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

[Halandaar]

5 minutes ago, Cleon said:

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.

 

This is sort of what I was getting at. A model with T4 and a 6+ is not particularly different from a model with T3 and a 5+ when it comes to how likely a Space Marine is to wound it with a bolter shot. Condensing those two stats down to a single 4+ save (or Defense stat as you mention) achieves a statistically similar outcome with half the steps and dice rolling. I just feel it needs the added granularity of D10 (or higher) to really work without us ending up with some really daft outlier situations.

 

 

[TheMawr]

btw, if there are so many AoS influences, I also wonder if roles could be on the chopping block, and we get a return to 2nd edition Characters, Squads & Support. with an added Troops/Battleline to some Squads like AoS has. Where different builts (especially special characters, wich could lean into the heroes focus rumor) can turn different units to battleline.

[Maschinenpriester]

Technically Kill team also does not have toughness or Strengtj characteristics.

It is beeing substituted by higher volume of dice and wounds.

I could not imagine this beeing feasible with higher model count.

[Captain Idaho]

The thing is, Lord of the Rings doesn't have much difference between an orc, elf or dwarf in heavy armour; they suffer the same if run through by a sword. The variance between entites in 40K is far greater and requires another layer on top of the mechanics presented.

[Subtleknife]

I think those changes would cause me to skip an edition. No interest in "sigmarising" 40k. I want granularity in my games.

[KnightofSigismund]

1 hour ago, Chapter Master Valrak said:

 

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

Either way they do it I think that’s a more common sense approach. 

[Triszin]

So I kinda like the changes the more I think about it.

 

If Toughness becoming a tiered AOC meets Toughness

Heavy armor 1,2-10+

 

Not only giving T value, but ap and damage reduction is my guess.

 

 

Changes to marine book.

I half expect 2 base marine codex's

 

Codex compliant

Codex non compliant

 

Then supplements

 

 

[Ayatollah_of_Rock_n_Rolla]

Dark Angels are surprising choice for a Marine force in the box with Leviathan, even if only as a paint scheme, considering that for the last 9 years the hivefleet was narratively pitched against Blood Angels.

[KnightofSigismund]

Word from Memphis is that mandatory training days have been blocked in on schedule to start begging of April for him. I assume it’s to get caught up on the changes etc. 

[Evil Eye]

Well this sounds...uniquely awful, frankly! The lack of actual toughness values is one of the things I don't like about AoS, but it works better with that due to most combat happening between creatures armed with various forms of pointy thing. In 40K, where you have everything from tiny gretchin to towering transhumans clad in terminator armour, armed with every kind of weapon you could possibly imagine, the AoS model doesn't work. The level of abstraction we're seeing is frankly getting silly, and if these rumours are true I might be bowing out of "modern" 40K. The fact they're switching to free online rules is also worrying; it suggests they don't have confidence in their product and will be relying on "It's FREE!" to get people to excuse its shortcomings. To which I say "No thanks Jeff!". As I've said before, wargames are an analogue medium, and this strikes me as forcing more "digitization" and tabletop-videogame nonsense into it.

[Nephaston]

Bigger emphasis on terrain and focus on smaller units could help mitigate the lethality back down IF it works like in boarding actions where you can only kill what you can see and not shoot through your own squads and units unless specifically allowed to.

Maybe there will be bigger mechanical differences between narrative and competitive in their respective core rules.

Regarding the potential loss of Toughness I could see them replacing it with more FNP saves baked into units like "Transhuman Physiology" for Marines or "Ded 'ard" for Orks to signify their higher toughness.

That way we would see a shift from hitting>wounding>armour to hitting>armour>resisting for the chunkier infantry while the usual weedy humans, eldar, and grots die to a stiff breeze a tiny bit more without a chance of resisting.

[Heavy Armour] seemingly would keep hitting>wounding>armour but one has to wonder when the cut-off for heaviness is; is it just Terminator Armou and equivalent? Or Gravis? Or is even just power armour suitably heavy?

[phandaal]

20 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

The fact they're switching to free online rules is also worrying; it suggests they don't have confidence in their product and will be relying on "It's FREE!" to get people to excuse its shortcomings. To which I say "No thanks Jeff!". As I've said before, wargames are an analogue medium, and this strikes me as forcing more "digitization" and tabletop-videogame nonsense into it.

 

In this case, GW really does not have a choice about going online. Their competitors are already offering core rules online for free, so GW has to do this to keep up.

 

Personally, I will keep buying paper rulebooks because I like to have paper around. But free online rules do help lower the barrier to entry.

 

And let's face it, GW's rules are already free online thanks to everyone's favorite Russia-pedia site. This would just be GW making it official.

Edited February 7, 2023 by phandaal

[TheMawr]

18 minutes ago, Triszin said:

Changes to marine book.

I half expect 2 base marine codex's

 

Codex compliant

Codex non compliant

 

Then supplements

 

 

 

That would basically be similar to how its been done for the past 2 editions wouldnt it ?

 

"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"

 

There are multiple ways to read that, but I think the intention is "the way Space marines chapters will receive a codex and rules will change completely."

Spacemarine codex just being a thing like it always is, I really dont see that changing, and the big change being how chapters get their rules... so they wont get codex or supplements as they usually did... but apparently also no <chapter>  in the main marine codex.

Wich makes me think no one gets <chapter> in the codex anymore ( similar to what we saw in the astra militarum codex) but this mostly affects spacemarines were their subfactions often got a more special treatment. However if its just some army of renown kind of articles in white dwarf.. it still isnt that big a change than it is now.

