Here's Sieglers thoughts on the new Necrons:

https://www.theartofwar40k.com/home/necrons-vs-ultramarines-stream-match

 Galas wrote:
Eldar share literally 0 units, theres no reason whatsoever to consolidate them. Marines are an exception because they share a ton of units.

It makes sense for the Triumvirate of Yvrainne thing. And yeah, make each of the two stand alone. Flesh out more of the Yvrainne "third". It should be more than a couple named characters you must take every time all the time to do it. Add in a couple unnamed, add in some Elites who have some sort of peacemaker/leader/buffer role between the other two. Give the army a penalty when the two are around each other without the buffer, then they get a bonus. They could build a similar system for Animosity for Chaos Daemons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Void__Dragon wrote:

Tyel wrote:

But I think you could fix them by just cutting the points significantly.

Only in the sense that to fix them you would have to make them so overwhelmingly powerful that they'd make Marines look like Genestealer Cults by comparison.

Tau are the most binary army in the game save for maybe knights (who also suck the balls). To work in ninth with just point cuts they'd have to be able to blast the enemy army off the board and cripple their scoring power completely to make up for the fact that they have no capability to flip objectives. Straight buffing the most cancer army in the game (yes my friends even more than Marines) save perhaps knights is not the solution (at least not if they want to hard cap ppm at 5 points or higher, I guess to give them more melee punch they could make kroot laughably cheap to push people off of objectives or just swarm them without dying but even then I doubt it would work lol).

That's why I'd like to see a VERY LIMITED version of their Jet Pack shenanigans return. Shoot someone off the objective, scoot onto the objective during the Charge Phase. They just have to do it in such a way you can't move out from behind LOS Blocker, shoot, Scoot back behind LOS blocker. They need to be able to end the turn on an objective the opponent was on at the start of their turn.

The experiment with an army that only does damage in the shooting phase was a miserable failure. They should just bite the bullet and admit as much, and give T'au meaningful combat options.

yukishiro1 wrote:
The experiment with an army that only does damage in the shooting phase was a miserable failure. They should just bite the bullet and admit as much, and give T'au meaningful combat options.

Hold on, I thought 40k was too deadly in the shooting phase, melee was too weak and ranged firepower was king?

Drukhari just need a couple of new HQs, and that's entirely because of the 8th-9th listbuilding mechanics. If they weren't divided into three sort of subfactions they'd be perfectly fine with their current line of models and datasheets.

Their range is pretty fine, they don't really need anything else.

Ynnari could be a supplement for all three aeldari factions, but aeldari shouldn't be condensed into the same book: drukhari and craftworlds are separate factions that can't stand each other, with their own governments and leaders; they're not like SM chapters which are basically just different regiments from the same faction taking orders from the same leader.

And IMHO even condensing SM into the same codex was a bad move, it was just another way for GW to get more money from SM players: now standalone chapters' players need to spend more money in books and have access to more kits that can finally buy. Win win for GW. Not for the players who didn't need the extra range of options.

Dudeface wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
The experiment with an army that only does damage in the shooting phase was a miserable failure. They should just bite the bullet and admit as much, and give T'au meaningful combat options.

Hold on, I thought 40k was too deadly in the shooting phase, melee was too weak and ranged firepower was king?

Aye, the shooting focus isn't the issue for Tau, the issue is that someone decided a combined arms faction with mechsuits should be crutchmechsuits drones and some fodder instead of what it was and should've been. Not to mention the whole auxilia schtick...

 Blackie wrote:
And IMHO even condensing SM into the same codex was a bad move, it was just another way for GW to get more money from SM players: now standalone chapters' players need to spend more money in books and have access to more kits that can finally buy. Win win for GW. Not for the players who didn't need the extra range of options.

Come on man, this complaining is getting ridicolous. By that logic Dark Eldar players should be happy they got options removed, so they don't have to spend money on them.

What is better. Have a bad options, be told you have it, yet never use it, because it is bad.
Or have limited number of options, but by some trick of the design team intent and playtesters not reporting results an army with practicaly 6 models becoming God, but being very limited in how you can build it.

a_typical_hero wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
And IMHO even condensing SM into the same codex was a bad move, it was just another way for GW to get more money from SM players: now standalone chapters' players need to spend more money in books and have access to more kits that can finally buy. Win win for GW. Not for the players who didn't need the extra range of options.

Come on man, this complaining is getting ridicolous. By that logic Dark Eldar players should be happy they got options removed, so they don't have to spend money on them.

As someone with a space wolf army I'm cautiously optimistic about this. the indexes are impressive so there's that. that said I have a hunch we're going to lose some old favorite relics with the supplements.

Karol wrote:
What is better. Have a bad options, be told you have it, yet never use it, because it is bad.
Or have limited number of options, but by some trick of the design team intent and playtesters not reporting results an army with practicaly 6 models becoming God, but being very limited in how you can build it.

Neither. God Mode gets boring fast. As does the frustration of being odd man out.

Karol wrote:
What is better. Have a bad options, be told you have it, yet never use it, because it is bad.
Or have limited number of options, but by some trick of the design team intent and playtesters not reporting results an army with practicaly 6 models becoming God, but being very limited in how you can build it.

IMHO having options is better than not having them. Rules will change, models stay with you.

a_typical_hero wrote:
As someone with a space wolf army I'm cautiously optimistic about this. the indexes are impressive so there's that. that said I have a hunch we're going to lose some old favorite relics with the supplements.

Same boat here with my Blood Angels. It absolutely sucks to not have access to Wings until November (maybe?) and some relics were great. There are a few core options that I would be sad to lose without getting a proper replacement, but the Index rules are very promising in the meantime.

a_typical_hero wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
And IMHO even condensing SM into the same codex was a bad move, it was just another way for GW to get more money from SM players: now standalone chapters' players need to spend more money in books and have access to more kits that can finally buy. Win win for GW. Not for the players who didn't need the extra range of options.

Come on man, this complaining is getting ridicolous. By that logic Dark Eldar players should be happy they got options removed, so they don't have to spend money on them.

It's not the same thing. SW had already tons of options, including 10 named characters, and they really didn't need anything more. The whole codex+supplement thing is just a move to get more money from the customers, it's a clear way to tempt people to buy those older kits which are currently on life support. There is no real benefit for anyone from condensing the SM codex, all the new possible combos have no real impact gamewise, and all the most recent SM units (read primaris) were already available to standalone chapters.

Those options removed from Drukhari are the same options removed from pretty much everyone else's codexes, units/wargear that had a datasheet but no official kit/bitz.

From my perspective having to buy an overpriced book with just 20ish pages of interesting stuff is bad.

 Blackie wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
And IMHO even condensing SM into the same codex was a bad move, it was just another way for GW to get more money from SM players: now standalone chapters' players need to spend more money in books and have access to more kits that can finally buy. Win win for GW. Not for the players who didn't need the extra range of options.

Come on man, this complaining is getting ridicolous. By that logic Dark Eldar players should be happy they got options removed, so they don't have to spend money on them.

It's not the same thing. SW had already tons of options, including 10 named characters, and they really didn't need anything more. The whole codex+supplement thing is just a move to get more money from the customers, it's a clear way to tempt people to buy those older kits which are currently on life support. There is no real benefit for anyone from condensing the SM codex, all the new possible combos have no real impact gamewise, and all the most recent SM units (read primaris) were already available to standalone chapters.

Those options removed from Drukhari are the same options removed from pretty much everyone else's codexes, units/wargear that had a datasheet but no official kit/bitz.

From my perspective having to buy an overpriced book with just 20ish pages of interesting stuff is bad.

not really. speaking as a guy whose a space wolf player, this is proably a good thing as it means no waiting a year and a half with an index while Ultramarine players have a codex.

BrianDavion wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
are you refering to suit commander spam? because GW generally tried to cut down on every faction that spammed HQs, Tau and Marines both got hit with a detachment limit on their beat stick HQs (Marines got that limit in codex 9.0) Tyranids resulted in the rule of 3 becoming a thing..

Just the general state of the game in 9th - the game rewards you for taking objectives in the center field but they didn't bother to give Tau any meaningful ways to do that. So Tau should just be happy to wait around for a few years while their army isn't functional in the current edition... it's pathetic.

And what "meaningful way" to do that should GW have given Tau?

