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.

It still bugs me that they have all these weapon abilities (Devastating Wounds, Blast, Ignores Cover, Torrent, Rapid Fire X, Anti-X (Y), and so on)... but have decided to put them in brackets after the name of the weapon, rather than using the space on the sheet to have them in their own column.

There's also unnecessary verbiage. Just call it "Devastating", just call "Ignores Cover" something like "Spray".

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

Right, but if I'm playing Blood Angels and using these terminators I would need a different card.

This sort of gives credit to the idea that there will be no "sub" factions like IF. Just detachments that offer different types of composition.

Or am I reading all this wrong?

I'm pretty okay with the datasheet using an intuitive and straightforward ability name like 'Ignores Cover' rather than relying on me remembering that 'Spray' means ignores cover.

Flowery USRs whose names tell you nothing about what they mechanically do- Hammer of Wrath, It Will Not Die, Sunder, Murderous Strike, and so on- are annoying to keep straight. If you can boil it down to Impact Hits, Regeneration, Reroll Pen, and Instant Death then that's all the better, even if it takes up marginally more space on the sheet.

But yeah Devastating Wounds should probably just be Devastating.

And the Invulnerable Save block should absolutely not have the exact same formatting as non-content header blocks.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

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

Right, but if I'm playing Blood Angels and using these terminators I would need a different card.

This sort of gives credit to the idea that there will be no "sub" factions like IF. Just detachments that offer different types of composition.

Or am I reading all this wrong?

My guess is there will be detachments that allow anyone to have an army that feels like a blood angels army. So maybe we’ll get a jump assault specialised detachment. Then the real blood Angel flavour comes from their special characters and models.

 endlesswaltz123 wrote:

 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?

With the new system, they can decide between generic terms and differentiation on a case-by-case basis, because the name does not translate 1:1 to a profile anyway. Thus, they can have generic power weapons on tactical terminators and do more differentiation on e.g. Deathwing or Honour Guard if they want to.

 skrulnik wrote:
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

Lower half of the page in the codex I would guess.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It still bugs me that they have all these weapon abilities (Devastating Wounds, Blast, Ignores Cover, Torrent, Rapid Fire X, Anti-X (Y), and so on)... but have decided to put them in brackets after the name of the weapon, rather than using the space on the sheet to have them in their own column.

There's also unnecessary verbiage. Just call it "Devastating", just call "Ignores Cover" something like "Spray".

Ignore Cover is simple and straight to the point, whereas I wouldn't want to remember what "Spray" does when I'm playing the game. Agreed that Devastating would be preferable to Devastating Wounds, and a separate column for special abilities would be preferable.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Right, but if I'm playing Blood Angels and using these terminators I would need a different card.

This sort of gives credit to the idea that there will be no "sub" factions like IF. Just detachments that offer different types of composition.

Or am I reading all this wrong?

You won't be playing as Blood Angels, you'll be playing as Space Marines and picking a particular detachment. There will be a detachment that particularly aligns to Blood Angels, but you won't have to use that one if you don't want.

The detachments will have the same composition- min 1 character, max 3 of each non-Battleline, max 6 of each Battleline. Your choice of detachment will determine what stratagems, relics, and warlord traits are available to you. They'll all share the Oath of Moment ability, which is the Space Marine faction-wide ability.

Regardless of what detachment you choose, you'll be using this datasheet.

So we are looking at Codex, data sheets and Detachment cards with the specific rules?

Its going to be expensive just for the card paper rules.

 The Red Hobbit wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It still bugs me that they have all these weapon abilities (Devastating Wounds, Blast, Ignores Cover, Torrent, Rapid Fire X, Anti-X (Y), and so on)... but have decided to put them in brackets after the name of the weapon, rather than using the space on the sheet to have them in their own column.

There's also unnecessary verbiage. Just call it "Devastating", just call "Ignores Cover" something like "Spray".

Ignore Cover is simple and straight to the point, whereas I wouldn't want to remember what "Spray" does when I'm playing the game. Agreed that Devastating would be preferable to Devastating Wounds, and a separate column for special abilities would be preferable.

There might be something like 'Devastating Wounds' 'Devastatiting Hits' 'Devastating whatever' that all work along the same principles, max damage on a 6 to wound / to hit or whatever, which would mean 'devastating' is something like a ability with the second word describing how it is triggered.

IMHO 'Ignores cover' is better ruleswriting than 'Spray', you should always use rules names that tell you what the rule does when it is possible without too much extra effort.

There seems to be a design decision to keep the 'Special rules' column strictly to the truly special rules, we'll see how long that one will work.

 Irbis wrote:
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...

Krak was rarely used. This is an acceptable upgrade to me especially if we're potentially going to see T8 rhinos and T9/10 vindicators. The AssCan is down in AP and I imagine devastating wounds gives it AP against infantry types, which takes it out of being an effective anti-tank.

