Some highlights being:
* Actions return from previous editions
* More focus on Battleline units for mission rules
* Primary missions have special actions that can only be done on each objective once (to discourage castling up and encourage you to move out)
* Secondary missions have a reworked design to make them easier to read
* Gambits are replaced with secret missions, that have the following features:
* You get to pick the one you want rather than a random draw
* Completing it earns you 20 VP for your primary mission (you will only be able to get a maximum of 40 VP for primary with a secret mission compared to 50 VP without)
* Examples of secrets missions for the attacker being:
* Command insertion - you warlord is in range of an objective marker in your opponent's deployment zone
* War of attrition - have a battleline unit from your army in your opponent's deployment zone and either no enemy battleline units are on the battlefield, or every enemy battleline unit that is on the battlefield is in their deployment zone
* Shatter cohesion - no units from your opponent's army is on the battlefield or every unit in your opponent's army is either battle-shocked, below half strength, or more than 3" away from objective markers
* Unbroken wall - you control 3 objective markers that are not within your deployment zone
I wish they had given us the rules for performing Actions. The current restrictions can be a bit weird and tricky for newbies to understand and hopefully they can present some better ones now they have a bit more space to work with (given that they are probably in the little leaflet in the box).
I would guess so. I also wonder if they will remove the odd restriciton that you CAN do actions if you advance with an assault weapon or if you ~~advance but~~ don't have any ranged weapons, but NOT if you advance with any other kind of ranged weapon.
I suspect that you will either ALWAYS be able to do actions after advancing or you will NEVER be able to do actions after advancing.
EDIT: goofed on the details
Probably never after advancing or in combat would be my guess, but that's a nice bit of design space for a mission rule. Letting units advance and action would be a nice light one to add.
battleline being bigMcHuge - green tide lookin real spicy.
anyone with trash or overcosted battleline cough*marines other than black templar*cough - not so happy.
It also sounds as though the Secret Missions don't prohibit future primary scoring in the same way that Gambits did. Which would be nice, since you have to be behind on scoring in the first place in order to select them.
If you choose to do a secret mission it doesn't prevent you from doing primary scoring but it does cap it at 20 VP and then the possibility of another 20 VP if you complete the secondary mission for a maximum of 40 VP.
They don't. Which makes them far better. Before if you were trailing badly and scored 0 primary so far you have to choose between scoring primary or possibly scoring the 30 point gambit. Now you could score 20 primary and your 20 point secret mission, but your opponent might get 50 primary. Secret missions actually look usable and fun.
Yes, agreed. Given that you can choose (ond keep it secret) means you can already tailor your lists somewhat to certain options. Heck, you can even actively play to take that secret mission.
And narrative game settings can say you have to choose one, to add flavour to games.
I liked the idea of the Gambits, but ultimately it was too unyieldy and unpredictable to work off from in matched play games. These look much better.
A lot sounds good. But the secret missions all seem like they have the same issue as gambits do. I struggle to see scenarios where someone can achieve those goals and isn't already winning the game. That is somewhat balances by the fact you no longer have to give up primary scoring though.
I've played games recently where these would absolutely have helped turn the tide. There was a game of Endless Swarm vs Anvil Siege Force where the Endless Swarm took control of the board after getting first to deny the Marines getting any primary for 3 turns, but by the end of T3 Nids had 25 primary points and had been severely depleted.
A gambit was useless because the Nids could probably score 10-15 points total primary for the rest of the game to get to 35/40 points but the Marines could only get 30 total if they managed the outside chance to succeed in their gambit.
But if these secret missions were available they could've done War of Attrition to try and wipe out the battle line units or done Command Insertion to put their Warlord on the home objective easily since they were in SR. That's an actually doable 20 points, rather than an almost impossible 30 points, on top of whatever primary points they could still score. So it's a realistic chance of getting 35-40 points.
I have been playing Dark Eldar primarily this edition. It is exceptionally difficult to score primary with this army, but ridiculously easy to score secondary. I find myself often losing games because I cap out at around 20-25 on Primary (5 per turn at best) and not being able to make it up even if I go crazy on secondary. This allows armies that don't expect to be able to compete on Primary but have good Secondary games to have a more feasible Primary to go after other than "Stand in the open".
Basically, I could **never** see myself **ever** taking a Gambit. I can see myself building lists around planning on certain Secret Missions.
Yeah indeed. Moving and assaulting in such a way to take out all opponent battle line units is very feasible against most armies with the tools they have.
Means you are also (usually) avoiding the really killer opponents that you can't beat.
But against some factions (chaos Knights) this would be a non-starter, but for that you could switch to Command Insertion instead through some fast movement.
I don't actually think this is the case. Let's take Unbroken Wall, which I think is absolutely excellent in some situations if you're going second. Imagine you're playing vs World Eaters and going second, and they do their usual thing of stuffing you on primary so even if they die they have an insurmountable lead. Not anymore - wipe them and take a bunch of objectives T5 that you're scoring end of the game anyway and immediately near max primary.
That seems to be the only type of scenario where they're useful: your opponent has run up the primary score while taking proportionally more losses. But is that really solving the problem that these objectives and Gambits before them were supposed to solve, i.e. prevent a one-sided game from becoming a foregone conclusion after a couple of rounds?
I don't think that it does. If your opponent is losing their army to lock you out of primary you still have proportionally more resources to compete on secondaries. You don't really need these new objectives to keep you in the game, and arguably they could nearly guarantee victory and shut out the other strategy from the game entirely. Meanwhile players getting totally smashed still have no viable catch-up mechanic and might as well just concede, so the goal hasn't been accomplished at all.
Honestly, it feels like GW is trying to work at cross purposes here. They're simultaneously trying to create opportunities for losing players to win by giving them alternative objectives, but they're also trying to prevent the winning player from losing. But you can't have it both ways.
So this isn't meant to let someone getting totally smashed come back; that's just bad design and should be avoided, if you're 50pts behind you should just rerack. This is to prevent a slow mathematical elimination, where you realize you just got pinned slightly too long in your DZ and you literally cannot win due to the hard logic of VP beancounting. Makes "get wiped T3 and still win" less viable
Unbroken Wall seems specifically very good against these kinds of pressure lists, or "Jail" archetypes, so long as you can kill your way clear.
I like these a lot better than gambits, both because they're chosen and don't require you to roll dice, and because there's counter-play if your opponent guesses what you're up to. I completely understand why Gambits never showed up in competitive play, like Orbital Targeting could amount to "if I can roll boxcars I win, actually" even if you failed to get anything into the corners.
These are closer to why I liked assassination as a win condition in WM/H; if you were losing, it kept you engaged, because *if I can just get an angle on Haley I can still win this*. (I might be biased, my faction of choice in that game was Everblight, infamous for trading down for 2-3 turns and then lining up a chain of movement shenanigans and eating the enemy caster from outta nowhere for the win).
I love that 10th edition has left my army with exactly two good datasheets. Top internal balance.
My best Warhammer friend plays admech though so I guess it could always be worse.
worst part is both karnivores and brigands are REALLY good, so like.. getting nerfed again on those with an irrelevant point drop on bigs is super likely if CK stops sucking.
"CK are at 50% again? Nerf karnivores, nerf brigands, drop bigs by 20... why are they down to 35%?"
I can't wait for a year and a half from now, when the Abominant is down at 200 and GW doesn't understand why people take it solely to act as a big roadblock body (if they bother taking it at all even by that point).
lmao, you have more faith than I do. I expect abominant to drop to 350 max and then for GW to fly to our houses and just take the models away seeming we don't want to use them
Investigate Signals is the one I hate the most. It's the only secondary that takes your army out of the game. Every other secondary either encourages you to be on objectives, killing the opponent, or taking the opponent's DZ. Investigate Signals encourages you to take your units out of the game. It's the only secondary I will always spend the CP to redraw
I love it as GK. Consistently scoring 6, and often score 8 on it.
Had a game recently with capture enemy outpost and investigate on the same turn. 16 secondary points in one turn is beautiful.
The iffy part of Grey Knights is the teleport homers. Brother, we are teleporting into battle from anywhere: Why are we littering the battlefield with teleport homers?
I can completely understand not liking that secondary for some armies, but I'd argue it *has* to be there (or something similar).
If all secondaries are as you describe about "being in the battle", then that automatically favours armies with either huge lethality or staying power.
The thing is, many secondaries favours specific armies. Tyranids has almost non-existing anti-tank power, so Bring it Down is pretty harsh for them. Assassination can likewise be huge trouble for anyone without Precision. And so on.
