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:

 SarisKhan wrote:
. I do wonder what GW will do with Poisoned weapons, though.

Poison weapons seem fairly straightforward.
I'd venture this as the baseline
Splinter Rifle [Rapid Fire, Anti-Infantry 4+, Anti-Monster 5+] 24" range, A1, BS3+, S3, Ap0, D1.
or
Splinter Rifle [Anti-Infantry 4+, Anti-Monster 5+] 18" range, A2, BS3+, S3, Ap0, D1

In other words, they'll be utter garbage and exist only to remind DE of their NPC status.

 vipoid wrote:

Voss wrote:

 SarisKhan wrote:
. I do wonder what GW will do with Poisoned weapons, though.

Poison weapons seem fairly straightforward.
I'd venture this as the baseline
Splinter Rifle [Rapid Fire, Anti-Infantry 4+, Anti-Monster 5+] 24" range, A1, BS3+, S3, Ap0, D1.
or
Splinter Rifle [Anti-Infantry 4+, Anti-Monster 5+] 18" range, A2, BS3+, S3, Ap0, D1

In other words, they'll be utter garbage and exist only to remind DE of their NPC status.

Whats wrong with those? I suspect they'll go to 2 shots no rapid fire though personally.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I read that entire article and the only question going through my head is:

Who the hell is Captain Octavius?

Octopus dude from penguins of Madagascar. Dr Octavius. Come on man try to keep up.

I'm with Dudeface on this one, when it comes to poison - I'm expecting to see both ANTI-INFANTRY X and ANTI-MONSTER Y, where X and Y may not be the same value.

Not sure why you think that would be a garbage way of representing the weapon type, vipoid.

 NAVARRO wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I read that entire article and the only question going through my head is:

Who the hell is Captain Octavius?

Octopus dude from penguins of Madagascar. Dr Octavius. Come on man try to keep up.

Recently field-promoted Techmarine, occasionally forgets he doesn’t have eight limbs anymore.

Wonder if we'll get a new terrain range with 10th like we did with 8th and 9th - hoping so, as I'd quite like to do up a board and the current selection of GW terrain isn't great.

punisher357 wrote:
Why the hell is every faction suddenly able to regenerate models?
That was the only thing left that necrons had to make them unique.
I know the argument will be "it's more consistent" for crons.
Imagine if your army's signature trait were slathered all over the other factions.

Other factions could regenerate models for a long long time, it's really nothing new to other factions and is just as fluffy/ thematic for them as it is necrons.


Personally I adore the current GSC feel for it and I hope grots get something similar because there is always more of the little darlings (to shoot/stomp/eat/use to clear minefields, feed to dreadnoughts....)

 Marshal Loss wrote:
Wonder if we'll get a new terrain range with 10th like we did with 8th and 9th - hoping so, as I'd quite like to do up a board and the current selection of GW terrain isn't great.

They seem to rotate stuff in and out often, likely because it doesn't sell well, but conversely when it's so fething expensive and a barely big enough building you need 10 of in some capacity costs as much as an elite infantry/transport, it won't sell.

They either need to start loss leading on terrain as people always put terrain lower down than minis generally on the purchase list, bundle it into more stuff (again at a loss) or move to cheaper formats such as hard foam or mdf.

So excessive lethality was a problem in 9th edition, and GW overcompensates in 10th by toning down weapon lethality and giving everyone respawning units?

This is the most concerning bit of 10th for me yet.. Well, at least it will no longer be possible to "table" your opponent

Game still looks super lethal for my 4th edition sensibilities, more respawn more better.

Ideally players will actually have to check who controls more objectives after 5 turns.

Dudeface wrote:

 Marshal Loss wrote:
Wonder if we'll get a new terrain range with 10th like we did with 8th and 9th - hoping so, as I'd quite like to do up a board and the current selection of GW terrain isn't great.

They seem to rotate stuff in and out often, likely because it doesn't sell well, but conversely when it's so fething expensive and a barely big enough building you need 10 of in some capacity costs as much as an elite infantry/transport, it won't sell.

