Topic: Hello 10th Edition

[Wyddr]

My guess would be multi-wound infantry/bikes/cavalry and lighter vehicles like harlequin starweavers, land speeders etc. One-shotting a death guard termie isn't that bad...

Hmmm...fair. Though traditionally those have been very shoot-down-able by other means (though I realize perhaps not by the Drukhari - your point largely stands). I do think overall plasma is going to be in a weird place, if for no other reason than it's inefficient against both infantry *and* tanks/monsters and unless your opponent brings a bunch of, say, terminators or bikes or whatever, it isn't going to pay off. Seems like we're going waaay back to a 5th edition version of plasma, where it was clearly suboptimal compared to melta or flamers except for those specific instances where it was essential.

They wanted to kill plasma spam, and I think they actually did. Especially if you still need to pay through the nose to get it (which may change, of course). 

[The GrimSqueaker]

The main rules are up for those that want to look:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/06/02/download-the-new-warhammer-40000-rules-for-free-right-here/

[Calamity]

Still digesting the new rules, anyone see any glaring issues?

[The GrimSqueaker]

This is, however, very funny:
✂️ Xenos Invasions are Fake News! - YouTube

[magenb]

Still digesting the new rules, anyone see any glaring issues?

did you watch the combat patrol battle report... assuming that was meant to be a "balanced" game, then CP is too easy to get and bringing back units for free(CP) is broken... who would have thought lol. I don't know how much "more durable" things will be really after watching that, clearly units are still going to fly off the table with little effort.

The datacard for Asurman got posted... disappointing for a named character, but I hope that means the PLs will be dirt cheap and might actually be seen on the table top lol.

[Wyddr]

I don't think we'll really know how well (or how badly) the rules are going to work until we get the first crop of codexes out. A lot of what happens depends upon point values.

But yeah, there's nothing in the rules that indicates anything is much more durable than it was, nor that re-rolls are less common. Cover is pretty much exactly the same (i.e. "mostly useless"), and while Battleshock is an interesting mechanic, it (1) does nothing to reduce enemy firepower and (2) is just as susceptible to the old 40k Leadership problem of every faction being full of bloodthirsty fanatics and so no one ever fails leadership except the orks, eldar, and guard. 

[Grand Master Lomandalis]

To take a break from all the nay-saying that's been happening in this thread, here's a quick list of changes that I am a fan of:

• You can no longer be move blocked by friendly models (except monsters / vehicles by other monsters / vehicles).  No more "Guilliman can't charge because I had him behind a line of Terminators."  Absolute win on this one.
• Battle Shock will actually impact games now.  Before if a unit failed a morale test, it lost a few models but would still hold an objective.  Battle shock is going to be key in this game, and I don't think it's going to be as impervious as everyone seems to think it will be... especially with the amount of rules we've seen so far that force a test.  I wouldn't be surprised if, when the indexes start dropping, we see rules that modify the result as well (so prayeth the Night Lord player)
• Command Phase clearly defined, and knowing that both players start with 0CP will really help to keep Stratagems under control.  No more burning 4 or 5 in the first turn for the alpha strike.
• Desperate Escapes allowing for me to extricate a unit from being surrounded.  It's always annoyed me that 9' walking tanks would be held in place because they were surrounded by 5 little gaunts.
• Reserve units not being destroyed if forgotten by the 3rd turn.
• Disembarking from a destroyed transport no longer kills full models, but just causes a mortal wound for every failed result.
• Lone Operative is much easier to understand than Look Out, Sir!  So many people always got that one wrong.
• Big Guns Never Tire allows for vehicles and monsters to be shot even if they are in combat.  That's huge, and makes a lot of sense.
• Capping the bonuses to saves at +1 is huge.  It was ridiculous that I could get 0+ save Terminators in cover with Storm Shields.
• Deadly Demise clarifying explosions so there is no confusion on "Do I roll once or for each"
• Blast Weapons work so much better than they did before
• Hazardous (aka plasma) is a much better mechanic.  No more rolling 30 dice for my Helblasters 3 shots at a time to see how badly each individual guy blows up
• Charging units have to go to base contact if they can.  That eliminates a lot of jank moves from pile in and consolidating.
• Combat is base-to-base-to-base.  Nice and simple to figure out who can attack
• Consolidation can only be done if the unit ends within engagement range of an enemy or within control range of an objective.
• All of the basic stratagems are just fantastic, pure and simple.
• Terrain is all clearly defined and easy to work with.  I like the Plunging Fire being added to ruins.
• Aircraft start in strategic reserves, unless they are in Hover; but Hover lasts all game.

