Rumors Some new 10th edition insight, take with a grain of salt.

[Xenith]

1 hour ago, Karhedron said:

Does this mean a Marine with a bolter will get the same roll to damage a Marine, an Ork and a Guardsman?

 

That said, I can see the merit in the idea, it's essentially saying at the scale we work at in 40k, a Lasgun is effectively the same strength as a bolter is the same strength as a shoota, with the liklihood of killing then rooted in an AP value. 40k does this already to some extent (or did...) with stuff like catachans and space marines both being S4, while on a more granular level, we know that this is in no way true. 

[Valkyrion]

31 minutes ago, GenerationTerrorist said:

One of the most fundamental changes changes I'd like to see, going forward, would be to the wound process.

 

For the life of me, I can never figure out why it doesn't go Hit-Save-Wound-FNP.

Why does the roll to wound come before the armour save - Surely something has to get through the armour to be able to wound in the first place?

 

20 Lasguns hit my Terminator Squad, 16 of them bounce off their 2+ TDA, then only 1 of their 4 S3 hits actually scores a wound against my T4 Terminators.

 

I'd also much rather it went back to the old 7th edition idea of AP on weapons, making armour saves more reliable and requiring less book keeping.

 

Jervis (or Chambers - a bigwig anyway) explained this several years ago and it's to do with player psychology.  Now it goes - Player 1, Player 1, Player 2.  Your suggestion would mean it goes Player 1, Player 2, Player 1.  In the first instance the attacking player rolls the most dice, lets say 20 hit dice and 10 wound dice. The defender then rolls 10 dice. In the second instance the attacker has 20 hit dice, the defender rolls 20 save dice, then the attacking player rolls 5 dice. The attacking player is disappointed, his enthusiasm for the attack has been stunted. 

The way it works now has both players on the edge of their seat* - the defender is hoping that lots of the attackers dice roll low so he has less dice to roll in the end; the attacker hoping for the opposite. Fundamentally nothing changes by switching the order, but it seemingly matters.

 

*not so much literally - but we've all had the 'game on a knife edge' dice roll - he needs a 6 to hit....he gets it! Now he needs a 5 to wound....he's done it! Abaddon needs a 2+ or he's dead....oh, he's failed! Putting the high chance (2+ save) second in the sequence lessens the drama. 

 

I don't know how to word this better than I have done, but hopefully my point gets across. 

 

 

 

[Taliesin]

Dark Mechanicus Codex is the single most exciting thing from that rumor, may that be true!

Led by Vashtorr perhaps?

 

Also interesting that the storyline of the 10th rulebook is Tyranids vs Astartes, I  dig it.

[Shield-Captain]

44 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

 

Apparently Strength will still be used for interacting with high toughness targets like Vehicles (and possibly things like Terminators). But for attacking regular infantry, it would be a combined Hit+Wound roll. With armour saves and Wounds still being a thing, I think it will still be possible to retain enough granularity to make a Guardsman with a lasgun feel different from a Marine with a bolter.

Forgive me, but that just sounds like toughness with extra steps. Now we merely need to know who we roll to wound against? I see how that might speed up portions of the rolling but I also see how we’d lose a large chunk of granularity in the guns. Then again, a lot of infantry guns are Str 4 with the only difference being ap and dmg. So my Eldar are tougher but my Custodes are squishier? Unless my Custodes have a toughness value still. Hrrnnnngh.

