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.

 AduroT wrote:
We also didn’t see the Void Dragon’s sheet, just a blurb about their melee stats.

These previews are 'lacking' in that specific way to keep people talking, and are engineered in precisely that way, to hide as much as they reveal, because they have to keep the hype-boilers steaming for several weeks yet. That's why we have not seen an armoury card, that's why we still don't know how close combat or actual army selection work, that's why we haven't seen a complete detachment sheet or faction sheet, and so on. It's all some sort of fan-dance.

I’m of the assumption you pick a single Melee weapon to swing with, turn to turn.

On the CSM sheet, the apparent double up is there to allow the Aspiring Champion that choice, as one set is for swapping Boltgun, the other Bolt Pistol.

Swap both, and you wind up with three Melee Options. Close Combat Weapon (unit comes with those, Weapon Swapped for Boltgun, Weaponswapped for Bolt Pistol.

And of course, it allows you to have a ranged squad, without the Aspiring Champion being locked out of Melee clout.

# Melee attacks could still go either way. The inclusion of the generic CCW profile is a big indicator that you only pick one weapon, but on the other hand the Void Dragon having it spelt out that you pick one or the other profile would be redundant if you can only pick one anyway.

For really big units like knights, attacking with everything would be useful as it would finally make a knight gallant noticeably more effective than any other knight. But on smaller units it's basically a fight twice mechanic so is a bit shady.

Maybe Titanic/Towering or Vehicle/Monster units can use all melee weapons, while other unit types cannot?

As with much of 10th, there’s a lot we’re still in the dark about.

I’m kind of enjoying the previews, but I wish they’d be a bit more forthcoming, spesh as the base rules are going to be free anyway.

 Insularum wrote:
# Melee attacks could still go either way. The inclusion of the generic CCW profile is a big indicator that you only pick one weapon, but on the other hand the Void Dragon having it spelt out that you pick one or the other profile would be redundant if you can only pick one anyway.

A weapon with 2 profiles stating that you choose one or the other makes sense, otherwise people might assume that choosing one weapon the model is armed with lets them use both profiles of that one weapon at the same time.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

 Insularum wrote:
# Melee attacks could still go either way. The inclusion of the generic CCW profile is a big indicator that you only pick one weapon, but on the other hand the Void Dragon having it spelt out that you pick one or the other profile would be redundant if you can only pick one anyway.

A weapon with 2 profiles stating that you choose one or the other makes sense, otherwise people might assume that choosing one weapon the model is armed with lets them use both profiles of that one weapon at the same time.

I was going to state something similar. If the model only has one weapon, it needs a split profile to allow two different attack modes regardless of whether you are normally limited to attacking with one weapon or all weapons.

 alextroy wrote:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

 Insularum wrote:
# Melee attacks could still go either way. The inclusion of the generic CCW profile is a big indicator that you only pick one weapon, but on the other hand the Void Dragon having it spelt out that you pick one or the other profile would be redundant if you can only pick one anyway.

A weapon with 2 profiles stating that you choose one or the other makes sense, otherwise people might assume that choosing one weapon the model is armed with lets them use both profiles of that one weapon at the same time.

I was going to state something similar. If the model only has one weapon, it needs a split profile to allow two different attack modes regardless of whether you are normally limited to attacking with one weapon or all weapons.

The stats for the two different weapons on both Abby and Bobby read like Sweep and Strike options, which is what makes me lean towards the "choose one" side.

Some tidbits, don't know what's been on WarCom already or not:
- flyers are no longer capped (still rule of 3 offcourse)
- flyers that hover either hover the whole game (you become a kind of tank) or fly, no switching between rounds
- flyers don't start on the board and turn after moving
- a codex brings lore and new detachments, datasheet cards should remain 99% the same
- new army builder app (even hints at BCP kind of app)
- some but not all psychic from transport
- emphasize on smaller unit sizes compared to 9th
- GW gives terrain layouts with the missions
- Intent is 1 rule per army, 1 army-wide rule per detachment
- You start with 0 zero CP, gain 1 every command phase (both) (so how do you think WLT and relics are handled?)
- Missions are played with cards, the cards contain secondaries you use whole game (like it is now, like engage on all fronts), but are combined with Tempest-like cards. You can choose if you use the first or the latter, you opponent does not have to make the same choice (so one playing tempest, one playing standard secondaries is option)
- you can take what you want in a detachment, but taking the 'right' units gives a bonus
Example: Saim Hann, take what you want, but units with 'fly' or 'bike' get +1 to hit (example, not real rule)

MorglumNecksnapper wrote:

Some tidbits, don't know what's been on WarCom already or not:
- flyers are no longer capped (still rule of 3 offcourse)
- flyers that hover either hover the whole game (you become a kind of tank) or fly, no switching between rounds
- flyers turn after moving
- a codex brings lore and new detachments, datasheet cards should remain 99% the same
- new army builder app (even hints at BCP kind of app)
- some but not all psychic from transport
- emphasize on smaller unit sizes compared to 9th
- GW gives terrain layouts with the missions
- Intent is 1 rule per army, 1 army-wide rule per detachment
- You start with 0 zero CP, gain 1 every command phase (both) (so how do you think WLT and relics are handled?)
- Missions are played with cards, the cards contain secondaries you use whole game (like it is now, like engage on all fronts), but are combined with Tempest-like cards. You can choose if you use the first or the latter, you opponent does not have to make the same choice (so one playing tempest, one playing standard secondaries is option)
- you can take what you want in a detachment, but taking the 'right' units gives a bonus
Example: Saim Hann, take what you want, but units with 'fly' or 'bike' get +1 to hit (example, not real rule)

Where did you get all that from?

