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.

 Tyran wrote:
Regarding that "rumour", I'm not even sure if a game set in M38 could have Tyranids and Necrons, and definitely not Tau.

So either fake or GW is being very stupid.

They did the same with The Old World. They picked a timeline where [conveniently] all the factions they didn't want to port over (because they were full factions in AoS) weren't around. Including some of the most popular factions, like Skaven.
Those factions got half arsed Legends rules and that's it.
So GW choosing a timeline where large swathes of 40k factions don't yet exist would be an entirely plausible part of the rumour.
[On a lore perspective isn't it interesting that absolutely everything underpinning 40k happened in like a single decade in M31 then literally nothing happened for 9900 years then suddenly a *whole bunch* of stuff starts happening in early-mid M41.9]. Even Badab is like M41.9500 and they're characterised as using a large amount of Heresy era 9400 year old gear that would largely disappear by M41.999, just 500 years later.

I think it's nonsense though, most plausible interpretation is it's the same "The Scouring" rumour for 30k through the game of telephone.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyel wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
One problem with 10th’s system is that unless the units you pick are on-theme to your detachment, they get basically nothing from it. 11th lets you have a little fun support for them.

I don't think that's a problem though. That's a design choice.

It comes down to how you want list building to work.
Do you want people to select an army (maybe in a classic soft-highlander White Dwarf way - because that's what their collection looks like), and then select from multiple rules to buff different bits of it.
Or do you generate rules such that people have a rational/fluff/just being a special snowflake reason to build fundamentally different lists from the same roster of units.

Maybe I'm jaded, but I'm much keener on the second.

I agree with you in principle, that encouraging strongly themed lists is preferable.
But the issue is you're entirely at the mercy of what GW considers a "themed" list - and that's usually a flanderised spam of one particular unit type. Which is, usually, explicitly *not* a fluffy lore accurate list - armies deployed are much more normally combined arms lists. I still remember the olden days when a "good" list was "Takes All Comers" instead of modern "spam as many Leman Russ as you can for the biggest bonus".
Which means in many ways they 10th detachment system actively *discourages* good themed lists. A building-block detachment system will allow players to craft their own combined arms force in the way they feel thematic.
The logical extension of that opinion then becomes why have detachments at all? Why should GW dictate what a fluffy list is to me, or require that I utilise their vision of a theme to get the most out of my units (which often equates to the par-performance, with units underpowering outside of 'their' detachment). With no detachments we would be free to build what we feel is a cool thematic list.
The practical difference is, I suppose, the narrative player vs the competitive player. Detachments force the competitive player to field some sort of narrative or theme, whereas they limit the thematic options open to the narrative player (and punish them for stepping outside of those limits).

Looking at those ork parts it seems a new direction for push fits where multipart and push fit meet halfway.

I wonder how that will affect the final multipart kits sets. Meaning we will get just what we see now with just a new sprue with some weapons, if that, like the Nids had. Most of Nid kits from Leviathan just got reboxed...

If GW wants to keep using command points and stratagems I think they need to use detachments. They are a good way of keeping the overlapping rules bloat of 9th under control. GW has also slowly been outsourcing a lot of the tricks, flavor, and options to them. Models don’t have grenades of any type on them anymore, they get keywords and strats for example. This has the advantage of cleaning up the unit entries, but just shuffles the complexity around.

An how much complexity and where is something GW has shifted their stance on over the years.

8th saw a lot of it moved off of units into strats.
9th blossomed out with more of that, with layers of faction/subfaction rules
10th harshly cut a lot of that bloat down to one page of rules/strats detachments.
11th is easing up by letting you take a few different detachments, but they are smaller.

Is this the best way? I’m not sure. There are compelling arguments on all sides. I like it better then needing to take a named character to get flavorful rules. Or being locked into one style by the paintjob I chose. It/s nice that units can fit nicely on one card, instead of having to check 3 pages in the codex and a couple in the main book to figure out what’s going on.

