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.

 Trickstick wrote:

 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.

Just use a plain pushfit marine or even a stack of bases at the appropriate height as 'dummy' for contentious cases - eleminates all problems with antennas, eyestalks, tactical rocks, tentacles, wings, prehensile slaaneshi *attachments* or whatever.

They won't prevent them being los because "arguments" that apparently occur and hold up every game for hours over any slightly potentially debatable issue. See templates etc.

Dai wrote:
They won't prevent them being los because "arguments" that apparently occur and hold up every game for hours over any slightly potentially debatable issue. See templates etc.

Templates were perfectly designed to cause arguments because it is almost impossible for both players to see the parallax the same way.

Tsagualsa wrote:
Just use a plain pushfit marine or even a stack of bases at the appropriate height as 'dummy' for contentious cases - eleminates all problems with antennas, eyestalks, tactical rocks, tentacles, wings, prehensile slaaneshi *attachments* or whatever.

One of the common ways to handle LOS in other games is to use TLOS, but projecting a cylinder (typically the width of the base) up to a given height rather than going by the model itself. That gets you straightforward establishment of line-of-sight in a cluttered, vertically dynamic environment (something mechanical line-of-sight systems can struggle with), but without the actual sculpt being relevant. Infinity makes it work pretty well.

But 40K is stuck in this archaic system where the static pose of your model matters, prone snipers can't so much as kneel to see over sandbags, inspiring your men with a sword held aloft is a great way to get them all killed by bullets bending around intervening obstacles, 'modeling for advantage' is something people actually worry about, and we get these stupid arguments over which elements of a fictional space alien man are decorative and which constitute valid targets for attack.

At least I haven't seen any indication of 10th using '25% obscured' or other impossible-to-objectively-assess measurements.

Dai wrote:
They won't prevent them being los because "arguments" that apparently occur and hold up every game for hours over any slightly potentially debatable issue. See templates etc.

To be fair, template disputes weren't generally hours-long affairs. They usually got resolved quickly (with a roll-off if nothing else), but there was frequently a certain amount of going along with your opponent's count even if you didn't necessarily 100% agree for the sake of being a good sport and keeping things moving. Which got annoying over time.

It's not that anyone was trying to cheat anyone else, but it chafed a little and left many of us wishing there was a more cut-and-dry system in place.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Dai wrote:
They won't prevent them being los because "arguments" that apparently occur and hold up every game for hours over any slightly potentially debatable issue. See templates etc.

To be fair, template disputes weren't generally hours-long affairs. They usually got resolved quickly (with a roll-off if nothing else), but there was frequently a certain amount of going along with your opponent's count even if you didn't necessarily 100% agree for the sake of being a good sport and keeping things moving. Which got annoying over time.

It's not that anyone was trying to cheat anyone else, but it chafed a little and left many of us wishing there was a more cut-and-dry system in place.

It was a problem more for people who don't like confrontation and so someone who was more willing to take advantage of someone would benefit more.

Granted I was being a bit of a snarky arse, apologies but I imagine that nevertheless any part of the model will grant line of sight and that this will be the reason. Will be pleasantly surprised if not

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.

I'd just prefer to go the other way - Inject some more variety into the Eldar (and so on) codices. The choices were/are Eldrad and NPC Eldar Character everyone expects to lose and die. Its especially true for armies like GSC. When is the last time anyone read a Black Library novel, or saw a Summer Campaign and said "You know, I think the Genestealers are going to win this one"? Part of that is that the Summer Campaigns are pre-written into a corner. "If this planet falls it'll be the death of the Imperium" ergo the planet will not fall because we're maintaining the Status Quo forever. Maintaining the Status Quo is and should be the goal, but doing so while letting the planet fall from time to time should also be built into the premise. Guilliman, being the master strategist didn't put all his eggs into the Vigilus basket, and sent a strike force of Black Templars and White Scars to liberate the plant Warinus from the (A sub-faction not on the main campaign world). This would also help with the issue of there only being one planet under seige in the galaxy so everyone and their sister is going there thing.

Breton wrote:
Maintaining the Status Quo is and should be the goal, but doing so while letting the planet fall from time to time should also be built into the premise.

That would take actual effort with worldbuilding and such, not just putting on paper whatever the writer has on their mind at the given moment.