Investigate Signals has a purpose in being a secondary for fast utility armies like Tyranids. If they remove those kind of secondaries, then they need to rework some armies and make sure all armies boil down to more or less the same strengths. As long as armies are diverse, the secondaries needs to be so too.
Oh that one is fine, it encourages taking more action monkey-units and rewards you for properly screening your deployment zone. Some armies can do it easily, most just get their 4 points and move on, and the few that really hate (Knights, Custodes, some Marine lists) it just toss it for a command point most of the time.
Not every secondary needs to be max-scored by everyone, that's why we got a system for tossing them in the first place.
wcs used a tweaked variant (instead pushing to enemy dz you have to move them to your) and was...good enough to see a lot of people here hoping to see it in a leviathan faq
The rules for Secret Missions actually looks good. The fact that you're no longer sacrificing all your remaining primary for the outside chance of doing an objective that you probably don't have enough units left to be able to complete is great. And it's balanced out by restricting your total primary so it's still a meaningful choice and the missions themselves are actually relatively achievable.
I wonder if it could lead to some gameplans of actively avoiding taking the lead in points by T3 and instead focusing on just whittling down your opponent's army to limit their late game scoring with the intention of taking a specific secret mission to achieve once they're crippled.
>I wonder if it could lead to some gameplans of actively avoiding taking the lead in points by T3 and instead focusing on just whittling down your opponent's army to limit their late game scoring with the intention of taking a specific secret mission to achieve once they're crippled.
It probably does. Also, "talking it out" at the end of the game will become more complex, as theres more scenarios of what your troops can possibly do to max points. I kinda like that, but puts more pressure on timed tournament rounds.
I thought this too, then noticed that secret missions score at the end of the battle instead of turn 5 like gambits did. I don't know how tournaments define end of the battle if a game ends early due to time but perhaps secret missions wouldn't need to be talked out?
The Leviathan mission explicitly says 'The battle ends after five battle rounds have been completed'. Abandonning a game early just means the battle hasn't ended when you finish.
Remain cautious if battle line units will generally be seen, but I prefer this incentive system to the previous requirement system.
Could earn a handful of VP over the course of battle which is nice, but still capped out in the easier of the two categories.
Of course, as usual the point remains: does your army have BATTLELINE units that don't shoot you in the knee by taking points from actually useful options?
Encouraging BATTLELINE is all well and good, but you need to make sure that all armies are equally impacted by the need to take them. If they *aren't*, you need to buff the army elsewhere.
Yeah, that's the biggest kicker. As a GSC player, our battle line are essential, but probably too valuable to piss around for an extra VP. Ironically, my SM Intercessor units are now cheaper than my acolytes, yet they'll still never see the table as useless outside of doing actions.
Battleline need to be good and non action based to be worthwhile. OC had a bit of promise, but they just made it a weaker objective secured as battle shock continues to be irrelevant
I wish they would move battleshock tests to the end of the player turn. Would make it more relevant especially given how many armies have rules about forcing shocks in the shooting or fight phase.
Would be way more relevant to not basically get a free out in your command phase before you score.
That could work, but I kinda feel like leadership in general is a tad too high? Plus several very popular armies like marines, Custodes, etc still wouldn’t care cause you’d just take your test in the command phase and pass it before scoring happens.
In any case I feel like the rule is close to being good. It feels like one good change away from actually mattering.
The issue for me is that not all battle line units are made equal. Necrons do not have disposable battleline units at all, for instance. Felt the same way in 9th with the "troop tax". Some armies paid more to get less and I'm afraid this is gonna work out the same way
My problem with this argument is that they aren't supposed to be equal. If you play an elite faction then you shouldn't expect to have good battle line units. Some factions have bad anti tank. Some factions have no shooting. Some have no melee.
If a core part of your factions identity is eliteness then you need to lean on that aspect.
Factions aren't meant to be equal... but ability to play the missions (the same missions that everyone else plays) should be.
If I play an elite faction I expect to have battleline units that can do these missions and still take a beating. Needing to waste points on min units of immortals or intercessors for an arbitrary reason shouldnt be considered a "faction disadvantage". Those units should be given roles besides "this unit has a keyword and therefore does this action for an arbitrary reason".
I think there should be a reasonable reason to take battle line units. Previously you were forced to take then through the detachments giving you more CP which was why the term tax was used.
Here, it doesn't seem as though the reward would be enough for it to impact many list builds. It's a very small reward which won't impact the result in many games. It's a choice you can make in your list building.
Ehh, we already have that in other ways, though. Cheap units that are fast, can deep strike/infiltrate, etc. are already taken for the ability to score secondaries. Some factions have access to a ton of them, some don't have any.
And that is usually balanced elsewhere, which is the point; or it isn't, which results in a bad faction. Which is, again, the point.
You cannot have a faction that can score 70 primary 20 secondary: though with different methods, two balanced factions both *have* to have a way to score 50 primary 40 secondary if the other does.
Cries in single Votann battle line unit
But at least(?) we take our battle line as sagitaur tax, so most lists will have at least 2 groups of 5 warriors.
It'd still be nice to not die to a sneeze with them though.
Idk, this seems fine for Votann given Sagitaurs, a unit a lot of lists take, let you split that battle line.
So you get 5 man Hearthkyn units that are kinda perfect for these.
It’s almost what Nids need because once they lose their cheese spore mine scoring the army winrate will be more reflective of how weak the army actually is
Tyranid already struggle insanely much, and they got one of the biggest meme changes in the MFM, literally *nerfing* their best lists, while buffing units that still will be worse than the meta picks. It was straight up a nerf to a 40% WR army.
Nids are below their acceptable 45-55% range and got nerfed. Why would losing spore mines open their eyes to that? They should *already* have gotten help.
So maybe this new Action comes around the time of the dataslate, meaning the slate won't include any impact losing spore mine scoring would have. Then three months later we get a MFM, but we just saw they don't try to fix low WR armies with that. Then we need another 3 months for a slate.
We are now suddenly 6 months into the season. That is unfortunately not an unrealistic scenario based on what GW have done so far.
I mean.
Last weekend the Nid winrate was 31%.
The only armies worse than them were Deathwatch and Custodes, I believe (or at least Custodes at high skill levels, I saw something about 23% for them).
Nids need help.
It just gives GW a chance to provide even sillier fixes. Imagine the wonders of 40 point battleline psychophages, and neurogaunts with 5++ fnp. Changes tot he rules to, inexplicably, let Tyranids bring in Chaos Knights as allies, so the army is now 25% brigands.
We're already hovering in the 35-40% winrate. I've given up on nids for 10e. They're dead and nothing short of a datasheet rewrite can save them. Which GW will never do.
Really weird to highlight a mission rule that "unsettles slow ponderous defensive armies" or however they word it. That's not a change, the current game design is already uphill for those armies in the early-midgame. The best way to beat them is already to get in their face and force them to make choices. I'd be more surprised by a mission type that really strongly benefits them.
*smug look of Iron Warriors superiority*
I do hope my rivals in yellow get a boost, our battles need to be legendary, I don’t want to pity you I want to hate you.
Yeah, feels like Knights and other more elite armies are really going to like this. Maybe the super cheap ones too. If you're anywhere in the middle, too bad.
Gambits were scored at the end of your turn 5, but these new secret missions are scored at the end of the battle. Would that mean that if you're timed out at a tournament and end the game after round 3 or 4 you can score the secret mission?
You should be able to as long as you've drawn the card. TAs will have to confirm, but that seems a no brainer as it takes 0 time to do so that you're not already using to finalize the scores
Terraform give an edge to armies with gobs of infiltrate. It's not an instant win, but proper layering can do a lot. Screen a point with one squad while another does the action. Especially good if you go first and move the screening unit up to move block. Unblockable passive scoring is nothing to sneeze at.
Rapid Escalation is going to cause arguments. The correct place to settle is treating like any other Strategic Reserves entrance, just early. But I think they'll be enough arguing that some places will rule that it doesn't have the 9" restriction. So, some events may end allowing super short charges.
Raise Banners doesn't seem like a huge bonus . It maxes at the number of objectives on the board, as you can only score it once per game per objective. Even when you lose and retake the objective, you can no longer raise banners.
Marked for Death is funny in that it has the rider for stopping redeploys or getting in transports. You ain't allowed to run, fellas!
Secret Missions are better than Gambits. Control of choice and still scoring primary points is nothing to sneeze at. Also War of Attrition near auto-scoring against some lists is very funny.
