BA and Tenth Edition - Facts Discussion

[Blindhamster]

more randomised results, the more i see it, the more convinced I am that we will retain red thirst but it wont be an always on thing and may have some layers and possibly negatives to it.

[Jolemai]

From the World Eaters Faction Focus:

 

Quote

** Note that you still can’t Blood Surge when your TRANSPORT gets destroyed – units forced to disembark when their ride goes boom are automatically Battle-shocked that turn.

 

 

[Jolemai]

How woefully disappointing.

 

  

8 hours ago, BitsHammer said:

That's four articles we're not getting for sure now. If it wasn't for the Lion I'd assume DA would be 100% on that list as well.

 

[Karhedron]

On 5/12/2023 at 2:24 PM, Blindhamster said:

more randomised results, the more i see it, the more convinced I am that we will retain red thirst but it wont be an always on thing and may have some layers and possibly negatives to it.

 

Mixed feelings here. Not sure I want to go back to the 3rd edition days of us being World Eaters-lite.

[Jolemai]

Core rules leaked:

Basically, 10th  is looking like a more polished version of 9th from the basic ruleset.

 

[WrathOfTheLion]

That's basically how it's always come across to me. Within the first few rules articles, I think you could tell pretty well that 10E wasn't actually going to play much different at its core than 9E, at least as far as core rules interactions go.

 

The USRs, etc. are encoding concepts that existed in 9E, instead of making lots of new ones. That was one of the big signs to me it would be like that.

Edited May 17, 2023 by WrathOfTheLion

[Pathstrider]

On 5/12/2023 at 2:24 PM, Blindhamster said:

more randomised results, the more i see it, the more convinced I am that we will retain red thirst but it wont be an always on thing and may have some layers and possibly negatives to it.

I think we need to brace for a nerf compared to 8th/9th - I suspect that it’ll go back to +1 Str rather than +1 wound.

 

My thinking is based on the “less lethal” theme emerging from the previews. It wouldn’t fit that they’ve made toughness values higher and removing other special rules (e.g deathguard not having universal damage reduction) and we then keep a rule that  side steps a lot of that.

[Tokugawa]

It looks like 9th with some resurrected mechanics from 4th/5th. So I don't think 10th is very "innovative", but I welcome streamlining.

[Blindhamster]

45 minutes ago, Pathstrider said:

I think we need to brace for a nerf compared to 8th/9th - I suspect that it’ll go back to +1 Str rather than +1 wound.

 

My thinking is based on the “less lethal” theme emerging from the previews. It wouldn’t fit that they’ve made toughness values higher and removing other special rules (e.g deathguard not having universal damage reduction) and we then keep a rule that  side steps a lot of that.

I suspect you're right honestly.

 

looking at deathguard imposing -1 toughness, it would make sense.

[Paladin777]

To be fair, DG imposed -1 toughness in 9th too. 

 

Inflicting -1 toughness at range is also way stronger than +1 Str in melee, on the charge. So I really hope that's not our faction rule, as it would be very weak. 

 

That said, I've actually been pretty impressed with the design so far, so I'm not too worried about it, even if I am curious. 

Edited May 20, 2023 by Paladin777

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

47 minutes ago, Paladin777 said:

To be fair, DG imposed -1 toughness in 9th too. 

 

Inflicting -1 toughness at range is also way stronger than +1 Str in melee, on the charge. So I really hope that's not our faction rule, as it would be very weak. 

 

That said, I've actually been pretty impressed with the design so far, so I'm not too worried about it, even if I am curious. 

I’d like it if our melee bonuses were for all rounds of melee.

not as strong as -1T within a certain range but much more useful than just 1 round.

Edited May 20, 2023 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Paladin777]

Agreed, especially with the 'less lethal' direction of the rules.

 

again, I really don't think that it'll be +1 Str in melee though, and that just seems really weak (and just seems weaker the more I think about it). It'll probably be more like some sustained/lethal hits in melee, or something more universally useful. 
 

Keeping the +1 bonus to charging/advancing would be nice though. It always puts in work for me!

Edited May 21, 2023 by Paladin777

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

8 hours ago, Paladin777 said:

Agreed, especially with the 'less lethal' direction of the rules.

 

again, I really don't think that it'll be +1 Str in melee though, and that just seems really weak (and just seems weaker the more I think about it). It'll probably be more like some sustained/lethal hits in melee, or something more universally useful. 
 

Keeping the +1 bonus to charging/advancing would be nice though. It always puts in work for me!

+1 to charge has never made a difference for me lol. Either I make it without that or I don’t make it even with it.

[Paladin777]

I see. It made the difference three times in my last game...

[Helias_Tancred]

It does work for me too. I hope it stays. 

 

 

 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Orks get advance and charge, +1 S to melee weapons, and a 5++.
the first two seem perfect for us. 

[Blindhamster]

2 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Orks get advance and charge, +1 S to melee weapons, and a 5++.
the first two seem perfect for us. 

one turn in the entire game.

[Goranged]

Some good news

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, Blindhamster said:

one turn in the entire game.

Guess I misinterpreted it.

[Leonaides]

However, they do get exploding 6's all the time in cc. On a waargh, they get +1s, +1a, advance and charge AND 5++, that lasts for both player turns in a turn, so there is hope for something tasty for us as a detachment strat. 

[Tokugawa]

When toughness of unit stretched to range of 3-14, +1s is not the +1s you known in previous editions.

 

 

[Karhedron]

7 hours ago, Tokugawa said:

When toughness of unit stretched to range of 3-14, +1s is not the +1s you known in previous editions.

 

In fact, it makes +1 to Wound even more powerful, which probably means we won't keep it in 10th.

 

Imagine a squad with just Chainswords hitting a vehicle while it is targeted with OOM. That is a lot of wounds being pushed through at AP-1 on a target that GW feels should be hard for infantry to deal with in this new edition. We might get a clearer picture after the Faction Focus next week but my hunch at the moment is Red Thirst will be either changing or going.

Edited May 25, 2023 by Karhedron

[Tokugawa]

1 hour ago, Karhedron said:

 

In fact, it makes +1 to Wound even more powerful, which probably means we won't keep it in 10th.

 

Imagine a squad with just Chainswords hitting a vehicle while it is targeted with OOM. That is a lot of wounds being pushed through at AP-1 on a target that GW feels should be hard for infantry to deal with in this new edition. We might get a clearer picture after the Faction Focus next week but my hunch at the moment is Red Thirst will be either changing or going.

Sooner or later non-codex chapters need to part ways with oath. If not at index stage, then codex stage. The replacement need to be quite strong, else it's equal to forcing players play "red ultramarines".

[Paladin777]

I agree that it's going to change in some capacity. I'd be ok with either Lethal Hits or sustained hits paired with some sort of bonus to being able to make the charge.

 

Side note: I know this isn't a thread for speculation, but has anyone else been wondering about BGV with the probable change to shields?

[BluejayJunior]

22 minutes ago, Paladin777 said:

Side note: I know this isn't a thread for speculation, but has anyone else been wondering about BGV with the probable change to shields?

They seem to be okay with wargear and weapons behaving differently depending on the unit using it. So maybe the shields still give the BGV an invuln. Or they'll be bumped up to 4W a model. They don't have an option to not take a shield, so GW don't have to balance the shield with other unit options.