 AtoMaki wrote:

Breton wrote:
Maintaining the Status Quo is and should be the goal, but doing so while letting the planet fall from time to time should also be built into the premise.

That would take actual effort with worldbuilding and such, not just putting on paper whatever the writer has on their mind at the given moment.

I'm willing to suggest we expect at least that much effort.

Drukhari spoiler is up and its pretty bad.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/05/29/warhammer-40000-faction-focus-drukhari/

dominuschao wrote:
Drukhari spoiler is up and its pretty bad.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/05/29/warhammer-40000-faction-focus-drukhari/

Bad in what context? There's barely any units shown, they get to hand out easy rerolls and their weapons/profiles aren't horrid. We also have no points.

dominuschao wrote:
Drukhari spoiler is up and its pretty bad.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/05/29/warhammer-40000-faction-focus-drukhari/

Sorry, I see nothing there that'll be bad for my own Drukhari.
Nothing particularly exciting, but nothing bad.

Every time new faction focus comes out complaining begins. At least every faction gets to be miserable

People tend to look at what they had so when profile looks worse than it was in 9e it's time to complain.

Or people say "makb game less lethal!" And then complain when damage output of own army dropped. "i mean make other armies damage output worse!"

tneva82 wrote:
Every time new faction focus comes out complaining begins. At least every faction gets to be miserable

People tend to look at what they had so when profile looks worse than it was in 9e it's time to complain.

Or people say "makb game less lethal!" And then complain when damage output of own army dropped. "i mean make other armies damage output worse!"

This is a large part of the problem, the game is going through a reductionist phase in terms of lethality and offensive stats largely, alongside options, so people are literally only losing stuf rather than gaining which is inherently negative. Pair that with the innate of wanting to be the best or have an advantage (it's only human), then yes each preview will suck to that factions owners.

Bad in that its completely lackluster. And still tries to force design decisions around taking all 3 HQ choices.

The strat they revealed sucks.

PFP and empowered through pain both I was hoping for more. Those are the defining rules no? But both faction rule and army rule total up to spend tokens on reroll adv/charge/hits.

Blaster became worse by virtue of game wide increases in toughness while blasters remain s8.


Whats good from the spoiler?
Splinter weaponry goes to assault 2 and anti 3+ which is probably what it should have been to start with. My bet is it won't matter much. Not like we don't know how an ap 0 bolter profile performs by now. This change mostly removes the benefit light armoured t3 armies were getting from splinter fire. It still won't win games.

Venoms weaponry hardly changed, the unvuln is now meaningless but they confer a reembark so I guess thats good.

And lastly it seems BS was not worsened like some other factions so maybe that can be considered positive.

Overall nothing to inspire me for drukhari in 10th so far.

Dudeface wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Every time new faction focus comes out complaining begins. At least every faction gets to be miserable

People tend to look at what they had so when profile looks worse than it was in 9e it's time to complain.

Or people say "makb game less lethal!" And then complain when damage output of own army dropped. "i mean make other armies damage output worse!"

This is a large part of the problem, the game is going through a reductionist phase in terms of lethality and offensive stats largely, alongside options, so people are literally only losing stuf rather than gaining which is inherently negative. Pair that with the innate of wanting to be the best or have an advantage (it's only human), then yes each preview will suck to that factions owners.

Well with this preview my Drukhari infantry gained a way to be combat squaded.
Not sure how usefull that's going to prove to me, but it's a +.

I'm MORE concerned about what I haven't seen....

dominuschao wrote:
Bad in that its completely lackluster. And still tries to force design decisions around taking all 3 HQ choices.

The strat they revealed sucks.

PFP and empowered through pain both I was hoping for more. Those are the defining rules no? But both faction rule and army rule total up to spend tokens on reroll adv/charge/hits.

Blaster became worse by virtue of game wide increases in toughness while blasters remain s8.


Whats good from the spoiler?
Splinter weaponry goes to assault 2 and anti 3+ which is probably what it should have been to start with. My bet is it won't matter much. Not like we don't know how an ap 0 bolter profile performs by now. This change mostly removes the benefit light armoured t3 armies were getting from splinter fire. It still won't win games.

