New Warhammer 40,000 Edition announced!

[Karhedron]

7 hours ago, Silvereyes said:

My prediction would be that when 11th arrives, all 10th edition detachments are made level 3.

 

I hope that this is not the case. There are plenty of existing Detachments that only benefit a small subset of units. The Eldar Wraithhost and SM Stormlance taskforce both spring to mind.

[TheArtilleryman]

20 hours ago, Karhedron said:

I quite like the idea of split detachments. I play an Iyanden Eldar army so normally bring a few Wraithguard and Wraithlords. But the Wraithhost Detachment is not great and I don't run an entire army of them. So the option to mix it with something more flexible would be good. 

Methinks this would be ideal for all the Wraithguard and jetbikes I picked up from Combat Patrol…

Edited April 4 by TheArtilleryman

[Silvereyes]

6 hours ago, Karhedron said:

I hope that this is not the case. There are plenty of existing Detachments that only benefit a small subset of units. The Eldar Wraithhost and SM Stormlance taskforce both spring to mind.

 

I mean, it's possible. I just doubt that they're going to bother doing much balance updates for the 10th edition detachments until an army's respective 11th edition codex comes out, aside from the neccesary changes for when 11th arrives. The easy way out for all 10th detachments is just make them level 3 and move on. My big thing of doubt is I'd be surprised is if they allowed players to have more than 6 stratagems at once. Stratagem bloat was a massive issue in 9th, and I would argue that the limit of 6 stratagems in 10th was a good move. And considering they are also seemingly going to update the app, so that your opponent can see your rules and your stratagems, I think it would be odd to have a system where people could be taking more than 6.

[HeadlessCross]

14 hours ago, ThaneOfTas said:

Completely disagree. nothing ruins immersion more or leaves me as uninvested in the game as when units have been homogenised to hell and reduced to generic game pieces.

 

Come 14th edition every weapon will either be "Gun", "Sword", "Big Gun", "Big Sword" etc. no need for more granularity than that.

How does it ruin immersion? Does my jump dude using a scythe really NEED a specific profile, or can't I just use the normal Crozius or Power Fist profiles depending what I field him as?

7 hours ago, Karhedron said:

 

I hope that this is not the case. There are plenty of existing Detachments that only benefit a small subset of units. The Eldar Wraithhost and SM Stormlance taskforce both spring to mind.

Stormlance is a 2 for sure, not a 1. 

[Shard of Magnus]

41 minutes ago, HeadlessCross said:

How does it ruin immersion? Does my jump dude using a scythe really NEED a specific profile, or can't I just use the normal Crozius or Power Fist profiles depending what I field him as?

Stormlance is a 2 for sure, not a 1. 

Long ago I had a discussion similar to this with Jervis Johnson on the changes with epic Armageddon, that I wish I had kept as his explanations were so well written.  I’ll sum it up as his points were more along then lines of what you said in spirit and at the scale of the intended combats it cost more in complexity than it provided in value. (Not exactly what he said…that’s what I took away from it).  For me the immersive impact was I had years of understanding this marine weapon had different range/stats than this ork one and that mental sandbox was erased/radically altered with the change. On the tabletop - I’m not sure it significantly mattered to any of the games I played. That still didn’t change the fact that the profile abstractions had an effect on my enthusiasm. Those were part of the factors that had influenced my army choice, my internal narrative of the games, and how I picked where to fight during a game. I was attached to those concepts more than I realized at the time.

 

Not to imply this is the same. Just my perspective on how changes like this can have an effect on players.

Edited April 4 by Shard of Magnus
Grammar

[MoriyaSchism]

2 hours ago, HeadlessCross said:

How does it ruin immersion?

