Dysartes wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I've still yet to see a shred of evidence backing the 'majority sales in the first year' claim, nor do I understand how so many buy into something so clearly absurd.

We have seen sales numbers on individual model kits and codex only during the chapterhouse case
and there was a clear picture that sales outside the year of release were 0 (or close to 0) with Tactical Marines being the only exception, as those sold each time a Marine Codex was released (not just with the generic one)

outside of this, only rumours from Interviews with (Former) GW people

Uh-huh - no-one starts an army over a year after a 'dex or army book drops, no-one starts the game with an older faction because they like the look of it, etc, etc.

I can buy that sales in year 2 or 3 are lower than year 1, but a claim of "0 (or close to 0)"? That's straight-up bull-pucky...

You have to think about how the FLGS system works. GW will sell kits out to them. They may not sell everything immediately. Any sale made at an FLGS/eBay ( over 50% of GW's business ) won't be counted as a sale after the fact. That's why the sales managers can be pushy on the FLGS, because they want to hit their monthly numbers.

I do personally finding that I don't buy much GW stuff until there is a release that interests me and if I do it is almost never direct.

I imagine their sales have grown enough to get a lot more incidental sales out of cycle, but it will certainly still drop.

 Dysartes wrote:
Uh-huh - no-one starts an army over a year after a 'dex or army book drops, no-one starts the game with an older faction because they like the look of it, etc, etc.

I can buy that sales in year 2 or 3 are lower than year 1, but a claim of "0 (or close to 0)"? That's straight-up bull-pucky...

Call me no-one.

My Black Legion army is going on 14 years, I purchase most models in advance of release through my FLGS. Totally fits with release cycles.

Not the same with my Deamons, Chaos Knights, Death Guard, Grey Knights, Deathwatch and Guard armies, which are > 90% second hand models.

This could help to explain the claim of near 0. The GK cost me $300 off Facebook, the Deamons all came used off eBay. The Guard was mostly through trades, I had CSM stuff I no longer wanted and wanted to do weathering on tanks. For the Deathwatch, half came from a purchase I made at a convention, the other half from online retailers. The Chaos Knights started with the Renegade boxed set, which I got in exchange for painting a FLGS army.

They're all complete armies, 4k - 8k points. While I don't assume everyone does this, it seems common enough that it could impact sales after a couple years. People get sick of their armies, other people buy them.

That's another good point for why model sales are so heavily front loaded, you can't buy someone else's used model on ebay if it was just released a week ago. Your only option is buying from GW or buying from someone who just ordered from GW

I really look forward to when the current slate of 2-3 year NDA's on all the current play testers expire, and they come onto these forums like Mr. Bean as Satan, and explain who was right and who was wrong.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I really look forward to when the current slate of 2-3 year NDA's on all the current play testers expire, and they come onto these forums like Mr. Bean as Satan, and explain who was right and who was wrong.

That interview and AMA with James Hewitt was a real eye opener for me. I had to read it a few times just to make sure I wasn't seeing things. Just shockingly incompetent behavior that would put any company out of business without the weight of inertia and quasi monopoly enjoyed by GW.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
OK, so the 'it's all a GW scheme' people still have no basis for their argument beyond speculation, got it. Figured that hadn't changed, but good to confirm once in a while.

Your disrespectful, patronizing dismissal when other people give you evidence of what you're asking for makes this forum a worse place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kodos wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
OK, so the 'it's all a GW scheme' people still have no basis for their argument beyond speculation, got it. Figured that hadn't changed, but good to confirm once in a while.

because it is easier to believe the company you give 1000s of dollars has a hidden scheme to mess things up, rather than the company you gave 1000s of dollars is an incompetent and don't know what they are doing

Oh it's definitely a witch's brew of both.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Doesn't seem to be working for the Snaggas. Surely they could have dropped the points on them, but they didn't. Why?

Probably because they already sold enough.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

And you'll still ignore the units that aren't beast snaggas that got really great. Your logic is entirely inconsistent.

If you don't understand how to pull a trend out of data then I don't know what to say. For example, in general, at any given point in 40k since 3e at least, the most recent codexes were the most powerful in the current play environment. It's not a perfect trend, but the effect is there. It doesn't mean that the most recent codex is always the most powerful.

It's the weird thing when people talk about new = powerful with the counterargument of "But this new thing isn't powerful!" because it assumes that this argument exists in a binary state: Either GW makes new things powerful, or they don't.

What people forget is just because you try to do something, doesn't mean you succeed, and GW's history is filled with examples of poor implementation of ideas.

To put it another way, there is every possibility that they meant to make certain new things that suck very powerful, but they just suck at writing rules.

 Dysartes wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I've still yet to see a shred of evidence backing the 'majority sales in the first year' claim, nor do I understand how so many buy into something so clearly absurd.

We have seen sales numbers on individual model kits and codex only during the chapterhouse case
and there was a clear picture that sales outside the year of release were 0 (or close to 0) with Tactical Marines being the only exception, as those sold each time a Marine Codex was released (not just with the generic one)

outside of this, only rumours from Interviews with (Former) GW people

Uh-huh - no-one starts an army over a year after a 'dex or army book drops, no-one starts the game with an older faction because they like the look of it, etc, etc.

I can buy that sales in year 2 or 3 are lower than year 1, but a claim of "0 (or close to 0)"? That's straight-up bull-pucky...

IIRC the actual takeaway from those numbers was that a model either would make its money back over the first months of its release or the accumulated sales over the years would never be enough to make up for development costs. That's quite different from what kodos is saying.
Then again, the chapter approved case happened during a time when a model with terrible rules could be stuck with them for many years, and there were no regular point updates either. So times might have changed. I'd wager that the squig buggy - which was the worst selling of the bunch in 8th - has easily made GW a profit by now due to its new rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
To put it another way, there is every possibility that they meant to make certain new things that suck very powerful, but they just suck at writing rules.

There also is the option where GW doesn't care for an army to be in the spotlight, tries to subtly nerf it and then makes it powerful by accident. There is no other way to explain the current ork codex

Actually there is Jid. they sent the intern to do it, because the rulesteam head honchos didn't want to because orks, and the intern basically got drunk probably and threw darts and landed always on +1 to hit in melee buffs.

Hecaton wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
OK, so the 'it's all a GW scheme' people still have no basis for their argument beyond speculation, got it. Figured that hadn't changed, but good to confirm once in a while.

Your disrespectful, patronizing dismissal when other people give you evidence of what you're asking for makes this forum a worse place.

Willfully obtuse framing of irrelevant trivia as evidence set the bar. Like, asking for evidence GW has changed after Kirby? That's borderline trolling.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It's the weird thing when people talk about new = powerful with the counterargument of "But this new thing isn't powerful!" because it assumes that this argument exists in a binary state: Either GW makes new things powerful, or they don't.

What people forget is just because you try to do something, doesn't mean you succeed, and GW's history is filled with examples of poor implementation of ideas.

To put it another way, there is every possibility that they meant to make certain new things that suck very powerful, but they just suck at writing rules.

The suggestion is that it is not GW making new things OP on purpose but rather is simply incompetent, so we're on the same page. Don't think any supporters of that theory have guessed at intent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:
IIRC the actual takeaway from those numbers was that a model either would make its money back over the first months of its release or the accumulated sales over the years would never be enough to make up for development costs. That's quite different from what kodos is saying.
Then again, the chapter approved case happened during a time when a model with terrible rules could be stuck with them for many years, and there were no regular point updates either. So times might have changed. I'd wager that the squig buggy - which was the worst selling of the bunch in 8th - has easily made GW a profit by now due to its new rules.

Yeah, that would be a very different claim. What I see waved around is 'models make the majority of sales in the first year' waved around like fact, whereas 'there is evidence to suggest models that do not cover costs in the first year tend not to make money' is several orders of magnitude more reasonable.

From GW's perspective I wouldn't be surprised if their sales to FLGS are massively skewed to the early month. The one I go to tends to buy 30-50 of a kit on release. They often all sell out week one. They may then put another order in of the same size. That will then drift down. From then on they'll aim to maintain 0-5 or so in stock.

People clearly do buy random stuff all the time. But from GW's perspective I can well imagine they'd see it as 60-100 unit sales to that store in the first month. And then... 10~ a year thereafter, unless something like a new codex stimulates people to buy that kit.

And frankly for years now GW often seems unable to supply surges in demand for old kits caused by codex changes anyway. Which I tend to think is a strike against this idea they are secretly sitting on Indiana Jones style warehouses of old sprues and they draft codexes with an eye to clearing them out.

 Jidmah wrote:

IIRC the actual takeaway from those numbers was that a model either would make its money back over the first months of its release or the accumulated sales over the years would never be enough to make up for development costs. That's quite different from what kodos is saying.
Then again, the chapter approved case happened during a time when a model with terrible rules could be stuck with them for many years, and there were no regular point updates either.

this was a claim made in interviews we have seen later on, without any numbers and not from the CH case (as just having the number of boxes sold, without knowing the development costs and margin we cannot tell from those numbers if the investment was made back or not)

I try to find the picture from the CH case, but I remember that the sales for Blood Angles were 0, outside the year of the Codex release
and of course not updating models and rules outside the codex for years was a reason for it

we have also seen on those numbers that models with bad rules did not sell, and even putting them into discounted army boxes made those sell bad compared to boxes were the models had good rules

No nerfs in the Eldar FAQ. Troupes get Core. Ynnari can include DE & Harlequins in a detachment and still get SoF. Although Ynnari are clearly still allergic to Corsairs for random reasons.

Dataslate tomorrow perhaps?

Codex: Aeldari FAQ is up

Hecaton wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Doesn't seem to be working for the Snaggas. Surely they could have dropped the points on them, but they didn't. Why?

Probably because they already sold enough.

you seem to be ignoring that even on release the beast snaggas were never good, they are cool models, I got the starter ork box and 2 boxes of them to paint, I have them on the table and painted 2 days after release. I knew after one reading of the codex I was putting a terrible costed unit on the table.. but they look cool. They never got into combat or killed anything and basically were a waste of points where one volley of a squad of intersessors basically wipe them for not many more points. Vs a smart opponent kill 6, they fail morale a 7th auto runs, and likely an 8th also runs. you get left with a unit of 2 models that can be cleaned up with ease. total waste of 110 points if you care about competitiveness
.

when primaris came out. they were horrible up until 2.0 came out, and suddenly intercessors, dreads etc were godlike units. the primaris dreadnought with plasma became great only in 9th, years after he came out. Impulsors and marine tanks, horrible , aside for a very short time in 8th and only if you played IH.
When GW knows that stuff will be bought no matter what they put less work in to rules or details of interactions. Something like DE comes out as if tailored made for 2000pts game play. Marines feel like, throw bucket of stuff, old and new, and be told to make something out of it. Sometimes it is IH 2.0 and sometimes it is the opposit.

Still better then getting a copy past codex edition after edition.

Hecaton wrote:
If you don't understand how to pull a trend out of data then I don't know what to say. For example, in general, at any given point in 40k since 3e at least, the most recent codexes were the most powerful in the current play environment. It's not a perfect trend, but the effect is there. It doesn't mean that the most recent codex is always the most powerful.

You mean cherry pick to fit a narrative based on speculation.

I agree on this with mr Dedalus. When 9th started the top books and top armies, which wear beating all types of marines, necron and even DG, were custodes and harlequins.
when 8th started marines struggled to make it in the meta, until 2.0 books came out.

Now some factions seem to have a tradition of being and doing really well each time they get a new book, but this is hardly true for all factions. If 8th started with SoB, marines, 1ksons followed by necrons we would have had 4 books which were at best side grades and often downgrades to what they had in 8th ed.

Daedalus81 wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
If you don't understand how to pull a trend out of data then I don't know what to say. For example, in general, at any given point in 40k since 3e at least, the most recent codexes were the most powerful in the current play environment. It's not a perfect trend, but the effect is there. It doesn't mean that the most recent codex is always the most powerful.

You mean cherry pick to fit a narrative based on speculation.

When have more recently-released codexes not generally been more powerful than older ones? Karol isn't even correct here, as Marines were in the lead when they got their first codex in 8th, fell behind as other codices released, and then catapulted back forward with SM2.0. Same with Death Guard, even if their rise with a new 'dex wasn't as meteoric. Definitely same with GSC. Same with Tyranids, which had some initial tournament success (esp Hive Tyrant spam) before starting to sink in the rankings.

I've never before seen someone seriously argue that the evergreen fact of codex creep is 'cherry-picking' or 'speculation'.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Yeah, that would be a very different claim. What I see waved around is 'models make the majority of sales in the first year' waved around like fact

Not fact, just decades of retail sales trends across multiple mediums, but hey, roll with that cognitive bias all day man, it's the raft to which you've chosen to cling.

Tyel wrote:
No nerfs in the Eldar FAQ. Troupes get Core. Ynnari can include DE & Harlequins in a detachment and still get SoF. Although Ynnari are clearly still allergic to Corsairs for random reasons.

Dataslate tomorrow perhaps?

nerf to banshees and Baharoth actually

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Tyel wrote:
No nerfs in the Eldar FAQ. Troupes get Core. Ynnari can include DE & Harlequins in a detachment and still get SoF. Although Ynnari are clearly still allergic to Corsairs for random reasons.

Dataslate tomorrow perhaps?

nerf to banshees and Baharoth actually

I suspect the Banshee Mask one is more of a clarification one than a definite nerf - GW expecting the rule to be used as they intended, rather than how it was written.

I don't have the Aeldari book, so I'm not clear on what changed with Baharroth - is it the landing on the same turn?

 Dysartes wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Tyel wrote:
No nerfs in the Eldar FAQ. Troupes get Core. Ynnari can include DE & Harlequins in a detachment and still get SoF. Although Ynnari are clearly still allergic to Corsairs for random reasons.

Dataslate tomorrow perhaps?

nerf to banshees and Baharoth actually

I suspect the Banshee Mask one is more of a clarification one than a definite nerf - GW expecting the rule to be used as they intended, rather than how it was written.

I don't have the Aeldari book, so I'm not clear on what changed with Baharroth - is it the landing on the same turn?

its still a nerf, before it used to hit the unit until the end of the phase

Baharoth can only teleport once per turn now so you can't do : Move + Shoot + Teleport + charge + fight + Teleport

 catbarf wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
If you don't understand how to pull a trend out of data then I don't know what to say. For example, in general, at any given point in 40k since 3e at least, the most recent codexes were the most powerful in the current play environment. It's not a perfect trend, but the effect is there. It doesn't mean that the most recent codex is always the most powerful.

You mean cherry pick to fit a narrative based on speculation.

When have more recently-released codexes not generally been more powerful than older ones? Karol isn't even correct here, as Marines were in the lead when they got their first codex in 8th, fell behind as other codices released, and then catapulted back forward with SM2.0. Same with Death Guard, even if their rise with a new 'dex wasn't as meteoric. Definitely same with GSC. Same with Tyranids, which had some initial tournament success (esp Hive Tyrant spam) before starting to sink in the rankings.

I've never before seen someone seriously argue that the evergreen fact of codex creep is 'cherry-picking' or 'speculation'.

You're talking something different. Codex creep is different from pushing particular models and is it's own phenomenon.

People also confuse community sentiment with power creep. People freaked out about the DA chaplain who could murder anything in melee and unstoppable transhuman terminators.

Books that were on the curve - Necrons, Marines, DA, BT, SW, BA, DG, TS
Books a little above curve with some spiky stuff - Orks, Sisters, GK
Books above the curve - DE, AM, Tau, Custodes, Nids

11 books that could play and have a great game against 5 that are too much. A significant number of new dynamics have appeared during this edition that make things not as cut and dry like more prominent W4/5, D3+3/D4, and -1D. You can't just take D2 and solve all your problems on every army as you could when Marines were the biggest faction in attendance.