Venoms weaponry hardly changed, the unvuln is now meaningless but they confer a reembark so I guess thats good.

And lastly it seems BS was not worsened like some other factions so maybe that can be considered positive.

Overall nothing to inspire me for drukhari in 10th so far.

Well... what did you want? 2 shot anti infantry 3+ ap-2 d2 splinter rifles with devastating wounds on and t10 raiders with a -1 to hit and 5+ for them to fire out of whilst moving 14" a turn with full rerolls to hit?

tneva82 wrote:
Every time new faction focus comes out complaining begins. At least every faction gets to be miserable

People tend to look at what they had so when profile looks worse than it was in 9e it's time to complain.

Or people say "makb game less lethal!" And then complain when damage output of own army dropped. "i mean make other armies damage output worse!"

If this is directed at my post I did not ask for less lethal or anything like that. I rarely post but I want to be heard so when GW reads these forums or if then they get feedback. I like the current book and current state of the game. I see this new direction as the same old reset bs they have been pulling since I started in 3rd so ya I'm salty. And I am also looking at what my army does well and does not. Anti tank can be a problem historically, so when blasters a staple of drukhari anti tank get worse by mech getting tougher that is concerning to me. Venoms already see little play and now I don't see that changing. Invuln reduced to 6+ and BS to 4+ unless they remain stationary shows a lack of understanding of drukhari warfare by GW to me. Unless they plan on making them incredibly cheap. Or the game much less lethal which by the other spoilers I'm not really seeing it. Sure the HWB looks better in some respects, but ap1 offsets that, and access is limited. Same for dark lances although at least they scaled those better. I also see hints in the release such as splitting units pre battle. Will GW let units of 5 split? We don't know but doubtful. So this to me says squad sizes have changed and likely increased. None of these things are very inspiring to me so far.

Dudeface wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Every time new faction focus comes out complaining begins. At least every faction gets to be miserable

People tend to look at what they had so when profile looks worse than it was in 9e it's time to complain.

Or people say "makb game less lethal!" And then complain when damage output of own army dropped. "i mean make other armies damage output worse!"

This is a large part of the problem, the game is going through a reductionist phase in terms of lethality and offensive stats largely, alongside options, so people are literally only losing stuf rather than gaining which is inherently negative. Pair that with the innate of wanting to be the best or have an advantage (it's only human), then yes each preview will suck to that factions owners.

I admit, I'm guilty of this to a degree (I still don't see a good way for Sisters to deal with anything tougher than T9 Rhino Chassis), but in my defense, my biggest gripe was an apples to apples comparison with Strand of Fate where Eldar are getting a massively superior copy of the miracle dice mechanic. Do you know how much better miracle dice would be if we just had all of them at the beginning of the game? I don't care if we get 5-10 TIMES the number of dice Eldar do over the course of the game, Strands are still way better.

Dudeface wrote:

dominuschao wrote:
Bad in that its completely lackluster. And still tries to force design decisions around taking all 3 HQ choices.

The strat they revealed sucks.

PFP and empowered through pain both I was hoping for more. Those are the defining rules no? But both faction rule and army rule total up to spend tokens on reroll adv/charge/hits.

Blaster became worse by virtue of game wide increases in toughness while blasters remain s8.


Whats good from the spoiler?
Splinter weaponry goes to assault 2 and anti 3+ which is probably what it should have been to start with. My bet is it won't matter much. Not like we don't know how an ap 0 bolter profile performs by now. This change mostly removes the benefit light armoured t3 armies were getting from splinter fire. It still won't win games.

Venoms weaponry hardly changed, the unvuln is now meaningless but they confer a reembark so I guess thats good.

And lastly it seems BS was not worsened like some other factions so maybe that can be considered positive.

Overall nothing to inspire me for drukhari in 10th so far.

Well... what did you want? 2 shot anti infantry 3+ ap-2 d2 splinter rifles with devastating wounds on and t10 raiders with a -1 to hit and 5+ for them to fire out of whilst moving 14" a turn with full rerolls to hit?

Is that your wishlist for your anti infantry? Cmon now man I didn't ask for that.
I just want.. something I can get behind. Honestly I couldn't really care less about that profile. But the army rule and detachment rules those seem to be the meat and gravy of the armies now. So thats what I have to work with until somewhere around the end of 2024 or beyond when we get a full dex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As Erjak referenced.. Aeldari. Those are some decent maybe OP faction/army rules but a cool mechanic anyways.

