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.

I'd like to see some lore advancments like maybe Vect cuts a deal with slanesh. Personally I'm not a fan of the yannari lore. I would like to see a greater split between dark eldar and eldat not a consolidation into one faction.

Chaos eldar. Make it happen.

Boosykes wrote:
I'd like to see some lore advancments like maybe Vect cuts a deal with slanesh. Personally I'm not a fan of the yannari lore. I would like to see a greater split between dark eldar and eldat not a consolidation into one faction.

That would be pretty out of character for Vect and would probably go over about as well as Lelith being a Slaanesh worshipper in that C.S. Goto novel. But some lore advancement/exploration would be nice. They pulled the lever by having Kheradruakh's skull collection expand Aelindrach in Fall of Biel-Tan. It would be interesting to see how that has impacted the dark city and how that ongoing daemon incursion is going. Plus, Lady Malys has been making some moves in the background for a while now (including sponsoring Yvraine). It would be nice to revisit some of those hooks and do something with them.

Chaos eldar. Make it happen.

Narratively, they've been a thing for a long while. They just don't pop up much. Unless you mean you want models/rules for them. In which case, they can get in in line behind exodites and think about how they're going to be distinct and interesting enough to warrant their place on the release schedule.

PenitentJake wrote:


They thing that no one is saying yet (because most people here prefer to play 2k anyways) is how bad these rules are for smaller game sizes. At 2k, it's easy to bring a Kabal, a Cult and a Coven on the raid. At 1k? Not quite as easy. And sure, 10th killed support for 500 point games (unless it's Combat Patrol or Arks of Omen), but if you were playing at 500 points as say, a starting point for a Crusade, these rules are even worse.

Any index detachment should be as scalable as possible, because it's what we're all stuck with 'til dex time.

These abilities do not scale well.

I didn't particularly like what I saw here, but I do acknowledge that it could have been worse.

Gw rules never scale well. If you want different sizes to work better house rule.

vipoid wrote:

 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?

It is essentially a guarantee that there will be more than one Detachment per faction in the release index. There will then be further detachments with the Codexes.

It also goes both ways; where's your source for there not being any other detachments? To say there's going to be no other detachments whatsoever until the codexes is a bit overdramatic considering they have officially revealed very little about the game.

As far as the benefits go, you still get the extra starting pain token per each type of HQ. So you're still getting your PFP benefits with a straightforward way of boosting your starting amount. Even if you only take one of the HQs it's still a benefit over the zero you'd get otherwise.

And even if there is only the one Detachment per faction in the index, you still get the extra pain token(s). Be grateful you have a Detachment rule that's playing into your faction's main mechanic, and leave the naysaying until after the index comes out. There's no point in throwing the whole faction out when we've basically only seen two datasheets and an army rule.

"The Index Cards released at the dawn of the new edition will each come with one Detachment,"

Note the word "one". One as in singular. Not plural.

But sure. You obviously know more than gw how many gw releases

Gw told this straight up 07.04.2023. So almost 2 months ago...

 Afrodactyl wrote:

vipoid wrote:

 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?

It is essentially a guarantee that there will be more than one Detachment per faction in the release index. There will then be further detachments with the Codexes.

It also goes both ways; where's your source for there not being any other detachments? To say there's going to be no other detachments whatsoever until the codexes is a bit overdramatic considering they have officially revealed very little about the game.

As far as the benefits go, you still get the extra starting pain token per each type of HQ. So you're still getting your PFP benefits with a straightforward way of boosting your starting amount. Even if you only take one of the HQs it's still a benefit over the zero you'd get otherwise.

And even if there is only the one Detachment per faction in the index, you still get the extra pain token(s). Be grateful you have a Detachment rule that's playing into your faction's main mechanic, and leave the naysaying until after the index comes out. There's no point in throwing the whole faction out when we've basically only seen two datasheets and an army rule.

GW literally told us that the index rules only have one detachment!

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/07/faction-rules-are-leaner-and-cleaner-in-the-new-edition-of-warhammer-40000/

The Index Cards released at the dawn of the new edition will each come with one Detachment, representing a common fighting style for a particular faction, and more will emerge as new Codexes arrive and armies expand.

(emphasis mine)

And compared to the other factions’ core detachment bonus, the DE one is both one of the weakest and I think the only one that requires specific models to be included in the army. It is pretty bad!

Ya just one detachment per faction on release.

That's why some folks are upset that their detachment buff looks lame.

