Wh40k 10th Edition Faction Rules

[zero888]

AoC as a stratagem is great, I just wish all strats were 1x use per game only.

 

Detachments I think are still TBD, making selections and rules concise is great but half of the fun is creating your own "strike force X", not just picking the GW created Gladius and whatever units that includes.

[MARK0SIAN]

36 minutes ago, Lemondish said:

Contrary to everyone else's feelings, I am actually really excited about the idea of removing all these extraneous subfactions in one go, if that turns out to be the case for the index, and then adding them back once the relevant Codex is released.

 

After all, it wasn't like in 8th edition the index provided for the difference between Ultramarines and Imperial Fists, or Argent Shroud and Bloody Rose. Those came later, and they arrived in an overlapping fashion, applying rules upon rules on top of the main codex. That is what contributed largely to the complaints about the complexity of the game in 9th edition.

 

I like the idea of starting from the ground up - a generic TAC faction detachment excites me to begin with, and for coming to grips with all the changes present in 10th edition. Then, as the edition grows so too do the options for truly crafting the force you connect with.

 

 

I agree that what the game needed was a reset and a rebuild from the Ground up but my concern is that what we are looking at (just a single detachment) feels very low effort to get everyone by until their codex comes out. 
 

If we take Marines as an example as they’re very popular there’s basically 3 ways it can go:

 

1) All marines are permanently consolidated into one codex that will have multiple detachments to try and represent all the major subfactions.

 

2) The subfactions that (prior to 9th) were generally separate like DA, BA etc will get their own codex with bespoke detachments and others will remain in the standard marine codex.

 

3) All the chapters that had supplements in 8th/9th will get a codex with bespoke detachments. 
 

Now, if it’s option 1 we will get a single detachment at launch (Gladius) and then have to wait for our codex before anyone can run their chapter as befits it’s theme. Luckily Marines are usually first in the codexes so we probably won’t have to wait too long but even so, the start of a new edition and you can’t really play your chapter in its own style is pretty disappointing.

 

If though, it’s option 2 or 3 then there may be a chapter specific one at launch but equally it could be a very long wait before you can play your chapter with an appropriate detachment. Was it Space Wolves who had to wait over a year in 8th?

 

Now that is just Marines. For other entire factions like Orks, or guard, they could be stuck with one flavour of army for a couple of years if the pace of 9th edition codex roll out is anything to go by.

 

Basically, I feel like they could’ve given people a bit more at launch to get them by.

[Doctor Perils]

49 minutes ago, ThePenitentOne said:

Yep- [snip]

 

While many of your concerns are legitimate, it's also interesting to read these detachments another way: while the white scars are the pre-eminent rapid-strike force of the space marines, it's important to not lose sight of the fact that their culture and identity are a lot deeper than "mwahaha, I like bikes, moar speeeeeed!", which most versions of their subfaction rules have emphasised to the exclusion of all else.

 

By giving players different ways of playing their preferred subfaction on the battlefield without having to use a different subfaction ruleset or a custom one could in fact be a way for them to represent idiosyncrasies in much more creative ways. Like, perhaps Timmy will carry on using his bikers as he always has, whereas Jenny might want to represent the Ebon Keshig by using the Fury of the First detachment.

(And no I'm not a great connoisseur of the White Scars so don't @ me if the Keshig aren't a thing in the 41st millennium)

[Bradeh]

One rule I hope they get rid of is auras if they are bringing ICs back, rules that encourage gamey behaviour like daisy-chaining and castling up are not fun. 

Edited April 7, 2023 by Bradeh

[Boyadventurer]

18 minutes ago, Final Sunn said:

Point is, you wouldn't need to place model restrictions. If all your detachment rules buff Terminators, you're not going to leave them behind in favour of phobos units, and vice versa.

I guess that's the trick. I get that the rules would benefit those specific type of units (whether playstyle or just hard keyword restrictions), but I don't want it to be like "Hey you want to play the Raven Guard inspired rules? You must pick 1-3 Infiltrators, 1-3 Reivers, 1-2 Eliminators etc"

[Scribe]

1 hour ago, chapter master 454 said:

This isn't a cheap thing for them to do. They'd love to just keep pumping out codices and rulebooks all day long but yet here they are trying to get game health in a good spot and maintain it. I feel a lot of doomsayers may be the hurt souls of the past but I think they will be in good hands.

 

They were going to cycle the codex and supplement books regardless. 

[01RTB01]

2 hours ago, Lemondish said:

I'm impressed thus far, but I certainly feel a tad silly feeling like "rerolls are significantly less common" was the best part of the whole thing for me.

