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.

a_typical_hero wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say here. That rule is perfectly clear to me.

Does a rule that goes off of a unit being in cover work with a unit having the benefits of cover (while not actually being in cover)?

I guess this is the perceived issue.

It's futile to discuss this until we know how cover rules work this time around, and if 'the benefits of cover' is flowery language or a defined rules term.

a_typical_hero wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say here. That rule is perfectly clear to me.

Does a rule that goes off of a unit being in cover work with a unit having the benefits of cover (while not actually being in cover)?

I guess this is the perceived issue.

Wait until the rules are out before you start dreaming up situations to whine about GW.

GW gives enough reason without making gak up.

 Valkyrie wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say here. That rule is perfectly clear to me.

Does a rule that goes off of a unit being in cover work with a unit having the benefits of cover (while not actually being in cover)?

I guess this is the perceived issue.

Wait until the rules are out before you start dreaming up situations to whine about GW.

It's been an issue either in this edition or in 8th, so recently enough to be fresh in people's memories and worth flagging as a potential problem.

Accusing people of whining for doing so, on the other hand, is uncalled for.

Tsagualsa wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say here. That rule is perfectly clear to me.

Does a rule that goes off of a unit being in cover work with a unit having the benefits of cover (while not actually being in cover)?

I guess this is the perceived issue.

It's futile to discuss this until we know how cover rules work this time around, and if 'the benefits of cover' is flowery language or a defined rules term.

It seems to me like a defined rules term that will be applied to multiple situations:

Inside a ruin? Benefits of cover
Going really fast on a jetbike? Benefits of cover
Popped your smoke launchers? Benefits of cover
Weird psychic shield? Benefits of cover

However as the benefit always has the same name, it won't stack repeatedly.

 xttz wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say here. That rule is perfectly clear to me.

Does a rule that goes off of a unit being in cover work with a unit having the benefits of cover (while not actually being in cover)?

I guess this is the perceived issue.

It's futile to discuss this until we know how cover rules work this time around, and if 'the benefits of cover' is flowery language or a defined rules term.

It seems to me like a defined rules term that will be applied to multiple situations:

Inside a ruin? Benefits of cover
Going really fast on a jetbike? Benefits of cover
Popped your smoke launchers? Benefits of cover
Weird psychic shield? Benefits of cover

However as the benefit always has the same name, it won't stack repeatedly.

Yep, that's how i see it too. Abilities could be worded to use that terminology, e.g. 'Chamalamadingdong cloaks: if this unit is within 6' of terrain, it gains the benefits of cover'.

Certainly less wordy than 'this unit counts as being in cover for the purpose of shooting' or whatever.

tneva82 wrote:


You realize in those aos reports they keep repeating same rule constantly?

You get lots of rule popups if you show same rule every time it pops up.

In 40k terms take that termagaunt move reaction. Pop up rule on video every time enemy finishes move near termagaunt unit and termagaunt moves. How many pop ups that happen?

Or pop up every time command reroll is used showing reroll rule

(rather irritating way to do report though. No i don't need to see same rule nth time tyvm)

Just watch this one for example: Gloomspike Gits vs. Beasts of Chaos. Start at timestamp 19:50
https://warhammertv.com/player/25308/stream?assetType=episodes&playlist_id=6

Timestamp - Rule:

19:58 - Bestial Might
20:00 - Moonclan Lairs
20:06 - Lairs of the Loonking Lads
20:12 - Reduced to Savagry
20:15 - Heroic Leadership
20:17 - Rituals of Ruin
20:23 - Warping Curse
20:27 - Heroic Willpower
20:29 - Tendrils of Atrophy
20:35 - Hdden Volley
20:45 - Brayblast Trumpet
21:04 - Stomp


That is 12 Rules in just over 1 minute and all of them are distinct, some have a text pasage that fills the height of the entire screen. Do I need to say more?

a_typical_hero wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say here. That rule is perfectly clear to me.

Does a rule that goes off of a unit being in cover work with a unit having the benefits of cover (while not actually being in cover)?

I guess this is the perceived issue.

