the way AOS handles it is a lot better IMHO.

 Sim-Life wrote:
>the game is more generic
How is that even possible?

I need a sign to point at that says “games workshop”

But honestly I could get it, 40k is over managed often.
It wouldn’t surprise me if they think the fix to there crazy rule system is to make the base rules even simpler and more basic.
Then double the page count of a codex to make players feel they are getting a good deal!

So, they accept that codex creep and bloat has become wild in 9th, and they want to start over again?
8th's Indexes stripped away all subfactions and their rules, and we had to wait for the codexes to be re-released over the next 2 years to get them back. This suggests they'll add generics in, to plug that gap a little bit.

I think we'll stay playing 9th until some of the flavour gets added back in. Hopefully they'll keep the current 40k app running for a while, like they did for AoS.

 Sim-Life wrote:
>the game is more generic
How is that even possible?

Streamlining.

Gotta "keep it simple" for Warhammer 40k Tournament Edition Part 2, don't they?

It's not suprising unfortunately. GW seems to continue going through this cycle of "Guys we heard ya'll, we have too many running parts, we're going back to the basics" and they try doing either a hard or soft reboot of the rules or design paradigm for codices where they dial back the number of rules, but inevitably, as they add more units in the new edition, they start tacking on new things over the course of the edition until it becomes a bloated mess again.

 Grimskul wrote:
It's not suprising unfortunately. GW seems to continue going through this cycle of "Guys we heard ya'll, we have too many running parts, we're going back to the basics" and they try doing either a hard or soft reboot of the rules or design paradigm for codices where they dial back the number of rules, but inevitably, as they add more units in the new edition, they start tacking on new things over the course of the edition until it becomes a bloated mess again.

In some aspects they did pretty well and stayed that course though, the streamlining of vehicles by abolishing that whole armour value - penetration - table roll thing and assorted special rules, introducing degrading profiles for large models, and abolishing templates in favour of dice-based solutions have all been pretty succesful in removing bloaty, but self-contained parts from the rules and were on the most part not replaced by new, different bloat.

PenitentJake wrote:
Yes, it does, but right now we have those PLUS subfaction traits, plus subfaction relic, strat and warlord traits. And OF COURSE that's going to sound excessive to Space Marines, who have had multiple unique units for multiple subfactions since second edition. Heck, to a space marine player, it is excessive when you're already so spoiled for choice and so celebrated in the fiction and lore.

But when you're playing Sisters and your only sub-faction models all come from the same Order, or you're playing Nids or GSC where there are NO subfaction units at all... Believe me, you might actually appreciate the relic, the WL Trait and the strat... Because it's literally ALL you've got.

I play Tyranids and would like subfaction relics, warlord traits, and stratagems to all die in a fire, please and thank you. I find those elements to be more constraining (and annoying, when the wombo-combos come out to play) than flavorful. Especially when I want to play My Dudes and not just Kraken with a funny color scheme.

I much prefer the idea of a free-form traits system that can be selected either to represent an existing subfaction or design your own, like the doctrines/chapter tactics system of 4th Ed. And you of all people should appreciate the capability to make the rules fit your backstory, rather than having to make your army fit the rigid mold that GW has issued you.

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Grimskul wrote:
It's not suprising unfortunately. GW seems to continue going through this cycle of "Guys we heard ya'll, we have too many running parts, we're going back to the basics" and they try doing either a hard or soft reboot of the rules or design paradigm for codices where they dial back the number of rules, but inevitably, as they add more units in the new edition, they start tacking on new things over the course of the edition until it becomes a bloated mess again.

In some aspects they did pretty well and stayed that course though, the streamlining of vehicles by abolishing that whole armour value - penetration - table roll thing and assorted special rules, introducing degrading profiles for large models, and abolishing templates in favour of dice-based solutions have all been pretty succesful in removing bloaty, but self-contained parts from the rules and were on the most part not replaced by new, different bloat.

Yes, they were quite successful in turning the majority of non-invulnerable save equipped vehicles into utter (to the point that they had to break their "T9 is Forbidden" rule), and screwing up the mechanics for things like flamers and Blast Weapons, and sticking with that garbage. Bully for them.

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Grimskul wrote:
It's not suprising unfortunately. GW seems to continue going through this cycle of "Guys we heard ya'll, we have too many running parts, we're going back to the basics" and they try doing either a hard or soft reboot of the rules or design paradigm for codices where they dial back the number of rules, but inevitably, as they add more units in the new edition, they start tacking on new things over the course of the edition until it becomes a bloated mess again.

In some aspects they did pretty well and stayed that course though, the streamlining of vehicles by abolishing that whole armour value - penetration - table roll thing and assorted special rules, introducing degrading profiles for large models, and abolishing templates in favour of dice-based solutions have all been pretty succesful in removing bloaty, but self-contained parts from the rules and were on the most part not replaced by new, different bloat.

Yeah, for me it's not so much the core rules currently but rather the amount in both codices and supplementary rules they always like to tack on from campaigns and codex supplements. The more annoying part is how much of the codices actively work around and not with the rules. They've somewhat addressed the concern from campaigns, but you can tell that rules that could have been easily implemented or simplified into the main codex were cut out to sell off as a separate Army of Renown.

 Eldarsif wrote:
I am always a bit surprised how few people know the AoS system.

