That comment was about stuff that's already out, not this release. I'm guess I'm flattered you care so much about my opinion, but I'm not sure getting so invested in what a stranger on the internet thinks about something is very healthy?
A starter box could be totally different armies. GW might also be abandoning typical starters and going with a different market approach such as pushing individual army "Getting Started" sets rather than a big-box with two armies which whilst neat, does only promote two armies en-mass.
Yes, but marketed as a 'launch box' so they don't have to include gameplay basics and probably can ask a higher price.
some people are also suggesting that this could be limited time and include some exclusives and that the starter box will have a few less characters
The fact the bikes, intercessors, captain and lieutenant are all on separate sprues suggests any number of those could be taken out. The rest of the marines are all on 1 sprue, so hard to say but I imagine as above either specific faction starters or a marines v necrons with less in.
changemod wrote: Oh, I really dislike those warriors being all dinged up and damaged. The entire point is extremely efficient self repair.
May be easier and more forgiving for newer hobbyists to paint them perhaps?.
No, it's just fluff.
As far back as like 3rd edition Necron lore, Warriors have always had battle damaged hulls. In the 5E+ lore it's explained that warriors as the bottom-rung of Necron society have the worst healing capabilities, but even before Ward's overhaul they had imperfect living metal.
Spoiler:
This picture is what, 15-20 years old at this point, along with being the book cover on two codices? It's essentially revisionism to insist that Warriors can't carry battle-damage.
Overread wrote: A starter box could be totally different armies. GW might also be abandoning typical starters and going with a different market approach such as pushing individual army "Getting Started" sets rather than a big-box with two armies which whilst neat, does only promote two armies en-mass.
Doubtful. The Necrons have been front and centre of all their 9th marketing, from the trailer to the new website and the 'get started' updates in the same way Death Guard were for 8th. I reckon it's more than likely Necrons, especially with Dark Imperium going bye-bye (as opposed to them just sticking the updated rulebook into it).
Yes, but marketed as a 'launch box' so they don't have to include gameplay basics and probably can ask a higher price.
some people are also suggesting that this could be limited time and include some exclusives and that the starter box will have a few less characters
They said on the stream that it is limited (not the latter parts of your post though)
They definitely said that some stuff in the box is exclusive. I'd be unsurprised if some of it remained exclusive forever, like the Gravis captain from the other box.
They definitely said that some stuff in the box is exclusive. I'd be unsurprised if some of it remained exclusive forever, like the Gravis captain from the other box.
looking at the Lord Relictor from AoS Stormcast that is still only available via 1st Edition Starter/Faction Set
I think the exclusives will be any where the models share a sprue between the armies. The Necron and Space Marines share at least two character sprue with each other. Those are kits very likely to be limited only to that box or to any future joint box between them.
That means either GW will replace them with similar role models in the future or will resculpt and release them separate at a point in the future.
They definitely said that some stuff in the box is exclusive. I'd be unsurprised if some of it remained exclusive forever, like the Gravis captain from the other box.
looking at the Lord Relictor from AoS Stormcast that is still only available via 1st Edition Starter/Faction Set
Overread wrote: I think the exclusives will be any where the models share a sprue between the armies. The Necron and Space Marines share at least two character sprue with each other. Those are kits very likely to be limited only to that box or to any future joint box between them.
That means either GW will replace them with similar role models in the future or will resculpt and release them separate at a point in the future.
Overread wrote: I think the exclusives will be any where the models share a sprue between the armies. The Necron and Space Marines share at least two character sprue with each other. Those are kits very likely to be limited only to that box or to any future joint box between them.
That means either GW will replace them with similar role models in the future or will resculpt and release them separate at a point in the future.
Have we seen sprue pics/layouts?
They are in the twitch stream near the start when they first open the box.
The unique leaders were joined - the rest of the regular warriors etc.... were all separate sprue.
They definitely said that some stuff in the box is exclusive. I'd be unsurprised if some of it remained exclusive forever, like the Gravis captain from the other box.
looking at the Lord Relictor from AoS Stormcast that is still only available via 1st Edition Starter/Faction Set
Skeletor? He's in the Start Collecting.
The Thunderstrike Brotherhood is just the Stormcast half of the 1st Edition Starter Set
Overread wrote: I think the exclusives will be any where the models share a sprue between the armies. The Necron and Space Marines share at least two character sprue with each other. Those are kits very likely to be limited only to that box or to any future joint box between them.
That means either GW will replace them with similar role models in the future or will resculpt and release them separate at a point in the future.
Have we seen sprue pics/layouts?
They are in the twitch stream near the start when they first open the box.
The unique leaders were joined - the rest of the regular warriors etc.... were all separate sprue.
Thanks. I missed the stream and just read the WarCom article. Really interested in seeing the layout. I think it would give us some insight to the non limited box. They’ve done the exclusive mini in the first run before, So I could see them doing the same again here. How much would be missed, vs. how much would be saved by waiting. GW is not going to tell us, as they want us to grab the new box.
BrianDavion, I can say that you were right! Both my mother and my father said the model looked more like the batmobile than Mario Kart. They mentioned colors and realism vs cartoonish proportions.
StarHunter25 wrote: I'm really looking forward to the new Tyranid models GW will give us. We're getting more bugs right? .. ... ...
Right?
They haven't said anything directly but I'm reading it that while the Imperium was focused on Chaos largely the Xenos forces have risen as a major threat again- the Necrons being the first of this. So hopefully they will revisit other Xenos factions now, the Necron refresh looks fantastic so im hoping for similar [maybe not as extensive] for Nids- a few clam pack critters and maybe a centrepiece model along with a few models getting upgraded form resin to plastic kits. The Eavy Metal guy talked about them revisiting ranges to refresh them so its obviously something they are doing for all the factions, especially having left them for so long [6-7 years since the last Nid kits?]. Really excited about seeing new Nid models done in with this new sculpting approach. I wonder if we might see new breeds of Fex in a kit, similar to the Destroyers, as adaptions from the Octarius War.
I do like the look for these new Necrons in the meantime though..
Captain + Necron guy joined
Lt + Necron guy joined
Now it looks like they could spin these up and clip and sell separate. If they need to do more of one side recycle the other half? But the fact that they are joined strikes me as these might be restricted to this box, part of a generic SM/Necron started, and not for general release. That’s just me guessing.
Assault Intercessors, 2 duplicated sprues of 5. While monopose, it looks like all the arms and heads are set of for easy swapping. None of the shoulder pad and half the arm molded with the torso we saw with the DI intercessors that made them rough to mod.
Chaplain, Justicar, ancient, bladeguard, melta gunners all one big sprue. These characters are not going to show up in clam packs, and this collection of minis would be very odd for a SC! box. Might be the core of a starter set once we get past the limited release.
Bikes, 3 of them on their own. Might release as an ETB kit. Heads/arms look to be easy swaps, so if they do get options later, will be easy to mod, or replace the sarge with a normal guy if you want a larger squad.
I don’t speak necron, so no guesses on how those sprues are broken up.
changemod wrote: Oh, I really dislike those warriors being all dinged up and damaged. The entire point is extremely efficient self repair.
May be easier and more forgiving for newer hobbyists to paint them perhaps?.
No, it's just fluff.
As far back as like 3rd edition Necron lore, Warriors have always had battle damaged hulls. In the 5E+ lore it's explained that warriors as the bottom-rung of Necron society have the worst healing capabilities, but even before Ward's overhaul they had imperfect living metal.
Spoiler:
This picture is what, 15-20 years old at this point, along with being the book cover on two codices? It's essentially revisionism to insist that Warriors can't carry battle-damage.
I’m not really sure why you’re using a picture of warriors in near-perfect condition as your example.
They definitely said that some stuff in the box is exclusive. I'd be unsurprised if some of it remained exclusive forever, like the Gravis captain from the other box.
looking at the Lord Relictor from AoS Stormcast that is still only available via 1st Edition Starter/Faction Set
Skeletor? He's in the Start Collecting.
The Thunderstrike Brotherhood is just the Stormcast half of the 1st Edition Starter Set
I'm not sure I understand your point then. I assumed by 'exclusive' you meant now OOP.
I'm not sure I understand your point then. I assumed by 'exclusive' you meant now OOP.
no, by exclusive I meant no stand alone release and/or only available in a box-set
as I think that we will se a faction release for the Veteran-Player box-set after the "limited" edition is out and stuff like the Judicar will be anly availabe with those boxes
Captain + Necron guy joined
Lt + Necron guy joined
Now it looks like they could spin these up and clip and sell separate. If they need to do more of one side recycle the other half? But the fact that they are joined strikes me as these might be restricted to this box, part of a generic SM/Necron started, and not for general release. That’s just me guessing.
The characters are just joined by a bridge, not actually on the same sprue. The heroes from Warhammer Quest: Silver Tower were joined the same way when that box released, but they were eventually released individually. I would expect to see the same thing here.
changemod wrote: Oh, I really dislike those warriors being all dinged up and damaged. The entire point is extremely efficient self repair.
May be easier and more forgiving for newer hobbyists to paint them perhaps?.
No, it's just fluff.
As far back as like 3rd edition Necron lore, Warriors have always had battle damaged hulls. In the 5E+ lore it's explained that warriors as the bottom-rung of Necron society have the worst healing capabilities, but even before Ward's overhaul they had imperfect living metal.
Spoiler:
This picture is what, 15-20 years old at this point, along with being the book cover on two codices? It's essentially revisionism to insist that Warriors can't carry battle-damage.
I’m not really sure why you’re using a picture of warriors in near-perfect condition as your example.
The Warrior who's front a center of that image has lots of dents and dings. It's not to the extent of the previewed Warriors, but he's far from perfect.
Captain + Necron guy joined
Lt + Necron guy joined
Now it looks like they could spin these up and clip and sell separate. If they need to do more of one side recycle the other half? But the fact that they are joined strikes me as these might be restricted to this box, part of a generic SM/Necron started, and not for general release. That’s just me guessing.
The characters are just joined by a bridge, not actually on the same sprue. The heroes from Warhammer Quest: Silver Tower were joined the same way when that box released, but they were eventually released individually. I would expect to see the same thing here.
Nice to hear that GW can and does do that. Seeing the separate characters on their own sprues, but the frames linked together seemed an odd choice. Probably makes it easier to pack the box.
There’s several damaged warriors on the ghost arch. The heads are the only parts that can be mixed into other squads.
The book cover is the only part that I heard was exclusive to the box set.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also it's pretty funny that the dune buggy lacks a roll cage, but the invictor has one? IDK man, maybe the build instructions were to blame.
Captain + Necron guy joined
Lt + Necron guy joined
Now it looks like they could spin these up and clip and sell separate. If they need to do more of one side recycle the other half? But the fact that they are joined strikes me as these might be restricted to this box, part of a generic SM/Necron started, and not for general release. That’s just me guessing.
The characters are just joined by a bridge, not actually on the same sprue. The heroes from Warhammer Quest: Silver Tower were joined the same way when that box released, but they were eventually released individually. I would expect to see the same thing here.
Nice to hear that GW can and does do that. Seeing the separate characters on their own sprues, but the frames linked together seemed an odd choice. Probably makes it easier to pack the box.