I would say that since it says 'Benefit of Cover' that it means there is a set of rules that determine what happens when you are under the 'Benefit of Cover'. So either you can be near terrain or you have this special rule. Either way you receive this "benefit", which does x/y/z.

 xttz wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say here. That rule is perfectly clear to me.

Does a rule that goes off of a unit being in cover work with a unit having the benefits of cover (while not actually being in cover)?

I guess this is the perceived issue.

It's futile to discuss this until we know how cover rules work this time around, and if 'the benefits of cover' is flowery language or a defined rules term.

It seems to me like a defined rules term that will be applied to multiple situations:

Inside a ruin? Benefits of cover
Going really fast on a jetbike? Benefits of cover
Popped your smoke launchers? Benefits of cover
Weird psychic shield? Benefits of cover

However as the benefit always has the same name, it won't stack repeatedly.

Or the core rules will let those benefits stack X number of times.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Billicus wrote:
It's laying the groundwork for the bloat to come back in the form of detachments, which is kind of what you used to see a lot of in 7th ed.

Is it bloat if I can give you a piece of paper that tells you everything about the army I'm using?

You could do that now with a bit of formatting. For me bloat is there being lots of different ways the units in that army could be behaving that I need to keep abreast of, which is where it sounds like we will get to before long if they're going to introduce new detachments over time that bring different rules in, which was my understanding from that interview.

Billicus wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Billicus wrote:
It's laying the groundwork for the bloat to come back in the form of detachments, which is kind of what you used to see a lot of in 7th ed.

Is it bloat if I can give you a piece of paper that tells you everything about the army I'm using?

You could do that now with a bit of formatting. For me bloat is there being lots of different ways the units in that army could be behaving that I need to keep abreast of, which is where it sounds like we will get to before long if they're going to introduce new detachments over time that bring different rules in, which was my understanding from that interview.

I don't think you can very easily. Here's my army currently and circled in red is likely what will be available in the future. The psychic pages will now all be on the datasheet so all this isn't lost, but the listbuilding and breadth of choice per unit becomes much simpler. Note: This doesn't show the other 4 pages of great cults.

The new rules sound like they address things we were all complaining about in 8th

That said, I did think 9th was better than 8th, just over complicated.

What I really want to see with 10th is codexes that contain fluff for all units like they used to.

10th Ed Codexes gonna be as thin as 3rd Ed Codexes for 4 times the price.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Billicus wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Billicus wrote:
It's laying the groundwork for the bloat to come back in the form of detachments, which is kind of what you used to see a lot of in 7th ed.

Is it bloat if I can give you a piece of paper that tells you everything about the army I'm using?

You could do that now with a bit of formatting. For me bloat is there being lots of different ways the units in that army could be behaving that I need to keep abreast of, which is where it sounds like we will get to before long if they're going to introduce new detachments over time that bring different rules in, which was my understanding from that interview.

I don't think you can very easily. Here's my army currently and circled in red is likely what will be available in the future. The psychic pages will now all be on the datasheet so all this isn't lost, but the listbuilding and breadth of choice per unit becomes much simpler. Note: This doesn't show the other 4 pages of great cults.

To be quite fair, 19 pages of stuff printed in a normal font and small print is absolutely insane for even one army, let alone the two dozen factions we have now. It sucks for anyone to lose a majority of options, but that bloat is just not sustainable.

Tsagualsa wrote:
To be quite fair, 19 pages of stuff printed in a normal font and small print is absolutely insane for even one army, let alone the two dozen factions we have now. It sucks for anyone to lose a majority of options, but that bloat is just not sustainable.

Yea - I'm not complaining. I totally love my 9th edition codex. It genuinely did a good job of getting the feel of the army right.

Obviously all these rules can't remain as is, but I am totally ok getting a 'Warp Meld' detachment with rules and abilities that gel with Spawn and Tzaangors and a 'Duplicity' detachment that has a different set of abilities that might prefer Rubrics.

Then I can tell my opponent the 6 strats I have and then they can discern my capabilities by understanding my units do the same thing as the ones they played in previous games.