But it does seem like it should work to make fun armies. And that’s what I’m here for.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

I agree with you in principle, that encouraging strongly themed lists is preferable.
But the issue is you're entirely at the mercy of what GW considers a "themed" list - and that's usually a flanderised spam of one particular unit type. Which is, usually, explicitly *not* a fluffy lore accurate list - armies deployed are much more normally combined arms lists. I still remember the olden days when a "good" list was "Takes All Comers" instead of modern "spam as many Leman Russ as you can for the biggest bonus".
Which means in many ways they 10th detachment system actively *discourages* good themed lists. A building-block detachment system will allow players to craft their own combined arms force in the way they feel thematic.
The logical extension of that opinion then becomes why have detachments at all? Why should GW dictate what a fluffy list is to me, or require that I utilise their vision of a theme to get the most out of my units (which often equates to the par-performance, with units underpowering outside of 'their' detachment). With no detachments we would be free to build what we feel is a cool thematic list.
The practical difference is, I suppose, the narrative player vs the competitive player. Detachments force the competitive player to field some sort of narrative or theme, whereas they limit the thematic options open to the narrative player (and punish them for stepping outside of those limits).

Do you have an example of how "good themed lists" are discouraged?
The competitive view seems to be that its precisely those combined arms detachments where you can take a bit of everything and it all gets buffed that tends to be the competitive choice. Rather than the ones that buff 3 datasheets so you are encouraged to spend the bulk of your points on those.

I can agree I guess that sometimes GW makes odd decisions about how a detachment should work - or how the rules play out on the table. This is especially true I think when trying to create 5-6 detachments when various factions are just too small. They have as many detachments as they have units.

But Eldar for example have had a divide between putting most of your points into Aspect Warriors, Jetbikes, Wraiths or Guardians & Psykers since 2nd edition. This continued through the 3.5 Craftworlds supplement through to 10th edition's detachments today. Is this 30+ years of Ned Flanders? You could say that subfaction rules aren't necessary - as an army where you put 75% of your points into Aspect Warriors isn't going to feel or play the same as one where 75% of your points go to Wraith units. But I think GW has found that unit rules alone are not typically enough. There are obvious winners and losers - and the detachment system allows you to somewhat balance that, and also further push the difference of how those armies play. What goes for Eldar I think also goes for Orks. Leaving aside whether the rules "work today", green tide isn't the same as a speed freaks list which isn't the same as a dreadmob list. Tyranids if you go mostly big guys or mostly little guys or mostly fast guys etc.

I agree that GW shouldn't be the only arbiter of what a fluffy formation should be. But equally I'm kind of jaded on players writing their fluff in retrospect. This is how you get people claiming their Loyal 32, 3 BA captains and a knight is in fact a fluffy list. As said above, someone somewhere is bound to want to play "Wraiths+Harlequins" as an army. But I'm not really sure this is an especially natural/fluffy combo in the lore that needs to be facilitated versus making "mainly Wraiths" work full stop. "Old Alaitoc" with lots of rangers could be an interesting concept. But I don't think "my rangers are able to see hidden units up to 21" away" is really doing anything. Its not changing how you play. Its not therefore changing how you'd rationally design a list if you have moved beyond "I like rangers, guess I'll bring 30."

 Tyran wrote:
Regarding that "rumour", I'm not even sure if a game set in M38 could have Tyranids and Necrons, and definitely not Tau.

So either fake or GW is being very stupid.

And yet people spent thousands and praised a game setting that was initially purely marines and marines alone.

And for all that is they released a tidied up 2nd edition with a new black codex with
Space Marines
Imperial Guard
Imperial Agents - other Imperial forces, including
Adeptus Mechanicus
Adeptus Ministorum/Adepta Sororitas
Adeptus Arbites
Inquisition
Assassins
Psykers
Squats
Orks
Eldar
Chaos - Representing Chaos forces in general, such as
Chaos Space Marines
Chaos Cultists
Daemon World forces
Tyranids
Genestealer Cult

I would be quite happy and suckered into buying and playing it

No need for a new book, you can do that now. Everything's online. All a new book from GW will do is make finding opponents a little easier, maybe.

Dudeface wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
Regarding that "rumour", I'm not even sure if a game set in M38 could have Tyranids and Necrons, and definitely not Tau.

So either fake or GW is being very stupid.

And yet people spent thousands and praised a game setting that was initially purely marines and marines alone.

Not quite, Book 1 had Ordo Reductor and Book 2 Legio Cybernetica.

 Nevelon wrote:
If GW wants to keep using command points and stratagems I think they need to use detachments.

If they want to keep using command points and stratagems then they've already committed to the edition being a mound of sludge.

