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.

Charax wrote:
Kind of surprised we haven't seen gameplay leaks/impressions given the number of people who queued for demo games

Well looks like I spoke too soon: https://www.wargamer.com/warhammer-40k/10th-edition-gameplay-demo

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

Depends on how much model support each Codex is planned to get. Marines and Nids will both get a lot as poster armies for the starter. Necrons need named characters, lokhust destroyers, and lokhust lord. Maybe Pariahs with Blackstone weapons. Admech would be new units, maybe just a character again. Dark Angels could use Belial, Sammael, and Asmodai updated. Orks need Tankbustas and 3-4 single models, past that is bonus. Custodes hopefully will get their tanks and dreadnoughts from the HH range plasticized, and a proper clampack shield captain. Tau need plastic Aun Va, Vespid, Kroot shaper, hounds, and krootox, and could really do with a redo of the kroot carnivire and devilfish hulled kits. CSM need bikers, a winged lord, and a biker lord plus could do with a terminator dark apostle and multipart obliterators.

Meh it's pointless to even consider what armies "need". An army can need a lot of things in plastic and still only get one newly invented hero for three editions in a row.

Charax wrote:

Charax wrote:
Kind of surprised we haven't seen gameplay leaks/impressions given the number of people who queued for demo games

Well looks like I spoke too soon: https://www.wargamer.com/warhammer-40k/10th-edition-gameplay-demo

There were at least two reports on Reddit about an hour after the seminar. This basically reinforces what was said by those.

Reactions to the reaction (assuming things are correct)

Blast- good. Base attacks +1 per 5 models actually makes them better against large units, and not overly punishing small units of 5/10 instead .

Overwatch- fine. Bit more tactical.

Can't stand on objectives ever- dumb. Magical exclusion fields that disrupt the table make no sense.

Engagement & consolidation- need a think on these. There's potential awkwardness that seems odd.

Desperate Escape tests- weird. As in, why try to fall back after you've failed a battleshock test? Seems an easy out unless something is missing.

Screamer-killer we already knew, because GW showed off the card.

Sergeant- doesn't actually explain anything. What wargear choices do they have?

Voss wrote:

Can't stand on objectives ever- dumb. Magical exclusion fields that disrupt the table make no sense.

Ooor it makes no sense that a mini can stand on top of a chit that's supposed to represent a control terminal or a flagpole.

You're maybe also forgetting that they don't mean you can't stand on the entire 6" neoprene circle that everyone uses to mark what's within 3" of the chit that is the actual objective?

Voss wrote:

Can't stand on objectives ever- dumb. Magical exclusion fields that disrupt the table make no sense.

I believe the idea is they want people to use actual physical 40mm objectives and not just imaginary circles printed on a pad.

Not being able to stand on the objective marker makes sense, if the objective is a big thing... which with them now being 40mm based allows players to make interesting objective markers.

Also from a game play point of view, it does mean that they are kept visible to all players. Which helps to make the game feel a bit fairer.

Blast is wonderful, nice to see something that scales in accordance to rhe unit being hit.

Billicus wrote:
The dreadnought IS a bit leggy. I can't unsee it now.

I get a very T-Rex feel from it. I quite like it.

 Platuan4th wrote:

Voss wrote:

Can't stand on objectives ever- dumb. Magical exclusion fields that disrupt the table make no sense.

I believe the idea is they want people to use actual physical 40mm objectives and not just imaginary circles printed on a pad.

Standard objective size is a good thing

Not being able to stand on objectives at least means that Titans, Knights, oversized aircraft, etc. can't physically block them out because of base size.

Seems reasonable. If you want to use a mouse pad mat, it still works, just make a 40mm circle in the middle that can't be stood on.

I don’t remember, is 40mm a new size, or the same size as the current ones?

tneva82 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Shadow Walker wrote:
''One of the first things you’ll see when you walk into Manchester Central is this giant 11-foot-tall life-sized Terminator. Get your photos of him!"

11 foot is life-size for a Terminator? WTF?

Yea termies have been described 8 foot age.

Quite an armour to add 4 feet to height.

Well, marines have been "3 meters" for a while now, so an 11 foot tall Terminator sounds about right.

 AduroT wrote:
I don’t remember, is 40mm a new size, or the same size as the current ones?

Same size.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

Voss wrote:

Can't stand on objectives ever- dumb. Magical exclusion fields that disrupt the table make no sense.

I believe the idea is they want people to use actual physical 40mm objectives and not just imaginary circles printed on a pad.

