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.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
My worry right now is they're going to remove all subfaction flavor in the name of balance

Oh, I wouldn't worry too much about GW doing anything in the name of balance...

Wayniac wrote:
and you won't even HAVE like "Iyanden" or "Biel-tan", you'll just have "Swordwind" (aspect warriors) and "Ghost Warriors" (Wraith units) that are completely generic, so it doesn't matter if you have Iyanden or Saim-Hann or your own craftworld, it behaves the same beyond colors.

Just like in 3rd edition, where that was exactly how Codex: Craftworld Eldar worked. And everybody hated that for being too generic. Right? ...right..?

I'm pretty sure 3rd edition Craftworlds had subfactions, like biel tan got aspects as troops. I'm worried more like 4th edition Chaos.

The way it's worded, sounds like basically every army is an Army of Renown now.

Wayniac wrote:
My worry right now is they're going to remove all subfaction flavor in the name of balance, and you won't even HAVE like "Iyanden" or "Biel-tan", you'll just have "Swordwind" (aspect warriors) and "Ghost Warriors" (Wraith units) that are completely generic, so it doesn't matter if you have Iyanden or Saim-Hann or your own craftworld, it behaves the same beyond colors.

All this flavour talk is just wanting free bonus rules to break game and resulting in unfluffy armies like all wraith iyanden and all bike white scars etc. Armibs that wouldn't be thing really but as they get most okt of free rule# players minmax thosn.

Armies were more flavourful before subfaction rules. Now it's pick unit you want to spam and then pick subfaction that boosts it most. One day red marines are blood angels, next dark angels, then grey knights.

tneva82 wrote:
Armies were more flavourful before subfaction rules.

Were they, though? The much praised 3.5 Chaos Codex was built around subfactions and is considered one of the most flavorful codexes ever printed.

Trouble with 4th Ed Chaos was that Codex was truly standout. It had options well beyond what others had.

If everyone is granted that flexibility? The problem is much reduced. Indeed, we may find Extreme Theme Lists (Extheme?) actually meta’ing each other out.

For instance, Knights right now can be problematic, because few armies can field significant amounts of tough Anti-Tank. Now? You, hypothetically for now of course, risk running into someone fielding a shedload of Predators, which field as individual units despite being bought in squadrons. And in turn, said Predator force risks coming up against lots of cheap infantry they simply cannot contest objectives against.

Sorry if this feels like I’m dunking on you, I promise I’m not.

 Platuan4th wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Armies were more flavourful before subfaction rules.

Were they, though? The much praised 3.5 Chaos Codex was built around subfactions and is considered one of the most flavorful codexes ever printed.

Also one of the most wildly broken.

At last no more power levels!

I feel that whilst gameplay side that might feel like a small change, I think its a huge thing that GW is no longer splitting itself along two different point systems when designing things nor putting the rules together. HECK maybe this means we might actually get points back on the unit details page!

I think its a sign of an attitude change and one I approve of

tneva82 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
My worry right now is they're going to remove all subfaction flavor in the name of balance, and you won't even HAVE like "Iyanden" or "Biel-tan", you'll just have "Swordwind" (aspect warriors) and "Ghost Warriors" (Wraith units) that are completely generic, so it doesn't matter if you have Iyanden or Saim-Hann or your own craftworld, it behaves the same beyond colors.

All this flavour talk is just wanting free bonus rules to break game and resulting in unfluffy armies like all wraith iyanden and all bike white scars etc. Armibs that wouldn't be thing really but as they get most okt of free rule# players minmax thosn.

Armies were more flavourful before subfaction rules. Now it's pick unit you want to spam and then pick subfaction that boosts it most. One day red marines are blood angels, next dark angels, then grey knights.

Yeah, having "Swordwind" and "Ghost Warriors" rules has exactly the same effect on the tabletop as Biel-tan or Iyanden rules.

The only difference is that it doesn't punish or restrict people for the paint scheme they picked 3 editions ago.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Anyway, 3 of the same Datasheet. So right now that could mean, for instance, 9 Gladiators in a single army.

I've been thinking about this for a while - it's good to finally know it's on datasheet at least.

With the new datasheet format they could more easily consolidate. Instead of needing a special rule for the Lancer's gun the datasheet just shows it at BS2.

So someone can still do a dreadnought army with 3 contemptors and 3 redemptors or w/e, but not 9 redemptors.

But otherwise like you mentioned this is an area where they could really screw the system if some armies get the same repetitive datasheets allowing more selections for spam.