 

You want to see lethality go down? This is one major way to do it, while also saving time.

I sincerely hope that it is the case that re rolls pretty much die a death. Increasing units toughness/ sounds, reducing number of shots, ap, damage and re rolls will all help.

 

 

[Commander Dawnstar]

1 hour ago, ThePenitentOne said:

But if we look at Sisters: we've got six subfactions, so we need at least six detachments in the dex. But if we ONLY get six, then that means your subfaction only ever deploys in a single detachment (ie. formation). If we don't get AT LEAST six, it means that some of our subfactions will have no representation of their uniqueness whatsoever. And then if they want additional faction wide generic detachments, those would have to go ontop of the six that define each of the subfactions.

 

Do they though?

 

I don't think it's at all unreasonable to suggest the six Sisters subfactions could be rolled into three Detachments: Resilient (Martyred Lady/Valorous Heart), Wrathful (Bloody Rose/Argent Shroud), and Faithful (Ebon Chalice/Sacred Rose). Obviously this would result in a loss of individuality for the two that were somehow lucky enough to get supplemental Codexes, but broadly speaking those pairings all hit similar themes and could have more of their flavour filled in through things like the expansion to six Stratagems rather than previously having only one each. It wouldn't be the ideal situation of course, but I really don't see how my own Sacred Rose would come out something like that worse off.

 

49 minutes ago, Boyadventurer said:

So the detachment rules have no bearing on what units we can select right? My understanding is it will be like "Here's a collection of Raven Guard-y/Iron Hands-y/Blood Angel-y rules, strats, and enhancements to use" and that is separate from the "pick units" section. But I see talk about like a 1st Company style, or a Phobos Strike Force style detachments and that makes it sound like your army is going to need to be made up of certain specific units.

 

Has there been any clarity on this?

 

 

The original article on Army Building said that Detachments "...include special abilities, Enhancements, Stratagems, and unit restrictions," but we've heard nothing more specific than that since then.

Edited April 7, 2023 by Commander Dawnstar

[MaximusTL]

If unique marine subfactions (like BA, DA, SW and BT)  do in fact get their own codexes, will they have access to default marine detachments in addition to their own? additionally, we know that terminators interact specifically with Oath of Moment. how would that work in a DA codex? will we get a SW version of their datasheet with a different rule?

[jaxom]

1 hour ago, Bradeh said:

but we don't know what limitations it will have.

I get the feeling that there won't be limitations, but rather the strats may only target certain units. It leaves it open for people who want to take units even though they don't get as much from the Detachment, but may need to fill points.

[Scribe]

Its times like this I wish GW would invest a fraction of their massive profits, in actually polling the community.

[Loishy]

31 minutes ago, MaximusTL said:

If unique marine subfactions (like BA, DA, SW and BT)  do in fact get their own codexes, will they have access to default marine detachments in addition to their own? additionally, we know that terminators interact specifically with Oath of Moment. how would that work in a DA codex? will we get a SW version of their datasheet with a different rule?

Maybe they will have access to some default marine detachments in addition to their own but not all. Otherwise BA/DA/SW/BT will have a huge benefit over other marine subfactions. 

[Lemondish]

1 hour ago, MARK0SIAN said:

Basically, I feel like they could’ve given people a bit more at launch to get them by.

We don't know if they will, so this type of language confuses me.

[MARK0SIAN]

2 minutes ago, Lemondish said:

We don't know if they will, so this type of language confuses me.

But they have said that armies will only get one detachment at launch. Now if they consider all the marine chapters as separate armies then they may all get something but I seriously doubt they consider all the guard regiments, sororitas orders, ork klans, necron dynasties etc as separate armies. This means all of those must wait for a codex before they get detachment rules that reflect their subfaction, and the wait could be long one.

 

Basically I think if you’re going to gate subfaction playstyles behind these detachments then they could’ve at least provided them at launch. 

[Orange Knight]

I quite like the idea of the different sub-factions being represented by 6 unique strats, a unique enhancement and a detachment rule.

 

Leaner and meaner.

 

People underestimate how specific stratagems and various benefits can skew the lists into taking certain units. The armies could end up being more varied.

[Orange Knight]

19 minutes ago, Scribe said:

Its times like this I wish GW would invest a fraction of their massive profits, in actually polling the community.

 

Oftent-times the vision of a select individual or team delivere better outcomes, especially when it comes to art or a game like this.

[ThePenitentOne]

37 minutes ago, Commander Dawnstar said:

 

Do they though?

