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.

10th has reintroduced many of the concepts that the community has previously liked and also those that we have rejected. Below are some examples. lets here what you like and dislike. heres mine:

LIKES:
Reduction of stratagems.
Did we ever even need these? I think not. But progress happened and now they are a part of this game, becoming even integral to some of the less elite factions as alternative to inherent rules.
I like that these have been reduced, but not to the point of 6 per faction and 4 of those are often not worth using. This just wastes complexity budget. But I do welcome the general idea of reducing strategem bloat.

Return of USRs.
These done right could be so much more fluid. Unfortunately the complexity was transferred to otherwise standard profiles. For example multi meltas can have different profiles..?! Even if this only occurs one single time it undermines a players feeling of knowing what a weapon profile is.

Characters joining units.
I have truly missed this from past editions and was initially so happy to hear they were bringing these back. But the way this rule is implemented is so restrictive I can't build what I want from most of my characters leaving them as glorified sergeant equivalents.

Reduced lethality.
To an extent this was needed. And in theory it is good. From what we have seen I'm not convinced this was actually accomplished except for reducing assault lethality.

#makemechgreatagain
Actually I don't like this and I never did buy into this one having played past editions absolutely dominated by mechanized lists. Plenty of 9th edition lists included mech saturation towards the latter part of 9th. Now the pendulum may have swung too far into over correction.


DISLIKES:
Removing player agency.
Forced "choices" and destroying our ability to take ownership of an army through customization is never justified.
I am talking about exactly how to build your army, character restrictions, cookie cutter wargear and unit options, etc. At this rate 11th will have "premade armies" no thought required.

Inflexible unit sizes and configurations.
General removal of customization across the spectrum. aka dumbing down and making the art of list design incredibly bland and samey within a faction.
Forcing every unit into linear 5 or 10 man sizes with no real player choices is a complete cop out to me and shows total disrespect for the player base.

Removal of points costs from wargear.
For players like me who live to brew this is such a disappointment I cannot find any enthusiasm for this edition. Does anyone other than GW really believe all upgrades are equal? Also this does not help casual players and removes a core list building concept of boys before toys.

Loss of faction identity.
Disregard for previous long standing lore by restricting or even deleting options which is really the "theme" of this edition.
It doesn't matter who owns the IP when we are ALL invested in this incredible world.

Inconsistent rules applications.
This puts unnecessary complexity right back into the game. When you cannot trust that a common weapon profile is universal we must still reference/memorize every single profile.

Reduction of assault phase.
This may be proven false as the game evolves but my impression is that this edition is full tilt shooting and mechanized.
Between reduced lethality of assault units, changes to engagement range, increased durability, existence of big guns, and the changes to overwatch, assault is not something most armies will be successful with and that is a real shame. having played extensively through many past editions similar I can say this is not something I feel is healthy for the game.

Removal of the psychic phase.
This could possibly have been elegant. But instead it was an afterthought. Psych powers are now just unit abilities or more shooting profiles.

Proliferation of indirect fire.
FFS guys no one enjoys this rule. Getting shot up with no counter play except to bring your own indirect fire is the sign of a bad mechanic. Please just delete indirect from the game. Restricting all those other aspects I mentioned but then allowing something as unfun as indirect fire to run rampant is just bizarre.

That is my list.

Your first 3 dislikes are essentially the same complaint, and also a pretty weak one. You still have plenty of "agency", you still have the option to choose your units and upgrades, including to choose to not take upgrades if you don't want to or to take units of arbitrary size. If you feel otherwise irs because you have chosen to surrender your agency to min/maxing and optimization of the points system, and that's really on you.

Not being able to take more than one epic hero in your list is a big downer for me. I could understand no more than two or three, but just one? It's just an arbitrary restriction that does nothing to improve the game. I do like how it seems that, besides that previous restriction, you can take as many HQ choices as you want, as long as you abide by the rule of three and keep within your points limits. I find it a very liberating manner of list-building.

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
Not being able to take more than one epic hero in your list is a big downer for me. I could understand no more than two or three, but just one? It's just an arbitrary restriction that does nothing to improve the game. I do like how it seems that, besides that previous restriction, you can take as many HQ choices as you want, as long as you abide by the rule of three and keep within your points limits. I find it a very liberating manner of list-building.

I thought you could only take each one once (as they were unique) but you could cram as many different ones in your list as points allowed.

You can. Its one of each.

