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 wrote:
To spin it around, why shouldn't they have the same profile, but I want an answer that isn't "because that's what they used to do".

Verisimilitude, for one - might not be a concern for you, or for tournament players, but I would guess that this sort of amalgamation is going to cause headaches for a not-insignificant number of players who look at the non-bolter half of a combi-weapon and expect it to behave differently depending on what it is.

The version we see on the Termi Librarian isn't a terrible proxy for a combi-plasma, maybe even a combi-grav, but having the full effect out to 24" makes it a horrible proxy for a combi-flamer or combi-melta - though the flat 1 damage is a point against it for everything bar the flamer. The reduced BS makes little sense - if that was meant to be a reflection of firing both barrels, why does it only get 1 shot (plus RF1, which reflects the bolter half of the weapon), rather than 2 shots (with RF1)?

While I'm liking some of what I'm seeing from the core rules previews so far, I'm also loathing some of what I'm seeing from the unit previews.

 Dysartes wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
To spin it around, why shouldn't they have the same profile, but I want an answer that isn't "because that's what they used to do".

Verisimilitude, for one - might not be a concern for you, or for tournament players, but I would guess that this sort of amalgamation is going to cause headaches for a not-insignificant number of players who look at the non-bolter half of a combi-weapon and expect it to behave differently depending on what it is.

The version we see on the Termi Librarian isn't a terrible proxy for a combi-plasma, maybe even a combi-grav, but having the full effect out to 24" makes it a horrible proxy for a combi-flamer or combi-melta - though the flat 1 damage is a point against it for everything bar the flamer. The reduced BS makes little sense - if that was meant to be a reflection of firing both barrels, why does it only get 1 shot (plus RF1, which reflects the bolter half of the weapon), rather than 2 shots (with RF1)?

While I'm liking some of what I'm seeing from the core rules previews so far, I'm also loathing some of what I'm seeing from the unit previews.

You've kinda proven the point though in that you only come to those conclusions by both inspecting the mini with the tiny component to see it is different, alongside applying the "this is what it used to do" knowledge. If you simply know all combi bolters have the same profile, no need for a headache, "oh they all shoot with that profile? Cool I'll stop asking".

 Dysartes wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
To spin it around, why shouldn't they have the same profile, but I want an answer that isn't "because that's what they used to do".

Verisimilitude, for one - might not be a concern for you, or for tournament players, but I would guess that this sort of amalgamation is going to cause headaches for a not-insignificant number of players who look at the non-bolter half of a combi-weapon and expect it to behave differently depending on what it is.

The version we see on the Termi Librarian isn't a terrible proxy for a combi-plasma, maybe even a combi-grav, but having the full effect out to 24" makes it a horrible proxy for a combi-flamer or combi-melta - though the flat 1 damage is a point against it for everything bar the flamer. The reduced BS makes little sense - if that was meant to be a reflection of firing both barrels, why does it only get 1 shot (plus RF1, which reflects the bolter half of the weapon), rather than 2 shots (with RF1)?

While I'm liking some of what I'm seeing from the core rules previews so far, I'm also loathing some of what I'm seeing from the unit previews.

-1 to hit could easily be due to under-barrel weapons being far harder to aim and having smaller barrels than a full-sized version of the usual version of that weapon.

As for the profile, I'd prefer to see the weapon have three options, normal bolter, the mode we see now, and a shorter-range anti-horde weapon.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
That said, I find myself kind of missing the pre-7th system of just paying points for psychic powers. Was there really anything wrong with that approach? You could have weaker and stronger powers, and the cost of your psyker unit went up or down based on how expensive (read: powerful) your chosen powers were. They tossed it out in 7th for the Fantasy-esque dice-off game, but I feel like the pre-7th approach was just better in general.

One of the big things they're trying to accomplish this edition is for the other player to be able to look at a model in your army and know what it does without having to get your dissertation on it. It's a reaction to 9th, obviously. Every terminator librarian you see is going to have roughly the same threat level, as opposed to this one doing some mortal wound chip damage, and this one taking away your invuln and turning your Lord of War into paper.

I agree and really hope they achive this. I did not like how looking at the datasheet did not tell you how strong a unit really is because of all the buff layering.

 nordsturmking wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
That said, I find myself kind of missing the pre-7th system of just paying points for psychic powers. Was there really anything wrong with that approach? You could have weaker and stronger powers, and the cost of your psyker unit went up or down based on how expensive (read: powerful) your chosen powers were. They tossed it out in 7th for the Fantasy-esque dice-off game, but I feel like the pre-7th approach was just better in general.

One of the big things they're trying to accomplish this edition is for the other player to be able to look at a model in your army and know what it does without having to get your dissertation on it. It's a reaction to 9th, obviously. Every terminator librarian you see is going to have roughly the same threat level, as opposed to this one doing some mortal wound chip damage, and this one taking away your invuln and turning your Lord of War into paper.