 

I guess we won’t know until we know. It just doesn’t seem any better via this rumor. I

[Matrindur]

22 hours ago, Chapter Master Valrak said:

Just want to share this, now I don't really go off other peoples sources but some stuff in here is what I've been told and haven't spoken about so it peaked my interest:
 

  Reveal hidden contents

>Warhammer 40,000 10th edition is launching June 24th 2023
>Starter box is Adeptus Astartes vs Tyranids.
>Promotional art will show them as Dark Angels and Hive Fleet Leviathan
>Dark Angels will receive a model of Lion El'jonson
>Tyranid players will receive a new model called an Apex Swarmlord
>Narrative does not appear to be a timeskip but expanding on events elsewhere while the Indomitus Crusade battles the Necrons led by the Silent King. Arks of Omen: The Lion will be the first step in a longform narrative chain tying both galactic conflicts together.
>Core rules are streamlined
>Psychic Phase and Command Phase are combined
>Toughness is now only on datasheets with a [Heavy Armour] keyword ability. E.g Terminators, Rhinos, Dreadnoughts etc. Generic troops now only roll to hit when attacking and save when defending.
>Armour Pen. and Invulnerable saves are unchanged.
>Crusade is being simplified and behaves closer to Age of Sigmars Path to Glory
>Detachments, Battle forging, Stratagems and CP generation have all be simplified or reworked
>Game is intended to be faster, with smaller units and a much bigger emphasis on terrain
>Along with the start box there will be a new series of terrain intended to scale from small to medium to large scale games
>The core rules will be free online with two variants. "Narrative" and "Competitive"
>There is a codex coming for Dark Admech and one new Xenos race
>A second wave of Votann along with a updated codex is expected to launch in September
>The way Space Marines will receive a codex and rules for Chapters is changing completely and will be explained in a special White Dwarf releasing in May 2023 and closer to release on the Warhammer Community website
>The new edition will also see GW retiring the current range of Texture Paints and they will be replaced with new products using new materials intended to be another Contrast Paint style product to quickly allow beginners in a partnership with 'Screen Products Limited'

If anyone wants to watch my breakdown of it all I did a video on it:
 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

A very trustworthy leaker over on TGA (AoS forum) just said at least a part of these rumors are false. Specifically these three things:

Quote

>Core rules are streamlined

>Psychic Phase and Command Phase are combined

>Toughness is now only on datasheets with a [Heavy Armour] keyword ability. E.g Terminators, Rhinos, Dreadnoughts etc. Generic troops now only roll to hit when attacking and save when defending.

No idea about the rest of the rumors he just quoted these and said false but at least in terms of AoS I can't remember a time he was wrong about something

[Khornestar]

Out of all the things to be false, core rules not being streamlined is not encouraging :D .

Edited February 8, 2023 by Khornestar

[Captain Idaho]

1 minute ago, Khornestar said:

Out of all the things to be false, core rules not being streamlined is not encouraging :D .

 

Nor is it surprising! 

 

Seriously though, the core rules aren't so complex it's the Codex books providing a billion new special rules.

 

I hope the rumoured "hit then save then done" rumour is fake. More than anything else on these rumours, it's that.

[acrozatarim]

13 minutes ago, Matrindur said:

A very trustworthy leaker over on TGA (AoS forum) just said at least a part of these rumors are false. Specifically these three things:

No idea about the rest of the rumors he just quoted these and said false but at least in terms of AoS I can't remember a time he was wrong about something

 

Whitefang has, as far as I am aware, been 100% accurate with his hints and leaks in the past, so if he says those three are false, I am very much inclined to believe him.

[BrainFireBob]

2 hours ago, GenerationTerrorist said:

One of the most fundamental changes changes I'd like to see, going forward, would be to the wound process.

 

For the life of me, I can never figure out why it doesn't go Hit-Save-Wound-FNP.

Why does the roll to wound come before the armour save - Surely something has to get through the armour to be able to wound in the first place?

 

20 Lasguns hit my Terminator Squad, 16 of them bounce off their 2+ TDA, then only 1 of their 4 S3 hits actually scores a wound against my T4 Terminators.

 

I'd also much rather it went back to the old 7th edition idea of AP on weapons, making armour saves more reliable and requiring less book keeping.

It's all in how you conceive of the process.

 

You are viewing it as 

 

1) Did they get hit?

2) Did armor stop the hit?

3) Was the hit enough to wound?

 

You can just as well conceive of it as:

 

1) Did they get hit?

2) Was the hit in a critical enough location with enough strength to put them down?

