Wh40k 10th Edition Datasheet Changes

[ThePenitentOne]

The issue is that for 30 years or so, White Scars and Ravenwing Bikers have been all over the lore. And that's not to say that BA or SW don't have bikers- for sure they do. But THESE Bikers ARE Legendary, and again, have been for decades.

 

So if you take Blood Angels Bikers, and you can.... You should expect to still have your ass handed to you by the Ravenwing and the Whitescars because their bike units are good enough that they became feared across the galaxy in a way that your bikers never did. This fluff has been reflected throughout the years with various rules- some sets of rules better than others, but always, GW has tried to make these distinctions because they are consistent with the lore.

 

You might WANT Ultramarine bikers that are as good as the Ravenwing, but you SHOULDN'T be able to have them. If they were a thing, then either they would have been known and feared across the galaxy as much as Ravenwing and Whitescar Bikers, or none of these units would have been especially known and feared throughout the galaxy because a bike is a bike is a bike. Either way, it's certainly more boring than the status quo and the thirty years years of lore that preceded it.

 

 

Edited April 3, 2023 by Tyriks
do not dodge the swear filter

[DesuVult]

As I recall the usual difference between biker units has been in mobility rather than combat effectiveness, such as WS ability to outflank.

[spessmarine]

1 hour ago, ThePenitentOne said:

The issue is that for 30 years or so, White Scars and Ravenwing Bikers have been all over the lore. And that's not to say that BA or SW don't have bikers- for sure they do. But THESE Bikers ARE Legendary, and again, have been for decades.

 

So if you take Blood Angels Bikers, and you can.... You should expect to still have your @$$ handed to you by the Ravenwing and the Whitescars because their bike units are good enough that they became feared across the galaxy in a way that your bikers never did. This fluff has been reflected throughout the years with various rules- some sets of rules better than others, but always, GW has tried to make these distinctions because they are consistent with the lore.

 

You might WANT Ultramarine bikers that are as good as the Ravenwing, but you SHOULDN'T be able to have them. If they were a thing, then either they would have been known and feared across the galaxy as much as Ravenwing and Whitescar Bikers, or none of these units would have been especially known and feared throughout the galaxy because a bike is a bike is a bike. Either way, it's certainly more boring than the status quo and the thirty years years of lore that preceded it.

 

 

After the index comes codices, and they'll absolutely have some sort of content to merit ditching the index.

Plus, Lion out soon along with the rumoured refresh sometime this year, no way they'll just be green Ultramarines.

[jaxom]

3 hours ago, ThePenitentOne said:

The issue is that for 30 years or so, White Scars and Ravenwing Bikers have been all over the lore. And that's not to say that BA or SW don't have bikers- for sure they do. But THESE Bikers ARE Legendary, and again, have been for decades.

 

So if you take Blood Angels Bikers, and you can.... You should expect to still have your @$$ handed to you by the Ravenwing and the Whitescars because their bike units are good enough that they became feared across the galaxy in a way that your bikers never did. This fluff has been reflected throughout the years with various rules- some sets of rules better than others, but always, GW has tried to make these distinctions because they are consistent with the lore.

 

You might WANT Ultramarine bikers that are as good as the Ravenwing, but you SHOULDN'T be able to have them. If they were a thing, then either they would have been known and feared across the galaxy as much as Ravenwing and Whitescar Bikers, or none of these units would have been especially known and feared throughout the galaxy because a bike is a bike is a bike. Either way, it's certainly more boring than the status quo and the thirty years years of lore that preceded it.

 

 

My concern with this sort of rational is I think it leads to Matt Ward style codexes.

[Scribe]

23 minutes ago, jaxom said:

My concern with this sort of rational is I think it leads to Matt Ward style codexes.

 

Can you expand on that? Are you talking in terms of "Wolfy mc Wolf" or a design method?

[DesuVult]

With chapter buffs and even the detachment rules there is concern for stepping on toes of other factions.  Custodes are +1S over marines, +1 to wound for being a different chapter can eclipse the custodes offensive advantage.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

Friendly note that "what will the detachments look like?" is a topic for the Rules Changes thread, not this Datasheet Changes thread,  Let's try to keep this isolated to changes we've seen to the datasheets.

 

[jaxom]

3 hours ago, Scribe said:

 

Can you expand on that? Are you talking in terms of "Wolfy mc Wolf" or a design method?

A good example, I think, is the railgun and the Votann. It’s taking lore or description and in attempting to make it “feel right” on the tabletop forgetting (or ignoring) the wider context of the game.

