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

[Dark Shepherd]

7 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

I just hope they increase table size a bit in 10th. 

Hasnt thst been suspected/rumoured based on some of the ranges for newer weapons or weapons in newer codexes?

 

Removing the Primaris keyword would be awesome. Would seem to link up with new Terminator models. Twould be especially great if they fixed transport flyers like how theyre fixing tanks eg tougher flyers and or added negative to hit but they have to hover to disgorge their troops

Edited January 25, 2023 by Dark Shepherd

[Petitioner's City]

53 minutes ago, Blindhamster said:

Cool, lets have intercessor squads with heavy weapon and special weapons and get rid of tactical squads, we can finally get rid of scouts and assault squads too. Just use the existing firstborn models as their primaris unit equivalents

 

To be clear, I'm being silly, but what you say is essentially exactly that, but from the reverse.

 

p.s. i for one would be sad to see bolt rifle variants go. Much like I was sad when sternguard lost their ammo options.

 

It's just the game has too many options, too much depth, but in a way that isn't equal or well managed - so the game lurches madly as the studio seeks to make what is essentially non-competitive, deeply imbalanced game into try to be something it is not, seeks to respond to x being overpowered by doing these tweaks that don't fix deep balance issues.

 

If the game was just the world's deepest tabletop RPG, with five different lasgun variants, six different shuriken catapults, four different lascannons, ten different autoguns, etc, that players could really get a more exciting sense of place and setting from, I'd be fine with marines having such "over-depth" - a game where being strong or winning doesn't matter, but rather telling a story and having a real sense of verisimilitude in telling stories about that setting. But the game doesn't stretch that way, doesn't fit that model well as (true of its imbalance dynamic) that granularity isn't shared equally, doesn't help the production of balance for a competitive or matched environment, and thus leaves things more and more schizophrenic - so honestly I'd prefer a paring back to the more fluid simplicity of aos or apocalypse or indeed something like 3rd edition after 9th's emulation of 2nd's bazaar of options.

 

I'm not either a competitive or matched play preferring person, but the game doesn't make it easy to be a narrative player either, as that form of play continually has to respond to balance impulses coming from a matched or competitive environment. I would honestly prefer depth and depth and depth if the point of the game was just these deep odysseys into the dark millennium - or that depth was applied equally and in a way that was insulated from the constant churn :)

[ThePenitentOne]

To be able to put an awesome Primaris model into an awesome TANK model instead of a ridulous hovering box that looks like it came from the second (ridiculous) Voltron would be cool.

 

A greater number of generic strats could be okay, and I think many (if not most or even all) equipment strats becoming equipment again would also be cool.

 

But one faction strat doesn't feel like enough to give a faction a strong sense of identity. Maybe 3 plus one for each subfaction? Could be okay if you also keep WL Traits and Relics to distinguish between factions and subfactions. I have less than zero desire to go back to a time when it's okay for Space Wolves and Dark Angels to be different from each other, but forbidden for the Sacred Rose to be different from the Bloody Rose. Never again GW.

 

A hard reset on 10 and I'm out. Even a soft reset that dulls down Crusade and I'm out. It's going to be a real uphill fight for GW to keep me buying a new edition; I won't say it can't be done, but they'd have to work very, very hard... Because unlike the general Zeitgeist, I love 9th, and genuinely believe that Crusade is the best version of the game I've ever played.

[Noserenda]

It definitely exists but I always think Intercessor bolters are a terrible example of bad complexity, they are fairly simple changes, (tweaking the fire type and range a little) that do make a noticeable difference to the units capabilities whilst still broadly remaining bolter infantry. Plus they read well too, the ones with scopes are a bit snipey from backfield, the big box mags are for hip shooting and the regular bolters are regular :D 

So yeah, whilst some unified statline is broadly good, especially when the Primaris range was pretty limited, i think this example actually works pretty well. Arguably better than the enormous list of Tactical squad options grandfathered in over the years, which id always want to keep for modelling reasons, but is pretty much a disaster in games design and probably why they overreacted when designing Intercessors. 