A bit silly for all the big boys to show up for a tiny squabble, but they can.

 Nevelon wrote:

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
Not being able to take more than one epic hero in your list is a big downer for me. I could understand no more than two or three, but just one? It's just an arbitrary restriction that does nothing to improve the game. I do like how it seems that, besides that previous restriction, you can take as many HQ choices as you want, as long as you abide by the rule of three and keep within your points limits. I find it a very liberating manner of list-building.

I thought you could only take each one once (as they were unique) but you could cram as many different ones in your list as points allowed.

And you are correct, core rules page 56:

Only Characters can be given
Enhancements and your army
cannot include more than three
Enhancements in total. No unit can
have more than one Enhancement
and each Enhancement included
in your army must be unique.
Epic Heroes cannot be given any
Enhancements. Your army cannot
include the same Epic Hero more
than once.

Not only does it just say that you can only have one of the same Epic Hero, we can infer that it is possible to have several EHs from the fact that this limit would not be necessary if you only ever could have one EH in total.

Likes....

NONE


Dislikes...

All of it.


Imma just gon play 30k

Oh ok, nvm. That makes sense and make things much better and more fun for listbuilding.

Likes- Most of the core rules in the rulebook.

Dislikes. Everything else. The army lists and attempts at points are pathetic and should not be given the dignity of acknowledgement. If this was anyone other than GW, they'd be laughed off the internet.

Like:
The early reveal of the gaunt reactive movement ability gave me hope that GW were about to make a dynamic, deep game with lots of interactions and non-combat options for winning.

Dislike:
They took that away and failed to meet my already gutter-level expectations.

The good;
- free indexes and a push for more digital rules
- a more nuanced morale system, though it still could be more impactful or have different levels of effect
- a push towards fewer rolls and rerolls, though not quite enough
- a more clear split between heavy infantry and vehicles is nice
- reduced lethality is very much needed, it’s silly when units just wipe each other out with no chance for a back and forth. Though it looks like some armies and units didn’t get the memo
- the weapon rules system is nice I think. Instead of being locked to either assault, rapid fire or heavy, weapons can either not have any of those rules or have multiple. It helps give weapons more variability.
-USRs are fine when they actually cover universal rules, though I’d be open to faction special rules that operate in the same way

Things I’m not keen on:
- box based restrictions for units. For me 40k is a modeling and painting hobby where throwing dice down is a nice way to show off your army while feeling good about investing that time into it. Being able to kitbash is a major part of that and it sucks that GW is moving away from that. And not only that, they are inconsistent in its application. I can only assume that some middle manager had this bright idea of 1 box = 1 unit but the rules writers are trying to give us options without them noticing. I’m actually baffled that crisis suits can take loads of ion blasters, while my admech vanguard are basically required to take an arquebus. If the rules restrict us to 3 of any unit, then why not have weapon restrictions based on what’s available in 3 kits? For example, skitarii should go back to being able to take 3 specials of any kind, since after 3 boxes you’ll have 3 of each anyway. Then there’s the Eldar Autarch which has 2 kits and God forbid you try to mix them.

-fixed unit sizes. Again, it impacts modeling, but it also makes list building harder IMO. So I can’t try out different unit sizes for fun. Sometimes 5 man is not enough but 10 is overkill, but now we’re stuck at either end. Also I still don’t like that crisis suits start at 3 models per squad when they could start at 1 model like they used to, which would solve the crisis commander issue. I mean, you can take individual armigers right?

- still don’t like stratagems. These are abilities not tied to models and feel very abstract. They are one of the main reasons 9th got so bad, but here they are again and I don’t trust GW to have restraint in their power. Also why are grenades a strat? That’s lame. Plus if everyone is going to have special rules anyway, why have strats at all?

- army rules are too standardized. Every army gets one army rule, a detachment rule and 6 strats… feels like it hamstrings faction identity. I’d rather have faction special rules as needed rather than trying to shoehorn in exactly one rule per army. Also some are just too strong for no reason.

Likes
- CSM seems solid overall and I can play a Cultist army from the main Codex. It's not R&H but with Traitor Guard, Beastmen, and a couple of HQs I'm still looking forward to it.
- Massively reduced Stratagem count.
- Free rules (even if they are a bit of a mess).

Dislikes
- The haphazard application of units getting stuff only from what's in the kit box and others getting looser restrictions. Neophyte Hybrids can duplicate both the heavy and special weapon options despite only getting one of each in a box but Legionnaires can't double up on anything.