[DesuVult]

1 hour ago, jaxom said:

A good example, I think, is the railgun and the Votann. It’s taking lore or description and in attempting to make it “feel right” on the tabletop forgetting (or ignoring) the wider context of the game.

I don't think those weapons were doing that, I think that was just GW engaging in blatant active codex creep.

[jaxom]

1 hour ago, DesuVult said:

I don't think those weapons were doing that, I think that was just GW engaging in blatant active codex creep.

It’s all subjective, I suppose. Deepstriking land raiders?

[Orange Knight]

I imagine that a lot of rules might be unlocked by characters and not simply chapter keywords. 

 

Perhaps including Sammael in a list will make biker units better, as an example. This means that the Ravenwing will indeed be superior in performance to a unit of Blood Angel or Ultramarine bikers.

 

I think that a greater focus on unique characters unlocking abilities in lists is a better way to go about things.

[Handsome Fred]

2 hours ago, Orange Knight said:

I imagine that a lot of rules might be unlocked by characters and not simply chapter keywords. 

 

Perhaps including Sammael in a list will make biker units better, as an example. This means that the Ravenwing will indeed be superior in performance to a unit of Blood Angel or Ultramarine bikers.

 

I think that a greater focus on unique characters unlocking abilities in lists is a better way to go about things.

 

Good old fifth edition?

[CL_Mission]

3 hours ago, Orange Knight said:

I imagine that a lot of rules might be unlocked by characters and not simply chapter keywords. 

 

Perhaps including Sammael in a list will make biker units better, as an example. This means that the Ravenwing will indeed be superior in performance to a unit of Blood Angel or Ultramarine bikers.

 

I think that a greater focus on unique characters unlocking abilities in lists is a better way to go about things.

 

Alternatively could these kinds of advantages be bought to unique datacards for subfactions?

For example you could have the 'Outrider' datacard that comes with <Adeptus Astartes> faction keyword and so is open to UM, IF and so on and is the same unit we have now. Then you have the 'Horselord Outrider' that comes with the <White Scar> faction keyword so it can only be taken in a WS army, usual outrider model and stats but comes with <battleline> so White Scars players aren't restricted to three squads even without a special detachment.

Since it's a unique card you could go further and make them M: 16" or A: 3 or something to show the skill of White Scar riders without having to refence some special rule somewhere is this book or that special detachment or whatever, the advantages are right there in the stats. Even with USRs returning Termingants have special abilites printed on their card so you could always do the same here.

With datacards and rules being free online you'd just have to find the right card(s) for you subfaction and print it off, when their codex rolls round this one would just replace the normal 'Outrider' entry or be available in a White Scars supplement. 

[Orange Knight]

I think we should expect GW to do whatever is easiest and most straightforward. 

 

If you can select an Outrider detachment that improves the performance of biker style units, in the end the same goal will be achieved.

 

They did mention that the same army will play differently depending on the detachment chosen. Ultimately this might actually be better for everyone. You could have a single list with varied unit, and jump between bonuses to different units from game to game. We should give them a chance- this could be more fun and lead to more gameplay variety.

 

I do agree that the colour of your army shouldn't have such a massive impact. My Imperial Fist army has been awful for 3 years. The data from events shows they have a win rate of less than 29% - the lowest of any faction or sub factions. Are the yellow Marines this awful in the lore? Of course not.

 

 

[Kurgan the Lurker]

More info on datasheet changes today:

 

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/03/warhammer-40000-the-anatomy-of-a-new-datasheet/

 

 

 

[redmapa]

So now a lower leadership is better, neat. Im glad theyre tying leadership to actions and strats,leadership checks to do certain things was a really cool idea back in previous editions and Im happy theyre expanding on that idea now that there are actual actions to do.

[ThePenitentOne]

9 hours ago, Orange Knight said:

I imagine that a lot of rules might be unlocked by characters and not simply chapter keywords. 

 

Perhaps including Sammael in a list will make biker units better, as an example. This means that the Ravenwing will indeed be superior in performance to a unit of Blood Angel or Ultramarine bikers.

 

I think that a greater focus on unique characters unlocking abilities in lists is a better way to go about things.

 

This is a terrible idea, unless it is generic characters only that unlock things.

 

Special characters are unique in a universe of billions upon billions. It was ALWAYS ridiculous that Morvenn Vahl showed up in every battle because players included her for competitive reasons. But at least with the old system, I had the option to leave her home as a guy who isn't so much about competition.

 

But if we now have to include her to unlock certain rules?

