10th edition Rules updated

[TrawlingCleaner]

23 hours ago, Karhedron said:

 

It is one per phase rather than one per turn so not quite as bad. If it was 1 per turn you would be unable to spend your 12 dice in a single game. I think this is probably fair and brings Fate Dice into line with the Reroll stratagem.

 

I read Phase, I thought Phase but wrote turn. Whoops!

If it brings Eldar down as much as it ought to, that's great! The Meta at a competitive level needs sorting out. I do, however, wonder what happens when further changes or nerfs come . It'll be interesting to see where it leads!

 

7 hours ago, Lord_Ikka said:

Really, what Towering needs to do is to still allow Towering units to see and be seen, but then the actual Towering units get a negative to Hit when shooting through the terrain. Knight players understand that having their big stompy boys means some downsides in certain areas, but the problems that we had with 9th ed terrain were very frustrating with not being able to do anything to infantry units that were holed up in certain terrain pieces. 

 

Something like "Targets are -1 to be hit and always count as having the Benefit of Cover unless you have true LoS" would be nice at least, although you again have a bit of one sided deal once again for Knight players like 9th.

 

Would binning Towering altogether work?

Currently, neither side is really benefitting from buildings being LoS blocking. This hurts infantry a lot, especially melee infantry who already struggle to get across the board. Would it be better if Towering units just acted like everything else in the game? They can still Overwatch units if they've been charged and will be protected from anti-tank guns if fully covered by buildings. Infantry are mre likely to get across the board but still less likely to bring knights down as they used to in 9th

[FarFromSam]

The change desolators need should address how silly they look. :p

Edited July 7, 2023 by farfromsam

[Rogue]

Just a thought, but could GW decouple editions, codices and starter boxes? A recurring theme is the position that GW need to launch a new edition every three years because it's that and the accompanying launch box that generate huge income for them. 

 

But what if they could do it another way? What if an edition lasted a long time, say ten years. That's your baseline rules sorted out for a decade - we know where we are, and how the game plays at a structural level. Then you have a more frequent codex cycle, maybe comparable to the current edition turnover; all codices last 3-5 years, and are replaced a couple of times during a single edition. This generates change within the fixed structure, and prevents armies stagnating within the the longer edition cycle. It also means that new units can have a similar release schedule as now.

 

Finally, replace the new edition launch box with an annual 'event' box. Still fill it with two viable armies; still include a bunch on new miniatures to drive sales; still include exclusive (but non-vital) print material, like campaign rules for the featured armies; choose not to make half of every box marines (or still do that, but at least now other factions get a big splash more frequently). And definitely keep the discount, because it feel like that's the principal driver here.

 

Perhaps think of the box as more like KillTeam (or the Old World one) where the selling point is the models (because, you know, model company) and maybe terrain, not new rules every time.  

 

Do it all like this, and you've got time to really nail down a rule-set before you release it (because you've got 10 years to prepare it), and then you can focus on the codices and models instead. Just a thought.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

On 7/5/2023 at 10:24 AM, phandaal said:

Sisters of Battle looking at their Exorcist like "what did we do wrong?"

 

I felt like this yesterday but after sleeping on it, I do know what the Exorcist did wrong. It was by far the best unit in my army in my limited experience. It and the seraphim are probably the only units I'd want to add to my wolves. Seraphim haven't done anything wrong, they're just a really useful unit, the Exorcist was pretty great though. I've came to the conclusion that in the long run this is best for Sisters.

 

I think if they'd fixed Retributor squads, that a list built around three squads in immolators, allies, and 3 Exorcists might be enough to get SoB into the no-man's land of 40%-win rate before the nerf. Now they're just horrible, and I think because of that GW is actually going to have to put some effort into fixing them.  They need to adjust some data-sheets in addition to point drops cause SoB just feel like they're playing a different edition than everyone else (same for Deathguard).

[ThePenitentOne]

If you were doing a box to replace what is now edition launch, I'd say every 3 years rather than annual. The model discount in Leviathan/ Indomitus is far higher than the vs. Boxes we get throughout the edition.

 

In 9th, I think we had 4 vs. boxes? Piety and Pain, Hexfire, Eldritch Omens and Shadow Throne. These offered discounts, but not at the level of Leviathan/ Indomitus; they are also different price points. I don't think GW wants to give launchbox level discounts every year... And even if they did, would it cut into the revenue stream of the lesser vs boxes. 

