10th Edition Rumour Roundup - in the grim darkness of the far future, there are only power levels

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.

**clodax66**

Rapid ingress looks very interesting. You deepstrike at your opponents movement phase. You are able to deepstrike somewhere hidden after you see your opponents moves then in your turn move shoot and charge. I wonder if they are also allowing units to deepstrike in your turn.

**Shadow Walker**

Tyran wrote:
ATSKNF is also gone.

Unless it is still there with Oath of the Moment etc.

**Matrindur**

Tyran wrote:
ATSKNF is also gone.

Same as the other common abilities, though we might get some of them back through detachments

**Daedalus81**

Us3Less wrote:
I'm really linking what I see so far. Cautiously optimistic that this edition might make for a really good game.

No, these are the same false promises from GW! Can't you see they're doing things exactly the same as before?

**General Kroll**

Tyran wrote:
ATSKNF is also gone.

I presume that will be going into the two page detachment abilities/army rules sheet or whatever they’re calling it.

**Wayniac**

Daedalus81 wrote:
Us3Less wrote:
I'm really linking what I see so far. Cautiously optimistic that this edition might make for a really good game.

No, these are the same false promises from GW! Can't you see they're doing things exactly the same as before?

I mean, it's GW. chances are they WILL do exactly the same thing as before. Imagine actually defending a company that has shown for 30 years they WILL go back to their old ways...

But so far it looks interesting, and I remain optimistic.

**Voss**

Layout issue: invulnerable saves are nice and big, but they shouldn't be all the way down there. They should be up with the rest of the defensive stats.

Rapid fire is back. Its a little bit more coherent, and the 'space marine exception' seems to be gone. Not entirely happy with it though. Don't like the [bracket] clutter.

Teleport homer is... iffy. it seems relatively easy to block.

Fury of the First- annoys me. The first part is fine, though note it ignores ALL modifiers (mitigated somewhat by 'can ignore' rather than 'ignores', which is going to be important in a moment). The second part is a rider on another ability and is a hit modifier you might be ignoring if you're not paying attention to the first half of the ability. Depending on how common modifiers are, this may be slightly pointless.

So their first big example of a datasheet rule loops on itself, rides another ability and potentially counters itself if you aren't parsing the GW technical language properly. Classic GW writing.

**EviscerationPlague**

Daedalus81 wrote:
Us3Less wrote:
I'm really linking what I see so far. Cautiously optimistic that this edition might make for a really good game.

No, these are the same false promises from GW! Can't you see they're doing things exactly the same as before?

I mean, there was hype for beginning of 8th and 9th if you remember.

**Daedalus81**

EviscerationPlague wrote:
I mean, there was hype for beginning of 8th and 9th if you remember.

Yes, but this is sort of an iterative thing at this point. You can see them learning.

Are they going to do something over the top at some point? Absolutely.

**Tsagualsa**

Voss wrote:

Fury of the First- annoys me. The first part is fine, though note it ignores ALL modifiers (mitigated somewhat by 'can ignore' rather than 'ignores', which is going to be important in a moment). The second part is a rider on another ability and is a hit modifier you might be ignoring if you're not paying attention to the first half of the ability. Depending on how common modifiers are, this may be slightly pointless.

It actually does not, or is at least open to interpretation if it does - note that it says 'you can ignore any OR all modifiers...' which i interpret as 'you can pick which modifiers you want to ignore', i.e. keep the positive ones and ditch the negative ones in the vast majority of cases. It's certainly badly worded, because it can be read in a way that 'any or all' applies to the enumeration of 'WS, BS and/or to Hit roll', but then we still have the rogue 'can'.

Congrats GW, your ruleswriting got to the 3rd/4th datasheet this time before it produced ambiguities

**The Red Hobbit**

Interesting, I was hoping GW would use 10th to increase the range of Toughness values. The Intercessors stayed at T4 while the Termies are at T5, wonder if they'll bump up Custodes Termies to T6.

The Anti- rule makes perfect sense, seems like a simple solution with a bit of variety in the range over the old fleshbane / armorbane. I'm guessing crusade will have some fluffy weapons like Anti-Tyranid bolters.