I agree and really hope they achive this. I did not like how looking at the datasheet did not tell you how strong a unit really is because of all the buff layering.

On a probably paranoid note, it can also help prevent your opponent fine tuning against your army in a manner not everyone can replicate.

It reminds me of a change in WHFB, where you listed which spell deck your wizard was using at the point of list design. Whilst not all Wizards had much, if any choice, things like Empire Battle Wizards could really swing a battle by drawing spells from The Right College of Magic. So when you chose at deployment, certain armies had an unfair upper hand, as they could pick the lore best suited to exploit your army’s weakness.

I happen to know an alternate system that is very close to 40k, which currently includes:

- 35 weapons
- 37 wargear items
- 9 veteran abilities
- 35 chapter traits
- 7 vehicle equipment items
- 2 prayer lists (10 prayers in total)
- 3 specific + 6 general psychic disciplines (54 powers in total)

...just for Space Marines alone to customise their squad leaders, units and characters.

I have yet to meet somebody who thinks the actual gameplay on the table is slower or more complex than 9th edition.

I don't see "less options come with better balance" as a good argument. Especially given GW's track record of having a bad external and internal balance regardless of how many options there have been throughout the editions.

Siegfriedfr wrote:
18/04/2023

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/18/the-new-edition-of-warhammer-40000-makes-all-the-phases-count/

The New Edition of Warhammer 40,000 Makes All the Phases Count

The Psychic phase and the Morale Phase are now no more

psychic powers are used throughout the other phases

Smite is used in the the Shooting phase

Morale gets sorted in your Command Phase, when you take Battle-shock tests for any units that have taken enough losses.

Roll a 2D6 for every unit that’s Below Half-strength – that means they’re a squad with less than half of their starting models, or a single model with less than half of their starting Wounds. You’ll need to roll above your new Leadership characteristic – if you fail, that unit suffers some nasty penalties until your next turn:

-OC falls to 0
-Stratagems cannot be used on that unit
-if it Falls Back, it must take a test-roll for every model in the unit

So what will be the equivalent for deny the witch and especially all defenses of non-psyker armies, or will they just drastically increase the costs of all psykers?

Judging by the psychic hood, Feel No Pain against offensive powers

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Judging by the psychic hood, Feel No Pain against offensive powers

Psychic Hoods for Custodes, both kinds of Sisters, Necrons, etc...?

a_typical_hero wrote:
I happen to know an alternate system that is very close to 40k, which currently includes:

- 35 weapons
- 37 wargear items
- 9 veteran abilities
- 35 chapter traits
- 7 vehicle equipment items
- 2 prayer lists (10 prayers in total)
- 3 specific + 6 general psychic disciplines (54 powers in total)

...just for Space Marines alone to customise their squad leaders, units and characters.

I have yet to meet somebody who thinks the actual gameplay on the table is slower or more complex than 9th edition.

I don't see "less options come with better balance" as a good argument. Especially given GW's track record of having a bad external and internal balance regardless of how many options there have been throughout the editions.

I guess you are talking about Horus Heresy? Balancing game options is pretty much more linear when you can expect a majority of factions to be mirror battles.

I am getting tired of people believing that 40k is only a Space Marine game. There are ton of xenos, daemons, and other big monsters that are not in Horus Heresy. If you'd give them the same things as Horus Heresy you'd see an explosion of options that would be nigh impossible to balance.

I wonder how sisters of silence immunity to psychic abilities will work in 10th.

 jaredb wrote:
I wonder how sisters of silence immunity to psychic abilities will work in 10th.

"Reduce damage from [Psychic] weapons to 0".

 Eldarsif wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:
I happen to know an alternate system that is very close to 40k, which currently includes:

- 35 weapons
- 37 wargear items
- 9 veteran abilities
- 35 chapter traits
- 7 vehicle equipment items
- 2 prayer lists (10 prayers in total)
- 3 specific + 6 general psychic disciplines (54 powers in total)

...just for Space Marines alone to customise their squad leaders, units and characters.

I have yet to meet somebody who thinks the actual gameplay on the table is slower or more complex than 9th edition.

I don't see "less options come with better balance" as a good argument. Especially given GW's track record of having a bad external and internal balance regardless of how many options there have been throughout the editions.

I guess you are talking about Horus Heresy? Balancing game options is pretty much more linear when you can expect a majority of factions to be mirror battles.

I am getting tired of people believing that 40k is only a Space Marine game. There are ton of xenos, daemons, and other big monsters that are not in Horus Heresy. If you'd give them the same things as Horus Heresy you'd see an explosion of options that would be nigh impossible to balance.

It’s also about making the game accessible.

