H.B.M.C. wrote:
Some more leaks:

Skitarii: 8ppm for both vanguard and rangers, rangers have a 3" pregame move now, are core (obviously) squads of 5-20, 8ppm for both vanguard and rangers, and under 10 models you can only take 1 of each special weapon (like wyches) (not completely sure about the weapon loadout) Rad Carbines are still same profile, but 6s to hit autowound instead of 2d on 6s to wound. Arc Pistol is S5 ap2 d1 (d2 and 4+ wound vs vehicle )

GW's rules inanity continues it seems...

I hate it when they do that but it seems to be a trend. I see why they're doing it, and I think it's a good idea for new units, but like Wyches, we had multiple codex iterations that allowed multiple special weapons from each kind and we built our units accordingly. Are we supposed to break our painted models apart?

40KFAQ@gwplc.com is the address, let the rules team know what you think of this (in a polite and civil manner, please).

I have some vanguard/rangers I use for Kill Team (with a tank and an enginseer from a starter box).

I decided to take the plunge and get the new codex and some of those kastelan robots I'd always liked the look of but never had a reason to get.
Are these in the codex still? They're now listed as no longer available rather than out of stock. Any point in me getting a codex if the model I wanted is now discontinued? I have no way to know if it still has rules in the new codex.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
Are these in the codex still? They're now listed as no longer available rather than out of stock. Any point in me getting a codex if the model I wanted is now discontinued? I have no way to know if it still has rules in the new codex.

They're in the Italian leaks, and I would guess they're off the site for a re-box.

Looks like some reviews of the book are up on YouTube already. GMG has one at least.

 Tiberius501 wrote:
Looks like some reviews of the book are up on YouTube already. GMG has one at least.

Goonhammer have a (non-YT) review up.

beast_gts wrote:

 Tiberius501 wrote:
Looks like some reviews of the book are up on YouTube already. GMG has one at least.

Goonhammer have a (non-YT) review up.

Nooooooo! One of each weapon in a unit of 10... *siiiiigh* man that is really annoying. It was obviously gonna happen, but at least I could hope it wouldn’t. I really don’t like the way they’re doing this, I need to somehow unmake models and redo them.

 Tiberius501 wrote:

beast_gts wrote:

 Tiberius501 wrote:
Looks like some reviews of the book are up on YouTube already. GMG has one at least.

Goonhammer have a (non-YT) review up.

Nooooooo! One of each weapon in a unit of 10... *siiiiigh* man that is really annoying. It was obviously gonna happen, but at least I could hope it wouldn’t. I really don’t like the way they’re doing this, I need to somehow unmake models and redo them.

The waist gunners from the Dunerider can take the standard Skitarii arms, in case you're looking to fill some bodies.

Has anyone spotted can the regular tech-priest enginseer have the holy order traits?

 Spreelock wrote:
Has anyone spotted can the regular tech-priest enginseer have the holy order traits?

It seems like it? I think any tech-priest can take them, and they’re listed under the types of tech-priest.

Other opinions: the book seems pretty awesome. I’m not a huge competitive player, but there seems to be a good chunk of improvements to stuff that needed it, a couple of strats that make some units pretty awesome (radium carbines auto wounding on 4+ to hit! And taser weapons getting extra hits on 5+! Delicious!). And overall it feels really fluffy now.

While both canticles and Doctrinas are once per game (though there seems to be a few ways to get around this, generally for 1 unit a turn), they seem pretty awesome, Canticles all looking a lot more solid than before and keep up with Shroudsalm (one of my new faves being the electric one that no longer does token mortals... whenever that happened for anyone, and now -1 from hit rolls in melee for the turn it’s active. Tasty af).

A few odd ball rules that are way too complex for pretty much no reason, like the new way of transporting a unit of up to 12 between 2 of the transport flyers... awesome in terms of visuals, the rule is just a page long and just does not seem worth the effort and points if that’s what you wanted them for.

And there’s also a LOT of keyword and rules maintenance and tracking.

But overall seems like a really fun book and I’m really keen, especially for crusade.

But man... the one thing that bums me out is the damn weapon option restrictions. *flips table*

GW's embarrassing inability to proofread strikes again, the transports can transport literally any infantry in the game. It's as if the guy who wrote the Ad Mech codex saw the 10 point Reavers in the DE book and was like "hold my beer..."

How a company worth billions still can't find a way to hire a halfway decent proofreader is just mind-boggling.

I'm pretty concerned about the strength of chickens.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I'm pretty concerned about the strength of chickens.

Yea, a unit that was already devastating and fairly durable, became tougher then 2 dollar steak and had it's guns improved lol.

This book honestly should just be called Codex Skitarii IMHO because that's where all the love was poured, good lord.

yukishiro1 wrote:
GW's embarrassing inability to proofread strikes again, the transports can transport literally any infantry in the game. It's as if the guy who wrote the Ad Mech codex saw the 10 point Reavers in the DE book and was like "hold my beer..."

How a company worth billions still can't find a way to hire a halfway decent proofreader is just mind-boggling.

Presumably it was to allow Forgeworld and Secutarii infantry to board, though the latter still have Admech keyword, don't they? Or perhaps who can ride in which Imperial transports is loosening up?

 Tastyfish wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
GW's embarrassing inability to proofread strikes again, the transports can transport literally any infantry in the game. It's as if the guy who wrote the Ad Mech codex saw the 10 point Reavers in the DE book and was like "hold my beer..."

How a company worth billions still can't find a way to hire a halfway decent proofreader is just mind-boggling.