Standard objective size is a good thing

The size is still standard. It's a 40mm round circle regardless of if it's physical with something on top of it or not.

 ImAGeek wrote:

Billicus wrote:
The dreadnought IS a bit leggy. I can't unsee it now.

I get a very T-Rex feel from it. I quite like it.

I like the profile of this new version better than the one with actual arms. The shoulders on the older model stick out too far from the body and are distracting.

I think the models in the Leviathan box are a very mixed bag. The design of some of the bids seems very confused - the Psychophage is a mess visually, which is sad considering it’s a centrepiece model. The leaper heads are also confused. And why are the Barbgaunts forced to walk around on 3 legs? Doesn’t seem very stable. The Screamer-Killer is okay, but the head is a weird shape. I really like the Neurotyrant and its sidekicks - great looking unit, and genuinely alien and menacing looking. The Winger Tyranid Prime is uninspired though - another Warrior head with a spike on top and a vampire-like pose.

For the Marines, the clear winners to me are the Termies - especially the 2 characters. The flamer unit is pretty boring though (and a bad direction in terms of Marine unit design). And the Sternguard are okay but kind of blocky and unexciting. The new Dread is a weird amalgam of the classic shooty box Dread and the leggy Redemptor design. It looks awkward (the Brutalis was much more successful). I also noticed that the lascannon on the Dread doesn’t have hollow barrels - just 2 black dots painted on. I guess it’s all moulded in one piece. I think I’ll wait for the multi-part kits for these new models.

 Platuan4th wrote:

Voss wrote:

Can't stand on objectives ever- dumb. Magical exclusion fields that disrupt the table make no sense.

I believe the idea is they want people to use actual physical 40mm objectives and not just imaginary circles printed on a pad.

That doesn't change anything, though. (Unless I'm completely misunderstanding what you mean by 'imaginary circles')

That the official ones are just cardboard tokens (more an imaginary circle than anything else I can imagine) make that even weirder. Its just arbitrary places where models can't stand. If they made the objectives cargo pods, synaptic nodes or whatever it would at least make some sense that models can't stand on it, but that isn't the direction they went.

Asmodai wrote:Not being able to stand on objectives at least means that Titans, Knights, oversized aircraft, etc. can't physically block them out because of base size.

Physically blocking out objectives isn't difficult. Objective control has a radius, so if you have enough stuff spread around the objective , they can't be contested. Now you just have a not quite 90 mm diameter in the middle where enemies can't stand (40mm plus 24.999 on either side, since the smallest base is 25mm)

Looking at the reveled datasheets more closely, it seems the new flamer marines have "grenades" as a key word. This along with no grenades listed as a weapon suggests that grenades will work entirely differently in 10th ed.

Maybe a return to grenades providing bonuses if charging/charged rather than being ranged weapons?

Well those previews were certainly a mixed bag. Middle-Earth was an absolute nothingburger of a preview (seriously why did they even bother when all they had to show was a diorama nobody asked for or wanted), I kind of like the new Stormcast for Warcry even though I don't play that (if the models are useful in AoS I might grab them separately). But the main attraction was of course the Leviathan box set reveal, and hoo boy am I hyped now! It's gonna be a long (almost) two months. I'm already figuring out how I want to turn the Marines half into Dark Angels; I've still got plenty of little gribblies from various kits to make them cooler, and it looks like we get a decent set of decals just like the last two launch boxes (Dark Imperium and Indomitus). I was wavering on whether or not I would just buy the whole box and keep the Tyranids, but seeing the new bugs has probably sealed it; guess I'm a Tyranids player now in addition to all of my other armies. My wallet is already cringing, as I've already got too many armies (still, at this point what's one more amirite?), but it'll be a unique painting challenge for me.

Aash wrote:
Looking at the reveled datasheets more closely, it seems the new flamer marines have "grenades" as a key word. This along with no grenades listed as a weapon suggests that grenades will wok entirely differently in 10th ed.

Maybe a return to grenades providing bonuses if charging/charged rather than being ranged weapons?

Given that there is an increase in generic stratagems, I'm going to (sadly) guess that 'grenades' key a strat for an assaulting unit.

Voss wrote:

Aash wrote:
Looking at the reveled datasheets more closely, it seems the new flamer marines have "grenades" as a key word. This along with no grenades listed as a weapon suggests that grenades will wok entirely differently in 10th ed.

Maybe a return to grenades providing bonuses if charging/charged rather than being ranged weapons?

Given that there is an increase in generic stratagems, I'm going to (sadly) guess that 'grenades' key a strat for an assaulting unit.