Whilst there are of course merits to being able to craft and arm your own character? Right now, in 40K, if I buy a Command Model? It’s one and done. I don’t need to worry about what I want to arm them with, because the rules have set that out for me and anyone else collecting that army.

Think of the n00b learning the ropes. They buy, assemble, maybe even paint the model, and it’s ready to go.

I also have my grump about the perception that not having to convert = converting is now forbidden. That’s not the case. You wanna convert or scratchbuild? Nothing and nobody is preventing it,

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I also have my grump about the perception that not having to convert = converting is now forbidden. That’s not the case. You wanna convert or scratchbuild? Nothing and nobody is preventing it,

This cuts both ways. Having the option to customize your character with wargear = / = requiring to get involved with wargear. You think it is tiresome? Don't do it, just bring your character with their base wargear. Nothing and nobody is preventing it .

Would be fun if anti infantry 4+. devastating wounds, is actually the default plasma profile.

 AtoMaki wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I also have my grump about the perception that not having to convert = converting is now forbidden. That’s not the case. You wanna convert or scratchbuild? Nothing and nobody is preventing it,

This cuts both ways. Having the option to customize your character with wargear = / = requiring to get involved with wargear. You think it is tiresome? Don't do it, just bring your character with their base wargear. Nothing and nobody is preventing it .

It then goes for pay/model for win.

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
40k is way over skirmish scale.

In terms of the number of models fielded in an army these days? I'd agree.

In terms of how zoomed in we are when we look at each model/units equipment and wargear? No, I'd say we're still at the skirmish level.

A relatively clean cut-off point is that we're still talking about individually-based infantry models, which imho puts the game into skirmish scale, as well as the wargear issues you already mentioned. The fundamental unit of the game is still the single soldier, while usually company-level wargames use fireteams or squads as their lowest-level unit.

It's also really points/PL dependent.
500point/25PL and under games still very much have the skirmish feeling.

tneva82 wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I also have my grump about the perception that not having to convert = converting is now forbidden. That’s not the case. You wanna convert or scratchbuild? Nothing and nobody is preventing it,

This cuts both ways. Having the option to customize your character with wargear = / = requiring to get involved with wargear. You think it is tiresome? Don't do it, just bring your character with their base wargear. Nothing and nobody is preventing it .

It then goes for pay/model for win.

Only if GW can't balance out the options, which to date they've shown they can't and people don't think they can.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Trying to make it sound hard doesn't make it hard, either.

Given that more balanced systems are far and above more restrictive than even this version of 40K seems to be I'd be comfortable going out on the 'not so easy' limb.

I'm gonna go with poor design choice and lack of effort on GWs part, and reiterate That the near-autistic drive for balance has a high probability of ruining some of what a lot of people enjoy about the game. Praise Be To The Balance God!

Aka: 40k should totally be more like chess, amirite? /sarcasm

Those same people also complained about balance though.

Some don't want balance - they just want the old rules - they should play the old editions.
Some want old rules thinking they were balanced.
Some want 40K to be a historical system.
Some want super duper random and quirky rules.
Some want a hardcore tournament system ( not many on this forum, I think ).



Don't get me wrong. I have mixed feelings on many things with 10th, but if units are more interesting to play, if the game is more accessible, if balance isn't as helter skelter, and if GW can still provide good narrative options then I'm all in.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:
I think it will be quite a detriment if it's streamlined to the point where every psyker just has one or two powers that only they can use and that's it. Because what will happen then is you will see some units always taken because of their unique power and some units never taken because they're special power isn't as good. That will be a step backwards I think compared to any of the other choices which they could do. At the very least I would hope for a system like AOS where each wizard may have their own unique spell but there's still a pool of spells to pick from that everyone has access to based on whatever.

One really big factor on all of this is characters aren't really individuals as much like in 9th.

Will other armies be restricted by 'armor type'? What does an Exalted Sorcerer do? Is it the same or different from a Sorcerer? An Infernal Master?

Suppose a Sorcerer gives Lethal Hits - sounds great for Rubrics with bolters. He is no longer my sorcerer that can give out a 4++ and heal something. He's a 'Rubric Bolter Sorcerer' that can Smite.

Part of this is going to be that Index options will be more bland than what the codex will offer, but how things change in the codex is really unknown. And that's where is gets sketchy if they didn't plan things out well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gunchar wrote:
Psychic Hoods for Custodes, both kinds of Sisters, Necrons, etc...?

I will guess that mortal wounds are much harder to get, which means GW doesn't need to add a ton of layers to help survive them thereby creating inescapable counter skew ( Emperor's Chosen ).

19/04/2023

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/19/transports-are-the-fast-and-flexible-way-to-travel-the-new-edition-in-style/

Transports Are the Fast and Flexible Way To Travel the New Edition in Style

any embarked unit is free to hop out once a transport has moved – provided the vehicle didn’t Advance or Fall Back. They can also shoot, but can’t make a charge, unless they disembark before the vehicle moves

open-topped replaced with Firing Deck X : choose one weapon each from a given number of embarked models and the transport will count as if it’s equipped with them for their own shooting attacks.