The frames being connected mean they come out of the same mold.
Captain + Necron guy joined
Lt + Necron guy joined
Now it looks like they could spin these up and clip and sell separate. If they need to do more of one side recycle the other half? But the fact that they are joined strikes me as these might be restricted to this box, part of a generic SM/Necron started, and not for general release. That’s just me guessing.
The characters are just joined by a bridge, not actually on the same sprue. The heroes from Warhammer Quest: Silver Tower were joined the same way when that box released, but they were eventually released individually. I would expect to see the same thing here.
Nice to hear that GW can and does do that. Seeing the separate characters on their own sprues, but the frames linked together seemed an odd choice. Probably makes it easier to pack the box.
The frames being connected mean they come out of the same mold.
I know that.
What it means is that every time they put that mold in the machine they are getting one marine and one necron out of it. Now if GW is selling both of these at the same rate, that’s not a big deal. Great for mixed box sets like this.
But when it comes time to separate these and sell individually, what happens when the marine sells 3 times faster than the necron? They end up with a lot of unwanted sprues taking up space. If they can just chuck them into the chipper and recycle them, not a big deal. But it’s extra effort to do. And does it affect the quality of the plastic to mold and melt it back a lot?
Hence my concern that they were linked. It doesn’t mean they can be sold separately, just that there are complications. The fact that GW does it for other model lines speaks highly of the chance we can see them alone.
Captain + Necron guy joined
Lt + Necron guy joined
Now it looks like they could spin these up and clip and sell separate. If they need to do more of one side recycle the other half? But the fact that they are joined strikes me as these might be restricted to this box, part of a generic SM/Necron started, and not for general release. That’s just me guessing.
The characters are just joined by a bridge, not actually on the same sprue. The heroes from Warhammer Quest: Silver Tower were joined the same way when that box released, but they were eventually released individually. I would expect to see the same thing here.
Nice to hear that GW can and does do that. Seeing the separate characters on their own sprues, but the frames linked together seemed an odd choice. Probably makes it easier to pack the box.
The frames being connected mean they come out of the same mold.
I know that.
What it means is that every time they put that mold in the machine they are getting one marine and one necron out of it. Now if GW is selling both of these at the same rate, that’s not a big deal. Great for mixed box sets like this.
But when it comes time to separate these and sell individually, what happens when the marine sells 3 times faster than the necron? They end up with a lot of unwanted sprues taking up space. If they can just chuck them into the chipper and recycle them, not a big deal. But it’s extra effort to do. And does it affect the quality of the plastic to mold and melt it back a lot?
Hence my concern that they were linked. It doesn’t mean they can be sold separately, just that there are complications. The fact that GW does it for other model lines speaks highly of the chance we can see them alone.
It could be a split mold where each sits opposite of each other in the machine and they could replace the other half with something else and cast something else together with the Space Marine.
I can't imagine they'd shoot themselves in the foot if they plan on selling the characters separately later.
I doubt it works like that. If you try to melt this I imagine it just burns. I don't believe this plastic can be melted and re-used for the same purpose. Most plastic can't, it's barely recyclable at all, despite what the plastic industry and the government want us to believe.
JWBS wrote: I doubt it works like that. If you try to melt this I imagine it just burns. I don't believe this plastic can be melted and re-used for the same purpose. Most plastic can't, it's barely recyclable at all, despite what the plastic industry and the government want us to believe.
What are you talking about? The molds are made of steel and depending how they're designed could be more modular than we know, which would allow them to change what they're casting.
JWBS wrote: I doubt it works like that. If you try to melt this I imagine it just burns. I don't believe this plastic can be melted and re-used for the same purpose. Most plastic can't, it's barely recyclable at all, despite what the plastic industry and the government want us to believe.
What are you talking about? The molds are made of steel and depending how they're designed could be more modular than we know, which would allow them to change what they're casting.
I wasn't replying to you and I'm unsure how you could think that what I wrote there was in response to what you wrote.
JWBS wrote: I doubt it works like that. If you try to melt this I imagine it just burns. I don't believe this plastic can be melted and re-used for the same purpose. Most plastic can't, it's barely recyclable at all, despite what the plastic industry and the government want us to believe.
What are you talking about? The molds are made of steel and depending how they're designed could be more modular than we know, which would allow them to change what they're casting.
I wasn't replying to you and I'm unsure how you could think that what I wrote there was in response to what you wrote.
Because it came immediately after my post and didn't quote anyone.
I don't know nearly enough about injection molding to speculate on how it works, but I know that the Silver Tower heroes were connected the same way on initial release and then later sold separately, so I know that GW has a way to separate sprues that a bridges like this.
JWBS wrote: I doubt it works like that. If you try to melt this I imagine it just burns. I don't believe this plastic can be melted and re-used for the same purpose. Most plastic can't, it's barely recyclable at all, despite what the plastic industry and the government want us to believe.
What are you talking about? The molds are made of steel and depending how they're designed could be more modular than we know, which would allow them to change what they're casting.
I wasn't replying to you and I'm unsure how you could think that what I wrote there was in response to what you wrote.
Because it came immediately after my post and didn't quote anyone.
And was total non sequitur to what you wrote. So which is more germane - that was written directly after your last post, or that it had nothing to to with your last post? I'm possibly going to surprise you here - not everything that comes directly after what you write and isn't quoting anyone is a reply to you. Use your brain please.
EnTyme wrote: I don't know nearly enough about injection molding to speculate on how it works, but I know that the Silver Tower heroes were connected the same way on initial release and then later sold separately, so I know that GW has a way to separate sprues that a bridges like this.
Like that game this might be a way to speed up production. Instead of four small spruces make two medium sized ones. Although why mixed Marine/Necron and not Marine/Marine I don’t know.
EnTyme wrote: I don't know nearly enough about injection molding to speculate on how it works, but I know that the Silver Tower heroes were connected the same way on initial release and then later sold separately, so I know that GW has a way to separate sprues that a bridges like this.
Like that game this might be a way to speed up production. Instead of four small spruces make two medium sized ones. Although why mixed Marine/Necron and not Marine/Marine I don’t know.
It might be related to how they intend on packing things later on, if they choose to do a series of smaller intro boxes with the pushfit sprues. Could be there's a level of box that includes the Captain and Overlord while another level might include the Royal Warden and Lieutenant. The Plasmancer, Destroyer Lord, Chaplain, Judiciar, and Bladeguard Ancient are all on full sprues with other units included. Plasmancer and Skorpekh-Destroyer Lord has the murder-buckets and the Reanimator while the Chaplain, Judiciar and the Ancient are on the sprue with the Eradicators and Bladeguard Veterans.
The (previous) Skeletor in a Trench Coat was too over the top even for me.
Skeletor in a trench coat hahaha
If i didn't want more than the angry face chaplain I'd agree... but I also want basically all the marines. At this point, I have so many unused models from boxed sets that I'm a bit frustrated. Wish they'd do models like this separately instead of both armies together.
mightymconeshot wrote: I seemed to have missed it with all of the Super Mario memes, but did we get a list or picture of what was in the new starter box?
Bschwi1 wrote: Does this mean there will be a different starter box?
No. It just means if they do different 'starter boxes' with different content (like Tooth & Claw, Shadowspear and etc), they'll call them something else.
Its basically a semantic game for GW people, except we don't know what the exact definitions are or why they think it matters. Just that there won't be dice or whippy sticks with range markings.
Bschwi1 wrote: Does this mean there will be a different starter box?
No. It just means if they do different 'starter boxes' with different content (like Tooth & Claw, Shadowspear and etc), they'll call them something else.
Its basically a semantic game for GW people, except we don't know what the exact definitions are or why they think it matters. Just that there won't be dice or whippy sticks with range markings.
Tooth & Claw, Shadowspear and the like are "campaign" boxes. They are a limited run set that fits a narrative theme. They also don't tend to include the usual starter extras.
Starters are not limited run boxes but also fit a narrative theme, plus they have dice and some form of measuring aid.
Bschwi1 wrote: Does this mean there will be a different starter box?
No. It just means if they do different 'starter boxes' with different content (like Tooth & Claw, Shadowspear and etc), they'll call them something else.
Its basically a semantic game for GW people, except we don't know what the exact definitions are or why they think it matters. Just that there won't be dice or whippy sticks with range markings.
Tooth & Claw, Shadowspear and the like are "campaign" boxes. They are a limited run set that fits a narrative theme. They also don't tend to include the usual starter extras.
Starters are not limited run boxes but also fit a narrative theme, plus they have dice and some form of measuring aid.
Shadowspear was a lot different than Tooth & Claw, Death Masque, and Forgebane, and whatever that SW vs Ork set was. The latter sets tend to be around to provide a cheap way to get some units, as well as a new HQ. Those tend to have a limited run and then sell out. After that, the HQ tend to eventually be released separately. Shadowspear was unique in the sense that it was like a starter set, since it consisted of only pushfit/monobuild models which were all uinque to that set, some mini rulebooks, etc. But it didn't replace Dark Imperium.
I may be alone here, but I honestly wouldn't mind if GW started making a bunch of pushfit starter sets (or like the new Slaves to Darkness start collecting.) It would be a cheaper way to produce more updated models for older factions, without needing to come up with new multipart plastic kits. Kind of like how Warhammer: Underworlds allows GW to update older armies with some newer monopose models.
After putting together 30 Bolter Marine scouts recently, I much prefer the mono pose Primaris type sprues. The old Chaos Space Marines were even worse. Arms separate from the bolters. For no good reason but to have a bigger piece count.
yukishiro1 wrote: That comment was about stuff that's already out, not this release. I'm guess I'm flattered you care so much about my opinion, but I'm not sure getting so invested in what a stranger on the internet thinks about something is very healthy?
Nightlord1987 wrote: After putting together 30 Bolter Marine scouts recently, I much prefer the mono pose Primaris type sprues. The old Chaos Space Marines were even worse. Arms separate from the bolters. For no good reason but to have a bigger piece count.
what? no good reason? there were so many pieces so you could pose them the WAY U WANTED...
Bschwi1 wrote: Does this mean there will be a different starter box?
No. It just means if they do different 'starter boxes' with different content (like Tooth & Claw, Shadowspear and etc), they'll call them something else.
Its basically a semantic game for GW people, except we don't know what the exact definitions are or why they think it matters. Just that there won't be dice or whippy sticks with range markings.
Tooth & Claw, Shadowspear and the like are "campaign" boxes. They are a limited run set that fits a narrative theme. They also don't tend to include the usual starter extras.
Starters are not limited run boxes but also fit a narrative theme, plus they have dice and some form of measuring aid.
Shadowspear was a lot different than Tooth & Claw, Death Masque, and Forgebane, and whatever that SW vs Ork set was. The latter sets tend to be around to provide a cheap way to get some units, as well as a new HQ. Those tend to have a limited run and then sell out. After that, the HQ tend to eventually be released separately. Shadowspear was unique in the sense that it was like a starter set, since it consisted of only pushfit/monobuild models which were all uinque to that set, some mini rulebooks, etc. But it didn't replace Dark Imperium.