To be honest though it's not what I was expecting. Since most anti-tank weapons already have good strength to wound, I was expecting them to modify BS instead of Wounding. For instance an anti-tank weapons might have a worse BS (i.e. 4+ instead of a 3+) but a better chance to hit against vehicles/monsters etc. This way you save your lascannon for the tank instead of trying to snipe the elite infantry or character

. Obviously with weapons like a missile launcher you can incentivize the frag / krak options so you use the right weapon for the right target, but I'm worried we'll still see certain weapons which really should be pointed at a large vehicle, instead used to glass infantry

. Sure overkill is the name of the game in the grim darkness of the future, but it would be nice if my Rokkits were better at hitting moving metal boxes

**Daedalus81**

So the one thing that bugs me - 'Oath of the Moment'.

If it's on the sheet then that means all detachments that replace it will always have Oath as the faction ability, right?

Let's say BA get a codex with detachments. Will all of them have OotM, too? Or will they have different unit cards with a different faction ability?

**Tsagualsa**

Daedalus81 wrote:
So the one thing that bugs me - 'Oath of the Moment'.

If it's on the sheet then that means all detachments that replace it will always have Oath as the faction ability, right?

Let's say BA get a codex with detachments. Will all of them have OotM, too? Or will they have different unit cards with a different faction ability?

Oath of moment is the 'Faction' ability for the Strike force detachment, other detachments will have other abilities. What they now call 'faction' is closer to a subfaction in 9th than to a 'faction' in proper parlance.

**tneva82**

Grzzldgamerps5 wrote:
They’ve released an edition in May once before. That had a March announcement & an April full reveal. Perhaps that could happen again?

So what's non-stop special over month after 10th is out then? What's bigger than 40k 10th?

**Matrindur**

Daedalus81 wrote:
So the one thing that bugs me - 'Oath of the Moment'.

If it's on the sheet then that means all detachments that replace it will always have Oath as the faction ability, right?

Let's say BA get a codex with detachments. Will all of them have OotM, too? Or will they have different unit cards with a different faction ability?

Oath of the Moment isn't a detachment ability but the Space Marine faction ability. BA,DA,SW and Black Templars will probably get their own faction abilities while the other supplement chapters will only get their own detachments in the SM codex

**Voss**

Tsagualsa wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
So the one thing that bugs me - 'Oath of the Moment'.

If it's on the sheet then that means all detachments that replace it will always have Oath as the faction ability, right?

Let's say BA get a codex with detachments. Will all of them have OotM, too? Or will they have different unit cards with a different faction ability?

Oath of moment is the 'Faction' ability for the Strike force detachment, other detachments will have other abilities. What they now call 'faction' is closer to a subfaction in 9th than to a 'faction' in proper parlance.

You sure about that? From what's presented, it seems to be the global space marine faction ability.
Faction Keyword: Adeptus Astartes
Abilities: Faction: Oath of the Moment

**tneva82**

Tsagualsa wrote:
Voss wrote:

Fury of the First- annoys me. The first part is fine, though note it ignores ALL modifiers (mitigated somewhat by 'can ignore' rather than 'ignores', which is going to be important in a moment). The second part is a rider on another ability and is a hit modifier you might be ignoring if you're not paying attention to the first half of the ability. Depending on how common modifiers are, this may be slightly pointless.

It actually does not, or is at least open to interpretation if it does - note that it says 'you can ignore any OR all modifiers...' which i interpret as 'you can pick which modifiers you want to ignore', i.e. keep the positive ones and ditch the negative ones in the vast majority of cases. It's certainly badly worded, because it can be read in a way that 'any or all' applies to the enumeration of 'WS, BS and/or to Hit roll', but then we still have the rogue 'can'.

Congrats GW, your ruleswriting got to the 3rd/4th datasheet this time before it produced ambiguities

Ignore any and/or all allowing to pick which you ignore isn't new thing in 10th though. Gw has used it before.

**Matrindur**

Tsagualsa wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
So the one thing that bugs me - 'Oath of the Moment'.

If it's on the sheet then that means all detachments that replace it will always have Oath as the faction ability, right?

Let's say BA get a codex with detachments. Will all of them have OotM, too? Or will they have different unit cards with a different faction ability?

Oath of moment is the 'Faction' ability for the Strike force detachment, other detachments will have other abilities. What they now call 'faction' is closer to a subfaction in 9th than to a 'faction' in proper parlance.

Nope, from the army building article:

For instance, you might be playing as the Gladius Task Force of the Adeptus Astartes. Your faction gives you the Oath of Moment army rule (more on this next week!) while your Detachment gives you access to six unique Stratagems

You get Oath of the Moment from being Space Marines, Gladius Task Force gives you unique Stratagems and Enhancements

**Tsagualsa**

Matrindur wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
So the one thing that bugs me - 'Oath of the Moment'.

