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.

**Kanluwen**

Am I crazy or is that an Elysian redesign?

**tneva82**

vipoid wrote:
Regarding detachments, I really hope they're not like a lot of the AoS ones that focus on including a ton of behemoth units.

Umm there's one behemoth one. Free all out attack.yey. have never seen it used.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vovin wrote:
vipoid wrote:
The latter is exactly the sort of thing I don't want to see.

I don't want detachments that are locked behind special characters.
You are a bitter man. It is a fools errant to try to please you. So I very much welcome that GW doesn't try and instead try to please the rest of us.

And everybody else wants detachments force you to take special characters?

Special characters should be optional. Not mandatory.

**Voss**

Vovin wrote:
vipoid wrote:
The latter is exactly the sort of thing I don't want to see.

I don't want detachments that are locked behind special characters.
You are a bitter man. It is a fools errant to try to please you. So I very much welcome that GW doesn't try and instead try to please the rest of us.

I'm unclear what's 'bitter' about not wanting a special character lock on factions. Especially not a $170 special character lock. A 'paid DLC' model for factions definitely seems like a bad proposal.

**Daedalus81**

Da Butcha wrote:

This is the number one thing that I don't like about objectives. They are entirely conceptual, and I hate that in a MINIATURE WARGAME (same way I hate rules that aren't tied to the model or wargear).

I realize that GW may not want to go down the route of Kill Team and provide you with specific models for specific terrain pieces and tell you precisely where to place them (and I certainly don't), but I wish that the 'official rules', especially when talking about narrative games, would discuss and encourage the players to think about objectives that make sense with their table and terrain setup. Give examples of how, say, a high vantage point, or a crossroads, or a position with a clear field of fire, make good, sensible objectives.

Instead, their guidance tends to be 'put down terrain, then after that, place objectives with these particular limitations'. You can't make your objectives make sense with your terrain if you have to do one before the other!

I feel like GW should go ahead and bite the bullet. Have overtly matched play missions with symmetrical objectives and specified pieces of GW terrain and specified placement*, and then have 'narrative missions' that actually talk about 'here's what terrain we used, and here's what we set up as objectives and why'.

Nothing prevents you from setting up believable objectives in your home games, but normalizing it in the rulebook and in White Dwarf would, I think, really help encourage it, and also normalize restrictions in specifically tournament/competitive play.

*just like a lot of tournaments have tables with identical pre-made terrain and established set ups

This has to be narrative or casual sort of thing, because there's no way a tournament can support such a thing. If you want a whole ruin to be an objective I don't see why you couldn't choose to do that instead of using markers.

**Shadow Walker**

tneva82 wrote:

Special characters should be optional. Not mandatory.

This, so much this!!!

**Daedalus81**

Voss wrote:
I'm unclear what's 'bitter' about not wanting a special character lock on factions. Especially not a $170 special character lock. A 'paid DLC' model for factions definitely seems like a bad proposal.

I imagine it will be something like 'To take this detachment you must have a WORLD EATERS WARLORD. If Angron is in your army he must be your WARLORD.'

**Necronmaniac05**

I'm not saying they will be EXACTLY like the 9th WE codex but I expect something very similar:

Vanilla 'use what you like' detachment rules

A selection of themed detachments which require certain units/volumes of certain units.

Those unit requirements could be anything. For example, codex dark angels is likely, in my view, to offer:

Generic dark angels detachment (use what you like)

Ravenwing detachment (all the bikes)

Deathwing detachment (all the terminators, knights and blade guard vets)

I highly doubt that those latter two will require you to take Samael or Belial respectively though.

**Eldarsif**

vipoid wrote:
Regarding detachments, I really hope they're not like a lot of the AoS ones that focus on including a ton of behemoth units.

Girl you need to play AoS.

Almost all of the battalions don't require Behemoths except the one that is focused on having behemoths(like a battalion for Gristlegore players).

Regarding battalions using special characters: they exist in AoS, but they are rarely so important that people feel forced to use them. Most of the time I use GHB Battalions and skip the special battalions. My Idoneth don't even have a special battalion.