I for one would like a return of the old generic Cryptek datasheet, with the different disciplines being represented through gear.
That would avoid being able to take 12 crypteks which may be increased to 24, provided Dynastic Advisors is still a thing.

1. The Necron codex hasn't been released yet for 10th.
2. The Cryptek section for the 5th edition codex is about the same amount of stuff as the four different entries of Crypteks to be frank.

Wayniac wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
My worry right now is they're going to remove all subfaction flavor in the name of balance

Oh, I wouldn't worry too much about GW doing anything in the name of balance...

Wayniac wrote:
and you won't even HAVE like "Iyanden" or "Biel-tan", you'll just have "Swordwind" (aspect warriors) and "Ghost Warriors" (Wraith units) that are completely generic, so it doesn't matter if you have Iyanden or Saim-Hann or your own craftworld, it behaves the same beyond colors.

Just like in 3rd edition, where that was exactly how Codex: Craftworld Eldar worked. And everybody hated that for being too generic. Right? ...right..?

I'm pretty sure 3rd edition Craftworlds had subfactions, like biel tan got aspects as troops. I'm worried more like 4th edition Chaos.

Nope.
Besides happening to have the name of a Craftworld, they were effectively generic and non-Craftworld specific.

 xttz wrote:

Yeah, having "Swordwind" and "Ghost Warriors" rules has exactly the same effect on the tabletop as Biel-tan or Iyanden rules.

The only difference is that it doesn't punish or restrict people for the paint scheme they picked 3 editions ago.

Hopefully this is accompanied by some new characters added to the various subfactions at least, to let them accomplish effectively the same thing.

A named Spiritseer, a named DKoK Officer, named Skitarii Marshal, etc would all be delightful additions to the game.

Interesting I could have sworn there was a supplement or something. Oh, nevermind that WAS the supplement. Where they added the extras.

Wayniac wrote:
Interesting I could have sworn there was a supplement or something.

Craftworld Eldar IS the Supplement. The base Codex was just Codex: Eldar.

https://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Codex:_Craftworld_Eldar_(3rd_Edition)

 Overread wrote:
At last no more power levels!

I feel that whilst gameplay side that might feel like a small change, I think its a huge thing that GW is no longer splitting itself along two different point systems when designing things nor putting the rules together. HECK maybe this means we might actually get points back on the unit details page!

I think its a sign of an attitude change and one I approve of

Absolutely. No more narrative nonsense.

Looks like they still have too many buffs stacking, on top. Oaths of moment, combat doctarins ect..


Withought some scaffolding for list building sque lists will rule the day the more specific and esoteric the less likely it will be countered.

Looks like balance will suffer.

Hard to tell untill it's out though so wait and see it is I suppose.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Armies were more flavourful before subfaction rules.

Were they, though? The much praised 3.5 Chaos Codex was built around subfactions and is considered one of the most flavorful codexes ever printed.

Also one of the most wildly broken.

Flavor came from options (and a little nudge in the shape of army building restrictions). Wildly broken nonsense then as now comes from overperforming units/options and the ability to spam them. Obliterator spam Iron Warriors weren't a problem of having veteran abilities or build your own Daemon Prince rules. It's the ability to lose restrictions and just take more of an overly good unit than other armies. In other words, getting free stuff.

This isn't a problem that the 10th ed rules counter. As has already been mentioned/dreaded, we get for example ten detachments and of those one or two will hand out bonuses that go well with units that overperform. We'll just see those detachments because they hand out something for free that's better than what the other things hand of for free.

The hope is that over time GW may tune back the overperformers and raise up the underperformers to get all detachments somewhat close to each other. That's the ideal for those looking for balance and it might be more achievable now than ever before. At the same time it comes at the cost of customization because in order to stay manageable in such a way the detachments come in predefined parcels because the underlying idea doesn't change. It's about handing out free bonuses. You can't hand out free stuff and expect flavor at the same time.

 Overread wrote:
At last no more power levels!

I feel that whilst gameplay side that might feel like a small change, I think its a huge thing that GW is no longer splitting itself along two different point systems when designing things nor putting the rules together. HECK maybe this means we might actually get points back on the unit details page!

I think its a sign of an attitude change and one I approve of

Today power levels, tomorrow AoS's double turn, and then? We'll soon run out of complete nonsense to drop? What are we going to complain about then?

Hmm - random thought on the list-building side - does it not scale by game size any more, in terms of how many of each unit you can take?