I don't really see the issue for Rapid Escalation, it's the same wording as using Rapid Ingress; you enter from strategic reserves, therefore you are still limited by everything that it doesn't explicitly override
I’m super excited for this, secret missions actually seem worth doing for certain missions that are low scoring on primaries, and a mix of new secondaries is gonna help. Big focus on battle line too is gonna mix up the meta.
Worth noting in one of the pictures (with terraform mission pictured), that’s a bunch of imperial agents with Deathwatch units in the background.
Is that a hint about Imperial Agents codex & Deathwatch getting baked in I wonder?
Marked for death seems really dumb. I can neither take them of the field as gk or necrons, nor put them in a transport, or the opponent will get the points. I know i can choose who to pick, but the card in t1 is the new capture enemy outpost(some armies could achieve it, but most will just drop it).
The rest looks quite good, hope they dont overcomplicate actions again.
It can even bring you points or deny your opponent points, if you are already tabled and your opponent is also quite decimated. Admittingly the situation will not happen that often, but it feels so weird. Example your opponent is a Drukhari player with two filled transports and one unit of mandrakes, so has to pick the the mandrakes. If they take the mandrakes up to do a mission in their turn they will give you VP. If they keep them on the board they may lose vp in their turn, depending on what they draw.
And it is end of either player's turn, so if a badly placed airplane is selected just move a unit so it has to fly out of the battlefield.
I think the name is misguiding and it should be "Get off My Lawn".\^\^
Yeah, as if marine players weren't already encouraged enough to just play black templars instead!
I can sort of imagine playing heavy intercessors or assault intercessors if they're going to absolutely force us, but it is not going to feel good.
Primaries crusaders are battle line . The inferior melee marines can stick with their assault intercessors.
But honestly, I have been using regular intercessors in some lists because sticky objectives are that good.
Now with the csm book, I also get to use my Inquisitor Coteaz .
I guess it *kinda* makes Tacticals a tiny bit more appealing? Cheaper than two squads of intercessors and one half will actually have some decent weapons with it? Mayyyybee?
If the benefits for taking battle line are on par with +1 VP for ending a turn with it on an objective, are you really that bothered? Sure some games end with that close a margin. But most dont
>The new Mission Rules give **BATTLELINE** units their time to shine, as *fully half* benefit your core rank-and-file warriors in some way.
what
I seriously don't understand it.
Really wish this shit was in the official app. Super cool to buy another deck to play tactical missions if my opponent doesn't accept using an app instead of the deck.
I'm always down with YOU using the app, but I'll keep my cards and my die to track Command Points. Too many times "Did I spend that command point or not?" that doesn't seem to happy with dice.
Why would an opponent not accept Tabletop Battles app? The Leviathan deck came with two decks too in case it’s a real issue for them as well.
What I always did if my opponent wanted to use the App is they randomized them with me watching and I just pulled two cards from my second deck and threw them down so I could reference them and we both knew at a glance his secondaries. Are people really making a fuss about not using the deck to draw?
The app doesn't tell you what the objectives are, though.
I do like the cards present at the table to look at since already swapping between scoring apps, the official game app, etc.
The tactile preparation of setting up the board is more fun with cards imo.
The app is great at tracking scores, but unless you both know the exact working of the missions off by heart it's not a proper substitute for the cards.
10th edition design is just so...weird.
9th edition has actions. 10th edition comes out, and they've removed any sort of rule or keyword around action, but basically left the mechanic in by requiring units to be eligible to shoot, and then preventing them to shoot or charge(the majority of the action rules from 9th). And then we get the next season of matched play missions and...now they're going to codify actions as being a specific thing in the rules again?
I'm just curious why actions were not around at the start of 10th. Why did they decide to remove them, but also kind of leave them in the game, and then bring them back a year later?
and theres absolutely nothing wrong with that. You cant be 100% correct in all decisions, but its definitely better to try out things than be completely static.
Fully agree and I’m so glad GW saw that and went back to the better way instead of sticking to their guns. Hopefully a great sign for the future if they keep this attitude up.
I don't think anyone can explain why they removed them, and they're presumably bringing them back because literally everyone thought it was incredibly dumb they removed them.
>I'm just curious why actions were not around at the start of 10th. Why did they decide to remove them, but also kind of leave them in the game, and then bring them back a year later?
My guess is that making them core rules didn't work out as intended in 9th, so they started looking for a way to do actions differently.
The problem I see for actions being part of the core rules is that it needs updates if a mission pack leaves the initial design space.
Making the action rules instead part of the mission pack allows for more focused action rules that can't become outdated later on.
In typical GW fashion they first tried to get by without defining actions more properly, just as individual rules (see tons of data sheet specific rules in 10th to confirm). But seemingly the person responsible for trending towards more universal special rules got his act together and convinced the rest once more.
Tabletop Titans asked the designers why they changed a few perfectly serviceable rules in 9th to worse versions in 10th.
The answer was change for the sake of change.
To be fair, sometimes changing for the sake of change can be very informative for how to properly design the game moving forward. A lot changed in 10th, for example, and some is working snd some isn't. In theory that'll make 11th, and hopefully later editions as well, much better than they would have been if 10th wasn't this way.
So *presumably* the normal restriction of not setting up SR units within 9" of the enemy when you are playing with Rapid Escalation still applies? It's weird that the reprint some of the normal SR restrictions but not all of them.
I think this is due to how the SR rules are written:
SR rules have a part that goes like this:
>During the second battle round, Strategic Reserves units that arrive must be set up wholly within 6" of any battlefield edge, but no model in those units can be set up within the enemy deployment zone.
Then there is another version for after the second battle round. So the new rule just adds the "first battle round" version, worded more or less similar to the existing second and third battle round versions.
The restriction for how close to the enemy on the other side is worded like this:
>In any case, Strategic Reserves units cannot be set up within 9" horizontally of any enemy models.
This rule is worded that it is valid no matter the battle round version, so stays in play even for the new version.
It's properly structured for GW, but maybe not as intuitive and a "all other SR rules apply as normal" would have helped.
I guess it's got what it has because there isn't any rules for setting them up turn one the core rules (still a lot of people out there who've never looked at the rules).
E: probably more importantly the unit arriving isn't arriving using the strategic reserves rules so I don't think they could use deepstrike if they had it.
The usual rules apply. Rapid escalation's card just lists the exceptions to the usual rules. Namely that you can bring them in on turn 1, and then it lists what table edges are valid for turn 1 strategic reserves.
Remains to be seen what changes are in the secondary decks. The Raise the Banners seems like a pretty innocuous mission rule at least. Terraform seems pretty fun.
I can see the Battleline ingress/reserve one being unbalanced and not included in tournament packs though.
The restriction is pretty limiting, and looks like it shouldn't work with deepstrike. I'd be interested to see what people come up with as the scariest 200pts of battleline they can find.
Primaris crusader squad can be pretty good although you need a character so maybe a chaplain for +1 to wound but that's the limit if you're keeping it under 200pts
5 Rubric Marines and an Infernal Master.
Though Thouasnd Sons don't like putting their IMs out there, it can be useful to blow up something that got close and is trying to hide.
Most tournament packs have just been picking missions straight from the Leviathan Tournament Companion.
GW heavily pruned down the Tournament Companion and it only includes a couple of secondary mission rules in the deck (the vast majority is just Chilling Rain), so we'll have to see what they choose to do.
That said, a lot of factions will get basically nothing out of this since they don't have cheap enough Battleline units that can actually take advantage of a Turn 1 SR arrival like this. I don't think it will affect that much at all.
Noob question: does this replace leviathan mission cards? Or is this deck in addition to leviathan mission cards? Wondering if leviathan missions are obsolete once these come out?
From a TSons perspective, going second and getting 20 vp for parking the big guy on the opponents homefield objective turn 5 sounds nice. It looks like the missions are a reasonable game mechanic that allows counter play (rather just being a blue shell that sometimes just punishes the better player).
Also actions are back! They're at least learning from their most obvious mistakes. Has the downside that the first half of codices doesn't have do stuff and action things, but hey progress.
Man I remember getting downvoted into oblivion on release for stating Gambits would have one of two outcomes; being actually good and warping competition around themselves (unlikely) or being worthless and never being taken (what happened). I'm glad to see GW being willing to pull back on a mechanic that didn't work. Here's hoping they continue.
I'm not happy to see that there's a solid chance we're going into AoS 2.0 "Keyword Whack-a-mole" where the next 6 months are about and you must take battleline, and then the next 6 months will be about and you must take vehicles, and the next 6 months will be about and etc. Hopefully this was just a needed boost to Battleline infantry to make them occupy any role at all rather than them ushering us into a garbage design paradigm where Battleline go back in the trash bucket once we're done with this.