[Special Officer Doofy]

7 hours ago, Captain Idaho said:

 

I'm fairly sure you didn't read the whole context of what I wrote, as I said about everything. In that scenario I gave some examples, but another would be say a Hive Tyrant with T10, lascannons S12... things like that.

 

 

No I read the whole thing in all of its context. Leaving orks at T5 but jumping marines to T6, giving their bolters S5. People think so highly of their little marine toys. 

[Emperor Ming]

35 minutes ago, ThePenitentOne said:

To be able to put an awesome Primaris model into an awesome TANK model instead of a ridulous hovering box that looks like it came from the second (ridiculous) Voltron would be cool.

Couldn't agree more

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

7 hours ago, Captain Idaho said:

 

The game is bloated with additional rules and that wouldn't help the situation I'm afraid. It just changes the location of the special rule and stops calling it a "Strategum".

Most strats won’t end up in data sheets because they’re general use, but strats that are specifically for certain units or key word focused could become datasheet rules for specific units.

 

you filter out bloat by dropping strats that aren’t designed for very specific uses.

2 hours ago, Dark Shepherd said:

Hasnt thst been suspected/rumoured based on some of the ranges for newer weapons or weapons in newer codexes?

 

Removing the Primaris keyword would be awesome. Would seem to link up with new Terminator models. Twould be especially great if they fixed transport flyers like how theyre fixing tanks eg tougher flyers and or added negative to hit but they have to hover to disgorge their troops

Not that I’ve heard, I think I posited that thought myself somewhere after seeing the guard’s new heavy guns were 48” range though 

Edited January 26, 2023 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

4 hours ago, Burni said:

If I can use my HH rhinos and land raiders (which I like much more than the 40K designs) with my Primaris, that’s going to seriously effect my HH painting plans…

 

I’ll even consider buying a Storm Raven (unless a plastic HH Storm Eagle turns up, in which case all bets are off…)

Omg now I’m excited to just drop my aggressors, gravis captain and venerable dread behind enemy lines and mess some stuff up…

 

[Lemondish]

59 minutes ago, ThePenitentOne said:

But one faction strat doesn't feel like enough to give a faction a strong sense of identity.

Depends on the power of that single Stratagem, to be honest. Like others, I'm reminded of the reaction system in HH, and there's more than enough bits and pieces surrounding each faction, lending variety to your choices, that a single Stratagem could still work.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, ThePenitentOne said:

To be able to put an awesome Primaris model into an awesome TANK model instead of a ridulous hovering box that looks like it came from the second (ridiculous) Voltron would be cool.

 

A greater number of generic strats could be okay, and I think many (if not most or even all) equipment strats becoming equipment again would also be cool.

 

But one faction strat doesn't feel like enough to give a faction a strong sense of identity. Maybe 3 plus one for each subfaction? Could be okay if you also keep WL Traits and Relics to distinguish between factions and subfactions. I have less than zero desire to go back to a time when it's okay for Space Wolves and Dark Angels to be different from each other, but forbidden for the Sacred Rose to be different from the Bloody Rose. Never again GW.

 

A hard reset on 10 and I'm out. Even a soft reset that dulls down Crusade and I'm out. It's going to be a real uphill fight for GW to keep me buying a new edition; I won't say it can't be done, but they'd have to work very, very hard... Because unlike the general Zeitgeist, I love 9th, and genuinely believe that Crusade is the best version of the game I've ever played.

Faction identity shouldn’t really come from strats.

 

Want BA identity? Use BA specific units, with BAy rules baked into their datasheet.

that and faction traits/doctrines/whatever is where faction identity should come from.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

3 hours ago, Dark Shepherd said:

Hasnt thst been suspected/rumoured based on some of the ranges for newer weapons or weapons in newer codexes?