 

Other than that though, I think your idea could work. I know for sure I'd be WAY happier buying another Sisters dex for 9th then having to switch editions. No interuption to bespoke Sisters Crusade content you say? Where do I sign up?

 

 

[Cactus]

Once GW realises that FOMO and space marines will sell anything they might see the new edition rules as an unnecessary cost and cut them from the three-yearly big splash. That's the only way I can see them changing the release model in a way that reduces edition churn. If army and unit rules remain available as free downloads they could even cut the rules element of a codex release and splash with new minis and a limited book.

[crimsondave]

2 hours ago, ThePenitentOne said:

If you were doing a box to replace what is now edition launch, I'd say every 3 years rather than annual. The model discount in Leviathan/ Indomitus is far higher than the vs. Boxes we get throughout the edition.

 

In 9th, I think we had 4 vs. boxes? Piety and Pain, Hexfire, Eldritch Omens and Shadow Throne. These offered discounts, but not at the level of Leviathan/ Indomitus; they are also different price points. I don't think GW wants to give launchbox level discounts every year... And even if they did, would it cut into the revenue stream of the lesser vs boxes. 

 

Other than that though, I think your idea could work. I know for sure I'd be WAY happier buying another Sisters dex for 9th then having to switch editions. No interuption to bespoke Sisters Crusade content you say? Where do I sign up?

 

 

This would probably save GW money, honestly.  They could sell the same kind of boxes without the expense of reinventing the game every 3 years.

[Guest]

11 hours ago, farfromsam said:

The change desolators need should address how silly they look. :p

Designed by Eight-Year-Olds

At the start of your Command Phase, roll a D6 for each enemy model that has line of sight to this unit. On a roll of 1-3, one model in this unit dies of embarrassment.

[Sergeant Bastone]

17 hours ago, Nova-V said:

Thing it wasn't even blanket, it was both targeted and also indiscriminate.  Take DG and Sisters both struggling factions, the Plague Burst Crawler no points increase but the Exorcist did get a 30 point increase.  Why the difference?  The Exorcist, even as indirect, isn't particularly strong and as the Sisters only indirect option it can only be taken a max of three times anyway.

 

Then look at Guard who got changes of 10-25 points despite between all the different data sheets Guard players being able to field a literal car park of indirect.  Surely they should have gone up more to stop spamming across multiple data sheets?  (I say this as a Guard player).

 

It's truly baffling.  I get they are trying to be proactive and respond to the issues early but maybe they do need to slow down a bit and come out with a definitive fix rather than every week there seemingly being another change which has been half cooked.

The problem is that everything about the Guard Index is designed to make sitting and shooting indirect the way to play.  From Born Soldiers only working when stationary, to the special abilities of things like Scout Sentinels buffing indirect, to every other damage dealer being absurdly expensive, the index is telling you the way to play is to castle up and fire indirect.  If we don't have good, cheap indirect we have nothing.  

 

Being shot by 3 manticores every turn is at the edge of tolerable and maybe even beyond it.  Make it 3 manticores and 3 basilisks and you're not going to have fun.  3 manticores and 3 basilisks and 9 mortars and it's ridiculous.  If you try to stop this by making the units so expensive that we can't spam them that also makes it so even a couple aren't efficient.  And again, along with sentinels, these are our only things that can kill stuff efficiently.  I think a better solution would be to develop some sort of chart that limits the number of these heavy supporting type forces that you can bring.  

 

Or maybe they could just bluntly put down a rule that says only 2/3 units can fire indirectly in any given battle or round or whatever. 

 

16 hours ago, Ming the Merciless said:

 

Most baffling the the field ordnance battery point increase despite 2 of the 3 weapon options not having indirect fire 

 

 

And the bombasts were already bad at 100 points.  They're BS5!  And what is 2 d6 blasts S7 AP-1 D2 even good against?  That kills one tactical marine if you're shooting at a 5 man squad and that's with Take Aim.  Given that you NEED an officer to make them work, and orders don't splash, you basically need to include the cost of the 50-65 point officer in the unit cost since you're consuming 100% of that officer's orders. 

[MegaVolt87]

1 hour ago, Sergeant Bastone said:

The problem is that everything about the Guard Index is designed to make sitting and shooting indirect the way to play.  From Born Soldiers only working when stationary, to the special abilities of things like Scout Sentinels buffing indirect, to every other damage dealer being absurdly expensive, the index is telling you the way to play is to castle up and fire indirect.  If we don't have good, cheap indirect we have nothing.  