The other point is that the Battalion bonuses are remarkably restrained in AoS. One drop, extra enhancement, one free command. These are nice things but most of the time you can easily live without them, although I do like the one drop one and try to cram as much into that battalion. I mean, the Morathi battalion adds one extra enhancement, which doesn't matter that much. Hell, I could skip the Morathi battalion and easily take one of the core battalions and end up at the same spot.

Although to be fair, it always surprises me how restrained AoS is in comparison to 40k when it comes to bonuses and whatnot.

**Vovin**

We should really stop discussing AoS Battalions. With everything we know so far, 10ths detachments have absoluetely nothing to do with battalions because you only ever have one detachment. So the whole discussion is misguided.

Voss wrote:
Vovin wrote:
vipoid wrote:
The latter is exactly the sort of thing I don't want to see.

I don't want detachments that are locked behind special characters.
You are a bitter man. It is a fools errant to try to please you. So I very much welcome that GW doesn't try and instead try to please the rest of us.

I'm unclear what's 'bitter' about not wanting a special character lock on factions. Especially not a $170 special character lock. A 'paid DLC' model for factions definitely seems like a bad proposal.

Not every special character bound detachment is bad, though I do not want to see a general use myself. O'shovas Eight are pretty fluffy and do not work without Farsight. But my point about his bitching was not limited to special characters, but behemoths and countless other instances in the past.

**vipoid**

Eldarsif wrote:
vipoid wrote:
Regarding detachments, I really hope they're not like a lot of the AoS ones that focus on including a ton of behemoth units.

Girl you need to play AoS.

Almost all of the battalions don't require Behemoths except the one that is focused on having behemoths(like a battalion for Gristlegore players).

Fair enough. Presumably it's changed since I last looked.

I checked the Legions of Nagash book and virtually all the battalions include at least one of the ridiculously overdone centrepiece characters, plus another behemoth-sized model accompanying them.

If it's no longer like this, super. My concern is that I don't want to see 40k go down this route.

**Kanluwen**

Vipoid, Legions of Nagash was phased out at least one if not two years ago...and it was built around the concept of the Mortarchs.

**vipoid**

Kanluwen wrote:
Vipoid, Legions of Nagash was phased out at least one if not two years ago...

I'm sorry for not being up to speed with a game I don't play.

Kanluwen wrote:
and it was built around the concept of the Mortarchs[/i].

Remember, this wasn't some new faction or bonus book - this was the sole replacement for the Vampire Counts book.

And I really disliked the fact that a faction previously built around powerful but still infantry-sized heroes warped into one built around special characters, all riding stupidly large and overdone mounts.

If it was an outdated example, fair enough, but my point still stands that I don't want 40k to go in this direction.

**Eldarsif**

vipoid wrote:
Eldarsif wrote:
vipoid wrote:
Regarding detachments, I really hope they're not like a lot of the AoS ones that focus on including a ton of behemoth units.

Girl you need to play AoS.

Almost all of the battalions don't require Behemoths except the one that is focused on having behemoths(like a battalion for Gristlegore players).

Fair enough. Presumably it's changed since I last looked.

I checked the Legions of Nagash book and virtually all the battalions include at least one of the ridiculously overdone centrepiece characters, plus another behemoth-sized model accompanying them.

If it's no longer like this, super. My concern is that I don't want to see 40k go down this route.

As mentioned before the Legion of Nagash is gone and replaced with Soulblight Gravelords who are effectively the new real Vampire Counts(Legion of Nagash was more like Battletome: Death).

Also, LoN was a part of AoS 2.0 and 2.0, and to a larger extent 1.0, had a problem with battalions being wildly different between books and had bonuses that ranged to game breaking to almost none. They were also always faction specific whereas the new battalions are mostly generic with one and one book with a faction specific battalion. Battalions basically tended to be shitshow in AoS 2.0

Now, how GW describes detachments it does sound they'll be very faction specific, but hopefully they won't lose themselves in free bonuses as they have already tasted that mistake in AoS 2.0.

So if you haven't played 3.0 I understand the confusion. 3.0 was a relatively large change to the system at large and GW reined in all the bonuses, battalions, and what not in the game. Sure, there are stronger books and weaker books, but they haven't been nearly as gamebreaking as they were in 2.0.

That also illustrates my hopes for 10th. AoS 3.0 reined in a lot of the extremes that came up in 2.0 and I hope 10th does the same. They also did these changes in AoS 3.0 without changing much of the flavor of each army(although Beastmen of Chaos saw a lot of changes in their book).