Well I apologise for not remembering a single line from an article from two months ago. There's no need for the snarky remarks, people make mistakes. Unfortunately I don't have the last two months of WarCom articles burned into my memory.

Regardless, my overall point about the Detachment rule and it only being beneficial for Drukhari stands. Just how beneficial you want it to be is up to you when you build your list.

Thinking back to the terrain preview, the changes to splinter weapons might be a bigger deal than I thought.

Plunging fire seems to work for vehicles, and the rules for shooting out of a transport basically treat the guns as belonging to the transport. Plus, venoms (and presumably raiders) have PFP.

So splinter shots coming out of a raider on a ruin will be hitting on 3+ (rerolling 1's for a pain token), wounding on 3+, and be AP-1 instead of AP0.

I haven't crunched the numbers, but that seems like it might actually be respectable, especially against targets with lighter armor.

Then again, it just now dawned on me that "anti-infantry" probably means that poison no longer kicks in against monstrous creatures, bikers, cavalry, etc. So some of our preferred high-toughness targets of the past might no longer care about splinters.

dominuschao wrote:
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.

I get it. Ahriman isn't a boss caster like he used to be. Things are changing and it's just different. I imagine we'll get a better idea of how things come together with the demo games this week.

The whole realspace raid this is just this particular detachment so it sucks to be stuck for the moment, but that's the index life.

No one appears to be much of a "boss caster" anymore, with each character getting a shooting attack with a keyword that doesn't really do anything, and maybe some get another ability they can use to give a buff to something.

Psychic powers are basically not a thing in 10th until they either do a Endless Spell expansion or 11th rolls around and they realise they swung the pendulum waaaay too hard.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Between Chapter Approved and White Dwarf I don't think it will be long before we see alternative Detachments for the non codex armies.

It'd be nice if Chapter Approved reverted back to what it used to be, rather than just an All Tournaments All The Time book.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Thinking back to the terrain preview, the changes to splinter weapons might be a bigger deal than I thought.

Plunging fire seems to work for vehicles, and the rules for shooting out of a transport basically treat the guns as belonging to the transport. Plus, venoms (and presumably raiders) have PFP.

So splinter shots coming out of a raider on a ruin will be hitting on 3+ (rerolling 1's for a pain token), wounding on 3+, and be AP-1 instead of AP0.

I haven't crunched the numbers, but that seems like it might actually be respectable, especially against targets with lighter armor.

Then again, it just now dawned on me that "anti-infantry" probably means that poison no longer kicks in against monstrous creatures, bikers, cavalry, etc. So some of our preferred high-toughness targets of the past might no longer care about splinters.

Splinter rifles are probably the most upgraded weapon so far, but they forced it into infantry to keep it from being too much.

10 splinter rifles at long used to do 1.1 to marines and now they do 3. It could work well if infantry is favored more over dreadnoughts / monsters. You can go to town on Custodes compared to other small arms.

Squadding in venoms seems pretty great with those spare rifle models still being somewhat useful. And then since transport buffs transfer you can empower the venom and the models inside for a fun little dakka boat. No idea if that'd be worthwhile though.

So extreme anti-infantry is being used to show the poisoned nature of Dark Eldar weaponry.

I'm surprised just how few anti-monster things we've seen.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
So extreme anti-infantry is being used to show the poisoned nature of Dark Eldar weaponry.

I'm surprised just how few anti-monster things we've seen.

Well. "Extreme." Against most infantry, it's basically the same as getting shot at by tau pulse rifles with less range and a better BS. The AP from plunging fire is theoretically available to everyone, though our flying, open-topped transports mean we'll probably be better at using it than most.

The more I think about it, the more I hope splinter weapons become "anti-non-vehicle" or something. If my poison is good enough for a space wolf, it should be good enough for his Fenrisian wolf and T-Cav friends too. I can understand moving away from letting it impact monsters though. Mechanically, it can be awkward when you face daemons or tyranids and your splinters are suddenly good against both the enemy's big stuff and their little stuff. Fluff-wise, you can hand waive it as a smaller dosage (for the monster's size) being insufficient to cause immediate harm.

Thanks PenitentJake I fixed my summary now.

Boosykes wrote:
Ya just one detachment per faction on release.

That's why some folks are upset that their detachment buff looks lame.

Exactly. And access to only 6 strats total we could reasonably assume those strats would maybe be a little more meaningful.. But instead some factions so far have had 1/6 wasted, in our case on a trap build.