I also don't understand how you think a T5 W3 4++ is worse than the index T4 W2 5++.

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.

And I am sure there will be other weapons that are anti-monster. Just don't over stack on chainfists.

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.

The universal 'penalty' is that it hits slightly less often than a power fist.

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?)...

If it's not on the sheet then they don't have it. The only place it could be is witin Oath of the Moment.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

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

Right, but if I'm playing Blood Angels and using these terminators I would need a different card.

This sort of gives credit to the idea that there will be no "sub" factions like IF. Just detachments that offer different types of composition.

Or am I reading all this wrong?

All speculation on my part, but i bet codexes will offer you the choice between being a "Space Marine" or a "Blood Angel", changing your faction's main "power" and offering you new detachment options with fluffy bonuses.

Otherwise i have no clue what codex would be good for.

I do wonder how they will handle the Chapter-specific units (or subfaction-specific characters for a less marine-centric example) however. Will you still have to pick your "subfaction" in list building to get access to them? Will that change what detachment types you have access to? Or is it going to be more restrictive for Marine, eg. you need to take a subfaction named character to get access to that subfaction's unique units.

Doubt we're going to get that particular information for a while, but how they handle it could really sour some opinions here (but then, when aren't we sour?)

EDIT: I highly doubt you're going to be able to swap Oath of the Moment with anything else. That'd both go counter to what Games Workshop has said about detachments functionally replacing subfactions and also not make any sense with Fury of the First referencing Oath of the Moment. Plus it would run counter to the whole "you can easily see everything specific to the unit on the datasheet" thing GW is saying - Oath of the Moment is on the datasheet, and some other page in the codex saying "yeah ignore that and replace it" would be highly unintuitive.

Tsagualsa wrote:

There might be something like 'Devastating Wounds' 'Devastatiting Hits' 'Devastating whatever' that all work along the same principles, max damage on a 6 to wound / to hit or whatever, which would mean 'devastating' is something like a ability with the second word describing how it is triggered.

There seems to be a design decision to keep the 'Special rules' column strictly to the truly special rules, we'll see how long that one will work.

Ah that's a great point. If there is Devastating Hits, etc. then it makes perfect sense to keep the extra word. That said I'm guessing unique names weapons may end up being a cluster of bracketed keywords.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 skrulnik wrote:
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

Lower half of the page in the codex I would guess.

Or on the points page like AoS does.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
I do wonder how they will handle the Chapter-specific units (or subfaction-specific characters for a less marine-centric example) however. Will you still have to pick your "subfaction" in list building to get access to them? Will that change what detachment types you have access to? Or is it going to be more restrictive for Marine, eg. you need to take a subfaction named character to get access to that subfaction's unique units.

Doubt we're going to get that particular information for a while, but how they handle it could really sour some opinions here (but then, when aren't we sour?)

I guess that works by picking a detachment - every e.g. Deathwing member is still a Space Marine, but the reverse is not true. Then you have a restrictive 'Deathwing Murderforce' detachment that only allows units with the 'Deathwing' keyword, but gives you very powerful detachment-wide rules as a reward. So you could run e.g. Belial in both a generic Space Marine detachment, as he is a Space Marine, or a more restrictive Dark Angels Fallen Hunt detachment, because he is a Dark Angel, or even a ultra-specific Deathwing detachment, but you could not have e.g. generic Assault Intercessors in the Deathwing one. You could have normal Dark Angels and Deathwing units in the Dark Angel detachment, but only Deathwing in Deathwing, and so on.

Basically you have keywords that get increasingly more specific on an unit, and different detachments on several levels of restrictiveness, the more 'special' your force the more restrictive the list of eligible units gets, while it should be not too difficult to have various sub-factions from the same overarching faction in a detachment that is more relaxed.

I’m not digging the format of this at all currently. There’s a lot to unpack on the card, and that’s one card for one unit. How many cards will marines have, the game have? Not to mention this is a card of a unit at start of edition, what do you think cards will look like by mid edition?
Still very skeptical of this direction.

 bullyboy wrote:
I’m not digging the format of this at all currently. There’s a lot to unpack on the card, and that’s one card for one unit. How many cards will marines have, the game have? Not to mention this is a card of a unit at start of edition, what do you think cards will look like by mid edition?
Still very skeptical of this direction.

And we have not yet seen a character or something really customizable, that makes use of the mentioned 'Enhancements' and whatnot. I do think that stuff like e.g. Primarchs or more complicated vehicles will be more complex yet, and that's before we get to things like Imperial Guard orders and such.

 The Red Hobbit wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It still bugs me that they have all these weapon abilities (Devastating Wounds, Blast, Ignores Cover, Torrent, Rapid Fire X, Anti-X (Y), and so on)... but have decided to put them in brackets after the name of the weapon, rather than using the space on the sheet to have them in their own column.