I dunno, I could come up with some kind of ability maybe where after a unit you want to designate as kind of an armored battle-suit that seizes the objectives before the troops go to hold it, they could possibly shoot, and then hve some sort of post-shoot movement to make up for the fact that as a faction, Tau do not get the free movement inherent to charging.

proably but would it be something quick and easy to FAQ into the army? proably not.

I dunno, we've got time to write completely new datasheets abilities etc for every single sub-faction marine unit to make sure that space wolves players don't have to wait an extra *checks notes* 2 months between the update they got in april and their new codex coming in november or so.

It's cool for every CSM faction to play 1W marines vs 2W marines though, that's fine, and we certainly don't need to do anything to make Tau function in 9th ed between now and 2021.

Or anybody fething else, apparently. Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeverybody gets to wait while they slowly, laboriously update the current meta-dominant faction. Again.

without a Index many of BA, SW etc armies are literally unplayable. I don't mean "Really really bad like greyknights before PA literally unplayable" I mean literally as in "the dataslates for a lot of their units have dissappered" unplayable. I don't think it's reasonable to tell a DA player "yeah technicly you can't use half your models for the next 3 months"

They could have just spent all of 3minutes and written "BA/DA/SW/DW players, just ignore the new Marine Codex for now and continue using your old Codex+PA until we have released the relevant supplement for you. We do recommend you buy the codex and read through it before then to see some of the changes we have made and give some clues to what direction your armies will go in the next few months when you also have supplements like the other marine chapters.".

Instead they both buffed the armies but also gutted them. It is not that the rules we got are bad, they are actually great and have more flavor to them. But without the psychic powers, traits, relics and stratagems they just play like much worse versions of themselves. Much weaker overall than White Scars, Salamanders or Ravenguard. Unless you spam the units that are too good(inner circle, SW melee dreads, sanguinary guard) and just play point and click with the superior data sheets. But I dont have more than 10SG and my SW friend dont have 6 dreads with ++ saves and -1dmg. The DA guys with all their terminators are happy but I dont think anyone who will play against 3W 1+/4++ 6+++ and transhuman on everything will be happy.

If the already existing Index entries don't change come the supplements then get ready for a miserable few months until the next CA.

Sanguinary Guard and Priests are actually disgusting now despite not having a lot of their stratagems. If those get added back in then unless you're looking for a competitive game I would highly recommend avoiding fighting BA armies.

BrianDavion wrote:


not really. speaking as a guy whose a space wolf player, this is proably a good thing as it means no waiting a year and a half with an index while Ultramarine players have a codex.

We already had a perfectly functioning codex and a supplement that was released only 6 months ago. Just a FAQ/update page to correct a few things like new weapons profile and the +1W on firstborn dudes instead of the index and we would have been ok until a proper 9th edition codex. I would have preferred it over a SM codex + SW supplement.

Seriously, who's gonna add thunderfire cannons, centurions or stormravens to their SW armies?

 Blackie wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:


not really. speaking as a guy whose a space wolf player, this is proably a good thing as it means no waiting a year and a half with an index while Ultramarine players have a codex.

We already had a perfectly functioning codex and a supplement that was released only 6 months ago. Just a FAQ/update page to correct a few things like new weapons profile and the +1W on firstborn dudes instead of the index and we would have been ok until a proper 9th edition codex. I would have preferred it over a SM codex + SW supplement.

Seriously, who's gonna add thunderfire cannons, centurions or stormravens to their SW armies?

Those that want them especially if said units happen to be good?

 Blackie wrote:
Seriously, who's gonna add thunderfire cannons, centurions or stormravens to their SW armies?

Yeah I'm dead certain that Woof players would be more than content to sit around for a year plus whilst every other Marine gets 2 wounds a piece.

 Blackie wrote:
Seriously, who's gonna add thunderfire cannons, centurions or stormravens to their SW armies?

 Blackie wrote:
And IMHO even condensing SM into the same codex was a bad move, it was just another way for GW to get more money from SM players: now standalone chapters' players need to spend more money in books and have access to more kits that can finally buy. Win win for GW. Not for the players who didn't need the extra range of options.

Emphasize mine. On one side you say that it is bad for GW that options got added, "tricking" people into buying stuff they could not access before. On the other side you say that nobody will bother buying that stuff anyway. Why was it a bad move, then? Those two posts feel contradictory to me.

Note I'm not going into the argument about paying extra for books. From 3rd to 6th (were I stopped playing) it was normal for a Space Marine players in my area to get the vanilla 'dex and their special book, be it a supplement, WD article or a full codex. Reason behind it was that you did not get an update every edition, so you took the latest book you could get with the newest rules and models for the overall faction (Space Marines) you were playing. I understand your argument, but I don't agree based on my own experience.

a_typical_hero wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Seriously, who's gonna add thunderfire cannons, centurions or stormravens to their SW armies?

 Blackie wrote:
And IMHO even condensing SM into the same codex was a bad move, it was just another way for GW to get more money from SM players: now standalone chapters' players need to spend more money in books and have access to more kits that can finally buy. Win win for GW. Not for the players who didn't need the extra range of options.

Emphasize mine. On one side you say that it is bad for GW that options got added, "tricking" people into buying stuff they could not access before. On the other side you say that nobody will bother buying that stuff anyway. Why was it a bad move, then? Those two posts feel contradictory to me.

Note I'm not going into the argument about paying extra for books. From 3rd to 6th (were I stopped playing) it was normal for a Space Marine players in my area to get the vanilla 'dex and their special book, be it a supplement, WD article or a full codex. Reason behind it was that you did not get an update every edition, so you took the latest book you could get with the newest rules and models for the overall faction (Space Marines) you were playing. I understand your argument, but I don't agree based on my own experience.

But back then you still only bought one marine book every other year even if you bought the extra chapters. Wouldnt be surprised if there were more books with marine rules released in 2019 and 2020 together than the first 20 years of the game. 2 Codex Space Marine, 2 Chapter Approved, 11 Supplements, 4 Psychic Awakening with marine rules. That is 19 books. Actually tried to look this up at right now and what I found was that between 1993-2012 there were also 19 books with rules for marines in them. Its only since like 2013 or so there was more than a book a year and now its almost 10.

You didnt even have to buy a book a year back then if you bought all the books with the marine rules in them. Daemonhunters included.

As for who'll buy stormravens as a wolf player, I can think of some uses for it.the stormwolf can transport 16 guys, that's great for a full pack of bloodclaws or something, but being able to airdrop Bjorn and a buncha wolfguard has some appeal.

a_typical_hero wrote:

Karol wrote:
What is better. Have a bad options, be told you have it, yet never use it, because it is bad.
Or have limited number of options, but by some trick of the design team intent and playtesters not reporting results an army with practicaly 6 models becoming God, but being very limited in how you can build it.

IMHO having options is better than not having them. Rules will change, models stay with you.

This. Absolutely this.

BrianDavion wrote:
As for who'll buy stormravens as a wolf player, I can think of some uses for it.the stormwolf can transport 16 guys, that's great for a full pack of bloodclaws or something, but being able to airdrop Bjorn and a buncha wolfguard has some appeal.

The mental image of Bjorn falling out of the back of a Storm Raven, in that Dawn of War Dread voice yelling "Even in death, I still (grav/para) -chuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuute" before you see a big donut of dust where he lands Roadrunner and Coyote style will never cease to entertain me.

BrianDavion wrote:
As for who'll buy stormravens as a wolf player, I can think of some uses for it.the stormwolf can transport 16 guys, that's great for a full pack of bloodclaws or something, but being able to airdrop Bjorn and a buncha wolfguard has some appeal.

Imagining a frothing berserker Dreadnought already taking swings at the air and screaming battle cries while it gets delivered to the frontline is pretty damn hilarious in all the right ways.

a_typical_hero wrote:


Emphasize mine. On one side you say that it is bad for GW that options got added, "tricking" people into buying stuff they could not access before. On the other side you say that nobody will bother buying that stuff anyway. Why was it a bad move, then? Those two posts feel contradictory to me.

You're right, I wasn't clear enough. I never said bad for GW, I just said bad speaking for myself. Anything that let GW sell more models, books, etc is actually good for the company, the opposite of bad.

What I meant to say is that those new available options really don't add anything that was needed for the army, so gamewise there's no reason to buy old SM stuff that wasn't allowed for standalone chapeters before, but someone could be tricked into buy it anyway because there are people who feel obliged to buy everything related to their faction.