Detachments merely influence the shape of the container into which said sludge is poured.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
And for all that is they released a tidied up 2nd edition with a new black codex with
Space Marines
Imperial Guard
Imperial Agents - other Imperial forces, including
Adeptus Mechanicus
Adeptus Ministorum/Adepta Sororitas
Adeptus Arbites
Inquisition
Assassins
Psykers
Squats
Orks
Eldar
Chaos - Representing Chaos forces in general, such as
Chaos Space Marines
Chaos Cultists
Daemon World forces
Tyranids
Genestealer Cult

I would be quite happy and suckered into buying and playing it

Shadow War Armageddon had 2nd edition profiles for a good number of modern 40K units.

 Nevelon wrote:
If GW wants to keep using command points and stratagems I think they need to use detachments. They are a good way of keeping the overlapping rules bloat of 9th under control. GW has also slowly been outsourcing a lot of the tricks, flavor, and options to them. Models don’t have grenades of any type on them anymore, they get keywords and strats for example. This has the advantage of cleaning up the unit entries, but just shuffles the complexity around.

Getting back into AOS recently I've been comparing its system to 40K, and the differences are interesting. The broad strokes are the same- you get a subfaction bonus, there are command points that can be spent on abilities from the core book- but the key difference is that there are no subfaction/detachment-specific abilities, they're abilities on the units themselves. The less powerful ones are just innate to each unit, while the more powerful ones are limited to once per turn (for the whole army).

At first I felt this was annoyingly gamey, in the same way that in 40K only one unit getting to throw grenades or pop smoke feels gamey, but it has a couple of beneficial consequences on the gameplay. The big one is there's a lot less to remember; a unit's capabilities are largely limited to its innate abilities and the command abilities in the rulebook. For another, not being tied to CP means units don't stop being able to do their Cool Thing(tm) just because you're out of command points. This also makes the once-per-turn limitations more impactful in providing diminishing returns to taking multiples of the same unit, since one unit can do its Thing every turn but three of that unit is still only going to do the Thing once. And maybe most of all it means not having the performance of each unit so heavily tied to benefitting from being in the right detachment. There are still formation abilities, but that's the only extra layer of rules stemming from listbuilding.

In practice I've been finding this approach offers a lot of freedom for listbuilding (especially highlander-style), while the formation system still allows leaning into a particular archetype, but without feeling railroaded into it. I don't miss the detachment stratagems at all, the unit abilities are more limited but more impactful, and the core command abilities still carry that resource management aspect. And I wonder if GW might have gone more in this direction if they weren't concerned with maintaining backwards compatibility for this new edition change.

Oh well. It is what it is at this point.

It's worth adding for context that Age of Sigmar units are often more expensive, so armies are smaller.

A unit of three-wound, 3+ save, hard hitting Chaos Chosen in Age of Sigmar was almost 50 points per model last time I played. A unit of three-wound, 3+ save, hard-hitting Chaos Chosen in 40k are 25 points per model, and tend to only ever be brought in 5s besides.

A 40k player will baulk at paying more than 300 points for a model unless it's truly bonkers strong. Meanwhile in Age of Sigmar, god models at 700+ points have often seen hardcore competitive play, a notion that simply does not exist in 40k (superheavies of that price point universally suck).

Weirdly whenever I look at AoS armies they always feel larger and more spammy to me. It might just be a lack of rule of 3 or the armies I tend to favor in that game. I don't follow it close enough to be able to say that with ANY confidence though. It's just how it's often felt to me when I walk by.

I guess it depends. Stormcast Liberators and Chaos Warriors are 18pts apiece so comparable to Marines. Clanrats are 7.5pts and skeletons are 9pts so there's a higher floor to how cheap chaff can get, but of course there are no vehicles so it's more infantry-heavy in general.

I'm not sure it's particularly germane to this discussion, though.

 LunarSol wrote:
Weirdly whenever I look at AoS armies they always feel larger and more spammy to me. It might just be a lack of rule of 3 or the armies I tend to favor in that game. I don't follow it close enough to be able to say that with ANY confidence though. It's just how it's often felt to me when I walk by.

AoS 2.0 armies were pretty big, but current edition honestly feel small compared to 40K armies. It might just be that you're less familiar with the army compositions so it seems like a lot more. AoS has had a lot of reduction i things like infantry squads; most now can't get beyond around 20 models whilst in the past they could easily hit 30 and 40.

Yeah, I just peaked at some results and its definitely a case of me just being out of touch, though I don't think it takes a ton of kaiju to be a large looking army either.

I whinged about AoS seeming being all big guys at the start of 10th edition. Not convinced much has changed.