Presumably it was to allow Forgeworld and Secutarii infantry to board, though the latter still have Admech keyword, don't they? Or perhaps who can ride in which Imperial transports is loosening up?

Secutarii come with the <titan legion> keyword rather than <forge world>, so that sounds plausible. I'm also struggling to think of a situation where this would be horribly game-breaking, especially as pretty much any other imperial factions have their own transports already and it means giving up armywide bonuses like canticles.

Still, it's pretty funny if Primaris / Firstborn can jump aboard Admech transports but not ones from their own chapter.

It was definitely just them failing at allowing SECUTARII, there is zero chance it is intended. And hopefully no TOs are naive enough to allow it. But it's embarrassing that GW can't seem to do basic proofreading; this is the second codex in a row to have a very basic, very high profile error that any decent proofreader would have spotted immediately.

That they don't even bother to day-1 errata stuff like this and the Reavers is really disappointing too. It's just so lazy.

yukishiro1 wrote:
It's just so lazy.

Something something 8th edition Assault weapons...

yukishiro1 wrote:
That they don't even bother to day-1 errata stuff like this and the Reavers is really disappointing too. It's just so lazy.

To be fair to them you're jumping the gun on any complaint that this particular issue hasn't been covered by a day 1 errata because the codex is still 7 days from release. By all means complain in 8 days if/ when it doesn't come.

I'm rather disappointed by the change to special weapon loadouts for the skitarii, I can see why they did it but these types of changes are a real headache for anybody with an existing force. I guess I'm building some arc rifle models this week...

Well, I mean no, not really. It's up for purchase now and insiders have got their copies and can use them, so any day-1 errata should be up too. In this case the error is so obvious presumably nobody is really going to order the book planning on abusing it, but assuming they're aware of it - and it's hard to believe even GW could be ignorant and incompetent enough not to have realized it in the 3-6 months since they sent it to the printers - it should be corrected via an errata immediately.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Those are unconfirmed. They cropped up as text only.

And now it's confirmed.

This is GW's worst trend in a while.

Wow.. it seems like they buffed Ironstriders even more !!! @@ Like they were already good. The thing is, they fight extremely well too. So, they shoot well, they fight ok, and they are reasonably tough because you improve their saves and stuff.

Its like it will be hard to shoot down a whole unit in one turn (and they are so fast they can hide behind obscuring and then advance out to get a good shot), along with them being able to get better saves.

I mean, you can tag them, but you need a really tanky unit to withstand a big unit hitting you in close combat. And admech has stuff to make you fight last, and such now.

Big unit of Ironstriders is looking super hard to bring down (whether in shooting or in close combat), and also hard to bring down in close combat too. They are tough to even tarpit too.

In short, if ironstriders aren't already out of stock, they would totally be now. I mean, I think you could totally skip tanks for just ironstriders if you wanted to. They are that good.

Definitely seems to be little reason to take any of the tanks when the Ironstriders do everything the tanks do, except better, cheaper, and with <CORE>.

Eldenfirefly wrote:
Wow.. it seems like they buffed Ironstriders even more !!! @@ Like they were already good. The thing is, they fight extremely well too. So, they shoot well, they fight ok, and they are reasonably tough because you improve their saves and stuff.

Its like it will be hard to shoot down a whole unit in one turn (and they are so fast they can hide behind obscuring and then advance out to get a good shot), along with them being able to get better saves.

I mean, you can tag them, but you need a really tanky unit to withstand a big unit hitting you in close combat. And admech has stuff to make you fight last, and such now.

Big unit of Ironstriders is looking super hard to bring down (whether in shooting or in close combat), and also hard to bring down in close combat too. They are tough to even tarpit too.

In short, if ironstriders aren't already out of stock, they would totally be now. I mean, I think you could totally skip tanks for just ironstriders if you wanted to. They are that good.

What's your definition of extremely tanky? Because 6 chickens (max size) can't kill 5 gants.

yukishiro1 wrote:
GW's embarrassing inability to proofread strikes again, the transports can transport literally any infantry in the game. It's as if the guy who wrote the Ad Mech codex saw the 10 point Reavers in the DE book and was like "hold my beer..."

How a company worth billions still can't find a way to hire a halfway decent proofreader is just mind-boggling.

?

The French copy I saw has the <Forge-World> keyword, doesn't the English one have it ?

So what is it exactly for skittari ? 1 of each weapon in squads 10 or less or less than 10 ?

This really screws apart most of my infantry. Well GW really doesn't want me buying their books or playing the army I guess, another one bites the dust as I wait for another edition.

 Tiberius501 wrote:
Nooooooo! One of each weapon in a unit of 10... *siiiiigh* man that is really annoying.

Deathwatch players: first time?

You know, it's funny, DW players were warning everyone it's going to happen way back in 2016 it's going to happen to rest of the armies if idiotic rule writing of Kelly and Cruddace isn't immediately protested by the entire playerbase and were completely ignored. Gee, if only someone told you years in advance

But don't worry, if current DW book is any indication, the ride will get wilder still, and in next book AM will lose access to all special rules on units that don't have antennas (yup, no special ammo for any unit lacking silly button on gun, and what's even sadder, there are imbeciles defending this insane change that made whole units illegal after two whole editions)...

So, the Adeptus Mechanicus homeworld is Mars.

Kataphron Destroyers and Breachers are no longer INFANTRY, they are BIKERS.

Skaven exist.

When will I be seeing all your Biker MIce from Mars conversions?

You do realize, some of us may play Deathwatch already yes ? So all this is doing is hitting me over and over again. Deathwatch, Plague marines/Blightlords, Wyches, Skittari.