It's actually a pretty common thing about all kinds of fanbases, just think about bands' fans who rant about their idols releasing tons of greatest hits or live albums because they have to buy them even if they don't want to and they actually do, or those Star Wars fans that can't stand the modern movies but keep going to the theatres to watch every new episode.

From my perspective I said "bad" because with the same effort GW could have released more useful or more interesting things for the customer, or at least for me as I can't speak for everyone of course. Drukhari or ork HQs for example, new plastic aeldari, or even chapter related primaris kits like the Grey Hunters/Blood Claws box (compared to the Tac Marines one).

I also don't share the obsession of getting new codexes every couple of years. We are already in an era of frequent FAQs and Chapter Approved is released every year. Adepta sororitas got their codex in 2020, did they need a new codex just because GW wanted to upgrade some weapons? No, they got a FAQ document and they're good with it. So factions like SW could have just got their FAQ with the needed changes like the +1W to firstborn units and the uptaded weapons.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:
As for who'll buy stormravens as a wolf player, I can think of some uses for it.the stormwolf can transport 16 guys, that's great for a full pack of bloodclaws or something, but being able to airdrop Bjorn and a buncha wolfguard has some appeal.

May be true for dreads, but our stormraven equivalent could already carry 16 guys.

BrianDavion wrote:

 harlokin wrote:

Breton wrote:

Either that or really roll all the Eldar into one and let them synergize effectively. Or both. Both would be best. I liked the Ynarri gimmick, but they didn't really deliver on it.

Yeah, that would give me a really good push to find another hobby.

depends how they did it, if they put all the units into one codex, and presented it as a "you can play eldar, dark eldar or yannari with one book now. if you play CWE these are your rules and restrictions, if dark eldar these are etc" it could work out alright. then put out a supplement for each that dives into more nitty gritty.

That would just be End Times Elves and we all know how that ended. (Hint: High Elves are no longer a faction and dark elves are a shadow of their former self).

Not a fan of the idea.

 Eldarsif wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 harlokin wrote:

Breton wrote:

Either that or really roll all the Eldar into one and let them synergize effectively. Or both. Both would be best. I liked the Ynarri gimmick, but they didn't really deliver on it.

Yeah, that would give me a really good push to find another hobby.

depends how they did it, if they put all the units into one codex, and presented it as a "you can play eldar, dark eldar or yannari with one book now. if you play CWE these are your rules and restrictions, if dark eldar these are etc" it could work out alright. then put out a supplement for each that dives into more nitty gritty.

That would just be End Times Elves and we all know how that ended. (Hint: High Elves are no longer a faction and dark elves are a shadow of their former self).

Not a fan of the idea.

What Brian mentioned there is in essence just copy and pasting 3 existing books into 1, how is that any worse?

Dudeface wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
The experiment with an army that only does damage in the shooting phase was a miserable failure. They should just bite the bullet and admit as much, and give T'au meaningful combat options.

Hold on, I thought 40k was too deadly in the shooting phase, melee was too weak and ranged firepower was king?

Yep it is. Now add in the new 9th editions rules which require you to get into CC or at least be midfield by turn 2 at the absolute latest in order to cap objectives. Changes the picture a lot on how deadly a stand still gunline is. Yeah they might kill a lot of your units, but so long as 1 model survives midfield to hold that objective, you still win.

Dudeface wrote:

What Brian mentioned there is in essence just copy and pasting 3 existing books into 1, how is that any worse?

I'd be against it because, seeing as I more or less have to buy a dead tree codex, I would prefer that it just has my faction's stuff in it. Otherwise, it would be no worse than putting Astra Militarum and and Admech in one book....for convenience.

Dudeface wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 harlokin wrote:

Breton wrote:

Either that or really roll all the Eldar into one and let them synergize effectively. Or both. Both would be best. I liked the Ynarri gimmick, but they didn't really deliver on it.

Yeah, that would give me a really good push to find another hobby.

depends how they did it, if they put all the units into one codex, and presented it as a "you can play eldar, dark eldar or yannari with one book now. if you play CWE these are your rules and restrictions, if dark eldar these are etc" it could work out alright. then put out a supplement for each that dives into more nitty gritty.

That would just be End Times Elves and we all know how that ended. (Hint: High Elves are no longer a faction and dark elves are a shadow of their former self).

Not a fan of the idea.

What Brian mentioned there is in essence just copy and pasting 3 existing books into 1, how is that any worse?

Because I don't trust GW not to half-arse it?

"Well if there are 3 armies in one book (4 counting Ynnari), they don't really need 3 sets of relics and warlord traits, do they? We'll just give the Eldar armies one set of each and make them share."

Let's assume for a moment that there would be a Ynnari codex/supplement coming.

How would you guys like to have it being handled?

Should it just reference to Eldar, Deldar and Harlys for their units and rules, or contain all datasheets in the book?

I like the idea of Ynnari... as a supplement for the other Aeldari factions.

Release a fully functional 9th ed Codex for Drukhari, Craftworlds and Harlequins and then I'd happily buy the Ynnari supplement, with updated datasheets to play the units as Ynnari. I would be fine with slightly changed datasheets from Aeldari codexes into the Ynnari supplement for fluff or rules reasons.

As someone said already, Drukhari has a really good and "modern" range of models, we just need Mandrakes and Grotesques (and some Court members) as plastic and we are fine.

What we really need is updated rules and a Codex that is not a subfaction mess. And some of our old options back.

a_typical_hero wrote:
Let's assume for a moment that there would be a Ynnari codex/supplement coming.

How would you guys like to have it being handled?

Should it just reference to Eldar, Deldar and Harlys for their units and rules, or contain all datasheets in the book?

I think it would be nice if the relevant dataslates were actually in the Ynnari codex (I say relevant since some units can't be in a Ynnari army). Perhaps with some rules differences where appropriate, to reflect their different fluff.

Otherwise, you end up with a lot of Eldar units that *should* be able to work together, but actually can't. Because they have to be taken in separate detachments and can't share any buffs.

I realise that having access to all Eldar units would be strong, hence why I suggest tweaking both individual rules and also the specific units that are available to Ynnari.

However, for me the most important aspect by far is that the Ynnari rules not be locked behind 3 special characters.

IDK why some are suggesting to merge Eldar -- they don't share units and even have different methods of army construction altogether.

And I don't play or even like Eldar.

I would like two proper Asuryani and Drukhari codexes.

...and I would like a third codex with Harlequins, Ynnari, Corsairs, and Exodites, usable in any combination with the others.

Lastly, I would also like a lottery win.

a_typical_hero wrote:
Let's assume for a moment that there would be a Ynnari codex/supplement coming.

How would you guys like to have it being handled?

Should it just reference to Eldar, Deldar and Harlys for their units and rules, or contain all datasheets in the book?

Make it so Ynnari lets you soup all 3 elf factions in the same detachment but you are force to use the Ynnari strats/warlord traits/relics/psychic. And remove the "must have a triumvirate character to unlock the trait"

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:
Let's assume for a moment that there would be a Ynnari codex/supplement coming.

How would you guys like to have it being handled?

Should it just reference to Eldar, Deldar and Harlys for their units and rules, or contain all datasheets in the book?

Make it so Ynnari lets you soup all 3 elf factions in the same detachment but you are force to use the Ynnari strats/warlord traits/relics/psychic. And remove the "must have a triumvirate character to unlock the trait"

The problem is that souping allows for unforseen/unbalanced rules interactions, which end with the parent codex being 'punished'.

How long did Crfatworld Eldar have to put up with overpriced Shining Spears and Dark Reapers, simply because of how powerful they were with Ynnari? Drukhari suffered similarly, with Ravagers and Razorwings being hiked in cost because they were spammed in soup lists.

A supplement with the Ynnari units changed slightly with different costs and rules. Balanced as Ynnari, with the same models as CWE/DE/Harlies.

We'd have to remember 2 different point costs for the same model, maybe, not sure if that happens to other factions.

 harlokin wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:
Let's assume for a moment that there would be a Ynnari codex/supplement coming.

How would you guys like to have it being handled?

Should it just reference to Eldar, Deldar and Harlys for their units and rules, or contain all datasheets in the book?