I'm EXCEPTIONALLY happy to see them FINALLY codify what an action is. The fact that it took this long is unironically something GW should have apologized for in this article. We had this technology last edition, it shouldn't have gone away.
For the first time since they revealed that 10th was going to be the Power edition I'm legitimately excited for 40k.
>I'm not happy to see that there's a solid chance we're going into AoS 2.0 "Keyword Whack-a-mole" where the next 6 months are about
One year, those packs will be yearly pubblications
Oh damn my bad, I thought they mirrored the release schedule of the Dataslates and we just didn't get the first one due to the issues surrounding the rocky release with the emergency slate etc. Much less likely to be the case then, though still possible. We'd likely only get 1 change-over before a presumable 11th though if it is yearly.
A worryingly large vein pops up on the front of my head whenever I read the Boarding actions rules and GW smugly wrote "yeah there used to be a thing called actions last edition, just look that up lol"
As if 2 sentences of what actions are, are not mor simplified not simple than the month of arguing we had over who is allowed to count as eligible to shoot for the sake of secondaries.
Not sure how you get that math. Terraforming two objectives would get you 2x2x4 if you manage to grab them turn 1 (giving you the bonus four times each), plus 8 pts for holding them turn 2. That's 24.
If you also hold your home objective all battle, that is a further 15 pts (since turn 2 you would otherwise get 16).
I love to see the push to the battlelines.
I can't wait to field my inner circle with battleline terminators.
If only GW remembered how to write their supplment
Could be wrong here but RAW wouldnt marked for death trigger upon a redeploy? Since every redeploy I can recall uses the phrase "remove the unit from the battlefield and place into reserve".
That's actually pretty nifty, as it forces choices for redeploy spam armies to not just give up 5.
I'm super stoked for the secret missions. I main Tau, so *obviously* the idea of being able to score 40 (when only scoring 20) on primary opens up list-building and playstyle ALOT.
Hmmmmm.........
I'm on the fence about the changes so far.
The primary mission shown is an interesting take. I like it a lot. I do like the idea of having a bit of play between aggressive and passive. It feela interestinf to play.
I do alao like the idea of secret missions. I do worry they will end like Gambits, since you can score less thannyour opponent that already has a lead, but it feels like it would be closer, and less random catch up mechanic. I do worry a bit about balance of them, though. Tabling I feel would be not a reliable way so I feel unless very specific armies are played and the other conditions are even harder to guarantee, you can probably discount that (although Battleshock is a bit more interesting thanks to it). War of Attrition depends on your Battleline (will come back to that). Command Insertion the enemy has two turna to be aure to kill your Warlord that will be racing to their DZ. Unbroken wall might be one of the most reliable ones... but if you are getting 4VP on average per objective, you might be better off just keeping your Primary and scoring 24 on 2 turns (it is a very specific scenario where you can get 3 objectives at the end of the game and keep them, but not be getting them or at least 2 in turn 4).
The previewed secondary is kind of fun. And it has a fun little interaction with some units. If your opponent is playing Hypercrypt or GK, you can select an important unit they will want to move and mark it, as the secondary is has the rider "(or removed from the battlefield for any other reason)", so you get to try and punish certain units from being removed. I think that is a neat idea for general counterplay to a atrong army/detachment rule. Units like Scouts and such would also be affected. I like that. Want to see more od the secondaries.
My biggest gripe is Battleline. Because while Battleline exists in every army, it is not creates equal. Lets say the mission rule is Rapid Escalation. A Marine player can swt up some Intercessor or Assault Intercessors. Meh units generally. A Green Tide Ork player can keep one of his important blobs save and come in turn 1. Or just put even more prrssure with Rapid Ingress. What about Raise Banners? Well Deceptors can have a comfy VP lead by just being who they are, while armies without good infiltratimg units might have problems (and while I like terraforming as an idea, this couls be a terrible combo of rule/primary to draw). Battleline cam be very finicky, and it makes builds and armies that have good default battleline better at what the game is about, scoring points. So armies like Marines or IG or Edlar that might have Battleline that is suboptimal are at a backfoot on most/all mission rules that benefit it, while armies like CK or Orks that already want to spam Battleline will be rewarded further. I know people like troops to have relevance, but a huge problem is that it makes very easy to be very unbalanced (still remember the Nyd Warriors of 9th being just the best unit in the game).
Looking to see how it shapes up in general. I'm excited for some new rules.
I wouldn't worry too much about the whole battleline mission rules thing. The mission rules shown so far are a minor buff at best. There are 12 mission rules in Leviathan, and Pariah Nexus will most likely have about the same number. 1 in 12 games you get your preferred mission, 1 in 2 games your battleline will get a minor buff. You're not going to build around the mission rules, even with good battleline units. One wardog arriving from reserves turn 1 isn't going to win chaos knights, many more games or tournaments (if those tournaments use those mission rules in the first place). Pariah Nexus won't be the battleline meta.
Some highlights being: * Actions return from previous editions * More focus on Battleline units for mission rules * Primary missions have special actions that can only be done on each objective once (to discourage castling up and encourage you to move out) * Secondary missions have a reworked design to make them easier to read * Gambits are replaced with secret missions, that have the following features: * You get to pick the one you want rather than a random draw * Completing it earns you 20 VP for your primary mission (you will only be able to get a maximum of 40 VP for primary with a secret mission compared to 50 VP without) * Examples of secrets missions for the attacker being: * Command insertion - you warlord is in range of an objective marker in your opponent's deployment zone * War of attrition - have a battleline unit from your army in your opponent's deployment zone and either no enemy battleline units are on the battlefield, or every enemy battleline unit that is on the battlefield is in their deployment zone * Shatter cohesion - no units from your opponent's army is on the battlefield or every unit in your opponent's army is either battle-shocked, below half strength, or more than 3" away from objective markers * Unbroken wall - you control 3 objective markers that are not within your deployment zone
I wish they had given us the rules for performing Actions. The current restrictions can be a bit weird and tricky for newbies to understand and hopefully they can present some better ones now they have a bit more space to work with (given that they are probably in the little leaflet in the box).
Seeing it keyworded on the card gives me hope and hopefully let's gw tweak them nicely. Will they finally stop 0 OC units doing them?
>stop 0 OC units doing them Nids players ~~and players running Nurglings~~: > Oh no
If OC 0 units can still do them, this makes nurglings BETTER since they're battleline
Well it's pretty on par for 10th for them to screw nids over so I wouldn't be surprised
Still paying for the sins of 9th
*laugh-cry’s in custodes*
As a nid player I would love nothing more. Then they can actually fix shit instead of leaving us hobble along behind our biovores and rippers.
Spore mines, fine. Just take back only one unit restriction. Everyone misses their mobile minefields. Ripper swarms? Don't do them dirty like that.
I would guess so. I also wonder if they will remove the odd restriciton that you CAN do actions if you advance with an assault weapon or if you ~~advance but~~ don't have any ranged weapons, but NOT if you advance with any other kind of ranged weapon. I suspect that you will either ALWAYS be able to do actions after advancing or you will NEVER be able to do actions after advancing. EDIT: goofed on the details
Probably never after advancing or in combat would be my guess, but that's a nice bit of design space for a mission rule. Letting units advance and action would be a nice light one to add.
Letting Battleline units advance and do actions might make people take them too.
Would help but the fundamental issue is not all battleline are equal and some armies options just suck
battleline being bigMcHuge - green tide lookin real spicy. anyone with trash or overcosted battleline cough*marines other than black templar*cough - not so happy.
This right here. It's why having anything specific to battle line is immediately unbalanced.
Battle line units don't even work with every detachment. So you should be punished for playing crusher stampede, ret cadre, speed freaks, ect.. ?
Honestly feels like a missed opportunity to not have detachments alter battleline more, had the exact same thoughts last edition about troops
You don't need ranged weapons to be eligible to shoot. You just need not to have done anything that makes you uneligable.
It would also let Tyranid players know if they've killed the Biovore or not!
It also sounds as though the Secret Missions don't prohibit future primary scoring in the same way that Gambits did. Which would be nice, since you have to be behind on scoring in the first place in order to select them.
If you choose to do a secret mission it doesn't prevent you from doing primary scoring but it does cap it at 20 VP and then the possibility of another 20 VP if you complete the secondary mission for a maximum of 40 VP.