Overall there WILL be codex creep simply because when you add tons of layered rules you can't help but have old books be worse. So what do you do with the old books? Drop their points and make people buy more models only to raise points when they get their book? Or just leave them alone?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
If you don't understand how to pull a trend out of data then I don't know what to say. For example, in general, at any given point in 40k since 3e at least, the most recent codexes were the most powerful in the current play environment. It's not a perfect trend, but the effect is there. It doesn't mean that the most recent codex is always the most powerful.

You mean cherry pick to fit a narrative based on speculation.

When have more recently-released codexes not generally been more powerful than older ones? Karol isn't even correct here, as Marines were in the lead when they got their first codex in 8th, fell behind as other codices released, and then catapulted back forward with SM2.0. Same with Death Guard, even if their rise with a new 'dex wasn't as meteoric. Definitely same with GSC. Same with Tyranids, which had some initial tournament success (esp Hive Tyrant spam) before starting to sink in the rankings.

I've never before seen someone seriously argue that the evergreen fact of codex creep is 'cherry-picking' or 'speculation'.

You're talking something different. Codex creep is different from pushing particular models and is it's own phenomenon.

People also confuse community sentiment with power creep. People freaked out about the DA chaplain who could murder anything in melee and unstoppable transhuman terminators.

Books that were on the curve - Necrons, Marines, DA, BT, SW, BA, DG, TS
Books a little above curve with some spiky stuff - Orks, Sisters, GK
Books above the curve - DE, AM, Tau, Custodes, Nids

11 books that could play and have a great game against 5 that are too much. A significant number of new dynamics have appeared during this edition that make things not as cut and dry like more prominent W4/5, D3+3/D4, and -1D. You can't just take D2 and solve all your problems on every army as you could when Marines were the biggest faction in attendance.

Overall there WILL be codex creep simply because when you add tons of layered rules you can't help but have old books be worse. So what do you do with the old books? Drop their points and make people buy more models only to raise points when they get their book? Or just leave them alone?

is it telling that you forgot GSC?

A wonderfully balanced codex, both internal and external that has completely disappeared in the quagmire of broken gak that is 40k in 2022

Yea there was a ton of neat stuff in that book and it seems like there just isn't enough dedicated GSC players willing to use them over something else.

I feel Codex creep happens because GW like to "solve" the problems of the game in subsequent books (published 6-9 months later) but don't go back through the old ones until they get a new codex release (or a set of supplement rules).

The problem is GW has seemingly no idea what is powerful, so the outcome of said books to the meta is essentially random - but with a tendency towards an increase over time, because getting free (and better) rules=power.

GSC the second part of 9th necron codex. Did they draw the short straw durning design or not? It like a if the rules writen by someone that plays a lot of kill team, comes with cool ideas for w40k, but never played w40k in 9th a lot.

Tyel wrote:
I feel Codex creep happens because GW like to "solve" the problems of the game in subsequent books (published 6-9 months later) but don't go back through the old ones until they get a new codex release (or a set of supplement rules).

The problem is GW has seemingly no idea what is powerful, so the outcome of said books to the meta is essentially random - but with a tendency towards an increase over time, because getting free (and better) rules=power.

Overall, this seems like the most plausible explanation for creep. Design teams with an opportunity to learn from mistakes certainly will try new ideas to address them.

However, the idea Power Creep happens organically in no way contradicts the idea it's allowed to happen as a way of selling more models.

Tyel wrote:
I feel Codex creep happens because GW like to "solve" the problems of the game in subsequent books (published 6-9 months later) but don't go back through the old ones until they get a new codex release (or a set of supplement rules).

The problem is GW has seemingly no idea what is powerful, so the outcome of said books to the meta is essentially random - but with a tendency towards an increase over time, because getting free (and better) rules=power.

Yup, and the aggravating thing is that they have a system to go back and slap some fresh paint on the older books, but they haven't been using it for that very much. They could be using these dataslates to buff older codexes just as much as nerf the newer ones. They did it for Necrons and some of the 8th edition codexes in the first one, but then they decided to just use them to play Wack-a-Mole with overperforming tournament lists. And that's what I expect they'll do with this one too.

I quietly think the GSC book is really quite good, and think people might develop a more hostile take on it if the GSC player base was more like 10-15% of the tournament meta, rather than 2-3%.

Its not Harlequins broken obviously. But I suspect its better than anything released before 2022.

Balance data sheet countering codex creep.
I'm really curious.

Tyel wrote:
I feel Codex creep happens because GW like to "solve" the problems of the game in subsequent books (published 6-9 months later) but don't go back through the old ones until they get a new codex release (or a set of supplement rules).

The problem is GW has seemingly no idea what is powerful, so the outcome of said books to the meta is essentially random - but with a tendency towards an increase over time, because getting free (and better) rules=power.

yes, you can actually see the arms race in offensive and defensive tricks from book to book. Lots of D2, D-1, lots of invuls, no invul save guns, now no roll stuff ect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
GSC the second part of 9th necron codex. Did they draw the short straw durning design or not? It like a if the rules writen by someone that plays a lot of kill team, comes with cool ideas for w40k, but never played w40k in 9th a lot.

I disagree, Necrons were an internal mess with lots of just strait crap choices while almost everything in the GSC book has a use in some type of list or meta.
It just isn't as powerful as the obviously broken top tier armies.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Yup, and the aggravating thing is that they have a system to go back and slap some fresh paint on the older books, but they haven't been using it for that very much. They could be using these dataslates to buff older codexes just as much as nerf the newer ones. They did it for Necrons and some of the 8th edition codexes in the first one, but then they decided to just use them to play Wack-a-Mole with overperforming tournament lists. And that's what I expect they'll do with this one too.

I think the problem is there has to be some general point reduction - and instead its a kind of random, lackluster review.

I feel the Necron changes for instance were good if you want to boost up Necrons. But there's something cynical about cutting destroyer & flayed one points (hello new kits) while leaving a range of other datasheets that clearly have issues. I'm sure someone somewhat wants to run Praetorians.

I guess the equivalent would be going "Sisters aren't cutting it any more, quick, 15-20% cuts on Sacresants and War Suits".

But it seems unclear on whether this will include points changes or not.

 Ordana wrote:
I disagree, Necrons were an internal mess with lots of just strait crap choices while almost everything in the GSC book has a use in some type of list or meta.
It just isn't as powerful as the obviously broken top tier armies.

Another words it is not an optimal codex to play right now, which is exactly what necrons were when they came out. It is like in sports, saying that just because you were unlucky to live in the generation of Aleksandr Medved or Hussein Bolt, it somehow explains you never reaching the top, because if they were not there then you would totaly reach the top. Meanwhile you can classify for the olympics or even euro champs, including events where the geniuses do not headline.

Are there worse books then GSC? of course. Can they make life hard for custodes? sure. But it is an army that does horrible vs some match ups, requires 24/7 focus and can't play a soliter game, the way most of the top end armies can.

Tyel wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Yup, and the aggravating thing is that they have a system to go back and slap some fresh paint on the older books, but they haven't been using it for that very much. They could be using these dataslates to buff older codexes just as much as nerf the newer ones. They did it for Necrons and some of the 8th edition codexes in the first one, but then they decided to just use them to play Wack-a-Mole with overperforming tournament lists. And that's what I expect they'll do with this one too.

I think the problem is there has to be some general point reduction - and instead its a kind of random, lackluster review.

I feel the Necron changes for instance were good if you want to boost up Necrons. But there's something cynical about cutting destroyer & flayed one points (hello new kits) while leaving a range of other datasheets that clearly have issues. I'm sure someone somewhat wants to run Praetorians.

I guess the equivalent would be going "Sisters aren't cutting it any more, quick, 15-20% cuts on Sacresants and War Suits".

But it seems unclear on whether this will include points changes or not.

I was referring to the rules changes in the first dataslate: adding CORE to multiple Necron units, the change to DTTFE, etc. Actual rules changes, not just points drops. But agreed on the points in the CA, they're incredibly haphazard and random, seemingly. And usually not enough to make much of a difference.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
You're talking something different. Codex creep is different from pushing particular models and is it's own phenomenon.

But the point that was being made is that if codices are in a general upward trend in power, then new units in new books are likely to be more powerful than older units in older books, and that can create the perception that the new stuff is being made deliberately good (because it is, by virtue of being part of a codex that is being made deliberately powerful).

It might not be pushing particular models, but it stands to reason that new models are likely to be more powerful simply on account of being part of codex creep.

Karol wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
I disagree, Necrons were an internal mess with lots of just strait crap choices while almost everything in the GSC book has a use in some type of list or meta.
It just isn't as powerful as the obviously broken top tier armies.

Another words it is not an optimal codex to play right now, which is exactly what necrons were when they came out. It is like in sports, saying that just because you were unlucky to live in the generation of Aleksandr Medved or Hussein Bolt, it somehow explains you never reaching the top, because if they were not there then you would totaly reach the top. Meanwhile you can classify for the olympics or even euro champs, including events where the geniuses do not headline.

Are there worse books then GSC? of course. Can they make life hard for custodes? sure. But it is an army that does horrible vs some match ups, requires 24/7 focus and can't play a soliter game, the way most of the top end armies can.

Regardless of the balance between codexes, Necrons were not a 'good' codex when they released even seen purely in isolation. Super restrictive core, a cumbersome Protocol system, garbage units and obvious 'best' choices.

There is more to a codex's quality then "can it beat the top lists". GSC is a codex with good internal balance and lots of different builds, Necrons were not.

 catbarf wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
You're talking something different. Codex creep is different from pushing particular models and is it's own phenomenon.

But the point that was being made is that if codices are in a general upward trend in power, then new units in new books are likely to be more powerful than older units in older books, and that can create the perception that the new stuff is being made deliberately good (because it is, by virtue of being part of a codex that is being made deliberately powerful).

It might not be pushing particular models, but it stands to reason that new models are likely to be more powerful simply on account of being part of codex creep.

Yea, but in practice they're not consistent with that logic and this is not what others are arguing. And then when it's old models instead of new models they'll say, "oh well, they must have had a lot of excess stock".

People regularly claim that GW buffs some models and nerfs others to sell buffed models. Then "when the sales are done" ( which is another common made up explanation ) they will nerf the buffed and buff the nerfed to sell those models.

That is not the same thing as a general increase in power.

This thought is so pervasive that any rules that might focus on a particular unit elicit this response from "believers". The Tzaangor AOR previewed terrible rules. Yet people complained ( on social media ) that this was yet another attempt by GW to push Tzaangors - let alone support people who like Tzaangors. Might the AOR be good when we can fully inspect the rules? Maybe, but the Phobos AOR didn't make a splash so I don't hold any hope for that.

It's ham-fisted logic that argues both sides of the coin so that they're always right.

I know some people will sperg on this post but....... If you really think that GW does not profit from power creep and uses that in its sales and development models then I would have to say you are the most gullible person in gaming.

GW is a business. Business exist to maximize profit and sales. Power Creep keeps people buying.

GW knows exactly how to fix this. All the codexs being written at once and play testing. But they do not do this.

It is fruitless to talk about balance until the players themselves are ready to punish GW for bad faith development. And that will never happen.

Except Chaos Marines and Guard. They seem to be inverse to the power creep and probably the only defense for " the studio is inept" arguement.

 Daedalus81 wrote:


Yea, but in practice they're not consistent with that logic and this is not what others are arguing. And then when it's old models instead of new models they'll say, "oh well, they must have had a lot of excess stock".

People regularly claim that GW buffs some models and nerfs others to sell buffed models. Then "when the sales are done" ( which is another common made up explanation ) they will nerf the buffed and buff the nerfed to sell those models.

That is not the same thing as a general increase in power.

This thought is so pervasive that any rules that might focus on a particular unit elicit this response from "believers". The Tzaangor AOR previewed terrible rules. Yet people complained ( on social media ) that this was yet another attempt by GW to push Tzaangors - let alone support people who like Tzaangors. Might the AOR be good when we can fully inspect the rules? Maybe, but the Phobos AOR didn't make a splash so I don't hold any hope for that.

It's ham-fisted logic that argues both sides of the coin so that they're always right.

You're talking past Catbarf though. The original claim was "power creep in codexes has been an issue every edition". Nobody was talking about new models being buffed (though like Catbarf said, that's a byproduct that happens in some cases -- I think everybody so far has been very careful not to say all cases), but by and large, codex rules get stronger as more codexes get released. That's not cherry picking or deceptive, it's just a 20 year established tradition from GW.

Table wrote:

It is fruitless to talk about balance until the players themselves are ready to punish GW for bad faith development. And that will never happen.

Well how exactly do you propose I do that?
Bear in mind that I'm not going to:
A) Stop buying models I like. Sorry, never going to happen. If they make something I like & I find the price acceptable.... Doesn't matter if I'm playing the particular game they made it for. Gw has no idea WHY I bought the thing. Just that my CC processed. If they take that as license to print crap rules? {shrugs} Nothing I can do about that.
B) Stop playing a game that my friends & I are generally enjoying atm. If/when I stop it'd most likely just be because we rotate through a bunch of games, GW & other, and in the end there's only so much time to game.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Yeah, that would be a very different claim. What I see waved around is 'models make the majority of sales in the first year' like fact

Not fact, just decades of retail sales trends across multiple mediums, but hey, roll with that cognitive bias all day man, it's the raft to which you've chosen to cling.

By all means, present your evidence.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
By all means, present your evidence.

By all means, get off your butt and do some basic research, such information is at your fingertips. Most of the information you require is available through a basic internet search, but again, that would involve an interest in challenging your own bias.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
By all means, present your evidence.

By all means, get off your butt and do some basic research, such information is at your fingertips. Most of the information you require is available through a basic internet search, but again, that would involve an interest in challenging your own bias.

There is no bias; the claim was made without evidence, I require no evidence to dismiss it. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

But please, explain to me how the Harlequin troupe box sold more in its first year than in all the others combined. Or any other kit of your choosing. Some have been around for 15+ years; they must have sold more in that first year than in the other 14!

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
There is no bias; the claim was made without evidence, I require no evidence to dismiss it. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

But please, explain to me how the Harlequin troupe box sold more in its first year than in all the others combined.

1) Not my job just because you're too lazy to be bothered.
2) Has nothing to do with a specific box, but standard trends in retail sectors across multiple mediums.
3) I don't care if you want to wallow in ignorance. Enjoy life.

Look if you can't back up your claims just drop it, there's no need to flail around to emphasize that you haven't any evidence to give. I don't think anyone is wallowing in ignorance, but you are certainly thrashing in it.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Yeah, that would be a very different claim. What I see waved around is 'models make the majority of sales in the first year' like fact

Not fact, just decades of retail sales trends across multiple mediums, but hey, roll with that cognitive bias all day man, it's the raft to which you've chosen to cling.

By all means, present your evidence.

There is ample data from all retailers across all similar segments. The vast majority of clothing/shoe sales are on release, that's why last seasons or last years styles are on the clearance rack. It's the same with CDs, books, and movies. It's the same with gaming consoles, PC parts, and video games. The only rare exceptions are things like the Witcher 3 becoming a bestseller a second time around, but that's because a super popular TV show about the book/game was released. I can tell you have never listened to a single earnings call from a retail company because they talk about this phenomenon when explaining why sales were better or worse during a particular quarter. I am not going to spoon feed you 20 years of retail sales data and recorded earnings calls just because you're too lazy to look it up and prefer to continue being contrarian.

