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.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 The Power Cosmic wrote:
I really hate all the restrictions. Characters joining units, psychic powers, weapon options. I'll be skipping everything 10th edition-related, thanks.

...you're...welcome?

Why do people feel the need to announce this like anyone cares?

James12345 wrote:
I really hope the cheapest is 5 termies, the captain Vs prime and 20 gaunts. More likely it'll be the flamers which is a shame because they're pretty boring

Also unless I'm reading it wrong, the total amount of new models for Tyranids and space marines is £1000, based of the competition rules

It includes the 'command edition' of the new starter set (which will likely be a subset of the Levithan models again), codexes (standard format only), dice and battleforces (also likely duplicates). So probably not even half that.

ERJAK wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 The Power Cosmic wrote:
I really hate all the restrictions. Characters joining units, psychic powers, weapon options. I'll be skipping everything 10th edition-related, thanks.

...you're...welcome?

Why do people feel the need to announce this like anyone cares?

You're so right. ThIs Is tHe BeStEsT eDiTiOn EvArRrR!!

Or maybe guaging dislike in a product is useful too.

 Insectum7 wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 The Power Cosmic wrote:
I really hate all the restrictions. Characters joining units, psychic powers, weapon options. I'll be skipping everything 10th edition-related, thanks.

...you're...welcome?

Why do people feel the need to announce this like anyone cares?

You're so right. ThIs Is tHe BeStEsT eDiTiOn EvArRrR!!

Or maybe guaging dislike in a product is useful too.

The product isn't even out yet.

 Insectum7 wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 The Power Cosmic wrote:
I really hate all the restrictions. Characters joining units, psychic powers, weapon options. I'll be skipping everything 10th edition-related, thanks.

...you're...welcome?

Why do people feel the need to announce this like anyone cares?

You're so right. ThIs Is tHe BeStEsT eDiTiOn EvArRrR!!

Or maybe guaging dislike in a product is useful too.

Idk man, proclaiming you're not gonna have anything to do with an edition that still hasn't released yet, and you haven't even played a game of, seems a bit more than a dislike

Have the core rules and the initial datasheets. Seems like enough to start making initial judgements off of to me.

For the Tyranid downloads the neurogaunts datasheet says that you can add 1-2 neurogaunt nodebeasts, but there is no datasheet for them and there are no rules for them on the neurogaunt datasheet.
Am I blind?

 Waaagh_Gonads wrote:
For the Tyranid downloads the neurogaunts datasheet says that you can add 1-2 neurogaunt nodebeasts, but there is no datasheet for them and there are no rules for them on the neurogaunt datasheet.
Am I blind?

Nodebeasts don't work any differently to other neurogaunts ruleswise, the only difference is that they're a slightly different sculpt on a 28mm base while the rest of the unit uses 25mm.

Presumably the models were designed well before 10th was in development, and then the rules writers couldn't think of any reason to give neurogaunts different rules within the same unit.

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:
Have the core rules and the initial datasheets. Seems like enough to start making initial judgements off of to me.

This exactly. I think I know enough to tell when an version of a game isn't going to be my thing.

As to why I'm making it an "announcement", it's the same reason people put why they're interested in it. It's a discussion forum. By all means, play, but it's not the game for everyone.

 The Power Cosmic wrote:

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:
Have the core rules and the initial datasheets. Seems like enough to start making initial judgements off of to me.

This exactly. I think I know enough to tell when an version of a game isn't going to be my thing.

As to why I'm making it an "announcement", it's the same reason people put why they're interested in it. It's a discussion forum. By all means, play, but it's not the game for everyone.

This is a thread about a game you don't play and don't plan on playing. Why are you still here? If this is the best thing you have available to spend your time on, that'll make me feel deeply sad for you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 The Power Cosmic wrote:
I really hate all the restrictions. Characters joining units, psychic powers, weapon options. I'll be skipping everything 10th edition-related, thanks.