**tneva82**

vipoid wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
Vipoid, Legions of Nagash was phased out at least one if not two years ago...

I'm sorry for not being up to speed with a game I don't play.

Here's army specfic from current book.

Note how benefits are same as common ones. This is standard as no battle tome gives battalion that has new bonus. This is basically 1 drop except rather than more heroes you can add more troops.

And you can use these or generic.

And you don't have to put units to any if you don't want.

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

For those of us who don't know AoS, what is "One Drop Deployment"?

**alextroy**

AOS uses alternating unit deployment, each unit deployment colloquially called a drop. Battalions are deployed together. Put your entire army in a Battalion and you have a One Drop Deployment.

**skeleton**

Nice, can you please take your AOS to there own forum part.

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

skeleton wrote:
Nice, can you please take your AOS to there own forum part.

Untwist your panties. The AoS discussion comes about due to comparisons of what 10th might include with its detachment system.

As someone who doesn't play AoS, it's interesting/terrifying to see such a system and the prospect of what it might bring/take away from 40k.

**NinthMusketeer**

Just an FYI for non-AoS players; battalions are not detachments. They are entirely optional and act as additional elements added to a list. A list with no battalions at all is 100% legal, the battalions just offer some free perks for organizing units in a certain way. Also, the majority of them sit at nearly never-use compared to the minority which are always taken due to being strictly better. But they are totally different and separate from the AoS equivalent to Force Organization.

AoS 'force org' for 2k armies is more or less as follows:
1-6 characters
3+ troops
0-4 big things (like monsters)
0-4 artillery (war machines)

Automatically Appended Next Post:

H.B.M.C. wrote:
For those of us who don't know AoS, what is "One Drop Deployment"?

They are all deployed at once. This is highly relevant, because the player who finishes deployment first chooses who goes first, and going second is highly advantageous in the overwhelming majority of cases.

**tneva82**

alextroy wrote:
AOS uses alternating unit deployment, each unit deployment colloquially called a drop. Battalions are deployed together. Put your entire army in a Battalion and you have a One Drop Deployment.

There's one advantage that gives you multiple units in 1. Most don't and if you have 1 drop battalion that usually gives no benefit beside that. Khorne got 5-8 mortal hero(might not been every mortal hero) that gives combo drop plus extra enchantment but no troops etc.

**Tyel**

Maybe it was the shortness - but really kind of "meh" on today's lore article.

I mean it could be cool because there isn't much in Segmentum Pacificus. They can make up some worlds that can be fought over - and if they are saved or lost, it doesn't have to mean setting death.

But... as it stands I feel we have "Hive Fleet Leviathan has pivoted a bit left from where it was going previously. The usual suspects go and fight them." So basically in much the same way as Abaddon's latest tantrum and the Silent King waking up... its going to be a thing for about 5 minutes and will probably be never mentioned again after 2023.

**Daedalus81**

Tyel wrote:
Maybe it was the shortness - but really kind of "meh" on today's lore article.

I mean it could be cool because there isn't much in Segmentum Pacificus. They can make up some worlds that can be fought over - and if they are saved or lost, it doesn't have to mean setting death.

But... as it stands I feel we have "Hive Fleet Leviathan has pivoted a bit left from where it was going previously. The usual suspects go and fight them." So basically in much the same way as Abaddon's latest tantrum and the Silent King waking up... its going to be a thing for about 5 minutes and will probably be never mentioned again after 2023.

Yea tomorrow will be detachments for sure.

As for the invasion - I don't think they'll shy away from destroying a planet or two with the Nids making a big show of their new bugs.

**Eldarsif**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
skeleton wrote:
Nice, can you please take your AOS to there own forum part.
Untwist your panties. The AoS discussion comes about due to comparisons of what 10th might include with its detachment system.

As someone who doesn't play AoS, it's interesting/terrifying to see such a system and the prospect of what it might bring/take away from 40k.

I kind of look at AoS as a testbed for a lot of ideas that may or may not come to 40k. The original command phase was f.ex. just copied Hero Phase from AoS.

It also seems that the new datasheets are copies of the AoS Warscrolls and I kind of expect we'll get printed datasheets for reference so we don't have to look up in the book every time we play.