3) If 2 is yes, then armor matters- see if armor stopped the hit

 

I conceptualize like the latter, so I like it this way. To me, it's an abstraction of old "hit location" mechanics- sure, I passed my hit roll, but if I graze your shoulder I'm not putting you down with a piddly weapon, although a gorget shot might. I hit you in the gorget? Let's see if it stood up to the attack.

 

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I think the above is closer to how the rules team traditionally modelled it. 

[Dr. Clock]

6 hours ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

What are your thoughts on sub factions having their own sub factions though? Death guard is one of the 18 Legions, it does not need 7 mini sub factions within it. Kind of overkill. Death Guard is supposed to play differently than World Eaters and Iron Warriors. Death Guard does not need to play differently than Death Guard.

Another tough one!

 

I think diversity in approach to 'extent of difference' between sub-factions is a reasonable goal. If a Legion or Chapter gets their own book, I'd agree that they should all work more or less the same. For 'bigger' factions I think I'd stick to a 'Regiments' style thing where there's 'one standard benefit' that can be traded in for some other tech. I agree there's a point at which the accretion of factors from 'army-wide rules' to 'sub-faction rules' makes the whole thing unwieldy and unintentionally unbalanced, as and when the most efficient options are 'solved' and you just don't see some of them because one sub-faction has the game-breaking relic or psychic power.

 

The pieces I'm most wedded to aren't the sub-faction things but the defining 'starting points' for the factions that show how their tempo in battle operates turn over turn. Basically the 'resource/advancement mechanics' that many factions have. DG is essentially the worst example, I'll allow and I'm definitely flexible on some of the more 'static' 'army-wide rules' like Malicious Volleys or Blade Artists or like Void Armour that should probably be rolled up in Universal Special Rules again.

 

Cheers,

 

The Good Doctor.

 

 

 

[WrathOfTheLion]

It could lend more credence to what @Chapter Master Valrakheard about psychic being moved to the shooting phase, if it being in the command phase is incorrect. All we know there is that it being moved to the command phase is likely false, however.

Edited February 8, 2023 by WrathOfTheLion

[Triszin]

4 minutes ago, WrathOfTheLion said:

It could lend more credence to what @Chapter Master Valrakheard about psychic being moved to the shooting phase, if it being in the command phase is incorrect. All we know there is that it being moved to the command phase is likely false, however.

I think both could be true. Just moving the appropriate pyskic abilities to the respective phase

 

Pyskic shooting, in shooting Pyskic melee in melee, etc

[WrathOfTheLion]

14 minutes ago, Triszin said:

I think both could be true. Just moving the appropriate pyskic abilities to the respective phase

 

Pyskic shooting, in shooting Pyskic melee in melee, etc

Yeah, that's how 30k does it, and I like it a lot.

 

What's interesting is whether those particular elements being false from a fairly reputable source poisons the whole batch, or if just those details are false. Only time will tell.

[TheMawr]

yeah always thought it should be like that in the first place. if a game has a phase/round/whatever were entire armies cant participate, you should either rework that game element or rework those armies.

[Emperor Ming]

Just now, WrathOfTheLion said:

What's interesting is whether those particular elements being false from a fairly reputable source poisons the whole batch, or if just those details are false. Only time will tell.

 

The info from captain clickbait is generally accurate thou right?

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Great to hear toughness is not going. This shows how unreliable rumors can be.

[TheMawr]

1 minute ago, WrathOfTheLion said:

Yeah, that's how 30k does it, and I like it a lot.

 

What's interesting is whether those particular elements being false from a fairly reputable source poisons the whole batch, or if just those details are false. Only time will tell.

 

Everything that contradicts is very easily explained by being both true though.

 

Actually the only thing vague/contradicting imho is that they make it sound as if the Lion is a 10th edition release, while still calling AoO 5: the Lion.. thats an extremely unlikely situation. But its not clear wether that is meant how its written.

[WrathOfTheLion]

15 minutes ago, Emperor Ming said:

 

The info from captain clickbait is generally accurate thou right?

