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

[Emperor Ming]

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.

 

Those are rather large potentially worrying changes

 

Not sure T should be touched at all

 

 

[Chapter Master Valrak]

3 minutes ago, Emperor Ming said:

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.

 

Those are rather large potentially worrying changes

 

Not sure T should be touched at all

 

 

 

I actually heard the PP was being put in the shooting phase, but that was during testing so that could have changed.

[Emperor Ming]

Big question I suppose is

 

When to sell my new guard codex

[Lord Marshal]

49 minutes ago, RWJP said:

If this is how GW proceeds, it won't be like 3rd.

It would be like 8th where GW sold the Indexes as separate books. With how many factions there are and how many models there are, it will likely be at least 5 books, same as 8th. 

What I really don't understand is the people in this thread who are going "Oh yes, going to Indexes will be great!" We already have enough complaints about having to buy rulebooks that go out of date as GW issues FAQs, points updates etc, so why on Earth are people now happy to buy Indexes, which will go out of date even faster and be even more temporary.

 

I think when people applaud for Indexes, they're reminiscing on the 'simplicity' of those books. When the armies were so slimmed down to the bare bones that the game is often remembered as being better balanced for it, as well as simpler to play. A lot of this is probably coupled with nostalgia for the buzz they got from coming on the heels of the mess that was 7th - a gulp of water is going to taste a lot better if you've been crawling through the desert.

 

What tends to be forgotten is that after a while people were complaining about how boring Index armies felt, and the inevitable trickle of Codexes left a lot of 'Index Armies' (most notably Genestealer Cults) languishing behind for what felt like an eternity.

 

The community of early 8th is also a very different creature to what we have today. I could see 'Index Armies' faring far worse in 2024 where cutthroat competitive play is a lot more normalised across a lot more communities than it was then. 

 

Edited February 7, 2023 by Lord Marshal

[Slave to Darkness]

20 minutes ago, Lexington said:

 

...and, boy howdy, do I still see a lot of Marines die. So, so many dead Marines, you guys.

 

 

Well if the only thing on the table is marines, were only gonna see dead marines. 

 

Totally get your point and agree though. 

[Shinespider]

I don't see a huge issue with merging the Psychic Phase. Remember that when the Psychic phase was introduced, you started the phase by mustering a bunch of army-wide psychic dice that you would then burn down over the course of the phase. Under that system, it was very necessary for it to be a distinct phase. Nowadays, now that each cast is an isolated matter, I don't really see why you couldn't put the casts wherever. 

 

Removing toughness in most situations is such a massive change that it's impossible to even guess what effects it would have without a much more detail. Obviously on the face of it, this change would obliterate Orks and any other high-T low-save models, but we have to assume they'd account for that. It's silly to speculate. 

 

 

[Halandaar]

21 hours ago, Mike8404 said:

Aside from that, there hasn't been a new 40k FB model designed since 2013

 

It's fun, because this sort of thing persists despite there having been at least one Firsborn kit in every year since 2013 (including since Primaris arrived) with the single exception of 2019.

 

SM Centurions, Vanguard, Sternguard, Stalker/Hunter etc - 2013

SM Terminator Captain - 2014

BA Captain Karlaen, BA Tactical Squad, BA Sanguinary Priest, BA Assault Terminators, BA Terminator Librarian - 2014

SW Logan Grimnar, Stormwolf, Ven Dread - 2014

SM Terminator Librarian, Devastators, Assault Squad, Captain "Solaq" - 2015

BA Jump Pack Chaplain - 2015

SW Ulrik, Iron Priest, Wulfen - 2016

SM Captain Centos - 2016

DW Artemis, Kill Team Veterans, Kill Team Cassius, Watch Master, Corvus Blackstar - 2016

GK Grand Master Voldus - 2017

---8th EDITION & PRIMARIS---

SM Heroes Series 1 Tactical Marines & Captain - 2017

SM Heroes Series 2 Terminators & Captain - 2018

SM Chaplain Tarentus, Lexicanum Varus - 2020

GK Castellan Crowe - 2021

BT Castellan - 2022

 

Edited February 8, 2023 by Halandaar
Forgot Centos!

[Captain Idaho]

If GW makes it so all you have to do is roll to hit and then saves, I'm done with 40K. So a bolter can wound an Ork and a Guardsman and a Space Marine on the same score?

 

Gross. That kind of abstract simplification is exactly what I didn't like about AoS and they're going 1 step further?

Edited February 7, 2023 by Captain Idaho

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Sounds like they are going more towards AoS.

[Captain Idaho]

2 minutes ago, BLACK BLΠFLY said:

Sounds like they are going more towards AoS.

 

It so does yes! And I don't like that game or themes, which I've seen leaking into 40K more and more.

[phandaal]

4 minutes ago, Captain Idaho said:

If GW makes it so all you have to do is roll to hit and then saves, I'm done with 40K. So a bolter can wound an Ork and a Guardsman and a Space Marine on the same score?