**Platuan4th**

Eldarsif wrote:
I kind of expect we'll get printed datasheets for reference so we don't have to look up in the book every time we play.

They've already said this would be the case. In fact, they've even stated that if you have the cards, you don't need the book at all.

**tneva82**

Tyel wrote:
Maybe it was the shortness - but really kind of "meh" on today's lore article.

I mean it could be cool because there isn't much in Segmentum Pacificus. They can make up some worlds that can be fought over - and if they are saved or lost, it doesn't have to mean setting death.

But... as it stands I feel we have "Hive Fleet Leviathan has pivoted a bit left from where it was going previously. The usual suspects go and fight them." So basically in much the same way as Abaddon's latest tantrum and the Silent King waking up... its going to be a thing for about 5 minutes and will probably be never mentioned again after 2023.

Welcome to "evolving storyline". Players wanted it, players got it

**vipoid**

Eldarsif wrote:

As mentioned before the Legion of Nagash is gone and replaced with Soulblight Gravelords who are effectively the new real Vampire Counts(Legion of Nagash was more like Battletome: Death).

Also, LoN was a part of AoS 2.0 and 2.0, and to a larger extent 1.0, had a problem with battalions being wildly different between books and had bonuses that ranged to game breaking to almost none. They were also always faction specific whereas the new battalions are mostly generic with one and one book with a faction specific battalion. Battalions basically tended to be shitshow in AoS 2.0

Now, how GW describes detachments it does sound they'll be very faction specific, but hopefully they won't lose themselves in free bonuses as they have already tasted that mistake in AoS 2.0.

So if you haven't played 3.0 I understand the confusion. 3.0 was a relatively large change to the system at large and GW reined in all the bonuses, battalions, and what not in the game. Sure, there are stronger books and weaker books, but they haven't been nearly as gamebreaking as they were in 2.0.

That also illustrates my hopes for 10th. AoS 3.0 reined in a lot of the extremes that came up in 2.0 and I hope 10th does the same. They also did these changes in AoS 3.0 without changing much of the flavor of each army(although Beastmen of Chaos saw a lot of changes in their book).

Hmm, fair enough. I guess we'll have to see which model the 10th edition detachments follow.

tneva82 wrote:
Here's army specfic from current book.

Note how benefits are same as common ones. This is standard as no battle tome gives battalion that has new bonus. This is basically 1 drop except rather than more heroes you can add more troops.

And you can use these or generic.

And you don't have to put units to any if you don't want.

Cheers for the example.

Yeah, looks like they've toned them down quite a bit from the ones I last saw.

**Boosykes**

Tyel wrote:
Maybe it was the shortness - but really kind of "meh" on today's lore article.

I mean it could be cool because there isn't much in Segmentum Pacificus. They can make up some worlds that can be fought over - and if they are saved or lost, it doesn't have to mean setting death.

But... as it stands I feel we have "Hive Fleet Leviathan has pivoted a bit left from where it was going previously. The usual suspects go and fight them." So basically in much the same way as Abaddon's latest tantrum and the Silent King waking up... its going to be a thing for about 5 minutes and will probably be never mentioned again after 2023.

The video also said bordering segmentum pacificus so hopefully krieg will play part and get a full range. Love me some krieg.

**alextroy**

tneva82 wrote:
Tyel wrote:
Maybe it was the shortness - but really kind of "meh" on today's lore article.

I mean it could be cool because there isn't much in Segmentum Pacificus. They can make up some worlds that can be fought over - and if they are saved or lost, it doesn't have to mean setting death.

But... as it stands I feel we have "Hive Fleet Leviathan has pivoted a bit left from where it was going previously. The usual suspects go and fight them." So basically in much the same way as Abaddon's latest tantrum and the Silent King waking up... its going to be a thing for about 5 minutes and will probably be never mentioned again after 2023.

Welcome to "evolving storyline". Players wanted it, players got it

Warhammer 40,000: The more things change, the more things stay the same because in the grim darkness of the far future, there is only war.

**Grzzldgamerps5**

Shoot, how’d I get into an AoS thread?

Has anyone seen where the 10th edition rumor round up thread went?

**alextroy**

Into a slumber while it awaits the promised and delayed rules for Oath of Moment (not *singing* "The Oath of the Moment!")