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.

Necrons: imo generally positive; though I think my CCB will be shelved. No "Leader" or Lone Operative rule will see them dead too quickly. C'tan with T:11, W:12, 4++ and halving damage are nice and tanky.

GSC: imo generally positive, too. I like the fact that only the Patriarch is an "Epic Hero" now; I'm definitely fielding 3 Kelermorphs if they're not seriously over-costed.

 vict0988 wrote:
I personally think they should play idle games and let 40k have as much player agency as possible, only leaving things up to dice when there is a conflict between your desire and your opponent's desire (your opponent wants his Rhino to survive and you want it to die so you have to roll to see whether it survives or dies), rolling to see whether you get your VP for completing a mission and not getting to decide whether you move into base contact is silly.

Hell yeah! Exalted!

Not Online!!! wrote:


it's also not rocket science to have rules of a game translated into multiple languages. And yet here we are with GW failing even internally producing multiple english rules variants in 30 k ...

yeah i know, but since the reality is that GW sucks at producing properly translated stuff, we have the workaround of "English is the official version".

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:


it's also not rocket science to have rules of a game translated into multiple languages. And yet here we are with GW failing even internally producing multiple english rules variants in 30 k ...

yeah i know, but since the reality is that GW sucks at producing properly translated stuff, we have the workaround of "English is the official version".

Which english version? Again there's multiple in 30k f.e.

So no, english is not capable of being the general standard. NONE is, thanks to gw sucking that hard.

Dudeface wrote:

dominuschao wrote:
Xenos indexes are up.
https://www.warhammer-community.com/en-us/warhammer-40000/

Its worse than I thought for drukhari. Jesus I thought theres no way they couldn't feth them up this bad even if they tried. Wrong. Thats the last of my armies revealed. I'll be sitting this edition out. L8r

Enjoy the break, it might be refreshing and save you a lot of anger, it can be a wise choice sometimes even if it sucks.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Enjoy the break.

You don't have to be so flippant when people see their armies going through the ringer.

Thanks fellas and honestly I take no offense. Had this impression early on but wanted to wait for the rest of my armies reveals before making a decision.
Now I know for certain I'm not gonna participate in this edition. Other editions are just much more inspiring to me and I have bros who agree so I don't have to. Theres plenty of amazing rules in previous editions for most factions that make this whole release look like a joke. Or likely a preview before the $$$ grab comes.

Either way I see no reason to give GW any time or credit for this lackluster product. There was a time I felt compelled to stay current but those days are done. I'll play the better rules and check back in down the road. GL with this thing.

The Twin Smart Missile Systems on Devilfish have 2 shots, whereas the Twin Smart Missile Systems on Skyrays, Hammerheads, Broadsides, and Riptide have 3 shots.

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Enjoy the break.

You don't have to be so flippant when people see their armies going through the ringer.

You can't please everyone with everything

You'd have a point if we didn't have people defending objectively bad choices. Yes, there's objectively bad rules.

Well, that's subjective, the rules are also subjectively bad to you in isolation, others may disagree, others may not like some rules but tolerate or not be bothered by them as part of the greater whole. Some dud rules doesn't mean there's nothing there for people to enjoy and have a positive time.

You exist purely in absolutes, often confined to your own definitions on things that you apply to others. It might not seem obvious, but you're part of the example of "can't please everyone with everything". Even then you do keep coming back so you obviously enjoy something in this game.

I like the setting, but I hate gak rules even more than that. If you remove the setting, you'd not play the game because of how bad the rules are, and that IS a fact.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
The Twin Smart Missile Systems on Devilfish have 2 shots, whereas the Twin Smart Missile Systems on Skyrays, Hammerheads, Broadsides, and Riptide have 3 shots.

With how things are designed it could be intentional or a mistake. We won't have anyway to know, but I've bugged them already for versioning and a statement for when they can confirm the datasheets are "correct".

Breton wrote:

I suspect most "chaff" level "troops" - cultists, poxwalkers, Guard squads, little bugs, etc will be OC1

Guard squads are OC2, that was already known from the Astra Militarum previews a couple weeks ago.

 catbarf wrote:
I'm actually a little excited to see that the walls between Scions and the rest of the AM codex are mostly coming down. Looks like Scions can ride in Chimeras and Valkyries now, and you can freely mix Regiment and Tempestus units without issue. The only restriction I see is that only Tempestus stuff can ride in Taurox Primes.

With the aircraft restriction seemingly gone, I'm thinking a naval QRF might be back on the table- VBSS teams using Scion rules, transported by Valkyries, Chimeras, and Taurox Primes. Maybe back them up with some press-ganged naval ratings (Infantry), labor Ogryns (Bullgryns), and a Techpriest with some servitors.

You and I have slightly different interpretations of the treatment that Scions received. Conditional Battleline with the inclusion of a command squad only, only characters that can attach to them are Tempestus Command Squads, Preachers, Commisars, and Psykers, they only get OC2 if you attach a command squad w/ a regimental standard (whereas actual battleline units have OC2 natively and go up to OC3 with a command squad + standard), etc. etc. etc. Theres basically no benefit to play a pure Militarum Tempestus list now, they've completely diluted any identity that the subfaction might have had before and now you basically need to take non MT units if you want to have any hope of not being blown off the table (taking Scions down to a cap of 6 units really really hurts).