I stopped caring about 10th edition after I got my hands on the Dark Angels codex and I read through it. What ruined my immersion were the rules changes that invalidated my Star Phantoms build. I spread combi-plasma and combi-melta weapons across Tactical and Sternguard squads only to find out that Azrael is the only character in the game with a proper combi-plasma. All the plasma and melta parts of the combi-weapons disappearing in favour of something with zero AP and an arbitrary "anti-infantry" rule. Real combi-weapons disappeared because they were too complicated, but we get to have characters with melee weapons that have three different profiles (Custodes Blade Champion). This is why I just went back to building my stuff with third edition in mind and why Kill Team is the only current game I'm keeping up with. 

 

The meltagun and plasma gun profiles are included for reference. 

[Mogger351]

20 minutes ago, MoriyaSchism said:

I stopped caring about 10th edition after I got my hands on the Dark Angels codex and I read through it. What ruined my immersion were the rules changes that invalidated my Star Phantoms build. I spread combi-plasma and combi-melta weapons across Tactical and Sternguard squads only to find out that Azrael is the only character in the game with a proper combi-plasma. All the plasma and melta parts of the combi-weapons disappearing in favour of something with zero AP and an arbitrary "anti-infantry" rule. Real combi-weapons disappeared because they were too complicated, but we get to have characters with melee weapons that have three different profiles (Custodes Blade Champion). This is why I just went back to building my stuff with third edition in mind and why Kill Team is the only current game I'm keeping up with. 

 

The meltagun and plasma gun profiles are included for reference. 

I really don't mind that change tbh, I don't feel like sternguard should be "the melta gun unit" or why giving tac squads a second special weapon is either immersive nor flavourful.

 

I know that's not commonly shared, but veterancy shouldn't result being turned into a special weapons caddy.

Edited April 4 by Mogger351

[MoriyaSchism]

12 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

I really don't mind that change tbh, I don't feel like sternguard should be "the melta gun unit" or why giving tac squads a second special weapon is either immersive nor flavourful.

 

I know that's not commonly shared, but veterancy shouldn't result being turned into a special weapons caddy.

If Combi-weapons were such a huge issue with Veterans why didn't they remove them instead of modelling guys with combi-plasmas and combi-meltas in the new Sternguard kit?

Nothing says close range firepower like AP 0. I guess one of the characteristics of my chosen chapter isn't flavour. Hand over your special weapons, boys. Guilliman is back and he said the Codex Astartes no longer supports you using special weapons unless your unit name ends in "-or". 

[Karhedron]

46 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

I know that's not commonly shared, but veterancy shouldn't result being turned into a special weapons caddy.

 

I agree. Also we now have Hellblasters, Eradicators and Infernus squads available. If we can field whole squads with special weapons, we don't need Veterans to act as carriers. 

[Nephaston]

Oh good, I love an excuse to post the leviathan set rules for sternguard combi-guns.

 

Imo these are so much more interesting (even disregarding the straight up better stats) because they are special weapons, but not quite as potent as the proper full-fat versions, so a flamer will have bigger spikes in hits, melta will have bigger damage spikes, and plasma has the option to remain safe for the same damage or be hazardous but for a damage boost. Along with how their bolt rifles shook out to be keyword central I feel like they would have been actually a choice to make.

 

Instead we got omni-present combi-flamer across every faction.

[DuskRaider]

Streamlining and dumbing down of the rules coupled with a concentration on competitive play is how we ended up with the current situation of 40K. I know that works for many, but there are still a good number of people who despise this. 

[Mogger351]

2 hours ago, MoriyaSchism said:

If Combi-weapons were such a huge issue with Veterans why didn't they remove them instead of modelling guys with combi-plasmas and combi-meltas in the new Sternguard kit?

Nothing says close range firepower like AP 0. I guess one of the characteristics of my chosen chapter isn't flavour. Hand over your special weapons, boys. Guilliman is back and he said the Codex Astartes no longer supports you using special weapons unless your unit name ends in "-or". 

I dunno 4+ to ignore all saves on a rapid fire anti-infantry weapon feels like close range firepower.

46 minutes ago, Nephaston said:

Oh good, I love an excuse to post the leviathan set rules for sternguard combi-guns.