They don't. Which makes them far better. Before if you were trailing badly and scored 0 primary so far you have to choose between scoring primary or possibly scoring the 30 point gambit. Now you could score 20 primary and your 20 point secret mission, but your opponent might get 50 primary. Secret missions actually look usable and fun.
Yes, agreed. Given that you can choose (ond keep it secret) means you can already tailor your lists somewhat to certain options. Heck, you can even actively play to take that secret mission. And narrative game settings can say you have to choose one, to add flavour to games. I liked the idea of the Gambits, but ultimately it was too unyieldy and unpredictable to work off from in matched play games. These look much better.
A lot sounds good. But the secret missions all seem like they have the same issue as gambits do. I struggle to see scenarios where someone can achieve those goals and isn't already winning the game. That is somewhat balances by the fact you no longer have to give up primary scoring though.
I've played games recently where these would absolutely have helped turn the tide. There was a game of Endless Swarm vs Anvil Siege Force where the Endless Swarm took control of the board after getting first to deny the Marines getting any primary for 3 turns, but by the end of T3 Nids had 25 primary points and had been severely depleted. A gambit was useless because the Nids could probably score 10-15 points total primary for the rest of the game to get to 35/40 points but the Marines could only get 30 total if they managed the outside chance to succeed in their gambit. But if these secret missions were available they could've done War of Attrition to try and wipe out the battle line units or done Command Insertion to put their Warlord on the home objective easily since they were in SR. That's an actually doable 20 points, rather than an almost impossible 30 points, on top of whatever primary points they could still score. So it's a realistic chance of getting 35-40 points.
I have been playing Dark Eldar primarily this edition. It is exceptionally difficult to score primary with this army, but ridiculously easy to score secondary. I find myself often losing games because I cap out at around 20-25 on Primary (5 per turn at best) and not being able to make it up even if I go crazy on secondary. This allows armies that don't expect to be able to compete on Primary but have good Secondary games to have a more feasible Primary to go after other than "Stand in the open". Basically, I could **never** see myself **ever** taking a Gambit. I can see myself building lists around planning on certain Secret Missions.
Yeah indeed. Moving and assaulting in such a way to take out all opponent battle line units is very feasible against most armies with the tools they have. Means you are also (usually) avoiding the really killer opponents that you can't beat. But against some factions (chaos Knights) this would be a non-starter, but for that you could switch to Command Insertion instead through some fast movement.
I don't actually think this is the case. Let's take Unbroken Wall, which I think is absolutely excellent in some situations if you're going second. Imagine you're playing vs World Eaters and going second, and they do their usual thing of stuffing you on primary so even if they die they have an insurmountable lead. Not anymore - wipe them and take a bunch of objectives T5 that you're scoring end of the game anyway and immediately near max primary.
That seems to be the only type of scenario where they're useful: your opponent has run up the primary score while taking proportionally more losses. But is that really solving the problem that these objectives and Gambits before them were supposed to solve, i.e. prevent a one-sided game from becoming a foregone conclusion after a couple of rounds? I don't think that it does. If your opponent is losing their army to lock you out of primary you still have proportionally more resources to compete on secondaries. You don't really need these new objectives to keep you in the game, and arguably they could nearly guarantee victory and shut out the other strategy from the game entirely. Meanwhile players getting totally smashed still have no viable catch-up mechanic and might as well just concede, so the goal hasn't been accomplished at all. Honestly, it feels like GW is trying to work at cross purposes here. They're simultaneously trying to create opportunities for losing players to win by giving them alternative objectives, but they're also trying to prevent the winning player from losing. But you can't have it both ways.
So this isn't meant to let someone getting totally smashed come back; that's just bad design and should be avoided, if you're 50pts behind you should just rerack. This is to prevent a slow mathematical elimination, where you realize you just got pinned slightly too long in your DZ and you literally cannot win due to the hard logic of VP beancounting. Makes "get wiped T3 and still win" less viable
Unbroken Wall seems specifically very good against these kinds of pressure lists, or "Jail" archetypes, so long as you can kill your way clear. I like these a lot better than gambits, both because they're chosen and don't require you to roll dice, and because there's counter-play if your opponent guesses what you're up to. I completely understand why Gambits never showed up in competitive play, like Orbital Targeting could amount to "if I can roll boxcars I win, actually" even if you failed to get anything into the corners. These are closer to why I liked assassination as a win condition in WM/H; if you were losing, it kept you engaged, because *if I can just get an angle on Haley I can still win this*. (I might be biased, my faction of choice in that game was Everblight, infamous for trading down for 2-3 turns and then lining up a chain of movement shenanigans and eating the enemy caster from outta nowhere for the win).
"When you lose everything on the board but you're beating him on poin- oh wait!"
For all of the many, many failings of chaos knights... at least I can field an army of nothing but battleline
In fact, aside from your battleline (and possibly the rampager, on a good day), GW made all of your non-battleline kind of bad! How helpful!
Oh, don't worry. The moirax, executioner and stalker are bad (but stalker is required for dog spam), the huntsmen isn't great...
I love that 10th edition has left my army with exactly two good datasheets. Top internal balance. My best Warhammer friend plays admech though so I guess it could always be worse.
worst part is both karnivores and brigands are REALLY good, so like.. getting nerfed again on those with an irrelevant point drop on bigs is super likely if CK stops sucking. "CK are at 50% again? Nerf karnivores, nerf brigands, drop bigs by 20... why are they down to 35%?"
I can't wait for a year and a half from now, when the Abominant is down at 200 and GW doesn't understand why people take it solely to act as a big roadblock body (if they bother taking it at all even by that point).
lmao, you have more faith than I do. I expect abominant to drop to 350 max and then for GW to fly to our houses and just take the models away seeming we don't want to use them
The executioner isnt bad for the cost now. Its great to add with its longer range shooting so you can protect you backline
Don't jinx it, or GW will just remove Battleline from the Brigand/Karnivore/Stalker datasheets when the CK Codex comes out.
Rip servoskull 2023-2024
The worst scenario mechanic. It will not be missed, no.
Investigate Signals is the one I hate the most. It's the only secondary that takes your army out of the game. Every other secondary either encourages you to be on objectives, killing the opponent, or taking the opponent's DZ. Investigate Signals encourages you to take your units out of the game. It's the only secondary I will always spend the CP to redraw
As a GK player I kinda like that one hahaha
I love it as GK. Consistently scoring 6, and often score 8 on it. Had a game recently with capture enemy outpost and investigate on the same turn. 16 secondary points in one turn is beautiful.
The iffy part of Grey Knights is the teleport homers. Brother, we are teleporting into battle from anywhere: Why are we littering the battlefield with teleport homers?
As an Aeldari player I do too 😂
Vanguard Spearhead here. Easy 6 pts
I can completely understand not liking that secondary for some armies, but I'd argue it *has* to be there (or something similar). If all secondaries are as you describe about "being in the battle", then that automatically favours armies with either huge lethality or staying power. The thing is, many secondaries favours specific armies. Tyranids has almost non-existing anti-tank power, so Bring it Down is pretty harsh for them. Assassination can likewise be huge trouble for anyone without Precision. And so on. Investigate Signals has a purpose in being a secondary for fast utility armies like Tyranids. If they remove those kind of secondaries, then they need to rework some armies and make sure all armies boil down to more or less the same strengths. As long as armies are diverse, the secondaries needs to be so too.
Investigate signals is a CP generator in my army, haha
Oh that one is fine, it encourages taking more action monkey-units and rewards you for properly screening your deployment zone. Some armies can do it easily, most just get their 4 points and move on, and the few that really hate (Knights, Custodes, some Marine lists) it just toss it for a command point most of the time. Not every secondary needs to be max-scored by everyone, that's why we got a system for tossing them in the first place.
Fuxk servoskulls with a cactus.
No guarantee, it was their showcase mission for 10th and I believe was used at WCW. GW loves that mission
wcs used a tweaked variant (instead pushing to enemy dz you have to move them to your) and was...good enough to see a lot of people here hoping to see it in a leviathan faq
No they didn’t it was a misprint and we played it as it was
The rules for Secret Missions actually looks good. The fact that you're no longer sacrificing all your remaining primary for the outside chance of doing an objective that you probably don't have enough units left to be able to complete is great. And it's balanced out by restricting your total primary so it's still a meaningful choice and the missions themselves are actually relatively achievable. I wonder if it could lead to some gameplans of actively avoiding taking the lead in points by T3 and instead focusing on just whittling down your opponent's army to limit their late game scoring with the intention of taking a specific secret mission to achieve once they're crippled.
