Wh40k 10th Edition Faction Rules

[Orange Knight]

1 minute ago, acrozatarim said:

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.

 

I'm hoping they are as neutral as possible, to be honest. Let players express themselves instead of being funnelled into taking X,Y,Z units just because they have been granted some perks that make other choices less relevant.

[Commander Dawnstar]

38 minutes ago, ThePenitentOne said:

[snip]

 

On the whole I don't really disagree with you. Certainly validity to those points.

 

I do think the point about army composition is maybe a little bit bit jumping the gun when we're talking in entirely speculative terms here. We don't know what approach GW will take to applying restrictions to Detachments (or if they'll even be commonplace), so I think it's a bit much to speculate about a world where your choice of Detachment leaves large swathes of themed units on the sidelines. Not totally implausible, but at this point I can essentially reply "... and what if they don't do that?" and we're at an impasse for lack of information.

 

I would certainly rather Detachments promote or enhance playstyles and army themes rather than strictly enforcing them, and it definitely would be a big loss if your choice resulted in swingeing cuts. Really we'll just have to wait and see how they end up tackling things.

Edited April 7, 2023 by Commander Dawnstar

[Sete]

New edition rules, exciting. We gonna be fine.

[ThePenitentOne]

3 minutes ago, jaspiongitburna said:

 

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...

 

Why should a 500 point army on an out-of-the-way backwater have to Include your Chapter Master in order to function the way it should based on the culture of the Chapter. *

 

The idea was bad in 5th and it's still bad- especially in a map based campaign where armies divide to defend territories... Because Shrike can only defend or attack one territory per campaign turn, so all other battles that campaign turn are going to be battles where your RG don't get to feel quite like your RG.

 

*Of course, 500point battles don't exist in 10th, because of course, they were another thing I liked about 9th. The Caveat being that somehow Arks of Omengames are still supposed to be possible for the at least the beginning of 10th. 

[Scribe]

1 minute ago, ThePenitentOne said:

Why should a 500 point army on an out-of-the-way backwater have to Include your Chapter Master in order to function the way it should based on the culture of the Chapter. *

 

Yeah this is one of the worst aspects of past rule sets. Ugh.

 

Traitor Legions did it right, how hard is it...

[Shield-Captain]

12 minutes ago, acrozatarim said:

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.

Aspect Host was just a generic term that came to mind like “Gladius Strike Force.” 
 

 But following your own logic we wouldn’t NEED a special detachment for any reason at all. Every army can do that. You can run a Spirit Host l, a Tau Army of All BattleSuits, or 1st Company of Space Marines or any combination of anything. You wouldn’t technically need anything more than your factions army rules and the models to represent your army. But we know they aren’t doing that. These detachments exist and other than them specifically saying “unit restrictions” we don’t know why or how these are themed. If not units, or specific bonuses to encourage the use of specific units then what? I guess I’m failing to see what the purpose of detachments would be if not the units. 

[Orange Knight]

10 minutes ago, Arkangilos said:

Not really. If to have BA rules I have to be locked into one detachment type (considering GW themselves said detachments have unit, enhancement, and stratagem restrictions), then that means I am stuck to one detachment type, with the unit restrictions it comes with. How is that greater variation?

 

You don't have to use that detachment. 

 

You are free to lock yourself into something thematic, or to experience the rules more openly.

[Marshal Valkenhayn]

I'm working with the same info as everyone else, but my current assumption for how unit limitation will work is based on 2 recent examples.

 

Example 1: Black Templars. If it isn't a faction limitation, then not being able to take Librarians would work as a potential detachment limitation.

 

Example 2: Horus Hericy Rites. Some Rites in HH 2.0 give you bonuses to certain units, and restrict others. Off of the top of my head there is the Pride Of The Legion that lets you take Veterans and Terminators as your battle line, but limits you to only 1 heavy unit.

 

Also, though I don't want to put words in OK's mouth, using 'Color' as tongue and cheek for faction is pretty normal. We call Ultra Marines Smurfs for a reason. They are the blue boys. Trying to argue that anyone can be blue is the worst kind of pedantic yammering. 

[spessmarine]

2 hours ago, Bradeh said:

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. 

Blobbing around a character just felt so wrong. That gave you shenanigans like Guilliman babysitting a parking lot.
I guess it makes sense for some things like synapse, but not really for space marines.

[Kastor Krieg]

Excited with what I see in general.

In particular though, very much concerned that Oath of the Moment will result in return to MSU meta and my 20-man Crusader Squads + Dreadnoughts Black Tide will be much more easily focused on and wiped out piecemeal, an expensive unit a turn :(

Our much better now Firstmaris / Primborn Terminators can ride in my old beloved Land Raider Crusader? Oh, what's that, hatred and rerolls on the LRC turn one?

