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.

Voss wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Voss wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
One could also say it's needlessly gamey for a Succubus to lead Incubi...?

.......how?

For the same reason you don't have an Army Captain leading an Air Force squadron from a Navy boat.

That doesn't answer the question

It very much does.

Saying it's gamey isn't explained by the metaphor given.

Yes it is. That it works by game logic, not real world organization logic (or fictional universe organizational logic) very definitively explains it.

Also:
A succubus hiring bodyguards to save her from danger would be considered a coward quickly pulled down by her enemies and subordinates.
In an archon, that's just being sensible.

So I'm still waiting for a reasonable explanation besides you don't like it, which is the main defense y'all seem to have for this nonsense.

I've got a nice pot wanting to meet a kettle. You interested?


Of course, this is also the usual brand of pre-edition panic. We don't actually know if succubi can join incubi units or not.

She won't be able to, because people here already stated that Terminator Characters only going to Terminators is a good thing because mixed toughness and saves is SUPER confusing.

Regards who can join what, does it really matter? The vast majority of the time people wanted it because it was an optimal combination in some capacity. In a world where an Archon has a rule that might affect incubi and a Succubus maybe doesn't, would you ever bother putting her in the unit in the first place?

Not sure "gamey" is the right word, but allowing total flexibility on combining abilities isn't a great idea necessarily as shown multiple times.

Dudeface wrote:
Regards who can join what, does it really matter?

Doesn't the fact that it's an ongoing discussion show that it does matter to some people?

Not everyone is looking for the best combo. Sometimes I want Character X to lead Squad Y because it's cool.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Regards who can join what, does it really matter?

Doesn't the fact that it's an ongoing discussion show that it does matter to some people?

Not everyone is looking for the best combo. Sometimes I want Character X to lead Squad Y because it's cool.

As in aesthetically cool, or matching an ongoing narrative cool? I'm willing to wager that the latter is pretty rare, the former less rare but distinctly less common than doing it for a gaming reason. In either event if the rules don't shake out that way, proxy away or house rule if it's a sore point, just seems a bit of a none issue in the grand scheme of things.

I want to be able to have a Terminator lead a non-Terminator squad because because it is cool, or might fit a narrative, or because I don't like the idea of choices such as that being removed from the game.

Much like I don't like how specific psykers appear to now have specific psychic abilities, so in order to get "Buff Y" I'll need a Phobos Librarian, but if I want "Attack Z" I can only get that with a First Born Librarian (but only if he's in Power Armour!).

Because we've done minimalist and set psychic powers before, and it was as boring as feth. But, GW doesn't iterate, they just replace, and as they don't seem to be able to ever learn from past mistakes they see "Ohh! BLOAT!" and swing the pendulum hard so we end up with feth all rather than a good middle ground of choice, flavour, power, theme and utility.

This is how we end up with stupid black-and-white binary mechanics like these. No forethought. No attempt to fix past mistakes. Just throw gak at the wall and hope to the God-Emperor this time it sticks... but get ready to replace it again (rather than fix it) if it doesn't.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

This is how we end up with stupid black-and-white binary mechanics like these. No forethought. No attempt to fix past mistakes. Just throw gak at the wall and hope to the God-Emperor this time it sticks... but get ready to replace it again (rather than fix it) if it doesn't.

I don't wholly agree with that. I think this is an attempt to fix past mistakes - two of them, in fact. 8th and 9th were dominated by auras, so much so that the various "only 1 Captain" rules were a response to people taking a 90-point SM Captain purely to babysit some tanks for their re-roll aura. 7th had a real problem with deathstars, as did editions before that. Part of the issue was how difficult it was to balance all the interlocking buffs characters could give to units. The approach in 10th looks to be trying to deal with that by being more restrictive. It's a trade-off, for sure, but acting like it's completely random and stupid just because you don't like the approach is disingenuous.

We already have restrictions on things like psychic powers. If I want the sneaky SM psychic discipline I have to take a Phobos Librarian, and if I want to use Malefic powers I need a MoP in my Chaos army. 10th is following a similar path, albeit a little more extreme, but hopefully it leads to some more thematic armies. Worrying about whether a Succubus can join Incubi seems pretty stupid to me since we haven't seen the rules for either yet. For all we know it might be possible, or it might be utterly pointless given the abilities those units have.

