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.

Now that people have been able to play a few games, how is 10th treating you? How does list building feel? Does your army feel fluff-appropriate on the table? Have you enjoyed the games you've played?

So far so good, but I’m not a big fan of the character use however. Always being locked up with a specific unit and losing freedom of movement, it just feels so forced. I’m still getting used to it and having fun,
So that’s something.

 bullyboy wrote:
So far so good, but I’m not a big fan of the character use however. Always being locked up with a specific unit and losing freedom of movement, it just feels so forced. I’m still getting used to it and having fun,
So that’s something.

Yeah, I would have preferred a little more downside to getting battleshocked, and more of the previous joining/leaving units for characters - as well as much fewer "rails" on who can join what. Maybe even recycle the entire can't leave/join while "broken" as can't join/leave on a turn the unit started as battleshocked coupled with Battleshocked wears off at the end of any opponent turn the unit started as battleshocked - right now, you basically battle shock them near the end of your turn, and they're recovered at the start of theirs. Its got no real duration.

So far it’s meh, list building feels so boring and one dimensional even for custodies so far.

Maybe something will improve, but currently it feels like choices are mostly boring and if I want to go heavy into sisters. It’s not a choice that’s really there because any effort was made for the army.

Game is about 40K, nothing special so far and a dice rolling experience.
I don’t feel particularly engaged yet, and mostly will be pulling out other games unless the codexes actually have some effort put into them.

GW could do something, but it’s like a bunch of ideas all shoved into a game again without anyone understanding why those ideas work in other games.

I'm itching to play a game. Almost had one lined up weekend before last but that fell through. I'm looking forward to testing things out.

As for what I have done, list building, that's a tedious chore of a process. I've likened it to building a puzzle where the pieces don't really fit, and all the edges are sharp. Give me a robust points system with variable squad sizes any day of the damned week.

Honestly what I'm most interested is seeing how GW completely screws up the detachment system. I think it has a lot of potential to be wasted and the large variety of different types of armies it will fail to provide.

Played my third game yesterday, games have been fun, I really loved my third game, I tried my hardest to work around the awful melee rules and made skill matter and got a full 5 turn game.

I like the combos, getting additional Canoptek Reanimator triggers off Reanimation Orbs and Ghost Arks or getting extra hits with a Plasmancer in tesla Immortals and then making those hits matter through extra AP with Szarekh, finding and using such combos are things I love so the indexes are interesting. The less restrictive list building allowing me to spam characters like in 5th/6th with my Necrons and being rewarded for doing that feels very fluffy for how I want Necrons to work.

I am reading this everywhere...what is the matter with the "awful melee rules"?

Honestly? Aside from the most problematic elements/armies being played in the maximum way to exploit the issue, 10th is bloody fantastic!


Loads of players have had games go full 5 turns and armies aren't instantly being obliterated by the end of turn 2

 Lord_Valorion wrote:
I am reading this everywhere...what is the matter with the "awful melee rules"?

They are very restrictive and complicated, hard to learn, not much benefit to mastery, bigger units have a hard time fighting with all their models.

I'm not playing ATM because I decided to get rid of all my stuff and start over with better painting skills but the two factions I was most hyped to play, guard and Tau, look pretty disappointing so far. Both had books that worked fairly smoothly in 9th, in 10th there's so much stuff that seems cool at first but doesn't really work because of timing or keyword issues. It feels less like commanding an army and more like trying to solve some bizarre logic puzzle, and it doesn't help that GW took one of the dumbest anti-fluff rules they've ever written and made it the guard detachment ability with a restriction that you only get to use it if you play the least fun kind of army ever: a static artillery gunline.

Oh well, maybe I'll just start with orks since at least orks always win.

Played 9 games so far and I'd say "so far so good".

They're all been more or less enjoyable, except for one against Tau where I got leaf-blown off the table in turn 1, but that came up to a combination of too little terrain (barely any LoS-blocking) and a really bad matchup listwise (I brought a bunch of heavy vehicles, he brought 9 broadsides. He basically brought scissors to my paper.)

The corerules in 10th are good, as is the decision to lower the lethality. (Unlike in 9th, most of my games so far in 10th *hasn't'* resulted in either side being tabled by turn 3.)
They aren't perfect but good, a solid foundation to expand the game upon. (Towering is a glaring issue still though.)