In a similar vein it kinda looks like Harlequins got royally screwed, any identity that they had separate from the rest of the book is gone, any benefits they may have had to offset the lack of access to non-Harlequin units is likewise gone. Playing pure Harlequins is going to be playing on hard more, if its even possible at all - I don't think they'll be able to make points with the new unit caps in place. Starweavers don't have the same "split squad" rule that Drukhari Venoms do, which means you're limited to either 6 squads of 5-6 Harlequins in transports (or 6 squads of up to 12 on foot - unless of course you want to play mix and match and bring them in wave serpents and break Harlequin purity) - Harlequins are OC1 and I don't see any way of changing that (which means you probably don't want to bring 6 squads in Starweavers, you'll lack the mass to cap or hold anything), and nothing with the harlequins tag has a OC higher than 2 - units of 4 skyweavers might be the Harlies best objective cappers, and they aren't necessarily suited for the role or that good at it. Voidweavers are limited to 3 in the entire army, which might not be a bad thing in terms of balance but that makes it a bit harder to fill out your lists. At max, a Harlequins list will consist of:

1 Death Jester
3 Troupe Mastes
3 Death Jesters
3 Shadow Seers
6 Troupes of 5-6 models + 6 Starweavers OR 6 Troupes of up to 12 models
12 Skyweavers
3 Voidweavers

Obvs we don't know what points are going to look like, but based on current points I think that totals out to ~2100 pts sans additional upgrades. I anticipate most Harlie lists are probably going to end up looking identical just based on lack of options to use up points.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
The Twin Smart Missile Systems on Devilfish have 2 shots, whereas the Twin Smart Missile Systems on Skyrays, Hammerheads, Broadsides, and Riptide have 3 shots.

With how things are designed it could be intentional or a mistake. We won't have anyway to know, but I've bugged them already for versioning and a statement for when they can confirm the datasheets are "correct".

I would be incredibly surprised if they intended the devilfish to work differently. If that was the case they could have just given it the name they gave to the Fire Warrior support turret weapon (which is also a 2 shot smart missile system, but is called "Support turret missile system" to differentiate it).

Also, the Fire Warrior pulse carbine does not have the Assault keyword, whereas every Twin Pulse Carbine does. Also, no battlesuit weapons are Assault, so the mobile gun platforms are actually incapable of shooting on the move when advancing, whereas the Fire Warrior with a Pulse Blaster is.

Yea, unfortunately they did a terrible job making sure the rules were actually ready before we get to use them.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Yea, unfortunately they did a terrible job making sure the rules were actually ready before we get to use them.

Oh 10th is early access?

Pretty much to be honest.

At least it is free.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Enjoy the break.

You don't have to be so flippant when people see their armies going through the ringer.

You can't please everyone with everything

You'd have a point if we didn't have people defending objectively bad choices. Yes, there's objectively bad rules.

Well, that's subjective, the rules are also subjectively bad to you in isolation, others may disagree, others may not like some rules but tolerate or not be bothered by them as part of the greater whole. Some dud rules doesn't mean there's nothing there for people to enjoy and have a positive time.

You exist purely in absolutes, often confined to your own definitions on things that you apply to others. It might not seem obvious, but you're part of the example of "can't please everyone with everything". Even then you do keep coming back so you obviously enjoy something in this game.

I like the setting, but I hate gak rules even more than that. If you remove the setting, you'd not play the game because of how bad the rules are, and that IS a fact.

That's an unquantifiable statement to be honest, even without they have the nicest minis imo so I'd be buying them, I'd likely play killteam rather than 40k for the sakes of using whatever I had. As I get more inevitably try it. The rules alone aren't a showstopper for sure, but I've enjoyed my time playing it mostly, so it's good enough for me one way or the other.

If your negative is outweighing your positive consistently, why not go do something that brings you more joy? It must be horrible sinking free time into something you dislike. This isn't a "harder stop fething moaning and get out", but a genuine why do something that doesn't bring joy?

I'm just happy I'm not as picky as you guys. At least I didn't have to pay for any of this stuff this time around. I'm not convinced previous few editions were any better, 40K has never had rules which were considered great by the vast majority of experienced players. Perhaps you just forgot you felt the same way when last edition dropped? And the one before that?

 Lord Clinto wrote:
Necrons: imo generally positive; though I think my CCB will be shelved. No "Leader" or Lone Operative rule will see them dead too quickly. C'tan with T:11, W:12, 4++ and halving damage are nice and tanky.

The command barge should be pretty hard to shift if you give it the sempiternal weave. I don't think you can justify taking one without that enhancement though.

I think most would agree it isn't the most polished edition we have ever seen. Feels very much like a beta release in some ways. Definite "live service" vibes. I'm usually one of the more forgiving types to GW, and even I'm annoyed at all the errors in the indexes.

