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.

So not having followed the rollout of 10th's rules too closely so far, I'm looking through the various data cards released to date and it seems that every unit, even the more "basic" units (ex. Tactical Squad), have at least one "ability" (special rule) beyond the unit's Core and Faction rules. Some seem to be rules that certain chapters/subfactions used to receive (ex. Tactical Squad's fall back and shoot/charge was the Ultramarine chapter's special rule from 8th if I recall correctly), others similar to old auras, and some seem to be similar to older stratagems. Are there "basic" units left that do not have their own special ability?

Then we get all the new USRs like Lethal Hits, Critical Hits, Devastating Wounds, etc., which are generally not that intuitive given the wording of several (critical, devastating, lethal, all sound deadly to me . . .). Plus some weapons, titled the same, having different profiles depending on the data card it is on?

So is 10th ed. just shifting the bloat from the multiple chapter traits, subfactions, stratagems, etc. of 8th/9th to the datacards? Maybe even adding more bloat given that now every unit has its own special snowflake rule(s)? (when previously stratagems were generally limited in when and who they could be used on, despite there being a lot of stratagems for each faction). It just seems there are a lot more abilities/special rules to remember now that every unit has at least one.

"But all of the rules are in one place, on the data card, and you don't need to look them up in your book(s)!" Yes, I get that, but with so many different units in the game, and each now having its own special rule (and sometimes differing weapon profile), it seems to me that there may actually be more rules to remember or have to reference than before.

(Or am I just getting old and missing the days when different unit stat lines and weapon profiles were most often good enough to differentiate units, and unit special rules were the exception and not the norm?)

did someone really expect something else?

of course it was always going to be the same but different
nothing to be surprised about and looking at the Index a lot of people will have a hard time until the Codex hits with the only positive is now that those are free (not like the last ones)

I think it's easy to over-estimate the amount of information you'll need at the table when looking at the datasheets.

Ultimately I'll show up to the table with the following info ( example army ):

https://imgur.com/a/bFwC52a

At some point I'll remember that base Captains give a free strat and Libbies give 4+++ vs Psychic. Judiciar was fights first before and still is. Eliminators have been able to move with an Instigator Sarge in the past. Whirlwinds were able to suppress ( now battleshock ). Gravis had the ability to boost armor save and still does.

Still it looks like a lot, but if you strip it down to the stuff that comes up the most that isn't as common it looks like this ( plus strats / enhancements ).

Most importantly - these abilities won't be changing during the game.

Anybody who thought for a moment that GW was going to make a concious effort to move awat from bloat and special rules everywhere is, frankly, a fool. This was always going to happen.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Anybody who thought for a moment that GW was going to make a concious effort to move awat from bloat and special rules everywhere is, frankly, a fool. This was always going to happen.

Maybe it was foolish, but as it became clearer 10th was a full reset, I figured we'd have a (brief) phase of Ravening Hordes/Indexes where most stuff was just flat. I.E. most units would just be described via basic stats, with a handful of USRs to give some definition.

This would inevitably be stomped all over by codex creep - but it would be the usual evolution GW has applied forever.

Instead these cards are feeling "late edition codex", with rules scattered all over the place - and unsurprisingly giving rise to the "X+Y+Z=busted" combos that GW said they were trying to get rid of.

maybe the marketing is this time better, put up a bad Index so every release after is seen as in improvement no matter what

Tyel wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Anybody who thought for a moment that GW was going to make a concious effort to move awat from bloat and special rules everywhere is, frankly, a fool. This was always going to happen.

Maybe it was foolish, but as it became clearer 10th was a full reset, I figured we'd have a (brief) phase of Ravening Hordes/Indexes where most stuff was just flat. I.E. most units would just be described via basic stats, with a handful of USRs to give some definition.

This would inevitably be stomped all over by codex creep - but it would be the usual evolution GW has applied forever.

Yeah that was my expectation as well. The indexes are so packed with rules I'm totally afraid at what actual codexes will bring.

 kodos wrote:
maybe the marketing is this time better, put up a bad Index so every release after is seen as in improvement no matter what

These indexes are pretty decent. They just have some really really bad oversights. I'm also not sure why people were expecting a clean reset when it seems fairly evident that wasn't going to be the case.

we Index in the past which were basically units stats without anything else, and it was expected to be similar

and the oversight are not just bad but strange as well
like the whole SW Index looks like rushed without thinking twice and copy&paste errors

and than if Eldar are the big problem that need a FAQ while everything we see now is considered fine, I don't know what to expect from the other factions

The 8th indexes had more stuff than you might remember.