This is really stupid. I'm so damn tired of GW thinking we are too damn stupid to buy multiple boxes for the loadouts we want, which I did. What is so utterly mind bending to buying two boxes, to say field 2 plasma in a 5 man squad ? Or 2 in a 10 man squad ?

It was stupid then, it's stupid now, and just keeps following the train of stupid. GW designers should wear the " I'm with Stupid " shirt but the arrows are pointing all around them.


Yeah, Kataphrons are bikers, they have the need for speed, maybe people can put some sweet exhausts on them now, they can also peel out of the deployment zones while you make some wicked revving biker sounds.

Not that I agree with GW's decision on this, but GW has received constant complaints that "all the options to build my unit to my desired configuration are not in the kit" along with "evil GW is trying to make me buy multiple kits to get my desired unit configuration". They seem to be solving the problem by either upgrading the kit to contain all the options (Battle Sisters kit, soon to be upgraded Cadian Infantry kit) or restricting the unit to what the kit can support (Plague marines/Blightlords, Wyches, Skittari). Really sucks if you are on the downgrade side of the equation, but it does solve the problem going forward for GW

Spoletta wrote:

Eldenfirefly wrote:
Wow.. it seems like they buffed Ironstriders even more !!! @@ Like they were already good. The thing is, they fight extremely well too. So, they shoot well, they fight ok, and they are reasonably tough because you improve their saves and stuff.

Its like it will be hard to shoot down a whole unit in one turn (and they are so fast they can hide behind obscuring and then advance out to get a good shot), along with them being able to get better saves.

I mean, you can tag them, but you need a really tanky unit to withstand a big unit hitting you in close combat. And admech has stuff to make you fight last, and such now.

Big unit of Ironstriders is looking super hard to bring down (whether in shooting or in close combat), and also hard to bring down in close combat too. They are tough to even tarpit too.

In short, if ironstriders aren't already out of stock, they would totally be now. I mean, I think you could totally skip tanks for just ironstriders if you wanted to. They are that good.

What's your definition of extremely tanky? Because 6 chickens (max size) can't kill 5 gants.

Seeing how i have had 5 chickens walk over ork boy i find idea that 5 gaunts would be too hard. 5 t3 6+ wounds isn't that hard target.

The fact that those chickens rolled like demons against those orks, doesn't mean that that is the expected result.

Chickens are very bad in melee. That's a fact. (As long as you don't mean the melee chickens, but since they don't shoot and you were talking about tagging them in melee, I guess you are talking about the shooty ones).

 alextroy wrote:
Not that I agree with GW's decision on this, but GW has received constant complaints that "all the options to build my unit to my desired configuration are not in the kit" along with "evil GW is trying to make me buy multiple kits to get my desired unit configuration". They seem to be solving the problem by either upgrading the kit to contain all the options (Battle Sisters kit, soon to be upgraded Cadian Infantry kit) or restricting the unit to what the kit can support (Plague marines/Blightlords, Wyches, Skittari). Really sucks if you are on the downgrade side of the equation, but it does solve the problem going forward for GW

You say that, but the Battle Sister kit very conspicuously doesn't include a Multi-melta to force players to buy multiple boxes of Retributors (which are about twice as expensive on a per-model basis).

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Not that I agree with GW's decision on this, but GW has received constant complaints that "all the options to build my unit to my desired configuration are not in the kit" along with "evil GW is trying to make me buy multiple kits to get my desired unit configuration". They seem to be solving the problem by either upgrading the kit to contain all the options (Battle Sisters kit, soon to be upgraded Cadian Infantry kit) or restricting the unit to what the kit can support (Plague marines/Blightlords, Wyches, Skittari). Really sucks if you are on the downgrade side of the equation, but it does solve the problem going forward for GW

You say that, but the Battle Sister kit very conspicuously doesn't include a Multi-melta to force players to buy multiple boxes of Retributors (which are about twice as expensive on a per-model basis).

Keep complaining about that and SoB squads will lose their multimeltas. Alextroy is right; I personally don't mind buying multiple kits* and/or having to convert, but people have been complaining about that for years and this is the result.

(* Especially if they are core unit kits that I would buy multiple of anyway.)

 Aaranis wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
GW's embarrassing inability to proofread strikes again, the transports can transport literally any infantry in the game. It's as if the guy who wrote the Ad Mech codex saw the 10 point Reavers in the DE book and was like "hold my beer..."

How a company worth billions still can't find a way to hire a halfway decent proofreader is just mind-boggling.

?

The French copy I saw has the <Forge-World> keyword, doesn't the English one have it ?

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

The English version says <Forge World> INFANTRY or just INFANTRY, period, no other keywords at all. So they screwed it up in both versions, the English one obviously but the French version too because Secutarii can't ride in them, like they used to before the book. Makes it even more clear they screwed it up by forgetting about Secutarii and then trying to add them at the last minute. Though it's even more embarrassing that they screwed that up in two separate ways in two different language versions.

 Crimson wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Not that I agree with GW's decision on this, but GW has received constant complaints that "all the options to build my unit to my desired configuration are not in the kit" along with "evil GW is trying to make me buy multiple kits to get my desired unit configuration". They seem to be solving the problem by either upgrading the kit to contain all the options (Battle Sisters kit, soon to be upgraded Cadian Infantry kit) or restricting the unit to what the kit can support (Plague marines/Blightlords, Wyches, Skittari). Really sucks if you are on the downgrade side of the equation, but it does solve the problem going forward for GW

You say that, but the Battle Sister kit very conspicuously doesn't include a Multi-melta to force players to buy multiple boxes of Retributors (which are about twice as expensive on a per-model basis).