 

Imo these are so much more interesting (even disregarding the straight up better stats) because they are special weapons, but not quite as potent as the proper full-fat versions, so a flamer will have bigger spikes in hits, melta will have bigger damage spikes, and plasma has the option to remain safe for the same damage or be hazardous but for a damage boost. Along with how their bolt rifles shook out to be keyword central I feel like they would have been actually a choice to make.

 

Instead we got omni-present combi-flamer across every faction.

Honestly the why behind the volume of changes between that booklet and the release rules is going to be one of the biggest unsolved 40k mysteries imo.

Edited April 4 by Mogger351

[Orange Knight]

The combi weapon rules do suck in 11th, but I'm also of the mind that Sternguard shouldn't be a special weapon unit. If you want Plasma or Melta, other squads do exist for that.

 

I suppose they could allow the combi weapon to be fired once per game and give it a cost so it's an addition, and the model still gets the spicy bolt rifle profile?

 

The biggest issue isn't actually the Sternguard unit which is already good, but characters like the Terminator Captain - he could really benefit from a more spicy ranged weapon. 

Edited April 4 by Orange Knight

[MoriyaSchism]

40 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

The combi weapon rules do suck in 11th, but I'm also of the mind that Sternguard shouldn't be a special weapon unit. If you want Plasma or Melta, other squads do exist for that.

I don't care. I want combi-weapons. I don't want to run a lopsided unit of discount Fire Dragons with none of the elegance or a unit of 10 plasma guns. It's funny that having a unit of 5 guys and a veteran sergeant here or there armed with combi-plasma or combi-melta is this massive problem and the solution to that problem is special weapon unit spam. I want Space Marines not discount Aspect Warriors, Horus Heresy bolter-pigs or disgusting Gravis armour. Honestly, calling them Aspect Warriors is a disservice to Aspect Warriors. At least Aspect Warriors are interesting and their Exarchs get flavourful weapon options. 

Edited April 4 by MoriyaSchism

[jaxom]

2 hours ago, MoriyaSchism said:

Horus Heresy bolter-pigs

?

[Mogger351]

8 hours ago, MoriyaSchism said:

I don't care. I want combi-weapons. I don't want to run a lopsided unit of discount Fire Dragons with none of the elegance or a unit of 10 plasma guns. It's funny that having a unit of 5 guys and a veteran sergeant here or there armed with combi-plasma or combi-melta is this massive problem and the solution to that problem is special weapon unit spam. I want Space Marines not discount Aspect Warriors, Horus Heresy bolter-pigs or disgusting Gravis armour. Honestly, calling them Aspect Warriors is a disservice to Aspect Warriors. At least Aspect Warriors are interesting and their Exarchs get flavourful weapon options. 

Why do you want the combi weapons with specific weapon profiles though? It sort of feels like youre saying you don't want an aspect like squad whilst simultaneously complaining your squads can't now fire more plasma/melta/flamer.

 

Rather than the existing profile would a S6 ap-2 d2 with 1 shot and rapidfire1 be preferred or something?

[MoriyaSchism]

6 hours ago, jaxom said:

?

A unit of Space Marines with nothing but bolters. Out of the box intercessors since they don't come with any of the sergeant options. 
 

 

1 hour ago, Mogger351 said:

Why do you want the combi weapons with specific weapon profiles though? It sort of feels like youre saying you don't want an aspect like squad whilst simultaneously complaining your squads can't now fire more plasma/melta/flamer.

 

Rather than the existing profile would a S6 ap-2 d2 with 1 shot and rapidfire1 be preferred or something?

