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.

Like the boys, but really not sure about the ork characters, especially the warboss. Just look like the big uncoordinated palookas that always get slaughtered in boxing or mma

One thing I want to bring up about the new Orks. I think they look a lot better IRL than in the promo picts. The difference between the promo picts and the actual 3D miniatures shown in the reveal stream felt significant to me. In fact, werent it for the 3D miniatures shown in the stream, I'd be a lot less hyped about them. On the promo picts they dont look nearly as good IMHO

Having said that, they do look very different to all the previous Orks. Might not be easy to mix these into an existing Ork army, without it looking weird.. But that's precisely why I dont mix old firstborn with the modern HH firstborn models either. You gotta choose which side of the fence you wanna be

They show some of the miniatures painted up by themselves rather than the professionals. They look good enough.

Dudeface wrote:
Unless my mental maths is off, we have 7ish weeks to assumed release date so 3 faction focii a week minimum?

Depending on how many of the factions get a seperate article, there have to be between 27 (if everything with a codex gets an article) and 36 (everything with a seperate category on the GW online store, minus the Titans) articles.

June 27th is the latest possible release, and they could do these article right up to then - meaning there is plenty time (8 weeks with 5 weekdays each) to do one article a day.

 Darnok wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Unless my mental maths is off, we have 7ish weeks to assumed release date so 3 faction focii a week minimum?

Depending on how many of the factions get a seperate article, there have to be between 27 (if everything with a codex gets an article) and 36 (everything with a seperate category on the GW online store, minus the Titans) articles.

June 27th is the latest possible release, and they could do these article right up to then - meaning there is plenty time (8 weeks with 5 weekdays each) to do one article a day.

By all accounts rumours are saying a June 13th or 20th release date fwiw.

6 weeks till release. 5 weekdays a week, so 30 potential Faction Focus slots.

27 current Codexes, so that gives a small amount of wiggle room (and maybe Deathwatch and Daemons still get a day for a total of 29 with no FF on June 12 and a big PDF drop that day instead).

We could see 26 days with Knights, knowing how they sometimes combine both flavors in one day. Possibly less if they showcase two rival legions or do an article on most Astartes.

For daemons and Deathwatch, I'd say DW may get one while daemons could wait(provided thay aren't reduced to the battleline troops for each legion).

https://www.warhammer-community.com/en-gb/articles/xiczsalv/warhammer-40000-faction-focus-space-marines/

Focus marines is up. I’ll watch the hour long vid later….

Amd for those doing the math, it includeds BT/BA/DA/SW

I'm seeing a lot of extra complexity in these rules. We've got multiple detachments, all with their own Keywords/Tags (for some units, but not all), all with their own stratagems and all with their own Enhancements/Upgrades. On top of that, some apparently don't count as taking up some slots. Some detachments have multi-tiered options for their rules. Strats can now be multi-layered, which is good for saving space or cutting down on the total number, but adds complexity too, as in the case of Heroic Intervention.

Maybe it'll all be quite simple once we have all the rules, but that's potentially a lot of stuff to track now.

Slipspace wrote:
I'm seeing a lot of extra complexity in these rules. We've got multiple detachments, all with their own Keywords/Tags (for some units, but not all), all with their own stratagems and all with their own Enhancements/Upgrades. On top of that, some apparently don't count as taking up some slots. Some detachments have multi-tiered options for their rules. Strats can now be multi-layered, which is good for saving space or cutting down on the total number, but adds complexity too, as in the case of Heroic Intervention.

Maybe it'll all be quite simple once we have all the rules, but that's potentially a lot of stuff to track now.

Rules creep does seem to be on the rise, but 10th was pretty streamlined, so there is space to grow before we hit the bloated mess stage again.

Theoretically. Looking forward to more info.

My biggest concern reading the latest post is rampant power creep, depending on how many of these you can combine.
Re-roll 1s for all units led by librarians is quite a buff!

 Nevelon wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
I'm seeing a lot of extra complexity in these rules. We've got multiple detachments, all with their own Keywords/Tags (for some units, but not all), all with their own stratagems and all with their own Enhancements/Upgrades. On top of that, some apparently don't count as taking up some slots. Some detachments have multi-tiered options for their rules. Strats can now be multi-layered, which is good for saving space or cutting down on the total number, but adds complexity too, as in the case of Heroic Intervention.

Maybe it'll all be quite simple once we have all the rules, but that's potentially a lot of stuff to track now.

Rules creep does seem to be on the rise, but 10th was pretty streamlined, so there is space to grow before we hit the bloated mess stage again.

Theoretically.

I'd say about 3 more years of bloatification
Just in time to be "saved" by 12th edition.

Imperial Guard will be tomorrow's Faction Focus.

Be interesting to see if they get any tools to help deal with Battleshock being persistent until its removed.

Lord Zarkov wrote:
My biggest concern reading the latest post is rampant power creep, depending on how many of these you can combine.
Re-roll 1s for all units led by librarians is quite a buff!

That's already a rule in the current Librarius Conclave detachment.

Slipspace wrote:
On top of that, some apparently don't count as taking up some slots.

Haven't heard of detatchments that don't count against your 3 points. Was that in the video?

 Asmodai wrote:
Imperial Guard will be tomorrow's Faction Focus.

Be interesting to see if they get any tools to help deal with Battleshock being persistent until its removed.

Commissars, Priests, Vox Operators etc presumably will fix that.

Some interesting stuff in the hour interview. Most notably, not every detachment has strategems. The Librarian one just has 5 enhancement options. Also of notes, Battleshocked units require a successful leadership role to remove Battleshock.

Famous last words, but if the "1 star" detachments are things like "your plasma guns get +1 Strength", I'm not sure its going to be that confusing/complicated.

