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 I've not played 40k since 6th, trying to learn 10th and the lack of a few things confuse me -

There's no Difficult Terrain?

There's no "locked in combat"? You merely refer to the part in the movement section about moving through Engagement range?

Combats don't involve both units? So if it's my turn andA/B C/D are in engagement range (and not Fights First) my opponent gets to pick the combat first, picks his unit B, they attack A and resolve casualties etc then I can pick either A or C to fight next?

Morale is now always in your command phase, not units breaking when losing combat etc? And the only downside is losing ability to hold objectives or use stratagems?

Well then I'm stupid too, because I understood those rules almost same way. But I think it's kinda hard to learn very easy to master stuff. Guess it will be easier and cooler with every battle.

But I'm glad I'm not the only one who still doesn't know perfectly 10ed rules

(I’m not 100% up to speed on 10th, take some salt, also just played some AoB, so brain is muddy)

Terrain has features, but the difficult terrain I think is gone. It can still effect movement for some units in some ways.

Combat hasn’t been “locked” for a while now. I forget what edition you could voluntarily fall back (basic SM could in 5th IIRC, they opened it up) You do need to make a “Fall Back” move, and there are consequences to that, as it’s not a normal move.

Yup. In 10th, as there is not initiative steps to follow, you take turns activating units to fight. There is some strategy in picking who you want to fight next. You generally want to attack units that haven’t swung yet, but if there are a few brawls going on you need to pick which one you thing is more relevant to do first.

Pretty sure it’s all in the command phase. The days of breaking and being run down are behind us.

 RustyNumber wrote:
Now I've not played 40k since 6th, trying to learn 10th and the lack of a few things confuse me -

There's no Difficult Terrain?

Correct.

 RustyNumber wrote:
There's no "locked in combat"? You merely refer to the part in the movement section about moving through Engagement range?

Correct.

 RustyNumber wrote:
Combats don't involve both units? So if it's my turn andA/B C/D are in engagement range (and not Fights First) my opponent gets to pick the combat first, picks his unit B, they attack A and resolve casualties etc then I can pick either A or C to fight next?

No, combat still involves both units. All that's changed is how/when they each get to swing. Wich you've gotten right.
Do make sure that you understand the Chargers Fight 1st & Fights First rules though.

 RustyNumber wrote:
Morale is now always in your command phase, not units breaking when losing combat etc? And the only downside is losing ability to hold objectives or use stratagems?

Well, it's not always in your Command Phase. There ARE unit specific rules that can force Battleshock tests immediately.

Thanks for that ccs. With the melee combat yes, I meant that units in a combat no longer trade blows with each other one after another. With the players picking you could have B player pick his unit to attack on one side of the board in combat #1, then A player picks a unit of his on the opposite side in combat #2 to fight with then later on he picks his unit in combat 1 to make their "return attacks". I suppose each player is keen to try to do the most damage possible or reduce the enemy units potential for fighting back.

I think this is what happens when they try to write out rules in a more "legalese" style with none of the flavour text or conversational tone of older rule books. You end up having to look for rules-by-omission.

Okay I have another one now - Necron Overlord has a rule saying reduce incoming Damage by 1. Does this mean he's immune to D1 weapons?

 RustyNumber wrote:

Okay I have another one now - Necron Overlord has a rule saying reduce incoming Damage by 1. Does this mean he's immune to D1 weapons?

No, the damage stat can't be modified below 1. Which you'll find listed on page 35 of the core rules update document.

Before I posted I made sure to go and scan the current core rules PDF looking for anything about it, silly me for not consulting an additional document thanks GW ?

 RustyNumber wrote:

I think this is what happens when they try to write out rules in a more "legalese" style with none of the flavour text or conversational tone of older rule books. You end up having to look for rules-by-omission.

While I'm not a huge fan of how GW writes its rules, I think this is incorrect. The problem you're having is you're looking for rules you remember being there and assuming they should still exist. You can't write a ruleset carrying all the baggage and assumptions from previous editions. It would be madness for GW to specifically call out that difficult terrain doesn't exist any more, for example, or highlight that combat used to use initiative but that was 3 editions prior.

Slipspace wrote:

 RustyNumber wrote:

I think this is what happens when they try to write out rules in a more "legalese" style with none of the flavour text or conversational tone of older rule books. You end up having to look for rules-by-omission.

While I'm not a huge fan of how GW writes its rules, I think this is incorrect. The problem you're having is you're looking for rules you remember being there and assuming they should still exist. You can't write a ruleset carrying all the baggage and assumptions from previous editions. It would be madness for GW to specifically call out that difficult terrain doesn't exist any more, for example, or highlight that combat used to use initiative but that was 3 editions prior.

This is one of my biggest problems with 40k these days. I’ve got 10 editions of rules floating around my head (plus some WHFB/AoS) so trying to remember what the current ones are is tough. And trying to find something that has been cut is maddening. Because sometimes GW sticks rules in odd spots, so just because it’s not in the section that it should be doesn’t mean it’s not hiding in the wings somewhere.

Slipspace wrote:

While I'm not a huge fan of how GW writes its rules, I think this is incorrect. The problem you're having is you're looking for rules you remember being there and assuming they should still exist. You can't write a ruleset carrying all the baggage and assumptions from previous editions. It would be madness for GW to specifically call out that difficult terrain doesn't exist any more, for example, or highlight that combat used to use initiative but that was 3 editions prior.

I accept that 100% however in the "conversational" way of older rule books (and the current TOW book) they include commentary in the rules, small comments in the style of "this is covered in the Fall Back section (pgwhatever)." that point out things to the player that would be a logical question to ask at that point in the game. Which in my case is "uh so are units locked in combat?" when reading the combat section. So dummies like me have to logic-puzzle it out that the rule for moving out of Engagement Range is the "get out of combat" rule, instead of simply including a line about "this is how you leave combat". For another example they could have included a line in the end of the fighting section stating what units might look like after combat is finished and that in the next command phase battle shock tests may be required and that players might choose to Fall Back.

That's only necessary for legacy players to unlearn prior editions.

Anyone who read the rules front to back (all new players) already knows you take Battleshock Test during the Command Phase and that units that are in Engagement Range can (and must) make a Fall Back Move to move away from an enemy unit.

And that is why the number 1 rule of a new Edition is "read the rules like you've never played the game". It is the only way to avoid skipping over things that have changed or inserting things that are no longer there.