I may be alone here, but I honestly wouldn't mind if GW started making a bunch of pushfit starter sets (or like the new Slaves to Darkness start collecting.) It would be a cheaper way to produce more updated models for older factions, without needing to come up with new multipart plastic kits. Kind of like how Warhammer: Underworlds allows GW to update older armies with some newer monopose models.
Did Shadowspear have a rulebook in it?
In which case yeah a little different. I thought it was only different in it had new monopose stuff rather than existing kits.
Otherwise I would have sat it exactly in the Campaign box set (just without existing kits).
I'm going to be the contrarian and say I think the original leaked launch date for 9th is still probably going to be true as GW still haven't addressed the BRB or the App and they have stated the App will go live at the same time as the pre-order for the new edition, I can't see them not hyping both it and the new rule book etc before the two week pre-order period starts.
Bschwi1 wrote: Does this mean there will be a different starter box?
No. It just means if they do different 'starter boxes' with different content (like Tooth & Claw, Shadowspear and etc), they'll call them something else.
Its basically a semantic game for GW people, except we don't know what the exact definitions are or why they think it matters. Just that there won't be dice or whippy sticks with range markings.
Tooth & Claw, Shadowspear and the like are "campaign" boxes. They are a limited run set that fits a narrative theme. They also don't tend to include the usual starter extras.
Starters are not limited run boxes but also fit a narrative theme, plus they have dice and some form of measuring aid.
Right, so they're either testing out if dice and whippy sticks are worth including anymore, or they've already decided they aren't. Every box, regardless whether they're a 'starter box' or 'launch box' or 'campaign box' provides some vague narrative reason why the two forces are punching each other in the face.
This new box is more akin to a starter in that it includes the rulebook as well as mini-campaign pamphlets and unit rules. Indeed, the only difference between this 'launch box' and the last three 'starter boxes' is just the naming convention, dice, and rulers. That's it.
I’m glad that GW finally understands that all Primaris needed to be was truescale versions of existing marine units. The Chaplain, Bikes, and Assault Intercessors look great and the Bladeguard will make for nice truescale Veteran/Sternguard conversions.
Nightlord1987 wrote: After putting together 30 Bolter Marine scouts recently, I much prefer the mono pose Primaris type sprues. The old Chaos Space Marines were even worse. Arms separate from the bolters. For no good reason but to have a bigger piece count.
what? no good reason? there were so many pieces so you could pose them the WAY U WANTED...
So every model being right handed and hip firing is any way a guy could want now?
Thats a huge myth. Multi parts best feature is providing alternate option, like weapons etc. The posing, especially as of later years, has never been great. In fact, most of the new detailed kits match front torsos with back AND with specific legs, that dictate the pose. At which point why not make them snap fit and easier to assemble? As others have pointed out already, you need a knife to cut them from the spru, if your advanced enough to want that much more liberty in your posing nothing is preventing you from clipping at whats there.
I think the super broken down kits make the most sense for larger models and characters, not on every GSC neophyte when I need 100's or even every base marine.
Ironically, GW has decided to do the exact opposite and make the characters monopose lmao. All for only $30+ each...
Even when you have matched torsos and legs you can usually customize by rotating the torso to some degree (usually on both planes, because they are usually ball-and-socket), and you can almost always customize by changing the positioning of the arms.
It just kinda depends what you want. Are you happy having repeats? If so, push fit isn't the end of the world. If you want every one of your models to be unique in some way, even if it's only extremely minor, there's no replacement for multi-part kits.
Nightlord1987 wrote: After putting together 30 Bolter Marine scouts recently, I much prefer the mono pose Primaris type sprues. The old Chaos Space Marines were even worse. Arms separate from the bolters. For no good reason but to have a bigger piece count.
what? no good reason? there were so many pieces so you could pose them the WAY U WANTED...
So every model being right handed and hip firing is any way a guy could want now?
Thats a huge myth. Multi parts best feature is providing alternate option, like weapons etc. The posing, especially as of later years, has never been great. In fact, most of the new detailed kits match front torsos with back AND with specific legs, that dictate the pose. At which point why not make them snap fit and easier to assemble? As others have pointed out already, you need a knife to cut them from the spru, if your advanced enough to want that much more liberty in your posing nothing is preventing you from clipping at whats there.
I think the super broken down kits make the most sense for larger models and characters, not on every GSC neophyte when I need 100's or even every base marine.
Ironically, GW has decided to do the exact opposite and make the characters monopose lmao. All for only $30+ each...
yukishiro1 wrote:Even when you have matched torsos and legs you can usually customize by rotating the torso to some degree (usually on both planes, because they are usually ball-and-socket), and you can almost always customize by changing the positioning of the arms.
It just kinda depends what you want. Are you happy having repeats? If so, push fit isn't the end of the world. If you want every one of your models to be unique in some way, even if it's only extremely minor, there's no replacement for multi-part kits.
I think Red Corsair's point is that the kind of multipart flexible kits that used to exist just don't anymore.
Take the tactical sprue from a while ago (are we still on the 5th ed one?) and compare it to an intercessor sprue. You can mix and match and reposition parts from the tac sprue without ever actually chopping stuff up because of the way they were assembled with discrete limbs and bodies.
You could obviously chop them up and kit bash them, but the amount of flexibility built into the design meant you could create a variety of looks without kitbashing skills. It was just posing skills.
With modern kits cut by computers to allow for the most detail possible rather than the usability of the kit, the only kind of freedom you have is through kitbashing. You can't pose models and swap weapons etc without applying some tools first.
At which point you've got to ask why they don't just make all these restricted posed models pushfit simple in the first place. GW's current multipart paradigm is entirely around turning detailed models into plastic kits, the multipart serves that purpose only. So there should be no reason they don't just transfer them all to pushfit.
If I'm going to have to chop models up anyway in order to get any of that possibility freedom, then they should be making them as easy to build as possible.
I don't buy numarines so I dunno what the situation is there.
The harlequin troupe kits I've been building recently are extremely flexible; the only thing that is fixed is the leg posing, which is pretty much always fixed for miniatures.
If they're making bad multipart numarines that can't be posed it seems like the solution to that is to make better ones, not to give up and move them all to pushfit.
yukishiro1 wrote: The harlequin troupe kits I've been building recently are extremely flexible; the only thing that is fixed is the leg posing, which is pretty much always fixed for miniatures.
The Harli kit's been around for a while.
The multi-part multi-pose multi-option kits have a very specific transition over to the mono-pose limited options stuff. Interesting it happened with bitter rivals - Thousand Sons and Death Guard - with the former being the last of the kits where any leg could go with any torso/head/set of arms, and the latter being exceptionally limited in what you could do.
I think Red Corsair's point is that the kind of multipart flexible kits that used to exist just don't anymore.
Take the tactical sprue from a while ago (are we still on the 5th ed one?) and compare it to an intercessor sprue. You can mix and match and reposition parts from the tac sprue without ever actually chopping stuff up because of the way they were assembled with discrete limbs and bodies.
You could obviously chop them up and kit bash them, but the amount of flexibility built into the design meant you could create a variety of looks without kitbashing skills. It was just posing skills.
With modern kits cut by computers to allow for the most detail possible rather than the usability of the kit, the only kind of freedom you have is through kitbashing. You can't pose models and swap weapons etc without applying some tools first.
At which point you've got to ask why they don't just make all these restricted posed models pushfit simple in the first place. GW's current multipart paradigm is entirely around turning detailed models into plastic kits, the multipart serves that purpose only. So there should be no reason they don't just transfer them all to pushfit.
If I'm going to have to chop models up anyway in order to get any of that possibility freedom, then they should be making them as easy to build as possible.
Im really not sure I agree with " the kind of multipart flexible kits that used to exist just don't anymore." when I look at the admech(the skitarii sprue I believe is probably the best GW has ever made), GSC, necromunda lines, those sorts of kits do exist and there are plenty of them they just dont tend to be starter set kits. The 5th edition tactical sprue and the old guard sprue are ones I hear touted alot for how flexible they are but whenever ive used those kits most of them still came out looking the same as everyone elses kits (the plastic HH minis have been similar of very modular but the modularity amounts to little as the base poses are so stiff). As someone who does heavy conversions ive never had a better time than GWs current kits because I can mix the highly modular kits (like necromunda and other lines) with the more unique poses of the monobuild stuff. The issue the old hyper modular kits was that in order to get hyper modularity you lose out on any form of dynamic posing so while you had choice most of the choice was what angle should he hold the gun across his chest.
Though ill agree the primaris line has some of the worst kits for useful base options and could do with cutting the marines off at the waist for some improved posing.
Also all of the GSC ones are pretty much fixed torso/legs with only arms/heads that change. And even some of those are fixed. Now yes you can chop and swap them up, but the old Space Marine Kits were the best on the market. I swapped so many parts between tactical and devastator and the like to make really unique squads, I was also able to mix in bits from the Chaos line and the 30k squads they did as well. Count in the the dozens of 3rd party bits, and I had any possible bit I could possibly want already to be attached and the most conversion work I needed was slicing off an extra skull or decoration off the back of a power fist. The old kits were so vastly superior to what is produced now and in another league from what the push fit ones.
The only reason I prefer push fit over the multipart/multipose ones of the old days was to use as cheap filler for basic core troops because bulking out squads could get expensive.
I've always wanted to make an infantry spam army where every single model is the exact same specific pose. Something noticeable like the primaris sergeant with his gun sort of hanging down in front of him from dark imperium. Mostly because I know a certain specific subset of players would lose their goddam minds looking at an army like that.
ERJAK wrote: I've always wanted to make an infantry spam army where every single model is the exact same specific pose. Something noticeable like the primaris sergeant with his gun sort of hanging down in front of him from dark imperium. Mostly because I know a certain specific subset of players would lose their goddam minds looking at an army like that.
Double down on it and do it as a concept army and paint them all like statues too.
For me what is frustrating is when there are limited poses in the current style kit and a good chunk are in weird/awkward position that really stands out as the same in every squad. Most of the time the new models look so much better and the options in the old style were fairly limited without cutting too. Some of the newer stuff seems easier to rearrange if you do sub assemblies and cut those. As for the current Chadian sprue that is older than a lot of players, it’s a false sense of freedom. You get perhaps subtle variations that don’t really amount to flexibility. Even those the arms are really meant to pair up with a matching partner. They go together weird otherwise.
ERJAK wrote: I've always wanted to make an infantry spam army where every single model is the exact same specific pose. Something noticeable like the primaris sergeant with his gun sort of hanging down in front of him from dark imperium. Mostly because I know a certain specific subset of players would lose their goddam minds looking at an army like that.
Double down on it and do it as a concept army and paint them all like statues too.
I think Red Corsair's point is that the kind of multipart flexible kits that used to exist just don't anymore.
Take the tactical sprue from a while ago (are we still on the 5th ed one?) and compare it to an intercessor sprue. You can mix and match and reposition parts from the tac sprue without ever actually chopping stuff up because of the way they were assembled with discrete limbs and bodies.
You could obviously chop them up and kit bash them, but the amount of flexibility built into the design meant you could create a variety of looks without kitbashing skills. It was just posing skills.