It's also human nature to like the new shiny thing. If you don't like it when it's new and shiny, you aren't going to suddenly like it 2-3 years later. Items like warhammer models, video games, and jordan shoes selling like hotcakes when they release and having a small trickle of sales a year later makes perfect sense if you spend 3 secs thinking about how human psychology shapes purchasing behavior. This is widely discussed in college classes about business. Again I'm not spoon feeding you 4 years of business school textbooks because you'll do whatever mental gymnastics necessary to handwave them away, as they're not direct sales data down to the exact second straight from GW. If that's your burden of proof, I'm afraid you'll have to leave disappointed.

My hopes are high...

1st bring back the 4th mode of play from 8th edition, Competitive Play
2nd Introduce W40K's first ever banned & restricted list for Competitive Play
3rd Grab popcorn and watch the mob descend on GW.

And why would there be a mob? Because everyone knows, whether they admit it or not, everything from Competitive Play trickles down.

Some people just want to watch the world burn.

I'm being facetious of course.

No one, least of all me, is arguing that things don't sell well when initially released. What I oppose is the claim that miniature kits make the majority of their total sales in the first year. Not to mention dragging up movie releases or clothes sales as if they are analogous to miniatures is absurd; I can confirm that the Big Mac did not make the majority of its sales in the first year but that is equally irrelevant.

But you did get to the point at the end; the claim does not have evidence. There is, as you have established, abundant evidence showing how sales are strong on release of a thing and then taper off. But that was never the point of contention; being raised as a straw man instead of the actual point further establishes that the claim's supporters cannot back it up.

I will continue to dismiss a claim made without evidence as such, because that is basic logical reasoning and nothing more.

Toofast wrote:
It's also human nature to like the new shiny thing. If you don't like it when it's new and shiny, you aren't going to suddenly like it 2-3 years later. Items like warhammer models, video games, and jordan shoes selling like hotcakes when they release and having a small trickle of sales a year later makes perfect sense if you spend 3 secs thinking about how human psychology shapes purchasing behavior.

But the issue is that the obsolescence factor in 40k doesn't exist as it does with other things.

For example, GW are just about to release a new Tyranid book. That makes various Tyranid units more desirable than they have ever been.
So... some people are probably going to buy those kits. (Indeed some already seem to be widely sold out.) Some people will decide today's the day to buy a new Tyranid Army. (And some people are doing this for everything in the range all the time.)

Looking at TV say - nothing stops people going and watching a TV show that came out 5-10 years ago (well - at least by the power of Netflix etc). But if everyone does so, that's in the face of every TV marketing budget on the planet trying to get them to watch stuff being released "today". That show is effectively buried by an avalanche of other content that is competing for your attention.

And this undoubtedly does apply to a degree to GW - and why they go for this codex cycle rather than releasing them all at once. It effective stirs the hype. But every new sale of an ancient Tyranids model (cos GW have not exactly been kind to the faction) is a sort of cross against this idea that nothing sells outside of when its new and shiny.

Kits are always sold out when a codex releases because they often get reboxed with new instructions. I don't think the sales of old kits are zero, but they have flat out told us that more than half of a model's sales occur with in the first year of release other than a few select things like SM tac squads. That aligns with everything else we know about retail and human psychology. People seem to be moving the goalposts all over the place just so they have something to argue about.

But every new sale of an ancient Tyranids model (cos GW have not exactly been kind to the faction) is a sort of cross against this idea that nothing sells outside of when its new and shiny.

Majority of sales when new =/= nothing sells when old.
Don't fall for rejecting logical reasoning.

Voss wrote:

But every new sale of an ancient Tyranids model (cos GW have not exactly been kind to the faction) is a sort of cross against this idea that nothing sells outside of when its new and shiny.

Majority of sales when new =/= nothing sells when old.
Don't fall for rejecting logical reasoning.

Things sell well when new =/= the majority of sales for miniature kits happen in the first year. Don't fall for rejecting logical reasoning.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Voss wrote:

But every new sale of an ancient Tyranids model (cos GW have not exactly been kind to the faction) is a sort of cross against this idea that nothing sells outside of when its new and shiny.

Majority of sales when new =/= nothing sells when old.
Don't fall for rejecting logical reasoning.

Things sell well when new =/= the majority of sales for miniature kits happen in the first year. Don't fall for rejecting logical reasoning.

Except GW has flat out said this and would be risking charges for lying to investors by lying about something that can be verified with their sales data.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

You're talking past Catbarf though. The original claim was "power creep in codexes has been an issue every edition". Nobody was talking about new models being buffed (though like Catbarf said, that's a byproduct that happens in some cases -- I think everybody so far has been very careful not to say all cases), but by and large, codex rules get stronger as more codexes get released. That's not cherry picking or deceptive, it's just a 20 year established tradition from GW.

I am, because he replied to a post of mine that was debating the particular topic of model creep to which it was claimed that Snaggas were made to sell models and that the Dataslate nerfs were "punishment" for not buying enough Snaggas. CB took it into a different direction of codex creep and I've been trying to re-establish that line to prevent confusion.

Voss wrote:

Majority of sales when new =/= nothing sells when old.
Don't fall for rejecting logical reasoning.

Well where are you drawing the line?
I mean the troupes example is a good one. Do you think the majority of Harlequin Armies were set up in 2015 (when I think they were released)?
Obviously not a high seller anyway - but I don't think that would support my lived experience.

By contrast I can imagine say Necrons had a bit pull on their Indomitus half. Every man and his dog has one of those (or at least that's how I justify ending up with one) and maybe they've rounded it out a bit.
But Necrons are not an especially good army. And imo, due to fundamental issues in the way the Codex works, they aren't all that fun or interesting. So I don't think they've stayed very popular - and therefore wouldn't be surprised if the sales have collapsed in relative terms.

The newish Tyranid Warriors were released... 9? years ago. Do you think they sold more in 2013 than the years since? Its possible, but from memory they were kind of trash up until fairly recent times so I'm doubting it. I might have this wrong, but don't the current Termgants and Hormagaunts date from 2001? Do you think they sold more then than in 20 years since? I'm going to say they didn't.

The key to GW's success I think is that their back catalogue is more like a Skyrim. Which shipped something like 10 million copies in a month. 20 millions after 3ish years. And is now at something like 30 million units after a decade. By contrast there are bags of games which may sell a bit in a month - and may as well have never existed half a year later - outside of a big sale or something.

I can't help but notice that NinthMusketeer keeps asking for evidence, and people keep coming back with the unsourced assertion that evidence exists.

I know from my experience in gaming that AAA videogames are typically judged as successes or failures based on their performance in the first two weeks after a release- but certainly not indie gaming, and there are plenty more exceptions to the rule than The Witcher. Fortnite, for example, came back in a big way after a lackluster launch. No Man's Sky was a launch debacle that redeemed itself. Anything released via Early Access is slow income, not a single major launch.

I know writers, too, who make slow and steady income from their previous works. They're certainly not selling all the books they'll ever sell in two weeks.

How does 40K compare? I dunno. Maybe someone should actually post evidence instead of making vapid comments about spoon-feeding.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Tyel wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Yup, and the aggravating thing is that they have a system to go back and slap some fresh paint on the older books, but they haven't been using it for that very much. They could be using these dataslates to buff older codexes just as much as nerf the newer ones. They did it for Necrons and some of the 8th edition codexes in the first one, but then they decided to just use them to play Wack-a-Mole with overperforming tournament lists. And that's what I expect they'll do with this one too.

I think the problem is there has to be some general point reduction - and instead its a kind of random, lackluster review.

I feel the Necron changes for instance were good if you want to boost up Necrons. But there's something cynical about cutting destroyer & flayed one points (hello new kits) while leaving a range of other datasheets that clearly have issues. I'm sure someone somewhat wants to run Praetorians.

I guess the equivalent would be going "Sisters aren't cutting it any more, quick, 15-20% cuts on Sacresants and War Suits".

But it seems unclear on whether this will include points changes or not.

I was referring to the rules changes in the first dataslate: adding CORE to multiple Necron units, the change to DTTFE, etc. Actual rules changes, not just points drops. But agreed on the points in the CA, they're incredibly haphazard and random, seemingly. And usually not enough to make much of a difference.

That's true of EVERY point change in that CA. The nerfs were nonsensical in a world where custodes got drops at the same time and the buffs were COMPLETELY irrelevant (again, outside of pushing custodes from 65% winrate to 70%).

CA2022 is arguably the worst rules supplement GW has ever released. It did precisely the opposite of what it was supposedly intended to do (i.e. balance the game) and made you pay like 35$ for the priviledge.

The game as a whole would have been better off if that book had never been released.

Voss wrote:

But every new sale of an ancient Tyranids model (cos GW have not exactly been kind to the faction) is a sort of cross against this idea that nothing sells outside of when its new and shiny.

Majority of sales when new =/= nothing sells when old.
Don't fall for rejecting logical reasoning.

Right. The Chapter House thing had some charts that people are referencing, but I don't remember how they were constructed.

GW gets bumps in sales for an army when a codex hits. I bought Magnus back in 2017 along with some Rubrics. Then I bought more Scarabs and some third party spawn when the 9th edition codex released. GW brought the army into the marketing machine and made people aware and excited to collect Thousand Sons. That's literally all they need to do to get sales. Same goes for Squats right now.

In their financial report they state "38% of sales from new releases and 62% of sales from existing product". These figures have been posted as the same since 2017 and with the same wording, so, I'm not sure how precise they are, but they're likely a good ballpark.

In any case this is why GW loves codex churn and why WHC was good for the business. Awareness = sales.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:
The game as a whole would have been better off if that book had never been released.

Well I do like the secondaries and missions...the points could mostly die in a fire though.

I never bought anything that wasn't at least 3-4 years older.

I really don't understand why people fight to buy new releases, what's behind the hype about new releases on a specific faction I mean. It's not like, barring a few exceptions, they already have anything else and already painted so they finally got new plastic to paint from GW after a long wait. I can understand the hype about a wave of releases of something extremely old like sisters or eldar though.

I was thinking about the snaggas, since my main army is orks. Unless someone already has 10k points of painted orks or is enthusiast about how they look why on earth buying that models?

Toofast wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Voss wrote:

But every new sale of an ancient Tyranids model (cos GW have not exactly been kind to the faction) is a sort of cross against this idea that nothing sells outside of when its new and shiny.

Majority of sales when new =/= nothing sells when old.
Don't fall for rejecting logical reasoning.

Things sell well when new =/= the majority of sales for miniature kits happen in the first year. Don't fall for rejecting logical reasoning.

Except GW has flat out said this and would be risking charges for lying to investors by lying about something that can be verified with their sales data.

That would be exactly the sort of thing I've been looking for, can you provide a source?

 Blackie wrote:
I never bought anything that wasn't at least 3-4 years older.

I really don't understand why people fight to buy new releases, what's behind the hype about new releases on a specific faction I mean. It's not like, barring a few exceptions, they already have anything else and already painted so they finally got new plastic to paint from GW after a long wait. I can understand the hype about a wave of releases of something extremely old like sisters or eldar though.

I was thinking about the snaggas, since my main army is orks. Unless someone already has 10k points of painted orks or is enthusiast about how they look why on earth buying that models?

Because new or old, it is often the case that without the good stuff an army is borderline unplayable. Playing GK, as new player, without NDKs or power armoured models, because they are sold out, is not a fun expiriance to have. Probably not worth to start the army at all. And if you wait 2-3 month when the stuff is back in the stores, you may want to rethink buying the army at all, because it just got nerfed and other armies hard counter the one you wanted to play.

Tyel wrote:

Toofast wrote:
It's also human nature to like the new shiny thing. If you don't like it when it's new and shiny, you aren't going to suddenly like it 2-3 years later. Items like warhammer models, video games, and jordan shoes selling like hotcakes when they release and having a small trickle of sales a year later makes perfect sense if you spend 3 secs thinking about how human psychology shapes purchasing behavior.

But the issue is that the obsolescence factor in 40k doesn't exist as it does with other things.

For example, GW are just about to release a new Tyranid book. That makes various Tyranid units more desirable than they have ever been.
So... some people are probably going to buy those kits. (Indeed some already seem to be widely sold out.) Some people will decide today's the day to buy a new Tyranid Army. (And some people are doing this for everything in the range all the time.)

Looking at TV say - nothing stops people going and watching a TV show that came out 5-10 years ago (well - at least by the power of Netflix etc). But if everyone does so, that's in the face of every TV marketing budget on the planet trying to get them to watch stuff being released "today". That show is effectively buried by an avalanche of other content that is competing for your attention.

And this undoubtedly does apply to a degree to GW - and why they go for this codex cycle rather than releasing them all at once. It effective stirs the hype. But every new sale of an ancient Tyranids model (cos GW have not exactly been kind to the faction) is a sort of cross against this idea that nothing sells outside of when its new and shiny.

Tyel, you make some good points, but there are different ways to capture the zeitgeist of an era than to profit take on a perpetual hype cycle that is simply noise, spinning wheels that go nowhere. 40k originally was a bit of a parody on empire and the church, blind nationalism, speciesism, and exploited standing sci fi and fantasy tropes mixed with football hooligans and pre cyber punk post punk aesthetics… the parody aspect is something missing, and maybe today people are a bit too thin skinned for it but the point here is that this is one way to stay relevant and more substantially than codex creep and the new mega shiny super Killy alien monster to end them all which, next edition let’s be clear, will be nerfed to trash.

There is nothing parodic about w40k, if you are from my part of the world. But that is no wonder, a game writen in UK for mostly people in UK and US, is going to be rather specific in how it deals with anything.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Toofast wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Voss wrote:

But every new sale of an ancient Tyranids model (cos GW have not exactly been kind to the faction) is a sort of cross against this idea that nothing sells outside of when its new and shiny.

Majority of sales when new =/= nothing sells when old.
Don't fall for rejecting logical reasoning.

Things sell well when new =/= the majority of sales for miniature kits happen in the first year. Don't fall for rejecting logical reasoning.

Except GW has flat out said this and would be risking charges for lying to investors by lying about something that can be verified with their sales data.

That would be exactly the sort of thing I've been looking for, can you provide a source?

They've mentioned it in several earnings calls and showed sales data to support it in the chapterhouse case. I don't have voice recordings of it but it's not just a figment of our collective imaginations.

Karol wrote:
There is nothing parodic about w40k, if you are from my part of the world. But that is no wonder, a game writen in UK for mostly people in UK and US, is going to be rather specific in how it deals with anything.

Karol, yours remains a Christian country, with grand cathedrals and so on, no?

that is a tricky question. the originals got destroyed durning wars. some got rebuild, like those in big cities or got really lucky and not blown up like the ones in Cracow. ortodox and grecocatholic ones were destroyed in 1917, 1938, 1939-45 and then finished off durning operation vistula. Those that were left look nice, but they are no where near the size or wealth of gilding they had pre WWI.
Post 1945, communists didn't like churches to be build, post 1989 building a church became a sure way to become a deacon, so unless the people are really really poor, most catholic priests started to build ugly concret mini cathedral. They look like tall bunkers with stained glass. Some are litteral squares. Then there is the monumental architecture, we were forbiden to build durning 1776-1921 time, and later one we build other stuff and then we had WWII and more rebuilding. Now we build gigant Jesus status with military satallite dishes hidden by a burger king crown and of course we build the promised in 1791 Temple of Gods Providance. Of course then it was suppose to be a masonic temple, but now it is a catholic temple. Looks like a military rocket silos and is Huge. I have been in it twice and it is really big.

And if someone thinks I am overhyping or joking. google swiatynia opatrznosci narodowej or the statu of Jesus King of All Mankind in Świebodzin.

In more rural areas in the east we also have a lot of old churches, they are nice and small. often build by private owners and then nationalised.