Here's a throwback. What's missing is the pile of strats, army traits, warlord traits and relics that would eventually make this feel barren. Are the new sheets not simpler?

8th did not had USRs and all rules on the sheets

and no, comparing them next to each other the news ones are not simpler, just different

we have again a lot of rules that could be USR but are in the sheet, identical weapon names but with different profiles, similar units having very different rules

same, same but different, not simpler or better

There are some rules that COULD possibly be USRs, but we've seen some of those "corrupted" by other sheets that wouldn't as easily obey USRs. Some of them exist as text on the sheet so that the sheet doesn't look so barren ( Intercessors ). None of them are particularly complex rules to process.

We've always had identical weapons with different outcomes - see powerfist. And we've had similar units getting affected by different strats in very different ways. Now those methods are readily apparent.

The new datasheets also more easily convey what those models do on the battlefield. It's a bit harder to assess the impact of the OOE giving +1 to hit in a bubble rather than reroll hits to two Carnifexes.

Most of the bloat reduction has been on stratagems, subfactions, relics, warlord traits and other army wide rules.

But the datasheet themselves? Named characters are simpler but most other units kept as many rules and some even gained a few ones.

No matter how much he may try to explain it away and act like it's no big thing, basically every unit in the game is getting a unique special rule on top of their USRs and weapon rules. I mean, really, does each type of Gladiator need its own special rule? Each type of Land Speeder?

And "it was more complicated in 9th" is an excuse that will quickly wear thing, especially when GW talked up this edition as a move away from massive loads of rules and a return to USRs. There are quite a few repeated special rules both within the individual faction decks, and between the faction decks, that could have easily just been USRs (Disruptive - reduce move/advance/assault for units hit, Shocking - This attack causes a Battleshock test, etc.). Plus there's the sheer inconsistency of it: we can have different special rule for every type of tank in the Marine army, but there's just not enough difference between a combi-melta and a combi-flamer, or a bonesword and a rending claw, or even a pair of lightning claws and a power weapon in an army that shows that difference on other units in the same faction, to give any of those rules. Maddening.

Yes, we no longer have 47 different stratagems in 7 broad categories per faction, and the cognitive load of each army is certainly reduced, but there are still almost as many "bespoke" special rules as there are units in the game, and it seems like they've really missed the opportunity that starting from scratch gives you.

 Tyran wrote:
Most of the bloat reduction has been on stratagems, subfactions, relics, warlord traits and other army wide rules.

And don't forget psychic powers, which are essentially a non-starter in this edition.

All this means to me is that GW just didn't learn any lessons from what annoyed people about the last edition.

There have always been many different takes and preferences in 40k. It never has been a particularly unified fandom.

I don't believe there was any path that could be pursued without pissing off someone else.

Did each type of Gladiator need a different rule? No. Does it make it more interesting? Absolutely. It wasn't that long ago that people were complaining about all the rules they were losing. I get that these things aren't a direct comparison, but come on...

We used to ( in 8th ) have Vindicators that could drop a big mortal wound bomb, Predators that got bonuses vs Monster / Vehicle, etc. Many strats and abilities affected some units more than others so having bespoke abilities isn't crazy. 9th cleaned up a lot of stuff, but left a lot of units without strats behind. Now everyone has a "strat".

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Did each type of Gladiator need a different rule? No. Does it make it more interesting? Absolutely.

Does it? These units can't get by on the strength of their armaments and stats alone? They need a special rule to make them interesting?

 Daedalus81 wrote:
It wasn't that long ago that people were complaining about all the rules they were losing. I get that these things aren't a direct comparison, but come on...

I addressed that. It's the inconsistency of the changes. We can have 7 types of Land Speeder each with a unique special rule, but having stats for a web pistol and a bolt pistol at the same time is just too much to handle? You can take 18 Captains in a single army, each with individualised weapons, but Emperor-forbid that Vanguard Vets have any variety with their weapons. Better make them all generic Heirloom Tomatoes instead.

Or as catbarf put it so succinctly the other day: GW thinks there's enough of a differenced to include rules for Devourers and Deathspitters on Tyranid Warriors, but not enough difference between a rending claw and a bonesword. How does that make any sense?

