Wh40k 10th Edition Weapons in 10th

[jaxom]

1 hour ago, The Unseen said:

Because that still leaves Sisters and Chaos using a peashooter rather than a gun, plus no guarantee they actually do that. GW introducing a "better" boltgun but then with contrived lore reasons not rolled it out to every faction that uses them.

First, the usual caveat that rules and supposition of rules means little without knowing point costs. For the sake of conversation, I'm going to assume everything is "perfectly" priced relative to what it can bring to the board. Marines have a lot of battleline type units. Each needs to bring something a little different to be worth taking in a world where there is no troop tax. Tactical Squad bolters lack the little bonuses of Bolt Rifles, but have the ability to take additional weapons. Two to three extra lascannons on the back line may be very useful to back up more dedicated anti-tank units. Or perhaps two to three heavy bolters for dealing with 2W infantry models more effectively?

 

Tactical Squads are not unusual in Power Armor armies for there being more value in upgrades than in the basic weapon. SoB and CSM can also do so. CSM in particularly can currently have a psyker in each squad. I don't know exactly that will translate over to 10th, but the balefire isn't going to just disappear. SoB can hop into an Immolator and procede to do flame or melta drive-bys.

 

I have no idea if 10th's Indexes will make battle line attractive choices. What I do think is that no Troop tax means GW will have to make them attractive if the tournament data they cull shows them not being taken (assuming GW wants to see battle line units on the board).

 

14 minutes ago, Dont-Be-Haten said:

To me with the spoon fed drops I feel like nothing has really been that simplified. 

 

I think it's because the core rules aren't changing too much. They've cleaned up the wording and made some things into new USRs, but that's not really a simplification. I think the big changes are the massive overhaul of Faction Rules. Space Marine Combat Doctrines - relatively simple in comparison to other 9th edition Faction Rules - got replaced with an even simpler to use Oath of Moment. Mechanicus and Necrons,  for example, there's no way they end up with anything near as convoluted as they currently are.   

[Lemondish]

15 minutes ago, Dont-Be-Haten said:

To me with the spoon fed drops I feel like nothing has really been that simplified. 

Streamlined is definitely way more accurate to say. The benefits of these changes, at least in my eyes, is the way that all these new rules are shared. You have the same understanding of the impact of [Assault], [Heavy], [Rapid Fire x], [Anti-x], [Melta x] etc. as everyone else. It's not some wordy additional element noted in a bespoke way on a data sheet somewhere. It's shared rules from a shared source that applies in identical ways across literally every single weapon in the game. That's pretty powerful for simplifying the rules, without actually losing any depth.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

I'll give GW credit for stating outright that they didn't want to make things simple.  That's probably the hangup a lot of folks are having over the term "simplified" which, yes, I agree with @Lemondish, it really should be "streamlined."

[spessmarine]

31 minutes ago, Lemondish said:

Streamlined is definitely way more accurate to say. The benefits of these changes, at least in my eyes, is the way that all these new rules are shared. You have the same understanding of the impact of [Assault], [Heavy], [Rapid Fire x], [Anti-x], [Melta x] etc. as everyone else. It's not some wordy additional element noted in a bespoke way on a data sheet somewhere. It's shared rules from a shared source that applies in identical ways across literally every single weapon in the game. That's pretty powerful for simplifying the rules, without actually losing any depth.

Yeah, makes it so much easier to control something like say FNP stacking if you've got one USR that defines it. Dozens of differently worded rules that (usually) do the the same thing is harder to corral.

[Lemondish]

1 hour ago, spessmarine said:

Yeah, makes it so much easier to control something like say FNP stacking if you've got one USR that defines it. Dozens of differently worded rules that (usually) do the the same thing is harder to corral.

Exactly!

 

I still think weapons are a prime example of the problems with rules bloat in 9th edition. By bloat in this instance I mean sources for your rules, and where those rules lived. Bloat is probably the wrong word here, so maybe think of it as decentralised. Weapon types started as a set of core rules everybody shared and interacted with, but even just from the 8th edition we started encountering instances where new bespoke faction specific effects and weapon types got added (with Orks, and then in 9th with Votann), and special abilities were all wordy and custom to that weapon (like with flamers and melta).

 

Then there were interactions with your ranged attacks that could come from any number of crazy sources, like how there'd be a stratagem for exploding 6's on hit, or a chapter trait to do the same, or both. We understood them as exploding 6's, but that wasn't the name given to the effect, and truly there wasn't even a label for it. Then there were also mortal wounds on 6's to wound, or extra AP on 6's to wound, or any number of special effects and they all came from unique stratagems, or army effects, and what have you. All of these had wordy explanations, and no single source describing that effect or naming it. It's a testament to how we all thought of these things that we labeled the common rules gamewide ourselves, like deep strike, feel no pain, exploding 6's etc.