The only thing I don't really like is more stratagems - but I'm not sure its that ruinous if those are fairly simple too.

My slightly cynical view is that GW are adding artificial choice. "You can mix A and B or A and C or B and C" - sure. But very soon it will likely be solved and people just... won't.

I felt one thing 10th kind of got right was that a lot of the detachments (not all) were characterful. You were sort of trying to describe a formation/style of army that might exist in 40k and was sufficiently different to the others to be its own thing. And I think that made people try to work with them even if they clearly weren't the best right now. I don't know if that's going to apply to detachment combos.

I am still a bit disappointed to not see the return of wargear costs.

Okay, they split off the Shardcarbine Scourges into a whole separate datasheet to price differently in order to get around the issue. Are they going to do that with Shredders too? And Blasters? And Heat Lances? Because I am still only seeing people take Dark Lances, maybe the occasional Haywire if the meta is sufficiently skewed.

The main issue with 10th detachments was just that they got caught up in the trap of buffing very specific units instead a general playstyle and failed to provide some of the core tools the faction had been designed around with their base detachment. It's why, in the end, the launch detachments often remained the competitive standard outside of new stuff that was so egregious it had to be nerfed.

This seems to want to try and allow some of that hyper specific unit design of the codex detatchments without demanding 2000 points be dedicated to that unit. Done correctly, you can have some interesting things like a general toolset that can be pushed in different directions depending on a secondary detachment. It's definitely ambitious and I think its probably going to have a fairly low success rate but it'll probably have some fun options and evolve into something more coherent for 12th.

Tyel wrote:
My slightly cynical view is that GW are adding artificial choice. "You can mix A and B or A and C or B and C" - sure. But very soon it will likely be solved and people just... won't..

I think this is true on some level, but you can only do so much to save players from themselves. People will always find the optimal choice. But if you provide a breadth of choices, and work to balance them all to at least be reasonable (so nothing feels like a throw pick), that alone will take you far.

In Horus Heresy, the melta Kratos is the meta pick, and the volkite Kratos is terrible. The battle cannon Kratos, however, is not so bad. Not optimal, but it does work and reliably so.

Are they trying to move to a model where "this wargear choice is the optimal option in *this* detachment, but that other wargear choice is the optimal option in *that* detachment"?

I was very whelmed by the DA one they showed. Not sure if that'll make Hellblasters suddenly competitive or not, especially when some of the other detachments we already have in the game are absolutely bananaramas

chaos0xomega wrote:
Are they trying to move to a model where "this wargear choice is the optimal option in *this* detachment, but that other wargear choice is the optimal option in *that* detachment"?

If so, they are going to have to work hard. I am sure any local Sisters of Battle player would be happy to educate us just how much it'd take for them to even consider picking Heavy Flamers or Heavy Bolters on their Retributors, since doing that currently is trolling your opponent on purpose.

https://youtu.be/ZR-yzlgyNgE?si=10pyeXctINZ8bLpy

Someone whoopsied.

Fun. All sounds very cool at least, and gives hope that things like marker lights will interact with detection range on an interesting way.

Dudeface wrote:
https://youtu.be/ZR-yzlgyNgE?si=10pyeXctINZ8bLpy

Someone whoopsied.

It's hilarious that the top comment on that video is someone asking to wake up Auspex so they don't have to sit through the super long video for six pieces of information

Video is gone :(

 Ashiraya wrote:
I think this is true on some level, but you can only do so much to save players from themselves. People will always find the optimal choice. But if you provide a breadth of choices, and work to balance them all to at least be reasonable (so nothing feels like a throw pick), that alone will take you far.

In Horus Heresy, the melta Kratos is the meta pick, and the volkite Kratos is terrible. The battle cannon Kratos, however, is not so bad. Not optimal, but it does work and reliably so.

I'm not so worried about balance - as GW is fairly quick to push things around.
Its more about... identity? Character. List Archetypes. Which I guess some people hate as it undermines "your dudes" - and invites accusations of canned strategy.
But I think its kind of necessary to make every unit viable but not necessarily in the same army.

In a world where you can have detachments A, B, C, D, E, you are likely to get "something" of a split. Even if say no one think's E is good, some people will see it as a challenge to try and make E work. Different units, different style of play etc.

If however we get A+B, A+C, A+D, A+E, B+C, B+D etc, I wonder if that's just too diffuse. Its hard to believe that "A+B" will be a specific archetype/style that GW sometimes worry about compared with "A+C" or "A+E" etc.

Basically I'd prefer a system where you get to make a big choice from a few options, to a system where you have theoretically dozens of potential options - and inevitably they aren't all things in themselves.

I don't know Horus Heresy - but if you had "anti-heavy Kratos", "Anti-medium Kratos" and "Anti-light Kratos" that would sort of make sense. Maybe the meta would be that the Anti-Light Kratos was a bit pointless, because no one is taking light units (and that could change) - but it wouldn't suck in its own terms. Now imagine they gave the Kratos 10 different main gun options. There aren't that many defensive different profiles. So its all going to be much of a muchness. A sort of artificial choice. And GW is probably not going to care if "Battle Cannon version 2" is bad - because you can just take "Battle Cannon version 1". Or forget the Battle Cannon entirely.

It sounds like I'm complaining about trap options again - but its not that so much as the identity not being a thing. I think no one is going to want be a "Battle Cannon Version 2-er".

 Mr_Rose wrote:
Fun. All sounds very cool at least, and gives hope that things like marker lights will interact with detection range on an interesting way.

I suspect markerlights are why Tau are getting an early codex. Their entire army rule and dynamic involves a "removes cover" mechanic.