MorglumNecksnapper wrote:
- GW gives terrain layouts with the missions

Like hell they will...

MorglumNecksnapper wrote:
Some tidbits, don't know what's been on WarCom already or not:
- Intent is 1 rule per army, 1 army-wide rule per detachment

Great! This is what I've been wanting since 8.5

- You start with 0 zero CP, gain 1 every command phase (both) (so how do you think WLT and relics are handled?)

Those are enhancements, you only get to pick one and I haven't seen any mentions in previews so far of having a second WLT or Relic, I'm guessing they want to curb that for game balance.

- you can take what you want in a detachment, but taking the 'right' units gives a bonus
Example: Saim Hann, take what you want, but units with 'fly' or 'bike' get +1 to hit (example, not real rule)

Sounds reasonable in practice but I could see the incentive bonus being so strong you feel gimped if you didn't maximize the number of units who receive that bonus, in your example bikers/fly, which would lead to many detachments feeling samey. This would only be a problem if there's only one detachment for that subfaction, if there's more than one useful detachment for Saim-Hann (or just CWE in general) then there's no issue.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

MorglumNecksnapper wrote:
- GW gives terrain layouts with the missions

Like hell they will...

They do this with Warcry, don't they? I'm guessing they'll also have "open war" style layouts as well.

 Breotan wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

MorglumNecksnapper wrote:
- GW gives terrain layouts with the missions

Like hell they will...

They do this with Warcry, don't they? I'm guessing they'll also have "open war" style layouts as well.

They do it now for their tournament missions, if they liked it then not unreasonable to assume they'd keep doing it.

MorglumNecksnapper wrote:
Some tidbits, don't know what's been on WarCom already or not:
- flyers are no longer capped (still rule of 3 offcourse)
- flyers that hover either hover the whole game (you become a kind of tank) or fly, no switching between rounds
- flyers don't start on the board and turn after moving

OK, those seem like more reasonable changes to flyers. Would still prefer if they came on at the start of each turn, moved in a straight line, shot at something, then flew off in the end of the turn.

- GW gives terrain layouts with the missions

I can see GW doing this, would mean that players have to buy their terrain. Also I think Warcry and Boarding Actions do this... so yeah, I think this is something we'll see eventually for 40K.

- Intent is 1 rule per army, 1 army-wide rule per detachment

This is a good way to keep things simple, and retain some flavour.

If these are correct, 10th is shaping up to seem like a edition that might get me back into 40k.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
As with much of 10th, there’s a lot we’re still in the dark about.

I’m kind of enjoying the previews, but I wish they’d be a bit more forthcoming, spesh as the base rules are going to be free anyway.

i mean, dont get your hopes up too much, we already have the base rules "free" in 9th edition, but you would agree its not sufficient to fully play the game beyond a exceedingly basic level. I fully expect any free rules pdf to be of a similar level of complexity.

and, as others have pointed out, they are being very careful in what they reveal because they want to keep generating chatter about 10e so the hype doesnt fade.

Combat Patrol - did they say that there will be only ones from the boxes playable in that format or coud we create our own forces within that/some points limit?

 Shadow Walker wrote:
Combat Patrol - did they say that there will be only ones from the boxes playable in that format or coud we create our own forces within that/some points limit?

I doubt that they will let people create their own (kind of defeats the point of that mode), but I imagine that there will be frequent additions from the A vs B boxes released over the course of the edition, as well as new forces from white dwarf.

Tsagualsa wrote:
That's why we have not seen an armoury card, that's why we still don't know how close combat or actual army selection work, that's why we haven't seen a complete detachment sheet or faction sheet, and so on. It's all some sort of fan-dance.

I'm curious - what do you think we're missing on army selection?

Off the top of my head, I can only think of two things:
- How enhancements are selected (and paid for?)
- Whether detachments will limit available units (which will probably crop up more when we start seeing new detachments with Codex releases, as I thin we're only getting one per Faction in the initial releases).

We know that:
- Because modern gamers loathe limitations, they've shot the FOC in the head and replaced it with "Go ahead, take up to 3 of pretty much anything bar named characters"
- We know that we'll still have points, but no power level
- We know that there are still some options on units
- We know that you'll pick Faction, then Detachment, then your units
- We know that Enhancements exist, and replace the current range of WLTs and Relics

I'm not sure what's missing, aside from maybe an article walking through building an army, which might feel redundant at this point.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Shadow Walker wrote:
Combat Patrol - did they say that there will be only ones from the boxes playable in that format or coud we create our own forces within that/some points limit?