If it's on the sheet then that means all detachments that replace it will always have Oath as the faction ability, right?

Let's say BA get a codex with detachments. Will all of them have OotM, too? Or will they have different unit cards with a different faction ability?

Oath of the Moment isn't a detachment ability but the Space Marine faction ability. BA,DA,SW and Black Templars will probably get their own faction abilities while the other supplement chapters will only get their own detachments in the SM codex

Yeah right, it's the vanilla SM faction ability, not the Detachment ability, my fault.

The army building article described it thus:

Select Detachment Rules

Here’s where the differences begin to show themselves. Instead of choosing a subfaction or constructing your own, you now choose a single set of Detachment rules for your whole army. These include special abilities, Enhancements, Stratagems, and unit restrictions.

For instance, you might be playing as the Gladius Task Force of the Adeptus Astartes. Your faction gives you the Oath of Moment army rule (more on this next week!) while your Detachment gives you access to six unique Stratagems – on top of the core group in the main rules – as well as four exclusive Enhancements for your Space Marine characters. It also bags you the Combat Doctrines ability, which allows you to pick from three powerful doctrines during your Command phase.

If you chose to fight with a different Detachment, you’d replace the Strategems, Enhancements and Combat Doctrines with those of the new Detachment.

Detachment choice will very rarely be tied to an army colour scheme. So while Ultramarines might be the theoretical and practical masters of the Gladius Task Force, other Chapters can use it too – and the same will be true of many other detachments as they are added into the game. This also means that you can try multiple Detachments with a single army. You are not going to be locked into a single Detachment just because you painted your army blue, or red, or yellow.

This is an incredibly flexible system that will allow for many weird and wonderful armies in future codexes…Select Detachment Rules

Here’s where the differences begin to show themselves. Instead of choosing a subfaction or constructing your own, you now choose a single set of Detachment rules for your whole army. These include special abilities, Enhancements, Stratagems, and unit restrictions.

For instance, you might be playing as the Gladius Task Force of the Adeptus Astartes. Your faction gives you the Oath of Moment army rule (more on this next week!) while your Detachment gives you access to six unique Stratagems – on top of the core group in the main rules – as well as four exclusive Enhancements for your Space Marine characters. It also bags you the Combat Doctrines ability, which allows you to pick from three powerful doctrines during your Command phase.

If you chose to fight with a different Detachment, you’d replace the Strategems, Enhancements and Combat Doctrines with those of the new Detachment.

Detachment choice will very rarely be tied to an army colour scheme. So while Ultramarines might be the theoretical and practical masters of the Gladius Task Force, other Chapters can use it too – and the same will be true of many other detachments as they are added into the game. This also means that you can try multiple Detachments with a single army. You are not going to be locked into a single Detachment just because you painted your army blue, or red, or yellow.

This is an incredibly flexible system that will allow for many weird and wonderful armies in future codexes…

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/03/30/how-army-building-works-in-the-new-edition-of-warhammer-40000/

**tneva82**

Tsagualsa wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
So the one thing that bugs me - 'Oath of the Moment'.

If it's on the sheet then that means all detachments that replace it will always have Oath as the faction ability, right?

Let's say BA get a codex with detachments. Will all of them have OotM, too? Or will they have different unit cards with a different faction ability?

Oath of moment is the 'Faction' ability for the Strike force detachment, other detachments will have other abilities. What they now call 'faction' is closer to a subfaction in 9th than to a 'faction' in proper parlance.

That doesn't make sense. You think they will have every unit card duplicated for every detachment? That will be huge number of duplicates for 2-3 word dicference...

**Shadow Walker**

Side note: there is a Power Weapon not a Power Sword so it looks like people who wanted one profile for various power weapons will be happy.

**Necronmaniac05**

Voss wrote:
Fury of the First- annoys me. The first part is fine, though note it ignores ALL modifiers (mitigated somewhat by 'can ignore' rather than 'ignores', which is going to be important in a moment). The second part is a rider on another ability and is a hit modifier you might be ignoring if you're not paying attention to the first half of the ability. Depending on how common modifiers are, this may be slightly pointless.

So their first big example of a datasheet rule loops on itself, rides another ability and potentially counters itself if you aren't parsing the GW technical language properly. Classic GW writing.

This comment shows why GW is damned whichever way it writes. I think the fury of the first ability is absolutely fine. It clearly says 'may' ignore 'any OR all' modifiers. It is perfectly clear that where multiple modifiers apply the marine player may choose which to apply and which to ignore.