 

So it isn't really that things have gotten simplified so much as they've certainly gotten centralized. Then there's the streamlining of removing extraneous options that sort of just feel bad more often than they feel good. It kinda sucks for those that loved the granularity of bolt rifle profiles, but for those that built based on what they thought was neat only to find that that little option was worse for them...well, I'll just say I'm glad that's not quite as common any longer.

Edited April 16, 2023 by Lemondish

[WrathOfTheLion]

1 hour ago, Lemondish said:

Streamlined is definitely way more accurate to say. The benefits of these changes, at least in my eyes, is the way that all these new rules are shared. You have the same understanding of the impact of [Assault], [Heavy], [Rapid Fire x], [Anti-x], [Melta x] etc. as everyone else. It's not some wordy additional element noted in a bespoke way on a data sheet somewhere. It's shared rules from a shared source that applies in identical ways across literally every single weapon in the game. That's pretty powerful for simplifying the rules, without actually losing any depth.

They've made a lot of quality of life improvements that should make the game a lot easier to understand, even if it doesn't actually play all that different.

 

For example, heavy is a natural way to handle things with moving ballistic skill to the datasheet. It makes way more sense to add a bonus for standing still, than to have a two part rule, one where moving causes a minus (which that can be baked raw in the datasheet), and more rules on how every other unit can ignore that.

 

The main thing I've picked up is that someone actually spent some effort thinking about the whole thing. Every change I see makes sense, and to me looks like someone spent some real time actually evaluating this game.

[spessmarine]

Yeah, you no longer need a rule to ignore a rule. (ignore the effect of heavy)
Other things that benefited include powerfists as we've seen, they no longer need that -1 to hit rule everywhere.
And no longer need the weapon rule about making one attack with this weapon after your other attacks.

[thraxdown]

9 minutes ago, spessmarine said:

Yeah, you no longer need a rule to ignore a rule. (ignore the effect of heavy)
Other things that benefited include powerfists as we've seen, they no longer need that -1 to hit rule everywhere.
And no longer need the weapon rule about making one attack with this weapon after your other attacks.

 

Have they mentioned how multiple melee weapons will work in 10th?

[Orange Knight]

2 hours ago, Dont-Be-Haten said:

To me with the spoon fed drops I feel like nothing has really been that simplified. 

 

I think the game will ultimately be more simple, as everyone will have a much easier time understanding each other's armies and lists.

Different combination of the same core rules will be shared across the different factions.

 

Also, they are streamlining the interface of the rules as a whole. It's different, so it will take some getting used to, but the new datasheets and various weapon rules reach a similar level of granularity as before with less wording and rules.

[Lemondish]

16 minutes ago, thraxdown said:

 

Have they mentioned how multiple melee weapons will work in 10th?

Not that I've seen, maybe someone else has. That's definitely an interesting question. With attacks leaving the unit data sheet and landing on the weapon, will we no longer be able to split them across different weapons however you see fit, or will models with multiple melee weapons just have their attacks split already on the data sheet, indicating that we get both, but a limited breakdown?

I'm not sure how often this does come up, though. Lately we've seen many big name models rollin' around with a single weapon with multiple profiles. I'm reminded of the Gravis Captain though - can equip that guy multiple ways.

[Marshal Valkenhayn]

15 minutes ago, Lemondish said:

Not that I've seen, maybe someone else has. That's definitely an interesting question. With attacks leaving the unit data sheet and landing on the weapon, will we no longer be able to split them across different weapons however you see fit, or will models with multiple melee weapons just have their attacks split already on the data sheet, indicating that we get both, but a limited breakdown?

I'm not sure how often this does come up, though. Lately we've seen many big name models rollin' around with a single weapon with multiple profiles. I'm reminded of the Gravis Captain though - can equip that guy multiple ways.

It comes up fairly often. Some examples off of the top of my head are:

 

Daemon Prince getting its primary weapon and a bonus claw attack, or all attacks +2 if you take double claws.

Ork Beastsnaga Boss, gets its claw and a damage 2 choppa that gives an extra attack.

Tyranid monsters can often take at least 2 different sets of melee weapons.

 

This isn't counting things like Genestealers or Blood Crushers who can only make a set number of extra attacks with tails/horns. Those will translate over fine. But having 2 weapons you can pick between and funnel all of your attacks through in the current system isn't exactly rare, and is something to consider.