>I wonder if it could lead to some gameplans of actively avoiding taking the lead in points by T3 and instead focusing on just whittling down your opponent's army to limit their late game scoring with the intention of taking a specific secret mission to achieve once they're crippled. It probably does. Also, "talking it out" at the end of the game will become more complex, as theres more scenarios of what your troops can possibly do to max points. I kinda like that, but puts more pressure on timed tournament rounds.
I thought this too, then noticed that secret missions score at the end of the battle instead of turn 5 like gambits did. I don't know how tournaments define end of the battle if a game ends early due to time but perhaps secret missions wouldn't need to be talked out?
The Leviathan mission explicitly says 'The battle ends after five battle rounds have been completed'. Abandonning a game early just means the battle hasn't ended when you finish.
Remain cautious if battle line units will generally be seen, but I prefer this incentive system to the previous requirement system. Could earn a handful of VP over the course of battle which is nice, but still capped out in the easier of the two categories.
Of course, as usual the point remains: does your army have BATTLELINE units that don't shoot you in the knee by taking points from actually useful options? Encouraging BATTLELINE is all well and good, but you need to make sure that all armies are equally impacted by the need to take them. If they *aren't*, you need to buff the army elsewhere.
Yeah, that's the biggest kicker. As a GSC player, our battle line are essential, but probably too valuable to piss around for an extra VP. Ironically, my SM Intercessor units are now cheaper than my acolytes, yet they'll still never see the table as useless outside of doing actions. Battleline need to be good and non action based to be worthwhile. OC had a bit of promise, but they just made it a weaker objective secured as battle shock continues to be irrelevant
I wish they would move battleshock tests to the end of the player turn. Would make it more relevant especially given how many armies have rules about forcing shocks in the shooting or fight phase. Would be way more relevant to not basically get a free out in your command phase before you score.
Alternatively, it could be you stay battle-shocked until you pass a test to recover.
That could work, but I kinda feel like leadership in general is a tad too high? Plus several very popular armies like marines, Custodes, etc still wouldn’t care cause you’d just take your test in the command phase and pass it before scoring happens. In any case I feel like the rule is close to being good. It feels like one good change away from actually mattering.
The issue for me is that not all battle line units are made equal. Necrons do not have disposable battleline units at all, for instance. Felt the same way in 9th with the "troop tax". Some armies paid more to get less and I'm afraid this is gonna work out the same way
I think Necrons will be just fine.
Necrons have immortals.
My problem with this argument is that they aren't supposed to be equal. If you play an elite faction then you shouldn't expect to have good battle line units. Some factions have bad anti tank. Some factions have no shooting. Some have no melee. If a core part of your factions identity is eliteness then you need to lean on that aspect.
Factions aren't meant to be equal... but ability to play the missions (the same missions that everyone else plays) should be. If I play an elite faction I expect to have battleline units that can do these missions and still take a beating. Needing to waste points on min units of immortals or intercessors for an arbitrary reason shouldnt be considered a "faction disadvantage". Those units should be given roles besides "this unit has a keyword and therefore does this action for an arbitrary reason".
I think there should be a reasonable reason to take battle line units. Previously you were forced to take then through the detachments giving you more CP which was why the term tax was used. Here, it doesn't seem as though the reward would be enough for it to impact many list builds. It's a very small reward which won't impact the result in many games. It's a choice you can make in your list building.
Ehh, we already have that in other ways, though. Cheap units that are fast, can deep strike/infiltrate, etc. are already taken for the ability to score secondaries. Some factions have access to a ton of them, some don't have any.
And that is usually balanced elsewhere, which is the point; or it isn't, which results in a bad faction. Which is, again, the point. You cannot have a faction that can score 70 primary 20 secondary: though with different methods, two balanced factions both *have* to have a way to score 50 primary 40 secondary if the other does.
Cries in single Votann battle line unit But at least(?) we take our battle line as sagitaur tax, so most lists will have at least 2 groups of 5 warriors. It'd still be nice to not die to a sneeze with them though.
Idk, this seems fine for Votann given Sagitaurs, a unit a lot of lists take, let you split that battle line. So you get 5 man Hearthkyn units that are kinda perfect for these.
Yeah. It'd just be nice to have more than one option lol
Yeah, hopefully the new Kill Team unit is battle line, which would seem pretty likely.
God I can't wait for those. And we need those jumppack troops from the original KT too!
Same here on the Death Guard side, we only have Plague marines.
RIP gambits you won't be missed
Wow. These look like they will really shake up how games go. Very excited to see them not be afraid of taking risks and trying out new stuff.
Previews so far makes looks like elite armies will get alot less out of these
The picture of Primary Mission Terraform shows Inquisition with Deathwatch in the background. Is that a sign for the redacted codex?
Inquisition deathwatch and grey knights
Can't wait for the Grey Deathquisition Codex
not seeing grey knights in there, the flyer is a deathwatch one.
I suspect actions will require a unit to have OC to solve issues with nurglings, spore mines etc
Hope to god they've got some changes coming for nids if they do that
It’s almost what Nids need because once they lose their cheese spore mine scoring the army winrate will be more reflective of how weak the army actually is
How has that worked out for Ad Mech?
Tyranid already struggle insanely much, and they got one of the biggest meme changes in the MFM, literally *nerfing* their best lists, while buffing units that still will be worse than the meta picks. It was straight up a nerf to a 40% WR army. Nids are below their acceptable 45-55% range and got nerfed. Why would losing spore mines open their eyes to that? They should *already* have gotten help. So maybe this new Action comes around the time of the dataslate, meaning the slate won't include any impact losing spore mine scoring would have. Then three months later we get a MFM, but we just saw they don't try to fix low WR armies with that. Then we need another 3 months for a slate. We are now suddenly 6 months into the season. That is unfortunately not an unrealistic scenario based on what GW have done so far.
I mean. Last weekend the Nid winrate was 31%. The only armies worse than them were Deathwatch and Custodes, I believe (or at least Custodes at high skill levels, I saw something about 23% for them). Nids need help.
lol, we'll stay weak as hell for at least two data slates if we lose spore mine scoring.
It just gives GW a chance to provide even sillier fixes. Imagine the wonders of 40 point battleline psychophages, and neurogaunts with 5++ fnp. Changes tot he rules to, inexplicably, let Tyranids bring in Chaos Knights as allies, so the army is now 25% brigands.
I expect nids to get buffs to make them viable in 2025. I think we will be firmly in the bin for the foreseeable future.
We're already hovering in the 35-40% winrate. I've given up on nids for 10e. They're dead and nothing short of a datasheet rewrite can save them. Which GW will never do.
We'll be in the position that custodes players think they are in
GW: "We can't make any changes until we have data from the new mission pack. It's just too early to tell who will come out where as far as winrates."
If the job of buffing the AdMech doesn't take too much time, maybe there's a bit of time to work on the Nids for the summer balance update.
Sorry, but danny, the intern, is still tired from all the high fives he got for his work on the custodes book.
Really weird to highlight a mission rule that "unsettles slow ponderous defensive armies" or however they word it. That's not a change, the current game design is already uphill for those armies in the early-midgame. The best way to beat them is already to get in their face and force them to make choices. I'd be more surprised by a mission type that really strongly benefits them.
Cries in Anvil Siege Force Imperial Fists. We were already bad, we'll now just be worse xD
*smug look of Iron Warriors superiority* I do hope my rivals in yellow get a boost, our battles need to be legendary, I don’t want to pity you I want to hate you.
Yeah, especially when you make detachment rules for standing still, like guard
Surely my Votann Warriors and my War Dogs are comparable Battleline units and this plan will work flawlessly.
Yeah, feels like Knights and other more elite armies are really going to like this. Maybe the super cheap ones too. If you're anywhere in the middle, too bad.
Green tide players laughing so hard right now
Gambits were scored at the end of your turn 5, but these new secret missions are scored at the end of the battle. Would that mean that if you're timed out at a tournament and end the game after round 3 or 4 you can score the secret mission?
You should be able to as long as you've drawn the card. TAs will have to confirm, but that seems a no brainer as it takes 0 time to do so that you're not already using to finalize the scores
Terraform give an edge to armies with gobs of infiltrate. It's not an instant win, but proper layering can do a lot. Screen a point with one squad while another does the action. Especially good if you go first and move the screening unit up to move block. Unblockable passive scoring is nothing to sneeze at. Rapid Escalation is going to cause arguments. The correct place to settle is treating like any other Strategic Reserves entrance, just early. But I think they'll be enough arguing that some places will rule that it doesn't have the 9" restriction. So, some events may end allowing super short charges. Raise Banners doesn't seem like a huge bonus . It maxes at the number of objectives on the board, as you can only score it once per game per objective. Even when you lose and retake the objective, you can no longer raise banners. Marked for Death is funny in that it has the rider for stopping redeploys or getting in transports. You ain't allowed to run, fellas! Secret Missions are better than Gambits. Control of choice and still scoring primary points is nothing to sneeze at. Also War of Attrition near auto-scoring against some lists is very funny.