There's also unnecessary verbiage. Just call it "Devastating", just call "Ignores Cover" something like "Spray".

Ignore Cover is simple and straight to the point, whereas I wouldn't want to remember what "Spray" does when I'm playing the game. Agreed that Devastating would be preferable to Devastating Wounds, and a separate column for special abilities would be preferable.

Yeah, I have no idea what HBMC is complaining about. This is literally what people, including him, have been wanting. And really? Spray?

The only thing bugging me is letting Terminators ignore any hit modifiers. I don't think any unit should ignore all modifiers.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 skrulnik wrote:
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

Lower half of the page in the codex I would guess.

Or on the points page like AoS does.

While nice to have everything in one place, I can understand keeping it off the datasheets. Unit size and points are not relevant on the table, only at the army building stage. So it’s “clutter” that can be kept off the things you’ll be referencing in play.

Also, if they are going to adjust the numbers, better to do it in a place that’s not going to invalidate the cards.

 catbarf wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Right, but if I'm playing Blood Angels and using these terminators I would need a different card.

This sort of gives credit to the idea that there will be no "sub" factions like IF. Just detachments that offer different types of composition.

Or am I reading all this wrong?

You won't be playing as Blood Angels, you'll be playing as Space Marines and picking a particular detachment. There will be a detachment that particularly aligns to Blood Angels, but you won't have to use that one if you don't want.

The detachments will have the same composition- min 1 character, max 3 of each non-Battleline, max 6 of each Battleline. Your choice of detachment will determine what stratagems, relics, and warlord traits are available to you. They'll all share the Oath of Moment ability, which is the Space Marine faction-wide ability.

Regardless of what detachment you choose, you'll be using this datasheet.

Hmm, yea. I guess that does make facing 60% of the game very consistent, really.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NAVARRO wrote:
So we are looking at Codex, data sheets and Detachment cards with the specific rules?

Its going to be expensive just for the card paper rules.

Cards are optional.

 Daedalus81 wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NAVARRO wrote:
So we are looking at Codex, data sheets and Detachment cards with the specific rules?

Its going to be expensive just for the card paper rules.

Cards are optional.

Likewise, since they've indicated all the rules are going to be available on the cards, Codexes are optional too. Seems like you can choose whichever matches your preference of how to receive information - book, card or app.

 bullyboy wrote:
I’m not digging the format of this at all currently. There’s a lot to unpack on the card, and that’s one card for one unit. How many cards will marines have, the game have? Not to mention this is a card of a unit at start of edition, what do you think cards will look like by mid edition?
Still very skeptical of this direction.

Terminators are not short on options compared to most units. What do you think is going to get added?

Magnus certainly does eleventy-billion things, but his rules are very 9th edition. Multiple warlord traits are gone. Spell picking is gone. He very well could state something like 'Magnus can cast a spell from any other datasheet in your army', rerolls the test, and gives some aura. The concept of lots of stuff is old hat.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asmodai wrote:
Likewise, since they've indicated all the rules are going to be available on the cards, Codexes are optional too. Seems like you can choose whichever matches your preference of how to receive information - book, card or app.

At least initially, yea. I don't recall if they said points will be free, but cards will be available online so you could conceivably play with no expenditure unless you want the expanded mission set or w/e they paywall beyond this stuff.

Voss wrote:
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.

What annoys me is that "Fury of the First" is a copy of the Empeor's Children's Legion trait, and the fact that they can get +1 to hit on power fists.

So with 10th getting a lot of AoS-inspired rules developments, I am SURE the double-turn defenders will be in soon to sing praises of how much a benefit it would be in 40k

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
So with 10th getting a lot of AoS-inspired rules developments, I am SURE the double-turn defenders will be in soon to sing praises of how much a benefit it would be in 40k

The biggest being that with the wrong army getting a double turn, you wouldn't need a third...

 catbarf wrote:

But yeah Devastating Wounds should probably just be Devastating.

Having 'wounds' int he name of the ability is a nice reminder of what it applies to. 'Devastating' alone could be mis-remembered to be for hit rolls.

The fact that chain fists are balanced vs power fists suggests to me that unit upgrades will not cost points in most cases in 10th.

Only 3 comments so far from me for this edition so far...

1. Ensure the cards are not a limited edition like all previous cards always are.
2. Make the cards a size that has sleeves available for them.
3. Just, ugh, at the smaller square bracket font for weapon rules after the name. It looks so much like an afterthought rather than designed into the card.

Optimistic, but we all know where this is going really...
Bloat within a year or less. New edition in 3 years using similar rules and codices, then a total reboot in 6 years. Long live the new 3/6 cycle.

And day 1 errata for the cards!