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.

 stonehorse wrote:
10th edition is shaping up to look like it might be an enjoyable system.

Surely there is something we haven't seen yet that will make it lacking. Thisnis GW after all, they rarely make good game systems these days, lovely models, and a nice fleshed out setting, but rules are not their strong point.

It does seem to have a decent Skellington of rules.

However, time well tell if GW once again sets about the kneecaps of said Skellington with the Hammer Of Many Extra Rules.

 p5freak wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

And what about twin linked ? We already know three weapons which get twin linked. I'm scared to find out how many weapons overall will have that rule.

Go look at the physical models, it's not that common really.

So you already know the number of guns overall which get twin linked ? Tell us.

For Tyranids:

Termagant/warrior spinefists
Carnifex deathspitters/devourers
A few scything talons and crushing claws here and there. Maybe swords too.


It isn't really that hard to guess them.

Edit:

My other faction? Here comes Thousand sons:

Hellbrutes heavy bolter/lascannon/fists
Land Raider lascannons/heavy bolters/
Predator main lascannon
Defiler heavy bolter/heavy flamer/lascannon
Maulerfiend fists

Takes literally five minutes to spot them.

Overall its not a ton.

Anything with twin linked is redundant when targeting something under OoM as well.

9th has less rerolling than 8th, but it's still pretty easy to stack up.

If we are looking at models, pretty much all Tyranid melee weapons with a few exceptions should get twin-linked.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
10th edition is shaping up to look like it might be an enjoyable system.

Surely there is something we haven't seen yet that will make it lacking. Thisnis GW after all, they rarely make good game systems these days, lovely models, and a nice fleshed out setting, but rules are not their strong point.

It does seem to have a decent Skellington of rules.

However, time well tell if GW once again sets about the kneecaps of said Skellington with the Hammer Of Many Extra Rules.

They've made it pretty clear their plan is to make the extra piles of rules replace existing stuff, not stack on top of. If you want your Night Lords to use the "Terror Tactics" detachment in the CSM codex then you'll lose the benefits of the more universal CSM rules. Of course there's no guarantee they stick with that but it's a philosophy that was not present at all previously and is a clear reaction to 9th.

In a rare case of me sounding like a negative Nancy? Intent and outcome sadly aren’t always the same thing.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
10th edition is shaping up to look like it might be an enjoyable system.

Surely there is something we haven't seen yet that will make it lacking. Thisnis GW after all, they rarely make good game systems these days, lovely models, and a nice fleshed out setting, but rules are not their strong point.

It does seem to have a decent Skellington of rules.

However, time well tell if GW once again sets about the kneecaps of said Skellington with the Hammer Of Many Extra Rules.

They've made it pretty clear their plan is to make the extra piles of rules replace existing stuff, not stack on top of. If you want your Night Lords to use the "Terror Tactics" detachment in the CSM codex then you'll lose the benefits of the more universal CSM rules. Of course there's no guarantee they stick with that but it's a philosophy that was not present at all previously and is a clear reaction to 9th.

GW have a long history of radically changing their design philosophy less than half way through an edition. So, while it may start off very well, somewhere along the way, they will mess it up... because if they were ever to sell a fully balanced, and well designed game, how could they sell/promote the next edition?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Oh yeah, Suppressors.

Anyone think 10th will finally give them a proper kit? Las-Talon optional weapon maybe?

If we're lucky, they'll acknowledge that they were a silly idea with terrible sculpts, and quietly retire them to a farm upstate...

 Dysartes wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Oh yeah, Suppressors.

Anyone think 10th will finally give them a proper kit? Las-Talon optional weapon maybe?

If we're lucky, they'll acknowledge that they were a silly idea with terrible sculpts, and quietly retire them to a farm upstate...

Every Primaris release after the initial
Characters (Gravis Captain, Lieutenant, Ancient, Chaplin, Librarian, Apothecary), Intersessors, Reiver, Hellblasters, Agressors, and Inceptors has been a silly idea with a terrible sculpt.

Here we go, time to drag this thread into another primaris whine and rant thread.

 Dysartes wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Oh yeah, Suppressors.

Anyone think 10th will finally give them a proper kit? Las-Talon optional weapon maybe?

If we're lucky, they'll acknowledge that they were a silly idea with terrible sculpts, and quietly retire them to a farm upstate...

I just used spare starter box Intercessors with FW autocannon hands and Assault Squad jump packs. Looks better than stock.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
10th edition is shaping up to look like it might be an enjoyable system.

Surely there is something we haven't seen yet that will make it lacking. Thisnis GW after all, they rarely make good game systems these days, lovely models, and a nice fleshed out setting, but rules are not their strong point.

It does seem to have a decent Skellington of rules.