 Daedalus81 wrote:
We used to ( in 8th ) have Vindicators that could drop a big mortal wound bomb, Predators that got bonuses vs Monster / Vehicle, etc. Many strats and abilities affected some units more than others so having bespoke abilities isn't crazy. 9th cleaned up a lot of stuff, but left a lot of units without strats behind. Now everyone has a "strat".

Having unit-specific strats was almost as bad as many equipment into strats, but it doesn't mean that you get rid of them by giving all those rules out to the units that had them.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I addressed that. It's the inconsistency of the changes. We can have 7 types of Land Speeder each with a unique special rule, but having stats for a web pistol and a bolt pistol at the same time is just too much to handle? You can take 18 Captains in a single army, each with individualised weapons, but Emperor-forbid that Vanguard Vets have any variety with their weapons. Better make them all generic Heirloom Tomatoes instead.

I'd love to see more of the Space Marine datasheets cut and consolidated personally.

I know what models everyone in my Crusade pod owns, so I'm mostly just paying attention to those as the datasheets come out. Makes it pretty easy to ignore the 90% that I'll never see on the table (and when someone does pick something new up up, I'll learn it then).

 Daedalus81 wrote:
The 8th indexes had more stuff than you might remember.

Here's a throwback. What's missing is the pile of strats, army traits, warlord traits and relics that would eventually make this feel barren. Are the new sheets not simpler?

See, I have no issues with either of those.

The new sheets are definitely more barren, but I'd question whether that is desirable. Indeed, I would expect special characters to have quite a few rules to both distinguish them and to make up for the fact that they can't take artefacts and warlord traits.

The Swarmlord's rules seem pretty intuitive. He can parry with his blades, so he's harder to take down in melee. He's a very powerful Hive Tyrant, so he projects the effects of the Hive Mind farther than other synaptic creatures etc.


Frankly, I'd argue that a significant number of 10th's touted changes seem like solutions to problems that didn't exist. To name a few:

- The new layout is atrocious. The 'one size fits all' model is absurd when 99% of dataslates are left with a ton of wasted space. And they don't even look good. The layout is an awkward mess and all we get are white backgrounds with some catalogue photos on top. Long gone are the days of unit entries having actual drawings of what they're supposed to represent.

- Characters are now forced to join units instead of being on their own. This, apparently, is to limit their ability to buff units with auras. Expect that this could have been fixed by just not giving 90% of the characters in the game a reroll aura. Instead, characters are forced to join a single squad and can never leave or join other units even if their own unit dies. Moreover, while auras are mostly gone, they've been replaced with buffs that are markedly stronger. Thus, I'm unsure what has really been fixed.

- Warlord Traits and Artefacts have been combined and the vast number of both have been removed. This combined with a no-model, no-rules policy makes for tremendously dull and samey characters.

- Detachment swapping seems both awkward and largely pointless. It was originally said that they would affect the unit composition of armies, yet all they can really do is ban units - as Battleline is determined by the individual model, not the detachment. Also, one of the major complaints was that certain artefacts and warlord traits were locked to particular subfactions. But don't worry, GW have addressed this - now *every* enhancement is locked to a subfaction. Because even pressing Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V to give each faction some universal enhancements would be too much effort.

- Stratagems still exist. Seriously, if there was a single, primary cause of blot in 8th and 9th, it was stratagems. And, despite 10th being the edition of less bloat, they're still there. And there are fewer of them . . . except not because every single detachment will have its own pile of the wretched things. So the moment codices start appearing, we'll be right back where we started. Except that we'll have stripped most models of options and flavour in the process. Woo!

 vipoid wrote:
- The new layout is atrocious. The 'one size fits all' model is absurd when 99% of dataslates are left with a ton of wasted space. And they don't even look good. The layout is an awkward mess and all we get are white backgrounds with some catalogue photos on top. Long gone are the days of unit entries having actual drawings of what they're supposed to represent.

When I pointed this out I got dogpiled for "complaining over nothing." Having seen so many of the sheets now, there is so much dead space on them, and there is simply no reason for the overwhelming majority of them to be double-sided beyond efficiencies in printing costs.