Make it so Ynnari lets you soup all 3 elf factions in the same detachment but you are force to use the Ynnari strats/warlord traits/relics/psychic. And remove the "must have a triumvirate character to unlock the trait"

The problem is that souping allows for unforseen/unbalanced rules interactions, which end with the parent codex being 'punished'.

How long did Crfatworld Eldar have to put up with overpriced Shining Spears and Dark Reapers, simply because of how powerful they were with Ynnari? Drukhari suffered similarly, with Ravagers and Razorwings being hiked in cost because they were spammed in soup lists.

That was the case with the old Ynnari rules, where you could have dark reapers with Doom/Guide shooting multiple times in a turn. By removing all these interactions and giving them the Ynnari framework, you get rid of much of the abuse.

At the moment, picking a detachment of Ynnari Craftworlds + Ynnari Drukhari, they still get the same ruleset. My suggestion would simply remove the CP cost for bringing a fluffy Ynnari army.
Right now to bring a full party of Ynnari you need to pay 4 cp minimum and 500-ish pts in character.

The Newman wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
are you refering to suit commander spam? because GW generally tried to cut down on every faction that spammed HQs, Tau and Marines both got hit with a detachment limit on their beat stick HQs (Marines got that limit in codex 9.0) Tyranids resulted in the rule of 3 becoming a thing..

Just the general state of the game in 9th - the game rewards you for taking objectives in the center field but they didn't bother to give Tau any meaningful ways to do that. So Tau should just be happy to wait around for a few years while their army isn't functional in the current edition... it's pathetic.

A bunch of people have had things to say about this so I know I'm a bit late to the party, but as someone who has been pushing center-field objectives with Daemonettes and Termagaunts I'm not sure I see the problem with Kroot.

They're much better than Termagaunts for that extra point between better melee, better shooting, and pre-game movement, and on average they come pretty close to killing their weight in Daemonettes if they can shoot and then charge them. I will grant that they don't have the morale shenanigans but you're paying for that on Synapse creatures in the one case and banners and Syll'Esske in the other.

They're not great but nothing on the 5-7 point range really is. (Guardsmen not withstanding, and they're not really great either, just a noticable outlier.) Big blobs of Gaunts and daemons seem to be working, can anyone who has tried putting a significant number of Kroot on the table in 9th speak to why they don't work?

The reality is that a Firewarrior with the codex rules just isn't worth half the points of a marine.

Just for a laugh it takes 54 Firewarriors (486 points) to kill 1 Marine in CC on avarage.
It takes just over 2 and a quarter marines 40.5 points (2 Primarchads overkill 40 points) to kill a Firewarrior in CC.
(No doctorine bonuses or subfaction buffs)

Kroot look positively OP be comparison requiring only 18 kroot (108 points) to kill 1 Marine.
It takes 1.35 marines (1 Primarichad) to kill a Kroot in CC.

Kroot really need the Additional Attack(that GW took away from them for WTFK reason) back and either a strike first mechanic or AP on their rifles as a 6+ Save on a CC unit with no real access to Buffs (reroll1 to wound from an elite slot charictor with a 6+ Save in an army reliant on it's elite slots for Heavy hitting suits). Makes them bounce off to often.

It takes 18 pulse (81 points in rapid fire or 162 points outside) rifle shots to kill 1 marine
It takes just over 2 and a quarter old marines 40.5 points to kill a Firewarrior in shooting(No doctorine bonuses or subfaction buffs)

It takes 24 kroot rifle shots (72 points rapidfire or 144 points outside) to kill 1 Marine.
It takes 1.35 marines (24.3 points) to kill a Kroot with shooting (No doctorine bonuses or subfaction buffs)

Now if FW have 2damage rifles, Tau plasma becomes flat 2D that math might change but right now Taking Tau troops is lost points they do negligible damage and are trivially murdered by the meta dominant faction.

Am I one of the few (former) Black Templar players who is snickering in their beer at the tears coming from the Wolves and Angels?

 Charistoph wrote:
Am I one of the few (former) Black Templar players who is snickering in their beer at the tears coming from the Wolves and Angels?

Well we really should not be complaining.

They have not only given us pretty much everything in the Codex but also took the time to sort out a comprehenisve update for the couple of months that we are without a supplement.

Its not like they do anythig remotely similar for any other Sub-sub faction.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Am I one of the few (former) Black Templar players who is snickering in their beer at the tears coming from the Wolves and Angels?

Well we really should not be complaining.

They have not only given us pretty much everything in the Codex but also took the time to sort out a comprehenisve update for the couple of months that we are without a supplement.

Its not like they do anythig remotely similar for any other Sub-sub faction.

Or whole factions made up of similar units. Still waiting for my 2W Warp Talons, who BTW will be able to beat Bladeguard in cc. Not point for point, but squad for squad, which I'm fine with, I'll pay a little extra so that my pack of rabid wolves can tear down some lions. Eventually. All in due time....

a_typical_hero wrote:
Let's assume for a moment that there would be a Ynnari codex/supplement coming.

How would you guys like to have it being handled?

Should it just reference to Eldar, Deldar and Harlys for their units and rules, or contain all datasheets in the book?

In a WD where it beongs..

It should be akin to assasins for IOM.
Doing a full blooded supplement or codex for 3 models from one £36 is dumb..

 Argive wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:
Let's assume for a moment that there would be a Ynnari codex/supplement coming.

How would you guys like to have it being handled?

Should it just reference to Eldar, Deldar and Harlys for their units and rules, or contain all datasheets in the book?

In a WD where it beongs..

It should be akin to assasins for IOM.
Doing a full blooded supplement or codex for 3 models from one £36 is dumb..

the problem with being WD is what happens if I wanna get into the army 3 months later?

BrianDavion wrote:

 Argive wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:
Let's assume for a moment that there would be a Ynnari codex/supplement coming.

How would you guys like to have it being handled?

Should it just reference to Eldar, Deldar and Harlys for their units and rules, or contain all datasheets in the book?

In a WD where it beongs..

It should be akin to assasins for IOM.
Doing a full blooded supplement or codex for 3 models from one £36 is dumb..

the problem with being WD is what happens if I wanna get into the army 3 months later?

Don't GW publish old WD that contain rules/convert the rules into PDF? I could have sworn they did that for assasins and the PA WD rules for harlies.

Best case scenario GW will sell you an epub.
Worse case scenario you will have to get one off ebay or just ask local /online community for somebody with a copy to scan it for you..

Its better than paying £20 for 5 pages of rules in hard back IMO..

 Eldarsif wrote:


That would just be End Times Elves and we all know how that ended. (Hint: High Elves are no longer a faction and dark elves are a shadow of their former self).

Not a fan of the idea.

I am somewhat aware of players/armies getting screwed by The End Times, yes. See my Sig and why I've not played a single game of AoS.

That's probably where they were going with 40K, but learned their lesson. I still think putting DE, CE, Ynnari, Harlies, etc all in the one book with some supplements, and fleshing out Ynnari as more than three people bridging two factions together isn't bad. I also think it makes a nice testbed to create a soup system that works "fluffy" not "min/max". as a way to let SM play with Guard etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 harlokin wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

What Brian mentioned there is in essence just copy and pasting 3 existing books into 1, how is that any worse?

I'd be against it because, seeing as I more or less have to buy a dead tree codex, I would prefer that it just has my faction's stuff in it. Otherwise, it would be no worse than putting Astra Militarum and and Admech in one book....for convenience.

You're talking to someone who thinks IK should have to take some basic IG/AM troops without bells and whistles (orders, doctrines etc) for their troop component to score objectives. I wouldn't mind at all an IG+IK and AM+IK codexes. The IG houses in the IG book, the AM Houses in the AM book. Tune each knight model down by about a hundred points of value, to pay for some troop/infantry options from their household auxilliary/serfs/whatever they're called.

Putting all flavours of Aeldari into one book is as ridiculous as combining Guard, Admech and Sisters into one book because they're all "Imperium."

In fact that would make a little more sense as there's a lot of overlap with weapons and characters buffs/abilities actually cross over unlike the Aeldari armies!

 Bosskelot wrote:
Putting all flavours of Aeldari into one book is as ridiculous as combining Guard, Admech and Sisters into one book because they're all "Imperium."

In fact that would make a little more sense as there's a lot of overlap with weapons and characters buffs/abilities actually cross over unlike the Aeldari armies!

