Wh40k 10th Edition Leaders Joining Squads

[Borbarad]

Early 8th edition auras were rather tame by and large. Codex creep turned them problematic. 
 

I predict same will happen here: halfway into 10th at the latest we will see the reemergence of deathstars that will make players feel nostalgic for auras 

 

Sad to see GW regressing by dumping the concept of a leader supporting the actual army. 

[chapter master 454]

So we are going back to a form of what it used to be. Only problem now though is...well...we just create a new problem with list building.

 

The moment a character joins a unit to buff it from the start like this, you create a unique unit that can be singled out. So...unless you bring like 3 lieutenants to attach to 3 squads, only having one squad of buffed marines ain't going to do much when they will now be targeted over others. Just a concern from me but another one.

 

How does wound allocation work in 10th? If we go with the current system of 9th, then Precision is HILARIOUSLY powerful for killing characters beyond belief. You plink one wound of a character then suddenly they have to eat all other shots coming in. This system will ether of not addressed it or we may be returning to an era where units can in theory have damage spread out (though if it is, it must be done with strict rules that the players get no choice on whether it goes to the character or squad).

 

So my guess with this datasheet is that we will see Lieutenants have options based on armour. The strange split of Primaris/Firstborn still happening is weird, forced and can we just stop with it GW? Ahem, however this means things like Phobos characters will join Phobos units and so on however I hope it isn't too strict with keeping things specific. I hope Gravis Armour characters can lead terminators and vice versa.

 

Time will tell. Looking good but not exactly sold on this just yet.

[Captain Idaho]

I suspect the wound allocation rules will be similar to what they are now with the exception characters are always the last unit to be targeted in a unit. Precision shots being the exception. 

[Blurf]

3 hours ago, Craig said:

I wonder how they will handle characters joining units with different movement values. Use whichever is lower? The catacomb command barge datasheet will be interesting to see.

...what do you mean 'handle'? the character has a movement characteristic. It can move that far. The unit has a movement characteristic. They can move that far. That's already 100% handled.

Edited April 11, 2023 by Blurf

[Blindhamster]

14 minutes ago, Blurf said:

...what do you mean 'handle'? the character has a movement characteristic. It can move that far. The unit has a movement characteristic. They can move that far. That's already 100% handled.

If the character has a shorter movement and they have joined a unit, they’re presumably part of the unit. 
 

my guess is that characters that can join units will always have the same movement in the first place 

[Interrogator Stobz]

That possibility is supported by the Primaris Lt not being able to join Aggressor and Heavy Interssessor squads that move only 5"

[INKS]

2 redacted, so two new squads at least?

[Lord Nord in Gravis Armour]

1 minute ago, INKS said:

2 redacted, so two new squads at least?

 

Almost certainly the two new Tacticus squads from the trailer.

[jaxom]

45 minutes ago, Blindhamster said:

If the character has a shorter movement and they have joined a unit, they’re presumably part of the unit. 
 

my guess is that characters that can join units will always have the same movement in the first place 

 

No need to any additional rules (assuming minimal change from 9th) as once the Leader is part of the Unit, all models in the Unit need to maintain Coherency. If there were any discrepancy between Movement values then the Unit is limited to moving over time in a manner that always maintains Coherency.

 

1 hour ago, chapter master 454 said:

So we are going back to a form of what it used to be. Only problem now though is...well...we just create a new problem with list building.

 

The moment a character joins a unit to buff it from the start like this, you create a unique unit that can be singled out. So...unless you bring like 3 lieutenants to attach to 3 squads, only having one squad of buffed marines ain't going to do much when they will now be targeted over others. Just a concern from me but another one.

 

How does wound allocation work in 10th? If we go with the current system of 9th, then Precision is HILARIOUSLY powerful for killing characters beyond belief. You plink one wound of a character then suddenly they have to eat all other shots coming in. This system will ether of not addressed it or we may be returning to an era where units can in theory have damage spread out (though if it is, it must be done with strict rules that the players get no choice on whether it goes to the character or squad).

 

So my guess with this datasheet is that we will see Lieutenants have options based on armour. The strange split of Primaris/Firstborn still happening is weird, forced and can we just stop with it GW? Ahem, however this means things like Phobos characters will join Phobos units and so on however I hope it isn't too strict with keeping things specific. I hope Gravis Armour characters can lead terminators and vice versa.

 

Time will tell. Looking good but not exactly sold on this just yet.

Alternative perspective: this decreases the utility of Characters and makes filling out the roster with versatile units more important. Along that note, we don't have the full picture of which strats are going to end up unit abilities. Boltstorm being part of Intercessors with Autobolt Rifles, etc etc?

[WrathOfTheLion]

The way they've scoped which units a character can join is quite effective at removing the concept of 'CORE' as well, as I think about it.

 

They don't need that anymore, as they can just have characters not able to join any units that previously would be targeted by such a rule, like Centurions for Space Marines. They don't even need to make a rule to have characters not able to join them, they just never list Centurions on any character datasheets.

Edited April 12, 2023 by WrathOfTheLion

[Lemondish]

2 hours ago, KrakenBorn said:

What does your stinky opinion on Valrak have to do with the character rules??? Maybe put your two cents back in the stupid wallet where they belong.

Cool down on the hostility there, friend. This thread is also not about Valrak, so best to just drop the whole thing.

1 hour ago, Borbarad said:

Sad to see GW regressing by dumping the concept of a leader supporting the actual army. 

That's an interesting point about what was lost, but we also need to keep in mind that some of these leaders will be doing this as lone operatives, like the Lion for example.

[Lemondish]

1 hour ago, chapter master 454 said:

The moment a character joins a unit to buff it from the start like this, you create a unique unit that can be singled out. So...unless you bring like 3 lieutenants to attach to 3 squads, only having one squad of buffed marines ain't going to do much when they will now be targeted over others. Just a concern from me but another one.