They could make a single armoury card (double sided even!) and say on a squad's unit card "A squad can purchase one heavy weapon from the heavy weapon list", and boom, the armoury card has the heavy weapon list. No need to list what they can take specifically on the back, and that'd be it. You could avoid long lists of who can join what by using keywords (Tacticus, Gravis, Phobos, etc.). Put Invul saves up the top. Maybe change the way weapon rules are listed so they're their own column, rather than awkward [square bracket] bits after a weapons name.

 vipoid wrote:
- Characters are now forced to join units instead of being on their own. This, apparently, is to limit their ability to buff units with auras. Expect that this could have been fixed by just not giving 90% of the characters in the game a reroll aura. Instead, characters are forced to join a single squad and can never leave or join other units even if their own unit dies. Moreover, while auras are mostly gone, they've been replaced with buffs that are markedly stronger. Thus, I'm unsure what has really been fixed.

My issue with Characters joining units is that they haven't given an alternative. Now most of these characters have to lead units otherwise:

1. One or more of their rules don't do anything (they have to be leading a unit for them to activate).
2. They will get shot off the board instantly as they cannot hide.

Lone Operative should have been the default for characters, and it is not in effect when characters are not leading units. Leader abilities might have a two-part effect for leading a unit/not leading a unit, but not an aura (as we want to avoid that), so "Pick a unit within 6 and it can re-roll 1's To Hit, but if leading a unit the unit may re-roll all failed To Hit rolls". Y'know, give us a bit of choice in how we use our characters besides "Join a unit, or die and do nothing".

 vipoid wrote:
- Warlord Traits and Artefacts have been combined and the vast number of both have been removed. This combined with a no-model, no-rules policy makes for tremendously dull and samey characters.

That's an example of learning the wrong lessons from 9th and over-correcting.

 vipoid wrote:
- Detachment swapping seems both awkward and largely pointless. It was originally said that they would affect the unit composition of armies, yet all they can really do is ban units - as Battleline is determined by the individual model, not the detachment. Also, one of the major complaints was that certain artefacts and warlord traits were locked to particular subfactions. But don't worry, GW have addressed this - now *every* enhancement is locked to a subfaction. Because even pressing Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V to give each faction some universal enhancements would be too much effort.

I'd sleep on this one for now. Yes, this is me saying "wAiT aNd SeE!!1", but I do not think these get-you-by cards are indicative of what the actual Codices are going to look like from a structure perspective.

 vipoid wrote:
- Stratagems still exist. Seriously, if there was a single, primary cause of blot in 8th and 9th, it was stratagems. And, despite 10th being the edition of less bloat, they're still there. And there are fewer of them . . . except not because every single detachment will have its own pile of the wretched things. So the moment codices start appearing, we'll be right back where we started. Except that we'll have stripped most models of options and flavour in the process. Woo!

I'm not sure this is quite as big a deal as you're making it. Pulling numbers out of thin air, say every Codex has 5 different detachments (it better be at least that... can you imagine if we get a Codex and there are like 2 or 3?), well that means 30 new strats! OMG!

But, also, not really, because you are only looking at 6 at a time. My 'Nids have 32 strats that can be variably played in 16 different 'phases' of the game. And that's before we add in the sub-faction strats or the universal strats. I'm far happier with only having to consider 6 for my army at any given point during the game, plus a simple suite of universal ones.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Tyel wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Anybody who thought for a moment that GW was going to make a concious effort to move awat from bloat and special rules everywhere is, frankly, a fool. This was always going to happen.

Maybe it was foolish, but as it became clearer 10th was a full reset, I figured we'd have a (brief) phase of Ravening Hordes/Indexes where most stuff was just flat. I.E. most units would just be described via basic stats, with a handful of USRs to give some definition.

This would inevitably be stomped all over by codex creep - but it would be the usual evolution GW has applied forever.

Yeah that was my expectation as well. The indexes are so packed with rules I'm totally afraid at what actual codexes will bring.

Nothing different- 3-4 detachments to shuffle between and a couple new units.

They're already duplicating strats (armor of contempt is an obvious one, but there are already multiple instances of 'fall back but shoot and/or charge' or 'consolidate 6 instead of 3' just in the handful of detachments we've seen.

Voss wrote:
They're already duplicating strats (armor of contempt is an obvious one, but there are already multiple instances of 'fall back but shoot and/or charge' or 'consolidate 6 instead of 3' just in the handful of detachments we've seen.

Hmm... doesn't having strats that exist in different detachments kind of defeat the purpose (or at least part of the purpose) of having different detachments in the first place?

Methinks that every Codex should have a set of core faction rules that includes, perhaps 2 strats and some relics that anyone can use, but I think that they've got this "One army rule/one detachment rule + 6 strats + 4 enhancements" brainbug stuck in their heads, so are sticking to that like the dogged "Rules must fit on 8 pages!" crap that we got at the start of AoS and 8th.