Karol wrote:
that is a tricky question. the originals got destroyed durning wars. some got rebuild, like those in big countries. ortodox and grecocatholic ones were destroyed in 1938, 1939-45 and then finished off durning operation vistula. Those that were left look nice, but they are no where near the size or wealth of gilding they had pre WWI.
Post 1945, communists didn't like churches to be build, post 1989 building a church became a sure way to become a deacon, so unless the people are really really poor, most catholic priests started to build ugly concret mini cathedral. They look like tall bunkers with stained glass. Some are litteral squares. Then there is the monumental architecture, we were forbiden to build durning 1776-1921 time, and later one we build other stuff and then we had WWII and more rebuilding. Now we build gigant Jesus status with military satallite dishes hidden by a burger king crown and of course we build the promised in 1791 Temple of Gods Providance. Of course then it was suppose to be a masonic temple, but now it is a catholic temple. Looks like a military rocket silos and is Huge. I have been in it twice and it is really big.

And if someone thinks I am overhyping or joking. google swiatynia opatrznosci narodowej or the statu of Jesus King of All Mankind in Świebodzin.

In more rural areas in the east we also have a lot of old churches, they are nice and small. often build by private owners and then nationalised.

It's not a tricky question, Poland remains an Ultra-religious country when compared to the rest of the occident.

The tricky part is regarding to the "do you have cathedrals".
Also I live on the eastern border. We pick up TVs from other countries. When everyday news tell you that "today orcs did X, Y orc tanks were destroyed and Z orcs were killed" it generally gives you a different perspective on so called fiction. But I think I wrote about it before. I can litterally find places near me where the "crazy" w40k stuff was being done for real in span of less then 100-110 years.

I have no idea what happened to this thread. Polish orcs, ok.

 bullyboy wrote:
I have no idea what happened to this thread. Polish orcs, ok.

Just Karol baiting us with his low level comprehension

Karol wrote:
And if someone thinks I am overhyping or joking. google swiatynia opatrznosci narodowej or the statu of Jesus King of All Mankind in Świebodzin.

It looks like a planetary defence turret.

 jeff white wrote:

Tyel wrote:

Toofast wrote:
It's also human nature to like the new shiny thing. If you don't like it when it's new and shiny, you aren't going to suddenly like it 2-3 years later. Items like warhammer models, video games, and jordan shoes selling like hotcakes when they release and having a small trickle of sales a year later makes perfect sense if you spend 3 secs thinking about how human psychology shapes purchasing behavior.

But the issue is that the obsolescence factor in 40k doesn't exist as it does with other things.

For example, GW are just about to release a new Tyranid book. That makes various Tyranid units more desirable than they have ever been.
So... some people are probably going to buy those kits. (Indeed some already seem to be widely sold out.) Some people will decide today's the day to buy a new Tyranid Army. (And some people are doing this for everything in the range all the time.)

Looking at TV say - nothing stops people going and watching a TV show that came out 5-10 years ago (well - at least by the power of Netflix etc). But if everyone does so, that's in the face of every TV marketing budget on the planet trying to get them to watch stuff being released "today". That show is effectively buried by an avalanche of other content that is competing for your attention.

And this undoubtedly does apply to a degree to GW - and why they go for this codex cycle rather than releasing them all at once. It effective stirs the hype. But every new sale of an ancient Tyranids model (cos GW have not exactly been kind to the faction) is a sort of cross against this idea that nothing sells outside of when its new and shiny.

Tyel, you make some good points, but there are different ways to capture the zeitgeist of an era than to profit take on a perpetual hype cycle that is simply noise, spinning wheels that go nowhere. 40k originally was a bit of a parody on empire and the church, blind nationalism, speciesism, and exploited standing sci fi and fantasy tropes mixed with football hooligans and pre cyber punk post punk aesthetics… the parody aspect is something missing, and maybe today people are a bit too thin skinned for it but the point here is that this is one way to stay relevant and more substantially than codex creep and the new mega shiny super Killy alien monster to end them all which, next edition let’s be clear, will be nerfed to trash.

I always, ALWAYS hate the 'this generation is too thin skinned' thing when this comes up. Like...what era did you think had thicker skin? The era of married couples sleeping in separate beds on TV? The era of a black person being the star of the movie being a major political statement? The era where they put 'parental guidance' stickers on CDs because of swearing? The era where DnD was considered satanism?

What era was it, exactly, where moral guardians and people with too much time on their hands DIDN'T whine about SOMETHING ridiculous? Which, by the way, isn't even what the main problem with 40k as parody is.

The problem with 40k as parody isn't AT ALL that people will be """"offended"""" by the hilariously over the top religious extremism, fascism, blind nationalism, etc. The problem with 40k as parody today is that you can't make it ridiculous enough to stop certain...subsections of the population cheering it on completely unironically. We VERY RECENTLY had a major political figure referred to as 'God Emperor' completely unironically with absolutely ZERO of the nuance or understanding of the satirical nature of that title (i.e., that the god emperor of mankind faces eternal torment entombed on the golden throne, forced to watch as his once "great" empire collapses around him, entirely due to his own hubris. Or that he was just straight up a huge moron with social and emotional intelligence of a pinecone .)

ERJAK wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Tyel wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Yup, and the aggravating thing is that they have a system to go back and slap some fresh paint on the older books, but they haven't been using it for that very much. They could be using these dataslates to buff older codexes just as much as nerf the newer ones. They did it for Necrons and some of the 8th edition codexes in the first one, but then they decided to just use them to play Wack-a-Mole with overperforming tournament lists. And that's what I expect they'll do with this one too.

I think the problem is there has to be some general point reduction - and instead its a kind of random, lackluster review.

I feel the Necron changes for instance were good if you want to boost up Necrons. But there's something cynical about cutting destroyer & flayed one points (hello new kits) while leaving a range of other datasheets that clearly have issues. I'm sure someone somewhat wants to run Praetorians.

I guess the equivalent would be going "Sisters aren't cutting it any more, quick, 15-20% cuts on Sacresants and War Suits".

But it seems unclear on whether this will include points changes or not.

I was referring to the rules changes in the first dataslate: adding CORE to multiple Necron units, the change to DTTFE, etc. Actual rules changes, not just points drops. But agreed on the points in the CA, they're incredibly haphazard and random, seemingly. And usually not enough to make much of a difference.

That's true of EVERY point change in that CA. The nerfs were nonsensical in a world where custodes got drops at the same time and the buffs were COMPLETELY irrelevant (again, outside of pushing custodes from 65% winrate to 70%).

CA2022 is arguably the worst rules supplement GW has ever released. It did precisely the opposite of what it was supposedly intended to do (i.e. balance the game) and made you pay like 35$ for the priviledge.

The game as a whole would have been better off if that book had never been released.

No disagreement. That CA buffed armies/units that didn't need to be buffed, while simultaneously nerfing other armies/units that didn't need nerfing. It was pretty bad all around. Though I'd say it's in contention for "Worst CA" with the first CA of 9th (CA2020?), which IMO, only did one thing right: moving Dreadclaws to Dedicated Transports. But even that didn't last, as the Compendium moved them right back to FA, where they've stayed ever since.

Toofast wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Toofast wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Voss wrote:

But every new sale of an ancient Tyranids model (cos GW have not exactly been kind to the faction) is a sort of cross against this idea that nothing sells outside of when its new and shiny.

Majority of sales when new =/= nothing sells when old.
Don't fall for rejecting logical reasoning.

Things sell well when new =/= the majority of sales for miniature kits happen in the first year. Don't fall for rejecting logical reasoning.

Except GW has flat out said this and would be risking charges for lying to investors by lying about something that can be verified with their sales data.

That would be exactly the sort of thing I've been looking for, can you provide a source?

They've mentioned it in several earnings calls and showed sales data to support it in the chapterhouse case. I don't have voice recordings of it but it's not just a figment of our collective imaginations.

Theoretically, the chapter house case should still be public record right?

 oni wrote:
1st bring back the 4th mode of play from 8th edition, Competitive Play
2nd Introduce W40K's first ever banned & restricted list for Competitive Play
3rd Grab popcorn and watch the mob descend on GW.

Do you trust GW to get something like this right? They'd immediately ban Hive Tyrants and Hive Guard because they were too good in 8th (start of 8th, in the case of Tyrants).

If you don't think this generation is softer, nothing I say will change your mind. I know in a couple generations we went from 18 year olds storming the beaches at Normandy to 18 year olds calling it a hate crime if someone doesn't call them by the pronoun they made up yesterday. I have a couple friends who were DIs recently and they have endless stories about how soft recruits are now compared to when we were going through boot. I remember being forced to strip my bed and make my bed over and over again for 3 hours with a master chief screaming in my ear, skipping breakfast, because 1 guy out of 88 didn't get it right. Now you can't even raise your voice at a recruit. It's similar in schools, my wife is a teacher and went from HS down to preschool-K because she wasn't allowed to hold her students accountable for not doing their work or disrupting class. When my dad was going to school, the teachers used belts and rulers to keep kids in line. I've also noticed it in the work environment. I tell a 30+ year old "hey, you did this wrong because of x, y and z" and they say "oh my bad". I tell the same thing the same way to a 20 year old fresh out of school and they go to corporate and say that I'm singling them out and I should address concerns to all the employees at once so they don't feel like they're getting "picked on".

ERJAK wrote:
Theoretically, the chapter house case should still be public record right?

I went through the transcript, but I couldn't find any reference to year, drop, sales, etc that was relevant. I think there was a chart someone posted somewhere that inferred that info, but it isn't present in the transcript, of course.

ERJAK wrote:
I always, ALWAYS hate the 'this generation is too thin skinned' thing when this comes up. Like...what era did you think had thicker skin? The era of married couples sleeping in separate beds on TV? The era of a black person being the star of the movie being a major political statement? The era where they put 'parental guidance' stickers on CDs because of swearing? The era where DnD was considered satanism?

What era was it, exactly, where moral guardians and people with too much time on their hands DIDN'T whine about SOMETHING ridiculous? Which, by the way, isn't even what the main problem with 40k as parody is.

The problem with 40k as parody isn't AT ALL that people will be """"offended"""" by the hilariously over the top religious extremism, fascism, blind nationalism, etc. The problem with 40k as parody today is that you can't make it ridiculous enough to stop certain...subsections of the population cheering it on completely unironically. We VERY RECENTLY had a major political figure referred to as 'God Emperor' completely unironically with absolutely ZERO of the nuance or understanding of the satirical nature of that title (i.e., that the god emperor of mankind faces eternal torment entombed on the golden throne, forced to watch as his once "great" empire collapses around him, entirely due to his own hubris. Or that he was just straight up a huge moron with social and emotional intelligence of a pinecone .)

A complaint as old as Tacitus whinging that Rome had grown too soft and effeminate and was in decadence-induced decline (ironically, several hundred years before its peak), and again expressed all-too-familiarly throughout history.

I don't think the issue is that today's generation is too soft (which is nonsense), but I don't think it's that people don't recognize satire either. If anything, GW as a corporate entity has diluted the satirical elements in favor of more surface-level mass-market appeal (where you need 'good guys' to rally around). There isn't anything really satirical about the 9th Ed rulebook cover, any critical edge to imply that you are not meant to be rooting for the Renaissance angel (complete with halo). Throw in a bunch of writers who have done their best to justify the Imperium's idiocy in-universe, and marketing that unironically portrays Marines as noble crusading knights, and it's no surprise the franchise attracts unironic Imperium fans.

ERJAK wrote:
Theoretically, the chapter house case should still be public record right?

Yes, and I can find multiple references to a spreadsheet that apparently documented sales on specific kits year-by-year, but I cannot find any hard evidence to support the claim that kits make most of their money in the first year.

Hello everyone, the whole generational thing is best left to some OT thread rather than here. Thanks!

 Manchu wrote:
Hello everyone, the whole generational thing is best left to some OT thread rather than here. Thanks!

No kidding!

 bullyboy wrote:
I have no idea what happened to this thread. Polish orcs, ok.

Orc is netslang amongst eastern europeans (and now most of the rest of the world) for Russians.

Karol wrote:
There is nothing parodic about w40k, if you are from my part of the world. But that is no wonder, a game writen in UK for mostly people in UK and US, is going to be rather specific in how it deals with anything.

Just because you don't understand/can't recognize the parody doesn't mean it isn't (or wasn't) there.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Willfully obtuse framing of irrelevant trivia as evidence set the bar. Like, asking for evidence GW has changed after Kirby? That's borderline trolling.

Asking for evidence in this specific way? Nah. It's very relevant to this discussion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

You mean cherry pick to fit a narrative based on speculation.

Nah, you're the one infamous for the bad math arguments around here.

Hecaton wrote:
Nah, you're the one infamous for the bad math arguments around here.

I'm not sure someone who thinks GW nerfed orks to punish the lack of sales on Snaggas has a good logical foundation so I'm not surprised you feel that way.

Karol wrote:
There is nothing parodic about w40k, if you are from my part of the world.

Bruh at this point the idea that you're anything other than someone playing a part to make Poles into a laughingstock is wearing thin.

Are you gonna say something racist about Estonians or whoever again?

Hecaton wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Willfully obtuse framing of irrelevant trivia as evidence set the bar. Like, asking for evidence GW has changed after Kirby? That's borderline trolling.

Asking for evidence in this specific way? Nah. It's very relevant to this discussion.

The thread itself renders the differences self evident; it is discussing a quarterly balance update, released for free download, on the Warhammer community site. There is a mountain of evidence inherent to the topic, making such a request willfully obtuse at best. Personally I feel such a degree of bad faith breaks rule 1 outright, even.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
Nah, you're the one infamous for the bad math arguments around here.

I'm not sure someone who thinks GW nerfed orks to punish the lack of sales on Snaggas has a good logical foundation so I'm not surprised you feel that way.

You missed my point. My point was that non-Snagga models were made worse in the codex to punish players for wanting to play with non-Snagga models prior to release. They made some buggies OP by accident, sure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

The thread itself renders the differences self evident; it is discussing a quarterly balance update, released for free download, on the Warhammer community site. There is a mountain of evidence inherent to the topic, making such a request willfully obtuse at best. Personally I feel such a degree of bad faith breaks rule 1 outright, even.

Ooooh! Gw is releasing rules updates on their website! So beneficent on their part...

You can feel it breaks rule 1, but your feelings aren't reality.

Hecaton wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

You mean cherry pick to fit a narrative based on speculation.

Nah, you're the one infamous for the bad math arguments around here.

To his defense, those bad math arguments tend to be about comparing units or armies. Daedalus' posts which don't contain any math are far more valuable the people going full Karen here because they have been asked to provide proof for their claims.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hecaton wrote:
My point was that non-Snagga models were made worse in the codex to punish players for wanting to play with non-Snagga models prior to release.

Uhm, is there any proof of that?

They surely nerfed boyz into the ground, but they also released new boyz at the same time, so that doesn't really fit your argument, does it?
Pretty much everything else, including models in direct competition with beastsnagga units, got a lot better since the last codex.

We also know that playtesters didn't test a single beastsnagga entry before the codex release, so it's hard to claim a coordinated effort to push them when there apparently has been no coordination whatsoever.

Announcing a balance data slate is risky if it fails for part of the community.
I guess most of the players know what to change in order to reach a kind of game balance.

Ah, dataslate is out now. Now comes the question of if AP 0 can be worsened to AP+1, essentially giving Marines a 2+ save.

JakeSiren wrote:
Ah, dataslate is out now. Now comes the question of if AP 0 can be worsened to AP+1, essentially giving Marines a 2+ save.

Really? You honestly think that'll pass anywhere?

I really don't understand why they felt the need to nerf indirect fire weapons.

 Valkyrie wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
Ah, dataslate is out now. Now comes the question of if AP 0 can be worsened to AP+1, essentially giving Marines a 2+ save.

