10th Edition Rumour Roundup - in the grim darkness of the far future, there are only power levels

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.

**Dudeface**

Sasori wrote:
Full core rulebook has leaked now, and out in the wild.

Slight exaggeration, the full core rules from the book are out in the wild, so 61 pages.

**Souleater**

@Eldarsif I agree that the implementation of Glass cannon has been..a lot of cannon and not very glassy..when it comes to Harlequins and CWE. It’s certainly something that’s annoyed me.

You raise an interesting point about ‘Cavalry Infantry’ but then we’re re into two potential issues.

Firstly, would we need ‘Bike Infantry’, etc?

Secondly, I am very hesitant about GW managing to correctly handle a unit having two such keywords.

Now, I have seen a reference to “…units with Fly…” in one of the articles. Presumably this stops Scourges or Hellions getting on a Transport. But I predict some odd interactions turning up from this if GW aren’t very careful.

**xttz**

Eldarsif wrote:
Could very well be that cavalry gets the keyword Infantry and Cavalry so these weapons could still affect them. I guess only time will tell.

We have seen the MOUNTED keyword referenced a couple of times. Presumably that replaces BIKE and CAVALRY so those groups can be more easily treated in the same way.

**Tyel**

Dudeface wrote:
Pop a pain token on her and use the thrilling spectacle and she's killing 2 terminators comfortably, or 4 marines.

Be still my pain-vampire heart.

If Lelith remains a 90 point character then she's probably going to be "okay". We wait on stuff - but perhaps more so than she's ever been.
But in the Timmy-stakes as we review each faction's top dog, its a bit pathetic.

**The Red Hobbit**

Souleater wrote:
@Eldarsif: I think folks were expecting Drukhari to be glass cannons, and as they are pretty lightly armoured (less Toughness bumps, a drop in INV save) they perhaps expected them to get an AP on their rifles. I’m just speculating.

The issue with Poison being strictly anti-infantry is that it might fall flat against bikes, swarms, cavalry, Jump/Fly troops if those keywords are popular. At that point they’re only wounding T4 modes on a 6+.

For example, if my Tyranid Raveners become Cavalry there’s a bit of an oddity in them compared to Tyranid Warriors which are pretty similar barring the whole tail vs legs thing.

Maybe Coven will get different ‘Anti’ weapons. As I am sure folks have pointed, these brief previews miss out a lot of details.

But then…Wyches have lost their native Advance and Charge…so I really don’t know.

Are we certain that the keywords will be mutually exclusive? I was thinking they were going to broadly split them into three categories, Infantry, Vehicles and Monsters, with the remaining keywords being bonus keywords. For instance a chaos biker is infantry + biker, perhaps the Ravenor would be infantry + cavalry, this way anti-infantry weapons don't suddenly become ineffective against an infantry-ish unit.

If they don't do that or similar, well..I guess we can look forward to anti-walker and anti-cavalry weapons in the future

**stonehorse**

I think the changes are great. Kalabite Warriors look wonderful.

Power from Pain looks simple, yet very effective, and has a bit of synergy in mind.

Splinter Weapons now feel like they do what they are meant to do. Lots of accurate shots that wound easy, but struggle to get through armour. Hitting on 3+ and wounding infantry on 3+ is going to force a lot of saves to be rolled for... which increases the odds of failure. A 3+ save will fail 1 in 3 saves, 2+ 1 in 6 saves, etc.

**Eldarsif**

Well, the full rulebook is out. Now only missing points and datasheets.

**Souleater**

@Eldarsif That sounds like a reasonable way of doing it. I didn’t read the CSM article so wasn’t aware such combos existed.

Thank you.

**Da Butcha**

vipoid wrote:

I think it's just disappointing that there are so few ways to actually spend pain tokens.

You might have thought there would be some more options in the pot. e.g. giving a unit FNP or improving its 6+ invulnerable to 5+ would make sense. As would the ability to advance and charge, rather than just rerolling advance/charge rolls.

What about something like giving a unit strikes first? Or letting a unit recover some lost wounds?

I don't know, it just seems like there's far more they could have done with the ability. Especially if it's also going to completely swallow our detachment ability.

I'm wondering if perhaps other uses of Pain Tokens might be on units, rather than an army-wide rule? Unlikely that every unit has other uses for them, but I could see maybe some units having an alternate spend for them.

**Eldarsif**

So in the rulebook there is a keyword for TOWERING. I guess that is a specific keyword for Imperial Knights and Wraithknights.

Characters are separated into Characters and Epic Heroes keywords.

**tneva82**

Eldarsif wrote:
So in the rulebook there is a keyword for TOWERING. I guess that is a specific keyword for Imperial Knights and Wraithknights.

Characters are separated into Characters and Epic Heroes keywords.

Yes. Both been known for a while.

Towering now gives los over. No being seen without seeing.

Charging vs strike first riskier now.

**AduroT**

Anything new and interesting that wasn’t in the previous rules leak? Not sure what that was missing.

**H.B.M.C.**

There's a page on LOS, and it's weird...

**Leggy**

Da Butcha wrote:
vipoid wrote:

You might have thought there would be some more options in the pot. e.g. giving a unit FNP or improving its 6+ invulnerable to 5+ would make sense. As would the ability to advance and charge, rather than just rerolling advance/charge rolls.