 

Removing the Primaris keyword would be awesome. Would seem to link up with new Terminator models. Twould be especially great if they fixed transport flyers like how theyre fixing tanks eg tougher flyers and or added negative to hit but they have to hover to disgorge their troops

It won’t happen. They are too heavily invested and Primaris is the most popular range.

[ThePenitentOne]

1 hour ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Faction identity shouldn’t really come from strats.

 

Want BA identity? Use BA specific units, with BAy rules baked into their datasheet.

that and faction traits/doctrines/whatever is where faction identity should come from.

 

Kindly tell us all which Order of the Bloody Rose specific units we should use as opposed to which Sacred Rose specific units. Or which Kabal of the Poisoned Tongue units vs which Kabal of the Flayed Skull units. Oh, cat got your tongue?

 

Okay, tell us which BR datasheet rules vs. which SR datasheet rules? Hmmmm. Hearing a lot of crickets.

 

I know B&C is a Marine-centric site designed by and for Marine-centric players, but defining what is good or bad about the game through the lens of Marines doesn't really work, because no other faction has the same ubiquitous presence as Marines. And we can argue about how well 8th/9th achieved the ideal of bringing as much diversity to other factions as marines, but I don't think it's a stretch to say that they were the first editions to ever really try. Oh sure, some other factions had a good dex in edition X while others had a good dex in edition Y... But in 8th/9th ALL factions got attention to their unique subfactions... and lots of it. 

 

Now sure, I'm still going to have a subfaction rule (theoretically) to distinguish one subfaction from another. If I'm lucky, maybe a Relic and WL trait too. But forgive me if don't want to lose any of the few identity markers I have for the factions I like in order to reduce the cognitive load for players of factions that have had 3-4x as many options as I have now since 2nd edition.

 

(PS- Not to rip on B&C or Marine players. If some of this feels negative or offensive, it's just because edition changes always make me sad. I've never looked forward to an edition change in any game I've ever played- that includes RPGs and TCGs too.)

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

2 hours ago, ThePenitentOne said:

 

Kindly tell us all which Order of the Bloody Rose specific units we should use as opposed to which Sacred Rose specific units. Or which Kabal of the Poisoned Tongue units vs which Kabal of the Flayed Skull units. Oh, cat got your tongue?

 

Okay, tell us which BR datasheet rules vs. which SR datasheet rules? Hmmmm. Hearing a lot of crickets.

 

I know B&C is a Marine-centric site designed by and for Marine-centric players, but defining what is good or bad about the game through the lens of Marines doesn't really work, because no other faction has the same ubiquitous presence as Marines. And we can argue about how well 8th/9th achieved the ideal of bringing as much diversity to other factions as marines, but I don't think it's a stretch to say that they were the first editions to ever really try. Oh sure, some other factions had a good dex in edition X while others had a good dex in edition Y... But in 8th/9th ALL factions got attention to their unique subfactions... and lots of it. 

 

Now sure, I'm still going to have a subfaction rule (theoretically) to distinguish one subfaction from another. If I'm lucky, maybe a Relic and WL trait too. But forgive me if don't want to lose any of the few identity markers I have for the factions I like in order to reduce the cognitive load for players of factions that have had 3-4x as many options as I have now since 2nd edition.

 

(PS- Not to rip on B&C or Marine players. If some of this feels negative or offensive, it's just because edition changes always make me sad. I've never looked forward to an edition change in any game I've ever played- that includes RPGs and TCGs too.)

They have subfaction specific rules do they not?

[Maschinenpriester]

My biggest gripe with the current system is the I go you go system.

I really hope they finally adress this issue, adapt alternating activations, and take the leap into the 21st century.

Edited January 26, 2023 by Maschinenpriester

[spessmarine]

good riddance to the dumb splintering marines into halves

[Djangomatic82]

I for one hope Valrak is right, the marine schism is finally over and welcome our new Adeptus Astartes overlords.

