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.

I could see some Guard flamers being useful, if you take 4 of them in a combined command+squad. Not sure if it is worth it over other choices, but that would come down to points and army composition.

So engagement range is back to base-to-base contact? I like the simplicity of that system but I'm a bit shocked that GW went with it for 10th.

There's no standard base size, the policy has always been use whatever base that came in your box. This gets complicated further as I recall since some old kits (Tyranids iirc) started having different size bases, or if you're fielding older models like metal wraith guard who had remarkably smaller bases.

Then there's the modeling for advantage issue. But not just that, it's remarkably easy for a unit to not get in base to base contact because a chain sword, choppa, or spiky bit that's in the way. We would always rotate models to face away from each other in order to fit, but it always looked a bit silly.

It doesn't appear to be just base-to-base contact. it's either:

a) In Engagement range (whatever that means) of an enemy
b) In base-to-base contact with another model that is in base-to-base contact with an enemy.

 Trickstick wrote:
Yeah if I had to rule on it, I would go with "can shoot at other units too". Seems to be leaning that way. If they didn't want that to be the case, I would expect a more explicit restriction. So until FAQ'd, that is how i would play it.

It also makes sense to allow given other changes in 10th:
Vehicles & monsters are generally tougher and take more turns to kill from ranged attacks. Allowing them 'hide' safely in combat would have denied that.
Titanic units can't fall back and shoot anymore - but they can shoot out of combat instead.
Many psychic attacks are now also shooting attacks.
Guard units lost the explicit turret rule - because this now exists.

 The Red Hobbit wrote:
So engagement range is back to base-to-base contact? I like the simplicity of that system but I'm a bit shocked that GW went with it for 10th.

We don't have the page that explcitily confirms it, but there's a chance engagement range is 1/2". A couple of examples elsewhere in the book imply that's enough:
The example page with the termagants has a model not quite in base contact that's highlight blue instead of red.
The charge phase example requires a roll of 7 to make a 7.5" charge.

 The Red Hobbit wrote:
So engagement range is back to base-to-base contact? I like the simplicity of that system but I'm a bit shocked that GW went with it for 10th.

There's no standard base size, the policy has always been use whatever base that came in your box. This gets complicated further as I recall since some old kits (Tyranids iirc) started having different size bases, or if you're fielding older models like metal wraith guard who had remarkably smaller bases.

Then there's the modeling for advantage issue. But not just that, it's remarkably easy for a unit to not get in base to base contact because a chain sword, choppa, or spiky bit that's in the way. We would always rotate models to face away from each other in order to fit, but it always looked a bit silly.

I’ve been putting my genestealers on 32s, because they look a lot better. And let’s be honest: with all their claws and arms it’s physically impossible to get them in true BtB anyway. Even turning them backwards.

At least for friendly play there is going to have to be a bit of handwaving on how many can fight. If you wanted to be a MFA TFG you could probaby build a unit that would actually be impossible to touch the base on. Perfectly evolved screening unit.

Genestealers going to 32mm is one of those changes that wouldn't really cause any harm. Yes it means rebasing but as you say you can't actually physically put them together anyway unless you get super creative with the angles.

 Slinky wrote:
It doesn't appear to be just base-to-base contact. it's either:

a) In Engagement range (whatever that means) of an enemy
b) In base-to-base contact with another model that is in base-to-base contact with an enemy.

Huh.
I was going to quibble with b), but that is correct. The example combat specifically says that the b2b guys have to in contact with a model (in their unit) in b2b with an enemy. For some reason engagement range exists (and is fairly short range, I'd guess 1/2" or 1" going by the pics) but specifically isn't sufficient for 'additional combatants.' Nor can you daisy chain off friendly models not in your unit.

That's going to lead to some messy combats and mistakes.

 Nevelon wrote:

 The Red Hobbit wrote:
So engagement range is back to base-to-base contact? I like the simplicity of that system but I'm a bit shocked that GW went with it for 10th.

There's no standard base size, the policy has always been use whatever base that came in your box. This gets complicated further as I recall since some old kits (Tyranids iirc) started having different size bases, or if you're fielding older models like metal wraith guard who had remarkably smaller bases.