The great thing about all of this is GW can collect the performance of detachments and address them individually rather than trying to fix a whole faction at once and with the pared down rules it will be nearly impossible to achieve the buff stacking that we have.

 Platuan4th wrote:
10th Ed Codexes gonna be as thin as 3rd Ed Codexes for 4 times the price.

Hopefully they use this as a chance to consolidate things. If so much stuff is being culled then there's no reason for 10 separate space marine books. We could even plausibly see codexes closer to the 8E indexes, such as all Aeldari in one book.

Voss wrote:

 Shadow Walker wrote:
Nothing new there.

Acknowledging that they needed (and supposedly now have) a design process for adding rules (as well as replacing rather than adding on top) is very much new.

Also tacitly admitting that bloat was a problem (too many strats and on datasheets, 'did we really need to do this?'), as was directly addressing 'gotcha moments.' That's a lot more self-reflection than I expected.

I must say that's exactly how I felt at the start of 8th. All those designer's commentaries, Beta rules and correctly describing what went wrong in 7th, cool chapter approved rules with fun stuff like custom land raiders, different mission styles right in the core book really made it look like they wanted to work with the community. Well they did for one edition, in came 9th with new point values they pulled out of nowhere despite the rules being practically the same, mission style that were mostly a copy of tournaments, and uncontrolled codex creep that I doubt ever saw any playtesting. Now they're dialing back again but what they did in 9th makes me very skeptical now and I'm beginning to see where those grumpy people on dakka come from .

The points for 9th were a universal increase to reverse the race to the bottom happening at the end of 8th.

People liked the faction stuff and many liked stratagems. GW just decided to go ham and then push out 21 codexes and 4 supplements in 3 years as well as the 13 campaign books and Chapter Approved on top of the prior 6 marine supplements, PA books, and Vigilus.

There's absolutely no time for them to have balanced any of that properly while *also* likely having started in on 10th from about 2 years ago, but they made a damn good effort at trying to fix their issues and continue to show their capacity to learn and grow.

The puff piece is a puff piece, no surprise there.

Nick asking the pre-prepared questions is cringe, Stu had his pre-loaded answers.

All I see is patterns repeating. They'll trim down 10th ed back to basics, only to bloat it back up again.

So, instead of just whinging, let's be realistic and try to look at the positive.

Positive 1. GW have clearly gotten the feedback. Either at tournaments or through FAQ e-mails or online through social media, they managed to get what the community has been screaming down the tubes about. Even if they're just practicing lip service, they are acknowledging the complaints and can't play ignorant any more.

Positive 2. USRs are coming back. Stu even said 'despite a decade apart (it's only been about 6 years since 7th ended guys...) people still use the old terminology. "Having a common language was really important" YEAH NO S***. It's almost like speaking in similar, easily identifiable terms is what people naturally do, and not just in games, but in the military, in corporate offices, in all walks of life. Having every little rule separated under a different name is contrary to how people naturally operate! So, good that they've finally acknowledged that and we're getting a bit more of that shared language back.

Positive 3. The hope is not that GW won't bloat the game back at all. We know it'll happen eventually. The hope is that it will take LONGER to bloat the game back up, and that the number of times we have to huck our codexes due to a re-indexing is going to be kept to a minimum. I do not want another World Eaters situation, be it this edition, next edition, or the one after that. It steps on people's toes and puts a time limit on an already expensive book. As it stands, you'd hope that a codex would last the full breadth of an edition, but some codexes get less than a year of lifespan, while others stretch on for 5+ years (poor astra militarum). All this to say that the longer that GW can go WITHOUT indexing the entire game, the better.

Positive 4. GW is adding a new level of granularity by getting rid of model strength and putting the to-hit and strength of weapons individually on their datacard. This means that two models with similar weapons could behave differently, according to their strength. No more 'Power Fist x2 strength', instead it could be that a Space Marine Terminator with a Power Fist is straight str 8 and a Astra Militarum Sgt with a power fist might only be str 5 or could be up to str 7. There's more room to adjust for relative power level to make strong things feel appropriate. A heavy bolter in the hands of a regular tactical marine might hit on a 4+, while in the hands of a devastator might hit on a 3+, for example, to show the devastator's unique role in carrying heavy weapons, and the tactical marine maybe not having the same suspensor systems that the devastator has. This granularity also means that we might no longer see the huge lists of weapons in the back of a codex. When you need to look up a weapon, it'll be more specific to what is wielding it, so you look at the datacard instead. Less flipping back and forth is a GREAT thing.