Off the top of my head, the only worse release I have seen is the 2017 IA Index, which was a real mess.

 Tyran wrote:
Pretty much to be honest.

At least it is free.

GW would probably get some free goodwill if they were up front about this being an "early access" or "beta test" of the game. People might be more forgiving of all the obvious typos and headscratchers for a billion dollar company.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
they think it better the game plays itself

You think 10th plays itself? That's a hot take...

Do you think it'll be more rewarding of skill compared to previous editions? I'd be interested to hear why you think that is the case. I'd probably say 8th>9th>5th>6th>10th>7th going from the edition that played itself the least to the one that plays itself the most. 10th of course just being an estimation because I haven't played it yet. Seeing the Necrons codex was really nice though, I'm trying to get hyped again. I'll play a couple of games this weekend and then get proper stuck in next Wednesday and play a couple dozen games before passing a true verdict. GW can look forward to another edition of not getting a penny if balance isn't okay, one really nice thing to see is how much GW seems to have listened to feedback in terms of what players want for their factions. I know the Drukhari index is getting a lot of gak, I know that re-rolls are all over the place, but at least they seem to have been aware it was a problem and tried to solve it, going back to an old habit of just adding re-rolls when something needs a buff is understandable, but this is just indexes, they can still fix this for the codexes.

 Lord Clinto wrote:
Necrons: imo generally positive; though I think my CCB will be shelved. No "Leader" or Lone Operative rule will see them dead too quickly. C'tan with T:11, W:12, 4++ and halving damage are nice and tanky.

CCB has a great datasheet, whether it is competitive will come down to points. The CCB res orb is going to be amazing combined with Canoptek Reanimators, it's also the only way to benefit from a res orb in units with Imotekh/Anrakyr/Zahndrekh, of course whether heroes will be viable also comes down to points. A 4+++ relic seems really good, unless it's not allowed or costs an outrageous amount of points, you're doubling durability.

This wasn't the most playtested edition ever...

 Lord Damocles wrote:
This wasn't the most playtested edition ever...

well or the slightly more concerning though is maybe it was

meaning the other stuff that worked was a mix of good luck and smaller design teams who knew what they were doing and left to get on with it

some of the "day minus one" issues do seem to be the stuff that a competent proof reading team would have found, and yes for this its a team - of people who know enough about the game to spot logical mistakes not just spelling etc. At a guess GW does what some software houses do and try to make everyone part of the proof reading/testing team and the result shines through in a lovely warm brownish colour

ahh well, it is what it is, lets see where it goes, as I've noted before, this is the 10th edition, by now it should be damned near perfect, the fact it isn't shows GW don't care that it isn't, it isn't meant to be and doesn't need to be for GWs purposes

Hmm, I haven't reviewed all the armies yet, but I've looked at the armies I generally play and overall not bad!

One thing I've noticed is some of the armies is that unit sizes have generally gone down, and some units now have fixed sizes....I was afraid unit choices and list building were gonna take a hit...looks like it happened.

The core rules still look good. I am excited to play some games in the coming weeks and test everything out.

Less than a dozen errors among that many data sheets is acceptable. Most TTRPGs have worse second printing errata than that and GW has shown a willingness to hot fix things that need it.

I'm excited for Necrons, actually. They seem solid for the most part. My other army, Slaanesh, not so much... Slaanesh aren't terrible (in comparison to other armies), but they didn't excite me the way Necrons did.

Definitely playing Necrons in my first game of 10th!

 vict0988 wrote:

Do you think it'll be more rewarding of skill compared to previous editions?

It will take me a bit to write up why

I feel like 10th edition 40k will be pretty skill-based as the tight CP limits will force hard choices about strats and the missions force an understanding of the game beyond just killing stuff. There are also a number of units with once-per-game abilities and timing those for their best effect will also take skill.

Besides the loss of tri-pointing which was always pretty lame and felt unintentional what has 10th lost that 9th had?

There have to be some errors in the harlequin list.

The troupe leader special weapon is an upgrade but objectively worse than the default.

The shadowseer and death jester have 4 wounds but the solitaire has 3? And the solitaire is still an epic hero so you can only have one. It won't survive to do anything.

the only faction that got stat improvements is, surprise surprise the marines. increased wounds and toughness on units and characters. Better attacks profiles than even special characters in other armies.


They have literally stripped non marine armies of stats and power and increased marines. If that doesn't show the embedded bias towards marines in the game.

 Hellebore wrote:

They have literally stripped non marine armies of stats and power and increased marines. If that doesn't show the embedded bias towards marines in the game.

It's pretty incredible how bad it's gotten, yeah.

"Marines uber alles" :/

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:

They have literally stripped non marine armies of stats and power and increased marines. If that doesn't show the embedded bias towards marines in the game.

It's pretty incredible how bad it's gotten, yeah.

"Marines uber alles" :/

I wouldn't go that far. I mean, look at Vanguard and Sternguard for example. My Plasma/Grav Cannon Sternguard are illegal, as are all my dual pistol Vanguard.

My Genestealers are W2 so I'm not sure I can accept 'only Marines got better stats' at face value.