Really? You honestly think that'll pass anywhere?

That seems to be the intent of the rule, to make Marines more durable against all weaponry. So yeah.

 Krusha wrote:
I really don't understand why they felt the need to nerf indirect fire weapons.

To keep punishing Orks - Squigbuggies nerfed again...

 Krusha wrote:
I really don't understand why they felt the need to nerf indirect fire weapons.

Probably because of T'au, and they are non-interactive.

 Krusha wrote:
I really don't understand why they felt the need to nerf indirect fire weapons.

Because it was really annoying to get constantly harassed by something you can't fight back against.
I remember Astral Aim and the old Hive Guard being a real bastard to play against.

What I don't understand is that right after they said Imperial Guard aren't subject to these changes. Seems a bit counterproductive but ok.

 Krusha wrote:
I really don't understand why they felt the need to nerf indirect fire weapons.

One word: Tau.

95 ppm Starweavers and 130 ppm voidweavers should put harlequins in check.

 Valkyrie wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
Ah, dataslate is out now. Now comes the question of if AP 0 can be worsened to AP+1, essentially giving Marines a 2+ save.

Really? You honestly think that'll pass anywhere?

I mean, the rule flat out says that you increase the target's armour save. It doesn't say that the weapon's AP is reduced.
So yes, attacking marines in cover will give them a 1+ armor save, which will then be modified by the attack's AP.

beast_gts wrote:

 Krusha wrote:
I really don't understand why they felt the need to nerf indirect fire weapons.

To keep punishing Orks - Squigbuggies nerfed again...

I don't think they thought about squigbuggies. Now they're extremely overpriced though, they should have returned to their original points cost.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
Ah, dataslate is out now. Now comes the question of if AP 0 can be worsened to AP+1, essentially giving Marines a 2+ save.

Really? You honestly think that'll pass anywhere?

I mean, the rule flat out says that you increase the target's armour save. It doesn't say that the weapon's AP is reduced.
So yes, attacking marines in cover will give them a 1+ armor save, which will then be modified by the attack's AP.

No, it says you "Worsen the Armour Penetration characteristic of that attack by 1".

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Krusha wrote:
I really don't understand why they felt the need to nerf indirect fire weapons.

One word: Tau.

Then why not just nerf Tau?

Why do my night spinners have to get nerfed because some other army has a broken unit?

The dataslate has been released, link to warcom article:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2022/04/14/the-warhammer-40000-balance-dataslate-find-out-what-changes-are-in-store-for-your-favourite-army/


i;ll edit in more when i have read it.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
Ah, dataslate is out now. Now comes the question of if AP 0 can be worsened to AP+1, essentially giving Marines a 2+ save.

Really? You honestly think that'll pass anywhere?

I mean, the rule flat out says that you increase the target's armour save. It doesn't say that the weapon's AP is reduced.
So yes, attacking marines in cover will give them a 1+ armor save, which will then be modified by the attack's AP.

For indirect fire weapons, yes. But Armour of Contempt does say that the weapon's AP is reduced, so AP0 weapons on Space Marines out of cover should be unaffected.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
Ah, dataslate is out now. Now comes the question of if AP 0 can be worsened to AP+1, essentially giving Marines a 2+ save.

Really? You honestly think that'll pass anywhere?

I mean, the rule flat out says that you increase the target's armour save. It doesn't say that the weapon's AP is reduced.
So yes, attacking marines in cover will give them a 1+ armor save, which will then be modified by the attack's AP.

No, it says you "Worsen the Armour Penetration characteristic of that attack by 1".

I thought we were talking about Indirect Fire weapons, my mistake.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Krusha wrote:
I really don't understand why they felt the need to nerf indirect fire weapons.

Because it was really annoying to get constantly harassed by something you can't fight back against.
I remember Astral Aim and the old Hive Guard being a real bastard to play against.

What I don't understand is that right after they said Imperial Guard aren't subject to these changes. Seems a bit counterproductive but ok.

The old hive guard were overpowered. They have been nerfed in their codex already. The problem has already been solved. Not only is it a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but if old hive guard are the reason then it's a sledgehammer to crack a nut that's already been cracked.

I wouldn't say indirect fire units are any harder to kill, or more annoying to play against, than objective campers behind an obscuring building scoring your opponent points turn after turn.

 Krusha wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Krusha wrote:
I really don't understand why they felt the need to nerf indirect fire weapons.

One word: Tau.

Then why not just nerf Tau?

Why do my night spinners have to get nerfed because some other army has a broken unit?

Because arty is not interactive? (Cheap excuse)
Because screening arty has become relative trivial ?(thanks guaranteed deepstrike with minimum inch distance away from enemy units)
Because actually kicking the Tau dex where it should be kicked would inevitably rise some questions about playtesting?
Using the cheap scapegoat los ignoring fire= problem is far simpler and convenient for gw.

 Tyran wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
Ah, dataslate is out now. Now comes the question of if AP 0 can be worsened to AP+1, essentially giving Marines a 2+ save.

Really? You honestly think that'll pass anywhere?

I mean, the rule flat out says that you increase the target's armour save. It doesn't say that the weapon's AP is reduced.
So yes, attacking marines in cover will give them a 1+ armor save, which will then be modified by the attack's AP.

For indirect fire weapons, yes. But Armour of Contempt does say that the weapon's AP is reduced, so AP0 weapons on Space Marines out of cover should be unaffected.

Oh my mistake, I thought it was about Indirect fire weapons.
Huh, that is a good question. RAW it would give armour, as they didn't think to write "to a minimum of 0".
This is, however, a rather cheesy way to play.

Hi everyone!

I'm Guardsmen Johannsen. I have a Lasgun. I feel pretty confident that the God-Emperor of Mankind is behind me, willing me to greater and greater acts of heroism and bravery.

Hello there, Traitors Warlord Titan of a Legion long since lost to the Emperor's Grace. You sure are a big scary robot. But, I rolled a 6, so I auto-wound you.

Why, good day, blue-skinned Tau. Your Manta is a majestic feat of technology - for a xenos that is - and I have seen them glow as they enter the atmosphere at super-high speeds, dog fighting with all manner of aerial foes. But I have a Lasgun, and a natural 6, so I guess that counts for nothing.

Hey Eldar! Your Phantom Titans sure look like works of art, and they move like real people. They blur as they move gracefully, and Wraithbone has been, to my experience, an unknowable dark art capable of turning aside almost anything. But I rolled a 6, so feth you!

Escalation is amazing.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Krusha wrote:
I really don't understand why they felt the need to nerf indirect fire weapons.

One word: Tau.

Then. Fix. TAU!!!

"That is it! I have had it with these mother fething blanket 'solutions to these mother fething specific problems!" - Samuel L. Jackson (probably)

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

"That is it! I have had it with these mother fething blanket 'solutions to these mother fething specific problems!" - Samuel L. Jackson (probably)

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Krusha wrote:
I really don't understand why they felt the need to nerf indirect fire weapons.

One word: Tau.

Then. Fix. TAU!!!

"That is it! I have had it with these mother fething blanket 'solutions to these mother fething specific problems!" - Samuel L. Jackson (probably)

Indirect fire was pretty annoying in general though.
It was fine in earlier editions because that's what deep strike is for and you had scatter, but the changes to deep strike made it impossible to get them in position to actually threaten indirect fire units, and the removal of scatter made artillery pieces a little more reliable to hit.

 Blackie wrote:
95 ppm Starweavers and 130 ppm voidweavers should put harlequins in check.

I was pretty on the money with my previous suggestions of +10-15 for starweavers and +30-50 pts for voidweavers.

 Krusha wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Krusha wrote:
I really don't understand why they felt the need to nerf indirect fire weapons.

One word: Tau.

Then why not just nerf Tau?

Why do my night spinners have to get nerfed because some other army has a broken unit?

Because your Night Spinners could also do with the nerf.

Indirect fire in general has almost always been very good and it has been somewhat regularly suggested to slap a generic -1 hit on shooting out of LoS. Granted the extra +1 sv might be to much.

And why is Guard except? Because Guard winrates are already in the dumpster and they didn't need yet another kick in the balls. I expect the exception to go away when the new Guard codex eventually comes out.

 Krusha wrote:
Why do my night spinners have to get nerfed because some other army has a broken unit?

Because despite the name of the document they just published, GW cannot into balance.

Not even if their fething lives depended on it. And it's AMAZING!

 Tyran wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
Ah, dataslate is out now. Now comes the question of if AP 0 can be worsened to AP+1, essentially giving Marines a 2+ save.

Really? You honestly think that'll pass anywhere?

I mean, the rule flat out says that you increase the target's armour save. It doesn't say that the weapon's AP is reduced.
So yes, attacking marines in cover will give them a 1+ armor save, which will then be modified by the attack's AP.

For indirect fire weapons, yes. But Armour of Contempt does say that the weapon's AP is reduced, so AP0 weapons on Space Marines out of cover should be unaffected.

To be clear, it's "worsen the Armour Penetration characteristic of that attack by 1", and AP +1 is precisely that to AP 0. Since weapon AP characteristics don't have a modifier limit, I think GW need to clarify what happens vs AP 0 weapons for thus rule.

The Imperial Guard changes now mean that equivalent points of Whiteshield conscripts under an order (so slightly more than equivalent points) will wipe out an Imperial Knight on average.

Yay lasgun buffs?

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
95 ppm Starweavers and 130 ppm voidweavers should put harlequins in check.

I was pretty on the money with my previous suggestions of +10-15 for starweavers and +30-50 pts for voidweavers.

Yeah, me too. I had drukhari raiders and ravagers in mind.

This is a good change and it doesn't destroy the army. The infamous list with 4 starweavers and 9 voidweavers, posted on Warhammer Community, now costs +400 points. But in the end it's just the exact same list with 6 voidweavers instead of 9. Still powerful and harlequins will remain top tiers, but they won't autowin everytime.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The Imperial Guard changes now mean that equivalent points of Whiteshield conscripts under an order (so slightly more than equivalent points) will wipe out an Imperial Knight on average.

Yay lasgun buffs?

Oh wow, the memes about lasguns killing tanks are real now
Great job GW.

 Ordana wrote:

Indirect fire in general has almost always been very good and it has been somewhat regularly suggested to slap a generic -1 hit on shooting out of LoS. Granted the extra +1 sv might be to much.

I think it's a fair nerf generally speaking, although some units have already been punished for firing powerful indirect shots and GW should have given them a points drop along with the datasheet changes.

The squigbuggies in particular would be still pretty decent with those nerf if they costed 90ish points, instead they got a significant points hike and then this which makes them borderline playable now and just for very casual metas.

Ew.

Perhaps power armour needed a resilience boost, but this is hella klunky. It also messes up the balancing of several weapons, as AP 1 now becomes way less valuable. For example on various primaris bolt weapons assault versions without AP already were usually the best choice, but now they're a no-brainer over their AP 1 rapid fire counterparts.

And that IG autowound thing is pants on heads stupid. I never had a huge issue with lasguns being theoretically able to wound land raiders but this is just too much. I don't know what they were thinking.

This level of bypassing base mechanics such as AP and wound rolls as army wide features really doesn't fill me with confidence.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The Imperial Guard changes now mean that equivalent points of Whiteshield conscripts under an order (so slightly more than equivalent points) will wipe out an Imperial Knight on average.

Yay lasgun buffs?

Why would you waste your orders on Conscripts(who have a 50/50 shot of outright not accepting the Order), when you could do the same with Veterans, Scions, or literally anything else?


And yeah. I know you said "Whiteshield Conscripts". That means you've locked yourself into a Cadian army(remember that the autowound on 6s is tied to ALL of your <Regiment> units in your army being of the same <Regiment&gt, and you've burned Command Points to upgrade Conscripts to Whiteshields.

 Ordana wrote:
Because your Night Spinners could also do with the nerf.

Indirect fire in general has almost always been very good and it has been somewhat regularly suggested to slap a generic -1 hit on shooting out of LoS. Granted the extra +1 sv might be to much.

Night spinners are not that bad. They have random shots (I frequently find them underwhelming in my games as it is) and they're reasonably squishy once you can get to them. They're also a lot more difficult to hide than the indirect units people usually complain about due to their size.

Yes, I can use screening and terrain to keep *some* of your units away from them. Equally, you can use screening and terrain to keep my direct fire and melee units away from your objective campers. I'm not sure one is more annoying to play against than the other.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Krusha wrote:
I really don't understand why they felt the need to nerf indirect fire weapons.

One word: Tau.

Then. Fix. [i]TAU!!!

"That is it! I have had it with these mother fething blanket 'solutions to these mother fething specific problems!" - Samuel L. Jackson (probably)

Well, don't complain to me. I was just answering the question. It isn't my fault gw likes to make blanket changes to everything. But in all fairness, indirect fire was a problem for more than just Tau.

And Voidweavers are now the same price as Ravagers. Told you guys that was the best comparison.

So I just want to understand this: a 30pt Mortar team is now more accurate than a Tau GPS guides Smart Missile System? That makes a TON of sense.

One hammer later, when a scalpel was needed.

I really like th update.

Mon't Kai got nerfed. SM got armour update. Detah guard also benefits from it. Much fun. :-)

Silly xeno for trusting heretical tech over The Emprah!

I wish they wouldn't keep balancing gak by throwing on more and more special rules.

Can't they just fix what's already there and cut the bs.
How many special rules do you get just for being an Astartes now?
And they're supposed to be the newbie friendly guys?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The Imperial Guard changes now mean that equivalent points of Whiteshield conscripts under an order (so slightly more than equivalent points) will wipe out an Imperial Knight on average.

Yay lasgun buffs?

Why would you waste your orders on Conscripts(who have a 50/50 shot of outright not accepting the Order), when you could do the same with Veterans, Scions, or literally anything else?


And yeah. I know you said "Whiteshield Conscripts". That means you've locked yourself into a Cadian army(remember that the autowound on 6s is tied to ALL of your <Regiment> units in your army being of the same <Regiment&gt, and you've burned Command Points to upgrade Conscripts to Whiteshields.

Because 50% of their hits auto-wound now for an extremely cheap price, so giving them lots and lots of shots without affecting the price much is A+.

Veterans can't pull this same trick on a Knight, nor can Infantry Squads.

Wait, so PA marine is hit by AP 2 gun, he goes from 3+ to 4+ with new armour of contempt

Terminator gets hit with same gun, also.... goes to a .... 4+ save?

Huh?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The Imperial Guard changes now mean that equivalent points of Whiteshield conscripts under an order (so slightly more than equivalent points) will wipe out an Imperial Knight on average.

Yay lasgun buffs?

Oh wow, the memes about lasguns killing tanks are real now
Great job GW.

Everything is fine, working as intended.

 Gir Spirit Bane wrote:
Wait, so PA marine is hit by AP 2 gun, he goes from 3+ to 4+ with new armour of contempt

Terminator gets hit with same gun, also.... goes to a .... 4+ save?

Huh?

Terminators also benefit from Armour of Contempt, so no, they'd go to a 3+.

Makes the stormshields a lot less valuable though.

 Crimson wrote:
Ew.

Perhaps power armour needed a resilience boost, but this is hella klunky. It also messes up the balancing of several weapons, as AP 1 now becomes way less valuable. For example on various primaris bolt weapons assault versions without AP already were usually the best choice, but now they're a no-brainer over their AP 1 rapid fire counterparts.

Only if your only opponents are Marines and Sisters.

And that IG autowound thing is pants on heads stupid. I never had a huge issue with lasguns being theoretically able to wound land raiders but this is just too much. I don't know what they were thinking.