[Lemondish]

54 minutes ago, Marshal Valkenhayn said:

Daemon Prince getting its primary weapon and a bonus claw attack, or all attacks +2 if you take double claws.

Ork Beastsnaga Boss, gets its claw and a damage 2 choppa that gives an extra attack.

Those seem easy enough to fit in here on these sheets. Just shows as a separate weapon with the relevant number of limited attacks on the data sheet without modifying the idea that you shoot or fight with everything you're carrying (minus grenades/pistols). Not a problem fitting that in the new rules, I imagine.

 

I was talking specifically about these:

55 minutes ago, Marshal Valkenhayn said:

Tyranid monsters can often take at least 2 different sets of melee weapons.

Exactly as you summarized after: the two separate weapons part is the difficult thing to imagine because there's no set number of attacks expected from these. A Tyranid monster with two different types of melee weapons can currently choose which way to split their baseline pool of attacks. I don't imagine that'll be particularly easy for this new system to support.

 

Speaking of grenades...haven't seen those yet, have we?

[Marshal Valkenhayn]

All three of the above examples were picked for that reason. The Beastsnagga Boss's claw gives him -1 to hit with higher str and ap, but still only does 2 damage, while his big choppa has lower str and ap but no penalty to hit. It's sort of moot because he gives himself +1 to hit, but it's an example of weapons being funneled either way. Same with claws on the Prince, though as of the latest version there really isn't any point to funnel more attacks into claws, except in the case that you take 2 claws. If you do that the number of claw attacks goes up by 2+ and you get all the base attacks as well, so it'll be interesting to see how that is handled.

 

For example:

 

Daemon Prince with axe has axe attacks and 1 claw attack

Daemon Prince with double claws gets a profile of a bunch of claw attacks with twin linked?

 

As it doesn't just add the base attacks to the weapons anymore it'll require its own entry, or else won't be kept at all.

[Urauloth]

Kinda hoping there's another rule to melta weapons we aren't seeing here, because they're about the only way Death Guard can knock out tanks now that plasma guns aren't an all-in-one solution.

[sandrorect]

3 hours ago, Marshal Valkenhayn said:

It comes up fairly often. Some examples off of the top of my head are:

 

Daemon Prince getting its primary weapon and a bonus claw attack, or all attacks +2 if you take double claws.

Ork Beastsnaga Boss, gets its claw and a damage 2 choppa that gives an extra attack.

Tyranid monsters can often take at least 2 different sets of melee weapons.

 

This isn't counting things like Genestealers or Blood Crushers who can only make a set number of extra attacks with tails/horns. Those will translate over fine. But having 2 weapons you can pick between and funnel all of your attacks through in the current system isn't exactly rare, and is something to consider.

 

It is simple: you can´t choose how many attacks do with weapons anymore because the models don´t have A anymore, the weapons have.

 

Demon prince does 4A with primary weapon and 2 with claw.

Ork beastnaga boss does 4A with claw and 2A with choppa.

Tyranid monsters does X A with weapon 1 and Y A with weapon 2.

 

We can choose the weapons that the model has, but in the game you don´t have control becasue GW give us what to do.

 

Streamline

[44er Tabletop]

As a new player, i think they did a very good job introducing the weapon traits (like it has been done in other TT games). 
 

Its just more compact and easier to remember. I am super curious for the new edition. 
It all makes much more sense IMO. 

[ZeroWolf]

1 hour ago, sandrorect said:

 

It is simple: you can´t choose how many attacks do with weapons anymore because the models don´t have A anymore, the weapons have.

 

Demon prince does 4A with primary weapon and 2 with claw.

Ork beastnaga boss does 4A with claw and 2A with choppa.

Tyranid monsters does X A with weapon 1 and Y A with weapon 2.

 

We can choose the weapons that the model has, but in the game you don´t have control becasue GW give us what to do.

 

Streamline

I'm pretty sure that's how AoS works and it's done pretty well over there. 

[Blindhamster]

I suspect death guard will just have “plague weapons”

[WrathOfTheLion]

21 minutes ago, Blindhamster said:

I suspect death guard will just have “plague weapons”

I'm thinking perhaps a separation like plague weapon/greater plague weapon for the two handed ones. But yeah, as we're talking on the Death Guard forum, they have to clean the Plague Marine datasheet up, it's got way too many options.

[Blindhamster]

6 minutes ago, WrathOfTheLion said:

I'm thinking perhaps a separation like plague weapon/greater plague weapon for the two handed ones. But yeah, as we're talking on the Death Guard forum, they have to clean the Plague Marine datasheet up, it's got way too many options.