There may still be a little enmity at GW over killing off Fantasy for some of us....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Skinnereal wrote:
So, they accept that codex creep and bloat has become wild in 9th, and they want to start over again?

That's pretty much what they do. Every edition gets more powerful the longer it goes, then they reset. As business models go...

8th's Indexes stripped away all subfactions and their rules, and we had to wait for the codexes to be re-released over the next 2 years to get them back. This suggests they'll add generics in, to plug that gap a little bit.

I think we'll stay playing 9th until some of the flavour gets added back in. Hopefully they'll keep the current 40k app running for a while, like they did for AoS.

That's kind of what has me laughing at all the folks going bonkers over "we're going back to Indexes". Been there, done that, Codexes will be not far behind.

Breton wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
I am always a bit surprised how few people know the AoS system.

There may still be a little enmity at GW over killing off Fantasy for some of us....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Skinnereal wrote:
So, they accept that codex creep and bloat has become wild in 9th, and they want to start over again?

That's pretty much what they do. Every edition gets more powerful the longer it goes, then they reset. As business models go...

8th's Indexes stripped away all subfactions and their rules, and we had to wait for the codexes to be re-released over the next 2 years to get them back. This suggests they'll add generics in, to plug that gap a little bit.

I think we'll stay playing 9th until some of the flavour gets added back in. Hopefully they'll keep the current 40k app running for a while, like they did for AoS.

That's kind of what has me laughing at all the folks going bonkers over "we're going back to Indexes". Been there, done that, Codexes will be not far behind.

Some of us have been there/done that twice!
2e's little black pamphlet & then Codex Space Wolf +
2nd: 8e's Index books & then onto Codex books.

ccs wrote:

Some of us have been there/done that twice!
2e's little black pamphlet & then Codex Space Wolf +
2nd: 8e's Index books & then onto Codex books.

You skip 3rd? Main rulebook “index” lists to codex. Could have another upgrade in there…

PenitentJake wrote:
This is going to suck.

Yay! What makes subfactions different is their special units.

Awesome Dark Angels!
Awesome Space Wolves!
Awesome Blood Angels!

But hey, not so good news for every non-marine faction- you get one or two subfactions, each defined by the inclusion of a single character model. Other than that? Everything else in your dex is generic.

But feth you nids, and GSC- you don't have ANY models that are unique to subfactions, so your whole army gets to be generic.

I mean, my main army is Iybraesil. We don't get an extra choice of warlord trait or relic or stratagem as-is. So it doesn't sound like anything would really change for us except we lose the option to steal the Ulthwe/Alaitoc/etc. rules. Conversely, now my Ulthwe army is free to lean into a Black Guardians theme by taking the traits that most favor guardians and deepstriking while still having the option to be lead by Eldrad.

I don't really want special Iybraesil-only units. My army feels like Iybraesil as long as I stick a squad or two of banshees in there somewhere.

 Grimskul wrote:
It's not suprising unfortunately. GW seems to continue going through this cycle of "Guys we heard ya'll, we have too many running parts, we're going back to the basics" and they try doing either a hard or soft reboot of the rules or design paradigm for codices where they dial back the number of rules, but inevitably, as they add more units in the new edition, they start tacking on new things over the course of the edition until it becomes a bloated mess again.

I mean, IMHO 9th went from "good" to " bloated mess" faster than any edition before it. And that's the big issue, they may START with good intentions but it never lasts. The constant codex churn means something will end up having more bloat, and then it's a design change from then forward while everything else gets left behind. They just can't NOT start introducing more and more crap to try and get people to buy the new hotness.

 catbarf wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
Yes, it does, but right now we have those PLUS subfaction traits, plus subfaction relic, strat and warlord traits. And OF COURSE that's going to sound excessive to Space Marines, who have had multiple unique units for multiple subfactions since second edition. Heck, to a space marine player, it is excessive when you're already so spoiled for choice and so celebrated in the fiction and lore.

But when you're playing Sisters and your only sub-faction models all come from the same Order, or you're playing Nids or GSC where there are NO subfaction units at all... Believe me, you might actually appreciate the relic, the WL Trait and the strat... Because it's literally ALL you've got.

I play Tyranids and would like subfaction relics, warlord traits, and stratagems to all die in a fire, please and thank you. I find those elements to be more constraining (and annoying, when the wombo-combos come out to play) than flavorful. Especially when I want to play My Dudes and not just Kraken with a funny color scheme.

I much prefer the idea of a free-form traits system that can be selected either to represent an existing subfaction or design your own, like the doctrines/chapter tactics system of 4th Ed. And you of all people should appreciate the capability to make the rules fit your backstory, rather than having to make your army fit the rigid mold that GW has issued you.

Totally agree on most of your points. Exalted.

"10th will bring back Indexes."
Immediately disbelieve it all.

That doesn't mean GW will just keep the indices. Although, I wish they would do like Privateer Press used to do and update all the armies at the same time (and usually in the same book). Now since there will probably be at least 3 new Codices for 10th I wouldn't mind it if GW just updated each codex, keeping it intact, with upgraded rules/units/whatever as long as the next codex gets updated relatively close in time. So that say, Codex A gets updated in Jan and Codex B gets updated in March while Codex C gets updated in May.