 

Then yep, a High Lord of Terra has to come to every 25pl skirmish because some people thought it was too much cognitive load to just have subfaction rules. Utterly ridiculous- especially in Crusade, where named characters don't gain XP or battle honours. I HATE the idea that subfaction rules are now based on detachment type, but it's WAY better than "You must take THIS named character if you want units who aren't the named character to behave as they should according to the lore.

 

I'm sure Ravenwing do missions without Sammael all the time.

[jaxom]

53 minutes ago, ThePenitentOne said:

It was ALWAYS ridiculous that Morvenn Vahl showed up in every battle because players included her for competitive reasons.

I feel like this could be said for a lot of units which aren't special characters, but are described as rare in lore. To repeat an unfunny joke from the past year, apparently it's faster to train up Sanguinary Guard than it is to train up Assault Marines.

[Noserenda]

I think switching back to subfaction rules on special characters is not only a bad idea for the reasons @ThePenitentOne outlines (Though honestly every 40k battle is too small really so important people being in them isnt as jarring for me) but because it would immediately feel like a bad faith circumvention of "all the rules on two pages" as a concept. 

I absolutely disagree that you need "+1 strength on the charge" to make an army characterful myself but as it looks like alternative datacards are already a thing with termagaunts it would be nice to see subfaction specific units expanded with or without minis. So things like White Scar outriders, or Alaitoc Pathfinders that use existing models in new or improved ways. Combine that with a certain detachment, maybe a special character and the unit choices you are always free too make or avoid.

[Urauloth]

LD checks were an oddity before, because you wanted to roll low for them in a game where you want to roll high every other time you throw dice. Makes a lot of sense to switch them to the N+ format. Mechanically it's exactly the same.

[tinpact]

It'll be interesting to see how they handle modifiers and checks now - a unit with poor leadership might get enough modifiers they have to roll a 13.

 

As far as tying rules to unique characters, I feel like unique warlord traits do that job just fine. The key is just to make them different, not better. So Sammael might be able to point at a unit and say "do a barrel roll."

[Cruor Vault]

5 hours ago, tinpact said:

It'll be interesting to see how they handle modifiers and checks now - a unit with poor leadership might get enough modifiers they have to roll a 13.

 

As far as tying rules to unique characters, I feel like unique warlord traits do that job just fine. The key is just to make them different, not better. So Sammael might be able to point at a unit and say "do a barrel roll."

I’d bet my hat that army theme will be exactly this + a detachment rule buffing or granting a new ability to the unit type that is the focus of that detachment.  

[jaxom]

Thought occurred to me. The Terminator datasheet seems like it has an extra attack on the power weapon because it is the sergeant's weapon. Would this mean that a unit like Aggressors or Tactical Marines when the sergeant is armed the same as the rest of the squad will have the same number of attacks as everyone else? Perhaps the this is the flipside of Leadership being decoupled from the the sergeant.

[WrathOfTheLion]

49 minutes ago, jaxom said:

Thought occurred to me. The Terminator datasheet seems like it has an extra attack on the power weapon because it is the sergeant's weapon. Would this mean that a unit like Aggressors or Tactical Marines when the sergeant is armed the same as the rest of the squad will have the same number of attacks as everyone else? Perhaps the this is the flipside of Leadership being decoupled from the the sergeant.

It could be there's a just a separate profile for the sergeant, but I think we'd need to see a couple more datasheets to get a good read on that.

[The Emperors Champion22]

On 4/2/2023 at 3:46 PM, ThePenitentOne said:

The issue is that for 30 years or so, White Scars and Ravenwing Bikers have been all over the lore. And that's not to say that BA or SW don't have bikers- for sure they do. But THESE Bikers ARE Legendary, and again, have been for decades.

 

So if you take Blood Angels Bikers, and you can.... You should expect to still have your ass handed to you by the Ravenwing and the Whitescars because their bike units are good enough that they became feared across the galaxy in a way that your bikers never did. This fluff has been reflected throughout the years with various rules- some sets of rules better than others, but always, GW has tried to make these distinctions because they are consistent with the lore.

 

You might WANT Ultramarine bikers that are as good as the Ravenwing, but you SHOULDN'T be able to have them. If they were a thing, then either they would have been known and feared across the galaxy as much as Ravenwing and Whitescar Bikers, or none of these units would have been especially known and feared throughout the galaxy because a bike is a bike is a bike. Either way, it's certainly more boring than the status quo and the thirty years years of lore that preceded it.

 

 

i dont think that you really need to worry, each codex will probably have rules that allow major subfactions to feel unique, especially if they have dedicated units. and if it doesn't happen then we cry on online message boards!