 

I don't think it's at all unreasonable to suggest the six Sisters subfactions could be rolled into three Detachments: Resilient (Martyred Lady/Valorous Heart), Wrathful (Bloody Rose/Argent Shroud), and Faithful (Ebon Chalice/Sacred Rose). Obviously this would result in a loss of individuality for the two that were somehow lucky enough to get supplemental Codexes, but broadly speaking those pairings all hit similar themes and could have more of their flavour filled in through things like the expansion to six Stratagems rather than previously having only one each. It wouldn't be the ideal situation of course, but I really don't see how my own Sacred Rose would come out something like that worse off.

 

 

The original article on Army Building said that Detachments "...include special abilities, Enhancements, Stratagems, and unit restrictions," but we've heard nothing more specific than that since then.

 

So here's why/ how it's a loss: let's go with your pairings for a minute, and let's further assume that our two page wrathful dematchment spread includes the Wrathful special rule (which applies to BOTH Martyred Lady and Valorous Heart), then three strats that look good for ML and three that look good for VH; if we say there are 4 enhancements, that's a WL Trait and a Relic for each.

 

So you look at that, and you think: Okay, I still have a special rule, a WL Trait and a Relic... But now I've got 3 strats instead of one- Yay me!

 

But here's the thing: strats have a resource and opportunity cost, and a limited effect- having two extra is great... But it's not as good as having a dedicated special rule that is yours, because special rules are army wide, always on and free. And while your three categories are workable, and better than a lot of other things that might be done, Martyred Lady's specialty isn't so much about being resilient in the sense of surviving, it's about Martyrdom of their sisters making the survivors more determined to win, whereas Valorous Heart's abilities are about being more survivable. So if you like Martyrdom as a concept, but the rule that GW decides to keep for the Resilient detachment turns out to be shrugging off wounds... well, we've got a bit of a problem... And having two extra strats that affect one unit per turn each and even then only if you commit the resources (or in fact have the resources to commit) isn't going to make up for the loss of what you loved about your Order.

 

And I think you know this, since you yourself say it's not ideal.

 

And as you point out, there have been hints of unit restrictions being a part of detachment criteria... And that's the OTHER way you lose. Right now, you can bring any unit in the dex to your SR army, and people whine about "flanderization" because the subfaction rule encourages a particular playstyle, which may be sub-optimal for some builds, despite the fact that every unit in the dex is able to go to the battle. But now, we face a situation where the faithful unit may not be allowed to bring penitent units at all (Arcos, PE's, Repentia and Morties) because it is perceived that a Faithful detachment would be above the sin that makes Penitent units what they are.

 

And I ask you, is that or is that not a far worse flanderization than "Well, just because you're Sacred Rose, that doesn't mean your Repentia can't hit as hard in CC- if you want to play CC you should use BR because they hit harder."

 

 

 

 

[Shield-Captain]

So if I’m understanding this right, my Eldar will be more than likely reduced to Spirit Host, Aspect Host, Webway Strike Force, and Generic Combined Arms. I am quite interested to see what they do with Ynnari as this either kills them

or makes them cool. (Probably kill)

 

Then my Custodes will be Gold Armor, Black Armor, White Armor.

 

I am not comforted by sustained hits, critical hits, Anti, Devasting Hits, Lethal Hits, Precision, etc. Seems like a lot of “you’ll only need two pages to use the rules but a dictionary to understand them!” Hopefully brief explanation/ reference will be included on each two pages so I don’t have to memorize what all these mean. But it doesn’t seem simplified. Just my two cents though. 

[Marshal Valkenhayn]

6 minutes ago, Shield-Captain said:

So if I’m understanding this right, my Eldar will be more than likely reduced to Spirit Host, Aspect Host, Webway Strike Force, and Generic Combined Arms. I am quite interested to see what they do with Ynnari as this either kills them

or makes them cool. (Probably kill)

 

Then my Custodes will be Gold Armor, Black Armor, White Armor.

 

I am not comforted by sustained hits, critical hits, Anti, Devasting Hits, Lethal Hits, Precision, etc. Seems like a lot of “you’ll only need two pages to use the rules but a dictionary to understand them!” Hopefully brief explanation/ reference will be included on each two pages so I don’t have to memorize what all these mean. But it doesn’t seem simplified. Just my two cents though. 

I play a lot of different game systems, and I'm pretty confident that unless they go way overboard with generic traits, this is a much easier way to go about setting up a game. Once we've got a few games under our belt, just saying 'critical hits are lethal and piercing' and rolling a hand full of dice will convey so much information easier. As it stands, right now any time I roll dice for 40K I say something like 'Looking for 2s, rerolling 1s, 6s are special.' then if 6s come up I explain what they do after dice are sorted.