My main issue is the inbalance in terms of powerlevel between the various armies but it's not bad enough to break the game, and it will probably (hopefully) sort itself out with regular pts-updates.
GW forcing PL on us but calling it points also isn't something I'm fan of, but I can live with it.

So far 10th seems like: 'Maximum profit by minimum effort from two interns'. List building is boring and inflexible. You either take the most effective stuff, or worse, you have no choices on what to take anymore (heirloom weapons of wet noodleness). I won't even get into the problems I have with specific armies. Let's just say I am severely underwhelmed.

I do like that vehicles finally seem tough enough to be worth using. I'm sure by three codex's in that will change.

Oh, and it does seem to take an extra turn to table one or the other player now.

8 games in so far and all good so far (playing Sisters, Custodes, Guard and Marines vs. Necrons, Thousand Sons and Space Wolves). I like having leaders charge with their units and the game is much easier to manage now in terms of data load.

Hopefully the next errata pass fixes some more of the remaining issues - but the base game seems fine enough.

It still felt quite dominated by special rules and the need to sit on objectives immediately and permanently.

The last game in particular - marines against Tsons - was a lot of fishing for 6s, swingy unit performance based on bonuses and rerolls from oaths, strategems, cabals, etc.

A prior more 'casual' game did last 5 turns but it was slow going. A lot of attritional dice rolling.

I will post what I posted in another thread, but here are my thoughts - I have played enough of 9th to know how this is going, and I think I gave 10th it's fair shake:

This is a hard question to answer concisely but here I go, picking the top 3 from each of my games.

Superheavy Company
1) No terrain guidelines or allowance for large models. My opponent set the board with ruins such that my tanks could not make meaningful forward progress. While this could be blamed on the player, I know him pretty well and it wasn't really deliberate (he doesn't know how wide a Baneblade is and graciously offered to move the terrain when I arrived, but I declined. I wanted to test the system as-is).

The real issue here is GW failed to give terrain guidelines that allow Baneblades to maneuver - OR, perhaps a better way, would have been to adopt the 4th edition rule where Baneblades ignore terrain less than 6" (iirc) in height when moving.

2) Tank durability. As I predicted when we saw the tank article, GW nerfing anti-tank weapons did not result in people taking more anti-tank (or paying more for the "real" anti-tank). Rather, it resulted in people using wombo-combos to buff small arms and other non-AT weapons (heavy bolters, plasma) with additional AP and rerolls, etc.

A worthy note is that my Baneblade did survive into Turn 2 (with 3 wounds left) after popping smoke. But it was still badly damaged and took 0 shots from anti-tank weapons - this was achieved with weapons from Plasma on down purely. Feels weird.

3) Wombo-combos. The game felt more like a flowchart, just like 8th and 9th. "Perform X. If successful, perform Y. If not successful, play stratagem Z.". This came from a wider variety of places, moving off the stratagem traincar and spreading out into the "Enhancements, Unit Bespoke Rules, Army Rules, Detachment Rules" traincars, but I wasn't defeated by excellent tactical play. I was defeated by my opponent executing on a series of decisions made before the game (with contingencies at certain steps where he thought I could - and did - disrupt his combos).

Imperial Guard Defense Company/PDF
1) Aircraft rules. Brought a plane to this game as the "scrambled fighter" to help a beleaguered PDF force under attack at a distant outpost. My opponent brought one as well, since he also wanted to test it (this was unplanned, and hilarious). I had 3 Hydras, he had some War Walkers. BOTH of our planes died on overwatch the turn they arrived without firing a shot, because he was halfway up the board by Turn 1, and Hydras have a 72" range and reroll ALL THE THINGS against planes.

2) Actual anti-tank weapons suck now. I was also testing a Malcador, the big brutish FW tank with built-in AoC. Eventually, he was able to get a Sword-Wraithlord into it... and meh. I have never seen a more pathetic example of something that used to be scary to a tank doing nothing. He did 5 wounds to the Malcador (including some stray shooting) over five rounds of combat. Any other edition, the tank would have been zapped. Damage 1 AP0 weapons that wound on 6s are more scary than Wraithlord swords, because they can be buffed to [Lethal Hits] and the like to do far more to a tank than actual antitank weapons (lol, damn Corsairs) and the Malcador's own buffed durability is meaningless.

