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.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
An entirely speculative thought about Chaos in 10th. Yes it is viewed through Rose Tinteds. No you cannot divest them me of them on this one, because I have used a Stapler and Eternogum, which not even Swarfega* can shift.

And it’s to do with Detachments. Detachments with perhaps just an extra page, displaying your unit options drawn from different Chaos Codexes. Like allying, without allying.

Because much as a Jumbo Chaos Codex would be my preference, I think we have to accept that’s probably not happening.

But to have a few** Detachments which draw different units from different Codexes might well be the Next Best Thing.

Given that's essentially what Disciples of the Red Angel already does (with extra steps) I'd say this is a given. Those keywords were specifically picked to still allow daemon allies. In 10th that gets simpler to implement without the tangled restrictions of superfaction abilities and detachment rules.

We also definitely shouldn't rule out AoS-style chaos god codexes, with WE+daemons or DG+daemons in the same book. If that happens I could see Vashtorr & Belakor being rolled into the next CSM book with rules to take their respective lackeys.

Tsagualsa wrote:
Added to the OP:

Edit 03/31/2023

This video concerns Space Marine chapter supplements: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8cE1ASmoZ8

- Space Marines will get 'a lot of love' in 10th edition (duh)
- Starter Box is just step one
- 'End of Summer' second wave for SM, September/August
- 'Huge Refresh' for Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Space Wolves
- Dark Angel stuff is from a source he trusts 100%
- Blood Angel and Space Wolf stuff is from a new source
- BA and SW will receive boxed sets
- Dante probably in a boxed set, presented at Warhammer fest (speculation)
- He 'knows' Epic Horus Heresy will be shown of at Warhammer Fest
- Dark Angel box set with brand-new Sammael and Belial (unclear if old or new model)
- Second wave will also include separate kits for the stuff in the 10th box set
- Sanguinary guard: personally believes they'll come, but has no concrete information
- 'Everyone' will get a range refresh like Black Templars: a few units, upgrade frames and a few characters
- Says that will occupy the first half (!) of 10th edition

...sigh. Honestly, I don't think there's anything that could have made me feel worse about 10th than this.

They could have announced they're switching to a D73 system (with proprietary dice) that doesn't reduce the overall size of dice pools, and I would have preferred that to '1.5 years of more SM crap'.

 xttz wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
An entirely speculative thought about Chaos in 10th. Yes it is viewed through Rose Tinteds. No you cannot divest them me of them on this one, because I have used a Stapler and Eternogum, which not even Swarfega* can shift.

And it’s to do with Detachments. Detachments with perhaps just an extra page, displaying your unit options drawn from different Chaos Codexes. Like allying, without allying.

Because much as a Jumbo Chaos Codex would be my preference, I think we have to accept that’s probably not happening.

But to have a few** Detachments which draw different units from different Codexes might well be the Next Best Thing.

Given that's essentially what Disciples of the Red Angel already does (with extra steps) I'd say this is a given. Those keywords were specifically picked to still allow daemon allies. In 10th that gets simpler to implement without the tangled restrictions of superfaction abilities and detachment rules.

We also definitely shouldn't rule out AoS-style chaos god codexes, with WE+daemons or DG+daemons in the same book. If that happens I could see Vashtorr & Belakor being rolled into the next CSM book with rules to take their respective lackeys.

Daemon units should be the bare minimum, I want to be allowed to run plague marines in a CSM army again instead of DG having a monopoly in them

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 GiToRaZor wrote:
Morale rules don't really have good track record. So far they were always written as a complex and potentially interesting mechanic. And then they are instantly neutered, because SMs need to know no fear and the various horrors of the galaxy should be considered fearless. In 9th even worse, the entire idea of having to roll for morale is obsolete. If you suffered enough casualties for it to become relevant, your unit was likely already dead anyway.

So let's first see if they reduce the sheer deadliness of everything first. But I can't see Morale to become a decisive factor in 10th. That would mean that Night Lords would be relevant, and when have they not been getting the brown end of the stick?

Right for morale to make a difference the deaths need to slow down. It needs to be slightly momentous to tip a unit over the threshold to test.

If it turns off OC then it could get really interesting since you can tactically deal with different parts of the table without having to have a unit on objective.

Morale as a mechanic has never been good or interesting in 40k, whether it be fall back, sweeping advance, pinning, etc.

The game is 5 turns long. That means non-cqc units get 3ish 'full' activations on average. Who knows how many of those will actually be relevant to the outcome of the game? Because of that, any morale mechanic that prevents actions, or especially movement, is close enough to just killing the unit so as not to make much of a difference.