PFP could of been so cool but its just not.

Idk maybe I'm just smoking hopium again.

dominuschao wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

dominuschao wrote:
Bad in that its completely lackluster. And still tries to force design decisions around taking all 3 HQ choices.

The strat they revealed sucks.

PFP and empowered through pain both I was hoping for more. Those are the defining rules no? But both faction rule and army rule total up to spend tokens on reroll adv/charge/hits.

Blaster became worse by virtue of game wide increases in toughness while blasters remain s8.


Whats good from the spoiler?
Splinter weaponry goes to assault 2 and anti 3+ which is probably what it should have been to start with. My bet is it won't matter much. Not like we don't know how an ap 0 bolter profile performs by now. This change mostly removes the benefit light armoured t3 armies were getting from splinter fire. It still won't win games.

Venoms weaponry hardly changed, the unvuln is now meaningless but they confer a reembark so I guess thats good.

And lastly it seems BS was not worsened like some other factions so maybe that can be considered positive.

Overall nothing to inspire me for drukhari in 10th so far.

Well... what did you want? 2 shot anti infantry 3+ ap-2 d2 splinter rifles with devastating wounds on and t10 raiders with a -1 to hit and 5+ for them to fire out of whilst moving 14" a turn with full rerolls to hit?

Is that your wishlist for your anti infantry? Cmon now man I didn't ask for that.
I just want.. something I can get behind. Honestly I couldn't really care less about that profile. But the army rule and detachment rules those seem to be the meat and gravy of the armies now. So thats what I have to work with until somewhere around the end of 2024 or beyond when we get a full dex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As Erjak referenced.. Aeldari. Those are some decent maybe OP faction/army rules but a cool mechanic anyways.

PFP could of been so cool but its just not.

Idk maybe I'm just smoking hopium again.

I don't know, you're complaining about things that just don't seem that bad to anyone outside the army, you could argue the army rules are a little dull or convoluted, or even uninspired. But they're not bad. I think it's too early to make a judgement on the venom but it's role will come down to points value I think.

For my own armies, I'm happy with the profiles shown, I do have some gsc as well but I've realistic hopes there for tomorrow.

I can see that as someone who doesn't play drukhari. And honestly thats how I see some other complaints about armies I have no personal investment in.

I play many armies so its not end times for me but drukhari is by far my favorite to field. And they are very nuanced. For example forcing triple specific HQs to access that strat or unlock part of the army rule is just bad design and unnecessary. Apply that to a faction you play and it would probably piss you off. Taking choices away is poor game design. And to stretch it a bit I can see this leading to things like archons can only join kabalite units. So no archon with grots.

Edit- theres plenty we haven't seen so maybe I'll change my perspective. Just haven't liked really anything from 10th. Much as 9th seemed like a shitshow I'll now admit 9th with arks of omen is possibly the most balanced enjoyable 40k I've played out of 7 editions. I'm sad to see it replaced by something that seems.. less.

The triple HQ thing is Detachment specific, so if you don't want to take the HQs then don't play that Detachment. Or play the Detachment, don't take the HQs you don't want to take (still getting the pain tokens for the HQs you did take), and just don't use the Stratagem.

The only thing at the moment that says you have to have all three HQs is the strat.

 Afrodactyl wrote:
The triple HQ thing is Detachment specific, so if you don't want to take the HQs then don't play that Detachment.

What are the alternative detachments?

 vipoid wrote:

 Afrodactyl wrote:
The triple HQ thing is Detachment specific, so if you don't want to take the HQs then don't play that Detachment.

What are the alternative detachments?

At the moment, there isn't one. But that's because they've only previewed one Detachment per faction and not because there won't be other detachments.

But I've also already explained that you can still run the same Detachment but without the different, still get the benefits, and just ignore the strat.

Consider there is something that exists, lets call it a complexity budget that GW is operating from. And they have stated it, something to the effect of all rules will fit on 2 pages.I am taking this into account when I read these articles.

So I am unhappy with how that budget is being spent.

Going over the article a few times I've found some other tidbits to be happy about and then more not so much.