Then there's the modeling for advantage issue. But not just that, it's remarkably easy for a unit to not get in base to base contact because a chain sword, choppa, or spiky bit that's in the way. We would always rotate models to face away from each other in order to fit, but it always looked a bit silly.

I’ve been putting my genestealers on 32s, because they look a lot better. And let’s be honest: with all their claws and arms it’s physically impossible to get them in true BtB anyway. Even turning them backwards.

At least for friendly play there is going to have to be a bit of handwaving on how many can fight. If you wanted to be a MFA TFG you could probaby build a unit that would actually be impossible to touch the base on. Perfectly evolved screening unit.

That's precisely what I'm worried about, I play garagehammer or friendly games at the FLGS 90% of the time but I do enjoy a tournament now and then, so it mostly won't affect me. For people who do a lot of pickup games at shops, the base to base contact rule can get unpleasant really fast if you're dealing with a MFA TFG, but I feel like this would crop up pretty often with regular folks too. Looking at my older Beakies, mini-Berzerkers or even my Orks many of them are going to have a hard time doing base to base contact due to posture and weapon placement.

1/2" would be reasonable, so hopefully they have thought ahead or include a clause where its "Base to base" or "Base to exposed bit".

Voss wrote:
That's going to lead to some messy combats and mistakes.

Yea it will easily overlooked and misplayed for a long time.

Neat Deathguard. A bit salty that we have yet another big gun that lost none of its range, but every guard gun they showed off lost between 1/4 and 1/3 of their ranges.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 kurhanik wrote:
So...challenges are back, albeit in the form of a stratagem. Not too thrilled about that.

I like this version. The old move your models in base and follow all these rules was blah. This is just letting you pound on some dude. Makes melee pretty threatening.

I just have bad memories of challenges from 7th, so seeing them back leaves a nasty taste in my mouth.

Its not really anything like an old challenge, though. [Precision] is just 'after the wounds step, the attacker can assign attacks to a character in the unit'

Which is interesting, because you're wounding the against the unit's toughness, for good or ill.

 kurhanik wrote:
I just have bad memories of challenges from 7th, so seeing them back leaves a nasty taste in my mouth.

Indeed those were terrible. Especially forced challenges. *shudder*

The other upside to this one - there is no rejection and getting sent to the back of the unit to do nothing.

Voss wrote:
Its not really anything like an old challenge, though. [Precision] is just 'after the wounds step, the attacker can assign attacks to a character in the unit'

Which is interesting, because you're wounding the against the unit's toughness, for good or ill.

Characters with a higher T, taking wounds from precision weapons, is going to be funny. I'm wondering if Ogryn bodyguards will have some rule to counter this.

 The Red Hobbit wrote:
So engagement range is back to base-to-base contact? I like the simplicity of that system but I'm a bit shocked that GW went with it for 10th.

There's no standard base size, the policy has always been use whatever base that came in your box. This gets complicated further as I recall since some old kits (Tyranids iirc) started having different size bases, or if you're fielding older models like metal wraith guard who had remarkably smaller bases.

Then there's the modeling for advantage issue. But not just that, it's remarkably easy for a unit to not get in base to base contact because a chain sword, choppa, or spiky bit that's in the way. We would always rotate models to face away from each other in order to fit, but it always looked a bit silly.

Honestly I am a bit surprised they haven't given a base guide for units in 40k. We have it in AoS as well as Marvel Crisis Protocol, and if you are not into garagehammer they make it easy to regulate how bases function.

I get the feeling GW is a bit of afraid of telling 40k players the right base sizes, but I'd rather have a base guide than the abomination of an Ork player using the new Trike Warboss on no base(happened some time ago) who could Tokyo Drift into places that the base would not allow.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 kurhanik wrote:
I just have bad memories of challenges from 7th, so seeing them back leaves a nasty taste in my mouth.

Indeed those were terrible. Especially forced challenges. *shudder*

The other upside to this one - there is no rejection and getting sent to the back of the unit to do nothing.

Yeah the old challenge rule was basically "fight me or don't fight anyone", which from a fluffl point of view doesn't work in a lot of situations. Hive Tyrants don't care about your space honour and aren't going to refuse a fight because you yelled at one.