No doubt the rule could've been written more explicitly but then it would have been much longer and folks would've been complaining it was too wordy.

**endlesswaltz123**

Shadow Walker wrote:
Side note: there is a Power Weapon not a Power Sword so it looks like people who wanted one profile for various power weapons will be happy.

Actually disappointed with this. I get all the different power weapon types probably made it complicated, but a sword, axe, maul, spear should be different, especially as it drops to Ap-2 for the sword. Not the end of the world but a bit meh.

I wonder if master crafted power weapons will get more AP?

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

Shadow Walker wrote:
Side note: there is a Power Weapon not a Power Sword so it looks like people who wanted one profile for various power weapons will be happy.

As long as they don't consolidate everything (like Lightning Claws).

**Voss**

Necronmaniac05 wrote:
Voss wrote:
Fury of the First- annoys me. The first part is fine, though note it ignores ALL modifiers (mitigated somewhat by 'can ignore' rather than 'ignores', which is going to be important in a moment). The second part is a rider on another ability and is a hit modifier you might be ignoring if you're not paying attention to the first half of the ability. Depending on how common modifiers are, this may be slightly pointless.

So their first big example of a datasheet rule loops on itself, rides another ability and potentially counters itself if you aren't parsing the GW technical language properly. Classic GW writing.

This comment shows why GW is damned whichever way it writes. I think the fury of the first ability is absolutely fine. It clearly says 'may' ignore 'any OR all' modifiers. It is perfectly clear that where multiple modifiers apply the marine player may choose which to apply and which to ignore.

No doubt the rule could've been written more explicitly but then it would have been much longer and folks would've been complaining it was too wordy.

That's... really dumb. If that's the intent, just say 'ignore all negative modifiers.' There, explicit AND less wordy.

**Shadow Walker**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
As long as they don't consolidate everything (like Lightning Claws).

I think Claws are safe, and we will see them soon with Assault Termies stats

**Tyran**

Voss wrote:

That's... really dumb. If that's the intent, just say 'ignore all negative modifiers.' There, explicit AND less wordy.

But maybe for some reason you might want to ignore positive modifiers.

Similar to re-roll all failed vs can re-roll

**Kanluwen**

tneva82 wrote:
Grzzldgamerps5 wrote:
They’ve released an edition in May once before. That had a March announcement & an April full reveal. Perhaps that could happen again?

So what's non-stop special over month after 10th is out then? What's bigger than 40k 10th?

Since they're doing indices, datacards, etc--they likely will want to just drop the Big Box+Rules, then cut to a break and give some settle time before the first dexes drop.

Remember that we're getting Seraphon revamped this summer too.

**Irbis**

Asmodai wrote:
No <Chapter> - just Adeptus Astartes.

Do we know that <Chapter X> might not simply replace <Adeptus Astartes>? That was the case in 5th at least IIRC.

T5, 3W, 2+, 4++ is pretty solid with the seeming reduction of AP on most weapons.

It's really not seeing we already know orkstodes aren't slapped back to their old, sane stats so I have very little faith anything else will be. In fact, inflation seems to be back, Krak is S9 now so I'd bet utterly broken xeno/chaos gak introduced recently will stay

That statline is relatively worse than T4 5++ used to be in 8th edition Index and if GW writers won't stop buffing their pet armies, the reprieve from sweeping whole squads at once off table won't last long...

Chainfists are unweildy, but Powerfists aren't now.

Which is dumb because it's awfully niche sidegrade that might be entirely useless depending on who you fight (or like in Tau case, which one of their walkers have <Vehicle> keyword because these seem to be assigned at random and two similar sized models might or might not have it). They really should do the same thing as AoS and do <Huge> keyword instead, it makes no sense a Carnifex or Wraithlord slashed open by chainfist will just laugh at it when nearly identical models in other armies are affected.

Alternatively, make sidegrades that don't come with so steep penalties you have no control over. Say, make chainfist S6 so it's less effective in wounding anything not covered by upgraded wound roll, but universal penalty that harsh is just stupid.

Tyran wrote:
ATSKNF is also gone.

Or it might be simply in morale section, like in past editions. I really hope they won't bring back zillions of exceptions in general rules they used to have (such as eldar jetbikes being better than every other ones because frak you, what do you mean necron ones are vastly more advanced and have pilots laughing at G-forces, supported by AI with far faster reactions than eldar pilots?)...

**skrulnik**

Interesting that Squad numbers & weapon limits are not on the sheets shown.
Wonder if they will be on the flipside of the cards, or where ever they put points now