I'm looking forward to this edition, and I think they've made a lot of good improvements on the game.

[Wyddr]

I definitely agree that the game seems more streamlined and intuitive, now. Possibly more than ever.

I do like the new blast rules, if only because it was really irritating bringing a unit of, say, 12 kroot and having them take full hits from everything. The rest of that stuff is pretty common sense streamlining.

I still don't think any of it addresses my core issues with the game, so I'm skeptical that it will be *much* different. We'll see. If it winds up playing more like Sigmar (where the game can hang in the balance until Turn 4 on a regular basis), I'll take it all back. Nothing much on the stats and mission end of things I've seen indicate that's likely, though.

[Grand Master Lomandalis]

I still don't think any of it addresses my core issues with the game, so I'm skeptical that it will be *much* different. We'll see. If it winds up playing more like Sigmar (where the game can hang in the balance until Turn 4 on a regular basis), I'll take it all back. Nothing much on the stats and mission end of things I've seen indicate that's likely, though.

To be fair... 40k has played like that since at least third. Most games were decided by turn 3 and rarely went the full 6 turns... which is why they cut the scenarios down to 5 turns.

[Wyddr]

To be fair... 40k has played like that since at least third. Most games were decided by turn 3 and rarely went the full 6 turns... which is why they cut the scenarios down to 5 turns.

You and I disagree on that point. At minimum, it has gotten *much* worse.

It was somewhere in 9th edition where I realized that I don't actually have to make difficult choices in games anymore. Everything is decided before the game starts - the list, essentially - and then everything just sort of runs on rails. That was never the case in 4th - 6th, unless you consciously went WAAC and brought some kind of crazy broken nonsense. Now it's like everything is crazy broken nonsense. Claiming objectives just seems like a waste of time, seeing how tabling is such a common occurrence now. This is largely why I'm unimpressed by battle shock, since I can't remember the last time that "claiming objectives" was how I won the game. I just literally killed everything (or had everything of mine killed).

I would very much like for that to change. I'm currently not convinced that it's changing. At minimum, though, the games might take a bit less time and I won't have to have an argument about whether or not an independent character is closer than the unit they are trying to shield behind.

[Grand Master Lomandalis]

To be fair... 40k has played like that since at least third. Most games were decided by turn 3 and rarely went the full 6 turns... which is why they cut the scenarios down to 5 turns.

You and I disagree on that point. At minimum, it has gotten *much* worse.

It was somewhere in 9th edition where I realized that I don't actually have to make difficult choices in games anymore. Everything is decided before the game starts - the list, essentially - and then everything just sort of runs on rails. That was never the case in 4th - 6th, unless you consciously went WAAC and brought some kind of crazy broken nonsense.

It may be a case of how different our gaming groups were from 3rd to 7th.  My group was heavily focused towards tournament gaming, so list optimization was very much a common element.  This is the group where you walk in to the store we play out of and the owner has numerous plaques from winnings events at Adepticon multiple times.

Now it's like everything is crazy broken nonsense. Claiming objectives just seems like a waste of time, seeing how tabling is such a common occurrence now. This is largely why I'm unimpressed by battle shock, since I can't remember the last time that "claiming objectives" was how I won the game. I just literally killed everything (or had everything of mine killed).