I could go on a rant about all of the things I dislike, pretty much everything except the core rules, but I am going to call out my biggest annoyance...

They gave Deathleaper that fugly ass coattail thing.

I'll echo a lot of people

Like: Rules

Dislike: List building

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
I could go on a rant about all of the things I dislike, pretty much everything except the core rules, but I am going to call out my biggest annoyance...

They gave Deathleaper that fugly ass coattail thing.

Hah, yeah the skirt hurts. Waiting till they release swarmy in a fleshy cat-eared onesie.

It's an awesome illithid horror though, if you leave off the weird upper scytal backpack at least.

I think my list is pretty similar to dominuschao's.

LIKE
*Reduced lethality in general. Although they seem to have made my dark eldar even squishier than before, and some of the more lethal factions seem more lethal than before (Oaths of Moment, Strands of Fate).So I like this as a stated design goal, but the execution seems questionable.

* Units have jobs/GW is embracing the idea of support units more. I like, for instance, that many troops give you additional benefits when they hold objectives, or that they let you hold onto objectives without camping on them or that my night spinner can debuff an enemy unit instead of just being another flavor of damage dealer.

* USRs are good.

* Less rules clutter. We'll see how long this lasts, but only having a short list of stratagems, detachment abilities, and faction abilities is nice. It seems like there will be less to juggle mentally, and my first impression is that the overall lethality and time taken to resolve strats will be reduced. I could be wrong, but that's how it feels.

* No more psychic phase. I understand why they added it, but it always felt a bit awkward trying to work in special rules that really ought to kick in throughout the round to a single phase. Now, witchfires can just be guns again (now with a keyword for when you want anti-psyker/psychic defense rlues to kick in). A psychic power that helps you in the movement phase can kick in during the movement phase. We could even have psychic reaction powers now if we wanted.

* Enhancements costing points. Makes sense. Like this better than trying to make relics and warlord traits all equally good.

*Mission design seems better? There are still more floating pieces than I'd personally prefer, but at least we aren't juggling 3 secondaries per side plus a primary.

* More abilities to allow for reactions to your opponent's choices.

* I think I like the stratagem usage thing they're doing with leader special rules. Getting to use strats additional times or for free etc.

DISLIKE

* A lot of iconic anti-tank weapons appear to no longer be anti-tank. See: melta. In general, it seems like we're looking at a tank-centric meta, which means people need good anti-tank, which means I'm predicting less list diversity as people are forced to spam the handful of S12+ options their faction has access to.

* The way wargear selection works. Not only is not all wargear created equal, but removing my kabalites' ability to specialize in anti-tank or anti-infantry roles is a real bummer. I'm playing at a disadvantage if I don't field the anti-infantyr special weapons, but it's just giving me two extra profiles to shoot when what I want is another anti-tank gun.

* Related to the above, but it feels like I can't put my own personal touch on a unit's rules at all any more. I can't really change the role my kabalites fill. I can't use exarch powers or pivotal roles to change how harlequins or aspect squads play. Old exarch gear (such as the sunrifle) has largely been removed due to no-model-no-rules. My drukhari characters each have a single unit they're allowed to join even though incubi used to be *the* bodyguard unit for archons, archites (succubae) would still be able to hang out with reavers if GW hadn't decided to arbitrarily take away bikes in 5th edition, and haemonculi can't hang out with grotesques for... reasons? I guess they just didn't want grotesques to ugprade from FNP5+ to FNP4+?

The "ur-dudez" aspect of the game that was always a big draw for me is at an all time low. People complained about GW "writing their lists for them" with formations back in 7th, but at least we could choose how to equip our characters back then and decide which squads they joined.

* Tying specific abilities/psychic powers to specific datasheets feels a little arbitrary. I get what they're going for, but they could probably let characters choose from a list of abilities (and pay points accordingly?) rather than making the winged autarch a mildly worse commander than the foot autarch, etc. Like, I get not wanting biker warlocks to have Quicken, but there's probably a better way to handle this sort of thing.

* This is hopefully just a temporary thing related to the roll-out, but they seem to have wildly missed the mark on balancing faction/detachment abilities against each other. Like, look at Oaths of Moment compared to Dark Pacts. Optimistically, I'd hope that between additional detachments being added and some seasonal updates tweaking the existing abilities, things will balance out over time. But like, part of the point of doing an edition reset is to try and bring everyone back to the same, reasonable power level. Would sincerely enjoy reading an explanation of how they came to some of their design decisions.