Agreed - There is more than enough lore and differences to justify the Craftowrlds as one Dex (plus supplements), the Dark Eldar as three Books.

Its not like they are a single Chapter of about 1000 marines with some different naming conventions.....

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
Putting all flavours of Aeldari into one book is as ridiculous as combining Guard, Admech and Sisters into one book because they're all "Imperium."

In fact that would make a little more sense as there's a lot of overlap with weapons and characters buffs/abilities actually cross over unlike the Aeldari armies!

Agreed - There is more than enough lore and differences to justify the Craftowrlds as one Dex (plus supplements), the Dark Eldar as three Books.

Its not like they are a single Chapter of about 1000 marines with some different naming conventions.....

You can't suggest supplements for craftworlds then immediately complain about marine publications... which are supplements.

I honestly do not want any more supplements for anyone.

Dudeface wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
Putting all flavours of Aeldari into one book is as ridiculous as combining Guard, Admech and Sisters into one book because they're all "Imperium."

In fact that would make a little more sense as there's a lot of overlap with weapons and characters buffs/abilities actually cross over unlike the Aeldari armies!

Agreed - There is more than enough lore and differences to justify the Craftworlds as one Dex (plus supplements), the Dark Eldar as three Books.

Its not like they are a single Chapter of about 1000 marines with some different naming conventions.....

You can't suggest supplements for craftworlds then immediately complain about marine publications... which are supplements.

I honestly do not want any more supplements for anyone.

I just did as sadly we are unlikely to see them except for Marines are we?

The three Dark Eldar factions are far more diverse than any of the Marine Chapters - including Grey Knights and Deathwatch - same as the Imperial guard regiments are. If you delve into their subfactions then there is loads to be explored.

Supplements give the possibility of expanding and enhancing lore without retreading the same old same old again and again with a coupel of models and a few new rules to make a particular sub faction more interesting.

alternatively gw learns that customizable lists actually allow them to explore the models with less publications, but that get's gw less cash....

Not Online!!! wrote:
alternatively gw learns that customizable lists actually allow them to explore the models with less publications, but that get's gw less cash....

Sadly customisable options are seemingly gone.

The Marine dex - esp the characters follows on from the Sisters dex where they had the Cannoness with ultra specific options for the same stupid reason.

Well, back in 3rd, Eldar were the only Codex to have a Codex Supplement for the specific Craftworlds.

I don't think you need individual books for each major CW, but have one supplement for the 5 Major ones that really goes deep into their lore and expands on their styles of play wouldn't really be too absurd of a prospect.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
Putting all flavours of Aeldari into one book is as ridiculous as combining Guard, Admech and Sisters into one book because they're all "Imperium."

In fact that would make a little more sense as there's a lot of overlap with weapons and characters buffs/abilities actually cross over unlike the Aeldari armies!

Agreed - There is more than enough lore and differences to justify the Craftworlds as one Dex (plus supplements), the Dark Eldar as three Books.

Its not like they are a single Chapter of about 1000 marines with some different naming conventions.....

You can't suggest supplements for craftworlds then immediately complain about marine publications... which are supplements.

I honestly do not want any more supplements for anyone.

I just did as sadly we are unlikely to see them except for Marines are we?

The three Dark Eldar factions are far more diverse than any of the Marine Chapters - including Grey Knights and Deathwatch - same as the Imperial guard regiments are. If you delve into their subfactions then there is loads to be explored.

Supplements give the possibility of expanding and enhancing lore without retreading the same old same old again and again with a coupel of models and a few new rules to make a particular sub faction more interesting.

Sure then rock around 10th ed with 21 codex and 100 or so supplements to rewrite, sell and buy again.

Just no supplements is better, I get they painted themselves into a corner with marines, the snowflake chapters were out there already and couldn't risk squatting them, but I'd rather we didn't inflict the endless publication bloat on everyone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bosskelot wrote:
Well, back in 3rd, Eldar were the only Codex to have a Codex Supplement for the specific Craftworlds.

I don't think you need individual books for each major CW, but have one supplement for the 5 Major ones that really goes deep into their lore and expands on their styles of play wouldn't really be too absurd of a prospect.

Just put it in the codex, if you're expanding the options in the codex and it won't make the book absurdly large, just put it in there.

 Bosskelot wrote:
Well, back in 3rd, Eldar were the only Codex to have a Codex Supplement for the specific Craftworlds.

I don't think you need individual books for each major CW, but have one supplement for the 5 Major ones that really goes deep into their lore and expands on their styles of play wouldn't really be too absurd of a prospect.

During 3rd, BA, SW and DA were supplements to the main SM book. There was also Codex Armageddon.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
Well, back in 3rd, Eldar were the only Codex to have a Codex Supplement for the specific Craftworlds.

I don't think you need individual books for each major CW, but have one supplement for the 5 Major ones that really goes deep into their lore and expands on their styles of play wouldn't really be too absurd of a prospect.

During 3rd, BA, SW and DA were supplements to the main SM book. There was also Codex Armageddon.

Did I imagine a speed freaks supplement?

Kult of Speed were in the Armageddon supplement, along side Black Templars, Armageddon Steel Legion and Salamanders.

Codex: Eye of Terror also gave us Space Wolf 13th Company, Cadian Shock Troops, Lost & The Damned and Ulthwe Strike Force armies.

God I loved both campaign books. They were respectively the reasons why I picked up Cadians and Black Templars back then.

Anyone remember the Lost & Damned upgrade sprue? Good times.

The Eldar supplements, ancient as they are, are why I feel so many Eldar demands in recent years are kind of... unimaginative.

I.E: "Gib plastic striking scorpions".

Who cares? Don't you want Saim Hann assault Vypers, some new "ranger" units showing off Alaitoc as Alaitoc, not "haha, my flyers are OP" - a Young King diorama (I know some people hate those) and so on. Break out the imagination.

Tyel wrote:
The Eldar supplements, ancient as they are, are why I feel so many Eldar demands in recent years are kind of... unimaginative.

I.E: "Gib plastic striking scorpions".

Who cares? Don't you want Saim Hann assault Vypers, some new "ranger" units showing off Alaitoc as Alaitoc, not "haha, my flyers are OP" - a Young King diorama (I know some people hate those) and so on. Break out the imagination.

Those don't sound imaginative. They sound like the other half of a dual kit to fill out the sprue and justify a price hike. Well, except the terrible diorama, but... yeah.

I suspect most folks would love new eldar units. But they also want the basic armies to be finished. Its not about imagination, but having access to the fundamental basics of the model line before worrying about theoretical new bits and bobs.

 Argive wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:
Let's assume for a moment that there would be a Ynnari codex/supplement coming.

How would you guys like to have it being handled?

Should it just reference to Eldar, Deldar and Harlys for their units and rules, or contain all datasheets in the book?

In a WD where it beongs..

It should be akin to assasins for IOM.
Doing a full blooded supplement or codex for 3 models from one £36 is dumb..

When Marines started getting individual codices they had on average one chapter-specific model,a named hero of some sort. But I agree, SW, DeathGuard, Ynnari, all belong in a WD index article.

Cronch wrote:

 Argive wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:
Let's assume for a moment that there would be a Ynnari codex/supplement coming.

How would you guys like to have it being handled?

Should it just reference to Eldar, Deldar and Harlys for their units and rules, or contain all datasheets in the book?

In a WD where it beongs..

It should be akin to assasins for IOM.
Doing a full blooded supplement or codex for 3 models from one £36 is dumb..

When Marines started getting individual codices they had on average one chapter-specific model,a named hero of some sort. But I agree, SW, DeathGuard, Ynnari, all belong in a WD index article.

When are you talking about exactly? I'm thinking 2nd edition is when they first had their own books, and even then they had several units released for each.

a_typical_hero wrote:
Anyone remember the Lost & Damned upgrade sprue? Good times.

Lost & The Damned were so much fun. I think I ended up with something like 90 mutants, all kitbashed from that Ork/Catachan/Zombie set they sold, plus other bits mixed in from Necromunda, Chaos Marauders, and other sources. I've even got bits from the original Genestealer Cult plastics in there. Made for some wild minis.

Cronch wrote:

 Argive wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:
Let's assume for a moment that there would be a Ynnari codex/supplement coming.

How would you guys like to have it being handled?

Should it just reference to Eldar, Deldar and Harlys for their units and rules, or contain all datasheets in the book?