With modern kits cut by computers to allow for the most detail possible rather than the usability of the kit, the only kind of freedom you have is through kitbashing. You can't pose models and swap weapons etc without applying some tools first.
At which point you've got to ask why they don't just make all these restricted posed models pushfit simple in the first place. GW's current multipart paradigm is entirely around turning detailed models into plastic kits, the multipart serves that purpose only. So there should be no reason they don't just transfer them all to pushfit.
If I'm going to have to chop models up anyway in order to get any of that possibility freedom, then they should be making them as easy to build as possible.
Im really not sure I agree with " the kind of multipart flexible kits that used to exist just don't anymore." when I look at the admech(the skitarii sprue I believe is probably the best GW has ever made), GSC, necromunda lines, those sorts of kits do exist and there are plenty of them they just dont tend to be starter set kits. The 5th edition tactical sprue and the old guard sprue are ones I hear touted alot for how flexible they are but whenever ive used those kits most of them still came out looking the same as everyone elses kits (the plastic HH minis have been similar of very modular but the modularity amounts to little as the base poses are so stiff). As someone who does heavy conversions ive never had a better time than GWs current kits because I can mix the highly modular kits (like necromunda and other lines) with the more unique poses of the monobuild stuff. The issue the old hyper modular kits was that in order to get hyper modularity you lose out on any form of dynamic posing so while you had choice most of the choice was what angle should he hold the gun across his chest.
Though ill agree the primaris line has some of the worst kits for useful base options and could do with cutting the marines off at the waist for some improved posing.
You're right, I wasn't explaining myself well. I meant that they aren't designing kits like that anymore. Those style of kits still exist, because many factions haven't had models updated in decades. Examples being cadians and catachans, guardians and dire avengers, orks etc. They are all interchangeable and poseable, which is the main focus of the 3rd ed era of plastics. Swap torsos, arms heads etc. Not tool-based kitbashing required unless you wanted to. They would still all look similar, but they are going to silhouette differently because of their pose.
They have clearly decided that the sculpt comes first and whatever is required to transfer that sculpt into plastic is done to facilitate that. It's a very art-led approach which is good for technical outcomes and resumes, but as a consumer product it's less practical (at least GW have eased up on the swirling kibble on models). The 3rd ed era of interchangeability was consumer friendly in terms of practical use, but it came at a cost of design to some degree. In order to allow you access to torsos and arms and heads freely, you weren't able to get really unique poses or models, because they'd need to be shaped in a way that was hard to cast into those usable bits.
As a result of this conceptual shift in miniature design, I've not really seen a huge difference in quality between GW's pushfits and the 'detailed' sprue versions. They're both already effectively monopose, just one is more complicated to put together.
I recall getting the 3rd ed space hulk (on its initial release) and being blown away by the terminators in there. They're all monopose in very few parts but were still the best terminators ever at the time. And the fact that they were pushfit didn't even come into it.
I'm not sure why the easy to assemble/pushfit concept is in anyway an inferior form of model building anyway. So long as the sculpt and design is awesome I don't really care how it goes together. Pretty much all Gundam models these days are articulated AND push fit and are the best engineered plastic model kits on the market.
ERJAK wrote: I've always wanted to make an infantry spam army where every single model is the exact same specific pose. Something noticeable like the primaris sergeant with his gun sort of hanging down in front of him from dark imperium. Mostly because I know a certain specific subset of players would lose their goddam minds looking at an army like that.
I would care about duplicates.... if we werent picking up so many models off the table so quickly
Right now as I paint, I already know which models are gonna be casualties first. Pick out your doubles and then whatever 15 models you have left at the end of round 3 will look perfectly unique enough.
Either/Or wrote: For me what is frustrating is when there are limited poses in the current style kit and a good chunk are in weird/awkward position that really stands out as the same in every squad. Most of the time the new models look so much better and the options in the old style were fairly limited without cutting too. Some of the newer stuff seems easier to rearrange if you do sub assemblies and cut those. As for the current Chadian sprue that is older than a lot of players, it’s a false sense of freedom. You get perhaps subtle variations that don’t really amount to flexibility. Even those the arms are really meant to pair up with a matching partner. They go together weird otherwise.
Not to mention the countless Marines (or Orks who have the same sort of waste) who end up staring more at the ground than at their enemy due to the torso shifting ever so slightly while the glue dries.
And that's not even getting into how few degrees of movement you could really employ since turning things too far often broke the visual line of the body and resulted in things looking out of wack.
I get that people like options, but at the end of the day the new Primaris have a lot of good dynamic poses and small extras (like swapping arms, turning heads, adding tilt shields, ect) and you can get a lot of variety out of the kit. It's all down to preference of course, but I've not really had any real trouble getting creative with Intercessors. Aggressors are a different story, but they fall into the same problem models like the Devastators do: anything that connects a model's arms to it's backpack is going to remove a lot of options.
ERJAK wrote: I've always wanted to make an infantry spam army where every single model is the exact same specific pose. Something noticeable like the primaris sergeant with his gun sort of hanging down in front of him from dark imperium. Mostly because I know a certain specific subset of players would lose their goddam minds looking at an army like that.
Double down on it and do it as a concept army and paint them all like statues too.
The Weeping Angels Chapter.
Sounds good to me!
Reminds me that I still need to eventually work out that "Imperial Ghost" army I wanted to do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nightlord1987 wrote: I would care about duplicates.... if we werent picking up so many models off the table so quickly
Right now as I paint, I already know which models are gonna be casualties first. Pick out your doubles and then whatever 15 models you have left at the end of round 3 will look perfectly unique enough.
I stopped worrying about duplicates when I started collecting Sisters and found out that 9/10 of your army was going to be the same three Battle Sisters spammed a couple dozen times.
Not to mention the countless Marines (or Orks who have the same sort of waste) who end up staring more at the ground than at their enemy due to the torso shifting ever so slightly while the glue dries.
And that's not even getting into how few degrees of movement you could really employ since turning things too far often broke the visual line of the body and resulted in things looking out of wack.
I get that people like options, but at the end of the day the new Primaris have a lot of good dynamic poses and small extras (like swapping arms, turning heads, adding tilt shields, ect) and you can get a lot of variety out of the kit. It's all down to preference of course, but I've not really had any real trouble getting creative with Intercessors. Aggressors are a different story, but they fall into the same problem models like the Devastators do: anything that connects a model's arms to it's backpack is going to remove a lot of options. .
I never had such problems but always hated to have duplicates and made small conversions so that no model looks exactly the same
still possible with the new stuff but much more time consuming
the other problem is, that easy-to-build push-fit models would be much more acceptable for me if they won't cost the premium scale model price or if there would be only one unit needed to play (good old days of 2000 points Marines being 2 tanks, 2 transport and 30 Marines)
if GW want to sell boardgame stuff they need to price it that way
a funny thing is, other comapnies get bad word of mouth if there are duplicates in troop choices while for GW duplicates it is not a problem
Voss wrote:
Right, so they're either testing out if dice and whippy sticks are worth including anymore, or they've already decided they aren't. Every box, regardless whether they're a 'starter box' or 'launch box' or 'campaign box' provides some vague narrative reason why the two forces are punching each other in the face.
This new box is more akin to a starter in that it includes the rulebook as well as mini-campaign pamphlets and unit rules. Indeed, the only difference between this 'launch box' and the last three 'starter boxes' is just the naming convention, dice, and rulers. That's it.
the important difference here is that the new box is advertised as "Veteran Player Box"
and of course a veteran player does not need any dice and is also willing to pay a higher price
So yes, GW is testing the concept of having expensive Veteran Player Boxes without gaming aids for a higher price and the Beginner Boxes will be smaller without that many units focused around troops and adding gaming aids and a battlefield (cloth mat and terrain)
I've never badmouthed duplicates. I mean honestly, an army of any kind can only get so large before stuff repeats, and in historical games the armies are basically nothing but duplicates.
Besides, I like customizing my models to fit my own ideas of the force.
ClockworkZion wrote: I've never badmouthed duplicates. I mean honestly, an army of any kind can only get so large before stuff repeats, and in historical games the armies are basically nothing but duplicates.
did not meant you, but as a general statemant
seen that with WM/H, 10 monopose model troop boxes have 1 unique unit leader and duplicates for troops usually 3 different poses for 10
with the difference that you only take 1-2 units of the same type
people complain a lot as in 2020 there should neither be monopose nor duplicates in a 10 model unit any more and the price is way too high for such low effort
GW releases monopose with duplicates, 3-5 different poses (depends of you take same body with different arms as same pose or not) but you usually also take much more units of the same type ending up with a similar amount of duplicates in total
and people praise it as the best you can get, totally worth the price and that GW defines the industry standard
yukishiro1 wrote: The harlequin troupe kits I've been building recently are extremely flexible; the only thing that is fixed is the leg posing, which is pretty much always fixed for miniatures.
The Harli kit's been around for a while.
The multi-part multi-pose multi-option kits have a very specific transition over to the mono-pose limited options stuff. Interesting it happened with bitter rivals - Thousand Sons and Death Guard - with the former being the last of the kits where any leg could go with any torso/head/set of arms, and the latter being exceptionally limited in what you could do.
Agree on the DG part, even headswaps within a kit might require cutting and green stuff - for example not every head in the blightlord box fits with every torso. With most of the plague marine sculpts you are lucky if you can swap anything at all without resculpting parts of the model.
ClockworkZion wrote: I've never badmouthed duplicates. I mean honestly, an army of any kind can only get so large before stuff repeats, and in historical games the armies are basically nothing but duplicates.
did not meant you, but as a general statemant
seen that with WM/H, 10 monopose model troop boxes have 1 unique unit leader and duplicates for troops usually 3 different poses for 10
with the difference that you only take 1-2 units of the same type
people complain a lot as in 2020 there should neither be monopose nor duplicates in a 10 model unit any more and the price is way too high for such low effort
GW releases monopose with duplicates, 3-5 different poses (depends of you take same body with different arms as same pose or not) but you usually also take much more units of the same type ending up with a similar amount of duplicates in total
and people praise it as the best you can get, totally worth the price and that GW defines the industry standard
In my experience GW could sell kits of 10 unique poses with hundreds of possible combinations and people would still complain because they're horde army has two of the same combination in it.
Even the old multipart kits had limits to how many combinations you could make leading to duplicates with slightly different poses. I really don't get this idea that there can't be any duplicates at all comes from. What are people wanting exactly? Because I just don't get it myself.
Moving back from models, I'm hoping GW doesn't stop previewing rules and only previews models all week. Don't get me wrong, I like the models fine, and I'm excited for them, but I want to know more about the game.
I dunno man. The posability of new minis, and whether they will have further options seems pretty on topic. I mean, the new Necron warriors seem to be fairly static, much like the existing ones, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that their heads aren't connected to the sprues at the cheekbones ( ), and that the connection between the torso/spine and the hips is FAR more robust than the current generation Warriors. Yet at the same time they, paradoxically, have more options.
Hellebore wrote: They have clearly decided that the sculpt comes first and whatever is required to transfer that sculpt into plastic is done to facilitate that. It's a very art-led approach which is good for technical outcomes and resumes, but as a consumer product it's less practical (at least GW have eased up on the swirling kibble on models).