* Similar to the above, wtf points costs? I'm excited to use my night spinner, but how on earth did they come to the conclusion that it should be more expensive than a fire prism? Why are retributors priced the way they are when devestators are similar but better?

Overall, the rules for this edition seem like they might be based on a lot of gut-decisions that are going to be adjusted over time.

I'm still excited to give the new rules a try, but I worry that things are going to get stale fast given that I can't really tell my army's story through army creation, wargear selection, etc. It sort of seems like there will be a handful of valid builds even in casual games, and we'll just be going through the motions of rolling dice for cookie cutter units.

Likes?

Freedom of army choice. Not so much the lack of a formal FoC, but now not needing to learn all my potential Stratagems from Codex and Expansions to know what sort of synergies I can bring to the table.

Sure someone is gonna use it to Cheese. But if they weren’t Cheesing that, they’d just find a different flavour of Cheese. Because for some folk, that is the hobby. And whilst I wouldn’t want to play them, it is a legit part of it.

Everything else? Gonna need to see what a Codex looks like and get some games under my belt.

Dandelion wrote:
- army rules are too standardized. Every army gets one army rule, a detachment rule and 6 strats… feels like it hamstrings faction identity. I’d rather have faction special rules as needed rather than trying to shoehorn in exactly one rule per army. Also some are just too strong for no reason.

This is one where I'll accept "Wait and see how the first couple of Codex releases go" - they were clear in all the preview material that we'd only see one detachment per faction at release, with more coming as the books come out, possibly alongside WD. Once the 'Nid and SM books drop, at the very least, we should start to see how that variety is expressed.

Like the digital rules and the chance to learn something new.

Not liking the fixed unit sizes and the points. I have started to throw some lists together and I find that I am either leaving points on the table or having to modify the units I want or take units I don’t want to fill out my points.

I can understand the move to fixed load out options from the box but it doesn’t seem to be consistent across the board which makes me a little bitter about it when it impacts my selections.

Likes:
* I like that I can explode my scarab swarms & then bring them back via a spider.
* I like that you can now assault from Landraiders.
* I like the bit where Drukhari units can hop in & out of Venoms on the same turn.
* I like that my Ork Trucks got cheaper.
* I like that strats have been greatly trimmed.
* I like the "If this character is leading a unit" effects.
** I love being able to remind people that I was correct concerning how Pts/upgrades/building units was going to go.
*** I love seeing the reactions (IRL or online) of those people as they rage against the new paradigm.
**** I love that there's a few people out there at my local shops who've had to reverse their stance on Legends units - now that they're looking at having a shelf full of expensive toys they otherwise won't be able to use.

Dislikes:
* That my Gretchin squads are not Battleline.
* That my Gretchin squads must now include a Runtherd.
* That I cannot take Makari as a separate unit.
* That my Lokust Detroyers come in units of 1, 2, 3, - or 6. What about 4? Why not 5? Just so stupid....
* I'm also a bit annoyed that my Drukari Cronos/Talos unit sizes have gone from 1-3 to now 1-2. That leaves me 6 models sitting on the shelf. :(
* I dislike that my Archons Court must now consist of 1 of each of the 4 members instead of mix/match. all I own are Slythes & a few Medusae. :(
* Not a fan of having to start dedicated transports with something embarked
* Not a fan of Aircraft having to start in reserve.
* the new Combi-weapon
* Deathguard :(
* That I was correct in how building units was going to go.

Racerguy180 wrote:
Likes....

NONE


Dislikes...

All of it.


Imma just gon play 30k

Same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:
**** I love that there's a few people out there at my local shops who've had to reverse their stance on Legends units - now that they're looking at having a shelf full of expensive toys they otherwise won't be able to use.

Ok, that's funny. Kind of a "shoes on the other foot" kinda thing.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:
**** I love that there's a few people out there at my local shops who've had to reverse their stance on Legends units - now that they're looking at having a shelf full of expensive toys they otherwise won't be able to use.

Ok, that's funny. Kind of a "shoes on the other foot" kinda thing.

That's one of the reasons I'm happy I want every faction improved and don't hate any. The only model I can think of that I want to see move to legends is Tycho. The Firstborn-replaced-by-primaris I'm pretty neutral on - they can move or they can stay.

so he can go to legends as he's out of "time" with the rest of the world.