I believe DE has lost advance + charge. that is a massive hit to the current playstyle. Not something that can be made up for with anything in this release. Definitely not by splinter weaponry.

Venoms and actually splinter weaponry in general will be difficult to justify in this edition I believe, which is shaping up to be mech and monster heavy. Splinterfire is now anti infantry not simply wounds on set value for non vehicles like current. So it received the buff it needed an edition late.

Shredders are flamers now so maybe they will see some play but then they are now ap 0 so probably fairly niche use.

My current feeling is that if raiders receive the assault vehicle treatment then mechanized assault will be back on the menu after several editions and I adore this playsyle (depending on how friendly destroyed results are/not). And venoms won't have much use in that case.

Either way if the haemie stays similar to now then it is a handicap to include one.

Also concerned for how the HQs weaponry plays out. Currently both the good HQs require both a trait and a relic meaning 2 augments.

Overall drukhari is a faction easy to break in either direction.

tneva82 wrote:
Every time new faction focus comes out complaining begins. At least every faction gets to be miserable

People tend to look at what they had so when profile looks worse than it was in 9e it's time to complain.

Or people say "makb game less lethal!" And then complain when damage output of own army dropped. "i mean make other armies damage output worse!"

That's not all the complaints - some are valid like the thematic issues of the Chaos SM ability.

ERJAK wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Every time new faction focus comes out complaining begins. At least every faction gets to be miserable

People tend to look at what they had so when profile looks worse than it was in 9e it's time to complain.

Or people say "makb game less lethal!" And then complain when damage output of own army dropped. "i mean make other armies damage output worse!"

This is a large part of the problem, the game is going through a reductionist phase in terms of lethality and offensive stats largely, alongside options, so people are literally only losing stuf rather than gaining which is inherently negative. Pair that with the innate of wanting to be the best or have an advantage (it's only human), then yes each preview will suck to that factions owners.

I admit, I'm guilty of this to a degree (I still don't see a good way for Sisters to deal with anything tougher than T9 Rhino Chassis), but in my defense, my biggest gripe was an apples to apples comparison with Strand of Fate where Eldar are getting a massively superior copy of the miracle dice mechanic. Do you know how much better miracle dice would be if we just had all of them at the beginning of the game? I don't care if we get 5-10 TIMES the number of dice Eldar do over the course of the game, Strands are still way better.

Don't worry, the Eldar players will show up to tell you it's fine and why their army is actually hard to play LOL

 Afrodactyl wrote:
At the moment, there isn't one. But that's because they've only previewed one Detachment per faction and not because there won't be other detachments.

Unless you know differently, new detachments are something you get with a codex. So for DE that's at least a year away.

So no, for the foreseeable future there are no alternative detachments.

 Afrodactyl wrote:
But I've also already explained that you can still run the same Detachment but without the different, still get the benefits, and just ignore the strat.

What benefits?

dominuschao wrote:
Consider there is something that exists, lets call it a complexity budget that GW is operating from. And they have stated it, something to the effect of all rules will fit on 2 pages.I am taking this into account when I read these articles.

So I am unhappy with how that budget is being spent.

Going over the article a few times I've found some other tidbits to be happy about and then more not so much.

I believe DE has lost advance + charge. that is a massive hit to the current playstyle. Not something that can be made up for with anything in this release. Definitely not by splinter weaponry.

Venoms and actually splinter weaponry in general will be difficult to justify in this edition I believe, which is shaping up to be mech and monster heavy. Splinterfire is now anti infantry not simply wounds on set value for non vehicles like current. So it received the buff it needed an edition late.

Shredders are flamers now so maybe they will see some play but then they are now ap 0 so probably fairly niche use.

My current feeling is that if raiders receive the assault vehicle treatment then mechanized assault will be back on the menu after several editions and I adore this playsyle (depending on how friendly destroyed results are/not). And venoms won't have much use in that case.

Either way if the haemie stays similar to now then it is a handicap to include one.

Also concerned for how the HQs weaponry plays out. Currently both the good HQs require both a trait and a relic meaning 2 augments.

Overall drukhari is a faction easy to break in either direction.

^Agreed with all the above.

I look forward to HQs still requiring 2 enhancements each in order to be actually worth a damn.