The new rule is just temporarily removing bodyguard protection at the cost of a CP, which seems like a valid battlefield tactic in melee. The opponent generally still gets to attack.

With a captain you could interrupt for free and then swing for 1 CP. So gross and spicy at the same time.

Intervene > Interrupt > Challenge - only 5 CP!

 Trickstick wrote:

Voss wrote:
Its not really anything like an old challenge, though. [Precision] is just 'after the wounds step, the attacker can assign attacks to a character in the unit'

Which is interesting, because you're wounding the against the unit's toughness, for good or ill.

Characters with a higher T, taking wounds from precision weapons, is going to be funny. I'm wondering if Ogryn bodyguards will have some rule to counter this.

Huh. Yeah, those are weird, because their entire purpose is counter to both the general leader rule (which boils down to 'when a unit is attacked, a character in the unit effectively doesn't exist until everybody is dead') and the precision rule ('feel free to kill the guy with the big hat if you want'). I suspect they'll get a fairly chonky textblock on their datacard. Or... maybe 'Bodyguard: [precision] attacks must target this model rather than any character in the unit'

Could the engagement range of an inch be to account for models that don’t have bases, or are on flight stands? E.g. tanks, or Falcons?

 Eldarsif wrote:

an Ork player using the new Trike Warboss on no base(happened some time ago) who could Tokyo Drift into places that the base would not allow.

Sounds like the trike warboss channeled his belief into doing some impossible maneuvers I'm on board!

So i am excited for 10th edition, but it seems that most people are ignoring the 100 ton elephant in the room. Will GW appropriately make Leviathan available?

I have some hope for this. Honestly, if they mess this up I am done with GW in general.

Having ordered Shatterpoint, I know I will get a copy. No FOMO, no excusses, no fanboy saviors with their reasoning protecting a predatory company who has taken FOMO as a means of business.

I am hoping GW fixed everything, and while i think they may get the Leviathan box off, i do think we could be seeing a repeat of Horus Heresy where yes the main box was available but everything else was out of stock or limited numbers released for pre order.

Honestly I will give them a chance, but I think I would much rather support Atomic Mass as they land it with Marvel Crisis and I think shatter point will be the same. I can preorder something and know that I will get it. Which is the main reason for a "pre order".

 Souleater wrote:
Could the engagement range of an inch be to account for models that don’t have bases, or are on flight stands? E.g. tanks, or Falcons?

Reread the documents and I am unsure. To fight, there are three factors as far as I can tell

1. Be in Engagement Range with enemy model
2. Be in Base to Base contact with enemy model
3. Be in Base to Base contact with friendly model which is in Engagement Range with an enemy model.

I have not found the verbiage defining Engagement Range.

angel of death 007 wrote:
So i am excited for 10th edition, but it seems that most people are ignoring the 100 ton elephant in the room. Will GW appropriately make Leviathan available?

I have some hope for this. Honestly, if they mess this up I am done with GW in general.

Having ordered Shatterpoint, I know I will get a copy. No FOMO, no excusses, no fanboy saviors with their reasoning protecting a predatory company who has taken FOMO as a means of business.

I am hoping GW fixed everything, and while i think they may get the Leviathan box off, i do think we could be seeing a repeat of Horus Heresy where yes the main box was available but everything else was out of stock or limited numbers released for pre order.

Honestly I will give them a chance, but I think I would much rather support Atomic Mass as they land it with Marvel Crisis and I think shatter point will be the same. I can preorder something and know that I will get it. Which is the main reason for a "pre order".

Don't order online. Order through a shop. The last time GW did a guarantee there was huge amounts of the release box in the wild unsold so the odds of them doing it again are probably low.

Voss wrote:
Huh. Yeah, those are weird, because their entire purpose is counter to both the general leader rule (which boils down to 'when a unit is attacked, a character in the unit effectively doesn't exist until everybody is dead') and the precision rule ('feel free to kill the guy with the big hat if you want'). I suspect they'll get a fairly chonky textblock on their datacard. Or... maybe 'Bodyguard: [precision] attacks must target this model rather than any character in the unit'

I have no idea how you would use the ogryn's t5 though. There just doesnt seem to be any way that the rules are compatible with it, as unit toughness is used before it even gets to the allocating wound stage.