Breton wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:
**** I love that there's a few people out there at my local shops who've had to reverse their stance on Legends units - now that they're looking at having a shelf full of expensive toys they otherwise won't be able to use.

Ok, that's funny. Kind of a "shoes on the other foot" kinda thing.

That's one of the reasons I'm happy I want every faction improved and don't hate any. The only model I can think of that I want to see move to legends is Tycho. The Firstborn-replaced-by-primaris I'm pretty neutral on - they can move or they can stay.

Spoiler:

Tycho died before the first Primaris was released

so he can go to legends as he's out of "time" with the rest of the world.

Errmmm....I'm not "getting you", Breton. Are you saying that moving multiple units to Legends is "improving" factions? Or are you just happy that the "pain" is being spread around? If it's the latter, then I'll remind you that it isn't "equal", as the "Legending" of fw options hits some factions harder than others (compare it's effects on CSM to Loyalist, for example).

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Breton wrote:

Spoiler:

Tycho died before the first Primaris was released

so he can go to legends as he's out of "time" with the rest of the world.

Errmmm....I'm not "getting you", Breton. Are you saying that moving multiple units to Legends is "improving" factions? Or are you just happy that the "pain" is being spread around? If it's the latter, then I'll remind you that it isn't "equal", as the "Legending" of fw options hits some factions harder than others (compare it's effects on CSM to Loyalist, for example).

No, I'm saying I don't like almost any model moving to legends. Variety is better. And since I don't hate any faction, that doesn't change depending on the faction. I'm not sure how I lost you after I said the only model I'd move to legends is Tycho - and even that is based on the current timeline of the game world which also leads to a more neutral approach to moving Firstborn-replaced-by-Primaris models to legends for the same reason. Are there a lot of Chaos Firstborn models replaced by Primaris that lead you this confusion?

Likes:

Reduction in subfactions/ rules not locked behind paint schemes.

Tempest-of-war style secondaries

Less lethality? I agree this is generally a good idea. The one game I played so far didnt feel less lethal though. We played Space Marines vs CSM.

Less stratagems/relics/wlt

Certain core stratagems keep things interesting (overwatch, rapid ingress)

Pretty easy to make an army list. I know some bemoan the lack of options but... I made a list in a few minutes on paper; where before I wouldnt even attempt it without battlescribe, and even then it took me forever.


Dislikes:

Free wargear makes WYSIWYG squads harder if you want them to be at their best. IE: No reason not to give this guy a neo-volkite pistol, but do I have it modeled with one? Of course not.

A few too many special rules. I dont think it was necessary for literally every unit to have a special ability.

Removal of the force organization chart (I didnt like Arks of Omen much either). Seems to encourage skew lists even more.

Vehicles/monsters able to gain the benefits of cover is a bit much IMO.


------

To me, I think the good vastly outweighs the bad. Ok, not everything exactly how I wanted it, but I love what I've seen of 10e so far.

Breton wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Breton wrote:

Spoiler:

Tycho died before the first Primaris was released

so he can go to legends as he's out of "time" with the rest of the world.

Errmmm....I'm not "getting you", Breton. Are you saying that moving multiple units to Legends is "improving" factions? Or are you just happy that the "pain" is being spread around? If it's the latter, then I'll remind you that it isn't "equal", as the "Legending" of fw options hits some factions harder than others (compare it's effects on CSM to Loyalist, for example).

No, I'm saying I don't like almost any model moving to legends. Variety is better. And since I don't hate any faction, that doesn't change depending on the faction. I'm not sure how I lost you after I said the only model I'd move to legends is Tycho - and even that is based on the current timeline of the game world which also leads to a more neutral approach to moving Firstborn-replaced-by-Primaris models to legends for the same reason. Are there a lot of Chaos Firstborn models replaced by Primaris that lead you this confusion?

Ok, now I get what you're saying. And I agree. Thanks for clearing things up.

And the problem with CSM, compared to Loyalists is that the Great Legending has removed so many options ffr CSM that Loyalists can easily replace with their myriad of datasheets. CSM have lost NLOS shooting (Scorpius), heavy MW hitting (Decimators), and, most importantly, drop pods (Dreadclaws). Which have been available since looonngggg before HH even existed (introduced in 2002).

But, since I now know that you oppose these changes, I have no arguments with you about. Just clarifying things as you did.