Keep complaining about that and SoB squads will lose their multimeltas. Alextroy is right; I personally don't mind buying multiple kits* and/or having to convert, but people have been complaining about that for years and this is the result.

(* Especially if they are core unit kits that I would buy multiple of anyway.)

That very much reads like 'Don't complain or Daddy GW will punish you'.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

That very much reads like 'Don't complain or Daddy GW will punish you'.

It should read as "Be careful what you wish for", but haters gonna hate.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Not that I agree with GW's decision on this, but GW has received constant complaints that "all the options to build my unit to my desired configuration are not in the kit" along with "evil GW is trying to make me buy multiple kits to get my desired unit configuration". They seem to be solving the problem by either upgrading the kit to contain all the options (Battle Sisters kit, soon to be upgraded Cadian Infantry kit) or restricting the unit to what the kit can support (Plague marines/Blightlords, Wyches, Skittari). Really sucks if you are on the downgrade side of the equation, but it does solve the problem going forward for GW

You say that, but the Battle Sister kit very conspicuously doesn't include a Multi-melta to force players to buy multiple boxes of Retributors (which are about twice as expensive on a per-model basis).

You are right in that there are exactly four options for a Battle Sister/Celestian/Dominion squad that are not in the Battle Sister box (inferno pistol, hand flamer, power maul and Multi-melta). They were intentionally placed by design in the Retributor and Seraphim boxes as part of the same release. Besides those options, everything is in the box including 4 copies of each special weapon.

But I won't derail this thread with more talk of Sisters. Just be aware that GW is slowing and inconsistently moving towards a the box (and possibly associated boxes) contains everything you need to build the unit paradigm.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

That very much reads like 'Don't complain or Daddy GW will punish you'.

More like I don't want to lose options because GW tries to appease whiners that will never be satisfied by anything anyway.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Not that I agree with GW's decision on this, but GW has received constant complaints that "all the options to build my unit to my desired configuration are not in the kit" along with "evil GW is trying to make me buy multiple kits to get my desired unit configuration". They seem to be solving the problem by either upgrading the kit to contain all the options (Battle Sisters kit, soon to be upgraded Cadian Infantry kit) or restricting the unit to what the kit can support (Plague marines/Blightlords, Wyches, Skittari). Really sucks if you are on the downgrade side of the equation, but it does solve the problem going forward for GW

You say that, but the Battle Sister kit very conspicuously doesn't include a Multi-melta to force players to buy multiple boxes of Retributors (which are about twice as expensive on a per-model basis).

Well that issue is soon gone with　new codex on way.

Yeah, I certainly wouldn't buy a bunch of multi-melta retributors right now. Seems like about a 50% chance they go to 2 per squad.

You mean just like they did to the Drukhari Fast Attack and Heavy Support units?

Retributors are Heavy Support, so I wouldn't worry about them,

GW is reducing the options of Troops units to those in the box, probably under the logic that Troops shouldn't be spamming specialist weaponry, but specialist units have not been affected.

There are no such thoughts. Plague marines can now field more special weapons than they could before, just less of the same kind.

There is no more or less to these changes than this:

 alextroy wrote:
GW is slowing and inconsistently moving towards a the box (and possibly associated boxes) contains everything you need to build the unit paradigm.

I'm still salty about the DE Trueborn I made with splinter carbines became invalidated after one codex. Same with my Duke Sliscus count-as.

I'm seriously not liking this "well, you only get what's in the box" trend...

Yeah, the load out change is bad. All my infantry are now illegal and all I did was have two specials per squad. And I only used what came in the boxes without ordering bits. It makes me scared for crisis suits.

 Jidmah wrote:
There are no such thoughts. Plague marines can now field more special weapons than they could before, just less of the same kind.

There is no more or less to these changes than this:

 alextroy wrote:
GW is slowing and inconsistently moving towards a the box (and possibly associated boxes) contains everything you need to build the unit paradigm.

Except scourges have nowhere near the bits needed, but can still field multiples.

If there is a logic the more consistent one is where they aim to restrict options on troops.

That or they want just troops to be consistent.

Or none of the above.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
There are no such thoughts. Plague marines can now field more special weapons than they could before, just less of the same kind.

There is no more or less to these changes than this:

 alextroy wrote:
GW is slowing and inconsistently moving towards a the box (and possibly associated boxes) contains everything you need to build the unit paradigm.

Except scourges have nowhere near the bits needed, but can still field multiples.

If there is a logic the more consistent one is where they aim to restrict options on troops.

That or they want just troops to be consistent.

Or none of the above.

I'd go with "none of the above". If it's just troops, how do you explain Blightlords?

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

I'd go with "none of the above". If it's just troops, how do you explain Blightlords?

I think you have to consider the purpose of the unit. The primary purpose of troops is holding ground and/or objectives. Terminators may not be Troops, but that is still their primary purpose.

On the other hand if the purpose of a unit is just killing, weapon restrictions just get in the way of that.

 Tyran wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

I'd go with "none of the above". If it's just troops, how do you explain Blightlords?

I think you have to consider the purpose of the unit. The primary purpose of troops is holding ground and/or objectives. Terminators may not be Troops, but that is still their primary purpose.

On the other hand if the purpose of a unit is just killing, weapon restrictions just get in the way of that.

I'm not sure that logic works. I mean... wyches? Dithering around on objectives and not getting in trying to kill folks?

Not really sure that's true for Blightlords, either. Most of the time I've seen people use them, they're getting jammed into combat, not trying to plink with their weaker selection (and higher cost ratio) of ranged weapons.