That makes sense, fists will obviously stay distinct

[WrathOfTheLion]

6 minutes ago, Blindhamster said:

That makes sense, fists will obviously stay distinct

Of course, maybe they'll do something for Sergeant options as well (can't remember if they can take a balesword or not). You could clean the melee down to Single-Handed Plague Weapon, Two-Handed Plague Weapon and Power Fist and maybe something else fancy if they want to do that. Instead of like 7+ options now?

Edited April 16, 2023 by WrathOfTheLion

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

On 4/14/2023 at 7:49 PM, Kallas said:

Just RF 1. We've seen Storm Bolters already.

 

Gotta shove Tacticals out of the way some how, might as well give them awful guns so nobody wants to run them. Will make it easier to sideline them and then phase them out.

 

As someone who just plays primaris, I think you're undervaluing the special and/or heavy options. I don't mind the bolt rifle being consolidated but if they really make vehicles tougher with the freedom of army design they've already previewed it's going to be so easy to make skew lists. When you factor in how focused the primaris range has been on str 4 wargear, intercessors feel like big losers.

 

Plus let's face it if the new terminators do well, you're probably going to get new tacticals cause if GW has proven anything with the space marine line it's that they don't mind bloat.

   

On 4/15/2023 at 4:22 AM, Mandragola said:

It looks to me like Terminators will be substantially better than Aggressors in 10th, unless there are changes to Aggressors that we don’t know about (which there almost certainly are, so I guess it’s a question of how major they are). 
 

Aggressors will be slightly shootier, rather than vastly shootier as they are now- and that’s before you count the terminators’ heavy weapon. Terminators are now T5 and have a 2+/4++ save, while both have 3 wounds. Both hit with power fists, though terminators hit on a 3+ and have access to chainfists and stuff like that. Aggressors’ reroll to wound does help them, especially against big tough things. 
 

Overall I think this will put terminators at the top of the tree again. Previously there’s been a bit of back and forth between them and Aggressors, with the latter tending to win out except for things like deathwing.

 

I suspect Gravis is going to have a way to shoot twice again because the melta rifle also has less attacks. The T5 and the 2+/4++ is a massive benefit though so even if they can shoot twice I think terminators will have the edge. It'll be close though, and I think playstyle will matter which is great.  

 

edit: Eradicators guns didn't lose attacks, sorry about that I'm getting old. 

 

On 4/15/2023 at 8:16 PM, The Unseen said:

Because that still leaves Sisters and Chaos using a peashooter rather than a gun, plus no guarantee they actually do that. GW introducing a "better" boltgun but then with contrived lore reasons not rolled it out to every faction that uses them.

 

I think the ability to take special & heavy options is going to do a lot of heavy lifting for SoB and Chaos. As someone who has played a fair amount of AoS changing to a battle line style system is going to lead to some really extreme lists.

Edited April 17, 2023 by Jorin Helm-splitter

[Orange Knight]

It seems like the various units have abilities assigned to each one.

 

I imagine the Aggressors could have something like the "Relentless" rule of past editions. It would allow them to shoot, advance and charge.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

2 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

It seems like the various units have abilities assigned to each one.

 

I imagine the Aggressors could have something like the "Relentless" rule of past editions. It would allow them to shoot, advance and charge.

Man i hope so. That would be amazing 

[Kallas]

1 hour ago, Jorin Helm-splitter said:

As someone who just plays primaris, I think you're undervaluing the special and/or heavy options. I don't mind the bolt rifle being consolidated but if they really make vehicles tougher with the freedom of army design they've already previewed it's going to be so easy to make skew lists. When you factor in how focused the primaris range has been on str 4 wargear, intercessors feel like big losers.

We'll see, because it will depend a lot on costs, unit abilities and general synergies. I do think you overvalue special/heavy weapons though, especially since we've seen that infantry weapons have been reduced in power some, eg, the Melta Rifle vs tanks is less powerful than in 9th: which is good for tanks, of course, but it means that bringing dispersed weapons might not be useful enough. Particularly when it's a generalist unit that GW has been historically bad at balancing, vs specialist units which are typically easier to balance.

 

As said though, this isn't the full picture so it could work out either way.

 

1 hour ago, Jorin Helm-splitter said:

Plus let's face it if the new terminators do well, you're probably going to get new tacticals cause if GW has proven anything with the space marine line it's that they don't mind bloat.

Hope so. They did say that Primaris aren't replacements, so we'll see if they hold to that.