The difference between pinning a unit so it can't move or shoot, vs just killing the unit outright, is negligible in a game like 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 The Red Hobbit wrote:
Very interesting warcom article. I honestly didn't expect them to go this direction with Detachments. I think it's a nice flexible system that allows you to paint your army however you like and pick the detachment that suits them best. I see it as a huge boon for players who like to make custom chapters, craftworlds, kultures, etc.

I'm also pleased to see they are limiting Epic Heroes to one per army, I never did like seeing "Super Friends" lists in 7th edition or early 8th. I am hopeful they are strict about what is an epic hero, that way Space Wolves players and Chaos Daemons can still field armies of names heroes and daemons if they so choose.

Aash wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’m not sure if bloat is the right term there.

Will we get more unique detachments as the Codexes roll out? Yes, absolutely.

But right now, we don’t know what that really means - nor if it’s a fixed number per Codex, or what benefits or drawbacks we’ll see.

The intent seems to be clear - to allow us to theme or otherwise flavour armies. I for one don’t consider that in itself to be bloat. Just…options.

If they don’t introduce lots of Core Rule exceptions, which stack in odd ways, then it’s just variety which remains the spice of life.

Provided they remain clearly worded and fairly set across the different sheets, could be very good.

I broadly agree with this ^

I’m curious about balance updates and faction winrates. Rather than subfactions, specific detachments are likely to be targeted for buffs and nerds for balance corrections. I’m like to see winrates start to get reported for detachments rather than just for factions as it would be a much better indicator of what’s really going on.

Same here, I think this would be a far easier way to balance the game by looking at the results of which detachments are pulling in big win rates (and against which other detachments) when it comes to game balancing. Also, in full agreement with Mad Doc Grotsnik's post

 xttz wrote:

Loopstah wrote:
I'm glad to hear they are focusing on Marines due to their limited model range rather than say Eldar.

Well for what it's worth, the same source for these rumours also claims that Striking Scorpions are in the next KT box.

Would much, much, much preferred Warp Spiders in the KT Box, or another Aspect currently wallowing in finecast shame.

Reread that post, it's "You can only include one of each named EPIC HERO per army"

Billicus wrote:

Daemon units should be the bare minimum, I want to be allowed to run plague marines in a CSM army again instead of DG having a monopoly in them

You can, they're an elites in the chaos marines book.

Billicus wrote:
GW barely release new characters outside of boxsets anymore so that is hardly even speculation, it's kind of just a logical deduction. If I want Dante, I'm sure it will be a case of getting him with 5 intercessors, probably an Impulsor and some of the old blood angel terminators for £100. If we're lucky, available on his own within a year.

Can we not clutter the forum with falsehoods that just serve to stir the pot?

Characters released alone :

Lord Invocatus
Angry Ron
Exalted Sorcerer
Ahriman
Celestine
Cannoness
Dialogus
Imagifier
Saint Katherine
Lord Discordant
Avatar
Ghaz
Abaddon
Lord Solar
Vahl
Cawl
Mozrog
Szeras
Helbrecht
Shadowsun
Creed
Mephiston
Shrike
Feirros
Bile

etc...

To be fair, at least Celestine was first released in a set with Cawl and Inquisitor Nevermentiond Again.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Billicus wrote:
GW barely release new characters outside of boxsets anymore so that is hardly even speculation, it's kind of just a logical deduction. If I want Dante, I'm sure it will be a case of getting him with 5 intercessors, probably an Impulsor and some of the old blood angel terminators for £100. If we're lucky, available on his own within a year.

Can we not clutter the forum with falsehoods that just serve to stir the pot?

Characters released alone :

Lord Invocatus
Angry Ron
Exalted Sorcerer
Ahriman
Celestine
Cannoness
Dialogus
Imagifier
Saint Katherine
Lord Discordant
Avatar
Ghaz
Abaddon
Lord Solar
Vahl
Cawl
Mozrog
Szeras
Helbrecht
Shadowsun
Creed
Mephiston
Shrike
Feirros
Bile

etc...

Some of these are not 9th edition

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Some of these are not 9th edition

Not sure what edition has to do with it since it's a presumed business practice.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

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

What bad elements of AoS have we recieved?

My top 3 (or at least 2.5)?
- Fixed to-hit values instead of a reworked comparison table in melee. Gretchin should not be hitting The Lion (based on what we've seen so far) as easily as they hit a Guardsman or Guardian. At least they've not dragged fixed to-wound values across... yet.
- Mortal Wounds (especially coupled with GW's lack of discipline on handing them out).
- The whole Command Point mess (which I think was AOS before 40k, but it was 6 years ago so I might be mis-remembering that).

Did you teleport back in time or something?

- We haven't had WS compare since 7th.
- The prevalence of MW is unknown.
- They already stated that CP are even less than what they are now.

