Warhammer 40k Core Rules Leaked

[MasterDeath]

From my Reading strategic reserve is a sub-category of Reserve. So deep Strike would Not Count into the 25%

[AenarIT]

14 minutes ago, Emperor Ming said:

So is the 25% strategic reserves apply to reserves, if not what the reserves limit, I'm not seeing it

Likely to be specified in the mission rules

[SkimaskMohawk]

Ah yes, it looks like grenades are now powered by the same technology as smoke launchers. I know it isn't anything new, especially after the debacle of all the 8th edition wargear tuning into strats for the 9th marine book, but seeing it as a core strat is a bit irksome. Just another abstract mortal wound dump.

 

Kinda like tank shock. It used to be a movement tool; you moved your tank and also moved the enemy unit from your final position. You could do some cool stuff like pushing them off on objective. Now it's more mortal wounds.

 

Moving over friendly models....k. Coupled with heavy just allowing movement and shooting, it looks like they don't want players to get particularly punished by their own mistakes and needing to reposition. 

[Emperor Ming]

Anyone found coherency rules? I cant see them

[AenarIT]

5 minutes ago, Emperor Ming said:

Anyone found coherency rules? I cant see them

I haven't seen them either. I guess there are a couple of pages missing, before the command phase ones, which specify how dice rolls work, rerolls, coherency and other basic concepts.

The current 9th ed rulebook has such a section ("Basic Rules"), with some subsections:
- Missions
- Army (Datasheets, Keywords, Units, Unit Coherency, Engagement Range)
- Battlefield (Terrain Features)
- Measuring Distances (Within and Wholly Within)
- Dice (Re-Rolls, Roll-offs, Sequencing)
- Starting Strenght, Half-Strenght and Destroyed Units

 

Edited May 17, 2023 by AenarIT

[Dried]

1 hour ago, Tokugawa said:

Because there would be abilities about "when targeting fly unit…"?

And it could work se same. Just say with fly ability instead or FLY or duplicate the word in abbilities and keywords or make the fly abbility gain the FLY keyword.
Because for me FLY is a rule, not juste an interaction keyword. It clearly is an abbility (like deepstrike, scouts, leader, etc) that changes the way your unit is played on the table. It shouldn't be "hidden" in a keyword as I see it.

[Cactus]

Isn't a keyword just a way of saying 'the rules for X apply here'? Previous editions had "independent character" on certain units which referred to a page of special rules. "Infantry" was a unit type and a shorthand for 'use the default rules for movement, cover etc.' in contrast to cavalry or tanks.

 

Either you print half the rulebook in each unit's rules or you use words to indicate which rules to use and describe those rules in full elsewhere.

[Burni]

Desperate escape tests fail on a 1 and 2. So a bit risky to fall back when battle shocked. Could be rough on low LD armies. 

[Doctor Perils]

1 hour ago, Cactus said:

Isn't a keyword just a way of saying 'the rules for X apply here'? Previous editions had "independent character" on certain units which referred to a page of special rules. "Infantry" was a unit type and a shorthand for 'use the default rules for movement, cover etc.' in contrast to cavalry or tanks.

 

Either you print half the rulebook in each unit's rules or you use words to indicate which rules to use and describe those rules in full elsewhere.

Most of the "keywords" don't provide rules by themselves. There is another section labelled "abilities>core" which presents USRs that apply to that unit. FLY is a notable exception as its both a USR and a keyword

[VengefulJan]

My 2 biggest questions so far for this is:

 

1) What is 'Engagement Range'?

and

2) What makes a unit/model 'Visible' to another unit/model?

 

The later question I find to be very critical to the feel of this edition.

 

This has been a very clean, concise, and elegant composition of core rules that I have ever seen from them so far. It really feels like I'm reading something written by someone who understands the English language. The only section of rules that tripped me up was the 'Big Guns Never Tire' side bar, and I was able to figure it out after a couple rereads.

[Captain Idaho]

Things are hotting up:

 

[DemonGSides]

Doug Dimmadome of the Dimsdale Dimmadome is our leaker?  The rich get richer.

Edited May 17, 2023 by DemonGSides

[Khornestar]

I really like what I’m seeing. Obviously army rules are the other half of the equation, but I’m tentatively really excited and positive about 10th.

 

And it also seems like you can charge through friendly non-monster/vehicle models?

 

From the rules in the movement phase, it just says “whenever you move a model” so I see no reason why it wouldn’t be allowed when charging, but I’m sure there will be those who disagree because it isn’t spelled out in the charge phase that they can do so. Some clarification would be in order, perhaps.

 

Also, super glad that I’m 10th you continue to not need LoS to charge, even if you can’t move through walls any more with infantry.