These are some good things to look forward to that improve qualtiy of life and show that GW is indeed listening.

How good the game is and how long until the dollar signs override customer preference is the real question.

I’m really hoping that the “free” part of the rules sticks around awhile before the tidal wave of codexes. I plan to keep playing with my 9th codexes (crusade with stratagem caps) and will continue that well into next year.
However, I know some of my friends will move onto 10th and so having access to free rules to participate is a good thing. When I’ve had suitable use out of my 9th codexes, and the new edition is slightly fleshed out, I may make the switch to 10th.
As it stands, with a 30k army I have yet to build and the news of epic 40K, I may be tempted to skip the entire edition and take it back up for 11th. Who knows?
On the fence with the starter box too. Usually good value, but just not sure if it will contain models that I must have.

On Index Vs Codex?

I do kind of hope, almost certainly forlornly, that a Codex won’t add a huge amount to the given Index it’s replacing.

Update data sheets? No problem.

Add in entirely new units? No problem.

Rejig army specific bonuses? No problem.

But….please. Don’t add in loads and loads and loads of new rules for General 40K. Add in Crusade type rules by all means. But don’t start or even begin packing them out with More Stratagems Than An Index.

This way, those awaiting a Codex, and no matter how quickly you get them out, someone is gonna be last, aren’t at a particular disadvantage.

I feel that on that route, results monitored to check balance will be more accurate, as you won’t see quite the same New Hotness skewing, or given forces underrepresented as without a new Codex they’re at a significant disadvantage. Not because their units are bobbins, but because they’re hobbled compared to someone with four pages of stratagems.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

I feel that on that route, results monitored to check balance will be more accurate, as you won’t see quite the same New Hotness skewing, or given forces underrepresented as without a new Codex they’re at a significant disadvantage. Not because their units are bobbins, but because they’re hobbled compared to someone with four pages of stratagems.

You realize right that would hurt gw profits?

It's not a bug. It's feature. Gw want newest hotness to gather all the focus and even better sales.

That entirely Depends, doesn’t it?

Just updating and tweaking existing data sheets, adding new units? That’s your hook right there. That’s the New Hotness. That’s how you get folk to reassess their existing collection and buy more models. Not just the shiny new, but also older kits with tweaked rules.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
On Index Vs Codex?

I do kind of hope, almost certainly forlornly, that a Codex won’t add a huge amount to the given Index it’s replacing.

Update data sheets? No problem.

Add in entirely new units? No problem.

Rejig army specific bonuses? No problem.

But….please. Don’t add in loads and loads and loads of new rules for General 40K. Add in Crusade type rules by all means. But don’t start or even begin packing them out with More Stratagems Than An Index.

This way, those awaiting a Codex, and no matter how quickly you get them out, someone is gonna be last, aren’t at a particular disadvantage.

I feel that on that route, results monitored to check balance will be more accurate, as you won’t see quite the same New Hotness skewing, or given forces underrepresented as without a new Codex they’re at a significant disadvantage. Not because their units are bobbins, but because they’re hobbled compared to someone with four pages of stratagems.

My expectation is that, as you said, we're getting Crusade, and a handful of other things.

Indexes will have datasheets and very basic faction rules.

Codexes will have all the datasheets, the faction rules expanded, Crusade rules, and all your subfaction rules (chapters, legions, orders, etc).

The prayer is that they wont have much MORE than that. The thing we need to keep GW from bringing back are all the superfaction abilities. Wanton destruction? Tactical doctrine? Get rid of all that garbage.

That video makes me think everything is going to be warbands. Non-interacting army lists that only act in isolation. In other words, bespoke organizations of units with a few unique special rules and items. You want a Space Marine army? Okay, there's X number of warbands you can take. Pick one.