I doubt that they will let people create their own (kind of defeats the point of that mode), but I imagine that there will be frequent additions from the A vs B boxes released over the course of the edition, as well as new forces from white dwarf.

What is going to be interesting to see is if older Combat Patrol boxes are viable. They have mentioned how the Leviathan box set is going to have two Combat Patrol sets (Tyranids and Marines), so does this invalidate those currently available for those factions.

Combat Patrol being a locked in force does appeal to me.

 Dysartes wrote:
I'm not sure what's missing, aside from maybe an article walking through building an army, which might feel redundant at this point.

I think it's still important, because we're guessing at what makes up an army's structure.

I think when they go over Imperial Agents they could make that into "How are armies structure, and how do I take allies?". Though I suspect they'll save the structure bit 'til they do Dark Angels and show of how Deathwing armies work.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
I'm not sure what's missing, aside from maybe an article walking through building an army, which might feel redundant at this point.

I think it's still important, because we're guessing at what makes up an army's structure.

I think when they go over Imperial Agents they could make that into "How are armies structure, and how do I take allies?". Though I suspect they'll save the structure bit 'til they do Dark Angels and show of how Deathwing armies work.

For Dark Angels I can see them getting 3 detachments. A normal Marine force one, a Rav3nwing Hunting Force and a Deathwing Strike Force. Dark Eldar could have Realspac3 Raiders as the basic detachment, the specific ones for Kabal, Covent and Cults

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
I'm not sure what's missing, aside from maybe an article walking through building an army, which might feel redundant at this point.

I think it's still important, because we're guessing at what makes up an army's structure.

I think when they go over Imperial Agents they could make that into "How are armies structure, and how do I take allies?". Though I suspect they'll save the structure bit 'til they do Dark Angels and show of how Deathwing armies work.

For Dark Angels I can see them getting 3 detachments. A normal Marine force one, a Rav3nwing Hunting Force and a Deathwing Strike Force. Dark Eldar could have Realspac3 Raiders as the basic detachment, the specific ones for Kabal, Covent and Cults

I think they'll get more: 'normal' Dark Angels, Ravenwing, Deathwing, the Lion and his merry band, a force of Risen, and maybe something for the remaining Fallen, maybe something Cypher-related. I guess they can do a handful of Detachments per Codex easily, it costs no money and it allows for pseudo-flexibility. An average 4-6 feels like what we'll see to me.

If the one picture is true, Imperial and Chaos Knights merging to one book makes a lot of sense. Make Ion Shields the faction rule, then have Imperial, Mechanicus, Chaos, Chaos, Daemonic, Freeblade, and Dreadblade detachments.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
If the one picture is true, Imperial and Chaos Knights merging to one book makes a lot of sense. Make Ion Shields the faction rule, then have Imperial, Mechanicus, Chaos, Chaos, Daemonic, Freeblade, and Dreadblade detachments.

Aside from that being a lame faction ability, the current layout on datasheets suggests that conditional invulnerable saves are going away and Knights are jost going to get a straight save all the time. Hopefully, since Terminators are getting a 4+ base Knights will, too*, but I'm not holding my breath.

*Rotate Shields is likely to be absent as a stratagem, because locking it to a specific detachment would be DUMB.

 The Red Hobbit wrote:

MorglumNecksnapper wrote:

- You start with 0 zero CP, gain 1 every command phase (both) (so how do you think WLT and relics are handled?)

Those are enhancements, you only get to pick one and I haven't seen any mentions in previews so far of having a second WLT or Relic, I'm guessing they want to curb that for game balance.

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

Each CHARACTER can only have one Enhancement, you can’t include more than three Enhancements in total, and these must all be different

warhammer40000.com has a rulebook preview showing select pages.

Infiltrators are 240 points and Primaris Techmarine is 80 --- both up slightly from their 9th ed costs (and in even multiples of 10).

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
If the one picture is true, Imperial and Chaos Knights merging to one book makes a lot of sense. Make Ion Shields the faction rule, then have Imperial, Mechanicus, Chaos, Chaos, Daemonic, Freeblade, and Dreadblade detachments.

I think that they are producing the Imperial and Chaos Knight Datacards in one box due to how few units there are between the two Codexes. Saves them on needing two SKUs for the very limited factions.

Will there be a BRB for those not buying Leviathan? What about the indexes? Any news on those or will it just be cards?

 alextroy wrote:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
If the one picture is true, Imperial and Chaos Knights merging to one book makes a lot of sense. Make Ion Shields the faction rule, then have Imperial, Mechanicus, Chaos, Chaos, Daemonic, Freeblade, and Dreadblade detachments.

I think that they are producing the Imperial and Chaos Knight Datacards in one box due to how few units there are between the two Codexes. Saves them on needing two SKUs for the very limited factions.

Same for the Codex, honestly. Just merge the 2 and toss in the 3 cerastus pattern Knights for now.