...you're...welcome?

Why do people feel the need to announce this like anyone cares?

You're so right. ThIs Is tHe BeStEsT eDiTiOn EvArRrR!!

Or maybe guaging dislike in a product is useful too.

If you're a marketer, sure. What does 'I'm not playing tenth!' add to the discussion of the game except the self-involved expectation that people give a gak?

You're not making a constructive criticism, you're not even whining about things you don't like. You're just jumping up and down and begging people to look at you.

It's the discussion forum equivalent of those Tiktok people who do Fortnite dances in the middle of the isle at home depot.

ERJAK wrote:

It's the discussion forum equivalent of those Tiktok people who do Fortnite dances in the middle of the isle at home depot.

Nah, you just don't want negative thoughts in the thread.

ERJAK wrote:

 The Power Cosmic wrote:

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:
Have the core rules and the initial datasheets. Seems like enough to start making initial judgements off of to me.

This exactly. I think I know enough to tell when an version of a game isn't going to be my thing.

As to why I'm making it an "announcement", it's the same reason people put why they're interested in it. It's a discussion forum. By all means, play, but it's not the game for everyone.

This is a thread about a game you don't play and don't plan on playing. Why are you still here? If this is the best thing you have available to spend your time on, that'll make me feel deeply sad for you.

Perhaps he's here because it's a game he wants to play (and might well own models for) but all he sees is GW moving the rules further and further from the game he enjoyed.

Community question, what are the AM/IG responses to enemy transports, specifically foot guard

I'm concerned that previous iterations could deal with them via Lascannons/melta/plasma but from comments it appears melee will definitely be hitting my lines.

Am I wrong in thinking this?

Kind of weird that the Apothecary Biologis can't go with any units in the boxset, since he's in gravis armor.

Maybe he'll be like the Judicar, and not be available except in that boxset so it'll be super hard to get. Hes on a shared sprue though, so maybe he'll be shoved in mini starter boxes

 RegulusBlack wrote:
Community question, what are the AM/IG responses to enemy transports, specifically foot guard

I'm concerned that previous iterations could deal with them via Lascannons/melta/plasma but from comments it appears melee will definitely be hitting my lines.

Am I wrong in thinking this?

We don't know yet - but the Field Ordnance Batteries might have some substantial anti-tank firepower. Hard to evaluate specific strategies with only 10% of the datasheets.

 GaroRobe wrote:
Kind of weird that the Apothecary Biologis can't go with any units in the boxset, since he's in gravis armor.

Maybe he'll be like the Judicar, and not be available except in that boxset so it'll be super hard to get. Hes on a shared sprue though, so maybe he'll be shoved in mini starter boxes

His job is to make it easier to upsell purchasers on a box of Aggressors.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

It's the discussion forum equivalent of those Tiktok people who do Fortnite dances in the middle of the isle at home depot.

Nah, you just don't want negative thoughts in the thread.

Yep this exactly, people trying to shut others down are the only ones that look like fortnighters dancing in home depot isles.

The Apothecary Biologis represents the same problem 10th ed Psychic have.

You want power A? Well that's only available on specific model X. If you wanted model Y, it has power B. Sorry.

Why couldn't the "Biologis" part of the Apothecary be an optional upgrade, meaning that you could have non-Gravis Apothecaries Biologis?

Literally have it part of their rules for any Apothecary (First Born, Primaris and Gravis): Please choose either Medicae or Biologis for your Apothecary before deployment and before declaring what units they will be attached to.

And yes, I know the answer is "They don't make a non-Gravis Biologis miniature", but still. It's frustrating to see such strange interactions.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The Apothecary Biologis represents the same problem 10th ed Psychic have.

You want power A? Well that's only available on specific model X. If you wanted model Y, it has power B. Sorry.

Why couldn't the "Biologis" part of the Apothecary be an optional upgrade, meaning that you could have non-Gravis Apothecaries Biologis?