The change in design philosophy comes from the Chapterhouse case and the fear of third party bits makers, not something more "art driven".
ClockworkZion wrote: In my experience GW could sell kits of 10 unique poses with hundreds of possible combinations and people would still complain because they're horde army has two of the same combination in it.
Even the old multipart kits had limits to how many combinations you could make leading to duplicates with slightly different poses. I really don't get this idea that there can't be any duplicates at all comes from. What are people wanting exactly? Because I just don't get it myself.
Moving back from models, I'm hoping GW doesn't stop previewing rules and only previews models all week. Don't get me wrong, I like the models fine, and I'm excited for them, but I want to know more about the game.
IMO the problem is not the monopose. It's having a dynamic pose that you cannot change where duplicates become obvious really quick.
I have no issue with fielding this guy four for five times:
Spoiler:
He is a rank-and-file marine doing nothing special but holding his bolter. You won't even notice him in most games.
With this guy, it gets a bit more tricky:
Spoiler:
He is carrying a blight launcher, so you tend to have twins of him in most units, headswaps are difficult because of the hose attached to his mouth. If you are running three or even six units of plague marines, you might have as many as 12 of these marines my friends dubbed "fat stinker" on the board. He just stands out too much for a model you might have lots of multiples of.
Of course, you can spend a fortune to replace half of the blight launchers with the ones from the big plague marine kit, but that doesn't really solve the problem.
This kind of pose is the worst:
Spoiler:
Even with a headswap, you will always recognize duplicates of this marine anywhere on the board. Especially when you are going full Chaos Legion and field units of 20, the four guys randomly running about in the middle always stick out like a sore thumb.
TL;DR: Those necrons can be used as rank&file soldiers without running poses or oddly standing out, so I don't mind the mono-pose.
ClockworkZion wrote: I've never badmouthed duplicates. I mean honestly, an army of any kind can only get so large before stuff repeats, and in historical games the armies are basically nothing but duplicates.
did not meant you, but as a general statemant
seen that with WM/H, 10 monopose model troop boxes have 1 unique unit leader and duplicates for troops usually 3 different poses for 10
with the difference that you only take 1-2 units of the same type
people complain a lot as in 2020 there should neither be monopose nor duplicates in a 10 model unit any more and the price is way too high for such low effort
GW releases monopose with duplicates, 3-5 different poses (depends of you take same body with different arms as same pose or not) but you usually also take much more units of the same type ending up with a similar amount of duplicates in total
and people praise it as the best you can get, totally worth the price and that GW defines the industry standard
In my experience GW could sell kits of 10 unique poses with hundreds of possible combinations and people would still complain because they're horde army has two of the same combination in it.
Even the old multipart kits had limits to how many combinations you could make leading to duplicates with slightly different poses. I really don't get this idea that there can't be any duplicates at all comes from. What are people wanting exactly? Because I just don't get it myself.
it is the price point, as the more expensive the boxes get, the more people expect from it
comparing it to the old times of metal blisters with 3 models and 10 model plastic boxes
people were fine with the higher price of the metal blister as there were 3 different models inside while the cheaper plastic box had 10 times the same model
same for historical wargaming, for Rank & File you buy the lower priced mono-pose plastics, while for a Skirmish you get the higher priced metal models without duplicates
and multi-pose plastic kits also allow for easier conversion and mix of different boxes
that is why they also have found their niche in historcal wargming as using an early and late period box to create something in the middle or similar is well received and worth the price
Now with GW selling the R&F models for the higher price to play a Skirmish game, people expect that the "Porsche of Wargming" delivers what he promises
(going back of the old kits were Marines could use all boxes of SM and CSM to kitbash what they needed, now even combining different CSM kits needs GreenStuff and this is a step back with the argument that it needs less time to build so people can start playing faster)
Moving back from models, I'm hoping GW doesn't stop previewing rules and only previews models all week. Don't get me wrong, I like the models fine, and I'm excited for them, but I want to know more about the game.
Me too, as models are optional anyway (don't buy it if you don't like them)
I think part of why GW's been moving away from the "everything is interchangable" approuch to model building is to allow improvements in technology and ability to really come forward. Space Marines where held back for ages by the fact that they all needed to be interchangeable.
Whilst I do like more multipart kits for ease of conversion, I find claims you now cannot convert to ring somewhat hollow.
Certainly, just by virtue of being plastic they remain leaps and bounds ahead of metal models of yesteryear - yet we still converted those.
There’s also multi part kits which were overly fiddly. The second chonkyboi plastic Skeletons for instance had separate legs and torsos. Every other incarnation had body and torso as one piece. The chonkybois were simply a pain.
There has to be a possibly happy medium though. And I’m not calling anyone objectively wrong here.
The snap fit is easier and faster to set up argument is linked to the fact you do not need to glue anything, I think, also less modelling involvement with individual parts miniatures.
With that said I expect cheaper starter boxes to have them and its a good chance to mix them with the multipart kits released later since monopose allows for some cool dynamic poses if done right.
On a limited edition veteran box? Errr I expect no snap fits or duplicates sorry.
Looking at the sprues I think its going to be hard to see those characters individually packed now... which is even more disappointing for people wanting to field the new units without getting the full box in the near future.
NAVARRO wrote: The snap fit is easier and faster to set up argument is linked to the fact you do not need to glue anything, I think, also less modelling involvement with individual parts miniatures.
With that said I expect cheaper starter boxes to have them and its a good chance to mix them with the multipart kits released later since monopose allows for some cool dynamic poses if done right.
On a limited edition veteran box? Errr I expect no snap fits or duplicates sorry.
Looking at the sprues I think its going to be hard to see those characters individually packed now... which is even more disappointing for people wanting to field the new units without getting the full box in the near future.
It's only the units on the mixed sprues that might not see individual release, but then they'll likely get sold in a smaller boxes elsewhere as intro products.
yukishiro1 wrote: I don't buy numarines so I dunno what the situation is there.
The harlequin troupe kits I've been building recently are extremely flexible; the only thing that is fixed is the leg posing, which is pretty much always fixed for miniatures.
If they're making bad multipart numarines that can't be posed it seems like the solution to that is to make better ones, not to give up and move them all to pushfit.
You can easily shave the nubbin from the harlequin legs to make each individual leg poseable and make some very good poses like "both legs tucked up in a jump" and "both legs wide and prancing" that are distinct from the original. As well, the leg join to the rock is extremely easy to clip if you want a model posed upside-down.
The harlequin kit in terms of flexibility and posing is the single best kit GW has ever and possibly will ever design, because it is no longer a design goal of theirs to make every miniature appear unique. I have built the harlequin kit probably 6 times and have never made the same mini twice.
I stopped worrying about duplicates about the 50th orc into my fantasy army, I very seldom add the 'bling', partly because I prefer a cleaner look but mostly because who cares if model #453 has a pouch in a slightly different place.
my only problem with monopose push fits is how few they make - make at least ten of the basic line infantry, perhaps with heads the way they did DI, perhaps a few arms the same so limited posing where its easy to do - then have a multi-part fame for the unit leader, special weapons guys etc.
bulk of the unit is easy to build and easy to build quickly, then you have the specialists able to be customised
H.B.M.C. wrote: I dunno man. The posability of new minis, and whether they will have further options seems pretty on topic. I mean, the new Necron warriors seem to be fairly static, much like the existing ones, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that their heads aren't connected to the sprues at the cheekbones ( ), and that the connection between the torso/spine and the hips is FAR more robust than the current generation Warriors. Yet at the same time they, paradoxically, have more options.
Hellebore wrote: They have clearly decided that the sculpt comes first and whatever is required to transfer that sculpt into plastic is done to facilitate that. It's a very art-led approach which is good for technical outcomes and resumes, but as a consumer product it's less practical (at least GW have eased up on the swirling kibble on models).
The change in design philosophy comes from the Chapterhouse case and the fear of third party bits makers, not something more "art driven".
The poseability of kits is something that I would honestly be amazed is in any way connected to chapterhouse. If it requires, I don't know, a very specific nubbin or something to connect a Reaper Chaincannon to a CSMs shoulder, it takes a recaster/resculptor exactly 1 bit to look at to replicate that exact nubbin. That just seems silly to me.
To me it seems clear they decided that the greater variety of poses you can achieve with more fixed posing (Actual kneeling, some running some walking, reloading, grenade throwing, etc) was more important than bits being easily swappable out of the box without cutting.
And on many kits, that's not even the case. I just built the new admech horse guys, and the horses were fully monopose but the models riding them were fully swappable. Balljoint head, swappable arms, fixed legs and torsos but you can put any model on any horse (and the legs were entirely identical anyway, so it doesn't matter if they're fixed).
It's only the units on the mixed sprues that might not see individual release, but then they'll likely get sold in a smaller boxes elsewhere as intro products.
Yes, agreed. Looking at the number of places the the Dark Imperium sprues ended up – everything from starter boxes to magazines – it's a near-certainty that the Indomitus figures will appear elsewhere shortly. There's some interesting things to speculate upon there, though.
Most of the characters are in doubled-up sprues. The Necron 'lieutenant' and Space Marines lieutenant, for example, are in a pair:
Does that presage the two being released together (for example, in a smaller 'Know No Fear/First Strike'-style starter box as the leaders)? Is it a temporary manufacturing thing for efficiency? Will the two halves be split and reboxed into blisters, or will the tool be redesigned to begun pumping them out as individuals, rather than paired? I don't have any answers, but find the theory interesting.
The Assault Intercessors and Necron Warriors are both single self-contained sprues, so they're basically box-ready.
That makes them amongst the most versatile bits – and plum jobs for appearing almost anywhere. GW are very experimental, so I don't want to make any hard predictions, but they'll presumably be hotly followed up by the non easy-build kits. As a result, I can't see GW boxing these separately – though I wouldn't rule it out.
Compare that with the remaining space marines bits – characters, Bladeguard, Eradicators etc:
This is a large sprue – and such an odd mix, perhaps these'll just end up as exclusive to the box in the short to medium term at least. I would guess not, however. I'd imagine these are likely to turn up in a Know No Fear/First Strike starter box equivalent if they do get re-used.
keep in mind that currently there are a few multi-frame kits that will be a single press of the tool that end up being folded or split for packaging anyway
leopard wrote: keep in mind that currently there are a few multi-frame kits that will be a single press of the tool that end up being folded or split for packaging anyway
Yes, do you think the bikes are a good example of that? I find the whole thing really interesting. Is it as simple as hands-on factory workers bending the sprue at the predesigned weak spot, and putting them in a box; or more automated?
It's the apparent lack of the thinner weak spot in the lieutenant/henchman frame that caught my eye. It'd be really interesting to have some insight into the particulars of the sprue manufacturing process... though slightly off-topic.
Back on topic, the Skorpekh Destroyers are also on a standard box-sized sprue, while the leaders are another combo-sprue, but in differing sizes. I'd anticipate the Necron Overlord appearing in a blister, and the Primaris Captain in a small box at some point.
not sue how they actually pack the frames or how automated it is, the boxes I've opened have been a mix of actually split frames and just bent. then you have the same frames in larger boxes not folded.