It also greatly enhances the value of things like deep strike and transports.

[Interrogator Stobz]

7 minutes ago, WrathOfTheLion said:

The way they've scoped which units a character can join is quite effective at removing the concept of 'CORE' as well, as I think about it.

 

They don't need that anymore, as they can just have characters not able to join any units that previously would be targeted by such a rule, like Centurions for Space Marines. They don't even need to make a rule to have characters not able to join them, they just never list Centurions on any character datasheets.

It 'should' greatly reduce the unintended consequences from GW that power gamers can abuse.

GW 'should' have looked at the finite rules combinations as they add units to the Leader list.

 

[DesuVult]

Hopefully this means transports for all factions will follow the HH capacity style.

[CCE1981]

One thing I don’t see people talking about is the “Lethal Hits” ability.  This indicates to me that wounding on “6”’s regardless of toughness will no longer be a thing.  If it is now a “Leader Ability” than it isn’t a normal thing on the wound chart.  

[Lord Nord in Gravis Armour]

I wonder if the new Phobos LT will have Concealed Positions so having him join an Infiltrator, Incursor, or Eliminator squad won't prevent them from using that ability. Neither of the existing Phobos LTs has it, although both the Captain and Librarian do.

 

Meanwhile, any Reiver squad that wants to actually use the Grapnel Launchers will probably be completely out of luck as far as Leaders go. Right now, the Incursor LT can drop in with them via Grav-Chute, but they don't have any characters who can keep up via the Grapnels.

[Cruor Vault]

31 minutes ago, KrakenBorn said:

 

I feel we'll get a the answer to this later in the week when we get the article about vehicles (should be next)

 

I too noticed they keep mentioning about the critical wound; I'm guessing no more wounding on a 6 if it's more than double.

 

38 minutes ago, CCE1981 said:

One thing I don’t see people talking about is the “Lethal Hits” ability.  This indicates to me that wounding on “6”’s regardless of toughness will no longer be a thing.  If it is now a “Leader Ability” than it isn’t a normal thing on the wound chart.  

They’ve already covered this in the other article, albeit not in its own bullet pointed section so I think a lot of people missed this.  6s will always wound.  (Specifically mentioned in bulletin points of one of the first articles).  
 

Critical Wounds is the USR name for the mechanic that we would currently call rolling a 6 on the to-wound roll.  So now instead of abilities saying “on an unmodified roll of a 6 to wound…” they will say “on a critical wound, XYZ happens”.  
 

This also means they use a rule like the ANTI keyword previewed on chainfists can key off the core mechanics.  So now instead of writing a rule that says “this weapon always wounds XYZ on the roll of whatever regardless of any other mechanics”, it’s trimmed down to “this weapon causes critical wounds on a 3+”.  
 

Critical Hits is now the term for “unmodified roll of a 6 to-hit”.  
 

So in essence the Primaris LT ability previewed today is the base mechanic for Votann judgment tokens (6s to hit auto wound).

[jaxom]

@Cruor Vault has it right. Criticals auto-succeed at what they do: a natural 6 hit roll is a Critical Hit and a natural 6 wound roll is a Critical Wound. At the same time, other USRs hooked into them. It seems It's a relatively elegant solution for nomenclature for rules that proc on 6s. 

[blue_raptor55]

5 hours ago, KrakenBorn said:

 

What does your stinky opinion on Valrak have to do with the character rules??? Maybe put your two cents back.

 

 

Also very happy with these rules; I can see a lot of killy terminator characters in terminator squads as the marine meta.

 

Plenty when it was a rational conversation between me and the person I was replying to. Less so when you're chiming in with your very eloquent response ;)

Edited April 12, 2023 by blue_raptor55

[WrathOfTheLion]

2 hours ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

It 'should' greatly reduce the unintended consequences from GW that power gamers can abuse.

GW 'should' have looked at the finite rules combinations as they add units to the Leader list.

 

They should almost be able to build a table of the character buffs that could be on each unit type with how this is scoped. Could pretty well generate this with a script or even by hand, then start testing the nastiest one and see how it performs.

[darkangels91]

15 hours ago, Lord Marshal said:

With 10th bringing joining characters to units back, maybe by 12th we'll get Vehicle Facings back. 

 

Oh emperor no! If they bring back vehicle facings then they also have to bring back vehicle pivoting and drawing line of sight from each individual weapon on vehicle models. That’s just even more bloat and time consuming. 

[darkangels91]

I think a very intriguing factor of this new Leader rule is that it will likely have people list building with a lot more characters in mind. Trying to maximize the amount of characters in their lists and thereby maximizing the combat potential of units; mainly because leaders are forced to stick to 1 unit for the duration of the game.  
 

Now, I’m fine with leaders being added to units before deployment, but I think it’s pretty dumb and illogical that your Leaders can’t unit hop.  If my lieutenant is stuck in a trench with some intercessors commanding a firing line and then suddenly a squad of his assault intercessors holding the objective are engaged in hand to hand with enemies who’ve broken through the lines i should be able to reposition that lietenant to join that squad and engage in the fight where his command abilities are needed most.  I swear these rules writers at GW sometimes just done use their brains or common sense. 
 

like ok, take away auras, nerf the characters, but on top of auras your now also going to make it so they can only grant their “command” abilities to one unit for a whole game. So they aren’t a real leader or character they are just a glorified Sgt.

[Interrogator Stobz]

Yeah, unit hopping needs to be a thing. I might play it that way regardless of how this lands.

I only play casual.

[Lagrath]

No unit hoping is so bizarre. 

[potatocrusader]

I have a distinct feeling that a stratagem will be added that will permit you to reassign a leader to another unit during battle.