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.

Breton wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Breton wrote:

Dai wrote:

Karol wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Space Wolves are famous for not following the Codex Astartes and they are not alone in the annuals of the Adeptus Astartes.

How is this relevant? Space Wolves are getting their own book

And they shouldn't

They had one since 2ed. If they don't get one then non faction should.

They were in fact the first ever Warhammer 40k codex. If that isnt a reason to keep it around for tradition sake I don't know what is.

Well Tradition in and of itself isn't really a reason to keep a codex around, but they're deviation is.

Harlequins and Eldar are different factions in the same Codex.
I think that Generic Marines and Viking Marines can be in the same 'Dex too.

Harlequinns are closer to Inquisition/Imperial Agents than a seperate faction but I'm ok with splitting out the Harlies. More fluff is always nice.

Technically the Harlequin army list is older than the craft world army list anyway. They both had army lists in the second half of 1st Ed but Harlequins was out in WD first.

Spoletta wrote:
On the other hand you have the case of battleshocked unit trying to run away from melee. Creating that situation is a lot harder for the attacker, and rewarding him with "maybe some MW" doesn't give him an incentive to pursue this game situation. To create a game with real tactical choices, you have to balance how much an impact a certain move can bring to the table with how difficult is for a player to pull that move.

There is no choice here because being Battleshocked has no effect on the unit's fighting ability: if the Battleshocked is good at melee then it won't run away just stay and fight, and if it isn't then it is dead anyway and it doesn't matter how it will lose its models. Here also note that Battleshocked unit you charge stop being Battleshocked before they Fall Back and then they have to become Battleshocked again to trigger that massed Desperate Escape - you basically have to drop them under half strength with your charge and pray for a fail on the BS check (heh) but if you mess up that unit so hard then the other player has no real reason to bother and will Fall Back knowing that their unit is already fugged. It feels like a pretty extreme case to matter, but when it does it (literally) randomly drops the hammer blow.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Boosykes wrote:
Chaos is simple strong leaders. That's what every chaos warbands has in common Including the ols legions(demon primarchs) it is litteraly what holds their fighting forces together. The most giften, the strongest, the smartest the most blessed by the gods. It obvious in all the books all the lore.

Regular space marines fallow the authority the chapter master is listened to becuse he is the chapter master, not because he is the best fighter (though he is usually very good at fightinng) he dosent need to be the smartest, he dosent need to be the best. Chaos should have a strong undisputed leader of their warbands and everything is built around that.

A mechanic where they acheve goals and are blessed for the rest of the match by the gods would also be cool.

Not all of the Traitor Legions are led by a Daemon Primarch. And some are known for their distrust and rebellion against leadership. the "Gods'. AVE DOMINUS NOX!!

But they are led by a strong leader that's my point.

It's clear you cant have a chaos fighting force withought leaders holding them together and how does someone become leader in a chaos war and? By being the strongest. We need more focused on our leaders.

While I agree, I think the one nice thing about Chaos is the lack of named characters means that your Chaos Lord is the leader of the warband and has less "must include" units to compete with.

On a related note, is there a list out there of all the named Chaos Characters that have migrated into Legends? I feel like I haven't seen anyone besides Abbadon, Ahriman and DG Characters fielded in years.

Or you could just look at the Chaos Space Marines Legends document and note that zero named characters are in the file

If you are a fan of Forge World characters, you can check that Legends document and see that Lord Arkos and Zhufor the Impaler are now Legends.

So, not much to see in Chaos Space Marine Legends characters.

Legends Document

I completely forgot that was a thing
For some reason I thought there was someone besides the Vrak's Chaos characters that was moving into legends. Must have been a rumor mill.

 The Red Hobbit wrote:

Legends Document

I completely forgot that was a thing
For some reason I thought there was someone besides the Vrak's Chaos characters that was moving into legends. Must have been a rumor mill.

You forgot the generic Jump Pack Lord

That is notably not a named character.

 JNAProductions wrote:
It is for W1 models.
But if you manage to Battleshock a squad of Allarus Custodians, get them in melee, and force them to fall back, you'd need a squad of 12 to kill ONE.

A possible fix would be rolling for the unit's total wound count, not model count.
So Custodians would be rolling 4 per model.

Or make battleshock stronger by not allowing Fall Back at all (I think I would prefer that one).

But well inconsistent rules has been on of those eternal GW issues.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Yeah. It definitely feels like the 30k writers actually understand the Traitor Legions better than the 40k writers.

Edit: And to an extreme scale where the 8th is concerned.

Well traitor legions are half of the 30k factions while in 40k they are mostly subfactions for one faction. And the few ones that get to be their own faction are defined more by their God than by their Legion.

So it is kinda a given that 30k allows a far deeper understanding of the Traitor Legions.

 Tyran wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Yeah. It definitely feels like the 30k writers actually understand the Traitor Legions better than the 40k writers.

Edit: And to an extreme scale where the 8th is concerned.

Well traitor legions are half of the 30k factions while in 40k they are mostly subfactions for one faction. And the few ones that get to be their own faction are defined more by their God than by their Legion.