Yeah, its odd. The flip side is that I think guard are so fundamentally broken theres no easy way to fix them in a document the size of the balance dataslate without resorting to a heavy handed change like this. Most armies can just remove 60-90+ guardsmen wholesale on turn 1 without really making an effort at it, so the guard that survive to turn 2 need to be lethal enough to make up for their compatriots lack of resilience.

I'll also point out that Hammer isn't specific to lasguns, and in fact will also apply to heavy bolters, missile launchers, autocannons, lascannons, flamers, plasma, melta, grenades, etc.

 Gir Spirit Bane wrote:
Wait, so PA marine is hit by AP 2 gun, he goes from 3+ to 4+ with new armour of contempt
Terminator gets hit with same gun, also.... goes to a .... 4+ save?
Huh?

How do you figure that? Armour of Contempt applies to both Power Armor and Terminator Armor, so the Terminator would go to a 3+, unless I'm missing something?

JakeSiren wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
Ah, dataslate is out now. Now comes the question of if AP 0 can be worsened to AP+1, essentially giving Marines a 2+ save.

Really? You honestly think that'll pass anywhere?

That seems to be the intent of the rule, to make Marines more durable against all weaponry. So yeah.

No, as per rulebook p. 364: reducing AP 0 by 1 results in AP 0. It cannot go into positives by this mechanism.

 Sherrypie wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
Ah, dataslate is out now. Now comes the question of if AP 0 can be worsened to AP+1, essentially giving Marines a 2+ save.

Really? You honestly think that'll pass anywhere?

That seems to be the intent of the rule, to make Marines more durable against all weaponry. So yeah.

No, as per rulebook p. 364: reducing AP 0 by 1 results in AP 0. It cannot go into positives by this mechanism.

Could you give a heading/section/chapter quote there? For those of us that have the little rulebooks and not the huge core rulebook with all the fluff.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Perhaps power armour needed a resilience boost, but this is hella klunky. It also messes up the balancing of several weapons, as AP 1 now becomes way less valuable. For example on various primaris bolt weapons assault versions without AP already were usually the best choice, but now they're a no-brainer over their AP 1 rapid fire counterparts.

Only if your only opponents are Marines and Sisters.

Pfffff, who even plays marines? Been ages since I've even seen a marine army at the club /s

 Rihgu wrote:


Could you give a heading/section/chapter quote there? For those of us that have the little rulebooks and not the huge core rulebook with all the fluff.

Rules terms glossary, Characteristics, Reducing an AP characteristic: "When reducing an AP characteristic, add the appropriate amount to the characteristic, to a maximum of 0. For example: reducing an AP of -1 by 1 would result in an AP of 0; reducing an AP of 0 by 1 would result in an AP of 0."

 Sherrypie wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:


Could you give a heading/section/chapter quote there? For those of us that have the little rulebooks and not the huge core rulebook with all the fluff.

Rules terms glossary, Characteristics, Reducing an AP characteristic: "When reducing an AP characteristic, add the appropriate amount to the characteristic, to a maximum of 0. For example: reducing an AP of -1 by 1 would result in an AP of 0; reducing an AP of 0 by 1 would result in an AP of 0."

Thank you!

 Sherrypie wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
Ah, dataslate is out now. Now comes the question of if AP 0 can be worsened to AP+1, essentially giving Marines a 2+ save.

Really? You honestly think that'll pass anywhere?

That seems to be the intent of the rule, to make Marines more durable against all weaponry. So yeah.

No, as per rulebook p. 364: reducing AP 0 by 1 results in AP 0. It cannot go into positives by this mechanism.

Good catch. I didn't realise this existed and had only reviewed the earlier sections on modifiers.

 Sherrypie wrote:

 Gir Spirit Bane wrote:
Wait, so PA marine is hit by AP 2 gun, he goes from 3+ to 4+ with new armour of contempt

Terminator gets hit with same gun, also.... goes to a .... 4+ save?

Huh?

Terminators also benefit from Armour of Contempt, so no, they'd go to a 3+.

Massively misread that. Yay.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
Ah, dataslate is out now. Now comes the question of if AP 0 can be worsened to AP+1, essentially giving Marines a 2+ save.

Really? You honestly think that'll pass anywhere?

I mean, the rule flat out says that you increase the target's armour save. It doesn't say that the weapon's AP is reduced.
So yes, attacking marines in cover will give them a 1+ armor save, which will then be modified by the attack's AP.

No it doesnt, it "worsens the AP characteristic of that attack by 1"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Krusha wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Krusha wrote:
I really don't understand why they felt the need to nerf indirect fire weapons.

One word: Tau.

Then why not just nerf Tau?

Why do my night spinners have to get nerfed because some other army has a broken unit?

Because terrain is the main variable in 40k. Having models that outright ignore it with no penalties is stupid. Same problem that planes had.

Theyre finally fixing a problem that has been present since the start of 8th.

As usual I'd prefer a more holistic line by line roll through the books - but it doesn't seem that bad.

Harlequins nerfed. Good.
Custodes and Tau nerfed. Good (not sure its enough, but we can wait and see).
Ignore LOS shooting nerf. Mixed. Points could have resolved this. Not a terrible rule in itself - but yeah. The balance situation isn't resolved.

The buff to power armour factions probably isn't terrible in itself. But its kind of a clunky fix to the fact GW can't stop giving 1 extra AP to seemingly every weapon in the game. It may create some weird break points. Anyone actively paying for AP -1 (and there are some cases where this remains the case) feels kind of hard done by.

Guard shooting auto wounding on 6s is not remotely fluffy, but obviously they need help so its hard to feel too bad. First step on to GW "fixing" Guard by eventually having every unit do 100-150%~ more damage than it did before?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So I just want to understand this: a 30pt Mortar team is now more accurate than a Tau GPS guides Smart Missile System? That makes a TON of sense.

One hammer later, when a scalpel was needed.

Hear me out : feth the fluff when it comes to balance.

Armour of Contempt is the clunkiest rules fix I've ever seen. Its just awful in so many ways.

Woohuuu. No nerfs, no change and even a buff. Yay us, first FAQ I see that doesn't have a nerf for us of some sort. Very nice.

Also based IG burning titans using torch lights.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Makes the stormshields a lot less valuable though.

good, it means people won't need to spam that one loadout to have them be viable


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Armour of Contempt is the clunkiest rules fix I've ever seen. Its just awful in so many ways.

this should be a universal rule for vehicles only IMO

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I wish they wouldn't keep balancing gak by throwing on more and more special rules.

Can't they just fix what's already there and cut the bs.
How many special rules do you get just for being an Astartes now?
And they're supposed to be the newbie friendly guys?

The correct answer is eight:

And They Shall Know No Fear
Bolter Discipline
Shock Assault
Combat Doctrines
Combat Squads
Armor of Contempt
Chapter Tactics
Super Doctrine

Unless you count "Angel Of Death" and the "Chapter Tactics" rules which just give you the rules above, then it's ten.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

this should be a universal rule for vehicles only IMO

A space marine terminator is not less, and often more, armoured then a big chunk of vehicles in w40k.

A bit of bloat on top of bloat for sure, but the armor of contempt change is amazing for the game.

It solves one of the biggest issues of 8th/9th edition, which is that the first point of AP was the most important one.

Now there is a widespread rule (14 factions) that makes your first point of AP a lot less valuable, and as a consequence the ones after that. It also makes high AP matter again.

Math wise, this was a great move.

well orks lost most thier AP vs power armor and they didn't reverse the buggies rule. nerfed our best unit and buffed other shooting... i think orks are back to a bottom tier codex now, that sucks, it was a poorly designed book to begin with and their work to make other armies stronger vs harlies, custodes and craftworld indecently smacked us down... lame. to be clear i am fine with a mid power book but i think they just broke us back to not having a single viable build.

Karol wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

this should be a universal rule for vehicles only IMO

A space marine terminator is not less, and often more, armoured then a big chunk of vehicles in w40k.

And they get better saves than most vehicles already

Spoletta wrote:
A bit of bloat on top of bloat for sure, but the armor of contempt change is amazing for the game.

It solves one of the biggest issues of 8th/9th edition, which is that the first point of AP was the most important one.

Now there is a widespread rule (14 factions) that makes your first point of AP a lot less valuable, and as a consequence the ones after that. It also makes high AP matter again.

Math wise, this was a great move.

1st point of ap as most invunerables are 2 better than the armor of said unit. I disagree with it being a good thing though, see my above comment as its good for power armor armies but seems to hurt orks and gsc who were already not the big bads and have low ap on lots of stuff to maek them be able to actually hurt marines and custodes

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Because terrain is the main variable in 40k. Having models that outright ignore it with no penalties is stupid. Same problem that planes had.

Theyre finally fixing a problem that has been present since the start of 8th.

I would argue it effectively pays a penalty as it trades brute firepower for indirect fire. If I invest points in such units then I’m taking fewer raw damage dealers e.g. fire prisms. It’s no more stupid than you winning the game because I can’t touch your five-man chaff unit camping on an objective behind an obscuring building.

I hate gw so much.

Fix any of the real problems SoB have? Nah...let's give blanket -1 ap and nerf bodyguard because we truly, genuinely understand nothing about how this game works.

So Armor of Contempt will also give Redemptors and other dreads +1 save as well? Ouch....

ERJAK wrote:
I hate gw so much.

Fix any of the real problems SoB have? Nah...let's give blanket -1 ap and nerf bodyguard because we truly, genuinely understand nothing about how this game works.

Bodyguard is a gak rule and I'm glad it's dead.

Selfcontrol wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
I hate gw so much.

Fix any of the real problems SoB have? Nah...let's give blanket -1 ap and nerf bodyguard because we truly, genuinely understand nothing about how this game works.

Bodyguard is a gak rule and I'm glad it's dead.

Bodyguard was a better rule than "Look Out, Sir!".

Shame that wasn't the one killed.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Selfcontrol wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
I hate gw so much.

Fix any of the real problems SoB have? Nah...let's give blanket -1 ap and nerf bodyguard because we truly, genuinely understand nothing about how this game works.

Bodyguard is a gak rule and I'm glad it's dead.

Bodyguard was a better rule than "Look Out, Sir!".

Shame that wasn't the one killed.

It’s crazy how GW is struggling to fix a problem that didn’t need to be a problem.

Characters should be allowed to join squads again. Simple. If you’re worried about Death Stars, ok - limit it to one character per squad.

ERJAK wrote:
I hate gw so much.

Fix any of the real problems SoB have? Nah...let's give blanket -1 ap and nerf bodyguard because we truly, genuinely understand nothing about how this game works.

Now can they roll back the CA2022 points changes to make up for this...?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So I just want to understand this: a 30pt Mortar team is now more accurate than a Tau GPS guides Smart Missile System? That makes a TON of sense.

One hammer later, when a scalpel was needed.

IG is in a bad spot. They probably didn't need that nerf. The 6 auto wound though will be interesting.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Selfcontrol wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
I hate gw so much.

Fix any of the real problems SoB have? Nah...let's give blanket -1 ap and nerf bodyguard because we truly, genuinely understand nothing about how this game works.

Bodyguard is a gak rule and I'm glad it's dead.

Bodyguard was a better rule than "Look Out, Sir!".

Shame that wasn't the one killed.

lol hard disagree on that one.
Making a model untargettable because some other model was hidden behind a building near it was pants on head stupid.

But yes, just make characters able to join squads again (and make it so you can only have one character join a squad)

 Niiai wrote:
I really like th update.

Mon't Kai got nerfed. SM got armour update. Detah guard also benefits from it. Much fun. :-)

My rubrics just got bananas tough. +1 for power armor ( assuming the AP is enough to matter ), +1 for D1, +1 for cover, +1 if you're shooting me with ooLOS.

I sort of like this PA change as it punishes high volume high AP more than it will punish low volume shooting.

I will point out that while GW should know better on their own, the community rarely applies nuance to its complaints so we shouldn't be surprised GW lacks it in their solutions.

Yeah, that rule was dumb, especially when the character is clearly out in the open and you have an easy shot to it.
No idea why they removed characters being able to join squads, I always thought that 8th ed change was silly.

If they were that worried about death stars just limit it to one character. Even Dawn of War got that right.
Wasn't it only one character in earlier editions of the game too? I don't remember multiple characters being able to join a squad in 4th ed.

Spoletta wrote:
A bit of bloat on top of bloat for sure, but the armor of contempt change is amazing for the game.

It solves one of the biggest issues of 8th/9th edition, which is that the first point of AP was the most important one.

Surely it just turns the wheel one step?

Now the first point of AP is lacklustre and the second pip is the most important.

Is this a great achievement?

I just realized Armour of Contempt also applies to vehicles. Oh happy day!

Really not getting the hate for Armor of Contempt though. Over the past two editions one of the very common suggestions I've seen popping up here and elsewhere were suggestions that power armor and terminator armor needed something more on top of being just a 3+/2+ save in order to both balance the relevant factions as well as to represent the fact that power armor was supposedly superior to other forms of armor that were offering 3+ saves to other factions, etc. Well, here it is.

Its not a particularly bloaty rule (and I'm sorry, "clunky"? I don't think that word means what you think it means, because theres nothing clunky about it) vs others that they could have gone with (sorry not sorry, the idea that Terminators should go back to taking their saves on 2d6 is a horrible one and I hope never comes to pass), and its fairly simple and works pretty well. Not getting the complaint that it devalues weapons/factions that have -1AP weapons, etc. this isn't a rule that applies outside of a certain subset of factions within the game and is far from universal, etc. The value of those weapons still exists when you're shooting at things like crisis suits or vehicles, etc. in other armies. Astartes/Sororitas having an advantage over AP buffs doesn't hurt these weapons any more than the same rule on units in other armies does.

That being said, maybe its time to move from d6 to d8 or d10 based mechanics, the only reason that they have to resort to giving marines, etc. this anti-AP rule is because theres nowhere left for them to go on a d6 to represent the superiority of power/terminator armor, etc. Keep terminator armor and power armor at 2+ and 3+ respectively, but move other units that currently get 2+ to 3+ and units which currently get 3+ to 4+, and then re-seed armor values for things that currently have 4+ to 6+ save as needed. Keeping things roughly level with where they are now, on a d8 a 4+ save would go to 5+, 5+ to 6+, and 6+ to 8+; on a d10 a 4+ would go to 6+, 5+ to 8+, and a 6+ to 9+. If you wanted to play with it a bit and represent the fact that one factions 4+ or 5+ armor is better than anothers you would have more room to do that.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

lol hard disagree on that one.
Making a model untargettable because some other model was hidden behind a building near it was pants on head stupid.

The same argument comes from a model getting saves just cause some other models are nearby.

But yes, just make characters able to join squads again (and make it so you can only have one character join a squad)

Or actively attempt to fix bodyguard into a real thing.

Crazy, right?

I've been running a talonmaster with DW command squads for ages and it's jank as hell. I shoot you to pieces at range and you can't shoot me back because I have a terminator tucked into the corner of a building nearby who can't even see the guy he's guarding. So you have to charge into my full BS overwatch. It's so dumb and so effective, that nonsense had to go.

Leave it to Dakka tho to somehow be the one place in the universe to have goobers crawling out of the woodwork to complain about even an unambiguously good change.

Spoletta wrote:
A bit of bloat on top of bloat for sure, but the armor of contempt change is amazing for the game.

It solves one of the biggest issues of 8th/9th edition, which is that the first point of AP was the most important one.

Now there is a widespread rule (14 factions) that makes your first point of AP a lot less valuable, and as a consequence the ones after that. It also makes high AP matter again.

Math wise, this was a great move.

It makes volume matter again, too.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ventus wrote:
I've been running a talonmaster with DW command squads for ages and it's jank as hell. I shoot you to pieces at range and you can't shoot me back because I have a terminator tucked into the corner of a building nearby who can't even see the guy he's guarding. So you have to charge into my full BS overwatch. It's so dumb and so effective, that nonsense had to go.