I started out thinking splinter weapons seem decent at first.
But then consider they are hardly different from what we already have that doesn't see play. i.e. poisoned tongue with longer double tap range but now can't scratch the paint on bikes/monsters/cavalry/vehicles/titanic even swarms! lol. So nurglings are wounded on 5s. Anti infantry on poison is just way too niche now to be bringing in any concentration.

PFP tokens are also going to evaporate too quickly, just like venoms.
Can we destroy a unit per token? If not then the exchange rate of 1 token for 1 unit means there goes the only army rules by t2.
I'm guessing many will spend a couple tokens t1 on ravagers so thats maybe 1 token back? Not that rerolls isn't potent it is. Maybe not in a marines full rerolls every turn or twice with guiliman sort of way, but still potent while it lasts (so these won't be spent on splinter shots).
Its that the mechanic sucks as the only army rule. I look at daemons for what a solid army rule could look like.

Then there is the question of assault delivery. At this point it mostly hinges on if raiders get an assault vehicle rule or not. I would love that for grots. But probably not since that would make exactly 1 wych unit too fast with a strat. So instead every other infantry won't be fast enough. Also the timing on PFP sucks. Spend a precious token at the start of the phase.. and then make it the first time anyway lol.

Meanwhile durability has actually decreased for the known units in an edition where durability is on the rise. While the new overwatch strat that looks pretty harsh on glass hammer assault armies is gonna be more relevant than previous.

To me these latest rules changes are just bizarre.

It seems pretty clear that they are separating weapons more distinctly across target types.

With increased toughness and strength, they've created ~4 bands of attack type - light, medium, heavy and superheavy.

infantry, heavy infantry, vehicles/monsters, big vehicles/monsters.

This makes everything easier to balance, as they have less crossover utility. Weapons like the missile launcher will be less common but more valuable for that flexibility.

so we see infantry are carrying mostly anti infantry weapons, with some anti heavier infantry/light vehicle.

But really only the lascannon/lance equivalents are now actually vehicle threats. Most ranged anti tank seems to be attached to other tanks.

This will encourage diversity in list building and model use, rather than being able to take infantry units that can effectively take on all comers.

It's a bit more rock paper scissors, but should hypothetically balance easier.

Tanks carry ton of anti-infantry weapons so mechanized lists won't have any issue killing foot soldier lists. There definitely seems to be a haves and have nots in terms of who gets to kill tanks with their infantry; space marines of both varieties will be totally fine bringing as many lascannons as they please without a single tank, meanwhile sisters don't seem to have any solution for killing a land raider. I do not understand why melta was not made one of the anti-tank weapons.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
So extreme anti-infantry is being used to show the poisoned nature of Dark Eldar weaponry.

I'm surprised just how few anti-monster things we've seen.

I still get the feeling they're setting up a Rock-Paper-Scissors i.e. Characters and Monster types (so Dreads etc not necessarily the MONSTER keyword) eat infantry, infantry eats vehicles, vehicles eat characters/Monsters - as an example, I'm not sure what the actual chain looks like though. It could be Monsters eat infantry, Vehicles eat monsters, infantry doesn't eat anything, but scores the points so you'll need Monsters and Vehicles to support them - Vehicles to eat the other guy's monsters, Monsters to eat the other guy's infantry. Some of them may also break the paradigm out of "tradition" i.e. the Land Raider Crusader eats infantry not monsters or vehicles, while the Land Raider (Original) does Vehicles to keep their armament/historical preferred target in play.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

dominuschao wrote:
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.

I get it. Ahriman isn't a boss caster like he used to be. Things are changing and it's just different. I imagine we'll get a better idea of how things come together with the demo games this week.

The whole realspace raid this is just this particular detachment so it sucks to be stuck for the moment, but that's the index life.

Only for some. The detachment and faction abilities are very 'have and have not.' Some synergize real well (Chaos Knights), others are random bobbles of gak (Ad Mech). Others are a bit weak or superior in one or the other. (I'm still not sure that DG making objectives sticky and gross actually does anything at all if the enemy bothers to contest them).

It also matters where the Codex release falls. AdMech having their terrible rad bombardment detachment rule doesn't matter as much, because they're codex #3 or #4. Others are stuck with whatever slop they're given for a year or more. In a few cases, its probably going to be 2 years (9 codexes are on the table up to next spring. Even ignoring snowflake marines, which we can't because DA are part of the favored 9, we've got 21 factions + imperial agents. So at the pace given, some folks are going into 2025 still waiting.