I'm wondering if some of these characters have been done with a future magazine series in mind
also given GW does their own tooling in house if these are aluminium moulds its entirely possibly they would be recut later anyway - or the join filled in
leopard wrote: keep in mind that currently there are a few multi-frame kits that will be a single press of the tool that end up being folded or split for packaging anyway
Yes, do you think the bikes are a good example of that? I find the whole thing really interesting. Is it as simple as hands-on factory workers bending the sprue at the predesigned weak spot, and putting them in a box; or more automated?
It's the apparent lack of the thinner weak spot in the lieutenant/henchman frame that caught my eye. It'd be really interesting to have some insight into the particulars of the sprue manufacturing process... though slightly off-topic.
Back on topic, the Skorpekh Destroyers are also on a standard box-sized sprue, while the leaders are another combo-sprue, but in differing sizes. I'd anticipate the Necron Overlord appearing in a blister, and the Primaris Captain in a small box at some point.
Nearly every frame is split. You'll be able to see where they were chopped. Often, units are 1 or 3 sprues rather than an even number, and then you need to figure out how you're planning on making them cost effective.
The obvious solution for 1 sprue is to make 2 copies, split it, and package both. In this case, they're betting sales for the prim lieutenant and the cron lieutenant will be similar, and I'm guessing you're right in that they'll be packaged in a quickstart box together to make them cleave even closer to each other in terms of unit volume.
For 3 sprues you have a tricker problem that GW has solved in several different ways over the years.
1) Make the kit SIGNIFICANTLY more expensive for that bonus sprue. See knight preceptor, repulsor executioner, ravager, etc.
2) sell the sprue separately and force another purchase to get it. See Battlewagon.
3) Try and find some kit you know will be simnilar in terms of sales, and dupe up the sprues so that you must always make 1 3rd sprue for every 1 other kit sprue.
I could see them releasing the necron warriors separately. They have head options, weapon options, 3 swarms of scarabs etc.
And there's precedent for it. Soulwars saw them release the easy build chainrasps separately, for an insane markup. $50 for 10 easy build models without any options, save for maybe the leader's weapon.
GaroRobe wrote: I could see them releasing the necron warriors separately. They have head options, weapon options, 3 swarms of scarabs etc.
And there's precedent for it. Soulwars saw them release the easy build chainrasps separately, for an insane markup. $50 for 10 easy build models without any options, save for maybe the leader's weapon.
GaroRobe wrote: I could see them releasing the necron warriors separately. They have head options, weapon options, 3 swarms of scarabs etc.
And there's precedent for it. Soulwars saw them release the easy build chainrasps separately, for an insane markup. $50 for 10 easy build models without any options, save for maybe the leader's weapon.
I am fairly certain this is correct, and they are just going to release the warrior sprues as a regular kit later. They include all the options, and it's not like these are CSM with a ton of options.
Chainrasps are an awful deal at 40 for 10. They should be twenty...
Most of the characters are in doubled-up sprues. The Necron 'lieutenant' and Space Marines lieutenant, for example, are in a pair:
Spoiler:
Does that presage the two being released together (for example, in a smaller 'Know No Fear/First Strike'-style starter box as the leaders)? Is it a temporary manufacturing thing for efficiency? Will the two halves be split and reboxed into blisters, or will the tool be redesigned to begun pumping them out as individuals, rather than paired? I don't have any answers, but find the theory interesting.
This sprue (i.e. the gap between the two parts) is rather unusual. Looks like there're two seperate (and propably exchangable) moulds inside the master die. IF that's the case, they COULD produce only one of them or swap the other with another fitting mould.
Dudeface wrote: Today's topic is how they painted them in a nut shell.
I'm almost positive they touched on this during the reveal.
They did. They are covering the same stuff all over again. Pointless stream is pointless.
Yup. Might as well have just edited and replayed the stream from Saturday. I get the desire to prolong the teasing of info but the 40k Daily stuff seems to be getting gradually worse in both topic and content.
Hopefully we're getting a bit more than just this today for articles.
It would be nice, but at least this is some decent info.
Brings into the question about modifiers though. THey mentioned "Modifers" are capped, but implied it was hit and wound, meaning that this either takes the place of a Crypteks Technomancer ability or doesn't stack with it.
Hopefully we're getting a bit more than just this today for articles.
It would be nice, but at least this is some decent info.
Brings into the question about modifiers though. THey mentioned "Modifers" are capped, but implied it was hit and wound, meaning that this either takes the place of a Crypteks Technomancer ability or doesn't stack with it.
I'm almost positive they were talking about to-hit roll modifiers being capped. They haven't mentioned modifiers in any other context,
Hopefully we're getting a bit more than just this today for articles.
I wonder if Reanimation Prototcols rolls will be changed to be made at different times in the turn?
Potentially, based on that wording. Hopefully you can trigger res orbs after the movement phase maybe? Or it could just be a standardised way of wording stuff to avoid rules lawyering.
At any rate, it's already a a great rule. 9" aura range means he can hide out of line of sight while still buffing the boys. The days of necrons having stupid 3" auras is over hopefully.
Even if that +1 doesn’t stack, it’s still a welcome source of Reanimation Roll bonuses. Especially if we’re getting proper Crypteks back (Plasmancer is an indication we might be)
Hopefully we're getting a bit more than just this today for articles.
I wonder if Reanimation Prototcols rolls will be changed to be made at different times in the turn?
Potentially, based on that wording. Hopefully you can trigger res orbs after the movement phase maybe? Or it could just be a standardised way of wording stuff to avoid rules lawyering.
At any rate, it's already a a great rule. 9" aura range means he can hide out of line of sight while still buffing the boys. The days of necrons having stupid 3" auras is over hopefully.
Yeah, this thing doesn't look very good right now. The current Cryptek outshines it in every way for supporting units (affects multiple units, easy to hide, and likely cheaper). They might change Cryptek's to not have the aura anymore, but that would just be a hard nerf. Either way, I don't see this thing having much use until they show something of actual use.
Massive, hard to hide unit built for support, buffs an ability which in 5 editions has literally never been worth paying extra points for as it almost never triggers, and has to announce exactly which unit gets the buff.
It’s never gonna see play unless it’s significantly undercosted for its offensive abilities. My suspicion is RP will continue to be worthless, so this is a fluff unit only. Real pity because I love the model, but you can quote me on this, I’m relatively confident it will see no play whatsoever.
Eyjio wrote: Massive, hard to hide unit built for support, buffs an ability which in 5 editions has literally never been worth paying extra points for as it almost never triggers, and has to announce exactly which unit gets the buff.
It’s never gonna see play unless it’s significantly undercosted for its offensive abilities. My suspicion is RP will continue to be worthless, so this is a fluff unit only. Real pity because I love the model, but you can quote me on this, I’m relatively confident it will see no play whatsoever.
I doubt it's over 18 wounds so it's actually pretty easy to hide, plus they might change reanimation protocols, or the other half an army of new rules we dont know might impact it. You're discounting something based on old 8th ed rules.
Eyjio wrote: Massive, hard to hide unit built for support, buffs an ability which in 5 editions has literally never been worth paying extra points for as it almost never triggers, and has to announce exactly which unit gets the buff.
It’s never gonna see play unless it’s significantly undercosted for its offensive abilities. My suspicion is RP will continue to be worthless, so this is a fluff unit only. Real pity because I love the model, but you can quote me on this, I’m relatively confident it will see no play whatsoever.
mmmhm. And we have this new edition where GW figured the main problems with 8th edition were that the board was too small and it was too easy to stay out of range of stuff, sometimes you'd point a gun at something and it wouldn't roll max shots to wipe it off the board, it was too hard to shoot things so to-hit mods needed to be capped at -1 and heavy weapons shouldn't be at -1 to hit when you move, and it was possible to stop a vehicle from shooting you by getting it into melee.
Sure am psyched to go from Warhammer 40,000 2-turn game edition to Warhammer 40,000 1-turn game edition!!!
Eyjio wrote: Massive, hard to hide unit built for support, buffs an ability which in 5 editions has literally never been worth paying extra points for as it almost never triggers, and has to announce exactly which unit gets the buff.
It’s never gonna see play unless it’s significantly undercosted for its offensive abilities. My suspicion is RP will continue to be worthless, so this is a fluff unit only. Real pity because I love the model, but you can quote me on this, I’m relatively confident it will see no play whatsoever.
New terrain rules and 9" range on ability will make it much easier to hide and keep within range me thinks. And it not being an aura pleases me in a game state sense, even if it's weaker. I'm hoping almost all auras switch to something like this, auras are boring and promote boring play.
The wording really does suggest a change to how RP works. Cryptek will probably get the same rule i.e. pick a unit to buff. My thought is that the buffs will be more limited, but RP itself might be stronger. We'll see anyway.
ClockworkZion wrote: This might be a hint that auras will be replaced with targeted buffs that have to be chosen during the command phase.
that'd be nice, but if it does happen it'd probably happen slowly and painfully over the course of a codex re-release rather than quickly and mercifully.
Dudeface wrote: I doubt it's over 18 wounds so it's actually pretty easy to hide, plus they might change reanimation protocols, or the other half an army of new rules we dont know might impact it. You're discounting something based on old 8th ed rules.
And likewise if you hide it, all it’s shooting is wasted. I mean, I hate being the downer, but I see the same thing said every single edition - maybe this time, We’ll be back/Reanimation Protocols will be worth taking! Each and every time, it has not - not in 3e, certainly not in 4e, not in 5e, almost but not quite in 6e, 7e was pointless due to the decurion and then once again worthless in 8e. The chance they’ve made it work this time seems slim to none, and if the buff is built into the units price - which it will be - it’ll be overcosted by at least that much. I just don’t have the optimism to pretend I think it’s ever going to be on a table any more.
Eyjio wrote: Massive, hard to hide unit built for support, buffs an ability which in 5 editions has literally never been worth paying extra points for as it almost never triggers, and has to announce exactly which unit gets the buff.
It’s never gonna see play unless it’s significantly undercosted for its offensive abilities. My suspicion is RP will continue to be worthless, so this is a fluff unit only. Real pity because I love the model, but you can quote me on this, I’m relatively confident it will see no play whatsoever.
New terrain rules and 9" range on ability will make it much easier to hide and keep within range me thinks. And it not being an aura pleases me in a game state sense, even if it's weaker. I'm hoping almost all auras switch to something like this, auras are boring and promote boring play.
The wording really does suggest a change to how RP works. Cryptek will probably get the same rule i.e. pick a unit to buff. My thought is that the buffs will be more limited, but RP itself might be stronger. We'll see anyway.
Terrain rule making easier to draw los than what we had helps him...how?
I was at first pretty excited about this new edition, but after all this focus on the "starter box (they seem to be implying that this isn't)" and not what the game is going to be like has kind of dampened my enthusiasm.
They tout you can play a 500 or 1000 point game in a reasonable time limit and have a reasonably balanced experience, but how? How is it better than doing the same now?
They say points are going up across the board, how about showing us some sample armies?
They mention more command points? How about showing a truncated battle report to show how it impacts the game.
I'm not saying they need to spell everything out, but give us a bit to get a feel for these changes.