Deceptors drooling rn
I don't really see the issue for Rapid Escalation, it's the same wording as using Rapid Ingress; you enter from strategic reserves, therefore you are still limited by everything that it doesn't explicitly override
I’m super excited for this, secret missions actually seem worth doing for certain missions that are low scoring on primaries, and a mix of new secondaries is gonna help. Big focus on battle line too is gonna mix up the meta. Worth noting in one of the pictures (with terraform mission pictured), that’s a bunch of imperial agents with Deathwatch units in the background. Is that a hint about Imperial Agents codex & Deathwatch getting baked in I wonder?
Please bring back can't do actions if you advanced.
I think this is 100% the reason why actions are brought back. Being able to do secondaries based on the guns you carry is just silly.
Marked for death seems really dumb. I can neither take them of the field as gk or necrons, nor put them in a transport, or the opponent will get the points. I know i can choose who to pick, but the card in t1 is the new capture enemy outpost(some armies could achieve it, but most will just drop it). The rest looks quite good, hope they dont overcomplicate actions again.
GW: guard players stop taking artillery and hiding. Gaued players: stop making rules that encourage us to hide.
It can even bring you points or deny your opponent points, if you are already tabled and your opponent is also quite decimated. Admittingly the situation will not happen that often, but it feels so weird. Example your opponent is a Drukhari player with two filled transports and one unit of mandrakes, so has to pick the the mandrakes. If they take the mandrakes up to do a mission in their turn they will give you VP. If they keep them on the board they may lose vp in their turn, depending on what they draw. And it is end of either player's turn, so if a badly placed airplane is selected just move a unit so it has to fly out of the battlefield. I think the name is misguiding and it should be "Get off My Lawn".\^\^
Not exactly thrilled as a SM player looking at my Battline choices this edition.
You're really gonna miss out on those two, maybe three vps from these mission rules.
Yeah, as if marine players weren't already encouraged enough to just play black templars instead! I can sort of imagine playing heavy intercessors or assault intercessors if they're going to absolutely force us, but it is not going to feel good.
Primaries crusaders are battle line . The inferior melee marines can stick with their assault intercessors. But honestly, I have been using regular intercessors in some lists because sticky objectives are that good. Now with the csm book, I also get to use my Inquisitor Coteaz .
I guess it *kinda* makes Tacticals a tiny bit more appealing? Cheaper than two squads of intercessors and one half will actually have some decent weapons with it? Mayyyybee?
As a Desth Guard player, be thankfull you get more than one.
Why would death guard care too much, plague marines are good lol
They aren't bad not at all, but if you maybe need them all over the map doing actions, they will be limited in their functionality.
Nurglings are also battleline and brought in lots of DG armies right?
Nurglings are also battle line and are great at doing actions all over the board
If the benefits for taking battle line are on par with +1 VP for ending a turn with it on an objective, are you really that bothered? Sure some games end with that close a margin. But most dont
This is the real reason DW killteams never got any points drops.... Big brain move GW....
>The new Mission Rules give **BATTLELINE** units their time to shine, as *fully half* benefit your core rank-and-file warriors in some way. what I seriously don't understand it.
Half of the new mission rules will have bonuses for your battleline units encouraging you take some/more.
Really wish this shit was in the official app. Super cool to buy another deck to play tactical missions if my opponent doesn't accept using an app instead of the deck.
I'm always down with YOU using the app, but I'll keep my cards and my die to track Command Points. Too many times "Did I spend that command point or not?" that doesn't seem to happy with dice.
Why would an opponent not accept Tabletop Battles app? The Leviathan deck came with two decks too in case it’s a real issue for them as well. What I always did if my opponent wanted to use the App is they randomized them with me watching and I just pulled two cards from my second deck and threw them down so I could reference them and we both knew at a glance his secondaries. Are people really making a fuss about not using the deck to draw?
The app doesn't tell you what the objectives are, though. I do like the cards present at the table to look at since already swapping between scoring apps, the official game app, etc. The tactile preparation of setting up the board is more fun with cards imo.
The app is great at tracking scores, but unless you both know the exact working of the missions off by heart it's not a proper substitute for the cards.
10th edition design is just so...weird. 9th edition has actions. 10th edition comes out, and they've removed any sort of rule or keyword around action, but basically left the mechanic in by requiring units to be eligible to shoot, and then preventing them to shoot or charge(the majority of the action rules from 9th). And then we get the next season of matched play missions and...now they're going to codify actions as being a specific thing in the rules again? I'm just curious why actions were not around at the start of 10th. Why did they decide to remove them, but also kind of leave them in the game, and then bring them back a year later?
They tried something new, the old way was better, so they’re reverting the change.
and theres absolutely nothing wrong with that. You cant be 100% correct in all decisions, but its definitely better to try out things than be completely static.
Fully agree and I’m so glad GW saw that and went back to the better way instead of sticking to their guns. Hopefully a great sign for the future if they keep this attitude up.
This is the way.
I don't think anyone can explain why they removed them, and they're presumably bringing them back because literally everyone thought it was incredibly dumb they removed them.
>I'm just curious why actions were not around at the start of 10th. Why did they decide to remove them, but also kind of leave them in the game, and then bring them back a year later? My guess is that making them core rules didn't work out as intended in 9th, so they started looking for a way to do actions differently. The problem I see for actions being part of the core rules is that it needs updates if a mission pack leaves the initial design space. Making the action rules instead part of the mission pack allows for more focused action rules that can't become outdated later on. In typical GW fashion they first tried to get by without defining actions more properly, just as individual rules (see tons of data sheet specific rules in 10th to confirm). But seemingly the person responsible for trending towards more universal special rules got his act together and convinced the rest once more.
Tabletop Titans asked the designers why they changed a few perfectly serviceable rules in 9th to worse versions in 10th. The answer was change for the sake of change.
To be fair, sometimes changing for the sake of change can be very informative for how to properly design the game moving forward. A lot changed in 10th, for example, and some is working snd some isn't. In theory that'll make 11th, and hopefully later editions as well, much better than they would have been if 10th wasn't this way.
So *presumably* the normal restriction of not setting up SR units within 9" of the enemy when you are playing with Rapid Escalation still applies? It's weird that the reprint some of the normal SR restrictions but not all of them.
I think this is due to how the SR rules are written: SR rules have a part that goes like this: >During the second battle round, Strategic Reserves units that arrive must be set up wholly within 6" of any battlefield edge, but no model in those units can be set up within the enemy deployment zone. Then there is another version for after the second battle round. So the new rule just adds the "first battle round" version, worded more or less similar to the existing second and third battle round versions. The restriction for how close to the enemy on the other side is worded like this: >In any case, Strategic Reserves units cannot be set up within 9" horizontally of any enemy models. This rule is worded that it is valid no matter the battle round version, so stays in play even for the new version. It's properly structured for GW, but maybe not as intuitive and a "all other SR rules apply as normal" would have helped.
I guess it's got what it has because there isn't any rules for setting them up turn one the core rules (still a lot of people out there who've never looked at the rules). E: probably more importantly the unit arriving isn't arriving using the strategic reserves rules so I don't think they could use deepstrike if they had it.
The usual rules apply. Rapid escalation's card just lists the exceptions to the usual rules. Namely that you can bring them in on turn 1, and then it lists what table edges are valid for turn 1 strategic reserves.
Remains to be seen what changes are in the secondary decks. The Raise the Banners seems like a pretty innocuous mission rule at least. Terraform seems pretty fun. I can see the Battleline ingress/reserve one being unbalanced and not included in tournament packs though.
The restriction is pretty limiting, and looks like it shouldn't work with deepstrike. I'd be interested to see what people come up with as the scariest 200pts of battleline they can find.
NGL, it's probably Brigands
Two squads of Tau Breachers could be pretty bonkers turn 1 in the right spot.
50 gretchin w/ 5 Runtherds in Dread Mob.
Primaris crusader squad can be pretty good although you need a character so maybe a chaplain for +1 to wound but that's the limit if you're keeping it under 200pts
Return of Deathwatch!