3) Wombo-combos. The game didn't feel much like maneuver was key. My Hydras killed his plane thanks to Ursula Creed letting them overwatch twice, and my plane died thanks to Fate Dice. There wasn't much to be done except bring the planes outside of 24" of everything that might want to shoot them, which is sort of silly because then they do nothing, anyways, and can be zapped in the opponent's turn before doing anything either way AND you haven't consumed an enemy CP. Additionally, the corsairs were very powerful because they combined all kinds of odd weapons with Lethal Hits and a Farseer providing Fate Dice buffs (the auto-6) in a very visibly pre-planned way that didn't have much tactical brilliance to execute.

Chaos Daemons Game
1) Glass cannons are more like glass featherdusters. My Daemons hit with reduced lethality (witstealer sword at Str 8 still on my 330 pt Keeper), but barely got more durable (keeper got 2 more wounds and is T10). Daemonettes are still easier to kill than guard (guard have lots of durability tools). This was especially apparent when Daemonettes get overwatched by flamers - it's unavoidable and it's extremely painful.

2) Lots of really strange shenanigans makes the army almost not want to play the game. The stratagems (pulling units off the table to redeploy them, making objectives "sticky", etc.) combined with the frailty of the units meant I could very easily and obviously win the game by not engaging my opponent for 5 turns while he slowly lumbered around the board (custodes/sisters of silence footslogging). I agreed with him I wouldn't do this because neither of us would have had much fun. Shadow of Chaos gave me his deployment zone because there were no objectives there, meaning I owned at least half of them... (Wut).

3) Wombo combos. I can explain it but at this point it is probably just repetitive.

 Lord_Valorion wrote:
I am reading this everywhere...what is the matter with the "awful melee rules"?

toughness went up
anti-tank shooting weapons strength went up
anti-tank melee weapons strength stayed the same


then theres overwatch, new engagement rules and lack of squad option customisation


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Personally i've had a ton of fun so far with 10th, more than 9th i'd say, and even with my "bad armies" like Admech or Belakor-less Mono-Tzeentch demons

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

3) Wombo-combos. The game didn't feel much like maneuver was key. My Hydras killed his plane thanks to Ursula Creed letting them overwatch twice, and my plane died thanks to Fate Dice. There wasn't much to be done except bring the planes outside of 24" of everything that might want to shoot them, which is sort of silly because then they do nothing, anyways, and can be zapped in the opponent's turn before doing anything either way AND you haven't consumed an enemy CP. Additionally, the corsairs were very powerful because they combined all kinds of odd weapons with Lethal Hits and a Farseer providing Fate Dice buffs (the auto-6) in a very visibly pre-planned way that didn't have much tactical brilliance to execute.

Fyi overwatch is once per turn. Ursula let to do again in same phase. Doesn't overwrite once per turn

I have just played a single game so far, my experience can be read in more detail here: https://mandollies.com/2023/07/03/10th-edition-40k-first-impression/

One thing I actually do like is the list building process, but only when I turn my brain to competitive mode, and have fun trying to build crazy combo-wombos.

So far I'd say "OK".

The game does seem less lethal. We've had multiple scenarios where units that would normally have died in half a shooting phase in 9th have survived the turn. Things like Land Raiders feel much tougher, probably due to the reduction in re-rolls everywhere. The mission deck is great, but I always loved the Maelstrom cards from 8th and was sad to see them go in 9th. It feels like the mission cards will lead to more variety in games overall.

Things I didn't like? Army building is really annoying. The PL system reduces variety because there's no trade-off between powerful but expensive and weaker but cheap options. The fixed points values also mean building an army is very fiddly as you'll often end up 60 points short, or - worse - 20 points over. You can't just take a couple of bodies out to get to the limit, or add some upgrades here or there. Instead you have to reconfigure the entire list. It's not helped by the way Leaders interact with units effectively making them one combined unit and further reducing granularity. It feels like the changes to strats now mean you end up using the same one over and over. I hated the bloat in 9th, but this feels like it's gone too far the other way, especially for armies that have access to the "use a strat again for 0CP" character abilities. Battleshock also seems fairly useless due to timing issues, which further reinforces my theory that GW did next to no real playtesting of 10th.