 

Gross. That kind of abstract simplification is exactly what I didn't like about AoS and they're going 1 step further?

 

Seems like they are looking at simplified rules like OPR's Grimdark Future, trying to borrow some of that to streamline their game.

 

Combining Psychic Phase and Command Phase sounds like a good idea. Will make positioning psykers much more important than it is today.

[Emperor Ming]

Me2, if they move it to the aos version were everything wounds something on a fixed value, ill be gone aswell

 

or having an edition snooze

[TrawlingCleaner]

Removing Toughness could work similar to Bolt Action? For those not familiar, their wounding system works like this:

 

Wounding on:

3+ for Recruits

4+ for Regulars

5+ for Veterans

6+ Soft Skin vehicles

7+ Armour Car

8+ Light Tank

9+ Medium Tank

10+ Heavy Tank

11+ Super Heavy Tank

 

The weapon's AP improves the wound roll, eg: -2ap makes a Veteran's wound roll 3+ instead of 5+. It's not a perfect system (there are no armour saves in Bolt Action) but it could be the angle GW takes. The above has the potential to sort many of the AP/Vehicle surviabilty many have

Ultimately, I'm interested to see where they take 10th ed. If it's closer to AoS in many ways, I'll be very happy

[Lexington]

25 minutes ago, Lord Marshal said:

The community of early 8th is also a very different creature to what we have today. I could see 'Index Armies' faring far worse in 2024 where cutthroat competitive play is a lot more normalised across a lot more communities than it was then. 

 

Is it? I feel like I've heard some variation of this sentiment being widely expressed for at least fifteen, maybe twenty years. Definitely in 8th and far prior to it. Not sure there's been a lot of actual change in that entire time.

[Craig]

If toughness is removed why keep strength? I'm probably missing something obvious but I've had a long day. Lol

[Focslain]

22 minutes ago, Shinespider said:

I don't see a huge issue with merging the Psychic Phase. Remember that when the Psychic phase was introduced, you started the phase by mustering a bunch of army-wide psychic dice that you would then burn down over the course of the phase. Under that system, it was very necessary for it to be a distinct phase. Nowadays, now that each cast is an isolated matter, I don't really see why you couldn't put the casts wherever. 

 

Removing toughness in most situations is such a massive change that it's impossible to even guess what effects it would have without a much more detail. Obviously on the face of it, this change would obliterate Orks and any other high-T low-save models, but we have to assume they'd account for that. It's silly to speculate. 

 

 

These changes are screaming AoS to me. Betting the [Heavy Armour] keyword is a modifier to the wound roll since those are determined by the weapon in AoS.

[Halandaar]

4 minutes ago, Captain Idaho said:

If GW makes it so all you have to do is roll to hit and then saves, I'm done with 40K. So a bolter can wound an Ork and a Guardsman and a Space Marine on the same score?

 

Gross. That kind of abstract simplification is exactly what I didn't like about AoS and they're going 1 step further?

 

The idea of wounding as a distinct step being gone feels weird, but I don't think "Save" becoming an abstraction of both a unit's toughness and it's armour is necessarily a terrible thing as long as there is enough variation in the save values to make it sensible.

 

This is where you need a D10 system because then a Marine with a 3+ save (representing high armour and high toughness), an Ork with a 4+ save (representing low armour but very high toughness) and a Guardsman with a 6+ save (representing low toughness and okay-ish armour) have similar chances to take damage from a Boltgun shot as they do under 9th edition's system. And you've achieved it with half the amount of dice rolls.

 

Of course, they won't do D10. So it will become a terrible thing where everything dies twice as fast as it does now because there's no toughness step.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Mogger351]

6 minutes ago, Halandaar said:

 

The idea of wounding as a distinct step being gone feels weird, but I don't think "Save" becoming an abstraction of both a unit's toughness and it's armour is necessarily a terrible thing as long as there is enough variation in the save values to make it sensible.

 

This is where you need a D10 system because then a Marine with a 3+ save (representing high armour and high toughness), an Ork with a 4+ save (representing low armour but very high toughness) and a Guardsman with a 6+ save (representing low toughness and okay-ish armour) have similar chances to take damage from a Boltgun shot as they do under 9th edition's system. And you've achieved it with half the amount of dice rolls.

 

Of course, they won't do D10. So it will become a terrible thing where everything dies twice as fast as it does now because there's no toughness step.

 

Can but hope they dial back ap, and shot count to balance it a little.

[WrathOfTheLion]

Psychic powers in the command/hero phase works really well from my experience in Sigmar. It makes sense for casts to happen with prayers, etc.

[Valkyrion]

Removal of toughness will require some explanation but it is an interesting way to make certain things tougher than others.

 

40k has removed things before - Movement stat, save modifiers, initiative, plus things like willpower from rogue trader - but the S/T table has been a staple inclusion since the very beginning, even if it has changed over the years.

 

My immediate instinct is that this would increase the lethality of the game immensely, but if GW are pushing terrain heavy tables then we might see more hit modifiers and armour save improvements through those means. 