Previously, embarked troops couldn’t benefit from buffs, but now because the transport itself is making the attack, their weapons gain any boosts the vehicle does

Rapid Deployment Rule : Some vehicles, however, circumvent the rules entirely with special abilities, such as fast movers like the Impulsor and the Astra Militarum Taurox who can disembark troops even after advancing.

The Land Raider reclaims its Assault Ramp – meaning passengers can declare a charge on the same turn they disembark.

Minus a couple of exceptions, Space Marine transports no longer care whether a Primaris unit is riding in the back or not. The Rhino, Razorback, and Impulsor are still specialised for certain squad types, and many larger models like Terminators and Gravis-armoured Space Marines still have their own restrictions.

Mobile Command Vehicle Rule : Astra Militarum officers can issue orders during the Command Phase from inside a Vehicle

Fire Support: re-roll wound for a Unit that disembarked from a Transport this turn

Yea so this transport article sort of exemplifies what makes 40K.

You can dodge a charge by hopping into a Repulsor.
A Falcon works in tandem with it's cargo.
Guard can still command from a Chimera.
Taurox, Impulsors, and probably DE boats will be able to run and dump.
Orks can bring hilarious gunboats.

It seems to me like GW really is trying to give every unit some kind of ability to make it interesting and useful, even down to the glorified buses.

It remains to be seen how hard it will be to keep track of all of that in practice, but I like the idea of each unit having something that sets it apart and gives you reason to consider it besides just raw stats.

Dudeface wrote:

Bencyclopedia wrote:

 KingGarland wrote:
I am not too keen on the consolidation of the Combi-weapon profiles.

While we are not there yet I am afraid the game could fall into the No Items, Fox Only, Final Destination problem were, in the name of balance, it kills all uniqueness in the game.

While it's not impossible that this is the outcome, I doubt that's an outcome GW want. At the end of the day they are a company that sells miniatures, uniqueness between the factions is part of the appeal of having multiple armies and by extension buying more models (at least for me anyway).

That said I would be unsurprised if a lot of uniqueness dissappears intially and comes back with new codexes. Gotta sell those overpriced books somehow.

Combi weapons aren't a uniqueness between factions however, very little (sorry to some people) is lost by condensing them down beyond the number of lines on a unit/price list.

Flamers, Melta, and Plasma are distinct things and always have been.
Do you think GW might send you free stuff for defending them on this? That's what it appears to be at this point.

Vehicle rules I like. Maybe Land Raiders will be good again and not outshadowed.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Bencyclopedia wrote:

 KingGarland wrote:
I am not too keen on the consolidation of the Combi-weapon profiles.

While we are not there yet I am afraid the game could fall into the No Items, Fox Only, Final Destination problem were, in the name of balance, it kills all uniqueness in the game.

While it's not impossible that this is the outcome, I doubt that's an outcome GW want. At the end of the day they are a company that sells miniatures, uniqueness between the factions is part of the appeal of having multiple armies and by extension buying more models (at least for me anyway).

That said I would be unsurprised if a lot of uniqueness dissappears intially and comes back with new codexes. Gotta sell those overpriced books somehow.

Combi weapons aren't a uniqueness between factions however, very little (sorry to some people) is lost by condensing them down beyond the number of lines on a unit/price list.

Flamers, Melta, and Plasma are distinct things and always have been.
Do you think GW might send you free stuff for defending them on this? That's what it appears to be at this point.

No but I live in your mind rent free. I'm glad me not being offended allowed you to totally misread what was written for the sakes of some weird cheapshot.

Those transport rules have me hyped, by far the best reveals so far IMO.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Those transport rules have me hyped, by far the best reveals so far IMO.

I really need to get my Landraider repainted. She's in rough shape. I think it's been a good 15 years since I pulled it out of mothball.

Pretty relieved the LR is getting it's assault ramp back. Let's hoping it means other units will also get back their unique rules (mainly stuff in the FW books).

I really like the design direction of these transport rules, even if there could be some balance issues off the bat. Right now, a lot of transports feel kinda useless, as you can't really do anything while in them, and you can't really use them to move. Giving each transport more of an identity than "Holds 10 dudes" or "Holds 5 dudes and has a gun" is great.

I do think that initially we may see a lot of tanks of the battlefield with buffs to them from multiple sources, (more durability, more mobility for transported squads, more utility/buffs for transported units), but there has been no information on points yet.

It seems to me that the combi weapon part on the bolter is meant to enhance the bolter, not be a secondary weapon.

Think of it as a bayonet or a Digital Weapon.

Is it stupid? Sure. But it's Collector friendly.