If it helps them reign in the creep, I sincerely do not care.

Especially given that marines in particular will have 5x the detachments of anyone else, the overlap helps control them at least a little.

I'm surprised they did it, but I'm not unhappy.

MOST people who use the word bloat mean "cool stuff for the factions I don't play, and probably don't even like".

The-Units-Formerly-Known-As-Troops needed something to boost them to somewhat even footing with the Elite/FA/HS stuff. Especially with the demise of 3+ Troop Detachments.

The boost to OC was somewhat predictable, the extra bespoke rule was a surprise, and laudable. Even just within the Space Marine faction I thought the Intercessors were lagging behind after the Incursors/Infiltrators, or Assault and Heavy Intercessors pretty much squeezed them out.

10th does still have a lot of abilities and a lot of special rules, yes. In the same way that after I finish my spring cleaning, my house still contains most of the same contents. It's the cleanup and reorganization that matter most; a simple game poorly laid out can still be harder to play than a complex one presented well. There are a bunch of elements to 10th that should make it easier to play than 9th:

-Consolidation of like abilities into USRs eliminates the nitpicky distinctions like 're-roll any' versus 're-roll misses'. You'll see the USR and know how it works. It might take some learning, but this time around GW has actually done some shockingly intuitive naming- lethal hits does something on a hit roll, devastating wounds does something on the wound roll, ignores cover does exactly what it says on the tin, and so on.

-Putting all relevant stats on printable cards significantly reduces lookup time compared to apps or codices. Flipping through a codex to find the unit entry, only to have to cross reference an ability on a different page, or skip to the end of the book to look up a weapon profile- it's slow. It's tedious. It's unnecessarily difficult to compare capabilities across your units, remember which one has that one ability that you're sure must be useful.

-Putting all the detachment abilities on a single sheet is a massive reduction in complexity. No more multiple pages of stratagems. That just might be the biggest change in terms of cognitive load, because the 'wait I think I have a stratagem for this...' delay was obnoxious.

-Cutting out the layered rules is a dramatic simplification. A lot of people liked that 9th Ed Tyranids were strong; I hated that I had to remember my subfaction/adaptation bonuses, Synaptic Link abilities, and Synaptic Imperatives.

-Mechanics like characters and terrain have been significantly simplified as well. I know this is contentious, characters in particular, but love it or hate it it's going to be easier to manage whether a character can be targeted than when you needed a short flowchart to resolve LOS.

Maybe the overall number of abilities on the datasheets has stayed the same or even gone up, but that really isn't what I considered bloat. It was the expansion of rules spread across disparate sources that made 9th so tedious to play for my group that we eventually gave up on it. Compressing those many layers of rules onto one or two faction rules, one detachment rule, a handful of stratagems, and then just the abilities on the datasheets (many of which are now standardized and universal) is such an enormous step towards playability that even with more abilities I can't see it being anywhere near as cumbersome as 9th.

 catbarf wrote:
-Mechanics like characters and terrain have been significantly simplified as well. I know this is contentious, characters in particular, but love it or hate it it's going to be easier to manage whether a character can be targeted than when you needed a short flowchart to resolve LOS.

I mean doesn't 'Lone Operative' basically remove that anyway?

I find that so far, 10th Edition is reducing bloat. Bloat is when rules are constantly added to rules that already exist. So far, we have been given a certain level of rules with lots of variety. However, you always seem to have:

1-2 Army Rules

1-3 Abilities per unit datasheet

The occasional Wargear datasheet

1 Detachment Ability

6 Detachment Stratagems

4 Detachment Enhancements

And that is it. There is currently 0 Bloat. There is the promise that while they will add new detachments, they will appear much like the old ones having 1 Detachment Ability and 10 Stratagems/Enhancements. If they do that, then there will be no Bloat.

As for the usefulness of the new data cards, I can't say if they are good or bad until I've played a few games with them. How much blank space is on them is irrelevant. What is important is how functional they are when actually playing the game.

 alextroy wrote:
There is currently 0 Bloat.

Based on what metric? Someone could consider every sheet having its own unique rule 'bloat'.

that is what he wrote, each card only having 1-2 unique rules is 0 bloat
that there is an unnecessary amount of almost identical units is not bloat but "flavour"

though I cannot understand how combining some options into one adds flavour because you can chose based on the look of it rather than rules, while at the same time unique special rules are needed to add flavour to chose from