Literally have it part of their rules for any Apothecary (First Born, Primaris and Gravis): Please choose either Medicae or Biologis for your Apothecary before deployment and before declaring what units they will be attached to.

And yes, I know the answer is "They don't make a non-Gravis Biologis miniature", but still. It's frustrating to see such strange interactions.

While I’m with you in personally wanting more options, and the death of NMNR, I can see game balance reasons.

Right now they have one guy who can attach to 3 squads. He gives the unit lethal hits. So they can think of what problems that might cause and point him appropriately.

If they open the floodgates, they need to look at everything to make sure things don’t get busted. And might have to point him for the worst case scenario, which might make him overpriced for 95% of the time.

Similarity, they might not want a medicae gravis, to attach to heavy marine squads. Layering FNP (which he probably would give) might just make them too tough for the points.

Boosykes wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

It's the discussion forum equivalent of those Tiktok people who do Fortnite dances in the middle of the isle at home depot.

Nah, you just don't want negative thoughts in the thread.

Yep this exactly, people trying to shut others down are the only ones that look like fortnighters dancing in home depot isles.

Dakka tends to be overly negative, to the point it's pretty hard to get decent discussions in half the time because they will warp many of the threads around complaints. It's pretty understandable not wanting to see stupid gak like people announcing they are not going to play an entire edition, without playing a single game.

There are plenty of legitimate things to complain about, let's stick to that.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nevelon wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The Apothecary Biologis represents the same problem 10th ed Psychic have.

You want power A? Well that's only available on specific model X. If you wanted model Y, it has power B. Sorry.

Why couldn't the "Biologis" part of the Apothecary be an optional upgrade, meaning that you could have non-Gravis Apothecaries Biologis?

Literally have it part of their rules for any Apothecary (First Born, Primaris and Gravis): Please choose either Medicae or Biologis for your Apothecary before deployment and before declaring what units they will be attached to.

And yes, I know the answer is "They don't make a non-Gravis Biologis miniature", but still. It's frustrating to see such strange interactions.

While I’m with you in personally wanting more options, and the death of NMNR, I can see game balance reasons.

Right now they have one guy who can attach to 3 squads. He gives the unit lethal hits. So they can think of what problems that might cause and point him appropriately.

If they open the floodgates, they need to look at everything to make sure things don’t get busted. And might have to point him for the worst case scenario, which might make him overpriced for 95% of the time.

Similarity, they might not want a medicae gravis, to attach to heavy marine squads. Layering FNP (which he probably would give) might just make them too tough for the points.

Agreed. I much prefer this. It cuts down some options, but if it leads to more unique abilities and datasheets, as well as better balance, I am all for it.

 Sasori wrote:
... but if it leads to more unique abilities and datasheets... I am all for it.

Do we want more datasheets and even more unique abilities? This is the edition where they're bringing USRs back, and they're already failing at that with the amount of units that have unique special rules that are the same as other units with the same "unique" special rule.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Sasori wrote:
... but if it leads to more unique abilities and datasheets... I am all for it.

Do we want more datasheets and even more unique abilities? This is the edition where they're bringing USRs back, and they're already failing at that with the amount of units that have unique special rules that are the same as other units with the same "unique" special rule.

Yes, I am absolutely want that. A good example is Battle Sisters giving you extra Miracle dice when holding an objective gives you a reason to bring them over just something that can kill better. This actually seems like it will make list building a lot more fun, than trying to cram as much of the most efficient weapon possible into my list.

Having to make some real tradeoffs and choices with my selections thanks to more defined roles and unique abilities as well as how missions and secondaries work is excellent.

As for the USRs, the only ones I've seen that has popped up a few times are reroll X when someone is on an objective, and sticky objectives. Let's see how common those actually are before we say that GW is failing at it.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Sasori wrote:
... but if it leads to more unique abilities and datasheets... I am all for it.