Leave it to Dakka tho to somehow be the one place in the universe to have goobers crawling out of the woodwork to complain about even an unambiguously good change.

Yep. I'm sure we'll see some quirks, but overall this was a pretty good run at the issues.

 Kanluwen wrote:

The same argument comes from a model getting saves just cause some other models are nearby.

i can kill the guardsment to get to the company commander behind them.

i can't kill the bodyguards (behind terrain) to get to the character in the open.

 Kanluwen wrote:


Or actively attempt to fix bodyguard into a real thing.

Crazy, right?

So by making bodyguards targeted instead of the character? Kinda like having the character be part of the bodyguard squad?

Reactions:

Bodyguard and all its variants just got turned into a USR. That's hilarious.

Indirect fire just seems bad now. I wonder how long the IG exception will last. Will their codex rescind their exception, or will there have to be a new dataslate specifically to get rid of it?

Armor of Contempt for Rules Bloat- just why, though? Are we creeping back to the old AP system where guard and orks just don't get saves and for power armor, low AP doesn't matter?
That specific shields turn it off and its incompatible with other rules (that got changed for Sallies and Vallies, which actually surprised me) is just bloat on the bloat.

Guard codex seems far off if they're still get layers of new rules through the dataslate. Daemons are either perfectly fine or non-existent to GW, can't tell.


But there seems to be a drift toward 'older edition' solutions to the current problems. Or what GW thinks are the current problems, anyway. Though the solution of 'don't hand out AP like candy' doesn't seem to be on the table.

Armour of contempt - Decent change, makes marines of all flavours (and SoB) a bit more durable, currently they die like flies to pretty much anything. Its not ideal, because AP inflation is a thing, but certainly an easier 'fix' than rebalancing all AP's of all weapons across the game.

Indirect fire - good change, although i would probably go a bit further and ban re-rolls if shooting indirect weapons at something you can't see. I'm a little curious as to why Guard ignore this particular rule, a bit of consistency would be nice, but I recognize guard are in a bad place atm. Indirect shooting should be worse than direct shooting in almost every situation in terms of efficiency.

Bodyguard - good riddance to a rule that was badly thought out and badly implemented. The rule, as was, essentially rendered sniper weapons pointless.

Now I am a Tau Player; and i like FE because I like crisis teams, and that was traditionally their thing. the reduction in the devastating counterstrike to 9" is a bit of a bummer, a small one since getting a markerlight out of DS is now impossible unless you have actual markerlights. the loss of the -1AP in mont'ka mainly affects the indirect and low AP weapons, which have already been hit quite hard, A lot of the other Tau weapons have really good AP natively, they keep the re-roll 1's to wound aswell, at least. Its not that big a deal, Drop Zone Clear is a thing after all.

The broadsides losing Core is a bit heavy handed imo, losing core is big, especially when the most common secondary weapon, SMS, has already been hit hard, now almost no buffs from any source can affect Broadsides. I think a points increase would have been a better route. I'm not too bothered by it personally, Crisis teams are much better overall IMO, especially because broadsides were never affected by the really useful Commander abilities anyway.

I can't speak as to the other changes, I've not played harlequins this year, but the points increases are, i am led to believe, warranted.

chaos0xomega wrote:
I just realized Armour of Contempt also applies to vehicles. Oh happy day!

Really not getting the hate for Armor of Contempt though.

Short version: it's a blanket rule to up the durability of a number of factions that only exists because GW can't stop pushing the lethality of its own game. If they had any amount of planning or foresight it wouldn't be a problem in the first place. It's fixing the wrong thing.

ccs wrote:

Karol wrote:
There is nothing parodic about w40k, if you are from my part of the world. But that is no wonder, a game writen in UK for mostly people in UK and US, is going to be rather specific in how it deals with anything.

Just because you don't understand/can't recognize the parody doesn't mean it isn't (or wasn't) there.

Okey. But you do understand that you can make some think that something is or isn't funny or is or isn't a parody? Romans found christians being eaten by lions or set up as torches hilarious. Also when something leaves a specific group of circle it changes meaning and how it is taken in or how it is treated. Specially when it goes global. There is a reason why some Witcher stories had to be changed, because stuff writen in the late 80s or early 90s in Poland, would not be understood by people who are neither slavic, know the slavic folklore or have the eastern block expiriance. What do you think a 13year old polish kid, who likes history, thinks when he is reading w40k lore about the empire. You think that that this is a parody of 80s british hooligans and that is a joke about a politician from times before his parents were born etc ?

 bullyboy wrote:
I have no idea what happened to this thread. Polish orcs, ok.

Not polish, ukrainian TV doesn't call us orcs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Armor of Contempt for Rules Bloat- just why, though?

Because power armoured armies are doing really bad after GW decided to hand out -1AP, high strenght and multi shots on basic weapons for multiple factions. GW seems to, or pretends to, not like the idea that a marine player may not want to play with marine models, because they die too fast. It also creates a situation like the one with GK, where if a GK player could, he wouldn't be taking any marines , just spaming NDKs of different types.

Karol wrote:

Okey. But you do understand that you can make some think that something is or isn't funny or is or isn't a parody? Romans found christians being eaten by lions or set up as torches hilarious. Also when something leaves a specific group of circle it changes meaning and how it is taken in or how it is treated. Specially when it goes global. There is a reason why some Witcher stories had to be changed, because stuff writen in the late 80s or early 90s in Poland, would not be understood by people who are neither slavic, know the slavic folklore or have the eastern block expiriance. What do you think a 13year old polish kid, who likes history, thinks when he is reading w40k lore about the empire. You think that that this is a parody of 80s british hooligans and that is a joke about a politician from times before his parents were born etc ?

Parody doesnt have to be funny.... Parody can be pushing the ridicule aspect of something. It's not something that makes you laugh out loud, i'ts something that makes you got "this is so dumb, i love it".

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


So by making bodyguards targeted instead of the character? Kinda like having the character be part of the bodyguard squad?

I have absolutly no idea why bodyguard doesn't mean "a Character becomes part of the unit".

madtankbloke wrote:
Indirect fire - good change, although i would probably go a bit further and ban re-rolls if shooting indirect weapons at something you can't see.

Indirect fire wasn’t a problem outside of hive guard, squig buggies and a couple of tau units, and hive guard have been fixed now anyway.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Parody doesnt have to be funny.... Parody can be pushing the ridicule aspect of something. It's not something that makes you laugh out loud, i'ts something that makes you got "this is so dumb, i love it".

If it is not funny then it is not parody. Then it is just a vailed form of an insult you make in a such a way that other people have to take it. Like a dude post match saying "thank you for the match", after he "accidently" dislocated three of your fingers just so a person from his school fighting you in the next round has an easier match.

Slipspace wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
I just realized Armour of Contempt also applies to vehicles. Oh happy day!

Really not getting the hate for Armor of Contempt though.

Short version: it's a blanket rule to up the durability of a number of factions that only exists because GW can't stop pushing the lethality of its own game. If they had any amount of planning or foresight it wouldn't be a problem in the first place. It's fixing the wrong thing.

Whilst this is right I can't imagine "reduce the ap of all weapons in the game by 1" would have come out well.

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
I hate gw so much.

Fix any of the real problems SoB have? Nah...let's give blanket -1 ap and nerf bodyguard because we truly, genuinely understand nothing about how this game works.

Now can they roll back the CA2022 points changes to make up for this...?

Only if the SoB players have to pay for it by buying another book.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface 804430 11345876 wrote:

Whilst this is right I can't imagine "reduce the ap of all weapons in the game by 1" would have come out well.

yes, but that would make eldar, tau, ad mecha and even orks, to a very small degree , more resilient. And those armies don't need it. It also would not require the changing of AP on anti tank weapons or weapons with AP2-AP3. Power armoured armies are the ones having problems with the AP system right now, so they get a patch fix. It isn't awesome, but it is all GW can do without dropping 10th in a month.

 vipoid wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
A bit of bloat on top of bloat for sure, but the armor of contempt change is amazing for the game.

It solves one of the biggest issues of 8th/9th edition, which is that the first point of AP was the most important one.

Surely it just turns the wheel one step?

Now the first point of AP is lacklustre and the second pip is the most important.

Is this a great achievement?

No, it doesn't.

Upgrading from AP-1 to AP-2 is still less good than going from AP 0 to AP -1 against a lot of factions, but is very good when against the power armor factions. There are targets against which a -2AP is still useless (terminators in cover for example), which makes the AP-3 have a relevant role.

There is no longer a "Best" AP point increase. It is true that in general once you get past -2, you see diminishing returns, but now all the first 3 points are very important and cover a specific role.

Karol wrote:

yes, but that would make eldar, tau, ad mecha and even orks, to a very small degree , more resilient. And those armies don't need it.

wtf are you on about? ALL armies need to be more resilient, the lethality in this game is out of whack

No, they don't. If they needed to be reslient to work, then they wouldn't be doing so well as they do now, and the curve of good armies would be a lot more flat. Power armoured armies like marines or SoB, do struggle with the AP system the most in a non skirmish system like w40k. There for the fix was made for them. A void weaver , raider , malaceptor etc does not need to get tougher. And GW even noticed that for some units, mainly GK NDKs, the change maybe too good, so they are excluded from it, rightfuly so.

Im like super happy to see the armor of contempt rule. Becuase it just adds more creedence to what i have been saying for months now.

The rending AP system is to flawed to be used in the current interation of the game. GW created an arms race and the rending AP system is just broken, and armor of contempt is just more evidence that GW is trying to make a patch work solution to the problem rather then addressing it.

First models did not die fast enough, so we got more rend
Then they died to quick, so we got more wounds
THen they did not die fast enough, so we got a bunch of multi wound wepaons
Then stuff died to quick so we gave out a bucnh of invulns and wound only on a 4+
Then big guns felt horrible so we decided to make them have insane base damage and even ignore invulns in some cases.
Then we had damage caps/halves all wounds
Now we have things that just outright ignore AP of some weapons or reduces it.

To come, ignoring AP if its not of str = Toughness

All or nothing AP had its issues, but the problems caused by rending AP are to glaring to ignore at this point. The system either needs to be abandoned, or redone from the ground up.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Niiai wrote:
I really like th update.

Mon't Kai got nerfed. SM got armour update. Detah guard also benefits from it. Much fun. :-)

My rubrics just got bananas tough. +1 for power armor ( assuming the AP is enough to matter ), +1 for D1, +1 for cover, +1 if you're shooting me with ooLOS.

I sort of like this PA change as it punishes high volume high AP more than it will punish low volume shooting.

It isn't just power armour Daed. It's all Heretic Astartes, Loyalist Scum Astartes, and SoB units. At least everything with the appropriate keywords. Tanks, Dreadnoughts, tanks, flyers, tanks, Daemon engines, and, oh yes, tanks. I'm digging this.

Lmao “your choppas are -1 ap to deal with marines better”
Marines ignore -1 ap.
What sorta gak hole are we falling into.

I really love the fact that GW's completely fething bailed on the CORE mechanic now with Obsec. It's basically Obsec units are determined by your last top finishes. Custodes being nerfed this was is honestly in my eyes the best case scenario. I think they just gave the nerf bat to Ray Charles and Stevie Wonder, and said go nuts. Our best units are still hilariously under costed, do absurd damage, and require zero skill. But sure, go ahead and nerf our Core unit mechanics. Meanwhile if the leaks are true I can basically add a Knight for free, and kill your entire list on first turn!

Spoletta 804430 11345882 wrote:

No, it doesn't.

Upgrading from AP-1 to AP-2 is still less good than going from AP 0 to AP -1 against a lot of factions, but is very good when against the power armor factions. There are targets against which a -2AP is still useless (terminators in cover for example), which makes the AP-3 have a relevant role.

There is no longer a "Best" AP point increase. It is true that in general once you get past -2, you see diminishing returns, but now all the first 3 points are very important and cover a specific role.

Thing is AP is free on basic guns, making the whole dimnishing return not a thing of weapon AP, but rather the armour save one has. When most weapons are ap1 or better, the armies that have their resiliance build around a +2 or +3 save drops very fast. Specially in case of spammed -2AP or higher weapons and the fact units are run MSU in 9th, means a unit of 5 +2 dudes is less resilient, then a unit of +3 guys, when they cost half the points.

Karol wrote:
No, they don't. If they needed to be reslient to work, then they wouldn't be doing so well as they do now, and the curve of good armies would be a lot more flat. Power armoured armies like marines or SoB, do struggle with the AP system the most in a non skirmish system like w40k. There for the fix was made for them. A void weaver , raider , malaceptor etc does not need to get tougher. And GW even noticed that for some units, mainly GK NDKs, the change maybe too good, so they are excluded from it, rightfuly so.

the whole game is too lethal. Obviously there are armies that are better right now, but my ideal 40k game wouldnt see games where people are nearly tabled.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
Lmao “your choppas are -1 ap to deal with marines better”
Marines ignore -1 ap.
What sorta gak hole are we falling into.

Don't worry, I'm sure next we will be seeing a special rule that lets weapons to ignore the special rules that reduce their AP!

 Crimson wrote:

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
Lmao “your choppas are -1 ap to deal with marines better”
Marines ignore -1 ap.
What sorta gak hole are we falling into.

Don't worry, I'm sure next we will be seeing a special rule that lets weapons to ignore the special rules that reduce their AP!

My bet is on a rule that makes it so, if the weapon Strength => then target toughness, They dont get to ignore your AP.

Slipspace wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
I just realized Armour of Contempt also applies to vehicles. Oh happy day!

Really not getting the hate for Armor of Contempt though.

Short version: it's a blanket rule to up the durability of a number of factions that only exists because GW can't stop pushing the lethality of its own game. If they had any amount of planning or foresight it wouldn't be a problem in the first place. It's fixing the wrong thing.

Thats kind of a pre-supposition of the problem and is purely a function of perspective. I say the level of lethality in the game is just fine - its more lethal than it once was many editions ago, and through that frame of reference/overton window it would certainly look to be too lethal... but there are other tabletop games that are even more lethal still. LIkewise, "pushing the lethality" is also a function of perspective and one tied to the drawn out pace of the release schedule - if GW had dropped all the codexes at once you wouldn't be saying they were "pushing the lethality", instead you would just say that they did a horrendous job of balancing the armies with too wide of a power spread, but because we're getting a codex every 1-2 months on average (if not longer) with a recent surge in power levels and lethality, you're perceiving it as a long march to more lethality rather than just inept design work, overlooking a handful of books like Genestealer Cults which are decidedly more tame than the other released around it.

This is the FIFTH major nerf Sisters of battle have gotten since january. I hate GW so goddam much.

ERJAK wrote:
This is the FIFTH major nerf Sisters of battle have gotten since january. I hate GW so goddam much.

Oh yeah, lets disregard the two buffes they got today.

If you hate GW, look at Grimdark future by OnePageRules

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
This is the FIFTH major nerf Sisters of battle have gotten since january. I hate GW so goddam much.

Oh yeah, lets disregard the two buffes they got today.

If you hate GW, look at Grimdark future by OnePageRules

Exactly, maybe a nerf to his Jank, but the entire army getting one better save (except his 30 sacresants I’m guessing) and 5 more miracle dice (at least) per game.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So I just want to understand this: a 30pt Mortar team is now more accurate than a Tau GPS guides Smart Missile System?

Or maybe, just MAYBE, has bigger warhead so it doesn't need to hit as precisely and near miss matter less?

So pretty much the difference between HE and EFP ammunition in real life?

Oh wait, using common sense is forbidden these days, my bad, carry on

Tyel wrote:
Ignore LOS shooting nerf. Mixed. Points could have resolved this. Not a terrible rule in itself - but yeah. The balance situation isn't resolved.