 Tyran wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

I'd go with "none of the above". If it's just troops, how do you explain Blightlords?

I think you have to consider the purpose of the unit. The primary purpose of troops is holding ground and/or objectives. Terminators may not be Troops, but that is still their primary purpose.

On the other hand if the purpose of a unit is just killing, weapon restrictions just get in the way of that.

Loyalist terminators, maybe. Chaos Terminators primary purpose is usually: <drop in>, <delete problem>.

I would argue Death Guard Terminators are more about tankiness, considering they are T5 2+/4++ - 1 damage.

 Tyran wrote:
I would argue Death Guard Terminators are more about tankiness, considering they are T5 2+/4++ - 1 damage.

True, they are incredibly durable. But most everything in the Death Guard codex is. And I don't think all those Death Guard players went to the trouble of acquiring all of the required bits and then paid the points for those combi-weapons so their terminators could just sit on objectives and die as slowly as possible. They wanted that offensive firepower for a reason.

 Tyran wrote:
I would argue Death Guard Terminators are more about tankiness, considering they are T5 2+/4++ - 1 damage.

Have you seen deathguard terminators in action in melee? Trust me, they can definitely kill stuff in melee.

The thing I observe now though, is that being good at melee is no longer a thing that only "fighty" factions have. Nowadays, everyone is good in melee. Look at all the 9th ed codexes coming out. Every 9th ed codex has lethal melee fighting units. Being good in melee doesn't really seem to be a "trait" anymore. Like admech is known for being the shootiest of factions, but now, I believe its totally possible to fashion an admech list that would kick butt in melee.

You don't need to look across multiple units to see how inconsistent GW's limiting of weapons/options is.

Take the Necron Overlord for example - can't take either of tachyon arrow or hyperphase glaive without the other because the Indomitus model had both; but can take a hyperphase sword or voidblade despite no Lord model ever having either.

GW gonna annoy a lot of people if GC Acolytes go down to one rocksaw per unit, but sadly seems likely at this point.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Not that I agree with GW's decision on this, but GW has received constant complaints that "all the options to build my unit to my desired configuration are not in the kit" along with "evil GW is trying to make me buy multiple kits to get my desired unit configuration". They seem to be solving the problem by either upgrading the kit to contain all the options (Battle Sisters kit, soon to be upgraded Cadian Infantry kit) or restricting the unit to what the kit can support (Plague marines/Blightlords, Wyches, Skittari). Really sucks if you are on the downgrade side of the equation, but it does solve the problem going forward for GW

You say that, but the Battle Sister kit very conspicuously doesn't include a Multi-melta to force players to buy multiple boxes of Retributors (which are about twice as expensive on a per-model basis).

Keep complaining about that and SoB squads will lose their multimeltas. Alextroy is right; I personally don't mind buying multiple kits* and/or having to convert, but people have been complaining about that for years and this is the result.

(* Especially if they are core unit kits that I would buy multiple of anyway.)

That very much reads like 'Don't complain or Daddy GW will punish you'.

Literally buying enough skitarii troop boxes to build a basic battalion detachment gives you enough of the various specials to equip multiples of the same squad.

I can't possibly think of a unit for whom this is any more of a non-issue than Skitarii. And you've also got weird arbitrary crap going on - for example:

-the kit includes a bunch of pistol options and melee weapons - why is there only one dedicated member of the squad that can take those? Why can't one skitarii take a taser goad, one a power sword, and one an arc maul in the same way Plague Marines may take their squad with 4 melee weapons?
-the kit includes 10 models - why is the min size squad 5 at all? and how did they determine that for every five you could only take one weapon for Skitarii, while Wyches who have 5 members of the squad may only take sergeant upgrades and no specials at all?

They're not going with 'you must abide by the kit', theyre just arbitrarily juggling things around so a few people need to change their builds (hopefully buying new kits) to stay compliant with their units, and that sucks ass.

Whatever the reason is, I very much doubt that "Let's screw with existing units" is part of the equation. GW knows perfectly well that when player reshapes that unit, he will do that by scrapbuilding or hunting bits. GW will not see a penny for that.

Spoletta wrote:
Whatever the reason is, I very much doubt that "Let's screw with existing units" is part of the equation. GW knows perfectly well that when player reshapes that unit, he will do that by scrapbuilding or hunting bits. GW will not see a penny for that.

I'm pretty sure GW is hoping that people will buy new boxes to make legal units now that they made their previous ones illegal.

The worst part about forcing one of each weapon is that:
-It makes the units look worse on the table
-It slows down the game making each unit have 5 different weapon profiles
-It makes units without purpose

Is just bad game design all around. But is something GW is trying to enforce in 9th , so we shall see where this rabbit hole goes.

 Galas wrote:
The worst part about forcing one of each weapon is that:
-It makes the units look worse on the table
-It slows down the game making each unit have 5 different weapon profiles
-It makes units without purpose

Is just bad game design all around. But is something GW is trying to enforce in 9th , so we shall see where this rabbit hole goes.

Hopefully they will change that in an FAQ

Bah, the ranger/vanguard thing is an extreme nothing burger in the grand scheme.

The real issue I'm seeing with this codex is the keyword confetti going on.

I mean kataphron servitors. . . what the heck? Biker, Troop, Cult Mechanicus, but not Core?

Mars gives Skitarii canticles, which kinda makes it default best again, since most things in the codex are Skitarii?

The Doctrina pluses and minuses but no minuses if you have a Marshall?

Kastelan robots becoming more mix and match, but now their shoulder gun and fist guns have different profiles, they can become Core with the Datasmith, but lose Core if they change programming?