Dudeface wrote:
Regards who can join what, does it really matter? The vast majority of the time people wanted it because it was an optimal combination in some capacity. In a world where an Archon has a rule that might affect incubi and a Succubus maybe doesn't, would you ever bother putting her in the unit in the first place?

Not sure "gamey" is the right word, but allowing total flexibility on combining abilities isn't a great idea necessarily as shown multiple times.

I feel it matters more for DE because they are limited on options.

"Succubi can go with Wyches and Archons can go with Kabalites or Incubi, everything else is unfluffy" feels a bit different from "I've got 2 dozen characters to choose from, but the ones in Terminator armour have to go with Terminators."

Still, I'm sure we'll be able to put a Haemi with a Talos and a Cronos. Although maybe this was just too OP in 7th. Wait, no, hang on, the opposite.

Slipspace wrote:
I don't wholly agree with that. I think this is an attempt to fix past mistakes - two of them, in fact. 8th and 9th were dominated by auras, so much so that the various "only 1 Captain" rules were a response to people taking a 90-point SM Captain purely to babysit some tanks for their re-roll aura. 7th had a real problem with deathstars, as did editions before that. Part of the issue was how difficult it was to balance all the interlocking buffs characters could give to units. The approach in 10th looks to be trying to deal with that by being more restrictive. It's a trade-off, for sure, but acting like it's completely random and stupid just because you don't like the approach is disingenuous.

But they're not solving the aura issue, they're just cutting it out (except on, it would seem a few unique hero characters) and replacing it with something else. That's what I mean by not iterative. They're not fixing something, they're just doing something different. A pendulum swing from all auras all the time to now characters join units.

Now I want to point out, as I have a few times when making this argument, that replacing something with something else rather than trying to find a fix is not inherently bad. For instance, I don't think there's any saving the 9th Edition morale system. It's a junk "lose more" system that penalises players for losing troops by making them lose more troops and then makes them lose more troops on top of that. So it's fine to remove things when there's no saving them. But so far we've seen a lot of GW not even attempting to fix things, just throwing that pendulum as hard as they can and trying something else.

Take something simple, the Force Org Chart. That's been relegated to the "Too Hard Basket" this edition, and now we just don't have one. Some minor restrictions keeping the rule of 3, and that's it. Go hog wild. Does that mean the new system is bad? Not necessarily, but it's an example of them taking a system and throwing it away rather than attempting to fix it.

Slipspace wrote:
We already have restrictions on things like psychic powers. If I want the sneaky SM psychic discipline I have to take a Phobos Librarian, and if I want to use Malefic powers I need a MoP in my Chaos army. 10th is following a similar path, albeit a little more extreme, but hopefully it leads to some more thematic armies. Worrying about whether a Succubus can join Incubi seems pretty stupid to me since we haven't seen the rules for either yet. For all we know it might be possible, or it might be utterly pointless given the abilities those units have.

Those examples are few and far between.

Tyranids, for example, take any power they want on any type of psyker they have. Space Marine Librarians, with the exception of the Phobos Librarian, can take any power they want from their available disciplines (usually Librarius or their specific Chapter one). Chaos is the same. Orks. Eldar. On it goes.

This change, where it's one psychic power of a specific kind attached to specific models, is a massive regression, and it's all because they saw the massive amounts of bloat and overlapping rules and decided that to fix that they'd just get rid of everything. Marines, as a faction, having 90-odd psychic powers was stupid. A Librarian in Terminator Armour having Power X and only ever Power X is equally as stupid, just for different reasons.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Tyranids, for example, take any power they want on any type of psyker they have. Space Marine Librarians, with the exception of the Phobos Librarian, can take any power they want from their available disciplines (usually Librarius or their specific Chapter one). Chaos is the same. Orks. Eldar. On it goes.

This change, where it's one psychic power of a specific kind attached to specific models, is a massive regression, and it's all because they saw the massive amounts of bloat and overlapping rules and decided that to fix that they'd just get rid of everything. Marines, as a faction, having 90-odd psychic powers was stupid. A Librarian in Terminator Armour having Power X and only ever Power X is equally as stupid, just for different reasons.

The cynic in me (he's called Marv) sees this as a premediated move to do their 'We have heard your complaints, and we have listened' spiel and come around with a box full of psychic powers and enhancements for all factions in the middle of this edition, to add back in some fashion what they have purposefully taken away. They could even call it Dark Millenium II: 2 Dark 2 Millenium or something like that, and sell lots and lots of sweet, sweet, inexpensive cardstock for even sweeter (e.g. high) prices.