 Sarigar wrote:

 Souleater wrote:
Could the engagement range of an inch be to account for models that don’t have bases, or are on flight stands? E.g. tanks, or Falcons?

Reread the documents and I am unsure. To fight, there are three factors as far as I can tell

1. Be in Engagement Range with enemy model
2. Be in Base to Base contact with enemy model
3. Be in Base to Base contact with friendly model which is in Engagement Range with an enemy model.

I have not found the verbiage defining Engagement Range.

3 doesn’t do it for you. You need to be BtB with a friend who is BtB with the enemy, not one merely in Engagement Range.

 AduroT wrote:

 Sarigar wrote:

 Souleater wrote:
Could the engagement range of an inch be to account for models that don’t have bases, or are on flight stands? E.g. tanks, or Falcons?

Reread the documents and I am unsure. To fight, there are three factors as far as I can tell

1. Be in Engagement Range with enemy model
2. Be in Base to Base contact with enemy model
3. Be in Base to Base contact with friendly model which is in Engagement Range with an enemy model.

I have not found the verbiage defining Engagement Range.

3 doesn’t do it for you. You need to be BtB with a friend who is BtB with the enemy, not one merely in Engagement Range.

Good catch!

 Daedalus81 wrote:

angel of death 007 wrote:
So i am excited for 10th edition, but it seems that most people are ignoring the 100 ton elephant in the room. Will GW appropriately make Leviathan available?

I have some hope for this. Honestly, if they mess this up I am done with GW in general.

Having ordered Shatterpoint, I know I will get a copy. No FOMO, no excusses, no fanboy saviors with their reasoning protecting a predatory company who has taken FOMO as a means of business.

I am hoping GW fixed everything, and while i think they may get the Leviathan box off, i do think we could be seeing a repeat of Horus Heresy where yes the main box was available but everything else was out of stock or limited numbers released for pre order.

Honestly I will give them a chance, but I think I would much rather support Atomic Mass as they land it with Marvel Crisis and I think shatter point will be the same. I can preorder something and know that I will get it. Which is the main reason for a "pre order".

Don't order online. Order through a shop. The last time GW did a guarantee there was huge amounts of the release box in the wild unsold so the odds of them doing it again are probably low.

It is hard to order in a shop. My LGS isn't really heavy into GW and while they can order things, can't really guarantee them. On top of that they offer no discount, which with USA GW pricing makes it very hard to hobby. Maybe they will get the release down, and I hope they do as I miss the days of 40k 5th ed. I am just afraid that even if they do land this, they won't be prepared for anything they release afterwards. I can see a HH effect in play for every release after and a FOMO approach for any box/ army set after with heavy limits.

Rule question: does using grenades prevent you from firing afterwards? I know the strat says you can't have shot before, but shooting only restricts you if you have shot before in the round. So does using grenades count as shooting, thus prevent you from shooting normally?

 Trickstick wrote:
Rule question: does using grenades prevent you from firing afterwards? I know the strat says you can't have shot before, but shooting only restricts you if you have shot before in the round. So does using grenades count as shooting, thus prevent you from shooting normally?

It notably doesn't say so- that gnawed a me a bit as well. Can't have shot before is very clear, but absolutely nothing says you can't shoot after, and it isn't presented (mechanically) as a shooting attack, just something that happens to an un-engaged enemy unit within 8".

I presume no shooting afterward is intended, but it isn't what's written. It isn't even implied.

My guess is it's to stop people shooting with a unit, seeing the results of that shooting and THEN deciding to grenade. They want you to full commit to grenading and don't want you to do it opportunistically.

Also, could be bad rule writing.

So my initial thoughts on the leaked rules:

Models can move through/over friendly models now

Fly can charge over models

Max positive save modifier is +1, so cover can never improve 3+ saves to 2+

Insane Bravery Stratagem only works in the Command Phase, not when auto-failing battleshock tests (Ad Mech special rules), or when weapons force battleshock tests (eg. Carnifex shooting) or other Leadership tests.

Fight phase - no fights last?

Can invulnerable saves be improved by cover? Not sure it is supposed to but the invulnerable save wording seems to allow it.