It might also remove the potential chip damage from S4 and under weapons taking on vehicles. No bad thing in isolation.

 

[Emperor Ming]

What you wound on now, isn't exactly complicated or hard to work out........

 

Changing it would require a potential minefield of astronomical changes to how the game is played, strats, rules interactions etc

 

Imagine the faqs on this

 

If explaining how always strikes first and last requires two and a bit pages and a designers commentary

 

What the heck will a huge stat change require....a libraruim....

 

Ah yes lets see, wounding a gretchin, subsection 2, page 10, column 4, in readdress of not being wounded by a none tertiary weapon while transversing a untraversable terrain piece, see rare rules appendixes 4, 6, 11 and 4b for further refences Something comical like that?

 

 

Edited February 7, 2023 by Emperor Ming

[Cleon]

Also the early versions of Lord of The Rings (I don't know if it stayed, I lost track of it) had a single 'defence' stat instead of a Toughness and a save ( so a troll, high toughness low armour, could be the same defence as a dwarfs' mid toughness high armour), if done properly it could still give the variety of values, but would reduce some of the flavour.

[Valkyrion]

8th Edition Apocalypse had you make your save on a D12 if you were only hit once, or on a D6 if you were hit lots (or by something big). 

A marines basic save was 6+, so took it on a D12 if it was tickled by a guardsman or on a D6 if splatted by a volcano cannon. The more blast markers (number of hits, in essence)you had the more saves you had to make.

 

Moving to a D12 system would open up a whole new level of nuance to characteristics.  I highly doubt they'll go down that route, but that one change would really make a difference.

[Interrogator Stobz]

1 hour ago, Lexington said:

Eh, I dunno. Been playing a lot of Horus Heresy lately, which is:

1. A Marine vs. Marine fest,
2. Still largely based on the 3rd Ed engine, and
3. Fairly low on AP3 weaponry

...and, boy howdy, do I still see a lot of Marines die. So, so many dead Marines, you guys.

 

I think the whole Armor of Contempt fiasco shows that the design team is aware that AP is a big problem, even if that particular fix was, uh, not great.

 

As for 10th...man, just the concept makes my body let out a ragged sigh of exhaustion. Not that it won't be an improvement over the current mess that is 9th. Edition changes usually have been an improvement over the state of things that immediately preceded their arrival. For a while. Then everything breaks down to the point where we're all begging the gods for a new Great Flood to cleanse the land and let us game in peace once more.

 

Yeah, I know, this has always been the way. The cycle. The great churn that has defined 40K in the nearly thirty years since 2nd Edition's arrival on the scene. Maybe it's just me, or the time-shortening ways of aging, but it seems like the space in which Good Times have been carved out is much smaller than it used to be.

 

This^^

The Churn rate increase since GW became able to make their own books has become exhausting. 

A good friend and I discussed this at length after a game of Kill Team; GW have proven they can write good rules, so the constant change in 40k is intentional and tiring.

Neither of us, nor the majority of our gaming group can be bothered keeping up with 40k anymore. 

They have better more stable things to play.

 

A few Frater here don't like the simplified 3rd-esk concept. I hold a different opinion, 3rd allowed bigger games, the flavour was in picking different units, not different cards and traits and doctrines and relics ad-nauseum. I preferred that.

 

Great news they are changing terrain rules. 40k is a 2 dimensional bore-fest. KT21 and Titanicus have awesome terrain interaction rules, if they get that right I may do more than just buy the BRB.

[TheMawr]

49 minutes 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

 

 

 

 

I dont know wich of your sources gave you exodites rumors (you regularily mentioned it) and how reliable they are, but its actually a likely candidate for a new xenos "race" (the race part has often been used wrong by GW themselves as well)... especially as it can get away with a 2-4 kits release and not necessarily fully function as a standalone army. Could also be an expansion or standalone codex of corsairs, ynnari, kroot, or something tau related.. I think another brand new full-army race might be a bit ambitious early on in a new edition, especially with so many other things. (though there still is one kill team box left to introduce such an enterprise.)

 

Basically Im probing wether the exodite rumors come from a reliable source/the same source that got alot right up till now, the discord "at least 3 more eldar releases by 2023, but unrelated to aspect warriors" rumor last year was a very reliable source... though the drukhari kill team could be 1 of those. And one of the last "rumors" from lady atia also involved that exodites were in the consideration/early design stage (however that was 2018).. its a lot of personal wishful thinking of course.

 

 

 

I always felt it is better to threat Psychic powers/actions no different than technological or physical ones, I never understood the need to differentiate (in most games, not just GW)

Charging and shooting a psychic energyblast is effectively not different enough from loading and firing a missile launcher in a gameplay setting, a scientific medic and a magic healer also effectively do the same thing and wether you issue an orbital blast or conjure a storm trough psychic means.. abstractly those things dont need different phases, just different keywords,abilities etc.

 

It could be that your conflicting rumors point to something like that, no psychic phase, but some (the offensive ones) are used in the shooting phase, and some (the supportive ones) in the command phase.