As said at the time, its extremely subjective, but when I look at an AoS army, I don't see an army. I just see... brute mechanics? So many armies seem to be [High King of the Faction on Mega-mount]+[Second non-character monster]+1-2 [Infantry brick/Cavalry to act as Hammers]+1-3 [Cheapy screening units].

The 40k equivalent is something like "woops, its all C'Tan and 3 Doomsday Arks". Leaving aside whether this has been good or bad through the edition, its just not an army to my mind. I don't think this force would exist in 40k without accompanying units.

You could argue 40k isn't so different, as you probably want some aggressive hammer units, some point-shooting, some fast stuff for secondaries and board control, some scout, some infiltrate, some uppy-downy etc. But idk. It just feels more natural.

40k on AoS would be something like "I'm taking the Emperor, his best mate for 300, a Land Raider, a brick of 10 Custodes, and idk, 3 scout sentinels."

 Asmodai wrote:


Shadow War Armageddon had 2nd edition profiles for a good number of modern 40K units.

And we had a period of obsessively playing it when it came out!

GW wrote:And that’s the last of the Faction Focuses! We’ve now seen a range of new detachments, giving you a sense of how your armies might play in the new edition.
Next week, you’ll get a chance to read over the Core Rules for the game itself. They will be available as a PDF right here on Warhammer Community early next week.

Rules early next week. We’ll get to answer a lot of what ifs.

Soon

They specified "Core rules", so we'll have to see exactly what that entails. I hope it's basically the rules form the rulebook, but I suspect it may be mor restricted than that. Either way, it'll be good to get the actual rules text for a lot of stuff we've been reading about.

It's almost certainly the Core Rules PDF since the book itself has leaked and GW tends to just roll with those sorts of things these days to maintain their position as a reliable source of up to date information.

 LunarSol wrote:
It's almost certainly the Core Rules PDF since the book itself has leaked and GW tends to just roll with those sorts of things these days to maintain their position as a reliable source of up to date information.

I didn’t know we had book leaks! Anything tastey?

I don’t recall the release of the last edition’s rules PDF, if it was done as a teaser, or on launch day.

It probably won’t have anything for missions, besides a basic intro, or game modes like combat patrol. Just the basic rules.

 Nevelon wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
It's almost certainly the Core Rules PDF since the book itself has leaked and GW tends to just roll with those sorts of things these days to maintain their position as a reliable source of up to date information.

I didn’t know we had book leaks! Anything tastey?

I don’t recall the release of the last edition’s rules PDF, if it was done as a teaser, or on launch day.

It probably won’t have anything for missions, besides a basic intro, or game modes like combat patrol. Just the basic rules.

Mostly confirms what we already know or assumed from the various previews (and that there's nothing big yet to be revealed).

The leaked core rulebook I read was in French, so less widespread readership than if the English one leaked.

The leak also included the mission cards.

I really want to see the detachments, with what missions they allow, and how many points for the old ones. But I suspect that will be unknown until launch, as it’s probably 100% digital.

 Asmodai wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
It's almost certainly the Core Rules PDF since the book itself has leaked and GW tends to just roll with those sorts of things these days to maintain their position as a reliable source of up to date information.

I didn’t know we had book leaks! Anything tastey?

I don’t recall the release of the last edition’s rules PDF, if it was done as a teaser, or on launch day.

It probably won’t have anything for missions, besides a basic intro, or game modes like combat patrol. Just the basic rules.

Mostly confirms what we already know or assumed from the various previews (and that there's nothing big yet to be revealed).

The leaked core rulebook I read was in French, so less widespread readership than if the English one leaked.

The leak also included the mission cards.

Someone has done a translation of the leaked French version which is now doing the rounds - though there are some details (especially names of things) that are off from what GW has revealed due to the double translation.

I saw something about leaks for single faction starter boxes. Do we have any details on those yet?

 SgtEeveell wrote:
I saw something about leaks for single faction starter boxes. Do we have any details on those yet?

We have seen a blurry image of the Space Marine starter which is the Captain, Librarian, 5 Intercessors, 5 Vanguard Vets and the Landspeeder from Armageddon. Also seems to include two pots of paint?
Valrak said the Ork starter would be the Warboss, Weirdboy, 20 Boyz, 10 Gretchin and the War Trak.
He also said they would be priced at 135€ which would be the same as the current Combat Patrols so these are just the two Combat Patrols from Armageddon in starter set branded packaging