This nonsense again?

No, the points could NOT fix this because you either make the artillery worthless when it's shooting in direct fire, or when it's using indirect fire. Nerfing indirect fire so it's not straight upgrade over direct fire and both have their place is the only sane option. No amount of repeating 'but muh points' will change that, it's literally impossible to balance two massively out of line uses with points without equalizing them.

This is also why IG is not affected by this change, because their vehicles were terrible to begin with any unlike everyone else, need to be leveled up, not down, even with indirect fire upside.

Anyone actively paying for AP -1 (and there are some cases where this remains the case) feels kind of hard done by.

Try paying for useless 3+ save for two editions now, then come come complaining your weapons have been made slightly less effective against small fraction of the 40K units. I dare you.

Also, new broken xeno gak with their -5 and -6AP modifiers handed out like candy laughs at this change anyway, it's still no save sooo...

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
But yes, just make characters able to join squads again (and make it so you can only have one character join a squad)

Why people keep pushing for stupid, ugly mechanics from old editions that always caused endless problems? Bad memory much?

We also now have more characters than ever, so that limit would be dumb anyway. Look at fluffy SM company for example, you have apothecary, captain, librarian, techmarine, chaplain, ancient, champion, two lieutenants, and possibly 4-5 more - where do you propose they should be crammed? You'd run out of infantry units before getting half of that in, not to mention apothecary (or even more hilariously, champion, whose main job is character protection) telling captain "sorry sir, this squad is full, we're going full USA here, no healthcare for you" is downright insane...

So I now have to add little ERA blocks on all my units to show this armour of contempt, lol? Next up….new rules that specifically ignore armour of contempt (the tandem warhead or top attack rule).

Spoletta wrote:
Upgrading from AP-1 to AP-2 is still less good than going from AP 0 to AP -1 against a lot of factions, but is very good when against the power armor factions. There are targets against which a -2AP is still useless (terminators in cover for example), which makes the AP-3 have a relevant role.

What on earth are you talking about?

Upgrading from AP0 to AP-1 is now far worse than upgrading from AP-1 to AP-2.

Yes, AP-1 is still relevant against some factions. However, it's now *not* relevant against what is by far the most common faction in the game. Plus CSM (probably the second- or third-most-common faction in the game), and SoB to boot.

The idea that this somehow won't impact the usefulness of AP-1, relative to AP-2, is completely baffling.

As for your example, terminators in cover effectively ignore AP-2. Okay. But I fail to see how that makes it less valuable than AP-1, which is outright ignored by the entire faction.

 Irbis wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
But yes, just make characters able to join squads again (and make it so you can only have one character join a squad)

Why people keep pushing for stupid, ugly mechanics from old editions that always caused endless problems? Bad memory much?

We also now have more characters than ever, so that limit would be dumb anyway. Look at fluffy SM company for example, you have apothecary, captain, librarian, techmarine, chaplain, ancient, champion, two lieutenants, and possibly 4-5 more - where do you propose they should be crammed? You'd run out of infantry units before getting half of that in, not to mention apothecary (or even more hilariously, champion, whose main job is character protection) telling captain "sorry sir, this squad is full, we're going full USA here, no healthcare for you" is downright insane...

Hint: a list shouldnt be able to bring every single character possible.

This would make people bring more troops (because theyre cheap) so we'd be pushing for troops in a way that is more meaningful than "you gotta becasue detachment said so".


Like wtf is your comment about (except bitching)? Champion could become a one-man squad that allows you to join a character to it. And if you bring : 3x5 intercessors, 1x3 eradicators, 1x5 devastator, you're already at 5 squads a character can join.

And the problems with older edition having characters that join squads was giving a deathstar a ton of keywords and roll over your opponent, limiting it to one character / squad fixes that problem. It even fixes the aura problem in a cleaner way than Core did

 bullyboy wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
This is the FIFTH major nerf Sisters of battle have gotten since january. I hate GW so goddam much.

Oh yeah, lets disregard the two buffes they got today.

If you hate GW, look at Grimdark future by OnePageRules

Exactly, maybe a nerf to his Jank, but the entire army getting one better save (except his 30 sacresants I’m guessing) and 5 more miracle dice (at least) per game.

You can just say that you don't know anything about the army. Like the rest of the words were a waste because of how obvious it is that you just don't understand how the Army works. The 30 sacristans are what matters. No one cares that battle sisters are immune to -1 AP. The change is a huge Nerf.

Miracle dice really don't matter either. Sisters don't do enough damage anymore for miracle dice to have any kind of meaningful impact. Even when using leap of faith you still end up with a stack of pain at the end of the game you can't do anything with.

ERJAK wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
This is the FIFTH major nerf Sisters of battle have gotten since january. I hate GW so goddam much.

Oh yeah, lets disregard the two buffes they got today.

If you hate GW, look at Grimdark future by OnePageRules

Exactly, maybe a nerf to his Jank, but the entire army getting one better save (except his 30 sacresants I’m guessing) and 5 more miracle dice (at least) per game.

You can just say that you don't know anything about the army. Like the rest of the words were a waste because of how obvious it is that you just don't understand how the Army works. The 30 sacristans are what matters. No one cares that battle sisters are immune to -1 AP. The change is a huge Nerf.

Miracle dice really don't matter either. Sisters don't do enough damage anymore for miracle dice to have any kind of meaningful impact. Even when using leap of faith you still end up with a stack of pain at the end of the game you can't do anything with.

How often did you make Morven vahl untargettable with your sacresants hidden? Because thats been a stupid, nonsense rule. Now its fixed and GW even gave you two sizeable buffs to compensate, stop bitching.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Making a model untargettable because some other model was hidden behind a building near it was pants on head stupid.

Then you just make it so that the bodyguard has to be visible to the attacking unit to provide the bodyguard function.

I mean hell, the Tervigon has a new rule that would be a pretty simple substitute.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
Lmao “your choppas are -1 ap to deal with marines better”
Marines ignore -1 ap.
What sorta gak hole are we falling into.

The one that created 3rd-7th's AP system.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


the whole game is too lethal. Obviously there are armies that are better right now, but my ideal 40k game wouldnt see games where people are nearly tabled.

There is absolutly zero chance that someone at GW is going to sit down and rework all books, to makes weapons and overlaping rules in them less leathal. Maybe for 10th ed, and that is only if they decided this a year from now in the past.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Making a model untargettable because some other model was hidden behind a building near it was pants on head stupid.

Then you just make it so that the bodyguard has to be visible to the attacking unit to provide the bodyguard function.

The only difference to that is that snipers can target characters behind bodyguards now, right? Otherwise its effectively what you suggested.
WIth how bad snipers are, thats not really a nerf


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


the whole game is too lethal. Obviously there are armies that are better right now, but my ideal 40k game wouldnt see games where people are nearly tabled.

There is absolutly zero chance that someone at GW is going to sit down and rework all books, to makes weapons and overlaping rules in them less leathal. Maybe for 10th ed, and that is only if they decided this a year from now in the past.

It's called wishlisting, in a theoretical world (which i know you cannot comprehend), thats how i would hope the game to be.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


And the problems with older edition having characters that join squads was giving a deathstar a ton of keywords and roll over your opponent, limiting it to one character / squad fixes that problem. It even fixes the aura problem in a cleaner way than Core did

Yep. Bodyguard: Up to one character can join the unit. Any actions the hero performs means the unit does nothing (to balance out the protection he/she gets), if the squad performs an action that the character can't perform his, unless it is some super ultra rare special rule for 1-2 characters in the entire game. There is no spill over of rules, so a character with a storm shield doesn't give +1 armour to everyone etc. Simple and easy to use. No LoS problems, not interaction problems, no problems with special rules that make thing untargetable or weird interactions of range of weapons and LoS.
Also, what I think it crucial, the rule is not free. And I don't mean points by it. The character is stuck to his bodyguard and his ability to perform actions should be limited. Maybe or if w40k ever gets reworked to be more AoS like, this could mean a character with a bodyguard can't issue orders, or he can only issue it to the unit that bodyguards him.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


It's called wishlisting, in a theoretical world (which i know you cannot comprehend), thats how i would hope the game to be.

Okey. I understand then. I would rather deal with realities of how GW design actually works. If were to go full wishlist, I would like w40k to be something like infinity with 30-40 models, but that will never happens as GW wants people to play and pay a lot for their armies, so they stick around longer when they buy in to the game.

right now with are , and I think this could have been a thing in the past too, in a loop. 8th ed marines are weak, their resiliance gets buffed with 2.0. Old armies can't deal with how resilient and killy marines are. Marine resiliance and killiness gets reign in. Armies get more kill power to deal with marines. The more armies there are, the more there is need to be resilient too. We arrive at DE when the edition breaks, because they are super killy and super resilient and fast at the same time, and then we just get new book after new book, that are too strong, which then get nerfed, which then can't deal with the new books coming out, so they have to be nerfed etc While at the same time the old and unupadated armies are in game play hell.

How bad does the IG expiriance has to be for GW to decide to , meh lets not change their indirect fire and give them an auto wound option on basic guns, and free upgrades on squads. It has to be VERY bad, for GW to react to it.

Karol wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


And the problems with older edition having characters that join squads was giving a deathstar a ton of keywords and roll over your opponent, limiting it to one character / squad fixes that problem. It even fixes the aura problem in a cleaner way than Core did

Yep. Bodyguard: Up to one character can join the unit. Any actions the hero performs means the unit does nothing (to balance out the protection he/she gets), if the squad performs an action that the character can't perform his, unless it is some super ultra rare special rule for 1-2 characters in the entire game. There is no spill over of rules, so a character with a storm shield doesn't give +1 armour to everyone etc. Simple and easy to use. No LoS problems, not interaction problems, no problems with special rules that make thing untargetable or weird interactions of range of weapons and LoS.
Also, what I think it crucial, the rule is not free. And I don't mean points by it. The character is stuck to his bodyguard and his ability to perform actions should be limited. Maybe or if w40k ever gets reworked to be more AoS like, this could mean a character with a bodyguard can't issue orders, or he can only issue it to the unit that bodyguards him.

TBF, I can think of one interaction that would be annoying... if an infantry character joins a bike bodyguard or a bike character joins an infantry bodyguard, it will cause whichever bike unit to get the infantry keyword and allow movement through breachable terrain.

Then just make it the way it is suppose to be. A Crissis suit commander is not going to run around with a bodyguard of kroot. A Termintor Librarian shouldn't be running around with a bodyguard of bikers etc.
It could even be USR like this

[Bodyguard Infantry, Terminator Armour]
[Bodyguard bike]
[Bodyguard Monster]
[Bodyguard Termintor Armour]

And then in some rare cases, and I mean like REALLY rare, a character could have a special rule that lets them join a specific bodyguard unit. So lets say an Inquisitor could be in any imperial bodyguard unit. Morgan Vall could join any SoB bodyguard unit.

Then entire rule sets could be build around it. Lets say some special DG characters, lets assume GW will do new models in the future, gets the option to have pox walkers as bodyguards. His whole kit would be build around an army with loads of pox walkers, mutants zombis, maybe renegade IG, maybe demons etc He wouldn't warp already existing DG builds. And if he did then the easy fix is to make all the special extra rules only activiate, if he is the warlord. GW could make updates like this linked to new model released combined with campaign books.

So the AP system had the entirely predictable same result as in 2nd edition (heavy armour becomes over-valued). But instead of fixing the problem, we get more rules. More bloat. More Marine exceptionalism. More rules which are totally illogical (my armour stops being as good when I carry a shield!)

 Lord Damocles wrote:
So the AP system had the entirely predictable same result as in 2nd edition (heavy armour becomes over-valued). But instead of fixing the problem, we get more rules. More bloat. More Marine exceptionalism. More rules which are totally illogical (my armour stops being as good when I carry a shield!)

Those who forget their history are doomed to repeat it.
And here we are once more. There is a reason the All or nothing AP system came to be and stuck around for 5 editions. Thankfully HH 2.0 looks to have found the way to fix the lethality of AP2 and AP3 pie plates. Make them AP4 with breaching and rending.

I love the AP rule change because it hilariously makes lasguns even better relative to the field.

"Oh yeah, your Marines only get 3+ saves against my multi laser"

"But they got 3+ against the heavy bolter, isn't the multilaser worse AP?"

"Not anymore."

Karol wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Parody doesnt have to be funny.... Parody can be pushing the ridicule aspect of something. It's not something that makes you laugh out loud, i'ts something that makes you got "this is so dumb, i love it".

If it is not funny then it is not parody. Then it is just a vailed form of an insult you make in a such a way that other people have to take it. Like a dude post match saying "thank you for the match", after he "accidently" dislocated three of your fingers just so a person from his school fighting you in the next round has an easier match.

This gets confused a lot, the dictionary definition of parody is "a work in which the style of an author or work is closely imitated for comic effect or in ridicule" and the bold part is important. "In ridicule" very specifically doesn't mean funny. The real problem is that parody doesn't have the same connotations everywhere and there isn't a word for doing the same thing when you're not trying to be funny. Satire has the same problem as a word.

If you want a really good example go read Starship Troopers and then watch the movie. The movie is basically the propaganda film that the government in the book would make about itself and it's own history. It never directly insults it's source material and yet still manages to be one of the meanest take-downs of one artist's work by another artist that I've ever seen.

 Krusha wrote:

madtankbloke wrote:
Indirect fire - good change, although i would probably go a bit further and ban re-rolls if shooting indirect weapons at something you can't see.

Indirect fire wasn’t a problem outside of hive guard, squig buggies and a couple of tau units, and hive guard have been fixed now anyway.

It was vastly over-represented in lists that could take them.

I like how Repentia wearing a t-shirt and short shorts shrugs off more damage than a Necron made out of living metal.

so wait whats the point of this rule?
Hammer of the Emperor: If every <Regiment> unit
in your army is drawn from the same regiment, then
each time a <Regiment> model from your army makes a
ranged attack, an unmodified hit roll of 6 automatically
wounds the target. Note that units listed as Advisors
and Auxilla do not prevent other Astra Militarum units
from your army from gaining this rule, but Advisors and
Auxilla units never benefit from this rule.’


I thought 6s already wounded anything regardless?

 Lord Damocles wrote:
I like how Repentia wearing a t-shirt and short shorts shrugs off more damage than a Necron made out of living metal.

Necrons aren't a PC faction, sorry. (/S)

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Meanwhile if the leaks are true I can basically add a Knight for free, and kill your entire list on first turn!

lol, you will not be adding a knight for free.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
so wait whats the point of this rule?
Hammer of the Emperor: If every <Regiment> unit
in your army is drawn from the same regiment, then
each time a <Regiment> model from your army makes a
ranged attack, an unmodified hit roll of 6 automatically
wounds the target. Note that units listed as Advisors
and Auxilla do not prevent other Astra Militarum units
from your army from gaining this rule, but Advisors and
Auxilla units never benefit from this rule.’


I thought 6s already wounded anything regardless?

It's 6s to hit now, not just 6s to wound.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
so wait whats the point of this rule?
Hammer of the Emperor: If every <Regiment> unit
in your army is drawn from the same regiment, then
each time a <Regiment> model from your army makes a
ranged attack, an unmodified hit roll of 6 automatically
wounds the target. Note that units listed as Advisors
and Auxilla do not prevent other Astra Militarum units
from your army from gaining this rule, but Advisors and
Auxilla units never benefit from this rule.’


I thought 6s already wounded anything regardless?

It's 6s to hit now, not just 6s to wound.

So did they just now make amassing low str high shot fire super viable again lol
So some rando is going to be able to automatically wound a knight on a hit roll of 6.
Amazing.