 

If it was a warhammer community article I could see it being a whole big deal talking about big changes but all it does is go back to pre-8th edition Spacemarine chapter treatment. But I assume a rumor monger on a spacemarine social media site knows better than that.

[jaxom]

3 hours ago, Chapter Master Valrak said:

>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.

This is the only thing that I'm having trouble understanding. I think it would mean it's a reverse version of AP? So Marine with BS 3+ firing at a Terminator with Toughness 1 would need a 4+ to-hit?

[Blindhamster]

Have to say, a lot of those rumours don’t sound too good. Interested to see how things pan out but also a bit concerned 

[MARK0SIAN]

29 minutes ago, phandaal said:

 

In this case, GW really does not have a choice about going online. Their competitors are already offering core rules online for free, so GW has to do this to keep up.

 

Personally, I will keep buying paper rulebooks because I like to have paper around. But free online rules do help lower the barrier to entry.

 

And let's face it, GW's rules are already free online thanks to everyone's favorite Russia-pedia site. This would just be GW making it official.

I actually think this just means exactly what they started in 8th where the basic  rules for the game were officially free but you need the rulebook to play with the ‘proper’ rules.

[Triszin]

23 minutes ago, TheMawr said:

 

That would basically be similar to how its been done for the past 2 editions wouldnt it ?

 

"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"

 

There are multiple ways to read that, but I think the intention is "the way Space marines chapters will receive a codex and rules will change completely."

Spacemarine codex just being a thing like it always is, I really dont see that changing, and the big change being how chapters get their rules... so they wont get codex or supplements as they usually did... but apparently also no <chapter>  in the main marine codex.

Wich makes me think no one gets <chapter> in the codex anymore ( similar to what we saw in the astra militarum codex) but this mostly affects spacemarines were their subfactions often got a more special treatment. However if its just some army of renown kind of articles in white dwarf.. it still isnt that big a change than it is now.

 

If it was a warhammer community article I could see it being a whole big deal talking about big changes but all it does is go back to pre-8th edition Spacemarine chapter treatment. But I assume a rumor monger on a spacemarine social media site knows better than that.

I could totally see it going back to 7th, 8th pretending it's new.

 

Or just 2 big books, compliant and non compliant, then random supplements in white dwarfs.

[Maritn]

How much granularity would really be lost overall by condensing two defensive stats into one, compared to 8th/9th? Lascannons already wound Heavy Intercessors, Raiders, Rhinos and Repulsors on a 3+... 

[Noserenda]

Arent the rules currently free online from gw? Since 8th? So no real change, though an expansion to that would be a good idea given how trivial it would be to get them anyway.

I wasnt a fan of fixed rolls in AoS until i actually played it, and right now its definitely more fun to play, it just speeds up play considerably and makes internal balance a lot easier.

[TheMawr]

28 minutes ago, Triszin said:

I could totally see it going back to 7th, 8th pretending it's new.

 

Or just 2 big books, compliant and non compliant, then random supplements in white dwarfs.

 

The latter is what I meant basically, though not the non compliant books split up. ( putting all the extra units for spacewolves, dark angels, blood angels, black templars and grey knights with the original units of each of them in a book makes for an unprecedented super bloated book.)

 

in fact multiple rumors could combine in this theory. if the first astartes codex is Angels of Death (blood angels+dark angels combined like 2nd edition, a persistent rumor) instead of Spacemarines, we would probably know that by may, thus it needs to be explained extensively.

I could see them "celebrate" an Angels of Death focus by having the usual different tier starter boxsets correspond to different chapters, explaining conflicting rumors (the units are just examples)...

 

Elite box with Terminators + dreadnought and Jumppack focus -> Blood angels

Veteran box with Terminators + dreadnought -> Dark angels

Recruit box with Jumppacks -> Ultramarines

 

[Lagrath]

This sounds exactly like the sort of horrible and unrequested and unnecessary changes GW would implement to a game that already works well and people already really like. Deleting every faction's stratagems and removing toughness would basically force everyone to play beer hammer casual 40k after all the effort GW and many others have invested into making matched play interesting and popular. If that's really the direction of 10th edition I might cancel my planned travel around the country to 40k events for after the summer. 

[jaxom]

15 minutes ago, Lagrath said:

Deleting every faction's stratagems and removing toughness would basically force everyone to play beer hammer casual 40k after all the effort GW and many others have invested into making matched play interesting and popular

Maybe that will be difference between the rumored Narrative rules and Competitive rules?

Quote

>The core rules will be free online with two variants. "Narrative" and "Competitive"

Narrative being condensed beerhammer while competitive basically stays the same?

[Interrogator Stobz]

35 minutes ago, Maritn said:

How much granularity would really be lost overall by condensing two defensive stats into one, compared to 8th/9th? Lascannons already wound Heavy Intercessors, Raiders, Rhinos and Repulsors on a 3+... 

Toughness can easily be represented by the Wounds stat. That's how KT21 works. And it works fantastically. 

It's like you still take the hit but the mini shrugs it off and keeps fighting.

 

Remember when we all had only 1 wound? The amount of steps were the essentially same as this would be: Hit, Wound, Save, die vs. Hit, Save, Count wounds, die.

The extra step we have gotten used to in 8th/9th is unnecessary. 

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

How do you determine if a hit wounds?

[Mogger351]

8 minutes ago, BLACK BLΠFLY said:

How do you determine if a hit wounds?

Does it hit? Yes. Does the model have a T value? If yes consult S v T chart, if not proceed to save.

 

Edit: replied in context of rumours not kill team, post was a little ambiguous, sorry.

Edited February 7, 2023 by Mogger351
I'm a dingbat