However, time well tell if GW once again sets about the kneecaps of said Skellington with the Hammer Of Many Extra Rules.

They've made it pretty clear their plan is to make the extra piles of rules replace existing stuff, not stack on top of. If you want your Night Lords to use the "Terror Tactics" detachment in the CSM codex then you'll lose the benefits of the more universal CSM rules. Of course there's no guarantee they stick with that but it's a philosophy that was not present at all previously and is a clear reaction to 9th.

Apart from GW having poor track record in following same principle through edition there's no quarantee the "terror tactics" detachment doesn't involve more rules than basic CSM detachment. Sure you lose CSM detachment rules. But you gain bigger bunch of rules instead.

Chapter tactic like things started with 1 bonus. Then 2. Then 3. Are we at 4 already for some?

So yeah I'm staying sceptical GW shown same pattern before and there's been no indication there's been radical change in top management.

Reroll wounds are always going to be less dice rolling than reroll to hit.

 stonehorse wrote:

GW have a long history of radically changing their design philosophy less than half way through an edition. So, while it may start off very well, somewhere along the way, they will mess it up... because if they were ever to sell a fully balanced, and well designed game, how could they sell/promote the next edition?

It's easy to jump to "GW don't want to balance the game" conspiracy theories, but I really think the answer is much simpler than that. 40k is sold to wide range of players with different priorities, and not all of those players put balance first on their list. Many complained that the 8E indexes (and some codexes) weren't fun after a while,or lacked flavour compared to their faction's lore, or didn't work for narrative games. GW's response was to throw more rules at those factions to increase options.

If 40k ever does reach a good position with "balance" that satisfies fans with that priority, there's a good chance it will come at the expense of "narrative" or "flavour" or "fun" instead. The complaints will build up and eventually the pendulum will 'need' to swing back again. Which is how they'll manage to sell the next edition, and the one after that...

It also seems that GW is attempting to find a way to address both the balance and flavor side of the equation in an innovative way. They are using many of the tools they developed during 8th and 9th in a structure that requires them to swap things rather than add. We should all wish them luck that they both succeed in this new method and stick to it rather than fall to the sirens call of new ideas.

As for selling the new edition. As long as there are enough points of refinement to address issues the run of the current edition laid bare, I don't think they will have a issue selling a new edition.

Will probably fall on the same hurdle it always does, terrain.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Will probably fall on the same hurdle it always does, terrain.

I'm hoping that different kinds of terrain get datasheets. Not for specific pieces of terrain, but a datasheet for "ruins" "forest" "craters" "barricades" etc. Then specific buildings and faction specific terrain can use the same format. 9th had a decent idea with the terrain traits, but datasheets where it was all in one place would make it easier to remember.

It would be nice to have a datasheet for terrain with all the advantages and disadvantages on it, but I think the problem will be the usual where certain terrain types are very good and certain others are pointless. For 9th the essential terrain was Obscuring, the pointless terrain was hills that aren't tall enough to block LOS leaving your antenna or spiky bits visible.

I'll settle for terrain rules where you can't target something that's completely behind a building except for the tip of a spike on the end of a wing...

Common sense is too subjective for tournament play.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I'll settle for terrain rules where you can't target something that's completely behind a building except for the tip of a spike on the end of a wing...

Yeah. I tried to get a few people into 40k in 9th.

And infantry shooting out of ruins and charging through walls (but dreadnoughs cannot in reverse) and a lot of other terrain bs was straight up embarassing to explain. It is so unintuitive. The los blocking L shaped terrain neccessry for tournament play makes the players look like bums in a homeless camp began playing a tabletop game.

Compare to a far more shallow game like Mordheim where most model-terrain interactions makes sense and is fairly intuitive. Having to start the turn at a wall you wanna climb is perhaps the only slightly weird thing.

Hope they can fix some of it at least in 10th

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I'll settle for terrain rules where you can't target something that's completely behind a building except for the tip of a spike on the end of a wing...

I really, really hope they go back to base-to-base for LoS. That would fix the stupid terrain interaction of targeting wing tips/aerials. Then you just need to deal with vehicles without a base, but I'd rather see slightly more complex or less intuitive rules for those instances than the current situation.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Will probably fall on the same hurdle it always does, terrain.

Bring back area terrain from 3rd edition and the height rule from 4th edtion.

Problem solved.

 stonehorse wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Will probably fall on the same hurdle it always does, terrain.

Bring back area terrain from 3rd edition and the height rule from 4th edtion.

Problem solved.

It's astounding that they already had a near perfect system and dropped it.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
It's astounding that they already had a near perfect system and dropped it.

That comes down to how GW constantly reinvents the wheel. That's why so many of their changes appear like pendulum swings. Why they have so many paradigm shifts.