If assault can effectively fill AT role that could reduce list building constraints for non meq. Or rather more specialized factions with less broad access to AT. And maybe GW is intending that for sisters, drukhari, GK, daemons etc.
I know it is currently my game plan. However this is in a mech lite or medium meta. 10th is feeling like I'll need to lean in harder but the plan got worse.

My perspective is same as Voss. Judging from the ordering of the spoilers I'm looking at 2025 for a dex.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
Tanks carry ton of anti-infantry weapons so mechanized lists won't have any issue killing foot soldier lists. There definitely seems to be a haves and have nots in terms of who gets to kill tanks with their infantry; space marines of both varieties will be totally fine bringing as many lascannons as they please without a single tank, meanwhile sisters don't seem to have any solution for killing a land raider. I do not understand why melta was not made one of the anti-tank weapons.

I'm not sure of this - the Lascannon may be the premier man-portable anti-tank weapon but I'm not convinced man portable anti-tank weapons will be good. A Dev squad still maxes out at four lascannon which (likely) means four shots. 12 if you max your slots. And its still what S12 vs T12 now instead of S9 vs T8? IG Tanks will put out about that much or more. Then they have their Superheavies which will likely do better with just their main gun. A SM Vindicator with a Demolisher Cannon will likely put out more. Gulliman's Hand of Dominion(melee) is more than two Dev Sqads on it's own. Its still early but my initial read is that 4 guys running around with Lascannon/Melta may not be the threat to tanks that it used to be. You'll probably still want something like that to pop the light tanks/medium vehicles (Rhinos, Chimera, Trukks, Storm Speeders and such) but if you want to go after the Main Battle Tank or bigger units - Land Raiders and above type stuff, Knights, Monoliths, Guard Super Heavies, etc. I think you need to pack some vehicles or monsters of your own. I don't think the Take All Comers list is going to be Infantry Only this time around - unless you're planning on punching the tanks. Obviously we haven't seen the points, or all the books/etc yet so that may change. Assuming similar points ratios between units i.e. two Dev Squads for about 1 Land Raider, a Leman Russ and a half or so for a Land Raider, two land raiders per TITANIC Knight - you get the idea assuming whatever Unit Y costs, its going to be about the same relative value to Unit Z: Assuming that's the case - and remembering that we're not limited to 3 or 6(-9) Heavy/Elite/whatever Slots - Rule of 3, Shots per Point efficiency, and S v T looks to be playing a bigger role this time around - while man portable just doesn't have the S.

Assuming Joe DevastatorMarine's Lascannon is half of a Godhammer Lascannon - he and his 3 buddies get 4 shots, 3 hit one misses, Oathed to 4 hits (as we totally wash Heavy, Oath, and stood still) - wounds on 5's for 1 wounding hit and some change oathed to two. Doing D6+1 Damage per wounding hit. 7 damage. Very Roughly. And a third of that is going to go away from a 2+ -3 save - vs a Rhino they get four shots, 3 hits, oathed to 4, wound on 3's = 3 wounding hits and change about 10.5 + some damage losing 1/6th on a 3+ -3 for about 9 out the 10 (+Oath damage) wounds the Rhino has likely 1 turn-ing the Rhino (but only because you oath'ed which is unlikely) . Assuming Land Raiders retain a similar statline to the Repulsors only with a 2+, 3 hits, 4 hits, 2 Wounding hits, Oathed into 3 Wounding Hits again about 10-11 damage -1/3 = 7-8 Or Half the Life.

Now, your various Melta are likely wounding on 5's, with a Melta 2 (or so boost you're almost going to need a Drop Pod to get within the 9" unless its pintle mounted on a Land Raider) i.e. D6+2 vs the Lascannon D6+1. Melta is likely not the flavor of the month this edition - my condolences to Fire Dragons. Man Portable Plasma will also be wounding on 5's, possibly even 6's when S7 - for a Flat 1/2 damage. I haven't seen Grav yet - but that could be it. Auto/Assault Cannon have looked decent too. Edit to Add: But they're still not Tank Killers, they're just light vehicle or below efficiency experts.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
So extreme anti-infantry is being used to show the poisoned nature of Dark Eldar weaponry.

I'm surprised just how few anti-monster things we've seen.

Gotta keep the Eldar Studio Guy's Wraith constructs safe from this "Anti-" stuff, after all.

I'm surprised/disappointed that Splinter weapons didn't get Anti-Monster 5+, or something like that, to go with the Anti-Infantry 3+.