I want it for verisimilitude and narrative reasons. I also dislike the "Vanguard Veteran Weapon" profile for the same reason. There were 9 editions of specific wargear representing specific profiles with silhouettes and shapes you can tell at a glance, but now your gun that's half plasma or melta has the profile of a strange 24 inch range flamer. It's inconsistent because some characters like Azrael get the plasma profile, while everyone else gets the 24 inch flamer. They already had three merged profiles written for them, not sure why they scrapped them. I want the option to still have an army that uses the old Codex organization. A squad of 10 standard issue plasma incinerators is less interesting than a specific type of weapon being handed to a Marine as symbolic reward. Multiple chapters do this with different weapons, Red Scorpions for example are really big on power weapons. Devastators are better in terms of silhouette and organization to all the newly introduced squads. You're free to like the current edition or future editions based on it, but I won't budge on any of this and will carry on engaging with the hobby in a way that pleases me. 

[Crimson Longinus]

I just think it’s weird that the combi bits have completely different rules than the normal version of the same weapons. 
 

[Evil Eye]

Personally I always thought the old 3E-7E "extra weapon you can shoot once" system was the best way of handling combi-weapons. But what do I know?

[Interrogator Stobz]

Maybe he wants some flavor for His interpretation of how Space Marines structure their Chapter Assets. 

Veterans having the best weapons makes far more sense than line type troops like Hellblasterors and  Hellflamerors.

Vets are the pick of the Chapter, and should get to pick weapons from the armory. They can choose flexibility or all focus on similar load outs depending upon the mission. 

The current combi rules are a joke, it diminishes the importance of the Veteran.

 

Edited April 5 by Interrogator Stobz

[CastellanDeMolay]

Conceptually, Combi-Weapons are silly, and doubly so when an elite unite are loaded up with them, and there is no genuinely good design; there isn't a solution to the problem, only various trade-offs. 

At various times Combi-Weapons have had either unlimited or limited ammo for the co-axial weapon; both are a problem in-universe and on the tabletop. If they have limitless ammo, then why would you ever fire the Bolter on the tabletop? (barring a Flamer attachment being in-range) They are effectively just the Special Weapon at that point. In-universe, why wouldn't every Special Weapon be a Combi-Weapon if they're the exact same thing with a Bolter attached? If ammo is limited it creates an incentive to ensure that all such weapons fire before the models carrying them are removed as casualties, then you get weird stuff like elite Sternguard squads with centuries of invaluable battlefield experience going on kamikaze missions in a Drop Pod so they can fire their guns once. (ludonarrative dissonance, I believe this is called) In-universe it's a weirdly expensive way of insuring against some contingencies, that would be better dealt with by just having a dedicated Special Weapon in a squad. The manufacturing cost is nearly the same as the actual Special Weapon version, since it's the same thing, but attached to a Bolter. 

Combi-weapons look cool on models, but that's about it. Otherwise they're kind of a dumb idea, and there was never a good implementation in-game, however much we may be attached to some impression we once had of them. 

Personally, I'm in-favour of them having their own distinct weapon profile(s), akin to what we have now, preferably with distinctions between the various types like in the above image of the Leviathan rules, but I understand that under the current design paradigm GW are trying to avoid having too many different weapon profiles in a unit or enabling players to build their models "wrong" which could lead to a bad onboarding experience for new players. I think this works well enough as a simulation of the combined effect of firing the Bolter and something similar, but distinct from, the type of Special Weapon represented. Visually, it looks like there's a coaxial Melta/Plasma/Flamer/Grav-weapon, but if we say that it's actually an attachment that is similar to those, but different in that it augments the effect of the combined Bolter then the single weapon profile which is distinct from the Special Weapons and mundane Bolters makes sense, and it answers the above questions about the in-universe logic of the manufacture and deployment of Combi-Weapons. 