Not at all - the question that was asked was "What bad elements of AoS have we recieved?" (sic), with no time frame tied to the question. Certainly nothing about the question implied I was only restricted to things which may/will happen in 10th.

So please put the scoring equipment back where it started, rather than dragging it around the pitch - someone is going to have to fix all the turf you've damaged already.

ERJAK wrote:
Morale as a mechanic has never been good or interesting in 40k, whether it be fall back, sweeping advance, pinning, etc.

The game is 5 turns long. That means non-cqc units get 3ish 'full' activations on average. Who knows how many of those will actually be relevant to the outcome of the game? Because of that, any morale mechanic that prevents actions, or especially movement, is close enough to just killing the unit so as not to make much of a difference.

The difference between pinning a unit so it can't move or shoot, vs just killing the unit outright, is negligible in a game like 40k.

Fall back and sweeping can stay away. Pinning is also a little dubious.

Morale can't be so disruptive as to make vehicles better objective holders.

Tanget...AP is going down and vehicle toughness is going up. It feels like vehicles will be king of the battlefield especially that have a quantifiable OC and no morale effects. Just conjecture though.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dysartes wrote:

Not at all - the question that was asked was "What bad elements of AoS have we recieved?" (sic), with no time frame tied to the question. Certainly nothing about the question implied I was only restricted to things which may/will happen in 10th.

So please put the scoring equipment back where it started, rather than dragging it around the pitch - someone is going to have to fix all the turf you've damaged already.

You're better than that, Dys. We're literally talking about incoming changes to 10th and you decide to lament about changes that have already occurred, mention nothing about known changes, and use that to infer double turn in 3 years? Come on.

 Dawnbringer wrote:

 The Red Hobbit wrote:


Would much, much, much preferred Warp Spiders in the KT Box, or another Aspect currently wallowing in finecast shame.

Umm, Scorpions are in Finecast...
Or are you saying you just don't like Scorpions?

Oh no I love Scorpions, but the warp spiders are truly ancient and in need of a refresh.

ERJAK wrote:

Reread that post, it's "You can only include one of each named EPIC HERO per army"

Ah I see, thanks for the clarification.

ERJAK wrote:

Morale as a mechanic has never been good or interesting in 40k, whether it be fall back, sweeping advance, pinning, etc.

The game is 5 turns long. That means non-cqc units get 3ish 'full' activations on average. Who knows how many of those will actually be relevant to the outcome of the game? Because of that, any morale mechanic that prevents actions, or especially movement, is close enough to just killing the unit so as not to make much of a difference.

The difference between pinning a unit so it can't move or shoot, vs just killing the unit outright, is negligible in a game like 40k.

The game used to have 6 rounds and could be extended to 8. You know back when after turn 2 more than 50% of your army were still alive. I'm not saying it was perfect back then, but morale was not a useless idea, just poorly executed. I agree though that we will likely not go back to that and rather stay in a fast paced tactically arcade setting. Hence I'd expect battleshaken to just be -1 to hit and -2" to movement. Just like Kill Team injured.

ERJAK wrote:
They could have announced they're switching to a D73 system (with proprietary dice) that doesn't reduce the overall size of dice pools, and I would have preferred that to '1.5 years of more SM crap'.

My read on that is 'several small releases spread out over a long period'. I don't believe for a second GW would focus on only space marines for several consecutive releases. More likely they get small waves dropped in between other things, like how 1 month of Black Templar stuff was sandwiched between several months of new Ork & Eldar content.

Also, it's Valrak. The timeline is probably entirely speculation again.

ERJAK wrote:
The game is 5 turns long. That means non-cqc units get 3ish 'full' activations on average. Who knows how many of those will actually be relevant to the outcome of the game? Because of that, any morale mechanic that prevents actions, or especially movement, is close enough to just killing the unit so as not to make much of a difference.

That could change quite a bit if the new datasheets & stratagems continue to allow more interaction in your opponent's turn as expected. We've already seen termagants & berzerkers getting free movement in an opponent's turn, who knows what other scope there will be for more than 5 activations per game?

Yeah, I had a feeling the first 3-6 months of 10th ed would be Space Marines followed by more Space Marines and then some Space Marines for flavor.

My major hope is that they slide in a few other codexes in there. Factions that aren't going to be getting a huge model update? Just give us the one hero model and the codex so those armies can get playing without us having to wait 4+ months through the space marine releases just to get to the actual meat and potatoes of the rest of the edition.

drbored wrote:
Yeah, I had a feeling the first 3-6 months of 10th ed would be Space Marines followed by more Space Marines and then some Space Marines for flavor.

Red and Green are flavors in this case, aren't they?

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

drbored wrote:
Yeah, I had a feeling the first 3-6 months of 10th ed would be Space Marines followed by more Space Marines and then some Space Marines for flavor.