Honestly, in 9th if you aren't playing objectives, then you aren't playing the game right.  The match play scenarios that were released with the GT packs required you to play objectives, and it wasn't just the mad scramble in the last turn like 3rd through 5th.  Holding objectives throughout the game would earn you half of the available points, and the other half came from secondary objectives.  I've won games after being tabled because I was able to focus on the objectives and accumulate the necessary points that it didn't matter how much my opponent beat my face in.

The biggest complaint I've heard about the current scenarios isn't that you can just ignore them and crush your enemy, but that they actually promote not interacting with the enemy.  There are some armies where their secondaries are very easy to attain and can be built up passively (this is what made sisters so gross for a while).

The thing to remember about 3rd - 5th is that the objectives literally didn't matter.  You determined victory based on Victory Points, which was the cost of units destroyed + 100pts per objective held at the end of the game.  Objectives could help swing the game in your favour, but if you were being blasted off the table, it didn't mean squat.

I would very much like for that to change. I'm currently not convinced that it's changing. At minimum, though, the games might take a bit less time and I won't have to have an argument about whether or not an independent character is closer than the unit they are trying to shield behind.

The mission style they are going towards now is a mix of the current GT style with fixed objectives and Tempest, which is closer to the old Maelstrom missions.  Honestly, Maelstrom was my favourite, but it needed a constant element, not just to be focused on the cards.  Once I was introduced to Tempest of War, I honestly did not want to go back.

Honestly, one of the biggest things I run into with talk of the newer editions is people having rose coloured glasses about the 3rd to 5th era of 40k.  There were major problems with the game in every edition, and each new edition was an improvement on the last.

[Wyddr]

Oh, now I'm not sitting here with rose-tinted glasses about 3rd or 4th--those were not great (better than 9th) and 7th was complete garbage, but I had the best time in tournaments (and won my fair share) in 5th/6th, despite the balance issues. I really do think 6th got a very unfair shake--all it needed was some tweaking.

I just need the game to not be *totally over* by Turn 2/3. That hasn't happened EVER since...god, I can't remember how long. Early 8th Edition, I think. I score objectives, sure, but seeing how either everything I have or THEY have is dead by the first half of the game, it isn't going to make any difference whether I claim enough or not. I'll nab full points for the rest of the game and then...(shrug).

Tabling opponents just *wasn't* a given in any other edition I can think of. A buddy of mine used to run a Kan-wall ork list back in 5th--120+ orks, 11 kans, Kustom Force Field. Killing it all was just not an option. You needed to leverage other tools to win that fight. You needed to *think.*

Right now, 40k requires very minimal thought. Like, VERY minimal. I'd say "list building" but you can just slap together a web list from some top-shelf army and then bam--it comes down to the dice, mostly. I find that dull whereas I never found it so in previous editions. I'm hoping 10th changes that, but I am skeptical because the things I think *cause that* (re-rolls, nerfed cover, too much AP) do not appear to be changing that much. We'll see. 

[Sir_Godspeed]

This is, however, very funny:
✂️ Xenos Invasions are Fake News! - YouTube

That got a chuckle out of me.

Arbitor Ian is good. Nice to have someone a bit more laid back talking about 40k.

[magenb]

I still don't think any of it addresses my core issues with the game, so I'm skeptical that it will be *much* different. We'll see. If it winds up playing more like Sigmar (where the game can hang in the balance until Turn 4 on a regular basis), I'll take it all back. Nothing much on the stats and mission end of things I've seen indicate that's likely, though.

To be fair... 40k has played like that since at least third. Most games were decided by turn 3 and rarely went the full 6 turns... which is why they cut the scenarios down to 5 turns.

I'm still playing 5th ed games, so Turn 4 is where you have a good idea, but a number of games have flipped on turn 5. Now I should say we don't cheese out our lists without prior warning and a cheesy list against a general list can finish the game by turn 3.