I'm wondering if perhaps other uses of Pain Tokens might be on units, rather than an army-wide rule? Unlikely that every unit has other uses for them, but I could see maybe some units having an alternate spend for them.

If Haemonculi don't have the ability to heal units with a pain token, GW are severely missing a trick.

**Sasori**

AduroT wrote:
Anything new and interesting that wasn’t in the previous rules leak? Not sure what that was missing.

FLY looks to have had a major nerf, especially for anything besides infantry and beasts.

The can't stand on objective markers is confirmed. Aircraft being in hover mode or Aircraft mode all game is confirmed and chosen at the start of the game.

TOWERING models can use normal LOS through terrain now, instead of it just being one way.

Those were the big new ones that I saw.

**tneva82**

Combat starts at non-active player always. Exception for strike first gone. So if you charge guy that has strike first he attacks first

**H.B.M.C.**

What page are the Towering rules on?

**tneva82**

Terrain rules say this dmes not apply to/from towering

**The Red Hobbit**

tneva82 wrote:
Combat starts at non-active player always. Exception for strike first gone. So if you charge guy that has strike first he attacks first

Interesting, I didn't think they'd go this direction but I appreciate that strike first now means strike first.

**Sasori**

The Red Hobbit wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
Combat starts at non-active player always. Exception for strike first gone. So if you charge guy that has strike first he attacks first

Interesting, I didn't think they'd go this direction but I appreciate that strike first now means strike first.

it's significantly better for units that always have it on now, which is nice.

**The Red Hobbit**

Indeed, now I'm curious which characters will keep their Fight First abilities. I have a feeling it will be rather rare moving forward.

**Aash**

The Red Hobbit wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
Combat starts at non-active player always. Exception for strike first gone. So if you charge guy that has strike first he attacks first

Interesting, I didn't think they'd go this direction but I appreciate that strike first now means strike first.

Unless your “strikes first” unit is charging, in which case it strikes second.

**Shakalooloo**

Tyel wrote:
If Lelith remains a 90 point character then she's probably going to be "okay". We wait on stuff - but perhaps more so than she's ever been.
But in the Timmy-stakes as we review each faction's top dog, its a bit pathetic.

Hopefully, once the codex rolls around, Lord Vect will put everyone in their place with a new model.

**warmaster21**

Mr Morden wrote:
Manfred von Drakken wrote:
Lelith only being Damage 1 is very underwhelming. Makes me wonder if combat drugs can help her with that.

I would hope not - she famously does not use them!

shes had drugs for far longer than she hasnt. and during the time she didnt use drugs she was quickly given a rule that gave her the effects of drugs (shes totally just that skilled) without using drugs

**tneva82**

Aash wrote:
The Red Hobbit wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
Combat starts at non-active player always. Exception for strike first gone. So if you charge guy that has strike first he attacks first

Interesting, I didn't think they'd go this direction but I appreciate that strike first now means strike first.

Unless your “strikes first” unit is charging, in which case it strikes second.

Well only against other strike first unit.

**Eldarsif**

Shakalooloo wrote:
Tyel wrote:
If Lelith remains a 90 point character then she's probably going to be "okay". We wait on stuff - but perhaps more so than she's ever been.
But in the Timmy-stakes as we review each faction's top dog, its a bit pathetic.

Hopefully, once the codex rolls around, Lord Vect will put everyone in their place with a new model.

Hopefully.

He deserves a comeback and GW seems to love center piece models as of late.

**vipoid**

Shakalooloo wrote:
Tyel wrote:
If Lelith remains a 90 point character then she's probably going to be "okay". We wait on stuff - but perhaps more so than she's ever been.
But in the Timmy-stakes as we review each faction's top dog, its a bit pathetic.

Hopefully, once the codex rolls around, Lord Vect will put everyone in their place with a new model.

Please no.

Dark Eldar haven't had a new unit in 12? 13? years now.

The last thing I want is for their entire release to be spent on a single special character who would inevitably be ridiculously overdone.

How about we focus on expanding the generic characters first and then consider supplementing them with special characters?

**BorderCountess**

vipoid wrote:
Shakalooloo wrote:
Tyel wrote:
If Lelith remains a 90 point character then she's probably going to be "okay". We wait on stuff - but perhaps more so than she's ever been.
But in the Timmy-stakes as we review each faction's top dog, its a bit pathetic.

Hopefully, once the codex rolls around, Lord Vect will put everyone in their place with a new model.

Please no.

Dark Eldar haven't had a new unit in 12? 13? years now.

The last thing I want is for their entire release to be spent on a single special character who would inevitably be ridiculously overdone.

How about we focus on expanding the generic characters first and then consider supplementing them with special characters?

Basically, all you have to do is put a diorama on a Tantalus and call it good.

**bullyboy**

So since we are getting close to the end of the faction focus articles, how would you rank the Top 5 we’ve seen so far?
1-5 in apparent “strength” even though we haven’t seen the majority of rules
1-5 capturing the flavor of the faction.

**Nightlord1987**

What does the psychic power section of the rulebook look like? Are we allowed to use each and every power listed? And multiple times for different psykers?

And is Deny the Witch gone?