 

Being shot by 3 manticores every turn is at the edge of tolerable and maybe even beyond it.  Make it 3 manticores and 3 basilisks and you're not going to have fun.  3 manticores and 3 basilisks and 9 mortars and it's ridiculous.  If you try to stop this by making the units so expensive that we can't spam them that also makes it so even a couple aren't efficient.  And again, along with sentinels, these are our only things that can kill stuff efficiently.  I think a better solution would be to develop some sort of chart that limits the number of these heavy supporting type forces that you can bring.  

 

Or maybe they could just bluntly put down a rule that says only 2/3 units can fire indirectly in any given battle or round or whatever. 

 

And the bombasts were already bad at 100 points.  They're BS5!  And what is 2 d6 blasts S7 AP-1 D2 even good against?  That kills one tactical marine if you're shooting at a 5 man squad and that's with Take Aim.  Given that you NEED an officer to make them work, and orders don't splash, you basically need to include the cost of the 50-65 point officer in the unit cost since you're consuming 100% of that officer's orders. 

 

Oh man, a chart. I think we can do something with that. We could group units like terminators and bladeguard into a catagory of say, "elites", big firepower units into "heavy support" etc. We could enen make a chart where you cannot take more than x3 of these "heavy support " category units. We could name it "force organization chart". This stops people stacking an army with "heavy support" style units. Sadly we are limited by todays technology to do this. 

Edited July 7, 2023 by MegaVolt87

[Interrogator Stobz]

How about making indirect fire take a turn to aim.

So they can direct fire each turn when exposed to enemy direct fire weapons, or not fire until T2 as indirect. Then again T4 indirect.

 

OFC all this is too late, GeeDub have broken their game again and the manufacture/print cycle probably doesn't give them chance to make decent changes.

[Scribe]

5 minutes ago, MegaVolt87 said:

 

Oh man, a chart. I think we can do something with that. We could group units like terminators and bladeguard into a catagory of say, "elites", big firepower units into "heavy support" etc. We could enen make a chart where you cannot take more than x3 of these "heavy support " category units. We could name it "force organization chart". This stops people stacking an army with "heavy support" style units. Sadly we are limited by todays technology to do this. 

 

Flawless.

[de Selby]

5 hours ago, Sergeant Bastone said:

...these are our only things that can kill stuff efficiently.  I think a better solution would be to develop some sort of chart that limits the number of these heavy supporting type forces that you can bring.  
 

:D

 

The 9th and 10th ed solution for things that are really useful but GW doesn't want everyone having the ability to do every turn is to make it a strategem.

 

Point everything assuming it fires direct and allow things with the keyword to use the strategem.

[Progenitor]

Just like how the Exorcist worked in the last edition! 

[sandrorect]

5 hours ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

How about making indirect fire take a turn to aim.

So they can direct fire each turn when exposed to enemy direct fire weapons, or not fire until T2 as indirect. Then again T4 indirect.

 

OFC all this is too late, GeeDub have broken their game again and the manufacture/print cycle probably doesn't give them chance to make decent changes.

 

This is a good option, but is change for indirect rule no de LoS rules.

 

Also have the problem that nobody want a weapon that can only shoot 2 times per battle unless there are very cheap or are a good option as a unit without the indirect rule.

 

Example: maybe the Sisters wants the exorcist with your indirect rule but i don´t think a guard player want tu put a Basilisk or a Manticore if they can put more leman russ.

[Sergeant Bastone]

1 hour ago, de Selby said:

:D

 

The 9th and 10th ed solution for things that are really useful but GW doesn't want everyone having the ability to do every turn is to make it a strategem.

 

Point everything assuming it fires direct and allow things with the keyword to use the strategem.

Wow, that's pretty interesting.  Indirect could work like Grenades and Smoke.  

Edited July 7, 2023 by Sergeant Bastone

[Toxichobbit]

On 7/5/2023 at 4:45 PM, phandaal said:

 

What if we went a step further and gave individual weapons their own goodness numbers? We could call it "Equipment Power Level." Then your unit has a Model Power Level, and you add the Equipment Power and Model Power to get your unit's overall Power Level?

 

Such a system would surely reduce the number of datasheets required, and even allow Games Workshop to target specific weapons or models rather than everything all at once.

 

But this is all pie in the sky thinking. No one has ever done anything like that before.