There are so many things to remember with this codex, and a lot of it seems like complication for complication's sake. I mean seriously, taking the Datasmith should let you change programming during the command phase, period. That would have been enough to justify taking him. Just get rid the gaining/losing Core thing completely. Talk about a wasted opportunity to fix the thing that people have always not liked about Kastelans and the Datasmith together, while adding a totally different reason to take the Datasmith that's probably even more powerful because of the override strat.

Oddly the Transvector transport splitting a unit between two planes seems really complex at first, but then it's all done pre-game and set up into deep strike, so it's actually not really something that you can screw up during the game. It's just wild that you can even do it at all! Seriously what a crazy idea that actually made it into the codex.

Quasistellar wrote:
Bah, the ranger/vanguard thing is an extreme nothing burger in the grand scheme.

The real issue I'm seeing with this codex is the keyword confetti going on.

I mean kataphron servitors. . . what the heck? Biker, Troop, Cult Mechanicus, but not Core?

Mars gives Skitarii canticles, which kinda makes it default best again, since most things in the codex are Skitarii?

The Doctrina pluses and minuses but no minuses if you have a Marshall?

Kastelan robots becoming more mix and match, but now their shoulder gun and fist guns have different profiles, they can become Core with the Datasmith, but lose Core if they change programming?

There are so many things to remember with this codex, and a lot of it seems like complication for complication's sake. I mean seriously, taking the Datasmith should let you change programming during the command phase, period. That would have been enough to justify taking him. Just get rid the gaining/losing Core thing completely. Talk about a wasted opportunity to fix the thing that people have always not liked about Kastelans and the Datasmith together, while adding a totally different reason to take the Datasmith that's probably even more powerful because of the override strat.

Oddly the Transvector transport splitting a unit between two planes seems really complex at first, but then it's all done pre-game and set up into deep strike, so it's actually not really something that you can screw up during the game. It's just wild that you can even do it at all! Seriously what a crazy idea that actually made it into the codex.

But the Robots don't lose <Core> when they change programming, where did you read that ? To gain <Core> they just have to be within 3" of the Datasmith.

Though I agree the protocol swap that takes a full turn is inconvenient but Binharic Override still exists. And anyway, if you want to run melee Kastelan (they're really great now), on first turn you switch protocols while you Datasmith is still nearby, then on turn two you make the Robots move with their 8" move, and make the Datasmith Advance to keep the 3" <Core> Aura. It's harder when you want to make the Robots charge though, they'll totally outrun him.

Spoletta wrote:
Whatever the reason is, I very much doubt that "Let's screw with existing units" is part of the equation. GW knows perfectly well that when player reshapes that unit, he will do that by scrapbuilding or hunting bits. GW will not see a penny for that.

Not all. And they don't need for all to make profit. 1/1000 is enough.

The mere fact gw sells a lot from their webstore shows not all go for cheapest and many won't remodel painted models anyway.

 Aaranis wrote:

Quasistellar wrote:
Bah, the ranger/vanguard thing is an extreme nothing burger in the grand scheme.

The real issue I'm seeing with this codex is the keyword confetti going on.

I mean kataphron servitors. . . what the heck? Biker, Troop, Cult Mechanicus, but not Core?

Mars gives Skitarii canticles, which kinda makes it default best again, since most things in the codex are Skitarii?

The Doctrina pluses and minuses but no minuses if you have a Marshall?

Kastelan robots becoming more mix and match, but now their shoulder gun and fist guns have different profiles, they can become Core with the Datasmith, but lose Core if they change programming?

There are so many things to remember with this codex, and a lot of it seems like complication for complication's sake. I mean seriously, taking the Datasmith should let you change programming during the command phase, period. That would have been enough to justify taking him. Just get rid the gaining/losing Core thing completely. Talk about a wasted opportunity to fix the thing that people have always not liked about Kastelans and the Datasmith together, while adding a totally different reason to take the Datasmith that's probably even more powerful because of the override strat.

Oddly the Transvector transport splitting a unit between two planes seems really complex at first, but then it's all done pre-game and set up into deep strike, so it's actually not really something that you can screw up during the game. It's just wild that you can even do it at all! Seriously what a crazy idea that actually made it into the codex.

But the Robots don't lose <Core> when they change programming, where did you read that ? To gain <Core> they just have to be within 3" of the Datasmith.

Though I agree the protocol swap that takes a full turn is inconvenient but Binharic Override still exists. And anyway, if you want to run melee Kastelan (they're really great now), on first turn you switch protocols while you Datasmith is still nearby, then on turn two you make the Robots move with their 8" move, and make the Datasmith Advance to keep the 3" <Core> Aura. It's harder when you want to make the Robots charge though, they'll totally outrun him.

Performing an Action (which is what changes robot programming) switches of Auras, and the thing that gives Kastelans CORE is an Aura.

It's like they tried as hard as possible to give the Datasmith a purpose in the most complicated way possible, while not removing the downside that always prevented people from taking him before. I mean, the downside was paying the points for him, but there was (and still is) a second downside of the programming not actually switching until the NEXT turn. And now there's a THIRD downside of when you switch programming, you lose the thing that actually makes him somewhat worth it again in 9th. It's maddening, lol.

tneva82 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Whatever the reason is, I very much doubt that "Let's screw with existing units" is part of the equation. GW knows perfectly well that when player reshapes that unit, he will do that by scrapbuilding or hunting bits. GW will not see a penny for that.

Not all. And they don't need for all to make profit. 1/1000 is enough.

The mere fact gw sells a lot from their webstore shows not all go for cheapest and many won't remodel painted models anyway.