So rather than 2 at 1k, 3 at 2k, 4 at 3k, it's 3 regardless of size? (Then doubled for Battleline).

 Geifer wrote:


Today power levels, tomorrow AoS's double turn, and then? We'll soon run out of complete nonsense to drop? What are we going to complain about then?

Prices!

I am still worried. I just looked at the old 3e chaos codex (NOT 3.5) and it was playable (even somewhat enjoyable) but bland as all hell.

Your choice of legion literally did not matter beyond what color your guys were. Alpha Legion played identically to Iron Warriors who played identically to Night Lords.

For all the OP parts of 3.5, it actually let each legion behave differently.

 BertBert wrote:

 Geifer wrote:


Today power levels, tomorrow AoS's double turn, and then? We'll soon run out of complete nonsense to drop? What are we going to complain about then?

Prices!

No. It will be complaining about people who complain about prices.

 Geifer wrote:

 Overread wrote:
At last no more power levels!

I feel that whilst gameplay side that might feel like a small change, I think its a huge thing that GW is no longer splitting itself along two different point systems when designing things nor putting the rules together. HECK maybe this means we might actually get points back on the unit details page!

I think its a sign of an attitude change and one I approve of

Today power levels, tomorrow AoS's double turn, and then? We'll soon run out of complete nonsense to drop? What are we going to complain about then?

Oh gods I'd love the doubleturn in AoS to vanish if just so I don't have to hear about how having 2 full activation turns in an alternate army activation game is "balanced and ok".

 aphyon wrote:

 xttz wrote:
The Emperor is depicted with a shield on the eternity gate, which I'm pretty sure is at least early 90's artwork. It could be a ceremonial thing that he never used in battle.

I assume you mean this image of a greco/roman visage of the emperor striking down the dragon of chaos.

This is interpretive art built after his internment on the golden throne. nowhere that i am aware of did he ever use(or need) a shield, ceremonial or otherwise.

Spoiler:

Yeah, technically, we've never seen him with a shield, but the guy is a perpetual is basically as old as humanity itself, so it isn't implausible for example that he used a shield during the Unification Wars or simply that he had one crafted at some point for his personal use. It's equally implausible that he was always in his golden suit of armor with the same two weapons throughout his entire life.

I mean, during the Heresy he gave Russ a spear. We've never seen him chilling with a spear, but there it was.

Hell, maybe it was the one in the above artwork in the spoiler tag.

 privateer4hire wrote:

 Overread wrote:
At last no more power levels!

I feel that whilst gameplay side that might feel like a small change, I think its a huge thing that GW is no longer splitting itself along two different point systems when designing things nor putting the rules together. HECK maybe this means we might actually get points back on the unit details page!

I think its a sign of an attitude change and one I approve of

Absolutely. No more narrative nonsense.

See I have nothing against narrative, if anything I feel like GW never actually did enough for narrative as a game format.

Their "3 ways to play" was basically pointless.

Matched play is just regular 100% bog standard normal Warhammer
Narrative play was just 100% bog standard normal Warhammer with perhaps some linked missions/story/campaign elements which could affect your army composition choices.
Open play was just bog standard "do whatever the freaking heck you want because you're the gamers and its your game" which people have been doing for years.


Powerlevel was something else and whilst on one front it was a neat idea - make the game simpler to get into to lower the barrier of entry; on the other it was pointless because, well, it had no semblance of balance to it. It was born of the same management that thought "no points" in AoS was a good idea.

I'd openly welcome if GW could give Narrative more bite; more elements within codex to latch onto and build storytelling into the games and such to promote it more.

 Overread wrote:
I'd openly welcome if GW could give Narrative more bite; more elements within codex to latch onto and build storytelling into the games and such to promote it more.

Yeah, they should do some actual campaigns and stuff. What they did was basically useless.

People were saying a few pages ago that GW said they WERE going to bring back codexes. I have not seen this, and I've read the WarCom articles as well as watched the stream.

They seemed to be saying the codexes are gone and they said the old ones are obsolete, where did they announce that they are going to eventually be releasing new codexes?

The only thing I've seen is that they're going to be releasing rules on "inexpensive" datasheet/strategem cards for quick reference shortly after release, that's it. I took that to mean the same thing as on the digital rules, just so you have it on a card on the tabletop.

 TedNugent wrote:
People were saying a few pages ago that GW said they WERE going to bring back codexes. I have not seen this, and I've read the WarCom articles as well as watched the stream.