I think this edition has some potential, but I think there's still a lot of work to do to realise that potential.

tneva82 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

3) Wombo-combos. The game didn't feel much like maneuver was key. My Hydras killed his plane thanks to Ursula Creed letting them overwatch twice, and my plane died thanks to Fate Dice. There wasn't much to be done except bring the planes outside of 24" of everything that might want to shoot them, which is sort of silly because then they do nothing, anyways, and can be zapped in the opponent's turn before doing anything either way AND you haven't consumed an enemy CP. Additionally, the corsairs were very powerful because they combined all kinds of odd weapons with Lethal Hits and a Farseer providing Fate Dice buffs (the auto-6) in a very visibly pre-planned way that didn't have much tactical brilliance to execute.

Fyi overwatch is once per turn. Ursula let to do again in same phase. Doesn't overwrite once per turn

The Eldar player pointed out that she uses the same wording as Asurmen, except Asurmen calls out the Overwatch stratagem as the only one he can do twice per phase, unlike Ursula who can do any.

His logic was if Asurmen's wording works on Overwatch (as it must since it names it specifically), then Ursula's wording works on Overwatch too (as well as others).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

3) Wombo-combos. The game didn't feel much like maneuver was key. My Hydras killed his plane thanks to Ursula Creed letting them overwatch twice, and my plane died thanks to Fate Dice. There wasn't much to be done except bring the planes outside of 24" of everything that might want to shoot them, which is sort of silly because then they do nothing, anyways, and can be zapped in the opponent's turn before doing anything either way AND you haven't consumed an enemy CP. Additionally, the corsairs were very powerful because they combined all kinds of odd weapons with Lethal Hits and a Farseer providing Fate Dice buffs (the auto-6) in a very visibly pre-planned way that didn't have much tactical brilliance to execute.

Fyi overwatch is once per turn. Ursula let to do again in same phase. Doesn't overwrite once per turn

The Eldar player pointed out that she uses the same wording as Asurmen, except Asurmen calls out the Overwatch stratagem as the only one he can do twice per phase, unlike Ursula who can do any.

His logic was if Asurmen's wording works on Overwatch (as it must since it names it specifically), then Ursula's wording works on Overwatch too (as well as others).

This is related to the other post, but I didn't want to edit the wall of text:

I can't help but notice that you complained that the eldar vs. guard game didn't require maneuvering and then also complained that Daemons vs Custodes game could have been won entirely by maneuvering.

ERJAK wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

3) Wombo-combos. The game didn't feel much like maneuver was key. My Hydras killed his plane thanks to Ursula Creed letting them overwatch twice, and my plane died thanks to Fate Dice. There wasn't much to be done except bring the planes outside of 24" of everything that might want to shoot them, which is sort of silly because then they do nothing, anyways, and can be zapped in the opponent's turn before doing anything either way AND you haven't consumed an enemy CP. Additionally, the corsairs were very powerful because they combined all kinds of odd weapons with Lethal Hits and a Farseer providing Fate Dice buffs (the auto-6) in a very visibly pre-planned way that didn't have much tactical brilliance to execute.

Fyi overwatch is once per turn. Ursula let to do again in same phase. Doesn't overwrite once per turn

The Eldar player pointed out that she uses the same wording as Asurmen, except Asurmen calls out the Overwatch stratagem as the only one he can do twice per phase, unlike Ursula who can do any.

His logic was if Asurmen's wording works on Overwatch (as it must since it names it specifically), then Ursula's wording works on Overwatch too (as well as others).

This is related to the other post, but I didn't want to edit the wall of text:

I can't help but notice that you complained that the eldar vs. guard game didn't require maneuvering and then also complained that Daemons vs Custodes game could have been won entirely by maneuvering.

I did say that yes, a pair of observations I did not connect. I think if you are asking me what conclusion I would draw, it's that overall "maneuver importance" is probably in a good place in 10th, but my experiences touched the extremes only, and the extremes left me sour (some of which is my fault, some of which is the Army's - I fail to see how Slaanesh Daemons can be expected to have any units that stay in place to stand and fight).

It's too bad the rest of the system is so painful to fight through because I do think that the Movement Phase in 10th specifically is pretty important, as it should be.

Credit where credit is due, is my initial response!