 

Very much looking forward to hints of Custodes though. My buddy just finished painting up 1,500 points of Shadow Keepers for me, done in dark metallic armor with red gems and bronze highlights. They've been a blast to play.

[AceofCase]

8 minutes ago, Shield-Captain said:

So if I’m understanding this right, my Eldar will be more than likely reduced to Spirit Host, Aspect Host, Webway Strike Force, and Generic Combined Arms. I am quite interested to see what they do with Ynnari as this either kills them

or makes them cool. (Probably kill)

 

Then my Custodes will be Gold Armor, Black Armor, White Armor.

Ynnari will probably get their own faction and detachment, but GW never knows what to do with them anyway.

 

I feel like the various Custodes subfactions only exist anyway because of the trend to give every army subfaction rules. Having them squished down really isn't that drastic. 

[jaspiongitburna]

1 hour ago, MARK0SIAN said:

 

If we take Marines as an example as they’re very popular there’s basically 3 ways it can go:

 

1) All marines are permanently consolidated into one codex that will have multiple detachments to try and represent all the major subfactions.

 

2) The subfactions that (prior to 9th) were generally separate like DA, BA etc will get their own codex with bespoke detachments and others will remain in the standard marine codex.

 

3) All the chapters that had supplements in 8th/9th will get a codex with bespoke detachments. 

 

OPTION 4 :

Some named models (characters/legendary heroes or whatever they are called now) dish out an army wide ability.

 

IE If you take Shrike you get a minor boost to every unit (or specific units) in your army, regardless of what general detachment (gladius etc) you take.

 

Its how things were done back in 5th edition and I don't feel like that was so bad...

[ThePenitentOne]

10 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

I quite like the idea of the different sub-factions being represented by 6 unique strats, a unique enhancement and a detachment rule.

 

 

This is what we have now, not what we're getting with 10th.

 

What we are getting in 10th is a detachment represented by 6 unique strats, a unique enhancement and a detachment rule. The language that's been used in what has been published so far seems to suggest that any subfaction can pick any detachment in its dex, so the unique things that you get as a detachment don't define your subfaction at all- they define the detachment.

 

And for the rest of the factions who don't have a snowball's chance in hell to get subfaction dexes like sisters, we have no reason to believe that subfactions will exist at all and many reasons to believe that the only distinction between fighting styles within the faction at all will be detarmined by detachment.

 

Now as my first post today indicated, there is a chance that every dex will come with a detachment meant to reflect each of the established subfactions for that army... But it's a bit of a longshot. As Commander Dawnstar pointed out above, there might be halfway measures too, where we get fewer detachments than subfactions because it is perceived that some subfactions are similar enough to be covered by a single detachment.

[Orange Knight]

5 minutes ago, Marshal Valkenhayn said:

I play a lot of different game systems, and I'm pretty confident that unless they go way overboard with generic traits, this is a much easier way to go about setting up a game. Once we've got a few games under our belt, just saying 'critical hits are lethal and piercing' and rolling a hand full of dice will convey so much information easier. As it stands, right now any time I roll dice for 40K I say something like 'Looking for 2s, rerolling 1s, 6s are special.' then if 6s come up I explain what they do after dice are sorted.

 

Very much looking forward to hints of Custodes though. My buddy just finished painting up 1,500 points of Shadow Keepers for me, done in dark metallic armor with red gems and bronze highlights. They've been a blast to play.

 

I agree. This is looking like a vast improvement.

 

We'll gain expediency, ease of play, a more clear understanding of one's own army and that of the opponent, and arguably a better balanced experience. 

 

If a particular detachment is too good it can be adjusted without impacting the rest of the army. And with these streamlined rules forgotten factions like the Ynnari can finally be represented, potentially.

 

@ThePenitentOne

 

Yes, as I see it the detachments of a particular main faction are not limited by sub faction. That's one of the best things about this.

 

Having unique rules split across what is close to 100 subfactions made the game into an unwieldy mess, and even the same army performed vastly differently based on it's colour. This had to change.

Edited April 7, 2023 by Orange Knight

[acrozatarim]

It feels like people keep equating what detachments will be like in 10th with what they were essentially like in 9th - ie focused on emphasising a particular unit type - and I'm not sure that's true at all. You can already take, eg, an Aspect Host in 10th just with the core army construction rules because there's no troop tax and no role limitations, just Rule Of Three on units. You don't need an Aspect Host special detachment to do that.

[Scribe]

28 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

 

Oftent-times the vision of a select individual or team delivere better outcomes, especially when it comes to art or a game like this.

 

Many times, I would agree. Once a game becomes a defacto monopoly on the space, I disagree however.

 

This is the same company that released 9th. They could use some direct feedback.