I thought about that exact same thing earlier today. Hell, this could be their avenue to release whatever the 40k equivalent of Endless Spells would be.

And... I'd be ok with that, as it'd be adding choice and flavour back into the game.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I thought about that exact same thing earlier today. Hell, this could be their avenue to release whatever the 40k equivalent of Endless Spells would be.

And... I'd be ok with that, as it'd be adding choice and flavour back into the game.

I mean, the structure they're touting just lends itself very well to either this or a lot of micro-supplements: if all you need is a two-pager for Detachment rules and maybe another two-pager for a Faction, and then just what amount of space some e.g. special characters etc. take up, you can churn out books like the old Codex Armageddon or whatever with a handful of alternative Detachments for 3-4 armies every quarter easily. The AoO release model, forever, once the Codexes are done. Or you do the big box. Since everything is keyworded anyway you can add in Enhancements and Stratagems to your heart's desire straight away, the only thing you need to add would be a mechanism for purchasing psychic powers to have the full Dark Millenium experience.

I personally love the scope it provides for campaigns.

I've been wanting to do a 6-way campaign with with allied Custodes/Sisters of Battle stuck on a Daemon World fighting 4 Chaos God-aligned forces of Chaos (that all hate one another), and have their own combined daemonic and mortal forces.

The detachment system, assuming we finally find out what the structure is, would make that very easy: You set out what's battleline and what isn't, including what units are available (or not), they have their enhancements and strats, as well as a unique rule for each group. You can include include made up special characters to lead each faction.

It's sounds - on the surface - like an elegant and infinitely expandable system.

Just a shame we had to give up so much flavour and choice in places that didn't need that level of reduction (eg. combi-fething-weapons) to finally get to this point.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:


Just a shame we had to give up so much flavour and choice in places that didn't need that level of reduction (eg. combi-fething-weapons) to finally get to this point.

I guess if you want to taking the Detachment system and bolting it onto an earlier version of the rules is a relatively easy hack.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Just a shame we had to give up so much flavour and choice in places that didn't need that level of reduction (eg. combi-fething-weapons) to finally get to this point.

I still feel bad that my foreshadowing clairvoyance on that one panned out, I need to make some more sweeping guesses that irritate people and see if it comes true. "Tau have languished in the back lines as fire bases far too long, we've given firewarriors a 2nd melee attack and increased their weapon skill to encourage moving forwards." Other fun things that might suck: Perhaps nid warriors just have "melee weapons" now in some variety and sword/talon/claws are all the same thing. Daemons are intentionally only supported as multi-god, there are no longer any rules reasons to consider mono builds. The ally rules are index only.

Dudeface wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Just a shame we had to give up so much flavour and choice in places that didn't need that level of reduction (eg. combi-fething-weapons) to finally get to this point.

I still feel bad that my foreshadowing clairvoyance on that one panned out, I need to make some more sweeping guesses that irritate people and see if it comes true. "Tau have languished in the back lines as fire bases far too long, we've given firewarriors a 2nd melee attack and increased their weapon skill to encourage moving forwards." Other fun things that might suck: Perhaps nid warriors just have "melee weapons" now in some variety and sword/talon/claws are all the same thing. Daemons are intentionally only supported as multi-god, there are no longer any rules reasons to consider mono builds. The ally rules are index only.

Don't give them ideas. Please. It's already bad enough as is. Also tau already have melee with farsight

Naughty Spiky Boys today.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/05/04/warhammer-40000-faction-focus-chaos-space-marines/


Automatically Appended Next Post:





Automatically Appended Next Post:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

First thing that jump out to me is the mention of a seperate "Armoury Card" for common weapons that don't fit on various dataslates.

Second is that "Heavy Melee Weapon" is a thing for consolidated powerfists, etc. :(

Third is that the Aspiring Champion doesn't get bonus attacks over the rest of the unit.

EDIT: Also wait what the feth Marks are a detachment ability and not the faction ability?!

EDIT2: Ah they just updated the bottom of the article with tomorrow's faction - Necrons. There goes that theory that the slide of all the factions from Warhammer Fest was secretly showing the preview order.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
This is how we end up with stupid black-and-white binary mechanics like these. No forethought. No attempt to fix past mistakes. Just throw gak at the wall and hope to the God-Emperor this time it sticks... but get ready to replace it again (rather than fix it) if it doesn't.