Do we want more datasheets and even more unique abilities? This is the edition where they're bringing USRs back, and they're already failing at that with the amount of units that have unique special rules that are the same as other units with the same "unique" special rule.

I mean...it's options, which is something people want. The method of selection is different, but the end result is mostly similar.

 Sasori wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Sasori wrote:
... but if it leads to more unique abilities and datasheets... I am all for it.

Do we want more datasheets and even more unique abilities? This is the edition where they're bringing USRs back, and they're already failing at that with the amount of units that have unique special rules that are the same as other units with the same "unique" special rule.

Yes, I am absolutely want that. A good example is Battle Sisters giving you extra Miracle dice when holding an objective gives you a reason to bring them over just something that can kill better. This actually seems like it will make list building a lot more fun, than trying to cram as much of the most efficient weapon possible into my list.

Having to make some real tradeoffs and choices with my selections thanks to more defined roles and unique abilities as well as how missions and secondaries work is excellent.

Exalted. Completely agree, I think GW has struggled since 8th trying to make a "troop" edition, they started with by making troops incentivized with ObSec but that wasn't enough to push that boulder uphill, and then when we started seeing alternate rules to let cost-efficient non-troops get ObSec it all went out the window. This appears to be the first edition where Troops look very desirable, asuming points are wacky this will probably be the first edition in a long time where my Guardians outnumber my Dire Avengers. (The other armies I consistently play were already built around the iconic troop so there's no change there).

Went to the GW near my work at lunch today to build that Lizardman warrior, and got a look at the copies of Leviathan they had. The Terminators, of which two had been built, are huge. The Screamer Killer is massive. I'm surprised that the Psychophage fits on one smaller sprue.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I mean...it's options, which is something people want. The method of selection is different, but the end result is mostly similar.

Options are options. So far this edition has drastically scaled back the options one has, turning weapons in generic one-size-fits-all versions of themselves, removing all choice with psychic powers, and reducing relics to a shadow of them former selves. Just wait until we see the "Tyranid Warrior w/Melee Weapons" sheet to see how many of our weapons still exist, or if they get amalgamated like so many others.

 Sasori wrote:
A good example is Battle Sisters giving you extra Miracle dice when holding an objective gives you a reason to bring them over just something that can kill better. This actually seems like it will make list building a lot more fun, than trying to cram as much of the most efficient weapon possible into my list.

I'm not arguing against that. An old adage of Jervis Johnson was that people are more likely to remember a benefit than a penalty, and two of the big changes they've made in this edition - heavy weapons get a bonus for standing still, and there are special rules that make units better that are tied into holding and taking objectives - are all good because they reward you for doing what you should be doing as opposed to penalising you for doing something that you might consider "more fun". The OC stat plays a big part in this as well, and how Battleshock ties into OC. It's all very well constructed.

What's not well constructed is the arbitrary separation of certain abilities based on small things like what type of armour someone is wearing. Librarian in Power Armour gets Power X, but Librarian in Terminator Armour gets Power Y, but Primaris Librarian gets Power Z! It's even worse for things like Farseers/Warlocks and their equivalents on Jetbikes. An Apothecary is a great place to give you an either or - I can take the Biologis route and make the attached unit more dangerous and potentially better at holding objectives, or I can give them more staying power. That's a choice, but it's been taken away from the player because the only one that gets to be a Biologis is the Gravis Armour version.

 Sasori wrote:
As for the USRs, the only ones I've seen that has popped up a few times are reroll X when someone is on an objective, and sticky objectives. Let's see how common those actually are before we say that GW is failing at it.

Oh, trust me, I'm waiting. I plan to go over all of them, but we've seen enough repetition (thinks like attacks that disrupt movement if you get hit, or re-rolls on objectives, or sticky objectives, or cause Battleshock tests) that it makes me wonder how people here can celebrate 10th for "reducing bloat" when every sheet so far has at least one unique rule and when universal rules are applied in a haphazard way (Bloodcrushers get Lance on the Jugger's attacks, but Singing Spear Skyrunners don't?).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Went to the GW near my work at lunch today to build that Lizardman warrior, and got a look at the copies of Leviathan they had. The Terminators, of which two had been built, are huge. The Screamer Killer is massive. I'm surprised that the Psychophage fits on one smaller sprue.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I mean...it's options, which is something people want. The method of selection is different, but the end result is mostly similar.

