Wh40k 10th Edition Datasheet Changes

[HandsWithLegs]

I'm guessing one of them is for the combat partol variant. They said there would be some slight differences between the datasheets. I'm assuming it's like how infinity has Code One to be an introductory game that builds to N4

[Marshal Reinhard]

So strength goes away. From the central profile.

 

Makes a lot of sense actually. Didn't serve too much purpose other than when a weapon profile read "user"

 

Can just type the value out on the weapon instead, most already are

[Nagashsnee]

So str and t remain, glad for thatm the fixed to wound value has never sat right for me either idea wise or in execution. All in all nothing really change other then presentation. 

[potatocrusader]

14 minutes ago, Marshal Reinhard said:

So strength goes away. From the central profile.

 

Makes a lot of sense actually. Didn't serve too much purpose other than when a weapon profile read "user"

 

Can just type the value out on the weapon instead, most already are

I agree, easier to read each weapon's stat line without having to cross check model's strength. Not a major change but a welcomed one 

[potatocrusader]

8 minutes ago, Nagashsnee said:

So str and t remain, glad for thatm the fixed to wound value has never sat right for me either idea wise or in execution. All in all nothing really change other then presentation. 

I was a skeptical as well when I read some of the leaked rules document. Changing to a roll D6 to wound would simplify the game a bit too much and make it more stale as there are soo many different weapon types, units and factions where more or less it becomes flavor text with number attached.

I like AoS but lately have been feeling the game revolves around fish for mortal wounds and most weapon profiles don't feel different from one another. Could just be me that would prefer a strength and toughness system added to AoS as well 

[Jolemai]

Can't say I'm happy with this at all; if I wanted to be playing AoS then I would be 

Suppose I'll have to give it a chance on release though.

[Nagashsnee]

8 minutes ago, Jolemai said:

Can't say I'm happy with this at all; if I wanted to be playing AoS then I would be 

Suppose I'll have to give it a chance on release though.

I thought AoS did not have str and t but 40k kept it. 

[Nephaston]

I like the implication that I'll be able to throw whatever I need to play in a binder instead of lugging around three books.

[Applejack1989]

10 minutes ago, Nagashsnee said:

I thought AoS did not have str and t but 40k kept it. 

You are correct. This is not at all like AoS from a mechanics standpoint.

[Marshal Reinhard]

Models having a strength value didn't serve much purpose anyway. It was a very redundant stat. Very RPG'ish. But models typically not doing strength checks in 40k.

 

Only time strength then came up in 40k was when doing close combat attacks. And only if the weapon used was some variant of "user" or such. Better just to scrap the strength value entirely, and type it out in the weapon profile. You were reading that for all other relevant info anyway, but had to stop and look at the main profile when you came to S. 

 

Is good. Change is good, if smol. Much like.

Edited March 23, 2023 by Marshal Reinhard

[Lord_Ikka]

Overall the new datasheet template looks ok- the model itself has the stats needed such as Movement, Wounds, and Toughness, while the weapons profiles have all needed there. It does imply that weapons will change depending on the unit using them- so a SM Captain with a powersword will have a different weapon profile than an IG sergeant with a powersword, where attacks, strength, and WS will all change because the weapon is tied to the unit rather than having a set stat like the current style. 

[acrozatarim]

Well, this blows a whole beneath the waterline for the Scaramouche 'leak'. The only bits in that document that were accurate seem to be things that were already mentioned in other leaks. Most of the rest - the removal of Toughness, no more AP, the return of Initiative, etc - has been shown to be starkly wrong with the 10th ed reveal.

[Subtleknife]

I'm not sure I like the movement of strength to the weapon profile.

 

I also don't want 40k turned into AoS.

 

I'm also dissapointed we have the simple WS system. It feels odd that marines are hitting primarchs on a 3+. It doesn't look like that has been addressed but I can always hope.

Edited March 23, 2023 by Subtleknife

[Kastor Krieg]

4 hours ago, TheMawr said:

 

Not really, quite alot of things they described are not on this datasheet. ( the advantaged/disadvataged system, the enhancement system) Im not even sure its the same 6 stats shown here.

So basically, what is similar is that there are only 6 stats (with S moving to weapons) and no <subfaction> anymore (though that could be starter datasheet only.) but both could be a lucky coincedence.

Other details we got seem to indicate those things are instead of combat attrition, units will now get "debuffed" and possibly there's a way to "buff" them as well (full size, maybe?).

So it was right on the money.

[Halandaar]

31 minutes ago, Subtleknife said:

I'm not sure I like the movement of strength to the weapon profile.

 

I also don't want 40k turned into AoS.

 

It's not the same; AoS weapons have a flat to-wound roll against every target, 40k is keeping Strength Vs Toughness.

 

The strength stat is already on ranged weapons anyway, and most melee weapons have flat strengths or strength modifiers in their statlines already, so the only time we ever used a model's baseline strength value is for punching with no weapon. That just becomes a weapon profile on its own right, doesn't seem like a massive loss to me.