I'd wager that the people who buy from the webstore are not the ones concerned about their weapon loadouts.

 Aaranis wrote:

But the Robots don't lose <Core> when they change programming, where did you read that ? To gain <Core> they just have to be within 3" of the Datasmith.

Though I agree the protocol swap that takes a full turn is inconvenient but Binharic Override still exists. And anyway, if you want to run melee Kastelan (they're really great now), on first turn you switch protocols while you Datasmith is still nearby, then on turn two you make the Robots move with their 8" move, and make the Datasmith Advance to keep the 3" <Core> Aura. It's harder when you want to make the Robots charge though, they'll totally outrun him.

As I understood it, swapping protocols requires the datasmith to perform an action. Performing an action from a character disables any aura abilities for the duration. Such a weird rules design.

Ah yes, I see now. Yeah what the hell, why is this an action ? I agree it's complicated for no reason. Means he can't shoot or fight neither I guess ?

I have only played two games of 9th, I never used the action thing.

It's a non-issue, IMO, since you can take more than one Datasmith.

Getting the Protocol that you want, when you want it, but losing CORE status could be a way to limit buff stacking. Sounds like a tradeoff.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Getting the Protocol that you want, when you want it, but losing CORE status could be a way to limit buff stacking. Sounds like a tradeoff.

Exactly, and if you really need to switch protocols there is the strat for that anyway which still happens faster so 9 times out of 10 and works fine for specialized bots like double fist bots.

OR most players never switch protocols and run around with one blaster, one fist and one flamer. Just remaining in Aegis protocol.

Yet no other unit in the army is forced into a trade off for their basic usage.

It's nonsense any way you swing it, and taking two datasmith isn't a solution it's another work around we've discovered to cover for a badly written rule.

It should just be, switch in command phase, active straight away. done. There are already downsides to each protocol we don't need additional ones from bizarre interactions with complex rules.

They already toned down the shooting and restricted their access to buffs so there is no reason to make this so restricting and complex.

Meanwhile I can increase Ruststalkers save to a 2+ from a 4+ and make them first first from across the map without any downsides.

Does seem needlessly awkward and stupid, for an effect that isn't even all that powerful anyway, on a unit that isn't that powerful either in the new book.

In general, the internal balance in this book looks somewhat suspect. Not that the last one wasn't also.

I think they can fix the Datasmith by adding that their Core Aura stays active while performing that specific action or actions in general.

I'm okay with that rule, i'll just bring another datasmith. And dakkabots are still a powerful unit, just not as broken as they used to be. I'm thinking that this new codex is very well balanced internally, some of the options (melee, for example) are back in play.

 Spreelock wrote:
I'm okay with that rule, i'll just bring another datasmith. And dakkabots are still a powerful unit, just not as broken as they used to be. I'm thinking that this new codex is very well balanced internally, some of the options (melee, for example) are back in play.

How about externally though?

Jury is still out on that.

I'd say that they fit with other 9th edition dexes power level, and obviously far far away from DE levels.

I don't have tha data to back to claim though obviously, so it is pure speculation.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Spreelock wrote:
I'm okay with that rule, i'll just bring another datasmith. And dakkabots are still a powerful unit, just not as broken as they used to be. I'm thinking that this new codex is very well balanced internally, some of the options (melee, for example) are back in play.

How about externally though?

It's too early to tell, i'll have to wait for the codex so I could make some 2k lists. But in general, they are pretty strong codex, though not quite the level of death guard or drukhari. The intresting bit about the internal balance, is how you make the choises between dogmas (or chapter tactics, space marines are one step ahead for that matter), there's not any no-brainer choises for picking a certain dogma.

 alextroy wrote:
Not that I agree with GW's decision on this, but GW has received constant complaints that "all the options to build my unit to my desired configuration are not in the kit" along with "evil GW is trying to make me buy multiple kits to get my desired unit configuration". They seem to be solving the problem by either upgrading the kit to contain all the options (Battle Sisters kit, soon to be upgraded Cadian Infantry kit) or restricting the unit to what the kit can support (Plague marines/Blightlords, Wyches, Skittari). Really sucks if you are on the downgrade side of the equation, but it does solve the problem going forward for GW

I get it but this is taking it to the dumb degree, anyone buying troop boxes is at least going to get a couple squads yes ? Why couldn't they then make one squad with 2 of the same special weapon ? They'll have 2, from the 2 boxes they'll need, at least if not 3 from the multiple boxes they would need, for troops right ? Who the hell is buying but one box of troops ever so they need to have only the ability to make in the squad what is found in that one box ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Not that I agree with GW's decision on this, but GW has received constant complaints that "all the options to build my unit to my desired configuration are not in the kit" along with "evil GW is trying to make me buy multiple kits to get my desired unit configuration". They seem to be solving the problem by either upgrading the kit to contain all the options (Battle Sisters kit, soon to be upgraded Cadian Infantry kit) or restricting the unit to what the kit can support (Plague marines/Blightlords, Wyches, Skittari). Really sucks if you are on the downgrade side of the equation, but it does solve the problem going forward for GW

You say that, but the Battle Sister kit very conspicuously doesn't include a Multi-melta to force players to buy multiple boxes of Retributors (which are about twice as expensive on a per-model basis).

Keep complaining about that and SoB squads will lose their multimeltas. Alextroy is right; I personally don't mind buying multiple kits* and/or having to convert, but people have been complaining about that for years and this is the result.

(* Especially if they are core unit kits that I would buy multiple of anyway.)