Options are options. So far this edition has drastically scaled back the options one has, turning weapons in generic one-size-fits-all versions of themselves, removing all choice with psychic powers, and reducing relics to a shadow of them former selves. Just wait until we see the "Tyranid Warrior w/Melee Weapons" sheet to see how many of our weapons still exist, or if they get amalgamated like so many others.

I suspect the melee weapons all exist but a notably different to now. Currently the 3 melee weapons are just a "betterer but pricier" sliding scale, if they make them closer in value or different niches, that'd be worthwhile.

The guns also all exist in all forms for termagants (swapping deathspitters for flesh borers) so good chance they survive as well.

The heavy weapons actually have very different and defined roles, so that's a reasonable split.

All in all as much as it would make sense for most options to survive, they'll likely still be condensed as its a loooot of options on 1 model and they'll want to streamline it imo. But could go either way.

You're right: It would make sense for the options to survive, but then I look at the Plague Flail and see that it is a different weapon completely depending on what unit has it and I start to wonder if we get Rending Claws on Genestealers, but "Bio-Melee Weapons" on Tyranid Warriors that mush ScyTals and Rending Claws into one.

Once upon a time Boneswords vanished from 40k and in their place was the more organic less holding-a-sword-ish Scything Talon. Then Boneswords came back. I wonder if they'll be merged once again.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You're right: It would make sense for the options to survive, but then I look at the Plague Flail and see that it is a different weapon completely depending on what unit has it and I start to wonder if we get Rending Claws on Genestealers, but "Bio-Melee Weapons" on Tyranid Warriors that mush ScyTals and Rending Claws into one.

Once upon a time Boneswords vanished from 40k and in their place was the more organic less holding-a-sword-ish Scything Talon. Then Boneswords came back. I wonder if they'll be merged once again.

Quite possibly, ultimately they're for the same targets: infantry in melee, a mixed profile of a little ap and d2 on the melee duders then model as you please might tick the box.

 Sasori wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Sasori wrote:
... but if it leads to more unique abilities and datasheets... I am all for it.

Do we want more datasheets and even more unique abilities? This is the edition where they're bringing USRs back, and they're already failing at that with the amount of units that have unique special rules that are the same as other units with the same "unique" special rule.

Yes, I am absolutely want that. A good example is Battle Sisters giving you extra Miracle dice when holding an objective gives you a reason to bring them over just something that can kill better. This actually seems like it will make list building a lot more fun, than trying to cram as much of the most efficient weapon possible into my list.

Having to make some real tradeoffs and choices with my selections thanks to more defined roles and unique abilities as well as how missions and secondaries work is excellent.

As for the USRs, the only ones I've seen that has popped up a few times are reroll X when someone is on an objective, and sticky objectives. Let's see how common those actually are before we say that GW is failing at it.

Until you realise that GW already has "issues" handling datasheets from Codex SM so much that they decided to cut Codex CSM datasheets and Mechanicum ones.

 Skywave wrote:


I'm fine with that. I have melee warriors and shooty warriors already, so they'll have their own datasheet

Unless you have Warriors with Deathspitters and Swords, and the latter are for cc ones only, and suddenly you have illegal loadout

 Shadow Walker wrote:

 Skywave wrote:


I'm fine with that. I have melee warriors and shooty warriors already, so they'll have their own datasheet

Unless you have Warriors with Deathspitters and Swords, and the latter are for cc ones only, and suddenly you have illegal loadout

Honestly, i at this stage expect datasheet chicanery. Afterall it's a feature not a bug.