Bad vibes.

Edited April 7, 2023 by Kastor Krieg

[Crimson Longinus]

I'm not fan of Oath of Moment. Really strange choice if intent is to lessen rerolls. It will also disproportionately affect some armies such as Knights.

 

Otherwise looks good. 

[jimbo1701]

Hmm. I can’t recall if gw said they were going to put data sheets in the codexes now. I know they definitely said they would be putting all points in the app / online so I’ll presume a codex will be detachments plus data sheets plus faction ability. 
 

With regard to all the marine Subfactions it’s plausible that they could make a vanilla codex space marines codex with all the basic detachments / basic data sheets then release a single tome, kind of like angels of death from 7th, that had all the subfaction data sheets and several new detachments / army rules in. 
 

There were a series of formations back in the day each of which were suited to a specific first founding chapter and I wonder if we could see some of these returning in name?

[Interrogator Stobz]

4 minutes ago, jimbo1701 said:

Hmm. I can’t recall if gw said they were going to put data sheets in the codexes now. I know they definitely said they would be putting all points in the app / online so I’ll presume a codex will be detachments plus data sheets plus faction ability. 
 

With regard to all the marine Subfactions it’s plausible that they could make a vanilla codex space marines codex with all the basic detachments / basic data sheets then release a single tome, kind of like angels of death from 7th, that had all the subfaction data sheets and several new detachments / army rules in. 
 

There were a series of formations back in the day each of which were suited to a specific first founding chapter and I wonder if we could see some of these returning in name?

Yep, so far we have no proof that the various other Chapter's won't have their own Factions rules.

In 9th there is C:SM AND Supps, the have spoken about SM but have not 100% ruled out the Supps. To me the paint comments are not strong enough, they could be, but it's early days yet.

[Blurf]

2 hours 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.

There are multiple Black Templar players in just the 10th ed threads already upset over the possibility that they won't get their own book, yet Sisters players are supposed to deal with only half of their already underdeveloped sub-factions not getting even their own detachments and that's fine?

 

I think this is the perfect edition to stop pretending Space Marines are special. If a 2 page spread at the back of a codex is fine for everyone else's subfaction, I don't see any good reason why UM, IF, BA, DA, BT, or SW need anything different.

[jimbo1701]

I can understand where things stand at present and what people’s concerns are. With marines as an example it seem to me we have the following:

core stratagems limited to 12 available to all armies. No generic warlord traits. 
 

More rules built into the data sheets as demonstrated by what we have seen thus far.
 

An army special rule (oath of moment) which seems to be a generic space marine rule - it is unclear if this will be able to be changed by Subfactions but I doubt it thus far. All marines will get this and nil else. 
 

Detachment rules, which will give special rules, enhancements (formerly warlord traits / relics)  and 6 stratagems. Some minor restrictions on what can be taken but nothing terribly restrictive. 
 

***
 

My feeling on the detachments is that the gladius is the vanilla (ultramarine if you will) detachment that will allow you to build a balanced force and has a few general perks suited to codex warfare, hence why it suits ultramarines. 
 

The 1st company force would (presumably) be a good choice for anyone wanting to run crimson fists veterans, UM or BA first company, deathwing etc. 

 

I dare say we will see one tailored to armoured assault (tanks/dreads), fast attack (bikes / speeders) infiltration (Phobos / scouts) etc in due course. There is no reason you will need to run these outside of some strats and wargear that suit that style of playing. 
 

(Speculation) For example you could run deathwing as a gladius strike force but may restrict yourself from being able to use a terminator specific strat, first company banner etc. 

 

It’s definitely going to be less customisable than 9th, but that was part of the problem with 9th - too much turned out to be a bad thing. My sincere hope is that this format and simpler missions are there for causal and new players, with crusade for those who want the less balanced but deeper customisation and matched play for those who want the more complex tactical missions. 

 

 

[Interrogator Stobz]

@Blurf

Even as a devout, zealous DA player I agree with that.

 

Our unique units datasheets will likely have all their unique rules on them, we and the other 'big' Chapters can retain their flavour easily within the umbrella of being  in C:SM.

 

In saying that, we still don't know if we'll get separate faction rules yet so either can work.

Edited April 7, 2023 by Interrogator Stobz

[Jscarlos18]

Interesting new update from GW. Will have to wait for the Core Book with all the rules and having it in hands to know for sure, but I'm liking it so far.

Edited April 7, 2023 by Jscarlos18

[Marshal Valkenhayn]

7 minutes ago, Blurf said:

There are multiple Black Templar players in just the 10th ed threads already upset over the possibility that they won't get their own book, yet Sisters players are supposed to deal with only half of their already underdeveloped sub-factions not getting even their own detachments and that's fine?