In a WD where it beongs..

It should be akin to assasins for IOM.
Doing a full blooded supplement or codex for 3 models from one £36 is dumb..

When Marines started getting individual codices they had on average one chapter-specific model,a named hero of some sort. But I agree, SW, DeathGuard, Ynnari, all belong in a WD index article.

Nope. Space wolves were the very first codex (2nd edition, 1st just had army lists in various publications), and Njal, Ragnar and ulrik the wolf priest all had models. The first grey Hunter, blood claw and long fangs kits came out along with that book.

The Angels dual book had quite a few models as well.

Voss wrote:

Cronch wrote:

 Argive wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:
Let's assume for a moment that there would be a Ynnari codex/supplement coming.

How would you guys like to have it being handled?

Should it just reference to Eldar, Deldar and Harlys for their units and rules, or contain all datasheets in the book?

In a WD where it beongs..

It should be akin to assasins for IOM.
Doing a full blooded supplement or codex for 3 models from one £36 is dumb..

When Marines started getting individual codices they had on average one chapter-specific model,a named hero of some sort. But I agree, SW, DeathGuard, Ynnari, all belong in a WD index article.

Nope. Space wolves were the very first codex (2nd edition, 1st just had army lists in various publications), and Njal, Ragnar and ulrik the wolf priest all had models. The first grey Hunter, blood claw and long fangs kits came out along with that book.

The Angels dual book had quite a few models as well.

RT had the Book of the Astronmican which had full lists for all the current races and factions and included several Marine lists - the Wolves appeared also in the same publication - the only difference between them and other Chapters was names of squads.

The White Scars were given a full list (20 seperate different units/vehicles in 6 pages) but also considered a standard Chapter except for the one type of Assault Squad - the "Souldrinkers"

Tyel wrote:
The Eldar supplements, ancient as they are, are why I feel so many Eldar demands in recent years are kind of... unimaginative.

I.E: "Gib plastic striking scorpions".

Who cares? Don't you want Saim Hann assault Vypers, some new "ranger" units showing off Alaitoc as Alaitoc, not "haha, my flyers are OP" - a Young King diorama (I know some people hate those) and so on. Break out the imagination.

As a Biel-Tan player who makes a practically exclusive use of Aspect Warriors in their army i find this post offensive. I will now petition the internet for your immediate cancellation as this is the way the world works nowadays.

Tyel wrote:
The Eldar supplements, ancient as they are, are why I feel so many Eldar demands in recent years are kind of... unimaginative.

I.E: "Gib plastic striking scorpions".

Who cares? Don't you want Saim Hann assault Vypers, some new "ranger" units showing off Alaitoc as Alaitoc, not "haha, my flyers are OP" - a Young King diorama (I know some people hate those) and so on. Break out the imagination.

no

Aspect warriors are a core part of craftworlds. They should get an update, and almost everyone agrees that they need one.

"Saim Hann assault Vypers" just sounds very unimaginative anyway. I don't care about more skimmers, give me a reason to use my elite infantry again instead of playing IG with the FLY keyword

Tyel wrote:
The Eldar supplements, ancient as they are, are why I feel so many Eldar demands in recent years are kind of... unimaginative.

I.E: "Gib plastic striking scorpions".

Who cares? Don't you want Saim Hann assault Vypers, some new "ranger" units showing off Alaitoc as Alaitoc, not "haha, my flyers are OP" - a Young King diorama (I know some people hate those) and so on. Break out the imagination.

The Eldar players have lost hope with GW being imaginative because they're still sitting on ancient Finecast minis long after everyone else has had their whole range entirely transitioned to plastic. If GW can't be bothered to update staples like the Aspect Warriors why would they be bothered to make anything new? Why "new ranger units" instead of doing non-Finecast existing Rangers? Why a Young King diorama instead of making plastic versions of any of the elements of a Court of the Young King?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Tyel wrote:
The Eldar supplements, ancient as they are, are why I feel so many Eldar demands in recent years are kind of... unimaginative.

I.E: "Gib plastic striking scorpions".

Who cares? Don't you want Saim Hann assault Vypers, some new "ranger" units showing off Alaitoc as Alaitoc, not "haha, my flyers are OP" - a Young King diorama (I know some people hate those) and so on. Break out the imagination.

The Eldar players have lost hope with GW being imaginative because they're still sitting on ancient Finecast minis long after everyone else has had their whole range entirely transitioned to plastic. If GW can't be bothered to update staples like the Aspect Warriors why would they be bothered to make anything new? Why "new ranger units" instead of doing non-Finecast existing Rangers? Why a Young King diorama instead of making plastic versions of any of the elements of a Court of the Young King?

Well they did create new units in 6th/7th via wraithblades, wraith knights & the planes. They used their imagination there and it was well received overall imo.

I'd agree the aspect warriors need a rehash but I see no harm in providing dual build kits for different units in there to allow both new ideas and resculpts.

AnomanderRake wrote:

Tyel wrote:
The Eldar supplements, ancient as they are, are why I feel so many Eldar demands in recent years are kind of... unimaginative.

I.E: "Gib plastic striking scorpions".

Who cares? Don't you want Saim Hann assault Vypers, some new "ranger" units showing off Alaitoc as Alaitoc, not "haha, my flyers are OP" - a Young King diorama (I know some people hate those) and so on. Break out the imagination.

The Eldar players have lost hope with GW being imaginative because they're still sitting on ancient Finecast minis long after everyone else has had their whole range entirely transitioned to plastic. If GW can't be bothered to update staples like the Aspect Warriors why would they be bothered to make anything new? Why "new ranger units" instead of doing non-Finecast existing Rangers? Why a Young King diorama instead of making plastic versions of any of the elements of a Court of the Young King?

It's sad, but very true. The only army that had more metal and resin in it used to be the Nuns with Guns. Right now, the number of Craftworld plastic infantry is incredibly small. Guardians, Wraithguard, Howling Banshees, and Dire Avengers, that's it.

Warp Spiders, Fire Dragons, Rangers, Dark Reapers, Swooping Hawks, Striking Scorpions, and Shining Spears are all currently resin kits. That makes 3/4 of the Citadel Aspects are currently resin. I'm wondering if they could put two Aspects in to one kit, like Dark Reapers and Fire Dragons, or maybe a better question, WOULD they? Of course, they could introduce other Aspects alongside that would match the character of the classic Aspect they are tied to.

That wouldn't even come close to solving all Craftworld problems, but it is a lot easier to sell plastic at a lower price and would generate more interest in the army.

 Charistoph wrote:

AnomanderRake wrote:

Tyel wrote:
The Eldar supplements, ancient as they are, are why I feel so many Eldar demands in recent years are kind of... unimaginative.

I.E: "Gib plastic striking scorpions".

Who cares? Don't you want Saim Hann assault Vypers, some new "ranger" units showing off Alaitoc as Alaitoc, not "haha, my flyers are OP" - a Young King diorama (I know some people hate those) and so on. Break out the imagination.

The Eldar players have lost hope with GW being imaginative because they're still sitting on ancient Finecast minis long after everyone else has had their whole range entirely transitioned to plastic. If GW can't be bothered to update staples like the Aspect Warriors why would they be bothered to make anything new? Why "new ranger units" instead of doing non-Finecast existing Rangers? Why a Young King diorama instead of making plastic versions of any of the elements of a Court of the Young King?

It's sad, but very true. The only army that had more metal and resin in it used to be the Nuns with Guns. Right now, the number of Craftworld plastic infantry is incredibly small. Guardians, Wraithguard, Howling Banshees, and Dire Avengers, that's it.

Warp Spiders, Fire Dragons, Rangers, Dark Reapers, Swooping Hawks, Striking Scorpions, and Shining Spears are all currently resin kits. That makes 3/4 of the Citadel Aspects are currently resin. I'm wondering if they could put two Aspects in to one kit, like Dark Reapers and Fire Dragons, or maybe a better question, WOULD they? Of course, they could introduce other Aspects alongside that would match the character of the classic Aspect they are tied to.

That wouldn't even come close to solving all Craftworld problems, but it is a lot easier to sell plastic at a lower price and would generate more interest in the army.

One of the ideas I've seen float which I could get behind is to have heavy and light armour aspect bodies and then corresponding gear/head options to kitt them out as xyz (apart from swooping hawks coz wings). But then people would moan about that for some reason so. As much as GW is a pile of gak of a company you cant please everyone.