Look at all the new systems they've shown us for 10th. Very few of them are examples of them fixing things. Rather, they're throwing them out and making something new. We may call it 10th Edition, but there's very little that's iterative about it. There are base-lines, sure, but their design process is more akin to throwing gak at a wall and hoping it sticks, and when it doesn't, they throw new gak instead.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Will probably fall on the same hurdle it always does, terrain.

Bring back area terrain from 3rd edition and the height rule from 4th edtion.

Problem solved.

It's astounding that they already had a near perfect system and dropped it.

Aye, can not for the life of me understand the push for True Line of Sight rules with static models. Makes dynamic models an issue, which game design shouldn't impact... but hey, GW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 xttz wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:

GW have a long history of radically changing their design philosophy less than half way through an edition. So, while it may start off very well, somewhere along the way, they will mess it up... because if they were ever to sell a fully balanced, and well designed game, how could they sell/promote the next edition?

It's easy to jump to "GW don't want to balance the game" conspiracy theories, but I really think the answer is much simpler than that. 40k is sold to wide range of players with different priorities, and not all of those players put balance first on their list. Many complained that the 8E indexes (and some codexes) weren't fun after a while,or lacked flavour compared to their faction's lore, or didn't work for narrative games. GW's response was to throw more rules at those factions to increase options.

If 40k ever does reach a good position with "balance" that satisfies fans with that priority, there's a good chance it will come at the expense of "narrative" or "flavour" or "fun" instead. The complaints will build up and eventually the pendulum will 'need' to swing back again. Which is how they'll manage to sell the next edition, and the one after that...

While there is a lot of truth to how the game has a diverse fan base who all gain different things from the hobby. It isn't in their best business to produce a set of rules that are ideal, as they wouldn't need updating/replacing. Like a lot of things in this day and age, they have redundancy in-built in to them. GW should at the very least stick to a unified design philosophy for each edition. Changing during an edition just skews any semblance of balance.

That all said, there is absolutely nothing stopping people from playing older editions of any game system. This constant meed to chase the new shinny rules is a marketing success story.

 stonehorse wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Will probably fall on the same hurdle it always does, terrain.

Bring back area terrain from 3rd edition and the height rule from 4th edtion.

Problem solved.

It's astounding that they already had a near perfect system and dropped it.

Aye, can not for the life of me understand the push for True Line of Sight rules with static models. Makes dynamic models an issue, which game design shouldn't impact... but hey, GW.

You're going to have to jog my memory, is this before the "one toe is in terrain so everyone has cover" iteration of area terrain? I'd also say that the cover save mechanic due to how AP was at the time made it less than perfect, ironically it'd be better now as a mixed solution.

Dudeface wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Will probably fall on the same hurdle it always does, terrain.

Bring back area terrain from 3rd edition and the height rule from 4th edtion.

Problem solved.

It's astounding that they already had a near perfect system and dropped it.

Aye, can not for the life of me understand the push for True Line of Sight rules with static models. Makes dynamic models an issue, which game design shouldn't impact... but hey, GW.

You're going to have to jog my memory, is this before the "one toe is in terrain so everyone has cover" iteration of area terrain? I'd also say that the cover save mechanic due to how AP was at the time made it less than perfect, ironically it'd be better now as a mixed solution.

4th Ed used abstract area terrain and model rules with a size system.

Dudeface wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Will probably fall on the same hurdle it always does, terrain.

Bring back area terrain from 3rd edition and the height rule from 4th edtion.

Problem solved.

It's astounding that they already had a near perfect system and dropped it.

Aye, can not for the life of me understand the push for True Line of Sight rules with static models. Makes dynamic models an issue, which game design shouldn't impact... but hey, GW.

You're going to have to jog my memory, is this before the "one toe is in terrain so everyone has cover" iteration of area terrain? I'd also say that the cover save mechanic due to how AP was at the time made it less than perfect, ironically it'd be better now as a mixed solution.

I think that was 5th or 6th edition.

In 3rd edition area terrain (trees/ruins, etc) blocked line of sight, so even in the was a few trees on a piece of material to denote the area, units treated the area as something that blocked line of sight to units on the other side of it. Units could see 3" into it, If I recall correctly Kroot had a special rule that allowed them to see 6" into it.

4th edition added heights, which meant that things like the Monoliths couldn't hide beside a small collection of trees, or low hills... which made perfect sense, as the somethings are just too big to hide.

IIRC if a unit was partially in cover the attacker could choose to allow cover saves and be eligible to kill any model, or say they're focusing on the exposed models which would disallow cover saves but hits couldn't be allocated to the part of the unit that was in cover (same way as you couldn't hit a model that wasn't visible to at least one attacker, so no wiping out a whole unit because one guy's elbow was sticking out from behind a wall)