Search the Community

This term was coined to described an Objective that remains under your control after your unit moves away from it. It's a special rule in various missions and some units have it as their special rule on their datasheet. Personally, I love it. As as BA player, this is one if the main things during the last edition that caused my win rate to sore as it fits the way I play wonderfully. Meanwhile, if you listen to the some influencers (such as Auspex Tactics), it isn't a particularly good rule and units such as Eldar Storm Guardians don't benefit from it. To me, one of the ways to use Storm Guardians is through Strategic Reserves and with clever placement and use of cover, they can get up the board and tag Objectives then move on, etc. Same can be said with use of Transports, and in the right lists, this makes them pretty decent (tbh, this is how I would have used Tactical Squads this edition if they still had this special rule). Basically, I was wondering what you folks thought: What are your views on "sticky objectives"? How would you go about using units with this special rule in your army? If you don't think these units have a place or your army/Faction doesn't have access, how do you play the Primary game?

Watcher of the Porcelain Golden Throne

Deodorant Optional Imperial Knights tomorrow.

This can have a separate thread: YC40Fxov5FhbXFRl.pdf (warhammer-community.com)

Guns-a-plenty

And a Metawatch article. Tournament Companion article. Index Card Errata.

So here we are more about missions. Mission Maths in #New40k – When Is The Right Time To Take A Gambit? - Warhammer Community (warhammer-community.com) Nothing too fancy but an interesting stratagem... Which makes me moderatly happy as it is now clear than Mission decks are not an add-on to the game but a clear core part of the Game, or at least this is how I interpret that stars affect at the deck. So what: even more accessories sold separately/added to rule book? @#*¿!¡¡¡ * I know that Core rules are supposed to be free. But last time it happened, a serious part of the Required rules needed to get a proper game set up were not included (detachments...)

I haven't seen this anywhere else but the 40k website has been updated with preview pages of the 10th rulebook which includes a page on crusade and an example of the unit build sheet. https://warhammer40000.com I know a lot of people have been wondering how crusade will work in the new edition and this might give some clues. If this is old news feel free to lock and remove. Edit: It looks like it shows the points value of 2 units. A primaris techmarine and a unit of infiltrators. Not much to go on but I think this is the first point cost shown for this edition.

Article here Similar to Boarding Actions: Lots to unpack here!

I can see this being a point of contention for many players so rather than take things off subject or take over topics elsewhere, I thought I'd raise it in its own thread. So combi weapons seem... lost. Generic weapons that just don't have the feel of something they should have in a Marines army. They hit on 1 less than normal, have a low strength, single point of damage but on a 50-50 roll they'll cause a single Mortal wound on an infantry model. Just doesn't seem worth it really. Even a unit of 10 Sternguard all with combi weapons will rapid fire and manage 5 Mortal Wounds total. That's pretty underwhelming for 10 elite dudes, when you could invest in Terminators, or Devastators, or Hellblasters and do more damage/be tougher. For characters it might be worth a single cheeky Mortal Wound but then that's not going to change any games either. Worst of all though, is the theme of the weapons just... sucks. Since when did a combi-melta or flamer operate like that? Someone else on the forum referred to them as anemic and I think that's spot on in description. Potential solutions? More shots, better damage characteristics (2 or 3) or just give them a plasma, melta and flamer? I mean, the latter seems like an obvious solution.

I want to touch base with the CSM player base. I'm going to put aside my own thoughts on the new rules... up to now it's mostly been about Pacts of the Dark Gods: I typically don't make a firm decision on a rule until I have played it numerous times. And this is a really unique one compared to anything we've seen before with a positive/negative outcome. I really am curious to play it out. I do feel like I will be concentrating my lists on a plethora of Legionaries with chainswords to make best use of this. (Most likely my Black Legion as my Iron Warriors are quite a bit more range bound.) How do you think this will work in your Legion/Chapter? I do think that Leadership, overall this edition is a far more important stat. I'm very curious to see if Night Lords retain what was thought of as fairly useless leadership trickery in 9th. It could even come into play vs. other CSM with the new "Dark Pacts" rules. Some Datacards: We are noting above that our suspicions about the treatment of the Chaos Terminator boxset did indeed trickle into the 10th edition melee stats. We see that all manner of Fists/Heavy Axes/Chainfists, etc might be lumped into the category of "Heavy Melee Weapon". (Not confirmed yet, though we see space marine thunderhammers are now AP -2, 2 Damage but Devastating Wounds) What are you thoughts?