 

I think this is the perfect edition to stop pretending Space Marines are special. If a 2 page spread at the back of a codex is fine for everyone else's subfaction, I don't see any good reason why UM, IF, BA, DA, BT, or SW need anything different.

Welcome my friend. Welcome, to the machine. Where have you been? It's alright we know where you've been!

 

...

 

As long as there's some sort of space marine setup that denies Librarians and promotes Zeal I don't care if it's called Black Templars or Silver Snakes. Whether it be detachment or faction or some third option we don't know about, I just need a way to not have Librarians on the table but still hate psychic powers out of existence and I'm happy.

[Grenzer]

2 hours ago, Scribe said:

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

They did though? I remember taking one a while back. It was open to all and a pretty big deal. IIRC it had questions about what other tabletop games I played, what Id like to see in 40k. Google search pulls up the WarCom article about it, it was in Oct 2021. Wasnt that right around the time they started work on 10th according to the reveal video?

 

Its very likely that 10th's direction was taken based on that survey feedback.

[MARK0SIAN]

5 minutes ago, Blurf said:

There are multiple Black Templar players in just the 10th ed threads already upset over the possibility that they won't get their own book, yet Sisters players are supposed to deal with only half of their already underdeveloped sub-factions not getting even their own detachments and that's fine?

 

I think this is the perfect edition to stop pretending Space Marines are special. If a 2 page spread at the back of a codex is fine for everyone else's subfaction, I don't see any good reason why UM, IF, BA, DA, BT, or SW need anything different.

Space Marines are special though. I agree with what you’re saying in terms of uneven support but Space Marines are definitely a special case based purely on the number of players who play them and the money they generate for GW. It makes good business sense for GW to support them more than other factions. 
 

You also have the historical fact. The various Space Marine factions have been developed and fleshed out far more than some entire factions. The genie is out of the bottle on that level of support and attention, they’re very unlikely to try and cram it back in. The subfactions of other armies don’t have that issue. 
 

Again, I’m not saying I don’t agree with you to an extent, but Space Marines are definitely a special case when it comes to 40K.

[Scribe]

10 minutes ago, Grenzer said:

They did though? I remember taking one a while back. It was open to all and a pretty big deal. IIRC it had questions about what other tabletop games I played, what Id like to see in 40k. Google search pulls up the WarCom article about it, it was in Oct 2021. Wasnt that right around the time they started work on 10th according to the reveal video?

 

Its very likely that 10th's direction was taken based on that survey feedback.

 

I did this one too, but I look at how other games do it, with playtests, and ongoing feedback via surveys. 

 

Thats what we need.

[Montford]

I do hope that GW succeeds in combining simplicity with variety, and does so effectively: not produce one or two strong detachments per Faction and then have three or four other much weaker detachments no one wants to play.

Edited April 7, 2023 by Montford
clarity

[Commander Dawnstar]

1 hour ago, Blurf said:

There are multiple Black Templar players in just the 10th ed threads already upset over the possibility that they won't get their own book, yet Sisters players are supposed to deal with only half of their already underdeveloped sub-factions not getting even their own detachments and that's fine?

 

Lemme just clarify things in the simplest terms possible*:

• I don't want to take anyone's subfaction rules away.
• I would love for Sisters to get more fleshed-out subfactions.
• I'm not advocating for combining subfactions into themed generic detachments.

 

All I was really saying in that original post was that I felt that the lack of depth and character present in some of the Sisters subfactions on the tabletop meant that GW plausibly could look to combine them into broad generic Detachments (in the event that's their approach) while still keeping the general shape of their identities. Obviously something would be lost, and far more in some cases than others, but this isn't exactly a Black Templars scenario where you've got a vast array of bespoke Relics, Vows and Litanies on top of the usual Warlord Traits and Stratagems that'd have to go to the wayside.

 

It'd be great to see my Order of the Sacred Rose force come away with their own Detachment that actually gave them a stronger identity in 10th than 9th - not a hard thing to do - but all the same I wouldn't be surprised if GW viewed underdeveloped subfactions as disposable and used their share of the design budget to put in new themed Detachments instead.

 

*not sure how this post across in terms of tone, but I'm not annoyed or trying to be confrontational. Just want to make sure I'm not being misunderstood.

Edited April 7, 2023 by Commander Dawnstar

[Marshal Loss]

Oath of Moment looks more than a little odious, but I'm very happy with the rest of the article (and outright excited by the hinted characters joining units again - the 8th/9th ed "hide behind people and offer re-rolls" was plain dumb).

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, Crimson Longinus said:

I'm not fan of Oath of Moment. Really strange choice if intent is to lessen rerolls. It will also disproportionately affect some armies such as Knights.

 

Otherwise looks good. 

And it will likewise be nearly useless against some other armies.