 

Sounds risky. I think we all need to tone it down a bit. Lets just count up the number of wounds on each side - if we both have the same amount of wounds then it'll all be equal. After all, that worked for AoS

 

 

;)

[MoshJason]

Honestly, let's go back to "If my models can't see your models, I can't kill them"

That worked really well in 7th, and made cover and terrain actually useful. I hate this "I CAN SEE A TINY PART OF ONE BASE OF ONE MODEL! 20 PERSON SQUAD IS DEAD!!!" that 8th and up have. It's absurd, and it makes for a lot of Negative Play Experiences.

[sandrorect]

2 hours ago, MoshJason said:

Honestly, let's go back to "If my models can't see your models, I can't kill them"

That worked really well in 7th, and made cover and terrain actually useful. I hate this "I CAN SEE A TINY PART OF ONE BASE OF ONE MODEL! 20 PERSON SQUAD IS DEAD!!!" that 8th and up have. It's absurd, and it makes for a lot of Negative Play Experiences.

 

And what you do with weapons like mortars or basilisk that the only puporse in life is the indirect damage? 50p basilisk and 30p wywerns maybe have some use as a decoys...

 

I have 2 options:

 

1º Limit the number of unit with indirect fire can put in the army list (difficult because is not the same a mortar than a basilisk and different armys have a different number of options)

 

2º Change the rule of indirect fire completely. My suggestion is the next:

 

Indirect fire X: A indirect weapon don´t hit normaly but throw a dice per A of the weapon (we reduce de number of attack that the weapons made to 1 or 2)  with a 6 you impact full on the enemy squad: do full X impacts (normaly 2+1D3 or 2+1D6) with 2-5 you get a partial hit: only do the base number (2 normaly) 1 the shoot fail. Because is NOT a impact hit rerolls or bonus to hit don´t affect.

 

Problems with this rule: you need more different systems, it doesn´t work for Towering units (the effect represent a blast weapon) 

 

 

[Cleon]

It's not beyond the bounds of complexity to say you can't fire indirect at units no one in your army can see. 

[Madao]

As indirect weapons are representing something that uses the ballistic curve (like mortars), just add the minimal range (e.g. 12 inches). They will be way more limited in possible targets, so taking too many will cripple your army

[Naryn]

I got overwatched by a deathstrike missile at the end of ninth and i was pretty furious about the point blank nuke.

 

I think minimum distance, plus need a spotter, plus can't get to hit bonuses would be appropriate, at least from a health-of-the-game standpoint. 2+ rerolling 1s artillery should not ever exist.

[Commissar Yossarian]

1 hour ago, Madao said:

As indirect weapons are representing something that uses the ballistic curve (like mortars), just add the minimal range (e.g. 12 inches). They will be way more limited in possible targets, so taking too many will cripple your army

*grins* Someone needs more math help. 

 

Unless you are limited in elevation angle there is no minimum distance due to ballistic trajectory. In practice lots of tubes on self propelled chassis are more limited, but there is nothing about trajectories keeping me with my artillery tube shooting you on the other side of a 4" thick pony wall. Practically however a direct hit would still be a negative outcome for both parties :P

 

From a game perspective I think indirect should require a spotter unit or something. But the whole game needs a better fog of war mechanic. And then since it's functionally a platoon/company lvl skirmish game even at 'large points values' you could move the artillery off the board where it belongs.

[Madao]

1 hour ago, Commissar Yossarian said:

*grins* Someone needs more math help. 

 

Unless you are limited in elevation angle there is no minimum distance due to ballistic trajectory. In practice lots of tubes on self propelled chassis are more limited, but there is nothing about trajectories keeping me with my artillery tube shooting you on the other side of a 4" thick pony wall. Practically however a direct hit would still be a negative outcome for both parties :P

 

From a game perspective I think indirect should require a spotter unit or something. But the whole game needs a better fog of war mechanic. And then since it's functionally a platoon/company lvl skirmish game even at 'large points values' you could move the artillery off the board where it belongs.

I am sorry to disagree, but I feel insulted. Math says that it is possible, but life is more complex. The closer you shoot, the less accurate you can be. There is a really good reason, why modern mortars have limits on high angles (please checkhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M30_mortar  for some sample minimal ranges). I don't want to go deeper into this topic as it is not related directly to 40k (you can PM me if you do), I am just defending my point - there should be a minimal range for indirect weapons (and currently Basillisk can shoot in CC which is just insane).

[OttoVonAwesome]

I can fix indirect. Take the tournment board everyone loves to play on now take most of those ruins off the board and replace them with other types of terrain, Barricades and Craters etc... Now you don't need to have indirect to actually shoot more than 12 inches and still have cover and even better the other guy can't hide 9 friggin mortar tanks out of sight.