That's A Grudgin'

Fix bayonets, etcetera.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/05/09/ways-to-play-warhammer-40000-combat-patrol-is-fast-and-fun/

Today's faction focus is Chaos Demons: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/05/09/warhammer-40000-faction-focus-chaos-daemons-2/ Things to like from it: Greater demons have a 4+ invulnerable Keeper of Secrets' shield gives 5+++ feel no pain, which hopefully means there is more feel no pain elsewhere in the faction (here's hoping for all nurgle demons) The shadows of the warp is really interesting and potentially quite powerful. On the down side, it seems to be quite "win more" in that it is more likely to keep you ahead when you are already ahead and doesn't actually help you get ahead (which in turns can mean it won't help you win more games, but instead make you "win bigger" those games you would have won without it). I like the Corrupted Realspace stratagem they show as it will actually help you win games by allowing you to keep control of objectives you would otherwise lose (though it won't help you keep from being shot off objectives in the round you get to them). How useful it turns out to be will depend on a) how CP starved armies are; b) how useful our other stratagems are; and c) how cheap out chaff is - this stratagem gets a lot better if we cheap units we can "throw away" to grab out of the way objectives. It shows a lot of promise - if the rest of the faction's rules carry through (in particular unit point costs) I may well actually play my demons, instead of just painting them. One concern I have is the emphasis there seems to be on battle shock - this kind of previews have a tendency to overhype whatever the new mechanic is, and I feel this one does that with its reference to Shadow of the Warp's interaction with battleshock - obviously, Shadow of the Warp gets a lot better the more you can get units to fail their battle shock roll, but I'm left worried that is something that is rarely going to happen. On the other hand, from the previews we saw, leadership values are generally lower than they were in the past for non-marine units and we have yet to see any rules allowing units to circumvent battleshock or leadership tests, so I am cautiously optimistic.

Taste the rainbow.

Ring the dinner bell. No new Genestealer models :(

WarCom Article, the first of many no doubt.

They also said those listed here at least would be getting new model(s?) with their codex. Rip those September Votann rumours though.

Coming for a Terminator near you.

And in today's preview... Buckle up, it's a wordy one. TLDR (sort of): Only one Mission in the Core Rules (Only War) Only War = Four objective markers, take it in turns to place. Board sizes are 44″x60″ for 1000pt and 2000pt or 44″x90″ for 3000pt+ Chapter Approved mission system - "evolution of both the Tempest of War cards and the Grant Tournament Mission Packs" Fixed Secondaries and Tactical Secondaries Fixed Secondaries = Similar to the Grand Tournament format Tactical Secondaries = Similar to Tempest of War Mission Deck diagram Pick game size -> Sort armies as normal -> Divide decks into: Deployment, Mission Rules, Primary Missions, Secondary Missions, Gambits -> Shuffle deck -> draw one card from the Deployment, Mission Rules, and Primary Mission decks (these are shared between both players) -> Determine Attacker/Defender ->Reveal each player's Secondary Missions (eg Assassination, Deploy Deleport Homer) Each player starts with two Secondary Missions. These can be Fixed or Tactical. Fixed = Remain in place all battle, reliable but predictable. Tactical = Randomly redrawn when completed, offer more VP. Both players can choose differently. Gambits = End of 3rd round both or one player can play a Gambit Primary Mission is replaced by a more challenging one. All existing VP/Second Missions remain Completing the Gambit "scores an intimidating chunk of VP" Three different Gambits, one is discarded before you choose. Gambits are "hard to pull off hail-mary." Pretty pictures:

Next week.

Points mean prizes! It's fixed squad sizes and free wargear folks

I'm Blue, Da Ba Dee, Da Ba Die Chaos Knights Monday

WarCom Article. Aaaand there's the Knight article.