So it is kinda a given that 30k allows a far deeper understanding of the Traitor Legions.

That argument only works if you haven't been around long enough to remember the 3.5 Chaos codex and the Traitor Legions supplement. Gw has represented the Traitor Legions just fine even when they're "subfactions". We have the evidence.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You can watch this full 73m video on it,

It's funny to see Rob again. I didn't know he was still kicking around.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I'm convinced that different teams wrote different parts of this book and never spoke to one another during the development process. Their inconsistency is hair-tearingly frustrating.

What the hell am I talking about?

Well, almost all the remaining rules for 10th have leaked. You can watch this full 73m video on it, or Auspex's 20m summary. Up to you.

In it we get the rules for disembarking from a destroyed transport:

Deploy within 3".
Roll a D6 for each model.
For each 1, the unit suffers a MW.

If a model cannot deploy within 3", it can deploy within 6", but the unit suffers a MW on a 1-3 rather than a 1.

Why the hell isn't Desperate Breakout using the exact same mechanic?

Rather than insta-killing models regardless of toughness/wounds/save on a 1-2, you cause Mortal Wounds on a 1-2.

Why not use the same damned mechanic rather than creating a weird new method of causing damage that ignores all the basic rules of causing damage?

It's so fething frustrating...

The two situations aren't actually analagous. Transports are very common and something GW wants to encourage the use of, while still modelling some sort of danger for the passengers when they're destroyed. The destruction of the model isn't really something the owning player has any control over. Combine those two factors and having a less lethal situation in the case of transport destruction makes sense. OTOH, falling back from combat is always a choice for the owning player, so putting in place a harsher punishment for that choice has some degree of justification to it.

Of course, we can debate whether the magnitude of the effects and the mechanics are the right ones, but it's not like there's some objective truth that means both situations have to be the same.

Behaviour performed by a truck and behavior performed by a person are not analagous even when the behaviours are identical.

Although I do agree with HBMC's point, just because I don't think instakilling a 4 wound model makes sense.

It has nothing to do with vehicle behaviour and soldier behaviour being analogous.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You can watch this full 73m video on it,

It's funny to see Rob again. I didn't know he was still kicking around.

He's been mostly putting out AOS content. I like his perspectives, so I am hoping he will make 10th a cornerstone of his content going forward.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Harlequins and Eldar are different factions in the same Codex.
I think that Generic Marines and Viking Marines can be in the same 'Dex too.

Eldar a side faction. Ultramarines alone have more special characters, then eldar combined probably. And there would still be all the IF, RG, CF, SW, BA, IH special characters, their special type of units we are talking tens of pages of rules, and GW also wants to show pictures of stuff. Even before the obligatory 2-3 detachment rules for every marine faction, their own relics, warlord traits, specific stratagems the book would be huge. Such a space marine codex would be the proverbial 1000 pages long.

It would be a bit like saying that tau, all eldar and orks, tyranids and necrons too should be in one book. Because they are all xeno.

Karol wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Harlequins and Eldar are different factions in the same Codex.
I think that Generic Marines and Viking Marines can be in the same 'Dex too.

Eldar a side faction. Ultramarines alone have more special characters, then eldar combined probably. And there would still be all the IF, RG, CF, SW, BA, IH special characters, their special type of units we are talking tens of pages of rules, and GW also wants to show pictures of stuff. Even before the obligatory 2-3 detachment rules for every marine faction, their own relics, warlord traits, specific stratagems the book would be huge. Such a space marine codex would be the proverbial 1000 pages long.

It would be a bit like saying that tau, all eldar and orks, tyranids and necrons too should be in one book. Because they are all xeno.

Not if GW removed some of the special characters from these chapters. SW really don't need a dozen SC, and IH, RG, WS, IF and Salamanders literally have a single SC each and no special units. That was mainly so they'd have something to put in their supplements. Even the special units that DA, BA and BT have are easily replicated through the regular SM units and maybe one or two additional rules or equipment options. SW are maybe a little different, but probably not so different you couldn't get close to them just using the SM codex.

As an example, BA have Death Company and Sanguinary Guard as their special units. Both can be represented using the Vanguard Veteran unit entry and a couple of special rules and minor equipment option changes. As a BA player I wouldn't be opposed to that approach. Nor would I bemoan the removal of Tycho as a SC, for example.

Not everyone wants to have their unique units stripped away and 'Counts As'd with something else.

No, Slipspace, just no.

I don't agree with Karol that Eldar are a side faction, but there is no need to start proposing cuts to SM just because he claimed they were.

Slipspace wrote:
To repeat what I said in the N&R thread, these rules feel like a step backwards to me. Removing everything except Light Cover puts us right back to 8th and seems to make terrain less impactful overall. I would at least have liked to see them keep Dense as its own type of terrain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 oni wrote:
Just a thought... I was looking at the new Dataslates and it occurred to me that there is no unit composition listed. The min/max number of models is easily handled in the points listing, but what about default wargear, available wargear upgrades and their quantities? I'm thinking that the index/codex datasheet will have more detail than the reference cards and the examples we're seeing are the cards.