Tau army? Okay, there's a T'au warband (orange) and a Farsight warband (red), maybe even a Shadowsun warband (white).

Sure, it all fits on one page, but there's no room for customization or making stuff your own. Privateer Press is doing something like this now with Warmachine. I don't know the details since I don't play anymore, but, for instance, there is no Cygnar army anymore, just a few different brigade styles from the Cygnar faction. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong!

That's not to say GW would be doing this in response to PP. The days of PP being a threat to GW are long gone. But it's interesting to see what my be parallel evolution in game systems.

 The Power Cosmic wrote:
That video makes me think everything is going to be warbands. In other words, bespoke organizations of units with a few unique special rules and items. You want a Space Marine army? Okay, there's X number of warbands you can take. Pick one.

Tau army? Okay, there's a T'au warband (orange) and a Farsight warband (red), maybe even a Shadowsun warband (white).

Pretty sure you're confusing Combat Patrol and the base 10th.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 The Power Cosmic wrote:
That video makes me think everything is going to be warbands. In other words, bespoke organizations of units with a few unique special rules and items. You want a Space Marine army? Okay, there's X number of warbands you can take. Pick one.

Tau army? Okay, there's a T'au warband (orange) and a Farsight warband (red), maybe even a Shadowsun warband (white).

Pretty sure you're confusing Combat Patrol and the base 10th.

I hope not. Maybe the base 40k is just a larger version of what combat patrol ends up being. Like literally larger, 2-3 combat patrols mushed together.

The Indices are a 'get you by' set of rules so you can keep playing until your proper Codex comes out.

Just be thankful they're not charging you and splitting them up into 3-4 books.

 The Power Cosmic wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 The Power Cosmic wrote:
That video makes me think everything is going to be warbands. In other words, bespoke organizations of units with a few unique special rules and items. You want a Space Marine army? Okay, there's X number of warbands you can take. Pick one.

Tau army? Okay, there's a T'au warband (orange) and a Farsight warband (red), maybe even a Shadowsun warband (white).

Pretty sure you're confusing Combat Patrol and the base 10th.

I hope not. Maybe the base 40k is just a larger version of what combat patrol ends up being. Like literally larger, 2-3 combat patrols mushed together.

That sounds horrible and they've given us no reason to think that's what's happening.

xttz wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
10th Ed Codexes gonna be as thin as 3rd Ed Codexes for 4 times the price.

Hopefully they use this as a chance to consolidate things. If so much stuff is being culled then there's no reason for 10 separate space marine books. We could even plausibly see codexes closer to the 8E indexes, such as all Aeldari in one book.

The thing I most expect to see in the Indexes and the next line of Codexes is even more NMNR and what the kit instructions build unit restrictions. Not 100%, but a whole lot more than what you saw in the 9th Edition Codexes.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:On Index Vs Codex?

I do kind of hope, almost certainly forlornly, that a Codex won’t add a huge amount to the given Index it’s replacing.

Update data sheets? No problem.

Add in entirely new units? No problem.

Rejig army specific bonuses? No problem.

But….please. Don’t add in loads and loads and loads of new rules for General 40K. Add in Crusade type rules by all means. But don’t start or even begin packing them out with More Stratagems Than An Index.

This way, those awaiting a Codex, and no matter how quickly you get them out, someone is gonna be last, aren’t at a particular disadvantage.

I feel that on that route, results monitored to check balance will be more accurate, as you won’t see quite the same New Hotness skewing, or given forces underrepresented as without a new Codex they’re at a significant disadvantage. Not because their units are bobbins, but because they’re hobbled compared to someone with four pages of stratagems.

The detachment system, as much as I can tell from the videos, will be different versions of the army you can play that have different detachment rules but use the same units. Look at Codex World Eaters and its World Eaters and Disciples of the Red Angel armies. I expect we will see at 2 page version of that in the different codexes.

So Codex Space Marines may have:

Space Marines Battle Company: the index list, maybe refined

SM First Company

SM Vanguard Spearhead: Phobos list

Etc and so on

Each of these will have a two page rules spread that will include some common rules (ATSKNF) and many unique rules (stratagems, relics, warlord traits, others).