Red and Green are flavors in this case, aren't they?

Eh, you get to a certain age and they all just start tasting the same. So, you turn to other flavors that are stronger, more pungent, or spicier.

I really hope they do some consolidation. Two years to release every codex when there's a 3 year edition cycle is not sustainable

Frankly, I'm assuming that it will be more low effort stuff like the Hounds of Morkai.

I would imagine that the current Terminator pads don't fit the new Terminator sculpts, so we could see Deathwing/Wolf Guard/Blood Angel/Deathwatch/[insert chapter here] conversion sprues for the new Terminators.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I would imagine that the current Terminator pads don't fit the new Terminator sculpts, so we could see Deathwing/Wolf Guard/Blood Angel/Deathwatch/[insert chapter here] conversion sprues for the new Terminators.

As though a million etsy stores cried out at once

Wayniac wrote:
I really hope they do some consolidation. Two years to release every codex when there's a 3 year edition cycle is not sustainable

Doubt gw is in trouble to release that many books in that time.

 privateer4hire wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I would imagine that the current Terminator pads don't fit the new Terminator sculpts, so we could see Deathwing/Wolf Guard/Blood Angel/Deathwatch/[insert chapter here] conversion sprues for the new Terminators.

As though a million etsy stores cried out at once

On the contrary, this is new opportunity for them. If all it takes is resizing some files to fit the new pads, that's easy money.

I do agree though, churning out the codexes isn't sustainable for a game with this quick of a turnaround, but hey, people keep giving GW money, so our definition of 'sustainable' as gamers and GW's definition of 'sustainable' as a business selling models and books are two very different things. Might be unsustainable for some people's wallets, but as soon as the new codexes drop, they'll sell just fine.

The main issue is that there's not an avenue that GW can take that gives people MORE product while also making MORE money off of that product.

For example, let's say they make all of the base army rules for each faction free. So, none of the extra detachments, but your points and datasheets are all free.

That means, a percentage of people aren't going to buy the codex. You might say 'well those people might put that money to buying more kits' or 'it makes it easier for new people to get into the hobby' but those are tough to quantify on a spreadsheet that'll be shown to shareholders. You're giving people more, you're receiving less, ergo, you're losing out on money that could have been made by simply charging for the rules.

GW did try, they gave us PDF codexes for a while, only to pull them because it made it that much easier for people to share the codexes around.

They used to do paperback, the codexes were cheaper. They moved up to hardback where the margins are even better.

Whatever argument you can concoct up in here, GW have already considered it. People have been screaming at GW for free rules and digital codexes for a while, and they're trying to meet us while also making money.

We're getting the indexes and core rules for free, and we have the 40k app where army building will be digital at least. If you're not satisfied with that, then definitely try voting with your dollars and don't buy the new 10th ed codexes when they come out.

If the faction rules are as simple as 2 pages, the codexes shouldn't be too difficult to churn out quickly. They reprint old background - maybe adding a new page or two, or doing their recent trick of running some sentences through a thesaurus once or twice - pop in photos of the new character model for the faction and they're done.

 Shakalooloo wrote:
If the faction rules are as simple as 2 pages, the codexes shouldn't be too difficult to churn out quickly. They reprint old background - maybe adding a new page or two, or doing their recent trick of running some sentences through a thesaurus once or twice - pop in photos of the new character model for the faction and they're done.

They have been chukking out more complex codexes just fine so far. No reason to think they couldn't even if it was more than 2 pages Not like GW aims to have particularly high quality with them. What matters is more books to sell. Thus they won't reduce # of books nor will they slow down the cycle.

Now if they start reducing edition cycle to say 2 years that might require them to reduce # of books as only so many saturday's to release and they don't want too many new releases to compete with each other specific week.

So, I dunno if you guys have talked about it, but, have you already posted the new nids leaks?



Take it with THE BIGGEST GRAIN OF SALT POSSIBLE as it was posted on "English guys go full Mr Comedy Day", I think

Those names sound absolutely ridiculous I wouldn't doubt it but yeah that sounds like BS

The biggest knock against it is assuming that Magnus is the most powerful psyker in the game.

Here's something that might be more legit though. Apparently leaked intercessor data sheet:



Notice anything interesting? So much for all you need is the data sheet.

Wayniac wrote:
Here's something that might be more legit though. Apparently leaked intercessor data sheet:

Spoiler:

Notice anything interesting?

Indeed. Morale works the wrong way around, and the 'Strategic Fire' skill is missing an 'unit' after 'enemy' - I'd say fake.

Also, wounds are not 'suffered', the usual parlance is 'that wound is not lost' or 'ignore the first wound lost by', and if you roll dice you ignore 'a die' and not 'a dice', although that is not conclusive.