If it comes directly from him, generally so. In this case, it doesn't come from him.

 

Edit: To clarify my wording, I meant that that info, which came from some subreddit and is somewhat contradicted by Valrak's source (Psychic for instance), is also stated to be false by a fairly reputable source (whitefang from TGA). So is all of that stuff wrong, or just that part?

Edited February 8, 2023 by WrathOfTheLion
clarification

[TheMawr]

1 minute ago, WrathOfTheLion said:

If it comes directly from him, generally so. In this case, it doesn't come from him.

 

No offence to valrak, but you do need a filter though ;) after all the rumors he get are just a couple of sentences, he adds alot of "waffling" on top of that wich (as, in his defence, he often does disclaim) is just theorizing, but sometimes he doesnt make it clear what is literal repeating the rumor and what is not. For example he once described the primaris desolators as carrying the missile launchers on their shoulder, and it sounded as if it was his or someone reliable's visual description.. only to switch to them holding it like the weapons in alien 2 in a later video (wich turned out to be the truth.)

He did talk about Arks of Omen Dante, Arks of Omen Azrael at one point (tough it could be it was him theorizing) wich we now know do not exist. The first mention of a rumor is often the "safe" one. the repeats.. less so.

 

Again, I dont mean it offensive, the wild theorising part I can sympathise with alot. But he is on "television" and alot of people still believe that whats on television must be true ;) (whereas theorising here is more comparable to drunken conversations in a pub, nobody takes anyone serious.)

[Halandaar]

7 minutes ago, WrathOfTheLion said:

If it comes directly from him, generally so. In this case, it doesn't come from him.

 

Nothing comes directly from Valrak though... every bit of info he has (right or wrong) is provided by a source.

 

15 minutes ago, WrathOfTheLion said:

What's interesting is whether those particular elements being false from a fairly reputable source poisons the whole batch, or if just those details are false. Only time will tell.

 

Well Whitefang specifically quoted out those three lines from the full rumour to say they were false. I think the fact that these three lines were addressed and the rest were not is intentional; typically Whitefang responds to stuff in the manner of "that's not all correct" or "pick 4 from those 5".

 

 

 

 

[WrathOfTheLion]

Just now, Halandaar said:

 

Nothing comes directly from Valrak though... every bit of info he has (right or wrong) is provided by a source.

 

Correct, in this case it wasn't however, as publicly the origin was that it was posted on reddit first and then responded to because parts lined up with what a source said.

 

 

1 minute ago, Halandaar said:

Well Whitefang specifically quoted out those three lines from the full rumour to say they were false. I think the fact that these three lines were addressed and the rest were not is intentional; typically Whitefang responds to stuff in the manner of "that's not all correct" or "pick 4 from those 5".

That is also my expectation and what I read out of it, but Whitefang also does like to be cryptic, so there's a few ways to read it.

[Special Officer Doofy]

Out of all of the rumors listed I'm glad toughness going away is one of the ones another rumor person thinks is false. Don't get me wrong, the new system could be better, I don't know (we don't know). But I doubt it. Sounds like AV for vehicles and a free for all for infantry to me haha. I don't like the sound of either of those!

[Mogger351]

19 minutes ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

Out of all of the rumors listed I'm glad toughness going away is one of the ones another rumor person thinks is false. Don't get me wrong, the new system could be better, I don't know (we don't know). But I doubt it. Sounds like AV for vehicles and a free for all for infantry to me haha. I don't like the sound of either of those!

I mean to be fair they said that line of the rumours was wrong, it might be T is gone entirely or that the keyword was incorrect etc.

[Special Officer Doofy]

9 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

I mean to be fair they said that line of the rumours was wrong, it might be T is gone entirely or that the keyword was incorrect etc.

 

Just let me pretend the rumor about a rumor about my toy soldier game is true for just one more minute!

[Emperor Ming]

GW: look shiny arks of omen books

 

Player base: tell us about 10th already!