Edited May 17, 2023 by Khornestar

[Lord Marshal]

58 minutes ago, Captain Idaho said:

Things are hotting up:

 

 

[Hrvat]

I was cautiously optimistic when the first rumblings of 10th Ed came and when GW stated their broader goals. Most things I have seen so far have dissolved my optimism. It looks like the rules will stay a mess and the game's general feel will remain bloated. 

[Blurf]

9 hours ago, OttoVonAwesome said:

Yeah I dunno why were still doing random charges when difficult terrain is gone and measuring before shooting is still a thing.

It's dramatic.

15 minutes ago, Hrvat said:

I was cautiously optimistic when the first rumblings of 10th Ed came and when GW stated their broader goals. Most things I have seen so far have dissolved my optimism. It looks like the rules will stay a mess and the game's general feel will remain bloated. 

I mean, compared to a game like Infinity or even Horus Heresy the rulebook seems a lot more readable.

[Blurf]

5 hours ago, Dried said:

And it could work se same. Just say with fly ability instead or FLY or duplicate the word in abbilities and keywords or make the fly abbility gain the FLY keyword.
Because for me FLY is a rule, not juste an interaction keyword. It clearly is an abbility (like deepstrike, scouts, leader, etc) that changes the way your unit is played on the table. It shouldn't be "hidden" in a keyword as I see it.

So you want them to reprint everything Fly does for every unit that has fly. Do you also need the charging diagram on every datacard?

[Aramis K]

5 minutes ago, Blurf said:

So you want them to reprint everything Fly does for every unit that has fly. Do you also need the charging diagram on every datacard?

I'm just surprised Fly isn't one of the universal special rules listed on the datacards top right under Abilities, like Deep Strike or Scout or Infiltrate. 

Obviously it doesn't need to explained on each card. It's just odd to me a common special rule is down in the keywords. I see keywords as properties, things to be the target of rules, not the rule itself.

Edited May 17, 2023 by Aramis K

[Doctor Perils]

10 minutes ago, Blurf said:

So you want them to reprint everything Fly does for every unit that has fly. Do you also need the charging diagram on every datacard?

No, they're saying fly should be a core ability, not a keyword

[VengefulJan]

37 minutes ago, Aramis K said:

I'm just surprised Fly isn't one of the universal special rules listed on the datacards top right under Abilities, like Deep Strike or Scout or Infiltrate. 

Obviously it doesn't need to explained on each card. It's just odd to me a common special rule is down in the keywords. I see keywords as properties, things to be the target of rules, not the rule itself.

It really should be both. It should be a USR so that it can be properly defined as to what it can do, but it should also be a keyword so that the unit may be interacted with in specific ways, like anti-air units and the like.

[Zoatibix]

3 hours ago, VengefulJan said:

My 2 biggest questions so far for this is:

 

1) What is 'Engagement Range'?

and

2) What makes a unit/model 'Visible' to another unit/model?

 

The later question I find to be very critical to the feel of this edition.

 

This has been a very clean, concise, and elegant composition of core rules that I have ever seen from them so far. It really feels like I'm reading something written by someone who understands the English language. The only section of rules that tripped me up was the 'Big Guns Never Tire' side bar, and I was able to figure it out after a couple rereads.

I think engagement range may be there so that models either without bases (e.g. tanks) or flight stands under the model (e.g. Wave Serpents) can still be eligible to fight.

 

No idea how far that would actually be.

[Rune Priest Jbickb]

3 hours ago, Hrvat said:

I was cautiously optimistic when the first rumblings of 10th Ed came and when GW stated their broader goals. Most things I have seen so far have dissolved my optimism. It looks like the rules will stay a mess and the game's general feel will remain bloated. 

 

I'm curious where you see a mess in the core rules.  I found them to be, on the whole, quite clear and easy to understand. 1 or 2 things had to be read twice to understand but overall I didn't find them very loose or exploitable and significantly simpler to grasp than many of the 9E rules.

[MARK0SIAN]

I was kind of hoping we’d seen the end of ‘this unit fights first but not if you interrupt but does if they make you fight last etc etc’. I really hope they’ve reined in the sheer amount of abilities that messed with the fight order. 

Edited May 17, 2023 by MARK0SIAN
Spelling

[Verbal Underbelly]

The melee rules seem to indicate base contact will be more important now. The melee example showed models in base contact and friendly models in base contact with those were able to attack.

 

[Brother Nathan]

50 minutes ago, MARK0SIAN said:

I was kind of hoping we’d seen the end of ‘this unit fights first but not if you interrupt but does if they make you fight last etc etc’. I really hope they’ve reigned in the sheer amount of abilities that messed with the fight order. 

well i dont see a fights last section...  and it alternates players in their steps so i think it seems better but remains to be seen when units get access to that rule on top of charging...