I saw it in the superheavy game too - my ability to maneuver was constrained and that directly impacted the outcome.

tneva82 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

3) Wombo-combos. The game didn't feel much like maneuver was key. My Hydras killed his plane thanks to Ursula Creed letting them overwatch twice, and my plane died thanks to Fate Dice. There wasn't much to be done except bring the planes outside of 24" of everything that might want to shoot them, which is sort of silly because then they do nothing, anyways, and can be zapped in the opponent's turn before doing anything either way AND you haven't consumed an enemy CP. Additionally, the corsairs were very powerful because they combined all kinds of odd weapons with Lethal Hits and a Farseer providing Fate Dice buffs (the auto-6) in a very visibly pre-planned way that didn't have much tactical brilliance to execute.

Fyi overwatch is once per turn. Ursula let to do again in same phase. Doesn't overwrite once per turn

still not confirmed by GW, by your interpretation, the Hexmark Destoroyer's ability wouldnt do anything

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

3) Wombo-combos. The game didn't feel much like maneuver was key. My Hydras killed his plane thanks to Ursula Creed letting them overwatch twice, and my plane died thanks to Fate Dice. There wasn't much to be done except bring the planes outside of 24" of everything that might want to shoot them, which is sort of silly because then they do nothing, anyways, and can be zapped in the opponent's turn before doing anything either way AND you haven't consumed an enemy CP. Additionally, the corsairs were very powerful because they combined all kinds of odd weapons with Lethal Hits and a Farseer providing Fate Dice buffs (the auto-6) in a very visibly pre-planned way that didn't have much tactical brilliance to execute.

Fyi overwatch is once per turn. Ursula let to do again in same phase. Doesn't overwrite once per turn

still not confirmed by GW, by your interpretation, the Hexmark Destoroyer's ability wouldnt do anything

Those might be an exception. You never know with GW. Hexmark gets free Overwatch at any rate.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I fail to see how Slaanesh Daemons can be expected to have any units that stay in place to stand and fight).

sadly, GW doesn't seem to want monogod demons to be a thing, at least until we possibly get new detachments, right now it is very much "Index:Belakor".

If you want staying power however, Shalaxi is insanely hard to shift and hits like a truck.
Regular keepers with shields also become ridiculously hard to kill, but yeah, lesser demons are pretty bad overall


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vict0988 wrote:

Those might be an exception. You never know with GW. Hexmark gets free Overwatch at any rate.

yeah so until GW addresses it, we won't know for sure and are simply guessing.

Really liking 10th so far. Games have been good. I'd really prefer a more abstracted LOS/terrain system, but by the standards I judge 40k its the happiest I've been with the game by a long shot.

Seems like a pretty mixed response. If we were to try and boil things down would it be fair to say:

PROS
+ Less stuff to juggle.
+ People like the maelstrom-esque missions. (Is drunken commander syndrome not a thing?)
+ Reduced lethality.

CONS
- Still a lot to juggle, usually from bespoke datasheet rules.
- List building seems unpopular due to lack of options/nuance and the awkward points gaps that might leave you at a significant points disadvantage.
- Some factions' playstyles aren't suiting their fluff.
- Power imbalance between factions.

If the above is accurate, then the silver lining is that a lot of the cons seem like things that could reasonably be addressed by codices. I.e., adding options to support customization/fluff/playstyles better and generally take another stab at putting all the armies on an equal-ish playing field. Although they'll risk losing the PRO of reduced lethality if they power creep things like they did last edition.

So far, so good.

I've now played 6 games - 3 using SM, 3 using Necrons - losing one game of each. Both losses were very close.
Of the 6 the ones where I used the Necrons were the most fun. I love blowing things up with scarabs.

Neither I nor anyone I've played with or observed at the shop(s) seem to have had any real issue with the new pts system or rules.
Some minor grumbling about SM tac squads only coming in 10 man units & grumbling from the Knights players the other day when their pts went up. Some of us are waiting for the rest of the Legends.

Next game I'm pulling some Guard out of storage.

I must have been unlucky judging by other comments here - played a Marine Vs Marine game tonight and spent the evening rerolling dice, lost my Knight in a single turn of shooting.
Not feeling the less lethal vibe and less rerolls quite yet.

Unfortunately, a single Knight against Space Marines is bringing Scissors to a Rock Fight.