The key thing to remember about the dataslates is they're effectively a playing aid. They're designed to allow you to use the unit on the battlefield and it's assumed everything will be WYSIWYG. All the pre-game stuff you need to know like default equipment, options and unit size will be in the Codex/Index as that's not directly relevant once you're at the table.

Getting cover in 8th edition was so difficult we almost did not play with it. Units early qualified for it.

Now if any part of the model is in cover, it gets cover.

So that same tip of a banner pole that let's you completely annihilate an entire squad that you cannot acually see also provides cover if you can see the entire squad execpt for that banner pole.

Or the entire unit can be standing on the open, but if one member of an attacking squad cannot see the tip of one model's gun barrel, because it's behind a wall... the unit has cover.

Getting cover on 10th will be easy, so easy in fact I expect most attacks will be made at units in cover.

If I am somehow misinterpreting the very generous LOS/cover rules on 10th please let me know.

PenitentJake wrote:
Behaviour performed by a truck and behavior performed by a person are not analagous even when the behaviours are identical.

Vehicles must also take Desperate Escape checks (when surrounded or Battleshocked), so by the rules trucks and people do behave the same.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Now if any part of the model is in cover, it gets cover.

So that same tip of a banner pole that let's you completely annihilate an entire squad that you cannot acually see also provides cover if you can see the entire squad execpt for that banner pole.

Or the entire unit can be standing on the open, but if one member of an attacking squad cannot see the tip of one model's gun barrel, because it's behind a wall... the unit has cover.

Getting cover on 10th will be easy, so easy in fact I expect most attacks will be made at units in cover.

If I am somehow misinterpreting the very generous LOS/cover rules on 10th please let me know.

As far as i understood it, 'Benefit of Cover' operates on a per-model basis exclusively, so the whole unit 'gets cover' for as many attacks as you can allocate against that hypothetical one obscured model before it croaks, and the rest of the attacks go on without BOC. It's dumb, because these situations probably mean you have to slow-roll until the coverdude is gone.

Other than that, banner poles et al. are not a problem that popped up just now - it's more of a player-problem than a rule problem. If you play with the sort of people that gets unpleasant about these things, no amount of specification in the rules is going to save you from asshattery: the asshattery just becomes about a given model fitting the specification instead of more general problems. You can't have reasonable solutions with unreasonable players.

We actually don't know.

We only have the definition "Partially visible" and "Fully visible". We don't know what they mean.

Spoletta wrote:
We actually don't know.

We only have the definition "Partially visible" and "Fully visible". We don't know what they mean.

Even if the rules say that e.g. banners or antennas do not count, a determined asshat will just start to argue if any given thing falls under stuff that does not count or is something else. There's just no winning these discussion or preventing them from coming up - what usually prevents them is both sides acting in good faith, having an unspoken social contract that the point of the game is to have fun and an understanding that rules-lawyering the edge cases too much harms that.

Tsagualsa wrote:
Even if the rules say that e.g. banners or antennas do not count...

From what we've seen from the "How to play 40k" leaks, it's any part of the model, so banners and antennas sadly.

I hope we're wrong about this.

And if cover is on a model by model basis (and hopefully LOS as well), then that could be better. Still pretty wild that terrain doesn't slow you down at all (unless it's height related). They wanted simple and not simplistic, but still... that's silly.

The official previews have done a very poor job of explaining the basics of 10th edition so far. Hopefully that is what they have planned to fill the time once they finish the faction previews next week.

I would also not worry too much about the leaked information, as until we see all the pages we don't know what they missed in their leak.

But, dense cover in 9th was silly and people just accepted the abstraction and got on with their lives. I'm sure most of us will manage to do the same in 10th.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:
Even if the rules say that e.g. banners or antennas do not count...

From what we've seen from the "How to play 40k" leaks, it's any part of the model, so banners and antennas sadly.

"Right in the heraldry!"

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Not everyone wants to have their unique units stripped away and 'Counts As'd with something else.

That's very dependent on what's actually "unique".

Tsagualsa wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
We actually don't know.

We only have the definition "Partially visible" and "Fully visible". We don't know what they mean.

Even if the rules say that e.g. banners or antennas do not count, a determined asshat will just start to argue if any given thing falls under stuff that does not count or is something else. There's just no winning these discussion or preventing them from coming up - what usually prevents them is both sides acting in good faith, having an unspoken social contract that the point of the game is to have fun and an understanding that rules-lawyering the edge cases too much harms that.

Yes but a simple phrase that says "do not count antennas or banners when determining LOS" would remove a lot of those interactions to begin with.

Dysartes wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:
Even if the rules say that e.g. banners or antennas do not count...

From what we've seen from the "How to play 40k" leaks, it's any part of the model, so banners and antennas sadly.

"Right in the heraldry!"

Exalted

 The Red Hobbit wrote:
Yes but a simple phrase that says "do not count antennas or banners when determining LOS" would remove a lot of those interactions to begin with.

I know that 5th had a rule like that, where you couldn't target a model if all you could see was "...a weapon, an antenna, a banner or some other ornament...wing and tail..."

I guess we will know in a couple of weeks. Plus there is always a chance that some of the leaks were from draft copies, which have some minor differences from the final versions.