If you have to buy multiple anyways because they are troops this makes this ruling even more stupid as you could field two of the same weapon in the squads already just because you have to buy multiple boxes of the kit. For blight lords I can understand, but the others it makes no sense.

So can I look forward to the 5 man scion squads now needing one plasma and something else in the unit ? They only come with one plasma after all but they function best in small kill squads for certain weapons, like plasma and melta, it's just idiotic. It isn't some wise choice as these units you'll have multiple boxes of because they are troops.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 the_scotsman wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Not that I agree with GW's decision on this, but GW has received constant complaints that "all the options to build my unit to my desired configuration are not in the kit" along with "evil GW is trying to make me buy multiple kits to get my desired unit configuration". They seem to be solving the problem by either upgrading the kit to contain all the options (Battle Sisters kit, soon to be upgraded Cadian Infantry kit) or restricting the unit to what the kit can support (Plague marines/Blightlords, Wyches, Skittari). Really sucks if you are on the downgrade side of the equation, but it does solve the problem going forward for GW

You say that, but the Battle Sister kit very conspicuously doesn't include a Multi-melta to force players to buy multiple boxes of Retributors (which are about twice as expensive on a per-model basis).

Keep complaining about that and SoB squads will lose their multimeltas. Alextroy is right; I personally don't mind buying multiple kits* and/or having to convert, but people have been complaining about that for years and this is the result.

(* Especially if they are core unit kits that I would buy multiple of anyway.)

That very much reads like 'Don't complain or Daddy GW will punish you'.

Literally buying enough skitarii troop boxes to build a basic battalion detachment gives you enough of the various specials to equip multiples of the same squad.

I can't possibly think of a unit for whom this is any more of a non-issue than Skitarii. And you've also got weird arbitrary crap going on - for example:

-the kit includes a bunch of pistol options and melee weapons - why is there only one dedicated member of the squad that can take those? Why can't one skitarii take a taser goad, one a power sword, and one an arc maul in the same way Plague Marines may take their squad with 4 melee weapons?
-the kit includes 10 models - why is the min size squad 5 at all? and how did they determine that for every five you could only take one weapon for Skitarii, while Wyches who have 5 members of the squad may only take sergeant upgrades and no specials at all?

They're not going with 'you must abide by the kit', theyre just arbitrarily juggling things around so a few people need to change their builds (hopefully buying new kits) to stay compliant with their units, and that sucks ass.

This is what I'm saying exactly, it's complete nonsense and moronic. Why even keep 5 man squad size when the come in boxes of 10 then ? Only one of the models is technically by their build instructions supposed to be a Sgt in the squad and you only have enough upgrades for one set up per Sgt and that is bad bad by the people who support this changes logic. It doesn't make any sense and it feels like it's being done just to jerk people around.

Why is the Manipulus no longer available online?

 Tiberius501 wrote:
Why is the Manipulus no longer available online?

Reboxing, probably.

Quite a few of the army releases have been accompanied by models selling out, and reboxing with the new style instruction books (simplified profiles) isn't unlikely.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
There are no such thoughts. Plague marines can now field more special weapons than they could before, just less of the same kind.

There is no more or less to these changes than this:

 alextroy wrote:
GW is slowing and inconsistently moving towards a the box (and possibly associated boxes) contains everything you need to build the unit paradigm.

Except scourges have nowhere near the bits needed, but can still field multiples.

If there is a logic the more consistent one is where they aim to restrict options on troops.

That or they want just troops to be consistent.

Or none of the above.

Actually, it works like this:
1) If they apply the logic, some or all options get cut that aren't in the box. See blight lords, plague marines.
2) If multiple boxes represent a datasheet you will not be able mix the options from those.
3) If they don't apply the logic, you retain whatever you have
4) You will only ever gain new options that are either in the box or not represented by a bit.
5) There is no logic behind what units are hit and which are not, except that troops are more likely to be hit and loyalist marines are less likely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tyran wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

I'd go with "none of the above". If it's just troops, how do you explain Blightlords?

I think you have to consider the purpose of the unit. The primary purpose of troops is holding ground and/or objectives. Terminators may not be Troops, but that is still their primary purpose.

On the other hand if the purpose of a unit is just killing, weapon restrictions just get in the way of that.

So, what about daemon princes?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
I get it but this is taking it to the dumb degree, anyone buying troop boxes is at least going to get a couple squads yes ? Why couldn't they then make one squad with 2 of the same special weapon ? They'll have 2, from the 2 boxes they'll need, at least if not 3 from the multiple boxes they would need, for troops right ? Who the hell is buying but one box of troops ever so they need to have only the ability to make in the squad what is found in that one box ?

Well, GW's current approach is to have people start with combat patrol games, which would require only one unit of troops.

If you have to buy multiple anyways because they are troops this makes this ruling even more stupid as you could field two of the same weapon in the squads already just because you have to buy multiple boxes of the kit. For blight lords I can understand, but the others it makes no sense.

The thing is, you usually want the same load-out on every squad since there has always been one choice that was above all other. For example, in 8th many player had 3 plague marine units with a plasma champion, two blight launchers and two flails. That would require a total of six boxes to build normally, leaving a pile of 27 extra plague marines to build 3 units of 5. And hilariously, unless you do some converting or have some of the limited models, all your 15 troops models would consist of the same 3 mono-pose guys.
Not saying that I'm a huge fan of this change, but it's not that different from blightlords.

Here be Adeptus Mechanicus N&R discussion, everything else goes to their own respective topics.

The FAQ was quietly dropped yesterday

Hope none of you wanted to put Secutarii into a codex transport!

Already a two page discussion on the FAQ in 40K General Discussions.