[acrozatarim]

18 minutes ago, Kastor Krieg said:

Other details we got seem to indicate those things are instead of combat attrition, units will now get "debuffed" and possibly there's a way to "buff" them as well (full size, maybe?).

So it was right on the money.

It was wildly off in a large number of points, and detailed in its wild wrongness.

 

We will see, in coming weeks, whether the remaining areas that it seems to have vaguely approximated reality are actually accurate or not, but I'm expecting it to continue to be wrong on when it comes to the details on those as well.

[Redcomet]

So much yes!!! I am ALL IN for these changes. 

[Malakithe]

3 hours ago, potatocrusader said:

most weapon profiles don't feel different from one another.

Yeah this is how AoS is. Most weapons are largely the same. I was wondering how 40K would do that since they have so many wildly different weapons but now its all good

[TrawlingCleaner]

I'm a tad confused on the comparison to AoS, is it because the layout of datasheets has been moved around? Stats of units look to be the same just the layout has moved around (Strength moving to the weapons) if anything, we've gained more stats?

Rules being on the datasheet is a great move, I'm very positive on these changes and am very eager to see more

[Misterduch]

Are poeple seriously seeing the datasheet layout become more optimized the same as becoming more like AoS? What?

 

You folks are aware that AoS doesn't even have strenght/Toughness values and instead works wholly off of to hit/to wound on their weapons, right?

 

Edited March 23, 2023 by Misterduch

[Remain_Indoors]

5 hours ago, redmapa said:

From the rules preview and the datasheet it seems like the scaramouche doc leak was real, poorly described and an earlier version but seems close enough.

 

I'd say more fake, with elements of truth mixed in. For everything it apparently got right, theres half a page of nonsense.

[Tymell]

Well, on the bright side, the removal of Toughness turned out to be entirely wrong. In fact it's one of the few stats left in the actual unit statline  Ultimately, it appears each model will still have its full statline (technically more with "OC"), some will just stem from the loadout.

 

I have mixed feelings on WS, BS, S and A moving to weapon profiles. With Attacks I think it makes most sense: for ranged weapons, it just replaces the number of shots it made, and for melee weapons that essentially just moves the A value into the weapon. Off the top of my head, not many things have more than one actual melee weapon on a single model, so for the most part, a model's Attack value will effectively just be in the profile of the weapon they take.

 

But with WS, BS and S (for melee weapons, and A too to a degree), surely having these baked into the weapons means either:

• A) All models with the same weapon will have the same chance to hit, same Strength in melee, etc, regardless of who is using it.

or

• B) We'll need numerous different versions of each weapon for different wielders.

And I'm not really sure what this adds, either in terms of better rules or a more streamlined game? I suppose in some cases it might remove a weapon special rule (e.g. power fists being unwieldy), but was that really such a big problem?

 

Or maybe I'm missing something in here?

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Really glad they didn’t bring back initiative.

Edited March 23, 2023 by BLACK BLΠFLY

[Halandaar]

36 minutes ago, Misterduch said:

Are poeple seriously seeing the datasheet layout become more optimized the same as becoming more like AoS? What?

 

You folks are aware that AoS doesn't even have strenght/Toughness values and instead works wholly off of to hit/to wound on their weapons, right?

 

Yeah, also "all weapons in AoS are the same" - even with the strength, rend and damage being the same, Chaos Warriors two options affect how many models can fight in a combat and how easily they hit, and that's a substantial variation all in the stats. 40k would require two different weapon abilities or special rules to achieve those distinctions.

[Blindhamster]

2 hours ago, Tymell said:

Well, on the bright side, the removal of Toughness turned out to be entirely wrong. In fact it's one of the few stats left in the actual unit statline  Ultimately, it appears each model will still have its full statline (technically more with "OC"), some will just stem from the loadout.

 

I have mixed feelings on WS, BS, S and A moving to weapon profiles. With Attacks I think it makes most sense: for ranged weapons, it just replaces the number of shots it made, and for melee weapons that essentially just moves the A value into the weapon. Off the top of my head, not many things have more than one actual melee weapon on a single model, so for the most part, a model's Attack value will effectively just be in the profile of the weapon they take.

 

But with WS, BS and S (for melee weapons, and A too to a degree), surely having these baked into the weapons means either:

• A) All models with the same weapon will have the same chance to hit, same Strength in melee, etc, regardless of who is using it.

or

• B) We'll need numerous different versions of each weapon for different wielders.

And I'm not really sure what this adds, either in terms of better rules or a more streamlined game? I suppose in some cases it might remove a weapon special rule (e.g. power fists being unwieldy), but was that really such a big problem?

 

Or maybe I'm missing something in here?

 

believe it was stated that weapons WS/BS is based on unit. a Captains Power fist will have different stats to a sergeants one, for example