I don't think the current design is perfect by any means, but it gives models with Combi-Weapons a distinct role on the battlefield and their own identity in the rules without making other, similarly new units redundant or unappealing, and I think that, within the context of the current design-paradigm, is close to being the least bad option when balanced against nostalgic ideas about what they are and how they work, avoiding feels-bad experiences for new players, and keeping as many units as possible both viable and attractive choices when building an army in the current edition. (especially in a range as bloated as Space Marines) 

If I had to make a suggestion for how to improve the current profile, I'd probably say that Combi-Weapon should remain a generic category, but with the ability to choose between multiple profiles in something like the style of the original Sternguard's Special-Issue Ammunition, such that it doesn't matter exactly how you build the models, they'll always have access to a varied toolkit allowing them to flex into a variety of targets. I think this works with how GW are designing units and weapon profiles at the moment, and I don't think 3/5 different shooting profiles (actually variations on one profile with one or two keywords difference between them) on a unit, not counting an optional Heavy Weapon, is going to be terribly overwhelming. [/thanksforlisteningtomytedtalk]

[Mogger351]

1 hour ago, CastellanDeMolay said:

Conceptually, Combi-Weapons are silly, and doubly so when an elite unite are loaded up with them, and there is no genuinely good design; there isn't a solution to the problem, only various trade-offs. 

At various times Combi-Weapons have had either unlimited or limited ammo for the co-axial weapon; both are a problem in-universe and on the tabletop. If they have limitless ammo, then why would you ever fire the Bolter on the tabletop? (barring a Flamer attachment being in-range) They are effectively just the Special Weapon at that point. In-universe, why wouldn't every Special Weapon be a Combi-Weapon if they're the exact same thing with a Bolter attached? If ammo is limited it creates an incentive to ensure that all such weapons fire before the models carrying them are removed as casualties, then you get weird stuff like elite Sternguard squads with centuries of invaluable battlefield experience going on kamikaze missions in a Drop Pod so they can fire their guns once. (ludonarrative dissonance, I believe this is called) In-universe it's a weirdly expensive way of insuring against some contingencies, that would be better dealt with by just having a dedicated Special Weapon in a squad. The manufacturing cost is nearly the same as the actual Special Weapon version, since it's the same thing, but attached to a Bolter. 

Combi-weapons look cool on models, but that's about it. Otherwise they're kind of a dumb idea, and there was never a good implementation in-game, however much we may be attached to some impression we once had of them. 

Personally, I'm in-favour of them having their own distinct weapon profile(s), akin to what we have now, preferably with distinctions between the various types like in the above image of the Leviathan rules, but I understand that under the current design paradigm GW are trying to avoid having too many different weapon profiles in a unit or enabling players to build their models "wrong" which could lead to a bad onboarding experience for new players. I think this works well enough as a simulation of the combined effect of firing the Bolter and something similar, but distinct from, the type of Special Weapon represented. Visually, it looks like there's a coaxial Melta/Plasma/Flamer/Grav-weapon, but if we say that it's actually an attachment that is similar to those, but different in that it augments the effect of the combined Bolter then the single weapon profile which is distinct from the Special Weapons and mundane Bolters makes sense, and it answers the above questions about the in-universe logic of the manufacture and deployment of Combi-Weapons. 

I don't think the current design is perfect by any means, but it gives models with Combi-Weapons a distinct role on the battlefield and their own identity in the rules without making other, similarly new units redundant or unappealing, and I think that, within the context of the current design-paradigm, is close to being the least bad option when balanced against nostalgic ideas about what they are and how they work, avoiding feels-bad experiences for new players, and keeping as many units as possible both viable and attractive choices when building an army in the current edition. (especially in a range as bloated as Space Marines) 

If I had to make a suggestion for how to improve the current profile, I'd probably say that Combi-Weapon should remain a generic category, but with the ability to choose between multiple profiles in something like the style of the original Sternguard's Special-Issue Ammunition, such that it doesn't matter exactly how you build the models, they'll always have access to a varied toolkit allowing them to flex into a variety of targets. I think this works with how GW are designing units and weapon profiles at the moment, and I don't think 3/5 different shooting profiles (actually variations on one profile with one or two keywords difference between them) on a unit, not counting an optional Heavy Weapon, is going to be terribly overwhelming. [/thanksforlisteningtomytedtalk]

I think you've hit the nail perfectly squarely on the head.