[WARMASTER_]

Finally getting rid of the Primaris keyword also leads weight to the Firstborn Terminator rumours which is cool 

[sairence]

1 hour ago, Maschinenpriester said:

My biggest gripe with the current system is the I go you go system.

I really hope they finally adress this issue, adapt alternsting activations, and take the leap into the 21st century.

 

I really don't see how that is going to work with the army sizes in 40k, and I'd be highly surprised if they reduced those.

[Orange Knight]

28 minutes ago, WARMASTER_ said:

Finally getting rid of the Primaris keyword also leads weight to the Firstborn Terminator rumours which is cool 

 

Alternatively, the Terminators are Primaris but the keyword no longer exists, hence the confusion.

 

We'll have to wait and see what the lore behind the unit is, but I don't want to steer the discussion in that direction. 

[jimbo1701]

9 hours ago, apologist said:

There’s a middle ground between Killteam-like granularity and Apocalypse-style abstractness. At the moment, I reckon 40k leans too much to the former – but opinions will of course vary; as will which bits should be kept in, and which bits should be abstracted.

 

In older editions, you usually had the ‘Basic Game’ and ‘Advanced Rules’. It’d be nice to see that return – perhaps the much-derided ‘third way to play’ (Open Play) could be a way for GW to have their cake and eat it, with a little care and attention.
 

With Open Play as the core, Narrative would layer one set of advanced rules, and Matched another. 

completely agree with this. There seems minimal difference between matched and open play at present. 

[Marshal Reinhard]

3 hours ago, Orange Knight said:

 

Alternatively, the Terminators are Primaris but the keyword no longer exists, hence the confusion.

 

We'll have to wait and see what the lore behind the unit is, but I don't want to steer the discussion in that direction. 

Could be that the lore is they're mixed. Any veteran can be made to wear the armor? Well perhaps.

 

Biggest issue for me is how the new models look. We live in the Abbadon-was-released-era now and he set a high bar that hasn't been followed since (by the chaos termie kit). Just not interested in a loyalist version of that kit regardless of rules or lore

Edited January 26, 2023 by Marshal Reinhard

[Maschinenpriester]

1 hour ago, sairence said:

 

I really don't see how that is going to work with the army sizes in 40k, and I'd be highly surprised if they reduced those.

I also dont see a big reduction in army size. But i cannot imagine alternating activations lengthening the game too much. There are other mechanics in place that lead to stretching game time in my opinion. Endless rerolls for instance.

But this is just my subjective opinion. I would rather have alternating activations and would gladly make the game take a few mins longer in exchange.

[Sword Brother Adelard]

8 hours ago, BLACK BLΠFLY said:

It won’t happen. They are too heavily invested and Primaris is the most popular range.

 

Removing a rules keyword won't affect the range.

[Karhedron]

19 minutes ago, Sword Brother Adelard said:

Removing a rules keyword won't affect the range.

 

Exactly. In fact in some ways it would make it easier for GW to phase out old Marine kits without having to shift unit choices to Legends and thus alienate players.

 

It is a Tactical Marine or an Intercessor? It doesn't matter anymore, it is just a Marine. It's here to kill Xenos and chew bubblegum. And it's all out of gum! 

[Captain Idaho]

I'd like GW to be brave and combine datasheets to save space and simplify things as just wargear options.

 

Which they'd have to do with Captains logically. If there isn't a "Captain" and "Primaris Captain" and just a flat single datasheet, we have to really.

 

So I look forward to my increased stats on my Jump Pack and Terminator characters, or Chapter Champion and Apothecary etc, whilst Primaris players can enjoy their jump packs etc.

 

Whether it heralds new models or not is up in the air (likely as we know there's a Jump Pack for Captain Titus in Space Marine 2) but it definitely means folk can add a Jump Pack to their existing Primaris Captains for a bit of Kitbashing.