However, we know GW detests giving you options and spare bits to some armies /units because reasons, so I don't think that will ever happen.
The banshee kit was a prime example of that design philosophy and missed opportunity. Surely having an entire unit of executioner/dual blade wielding banshees would actually make them half decent..

Also, they don't need to stick to the current asthetic IMO.
For example the old metal reapers - the ones that looked like skeletor, not the ones with pointy helmets; look much different to what we have now.
Could push that further. Artel's warp spiders are a prime example of what could be done from an aesthetic perspective. There is no reason why eldar cant be even more xenos and less elves in space. As much as Im a fan of the Eldar id take a change of aesthetic over being stuck at finecast

It could be that they are aware they neglected these so long, they know they need to update but don't want to peeve people off with bold changes so they just don't want to touch the project.. But the more you put it off the bigger the issues becomes so.. Who knows really. Id love to be a fly on thw wall in one of the meetings when they talk about factions

Cronch wrote:

 Argive wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:
Let's assume for a moment that there would be a Ynnari codex/supplement coming.

How would you guys like to have it being handled?

Should it just reference to Eldar, Deldar and Harlys for their units and rules, or contain all datasheets in the book?

In a WD where it beongs..

It should be akin to assasins for IOM.
Doing a full blooded supplement or codex for 3 models from one £36 is dumb..

When Marines started getting individual codices they had on average one chapter-specific model,a named hero of some sort. But I agree, SW, DeathGuard, Ynnari, all belong in a WD index article.

No they don't.

White Dwarf is a monthly publican. that's not the place you wish any army rules that are going to remain more then a simple varient. the ONLY 40k rules in WD (for 8th edition) I can off the top of my head recall not eventually being folded into a larger book down the line was the Orks Goffs rules (which where all narrative)

 Argive wrote:
...One of the ideas I've seen float which I could get behind is to have heavy and light armour aspect bodies and then corresponding gear/head options to kitt them out as xyz (apart from swooping hawks coz wings). But then people would moan about that for some reason so. As much as GW is a pile of gak of a company you cant please everyone...

"Active heavy armour" (Striking Scorpions + Warp Spiders) and "static heavy armour" (Fire Dragons + Dark Reapers) would make sense as dual kits, but the rest probably wouldn't. The only things Banshees/Hawks would share is the legs, Dire Avengers could work as a dual kit with Guardian Defenders but probably not with any other Aspects, and Shining Spears would need to be an upgrade sprue with the Windriders.

They should have redone the main Aspect Warriors in three kits:

Banshees/Hawks - Lots of dynamic poses, tactical rocks and whatnot, and then it's easy to swap in the different helmets, weapons, wings.

Dragons/Scorpions - The 'medium' armour group, again a case of arm/head swaps.

Reapers/Spiders - The heavy group, a swap of weapons, heads and backpacks.

Dudeface wrote:


Sure then rock around 10th ed with 21 codex and 100 or so supplements to rewrite, sell and buy again.

Getting a new codex each edition is kinda silly though, especially in this age of frequent FAQs and points changes thanks to Chapter Approved. Before 7th codexes used to last a couple of editions, 5+ years for each book, typically without a supplement.

Most of the 8th edition codexes are perfectly fine at the moment. Codexes should last for years, I agree about the endless publication bloat, it is a pain.

Honestly people over-focus on Plastic Aspects when a bigger barrier for entry is the ancient and finecast troops choices. I've heard more people say the 22 year old Guardians, 15 year old DA and Finecast Rangers (and all of those issues with Storm Guardians!) are the reason they don't want to invest in Craftworlds. It's pointless doing fancy new models for specialist units you'll only have one of, if the Core choices of the army are outdated or in bad materials. You saw this issue with Tomb Kings where they released some gorgeous new monster models, but the core part of your army were these underwhelming plastic sculpts that looked outdated even when they came out originally, so of course the release flopped (of course the issues with WHFB at that time didn't help either)

To be clear I'm not saying don't update Aspects, but any range refresh has to bring the basic core units of the army up to par as well.

 Bosskelot wrote:
Honestly people over-focus on Plastic Aspects when a bigger barrier for entry is the ancient and finecast troops choices. I've heard more people say the 22 year old Guardians, 15 year old DA and Finecast Rangers (and all of those issues with Storm Guardians!) are the reason they don't want to invest in Craftworlds. It's pointless doing fancy new models for specialist units you'll only have one of, if the Core choices of the army are outdated or in bad materials. You saw this issue with Tomb Kings where they released some gorgeous new monster models, but the core part of your army were these underwhelming plastic sculpts that looked outdated even when they came out originally, so of course the release flopped (of course the issues with WHFB at that time didn't help either)

To be clear I'm not saying don't update Aspects, but any range refresh has to bring the basic core units of the army up to par as well.

Didn't they put plastic Guardians in Wake the Dead?

Breton wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
Honestly people over-focus on Plastic Aspects when a bigger barrier for entry is the ancient and finecast troops choices. I've heard more people say the 22 year old Guardians, 15 year old DA and Finecast Rangers (and all of those issues with Storm Guardians!) are the reason they don't want to invest in Craftworlds. It's pointless doing fancy new models for specialist units you'll only have one of, if the Core choices of the army are outdated or in bad materials. You saw this issue with Tomb Kings where they released some gorgeous new monster models, but the core part of your army were these underwhelming plastic sculpts that looked outdated even when they came out originally, so of course the release flopped (of course the issues with WHFB at that time didn't help either)

To be clear I'm not saying don't update Aspects, but any range refresh has to bring the basic core units of the army up to par as well.

Didn't they put plastic Guardians in Wake the Dead?

What does that have to do with anything?

 Blackie wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


Sure then rock around 10th ed with 21 codex and 100 or so supplements to rewrite, sell and buy again.

Getting a new codex each edition is kinda silly though, especially in this age of frequent FAQs and points changes thanks to Chapter Approved. Before 7th codexes used to last a couple of editions, 5+ years for each book, typically without a supplement.

Most of the 8th edition codexes are perfectly fine at the moment. Codexes should last for years, I agree about the endless publication bloat, it is a pain.

Those 5+ year books were a source of anguish for the community because they were outdated and left faction languishing without tools etc they needed for the current edition.

I agree it maybe doesn't need to be as fast as it is, but a cursory glance at the community on here is very much majority in favour of "release everything now!", rather than a slow roll out.

Breton wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
Honestly people over-focus on Plastic Aspects when a bigger barrier for entry is the ancient and finecast troops choices. I've heard more people say the 22 year old Guardians, 15 year old DA and Finecast Rangers (and all of those issues with Storm Guardians!) are the reason they don't want to invest in Craftworlds. It's pointless doing fancy new models for specialist units you'll only have one of, if the Core choices of the army are outdated or in bad materials. You saw this issue with Tomb Kings where they released some gorgeous new monster models, but the core part of your army were these underwhelming plastic sculpts that looked outdated even when they came out originally, so of course the release flopped (of course the issues with WHFB at that time didn't help either)

To be clear I'm not saying don't update Aspects, but any range refresh has to bring the basic core units of the army up to par as well.

Didn't they put plastic Guardians in Wake the Dead?

the same plastic guardians that already exist? How does that solve the issue of old guardians?
Are they actually a new sculpt? I don't believe they are.

 Ordana wrote:

Breton wrote:


Didn't they put plastic Guardians in Wake the Dead?

the same plastic guardians that already exist? How does that solve the issue of old guardians?
Are they actually a new sculpt? I don't believe they are.

Well they're not finecast. Are they a bad sculpt? Do they have all the options? An old plastic sculpt that's still good doesn't need to get replaced. Especially not while there are bigger issues to resculpt.

 Blackie wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


Sure then rock around 10th ed with 21 codex and 100 or so supplements to rewrite, sell and buy again.

Getting a new codex each edition is kinda silly though, especially in this age of frequent FAQs and points changes thanks to Chapter Approved. Before 7th codexes used to last a couple of editions, 5+ years for each book, typically without a supplement.

Most of the 8th edition codexes are perfectly fine at the moment. Codexes should last for years, I agree about the endless publication bloat, it is a pain.

a bunch of 8th edition books very much are showing their age. Stuff like the GSC codex may aswell have been written for a completely different game with how much the base rules they relied upon have changed.