They either need to start loss leading on terrain as people always put terrain lower down than minis generally on the purchase list, bundle it into more stuff (again at a loss) or move to cheaper formats such as hard foam or mdf.

They rotate terrain kits because they are produced in China, not on site in Nottingham. You'll notice that the plastic of terrain kits is slightly different, as are the shapes of the sprues, they usually have rounder corners. Therefore, once a batch runs out, they'll have to decide if it's viable to produce another (and all the logistics that means like shipping the kits from China to the UK) or not.

Also, Games Workshop is the plastic company. You'll never seen them move to foam or MDF. They experimented with foam terrain in the 2000s, and you might see the occasional piece of resin terrain from Forge World, but making plastic kits is their USP.

Well I would actually approve if tone of the game is towards objective control, that it is legit tactic to cause battleshock tests to "remove" opponents control over it.

And yet you can just opt to kill them all with right units/abilities if you are ork.

Yeah, but then the fight becomes one where two armies, rather than "my dudes", are facing off each other. It feels like a shift in the perspective in "my narrative".

Whether you feel this change is good or bad for the game, well, you do you

 tauist wrote:
Yeah, but then the fight becomes one where two armies, rather than "my dudes", are facing off each other. It feels like a shift in the perspective in "my narrative".

Whether you feel this change is good or bad for the game, well, you do you

I think that ship sailed with the ongoing narrative rather than a sandbox setting, and when named characters could be included without your opponent’s consent.

 stahly wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Marshal Loss wrote:
Wonder if we'll get a new terrain range with 10th like we did with 8th and 9th - hoping so, as I'd quite like to do up a board and the current selection of GW terrain isn't great.

They seem to rotate stuff in and out often, likely because it doesn't sell well, but conversely when it's so fething expensive and a barely big enough building you need 10 of in some capacity costs as much as an elite infantry/transport, it won't sell.

They either need to start loss leading on terrain as people always put terrain lower down than minis generally on the purchase list, bundle it into more stuff (again at a loss) or move to cheaper formats such as hard foam or mdf.

They rotate terrain kits because they are produced in China, not on site in Nottingham. You'll notice that the plastic of terrain kits is slightly different, as are the shapes of the sprues, they usually have rounder corners. Therefore, once a batch runs out, they'll have to decide if it's viable to produce another (and all the logistics that means like shipping the kits from China to the UK) or not.

Also, Games Workshop is the plastic company. You'll never seen them move to foam or MDF. They experimented with foam terrain in the 2000s, and you might see the occasional piece of resin terrain from Forge World, but making plastic kits is their USP.

Fully understand this, but it's only relevant if they actually sell. Beyond a few wealthy terrain addicts I rarely ever see/hear of people using GW terrain as it's prohibitively expensive. Assuming they want to sell the entire table top wargaming experience, complete with terrain and table etc. then it needs to not cost more than the army to put the table together imo.

Dudeface wrote:

 stahly wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Marshal Loss wrote:
Wonder if we'll get a new terrain range with 10th like we did with 8th and 9th - hoping so, as I'd quite like to do up a board and the current selection of GW terrain isn't great.

They seem to rotate stuff in and out often, likely because it doesn't sell well, but conversely when it's so fething expensive and a barely big enough building you need 10 of in some capacity costs as much as an elite infantry/transport, it won't sell.

They either need to start loss leading on terrain as people always put terrain lower down than minis generally on the purchase list, bundle it into more stuff (again at a loss) or move to cheaper formats such as hard foam or mdf.

They rotate terrain kits because they are produced in China, not on site in Nottingham. You'll notice that the plastic of terrain kits is slightly different, as are the shapes of the sprues, they usually have rounder corners. Therefore, once a batch runs out, they'll have to decide if it's viable to produce another (and all the logistics that means like shipping the kits from China to the UK) or not.

Also, Games Workshop is the plastic company. You'll never seen them move to foam or MDF. They experimented with foam terrain in the 2000s, and you might see the occasional piece of resin terrain from Forge World, but making plastic kits is their USP.