Black and white / binary mechanics such as being able to respond to the opponent's movement? Vect on a stick? Morale that matters? Rules that care about positioning? Strats that care about synapse range?

You're sort of ignoring the wider implications of how these rules come together.

Huh. Just noticed Legionaires cap out at 10 man squads.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
This is how we end up with stupid black-and-white binary mechanics like these. No forethought. No attempt to fix past mistakes. Just throw gak at the wall and hope to the God-Emperor this time it sticks... but get ready to replace it again (rather than fix it) if it doesn't.

Black and white / binary mechanics such as being able to respond to the opponent's movement? Vect on a stick? Morale that matters? Rules that care about positioning? Strats that care about synapse range?

You're sort of ignoring the wider implications of how these rules come together.

Though I'll give you that the Balefire Tome is a shadow of it's former self, but I look forward to the other aspects of the game.

Legionaires have the Battleline keyword on the datasheet. I guess that solves the mystery of how it would be determined.

So the Veterans of the Long War is like Genestealers' Vanguard Predator?

 Asmodai wrote:
Legionaires have the Battleline keyword on the datasheet. I guess that solves the mystery of how it would be determined.

I imagine some detachments will change that. We just haven't been shown one yet.

Unrelated - I don't really like Abaddon having auras like that. On the flip side -- having to choose between the three very good auras is a little more interesting.

My main worry with re: the attachment discussion is that Termie WGPL are a thing of the past. Ah, well.

 RaptorusRex wrote:
My main worry with re: the attachment discussion is that Termie WGPL are a thing of the past. Ah, well.

WGPL?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
This is how we end up with stupid black-and-white binary mechanics like these. No forethought. No attempt to fix past mistakes. Just throw gak at the wall and hope to the God-Emperor this time it sticks... but get ready to replace it again (rather than fix it) if it doesn't.

Black and white / binary mechanics such as being able to respond to the opponent's movement? Vect on a stick? Morale that matters? Rules that care about positioning? Strats that care about synapse range?

You're sort of ignoring the wider implications of how these rules come together.

legit HMBC needs to take a break, clearly they've gone full-tilt


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Huh. Just noticed Legionaires cap out at 10 man squads.

been a thing ever since they got their second wound


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 RaptorusRex wrote:
My main worry with re: the attachment discussion is that Termie WGPL are a thing of the past. Ah, well.

WGPL?

wolfguard pogo laser?

Glad I already sold off my Black Legion because this isn't looking any better than the 9th book. I especially love the bit where they say:

these traitors have long since abandoned notions of professionalism and tradition

And then immediately the Legionaries datasheet says "No duplicate weapons". Totally breaking professionalism and tradition by basically sticking to the Codex Astartes Tactical options there guys.

 Gert wrote:
Glad I already sold off my Black Legion because this isn't looking any better than the 9th book. I especially love the bit where they say:

these traitors have long since abandoned notions of professionalism and tradition

And then immediately the Legionaries datasheet says "No duplicate weapons". Sticking to Heresy it is.

also, as mentioned no more 20 man blocks? Ye old tactic of when marines weren't so few in numbers and the standard was 10 atleast and 20 for line duty?

I really should start thinking about repainting my chaos marines in HH AL colours i guess, certainly would expand my infantry / veterans core in a minimal ammount of time

 Gert wrote:
Glad I already sold off my Black Legion because this isn't looking any better than the 9th book. I especially love the bit where they say:

these traitors have long since abandoned notions of professionalism and tradition

And then immediately the Legionaries datasheet says "No duplicate weapons". Sticking to Heresy it is.

Only to stop the Champ from dual-wielding Plasma Pistols though, which is much better than current. As pointed out I completely missed the intro text that says not duplicated, was too focused on the additional notes.

EDIT: 20 man blocks were already killed last edition, if not in 8th?. Still sad that they didn't make a return but it's not another freshly slaughtered lamb

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Only to stop the Champ from dual-wielding Plasma Pistols though, which is much better than current.

The 1-In-5 selection explicitly says "No duplicates allowed" which means no double specials or heavies.

Not Online!!! wrote:
I really should start thinking about repainting my chaos marines in HH AL colours i guess, certainly would expand my infantry / veterans core in a minimal ammount of time

Genuinely the better choice. The Traitor Legions are far better represented in HH than they have been since 8th dropped for 40k.