I suspect you might be right, unfortunately. Similar to the T'au photon grenade strategem in 9th.

 Alpharius wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Shadow Walker wrote:
''One of the first things you’ll see when you walk into Manchester Central is this giant 11-foot-tall life-sized Terminator. Get your photos of him!"

11 foot is life-size for a Terminator? WTF?

Yea termies have been described 8 foot age.

Quite an armour to add 4 feet to height.

Well, marines have been "3 meters" for a while now, so an 11 foot tall Terminator sounds about right.

I don't recall seeing anything to that effect at all - the last scale references I recall was the one that showed a proper Marine in armour to be 7 feet (thanks to the scale starting a 1 foot), and some information indicating Primaris Steroid Bois averaged around 8 feet. Three meters, or ~9.9 feet? That's right out.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
So the roadmaps, looks like GW is expecting production capacity to double by this time next year? Seems kinda odd.

Aos been doing that sort of pace or faster just fine. Book plus hero isn't that hard.

If they can do it for aos cash cow is even more likely.

Early 9e they did 2/month pace.

tneva82 wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
So the roadmaps, looks like GW is expecting production capacity to double by this time next year? Seems kinda odd.

Aos been doing that sort of pace or faster just fine. Book plus hero isn't that hard.

If they can do it for aos cash cow is even more likely.

Early 9e they did 2/month pace.

I’m not taking it as a binding promise and it’s interesting to see how it shakes out but he did say each would come with ‘at least some new models’ and not ‘at least one new model’.

make it 2 heroes.....

saying there will be some new models and not saying there will be new units
this can mean anything, same as the "2 pages of rules"

 ImAGeek wrote:

Billicus wrote:
The dreadnought IS a bit leggy. I can't unsee it now.

I get a very T-Rex feel from it. I quite like it.

T. rex? T. rex had functional arms, my boy here barely has working arms and longass legs, like Carnotaurus.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
40K box: Clear winners are 'Nids. That's my biologist bias here.

Clear winners are both Neuros. Tyrant reminded me that sometimes I do enjoy cosmic horror, and I loved the random marine head on it's base, but dear lord those Ngaunts look amazing, more with that Leviathan purple-pink hue. They look straight out from Tremors.

Sleeper hit are Bgaunts. I thought they were tetrapods, but no! they are strict tripods, with the gun organism being lifted by two arms, so the creature efectively only has one working arm. Reminds me a lot of Wayne Barlowe's Alien Planet.

Honorable mention to SK, that has apparently two pharynxes on the sides of the jaw.

A Dreadnought was never meant to have "arms" it has weapon slot that move up and down and a torso that moves left and right, like any other weapon platform
It just has legs to move that platform around and a single operator

At least with those legs it looks like it could move over terrain rather than being road only
Neither model is better, just different and there is a reason why you hardly see old Dread conversion with realistic legs

Yet there are conversion bits around to change the lower part that look better than this, so easy to upgrade old Dreads to new ones

Charax wrote:

Charax wrote:
Kind of surprised we haven't seen gameplay leaks/impressions given the number of people who queued for demo games

Well looks like I spoke too soon: https://www.wargamer.com/warhammer-40k/10th-edition-gameplay-demo

I had read a few comments saying (and I don't know if it was a hope rather than based on any actual rumours?) GW might finally have looked at the likes of One Page Rules and tried to make something more streamlined and quick to reference and play. These seem more like a .1 revision of the previous rules, is that correct?
Asking as someone who hasn't played since 6th edition and is completely out of the loop!

I don’t why I’ve been getting up early this weekend. It’s a long weekend. I could spend time in my pit having a lovely snooze or nap.

But I have been. So just when I thought “better check the time, don’t want to miss a stream” the first is still over an hour away. Booo,

Now, AoS? I’m expecting Dawnbringer Crusades/Cities of Sigmar.

Horus Heresy? Please….please more plastic infantry. Ideally assault infantry for Legions, because I’m a selfish Legion player. But I wouldn’t say no to plastic Solar Auxilia to greatly reduce their entry price.

So it's seems that Leviathan is going to be £150. In a world where gw is increasing prices I'm ok with this. There are 10 more minis in this box than Indomitus, three less filler minis (2 rippers and the terminator thing Vs 6 scarabs) and more large scale minis. Obviously I'd love for the price to be lower but I don't think the value is too bad.

Scarab filler? One of the Best units necrons have had in 9e


Thats like saying bladeguard is filler.