Nids also suffers a lot of the power creep that has run through the latter part of 8th.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
Well, back in 3rd, Eldar were the only Codex to have a Codex Supplement for the specific Craftworlds.

I don't think you need individual books for each major CW, but have one supplement for the 5 Major ones that really goes deep into their lore and expands on their styles of play wouldn't really be too absurd of a prospect.

During 3rd, BA, SW and DA were supplements to the main SM book. There was also Codex Armageddon.

Was Codex: Catachans 3rd or 4th ed?

 Dysartes wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
Well, back in 3rd, Eldar were the only Codex to have a Codex Supplement for the specific Craftworlds.

I don't think you need individual books for each major CW, but have one supplement for the 5 Major ones that really goes deep into their lore and expands on their styles of play wouldn't really be too absurd of a prospect.

During 3rd, BA, SW and DA were supplements to the main SM book. There was also Codex Armageddon.

Was Codex: Catachans 3rd or 4th ed?

3rd

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_(Warhammer_40,000)#3rd_Edition

Dudeface wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


Sure then rock around 10th ed with 21 codex and 100 or so supplements to rewrite, sell and buy again.

Getting a new codex each edition is kinda silly though, especially in this age of frequent FAQs and points changes thanks to Chapter Approved. Before 7th codexes used to last a couple of editions, 5+ years for each book, typically without a supplement.

Most of the 8th edition codexes are perfectly fine at the moment. Codexes should last for years, I agree about the endless publication bloat, it is a pain.

Those 5+ year books were a source of anguish for the community because they were outdated and left faction languishing without tools etc they needed for the current edition.

I agree it maybe doesn't need to be as fast as it is, but a cursory glance at the community on here is very much majority in favour of "release everything now!", rather than a slow roll out.

True, but there were no frequent FAQ and points changes releases back then. So units stayed the same for years. I'm also in favor of releasing/updating rules faster than old times but releasing a book every year or year and a half (including the supplement) for each faction IMHO is too much. Recent editions last 3 years, two new books for each faction every edition sounds like endless publication bloat to me.

Starting with two books like SW, DA, etc must do now is also quite irritating. As a SW I had to buy three books in 2020 (Saga of the Beast, SM codex, SW Supplement) just to have all the faction rules. How long are these new codex+supplement going to last? IMHO not even the entire 9th edition

 Blackie wrote:


True, but there were no frequent FAQ and points changes releases back then. So units stayed the same for years. I'm also in favor of releasing/updating rules faster than old times but releasing a book every year or year and a half (including the supplement) for each faction IMHO is too much. Recent editions last 3 years, two new books for each faction every edition sounds like endless publication bloat to me.

Starting with two books like SW, DA, etc must do now is also quite irritating. As a SW I had to buy three books in 2020 (Saga of the Beast, SM codex, SW Supplement) just to have all the faction rules. How long are these new codex+supplement going to last? IMHO not even the entire 9th edition

I don't know if I've got a choice between buying a $40 codex and a $20 supplement every couple years, or a $40 codex every couple years, and a $40 chapter approved points update every year.... I think I'd prefer the codex + supplement. At least there's stuff I want to read in those when they add more fluff.

Breton wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

Breton wrote:


Didn't they put plastic Guardians in Wake the Dead?

the same plastic guardians that already exist? How does that solve the issue of old guardians?
Are they actually a new sculpt? I don't believe they are.

Well they're not finecast. Are they a bad sculpt? Do they have all the options? An old plastic sculpt that's still good doesn't need to get replaced. Especially not while there are bigger issues to resculpt.

I just listed instances of people being turned off by the age and quality of the sculpts.

Just because something is plastic, it doesn't mean it's automatically ineligible to be updated. Like I said, the core troops of an army need to be priority number 1 in any sort of range update because they're the majority of what people will be buying. New Aspect Warriors aren't going to draw new players into Eldar if the actual majority of what they're going to be required to buy are still 22 year old models.

The re-design of Necron Warriors and CSM has basically opened the doors for other stuff to be updated and sort of made it a necessity. The core troops of an army are critically important in making it enticing and appealing to invest into. Not highly specialized units you might only ever have one of.

 Bosskelot wrote:


I just listed instances of people being turned off by the age and quality of the sculpts.

Just because something is plastic, it doesn't mean it's automatically ineligible to be updated.

No I was honestly asking if they were a bad sculpt. They could be. I don't know. They're on the shelf for "later".

Like I said, the core troops of an army need to be priority number 1 in any sort of range update because they're the majority of what people will be buying. New Aspect Warriors aren't going to draw new players into Eldar if the actual majority of what they're going to be required to buy are still 22 year old models.

The re-design of Necron Warriors and CSM has basically opened the doors for other stuff to be updated and sort of made it a necessity. The core troops of an army are critically important in making it enticing and appealing to invest into. Not highly specialized units you might only ever have one of.

Breton wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:


I just listed instances of people being turned off by the age and quality of the sculpts.

Just because something is plastic, it doesn't mean it's automatically ineligible to be updated.

No I was honestly asking if they were a bad sculpt. They could be. I don't know. They're on the shelf for "later".

Like I said, the core troops of an army need to be priority number 1 in any sort of range update because they're the majority of what people will be buying. New Aspect Warriors aren't going to draw new players into Eldar if the actual majority of what they're going to be required to buy are still 22 year old models.

The re-design of Necron Warriors and CSM has basically opened the doors for other stuff to be updated and sort of made it a necessity. The core troops of an army are critically important in making it enticing and appealing to invest into. Not highly specialized units you might only ever have one of.

People seem to hate the guardians... I really like the kit, it's simple, functional and not flashy which says "citizen militia" to me.

 Bosskelot wrote:
Honestly people over-focus on Plastic Aspects when a bigger barrier for entry is the ancient and finecast troops choices. I've heard more people say the 22 year old Guardians, 15 year old DA and Finecast Rangers (and all of those issues with Storm Guardians!) are the reason they don't want to invest in Craftworlds. It's pointless doing fancy new models for specialist units you'll only have one of, if the Core choices of the army are outdated or in bad materials. You saw this issue with Tomb Kings where they released some gorgeous new monster models, but the core part of your army were these underwhelming plastic sculpts that looked outdated even when they came out originally, so of course the release flopped (of course the issues with WHFB at that time didn't help either)

To be clear I'm not saying don't update Aspects, but any range refresh has to bring the basic core units of the army up to par as well.

Actually, I included the Rangers in with the Aspects. I know they aren't technically Aspects, but they are close enough for the purposes of this discussion.

Now, I agree to a point. The Guardians could use some work. Their current kit is about the same age as the old Necron Warriors' kit. However, unlike the Necrons, the Craftworlds hasn't seen a nearly total line replacement like their Dark Eldar cousins and Necrons did in 5th Edition. Dire Avengers date back to the Blue Period of 4th Edition (which was more about their rules than their models), and the Craftworld line has largely been playing catch up ever since with an Aspect here and a unit there.

The Craftworlds need to be brought up to speed, and those Aspect Warriors are a core representation of how much the line needs to be brought up even more than 3rd Edition Plastic Guardians. That is why they keep being brought up.

Of course, updating Guardians could see the longer-ranged las-rifles come back as an option for them, so that would be something.

Catulle wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:


I just listed instances of people being turned off by the age and quality of the sculpts.

Just because something is plastic, it doesn't mean it's automatically ineligible to be updated.

No I was honestly asking if they were a bad sculpt. They could be. I don't know. They're on the shelf for "later".

Like I said, the core troops of an army need to be priority number 1 in any sort of range update because they're the majority of what people will be buying. New Aspect Warriors aren't going to draw new players into Eldar if the actual majority of what they're going to be required to buy are still 22 year old models.

The re-design of Necron Warriors and CSM has basically opened the doors for other stuff to be updated and sort of made it a necessity. The core troops of an army are critically important in making it enticing and appealing to invest into. Not highly specialized units you might only ever have one of.

People seem to hate the guardians... I really like the kit, it's simple, functional and not flashy which says "citizen militia" to me.

Yeah I agree, dont get it.
I don't mind the guardian kit. I think tahts the last thing on the priority list. Especially weapon platform work really well. I wouldn't want them to be any more complicated if i have to paint 30+ lol

The rules though... That's a whole other thing.