 

Termicide units are a dumb idea in-universe as much as drop plasma sternguard who kill half their own unit double tapping a single high value target in the expectation they'll die immediately after.

 

If people want vets to get the good stuff, give them better ammo/power weapons or better stats. Otherwise what separates a tac marine with a plasma gun and a veteran sarge with a combi plasma?

[Antarius]

I am somewhat torn on the issue of combi-weapons and custom equipment on vanguards etc.

On the one hand, I like the idea of all these different falvourful little things that you can give your veterans and characters, but otoh I'm pretty sure the "dumbed down" version was implemented because players:
a) equipped every squad member with the same weapon - which does make perfect sense from a gameplay pov, but less so in the fluff, where it is cool and makes sense for a veteran squad (or a tactical squad for that matter) to have different kit for different eventualities, rather than all have "the best" option

b) complained that there weren't enough of "the best" weapon for the entire squad in e.g. a Vanguard box
So GW essentially said "okay, they've all got vanguard weapons/all combi-weapons are equal" as a solution to bridge the gap between gameplay and models. And yeah, it's a solution that doesn't make sense fluffwise and is theoretically less flavourful, but in practice I think it makes for armies that look more flavourful since now at least all vanguard veterans don't have a thunder hammer (or whatever was "the best" wepaon) anymore.

[CastellanDeMolay]

32 minutes ago, Antarius said:

I am somewhat torn on the issue of combi-weapons and custom equipment on vanguards etc.

On the one hand, I like the idea of all these different falvourful little things that you can give your veterans and characters, but otoh I'm pretty sure the "dumbed down" version was implemented because players:
a) equipped every squad member with the same weapon - which does make perfect sense from a gameplay pov, but less so in the fluff, where it is cool and makes sense for a veteran squad (or a tactical squad for that matter) to have different kit for different eventualities, rather than all have "the best" option

b) complained that there weren't enough of "the best" weapon for the entire squad in e.g. a Vanguard box
So GW essentially said "okay, they've all got vanguard weapons/all combi-weapons are equal" as a solution to bridge the gap between gameplay and models. And yeah, it's a solution that doesn't make sense fluffwise and is theoretically less flavourful, but in practice I think it makes for armies that look more flavourful since now at least all vanguard veterans don't have a thunder hammer (or whatever was "the best" wepaon) anymore.

That's a great observation about the player behaviour. Unfortunately things in the game have to work in some way that produces optimal loadouts and weird player behaviours need to be designed around. The only way to avoid this is for players themselves to make non-rational decisions about how to equip their models that reflect the fantasy and aren't intended to optimise for the abstract simulation we play on the tabletop. 

Since I realised this I've been trying to consciously avoid rationality (competitiveness, I guess you could call it) in favour of what I think is cool or evocative, and makes sense in-universe. That's not to say that I don't try to understand games in those terms, which is still useful stuff to know, but after getting kinda burned-out I realised that math-hammer was never the thing I enjoyed about the hobby, it was always the art and the narrative. For that reason I'm actually looking forward to some of the new changes a lot, even though they may make the game situationally unbalanced or create unexpected interactions; those are wrinkles that can always be ironed-out over the table with my opponent. I see a lot of people getting worried about the changes to missions where objectives are likely to be asymmetrical and could radically favour one side over another, but as Buster Scruggs would say "Can't no man compel another man to engage in recreation", so no big deal, we'll just have to negotiate. (or play it that way one time to see how broken it is, then agree not to do that again)

[Interrogator Stobz]

Sorry team, but that's a hard nope.

Conceptually Combi weapons are fantastic.Both in game and real life.

 

Anyone who has carried an underslung m203 or shotgun mount with their rifle will attest to this.

They are a fantastic force multiplier and are 100% suited to smaller elite units who need flexibility.

Exactly like Veteran Squads.

 

If my team could've had a combi plasma or melta I would have armed everyone except the gunners with them.

Edited April 5 by Interrogator Stobz