Fully understand this, but it's only relevant if they actually sell. Beyond a few wealthy terrain addicts I rarely ever see/hear of people using GW terrain as it's prohibitively expensive. Assuming they want to sell the entire table top wargaming experience, complete with terrain and table etc. then it needs to not cost more than the army to put the table together imo.

It’s also not very good to play on for the most part, with it being workable with a big investment rather as individual.
Which I think is designed purposely.
Rules for terrain is bad as well, even the improvements don’t feel great so far.
If your a multi game player it is even worse, better rules that can utilise better terrain that’s often still cheaper to get 3d printed or in MDF.
Which gives way more diverse table builds and playability for better investment.

Good terrain management would go a long way to getting the game in a better state to build upon.
But GW going to be GW until the end of time.

punisher357 wrote:

I already knew about those. I play nids.They couldn't regenerate on the scale they'll be able to now. Now, Astra militarum can regenerate, which seems to be indicative of a trend.

Most of the rules we've seen are CP locked. Necrons will remain the resurrection faction. The reanimator could even be useful now.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/05/10/warhammer-40000-faction-focus-adepta-sororitas/

Sisters keep Acts of Faith and Miracle Dice

Edit: ninjad

Hold on, don't Chaos Boltguns have 2 attacks? Sister Boltguns have 1 attack with rapid fire.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Hold on, don't Chaos Boltguns have 2 attacks? Sister Boltguns have 1 attack with rapid fire.

yeah, weapon profiles aren't forced into the same profile now

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Hold on, don't Chaos Boltguns have 2 attacks? Sister Boltguns have 1 attack with rapid fire.

It's simulating/replacing the old Malicious Volleys rule. Presumably SM bolters will get the same treatment. I think it's quite a neat way to differentiate the training and expertise of SM/CSM from other factions.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Hold on, don't Chaos Boltguns have 2 attacks? Sister Boltguns have 1 attack with rapid fire.

Marines get "Bolter Discipline" type abilities built into their profile rather than being a separate rule.

The Exorcist finally gets indirect fire to match the model!

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Hold on, don't Chaos Boltguns have 2 attacks? Sister Boltguns have 1 attack with rapid fire.

Maybe it is to show the difference in Astartes grade of weapons vs others, like it was in RPGs?

I don't think this article will alleviate concerns of some Sisters players, but the dice generation looks great and St Katherine got a huge glow up.

Is there an implication in the Indirect Fire rules that you can now only kill what you can see? It seems to suggest that's the case.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I don't think this article will alleviate concerns of some Sisters players, but the dice generation looks great and St Katherine got a huge glow up.

yeah, i was hoping they'd get some answers to their concerns, after reading the article, i'm preparing for the saltmine

Slipspace wrote:
Is there an implication in the Indirect Fire rules that you can now only kill what you can see? It seems to suggest that's the case.

I kind of felt that way, too, but we could just be over-analyzing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I don't think this article will alleviate concerns of some Sisters players, but the dice generation looks great and St Katherine got a huge glow up.

yeah, i was hoping they'd get some answers to their concerns, after reading the article, i'm preparing for the saltmine

I think overall there will be so many miracle dice that pushing 6s on damage for MM even when they wound on 5s will be decent anti-tank. Katherine gives a small layer of durability if you want it and with no rules locking from each order she can splash in anywhere in the detachment at least.

 Daedalus81 wrote:


I think overall there will be so many miracle dice that pushing 6s on damage for MM even when they wound on 5s will be decent anti-tank. Katherine gives a small layer of durability if you want it and with no rules locking from each order she can splash in anywhere in the detachment at least.

+1 to hit when below starting strength
+1 to wound when below half strength

are pretty solid buffs to a melta, lose the squad leader first on your retributors and you now have melta that hits on 2+

Slipspace wrote:
Is there an implication in the Indirect Fire rules that you can now only kill what you can see? It seems to suggest that's the case.

I am not seeing that at all. It states you can target a unit where you can't see any of the models. If this is the case, you are -1 to hit and the target unit gets cover.