I like the reduced number of Stratagems, removal of SM Super Doctrines and changing Chapter Tactics to Detachment abilities to make it so paint doesn't change rules.

I dislike datasheets taking up 2 pages. How many rainforests does GW think we have? I like free digital indexes. I hope the game goes fully digital and that books become a collectors item rather than game aides.

I dislike trying to get everyone to try to play the same mission format all the time, instead of having a casual format and a competitive format. I don't want to play against some sweaty nerd who thinks they're a master tactician that's too good for some good old random mission cards every turn in a casual game or play pachinko against someone in a competitive game (although I think I'm skipping competitive again this edition because (like 9th) 10th is not meant for that).

I dislike weapons having individual WS/BS profiles. I like universal abilities, except for the fact that the ones a codex uses aren't in the codex. I like that vehicles and monsters can get a bonus to their shooting for remaining stationary with Heavy without needing a unique ability.

The increase in vehicle durability seems to be working out nicely, no problems so far. The aircraft rules seem awful, easily exploited by the opponent and no benefits to being a flyer other than infinite Movement on a tiny table. Units with FLY not being able to hop over terrain seems weird, but I don't hate it, infantry still being able to move through walls makes it even more strange.

I dislike models not being able to overhang on the lip of a Ruin, it feels too restrictive.

I hate the new rules for charging and piling in. I don't care about you scrubs that can't play the game, gitgud instead celebrating when the game is dumbed down. By the way, you're probably still going to lose because you're bad at the game.

I dislike the amount of re-rolls in the game, it does not feel lesser than the number of re-rolls in 9th. For me, re-rolls should be limited to the CP re-roll Stratagem. It took 50 minutes to handle an Astra Militarum Shooting phase. The re-introduction of twin-linked makes no sense.

I dislike the lack of points costs for options. I dislike the removal of options, including the removal of Warlord Traits and Relics. I mildly dislike how restrictive the rules are with which characters can join which units.

I like the Necrons Detachment ability, enhancements and Stratagems. The Genestealer Cult ambush rules are amazingly fitting.

I dislike that Imotekh needs to be in the middle of the enemy's army to use his storm. I dislike Imotekh, Zahndrekh and Anrakyr not getting My Will Be Done and Obyron not getting Lord's Will and Relentless March (Overlord and Lord abilities respectively).

I don't dislike it yet, but I think the huge numbers of combos in the game is going to make it very imbalanced, having an immortal unit of Necron Warriors has been fun the first couple of times, the third or tenth time?

I actually do like combos when they don't break things, like the 5th edition making everything Dangerous Terrain on the first turn Necrons combo, but Necron Warriors + Ghost Ark + Undying Legions + Reanimation Orb + Canoptek Reanimator + Cryptothralls + Orikan the Diviner feels like too many parts for things to remain balanced.

I dislike the nerf to Veil of Darkness, change its cost to 100 pts for all I care, I want to teleport out of melee and still shoot. FNPs working against Time's Arrow removes the feeling of C'tan being special, now it does the work of a mere 5 Deathmarks and that's the only C'tan power you get for that phase on a Tesseract Vault which is very wimpy in terms of damage output on such a large model. I get that it might feel bad to have a 2+2+ you're dead shooting weapon, but we are talking about a 500 pt sniper here.

I like that Ophydians all have the same weapon profile, same for Skorpekhs. I like gauss getting lethal hits. I dislike Astra Militarum having lethal hits. I like tesla exploding and gauss being lethal on 5s with a Plasmancer. Tesla just wasn't the same without it, I asked for its removal because it couldn't be balanced, but with it being attached to just the Plasmancer's own unit I think it's just a fun and exciting option. I like the Monolith's teleport ability, simple and solid.

I dislike FNPs, Necrons have quite a lot of them. Necrons also have oddly low LD values, but as long as my models aren't running away I don't hate it. The odd lowering of various Necrons Movement values feels hateful and makes M values harder to remember.

 vict0988 wrote:
I like universal abilities, except for the fact that the ones a codex uses aren't in the codex.

...when did you get a sneak peek at a 10th ed Codex, out of interest?

Twin Linked should never have come back.
The power points fiasco

 Dysartes wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
I like universal abilities, except for the fact that the ones a codex uses aren't in the codex.

...when did you get a sneak peek at a 10th ed Codex, out of interest?

If I told you I'd have to kill you /sarcasm.