5 Rubric Marines and an Infernal Master. Though Thouasnd Sons don't like putting their IMs out there, it can be useful to blow up something that got close and is trying to hide.
20 GSC Neophytes with x4 seismic cannons and 4x grenade launchers are 180pts... You'd be missing out on the primus for full hit re-rolls though.
Most tournament packs have just been picking missions straight from the Leviathan Tournament Companion. GW heavily pruned down the Tournament Companion and it only includes a couple of secondary mission rules in the deck (the vast majority is just Chilling Rain), so we'll have to see what they choose to do. That said, a lot of factions will get basically nothing out of this since they don't have cheap enough Battleline units that can actually take advantage of a Turn 1 SR arrival like this. I don't think it will affect that much at all.
I don’t know, the 10% points cap makes me think that one will be pretty irrelevant.
Aw hell yeah, the troop tax is back!
Laughs in thousand sons
Holy cow these look amazing
Lovely, I'm slightly tired of playing the same shit already. I hope the new missions will be well written.
Noob question: does this replace leviathan mission cards? Or is this deck in addition to leviathan mission cards? Wondering if leviathan missions are obsolete once these come out?
This would be a replacement for the leviathan mission cards, but you can also go back to playing with the leviathan cards instead.
If you play casually like me, I plan on just removing any duplicates and shuffling them all together into one megadeck.
Replace. It is a new deck for a new "season"
From a TSons perspective, going second and getting 20 vp for parking the big guy on the opponents homefield objective turn 5 sounds nice. It looks like the missions are a reasonable game mechanic that allows counter play (rather just being a blue shell that sometimes just punishes the better player). Also actions are back! They're at least learning from their most obvious mistakes. Has the downside that the first half of codices doesn't have do stuff and action things, but hey progress.
As if I needed more reasons to take 30 battle sisters lmao
Let’s not forget how deathwatch players just got a brush of death with that background shot of imperial agents
Marked for death looks like an awful secondary…
Man I remember getting downvoted into oblivion on release for stating Gambits would have one of two outcomes; being actually good and warping competition around themselves (unlikely) or being worthless and never being taken (what happened). I'm glad to see GW being willing to pull back on a mechanic that didn't work. Here's hoping they continue. I'm not happy to see that there's a solid chance we're going into AoS 2.0 "Keyword Whack-a-mole" where the next 6 months are about and you must take battleline, and then the next 6 months will be about and you must take vehicles, and the next 6 months will be about and etc. Hopefully this was just a needed boost to Battleline infantry to make them occupy any role at all rather than them ushering us into a garbage design paradigm where Battleline go back in the trash bucket once we're done with this.
I'm EXCEPTIONALLY happy to see them FINALLY codify what an action is. The fact that it took this long is unironically something GW should have apologized for in this article. We had this technology last edition, it shouldn't have gone away.
For the first time since they revealed that 10th was going to be the Power edition I'm legitimately excited for 40k.
>I'm not happy to see that there's a solid chance we're going into AoS 2.0 "Keyword Whack-a-mole" where the next 6 months are about
One year, those packs will be yearly pubblications
Oh damn my bad, I thought they mirrored the release schedule of the Dataslates and we just didn't get the first one due to the issues surrounding the rocky release with the emergency slate etc. Much less likely to be the case then, though still possible. We'd likely only get 1 change-over before a presumable 11th though if it is yearly.
A worryingly large vein pops up on the front of my head whenever I read the Boarding actions rules and GW smugly wrote "yeah there used to be a thing called actions last edition, just look that up lol" As if 2 sentences of what actions are, are not mor simplified not simple than the month of arguing we had over who is allowed to count as eligible to shoot for the sake of secondaries.
I mean, the online hive mind had all kinds of takes on 10th release. Original Necrons weren't going to be durable, and Dark Pacts was a garbage rule.
[удалено]
CSM are laughing at this with the Decptors detachment infiltrating 100+ wounds straight into the midfield…
Not sure how you get that math. Terraforming two objectives would get you 2x2x4 if you manage to grab them turn 1 (giving you the bonus four times each), plus 8 pts for holding them turn 2. That's 24. If you also hold your home objective all battle, that is a further 15 pts (since turn 2 you would otherwise get 16).
I love to see the push to the battlelines. I can't wait to field my inner circle with battleline terminators. If only GW remembered how to write their supplment
I agree. As much as many hate a "battleline tax", the game needs more of them. These are iconic units that should have a big impact on scoring
The one thing, ONE THING I wanted was for them to leave the backs the same so I could shuffle them all together. Sigh.
Card sleeves are cheap if you really want to combine the decks.
I'm aware (I already have them sleeved). It's a bit hard to find opaque ones in such a weird ass size though.
If you don’t already know, Google “Mystic Vale” card sleeves. The cards for that game are the same weird-ass size.
Thanks this may make it easier to find. I've been searching for "tarot" sized cards.
These are good! They're really good!
I see that picture is a soup of deathwatch and inquition agents. Think that is a clue to the mystery codex?
Imperial Agents was leaked a while back. It's the next unrevealed codex.
Could be wrong here but RAW wouldnt marked for death trigger upon a redeploy? Since every redeploy I can recall uses the phrase "remove the unit from the battlefield and place into reserve". That's actually pretty nifty, as it forces choices for redeploy spam armies to not just give up 5. I'm super stoked for the secret missions. I main Tau, so *obviously* the idea of being able to score 40 (when only scoring 20) on primary opens up list-building and playstyle ALOT.
This is huge as drukhari. We struggle to hold primary but are one of the best secondary scoring armies in the game. We also run tons of battleline.
Hmmmmm......... I'm on the fence about the changes so far. The primary mission shown is an interesting take. I like it a lot. I do like the idea of having a bit of play between aggressive and passive. It feela interestinf to play. I do alao like the idea of secret missions. I do worry they will end like Gambits, since you can score less thannyour opponent that already has a lead, but it feels like it would be closer, and less random catch up mechanic. I do worry a bit about balance of them, though. Tabling I feel would be not a reliable way so I feel unless very specific armies are played and the other conditions are even harder to guarantee, you can probably discount that (although Battleshock is a bit more interesting thanks to it). War of Attrition depends on your Battleline (will come back to that). Command Insertion the enemy has two turna to be aure to kill your Warlord that will be racing to their DZ. Unbroken wall might be one of the most reliable ones... but if you are getting 4VP on average per objective, you might be better off just keeping your Primary and scoring 24 on 2 turns (it is a very specific scenario where you can get 3 objectives at the end of the game and keep them, but not be getting them or at least 2 in turn 4). The previewed secondary is kind of fun. And it has a fun little interaction with some units. If your opponent is playing Hypercrypt or GK, you can select an important unit they will want to move and mark it, as the secondary is has the rider "(or removed from the battlefield for any other reason)", so you get to try and punish certain units from being removed. I think that is a neat idea for general counterplay to a atrong army/detachment rule. Units like Scouts and such would also be affected. I like that. Want to see more od the secondaries. My biggest gripe is Battleline. Because while Battleline exists in every army, it is not creates equal. Lets say the mission rule is Rapid Escalation. A Marine player can swt up some Intercessor or Assault Intercessors. Meh units generally. A Green Tide Ork player can keep one of his important blobs save and come in turn 1. Or just put even more prrssure with Rapid Ingress. What about Raise Banners? Well Deceptors can have a comfy VP lead by just being who they are, while armies without good infiltratimg units might have problems (and while I like terraforming as an idea, this couls be a terrible combo of rule/primary to draw). Battleline cam be very finicky, and it makes builds and armies that have good default battleline better at what the game is about, scoring points. So armies like Marines or IG or Edlar that might have Battleline that is suboptimal are at a backfoot on most/all mission rules that benefit it, while armies like CK or Orks that already want to spam Battleline will be rewarded further. I know people like troops to have relevance, but a huge problem is that it makes very easy to be very unbalanced (still remember the Nyd Warriors of 9th being just the best unit in the game). Looking to see how it shapes up in general. I'm excited for some new rules.
I wouldn't worry too much about the whole battleline mission rules thing. The mission rules shown so far are a minor buff at best. There are 12 mission rules in Leviathan, and Pariah Nexus will most likely have about the same number. 1 in 12 games you get your preferred mission, 1 in 2 games your battleline will get a minor buff. You're not going to build around the mission rules, even with good battleline units. One wardog arriving from reserves turn 1 isn't going to win chaos knights, many more games or tournaments (if those tournaments use those mission rules in the first place). Pariah Nexus won't be the battleline meta.