The newer editions (8th+) changed the core feel of the game, now its easy to have a leaf blower list without trying to be cheesy. Sure, now objectives count for more and that is how GW is balancing the armies, but a close game in previous editions felt better to play and watch. It can feel like your watching a heavy weigth brutalise a middle weight, while the middle weight is trying to hang in there and win on points..

We can see 10th is still going to be a meat grinder, but maybe more armies will be in the same weight class.

[Wyddr]

The Tyranids index was very interesting and, dare I say, hopeful.

It is looking very much like things have gotten a *lot* tougher. Now, this may just be for the 'Nids, but from what we've seen of the shooting phase thus far (weapon stats), it is going to be a *lot* harder to just blast everyone off the board. Between the gaunts getting guys back from the Tevigon, the sheer number of 2+ saves, the high toughness, etc.--you can't reasonably blast through all that unless AP stays  strong, but by all accounts it has been somewhat weakened.

It does remain to be seen how the other indexes shake out (if shooty armies just keep pace with inflation, as it were, not much changes in the end), but on casual and incomplete inspection it seems likely that shooting has taken a pretty big hit (what with mid-large creatures getting a big durability boost), that plasma does still have a role, and that assault might FINALLY be on-par with shooting in terms of deadliness.

Early days yet, but I really did like how the whole Tyranid list hangs together.

[Wyddr]

Okay, now we've seen just about everything (except the objective decks): indexes, point values, everything.

What do we think?

I think that first off some of my doomsaying was premature. GW has actually done some of the things I wanted them to to make the game better. Namely:

1) Shooting is Weaker
The shooting phase took a much-needed kick in the teeth. With Toughness rising across the board, AP went down and the number of dice you can roll went down. You just aren't going to be tabling opponents in a walk anymore, which is GREAT NEWS.

2) Complexity is Down
Granted we are dealing with just the indexes and, honestly, the index period of 8th edition was one of the best times in the game in recent memory. That said, a massive slash of extraneous special rules, a return to USRs, easy list-building--I love all of it. There will probably be a downside to this (lascannon spam, anyone?), but right now it is really refreshing.

3) Transports have new life
I'm expecting we'll see a lot more mechanized armies and a lot more maneuvering than we did through a lot of 9th. Infantry is still just about as squishy as it ever was, and walking dudes up the field is probably unwise. Plus, with the cut-down of stratagem-related shenanigans, the ways you can drop your guys onto the field have been curtailed. I'm interested, given that I've always found mechanized to be a fun way to play. 

Things that Might Be Problems

1) Everything is CHEAP
Point costs went down across the board and, when coupled with no incremental costs for gear, I'm guessing you will get LOT of army for not many points. Will we be sticking with 2k as a standard? If so, man, it's going to get nuts.

2) Just as Many Re-rolls
They said re-rolls would be down, but from where I'm sitting that just isn't really true. SOOO many re-rolls out there.

3) The Xeno Indexes are BAD
I've only gone through a couple of them, but its pretty damned clear that Imperium/Chaos (and maybe Nids) are MASSIVELY better than, say, Eldar or Tau or Durkhari. Like, a LOT better. The Tau are truly awful in this iteration and I'm struggling to see how you could *possibly* play a Wych Cult if you wanted to. Even straight Aeldari seem pretty lackluster.

4) Psychics? What Psychics?
There isn't too much there for anybody who isn't running Thousand Sons to be excited about regarding psychic powers. On the one hand, this is a good thing--that whole phase was a pointless drag for a long time--but on the other, psychics just aren't the force multipliers they once were and seem really hit or miss. Just about all of the psychic shooting weapons are pretty terrible, in my opinion. We're going all the way back to 5th edition for that stuff.

Anyway, those are my initial impressions. I'm excited to get a game in, whenever I can get my hands on the actual book/cards/etc.