They seemed to be saying the codexes are gone and they said the old ones are obsolete, where did they announce that they are going to eventually be releasing new codexes?

The only thing I've seen is that they're going to be releasing rules on "inexpensive" datasheet/strategem cards for quick reference shortly after release, that's it. I took that to mean the same thing as on the digital rules, just so you have it on a card on the tabletop.

Announced earlier on: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/03/23/a-mindblowing-new-edition-of-warhammer-40000-is-coming/


"Codexes will return in time to replace the free rules, but when they do the complexity of the game won’t increase, thanks to a one-in-one-out ethos for army and sub-faction rules. Effectively, you will only ever need your unit datasheets, the two pages of rules that govern your chosen army (available in your codex, on cards, or digitally), plus the core rules and whatever mission you’re playing."

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
For instance, Iyanden may allow Wraith Constructs to count as Battleline, but not tinker with their OC rating. This would allow you to theme quite nicely, without entirely removing the usefulness of Guardians, assuming they have a solid OC rating,

I hope they have the balls to make changes to organisation and what counts and doesn't count as "Battleline" depending on the type of army you're taking. And this also assumes that Iyanden is something that continues to exist, rather than the "Ghost Warrior Warhost" or some other such nonsense name that they pull out of thing air.

Eh, you can get annoyed at naming all you want, but explicitly not linking rules to paint instead of the heavily implied rules linked to paint of 9th, well it’s a net positive. You can now (theoretically) easily run a Biel Tan Wraithhost if that’s where your fluff/models loves intersect, without anyone having a whinge. That’s cool.

Agreed. They surpassed my expectations in this area, and can easily open more detachment concepts people think are missing at the start.
I didn't expect them to walk away from paint=rules, but very glad to leave that mess behind.
The potential for Outriders but you don't have to Dark Angels, White Scars or Sam Hain to really do it right is a vast improvement.

I expect they'll eventually have to clamp down on rule of 3 (especially for characters and aircraft (again)), but the FOC charts have been a mess for multiple editions and the age of omens detachment was stupidly exploitable already. This feels like a sidegrade than something worse (or better)

The anti power level sentiment here is baffling, it was an option that you didn’t have to use but it seems to have upset a lot of people.

I’m betting the all new points only system will be more like AoS points where it’s fixed for a unit regardless of options, so basically power level times 10.

 Overread wrote:

 Geifer wrote:

 Overread wrote:
At last no more power levels!

I feel that whilst gameplay side that might feel like a small change, I think its a huge thing that GW is no longer splitting itself along two different point systems when designing things nor putting the rules together. HECK maybe this means we might actually get points back on the unit details page!

I think its a sign of an attitude change and one I approve of

Today power levels, tomorrow AoS's double turn, and then? We'll soon run out of complete nonsense to drop? What are we going to complain about then?

Oh gods I'd love the doubleturn in AoS to vanish if just so I don't have to hear about how having 2 full activation turns in an alternate army activation game is "balanced and ok".

They seem determined to bring bad elements from AOS into 40k, so expect the double turn here come 11th.

Andykp wrote:
The anti power level sentiment here is baffling, it was an option that you didn’t have to use but it seems to have upset a lot of people.

I’m betting the all new points only system will be more like AoS points where it’s fixed for a unit regardless of options, so basically power level times 10.

The problem with power level was

1) It was placed on the unit cards. That isn't a problem in itself, but GW chose to put the least used point system on the unit cards; whilst the most heavily used (esp by users on this site) was scatter shot through the rest of the book. So power-level was "stealing" the prime information point.

2) It had zero balance. A fully equipped unit with every optional extra cost the same in power level points as one that was barebones. This created a situation where how much you could use and enjoy it varied a lot on your local scene.



In the end the idea had merit - a simpler points system - but because it didn't strip out or simplify any element of army building; it never really achieved anything. It was pointless because you didn't make selecting a unit any simpler; nor upgrading it any simpler; it was purely just reducing the maths in the pre-game phase.
IF it had come with things like "under PL no unit can take upgrades" or even a separate means to add upgrades up and such then it could have had more merit.


There was also a long fear that GW would push powerlevel like they pushed other things - eg the Doubleturn in AoS or the initial no points system in AoS - and that we'd lose points and the game would become more simplified in ways that cut out choices, options and variety in the armies; would invalidate varied unit compositions and would create a very chaotic gaming scene with very limited ways to balance different types of player together (that guy who always takes every upgrade and that guy who doesn't would not be best matchups etc)