ClockworkZion wrote: This might be a hint that auras will be replaced with targeted buffs that have to be chosen during the command phase.
that'd be nice, but if it does happen it'd probably happen slowly and painfully over the course of a codex re-release rather than quickly and mercifully.
You're probably right. But they could do it in the big day one errata. It would definitely cut down on castles. They did say they wanted to encourage players to move their models more.
ClockworkZion wrote: This might be a hint that auras will be replaced with targeted buffs that have to be chosen during the command phase.
that'd be nice, but if it does happen it'd probably happen slowly and painfully over the course of a codex re-release rather than quickly and mercifully.
You're probably right. But they could do it in the big day one errata. It would definitely cut down on castles. They did say they wanted to encourage players to move their models more.
I would fully support this change.
I could easily see some kind of FAQ that stats something like "any ability that has <Effect> within <range> is instead changed target X"
Not perfect, but I could totally see something like this if they are wanting to break up giant blobs.
ClockworkZion wrote: This might be a hint that auras will be replaced with targeted buffs that have to be chosen during the command phase.
that'd be nice, but if it does happen it'd probably happen slowly and painfully over the course of a codex re-release rather than quickly and mercifully.
You're probably right. But they could do it in the big day one errata. It would definitely cut down on castles. They did say they wanted to encourage players to move their models more.
Man... this could be a bIg and welcome change if it did happen... more tactical choices are always welcome and more fun.
So I don't think they're going to eliminate a mechanic they've been specifically making rules for in tandem with the 9th edition rules.
Maybe, but maybe this is how auras work now. You pick one unit within your aura range to buff? We'll see, but there's far too much doom and gloom in this thread.
So I don't think they're going to eliminate a mechanic they've been specifically making rules for in tandem with the 9th edition rules.
I fail to see a contradiction. PA was likely finished long before 9th was, and playtester feedback on the codexes (TTT mentioned they did mostly codex work) may have lead to a change going forward.
Just because something was written one way before doesn't make it immune to change.
So I don't think they're going to eliminate a mechanic they've been specifically making rules for in tandem with the 9th edition rules.
Maybe, but maybe this is how auras work now. You pick one unit within your aura range to buff? We'll see, but there's far too much doom and gloom in this thread.
Or they are opening up more design space- You can now have both a captain who gives a buff to all units within 6" but can be shut down by other abilities, or a commander who only gives that same buff to one specific unit, but at a longer range and without a counter.
So I don't think they're going to eliminate a mechanic they've been specifically making rules for in tandem with the 9th edition rules.
I fail to see a contradiction. PA was likely finished long before 9th was, and playtester feedback on the codexes (TTT mentioned they did mostly codex work) may have lead to a change going forward.
Just because something was written one way before doesn't make it immune to change.
And just because they're showing off a single special rule with a limitation doesn't mean they ditched an entire mechanic.
You're creating an elephant out of a toe nail.
AdMech also just got stuff to ignore moving with heavy weapons in Engine War, which immediately becomes pointless in 9th. GW appears to be writing that stuff pretty much in the same sequence as it is released. I.e. PA was written before 9th Ed. rules.
So I don't think they're going to eliminate a mechanic they've been specifically making rules for in tandem with the 9th edition rules.
I fail to see a contradiction. PA was likely finished long before 9th was, and playtester feedback on the codexes (TTT mentioned they did mostly codex work) may have lead to a change going forward.
Just because something was written one way before doesn't make it immune to change.
And just because they're showing off a single special rule with a limitation doesn't mean they ditched an entire mechanic.
You're creating an elephant out of a toe nail.
Not really. I opened up the idea that auras may be changing, to which you claimed it was impossible and I responded that there isn't any proof that it can't happen to the possibility is still there.
I'm not saying anything definite, I'm just looking at what they've shown and thinking that it might be a sign of a design shift going foward.
Something tells me we won't see auras disappearing completely, but this could be a shift to a more command phase targeted unit approach, which as many have stated, would be a substantial improvement to the game with less and less castles.
I think auras will still be a thing, just reduced in their number, and in some cases replaced with command phase abilities like the one previewed. But in some cases, also like this one, there is a very real possibility that this reanimator unit also has an aura ability in addition to this previewed command phase one.
Sunny Side Up wrote: AdMech also just got stuff to ignore moving with heavy weapons in Engine War, which immediately becomes pointless in 9th. GW appears to be writing that stuff pretty much in the same sequence as it is released. I.e. PA was written before 9th Ed. rules.
They got a Canticle(Panegyric Procession for Mars) that makes it so you do not suffer the penalty for moving and firing Heavy Weapons. You also increase the Strength of Heavy weapons models in the affected unit by 1.
It's a thing that admittedly isn't great for AdMech, given that most of our units that have Heavy Weapons either are Vehicles(Skorpius, aircraft, Ironstriders, Kastelans) or have a rule already addressing this(Kataphrons). There's three examples that don't though: the standard Servitors and the Transauranic Arquebi for the standard Skitarii Rangers/Vanguard units(which plain can't fire if you moved)...and the Kinetic Hammershot for the Secutarii Peltasts' Galvanic Casters.
Fun fact: the Forge World Canticles don't say they apply to <Forge World> models only! Just that it is unlocked by having a <Forge World> Warlord with their Canticle from the table.
Peltasts have Canticles of the Omnissiah but not <Forge World>. Unless they FAQ it to be <Forge World> models only for that Canticle? Congratulations, we get fire+move 30" S4 AP-2 D1 Heavy 1 shots!
Dudeface wrote: I doubt it's over 18 wounds so it's actually pretty easy to hide, plus they might change reanimation protocols, or the other half an army of new rules we dont know might impact it. You're discounting something based on old 8th ed rules.
And likewise if you hide it, all it’s shooting is wasted. I mean, I hate being the downer, but I see the same thing said every single edition - maybe this time, We’ll be back/Reanimation Protocols will be worth taking! Each and every time, it has not - not in 3e, certainly not in 4e, not in 5e, almost but not quite in 6e, 7e was pointless due to the decurion and then once again worthless in 8e. The chance they’ve made it work this time seems slim to none, and if the buff is built into the units price - which it will be - it’ll be overcosted by at least that much. I just don’t have the optimism to pretend I think it’s ever going to be on a table any more.
It's OK to be reserved but we don't even know what its other rules and stats are yet, nor all of 9th ed rules, nor the new necron units and abilities. Far too early for chicken little moments.
Sunny Side Up wrote: AdMech also just got stuff to ignore moving with heavy weapons in Engine War, which immediately becomes pointless in 9th. GW appears to be writing that stuff pretty much in the same sequence as it is released. I.e. PA was written before 9th Ed. rules.
They got a Canticle(Panegyric Procession for Mars) that makes it so you do not suffer the penalty for moving and firing Heavy Weapons. You also increase the Strength of Heavy weapons models in the affected unit by 1.
It's a thing that admittedly isn't great for AdMech, given that most of our units that have Heavy Weapons either are Vehicles(Skorpius, aircraft, Ironstriders, Kastelans) or have a rule already addressing this(Kataphrons). There's three examples that don't though: the standard Servitors and the Transauranic Arquebi for the standard Skitarii Rangers/Vanguard units(which plain can't fire if you moved)...and the Kinetic Hammershot for the Secutarii Peltasts' Galvanic Casters.
Fun fact: the Forge World Canticles don't say they apply to <Forge World> models only! Just that it is unlocked by having a <Forge World> Warlord with their Canticle from the table.
Peltasts have Canticles of the Omnissiah but not <Forge World>. Unless they FAQ it to be <Forge World> models only for that Canticle? Congratulations, we get fire+move 30" S4 AP-2 D1 Heavy 1 shots!
Are kataphrons vehicles? Or do they get some other kind of heavy weapon penalty ignoring thing?
Sunny Side Up wrote: AdMech also just got stuff to ignore moving with heavy weapons in Engine War, which immediately becomes pointless in 9th. GW appears to be writing that stuff pretty much in the same sequence as it is released. I.e. PA was written before 9th Ed. rules.
They got a Canticle(Panegyric Procession for Mars) that makes it so you do not suffer the penalty for moving and firing Heavy Weapons. You also increase the Strength of Heavy weapons models in the affected unit by 1.
It's a thing that admittedly isn't great for AdMech, given that most of our units that have Heavy Weapons either are Vehicles(Skorpius, aircraft, Ironstriders, Kastelans) or have a rule already addressing this(Kataphrons). There's three examples that don't though: the standard Servitors and the Transauranic Arquebi for the standard Skitarii Rangers/Vanguard units(which plain can't fire if you moved)...and the Kinetic Hammershot for the Secutarii Peltasts' Galvanic Casters.
Fun fact: the Forge World Canticles don't say they apply to <Forge World> models only! Just that it is unlocked by having a <Forge World> Warlord with their Canticle from the table.
Peltasts have Canticles of the Omnissiah but not <Forge World>. Unless they FAQ it to be <Forge World> models only for that Canticle? Congratulations, we get fire+move 30" S4 AP-2 D1 Heavy 1 shots!
yukishiro1 wrote: I don't buy numarines so I dunno what the situation is there.
The harlequin troupe kits I've been building recently are extremely flexible; the only thing that is fixed is the leg posing, which is pretty much always fixed for miniatures.
If they're making bad multipart numarines that can't be posed it seems like the solution to that is to make better ones, not to give up and move them all to pushfit.
You can easily shave the nubbin from the harlequin legs to make each individual leg poseable and make some very good poses like "both legs tucked up in a jump" and "both legs wide and prancing" that are distinct from the original. As well, the leg join to the rock is extremely easy to clip if you want a model posed upside-down.
The harlequin kit in terms of flexibility and posing is the single best kit GW has ever and possibly will ever design, because it is no longer a design goal of theirs to make every miniature appear unique. I have built the harlequin kit probably 6 times and have never made the same mini twice.
All of mine are cut off the rock and reposed on custom bases. But my point was that you don't even need to do that to generate a virtually infinite number of unique poses. And nobody can argue that the kit doesn't have dynamic poses, so the idea that it isn't possible to make multi-part kits that are dynamically posed is obviously wrong.
If they have moved away from these sorts of kits, it's a mistake.
yukishiro1 wrote: I don't buy numarines so I dunno what the situation is there.
The harlequin troupe kits I've been building recently are extremely flexible; the only thing that is fixed is the leg posing, which is pretty much always fixed for miniatures.
If they're making bad multipart numarines that can't be posed it seems like the solution to that is to make better ones, not to give up and move them all to pushfit.
You can easily shave the nubbin from the harlequin legs to make each individual leg poseable and make some very good poses like "both legs tucked up in a jump" and "both legs wide and prancing" that are distinct from the original. As well, the leg join to the rock is extremely easy to clip if you want a model posed upside-down.
The harlequin kit in terms of flexibility and posing is the single best kit GW has ever and possibly will ever design, because it is no longer a design goal of theirs to make every miniature appear unique. I have built the harlequin kit probably 6 times and have never made the same mini twice.
All of mine are cut off the rock and reposed on custom bases. But my point was that you don't even need to do that to generate a virtually infinite number of unique poses. And nobody can argue that the kit doesn't have dynamic poses, so the idea that it isn't possible to make multi-part kits that are dynamically posed is obviously wrong.