And the Twin Splinter Rifle on the Venom ending up with a higher ROF compared to a single one at short range (thanks to the Rapid Fire) seems odd - I think the other T/L weapons we've seen so far have kept the same ROF, haven't they?

 Dysartes wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
So extreme anti-infantry is being used to show the poisoned nature of Dark Eldar weaponry.

I'm surprised just how few anti-monster things we've seen.

Gotta keep the Eldar Studio Guy's Wraith constructs safe from this "Anti-" stuff, after all.

I'm surprised/disappointed that Splinter weapons didn't get Anti-Monster 5+, or something like that, to go with the Anti-Infantry 3+.

And the Twin Splinter Rifle on the Venom ending up with a higher ROF compared to a single one at short range (thanks to the Rapid Fire) seems odd - I think the other T/L weapons we've seen so far have kept the same ROF, haven't they?

?? Wraithguard are Currently Infantry, so they're wounding them on 3+! Unless they're changing them to monsters?

The only thing this won't work on is the wraithlord/knight, but they've always been in a weird position where they're technological but treated as monsters. now the difference between vehicles and monsters is relatively small, so it's not as important what you are.


The rapid fire thing for the twin rifles was an odd thing, maybe they're trying to give them better stats given how weak twin linked is these days?



Speaking of wraith lords/knights, if they stick to the paradigm then they should hopefully look something like this:

WLORD
M8" T10 W10 Sv3+ LD6+ OC4

WKNIGHT
M12" T12 W20 Sv3+ LD6+ OC10


The ballistus dred is listed with T10 which is 3 higher than the redemptor, but I doubt we'll see the lord go up to T11 in the same way... The knight always had less wounds than the imperial ones, but the same toughness.

However they both had the -1 damage reduction so maybe we could see that appear as extra wounds/toughness on their profiles? If they were T11 and T13 respectively they'd be slightly more resilient.

I'm not so sure it will be a small difference, we've seen Anti-Vehicle weapons but we haven't seen any Anti-Monster weapons right? If so, they may be opting to make Monsters more resilient than a vehicle by having less weapons that are specifically tuned to killing them.

 The Red Hobbit wrote:
I'm not so sure it will be a small difference, we've seen Anti-Vehicle weapons but we haven't seen any Anti-Monster weapons right? If so, they may be opting to make Monsters more resilient than a vehicle by having less weapons that are specifically tuned to killing them.

Perhaps Anti-Vehicle will = Anti-Monster though that doesn't bode well for Primarchs and such. Or perhaps they're purposely avoiding anti-monster because of the Primarchs, Hive Tyrants and such?

Yeah I assume anti-monster will be on relic weapons or enhancements. I'd all but guarantee a Custodes enhancement or stratagem will be Anti-Monster given their previous rules.

Personally I like that, I think a distinction between Vehicle and Monster will be nice and will make fighting armies in a tournament or crusade pretty meaningful depending on your army. You may rip through a mechanized list one game and then struggle with Tyranid monster mash in another.

 The Red Hobbit wrote:
Yeah I assume anti-monster will be on relic weapons or enhancements. I'd all but guarantee a Custodes enhancement or stratagem will be Anti-Monster given their previous rules.

Personally I like that, I think a distinction between Vehicle and Monster will be nice and will make fighting armies in a tournament or crusade pretty meaningful depending on your army. You may rip through a mechanized list one game and then struggle with Tyranid monster mash in another.

When it comes to Anti-Big-Things weapons, some of them should be anti-monster (such as, to a degree, Splinter weapons), some weapons should be anti-vehicle (such as Haywire weapons), while some should be effective against both.

It seems odd that we've seen anti-infantry and anti-vehicle weapons, but no (or virtually no - can't remember everything that's been shown off so far off the top of my head) anti-monster weapons.

Forget anti-monster, what about cavalry, bikes and beasts? Drukhari splinter weapons have been ruined.

 vict0988 wrote:
Forget anti-monster, what about cavalry, bikes and beasts? Drukhari splinter weapons have been ruined.

Logic serves they're likely also going to be infantry, monster or vehicles alongside those keywords.

 The Red Hobbit wrote:
I'm not so sure it will be a small difference, we've seen Anti-Vehicle weapons but we haven't seen any Anti-Monster weapons right? If so, they may be opting to make Monsters more resilient than a vehicle by having less weapons that are specifically tuned to killing them.

The Thundercoil Harpoon has both Anti-Vehicle and Anti-Monster, both 4+