If they have moved away from these sorts of kits, it's a mistake.
I dunno, I prefer the uniformity of the Primaris line. One good thing is that each kit doesn't have 17 weapon options, that will vary in usefulness from obscutiy to op from edition to edition. Too much choice is also a bad thing.
yukishiro1 wrote: I don't buy numarines so I dunno what the situation is there.
The harlequin troupe kits I've been building recently are extremely flexible; the only thing that is fixed is the leg posing, which is pretty much always fixed for miniatures.
If they're making bad multipart numarines that can't be posed it seems like the solution to that is to make better ones, not to give up and move them all to pushfit.
You can easily shave the nubbin from the harlequin legs to make each individual leg poseable and make some very good poses like "both legs tucked up in a jump" and "both legs wide and prancing" that are distinct from the original. As well, the leg join to the rock is extremely easy to clip if you want a model posed upside-down.
The harlequin kit in terms of flexibility and posing is the single best kit GW has ever and possibly will ever design, because it is no longer a design goal of theirs to make every miniature appear unique. I have built the harlequin kit probably 6 times and have never made the same mini twice.
All of mine are cut off the rock and reposed on custom bases. But my point was that you don't even need to do that to generate a virtually infinite number of unique poses. And nobody can argue that the kit doesn't have dynamic poses, so the idea that it isn't possible to make multi-part kits that are dynamically posed is obviously wrong.
If they have moved away from these sorts of kits, it's a mistake.
It very much depends on the kit. In my experience, the norm now is fully fixed torsos and legs, freely swappable arms and heads, but with paired arms for two-handed weapons. There have been a handful of truly annoying full monopose kits (Ork buggies spring to mind as extremely egregious here, because everything in the kit was 100% monopose and in a highly distinctive diorama style, making it basically impossible to ever have two Snazzbaggle Goffmorkin' Woozbusters that don't look exactly the same right down to the ork hanging on to the right fender by his pinky toe firing a pistol in one hand and flipping the bird in the other).
But for the most part you see people complaining about stuff that's basically always been monopose, like characters.
yukishiro1 wrote: I don't buy numarines so I dunno what the situation is there.
The harlequin troupe kits I've been building recently are extremely flexible; the only thing that is fixed is the leg posing, which is pretty much always fixed for miniatures.
If they're making bad multipart numarines that can't be posed it seems like the solution to that is to make better ones, not to give up and move them all to pushfit.
You can easily shave the nubbin from the harlequin legs to make each individual leg poseable and make some very good poses like "both legs tucked up in a jump" and "both legs wide and prancing" that are distinct from the original. As well, the leg join to the rock is extremely easy to clip if you want a model posed upside-down.
The harlequin kit in terms of flexibility and posing is the single best kit GW has ever and possibly will ever design, because it is no longer a design goal of theirs to make every miniature appear unique. I have built the harlequin kit probably 6 times and have never made the same mini twice.
All of mine are cut off the rock and reposed on custom bases. But my point was that you don't even need to do that to generate a virtually infinite number of unique poses. And nobody can argue that the kit doesn't have dynamic poses, so the idea that it isn't possible to make multi-part kits that are dynamically posed is obviously wrong.
If they have moved away from these sorts of kits, it's a mistake.
I dunno, I prefer the uniformity of the Primaris line. One good thing is that each kit doesn't have 17 weapon options, that will vary in usefulness from obscutiy to op from edition to edition. Too much choice is also a bad thing.
Yeah they certainly haven't already given them 16 (note that this is not an exaggeration/hyperbole in any way) different variations of "bolt" weapons, several of which have already been made totally superfluous by the existence of several of the others.
ClockworkZion wrote: Redemptive looks pretty killy with the vehicle shooting rules.
I just find it ironic that the number he threw out as a hyperbolic figure was extremely close to the number of near-identical "bolt" weapons that GW has already given primaris marines.
bolt pistol
heavy bolt pistol
absolvor bolt pistol
storm bolter
bolt carbine
oculus bolt carbine
marksman bolt carbine
bolt rifle
auto bolt rifle
stalker bolt rifle
heavy bolter
boltstorm gauntlet
auto boltstorm gauntlet
inceptor "light heavy bolter" things
bolt sniper rifle
Yeah, primaris marines with their 8 different plasma weapons, 5 different grenade launchers, 15 different boltguns, and 4,526,235 heavy stubber variants definitely don't have a bunch of redundant weapons.
The price bump to necron warriors is reasonable but a little dissapointing not because I believe they should be more expensive (necron warriors for 12 vs intercessors at 20 are ok) but because I would have wished for a bigger point increase for everything.
The new weapon is very good. If it costs 0 points, even at 1 shot at 14" it has a good punch, F5 and FP-2 is nothing to ignore.
Necron faction focus. No confirmation of a new codex yet, just lots of new units.
"The mainstay of many Necron army lists are the humble Warriors. Like most units in the new edition, Necron Warriors will be increasing in points – more specifically, to 12 points per model – but they’ll still comfortably outnumber Space Marines on the battlefield."
Remember when Necrons' whole thing was that they were more elite than space marines? And now they're almost 1/2 that price?
Necron faction focus. No confirmation of a new codex yet, just lots of new units.
Literally a complete waste of time reading that article, let alone creating it.
It tells us nothing on how Necrons will work in 9th and just shows us current 8th ed rules for them somehow saying that the Deceiver and Warriors are "key" units.
The only new info we got was the profile for the new Warriors gun and that the Doomscythe gun is getting Blast.
I was expecting a lot more and now i'm not looking forward to the rest of this "faction focus series".
Necron Warriors will be increasing in points – more specifically, to 12 points per model
Aince I'm at work, someone want to crunch the numbers on yhis so we can complain about Cultists some more?
Definitely the best so far.
Cultists up 50%
Intercessors up 17%
Necron Warriors up 9%
That said, Chaos was wiping all tournaments pre-Corona / post-Doctrine nerfs, so they do need the strongest nerf (whether for Cultists or not might be another debate).
Galas wrote: The price bump to necron warriors is reasonable but a little dissapointing not because I believe they should be more expensive (necron warriors for 12 vs intercessors at 20 are ok) but because I would have wished for a bigger point increase for everything.
The new weapon is very good. If it costs 0 points, even at 1 shot at 14" it has a good punch, F5 and FP-2 is nothing to ignore.
I gotta disagree. Two S4 AP-1 shots is probably going to be better than one S5 AP-2. Then you need to get within 7" for rapid fire range.
Also it's great to know Necrons won't be getting redone Dynasty Codes! No readjusting or two parters! That's only for Marines, everyone!
Percentages in these discussions is pretty deceptive. Low cost units are always going to be significantly more impacted.
A cultist at 4 points is changed in increments of 25% so even a 1 point change is going to be more than most units will be.
I will withhold judgement until we will see how the points costs of things are overall. I know that with the change to detachments, and how army list construction will change as a result, I can see more expensive basic troops having less of an impact than people are concerned about.
Galas wrote: The price bump to necron warriors is reasonable but a little dissapointing not because I believe they should be more expensive (necron warriors for 12 vs intercessors at 20 are ok) but because I would have wished for a bigger point increase for everything.
The new weapon is very good. If it costs 0 points, even at 1 shot at 14" it has a good punch, F5 and FP-2 is nothing to ignore.
I gotta disagree. Two S4 AP-1 shots is probably going to be better than one S5 AP-2. Then you need to get within 7" for rapid fire range.
Also it's great to know Necrons won't be getting redone Dynasty Codes! No readjusting or two parters! That's only for Marines, everyone!
What a fething joke.
I suppose it depends. I mean, in a vaccum yeah but the moment you have ways to make your necrons gain " of range or double tap at max range, etc...
Leth wrote: Percentages in these discussions is pretty deceptive. Low cost units are always going to be significantly more impacted.
A cultist at 4 points is changed in increments of 25% so even a 1 point change is going to be more than most units will be.
I will withhold judgement until we will see how the points costs of things are overall. I know that with the change to detachments, and how army list construction will change as a result, I can see more expensive basic troops having less of an impact than people are concerned about.
I don't understand. You can't raise the cost of a 4 pt model by 10% but you can certainly raise the cost of a 20 pt model by 25%. They apparently chose not to do so. That doesn't mean a 25% increase for the 4 pt model is somehow not a 25% increase.
I think it's a bit premature to assume no Necron mechanics are changing based on seeing the Dynastic code of a single tomb world.
On a dofferent note I think we can declare the "everything is going up 20%" claims that were being made when they did the initial points reveal dead and buried. Even if armies lose 200 points it looks like they aren't losing 20% of every unit universally.
And to the complaint about Necrons being more elite than Marines: that died in 5th when Necron Warriors went to a 4+ to make them play more differently than the more heavilly armoured Immortals.
Leth wrote: Percentages in these discussions is pretty deceptive. Low cost units are always going to be significantly more impacted.
A cultist at 4 points is changed in increments of 25% so even a 1 point change is going to be more than most units will be.
I will withhold judgement until we will see how the points costs of things are overall. I know that with the change to detachments, and how army list construction will change as a result, I can see more expensive basic troops having less of an impact than people are concerned about.
I don't understand. You can't raise the cost of a 4 pt model by 10% but you can certainly raise the cost of a 20 pt model by 25%. They apparently chose not to do so. That doesn't mean a 25% increase for the 4 pt model is somehow not a 25% increase.
It was a 50% increase for the Cultist, and while they didn't move Intercessors that far we don't know how far other things moved. For all we know that's the smallest points shift for Primaris, or wargear will be seeing a points shift that covers the gap.
All I know is everytime I see the wild claims about ehat GW is doing wrong with 9th I start quoting Holmes: "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
I just requite more clay before I start making bricks.
Gadzilla666 wrote: So a 1ppm bump? That's not bad, works out to about 9%, so better than intercessors and a lot better than cultists.
I assume that's the CA2019 point cost?
Really, it just puts warriors back at their original point value in the index and 8th edition codex.
Definitely workable.
----
The new gun is... actually kinda bad (barring changes to various rules). It can't double tap if they teleport in, may or may not be able to for overwatch, and is competing with better weapons in the same and other slots.
There may be some form of shenanigans that makes it viable, but that range band for a rapid fire weapon (rather than assault) is just bad.
----
So as the first 'faction focus' article, I'm underwhelmed and not looking forward to the weeks of them. The copy/pasted a a subfaction trait and a few special rules out of the current codex. Completely unchanged, which is what I'd expect, since they're previewing the edition, not the codex. However, I expected they'd talk more about how the necrons are affected by 9th ed. rules changes, not just yammer about existing codex snippets.
Of the three bits of information (blast on death ray, new gun, points), the most useful thing is the points for the base unit.
Not mentioning if they've spent any time fixing reanimation protocols is annoying, especially as the new walker article implies the timing changed (at the very least). Focusing on how the Command Phase affects necrons would have been nice.
Galas wrote: The price bump to necron warriors is reasonable but a little dissapointing not because I believe they should be more expensive (necron warriors for 12 vs intercessors at 20 are ok) but because I would have wished for a bigger point increase for everything.
The new weapon is very good. If it costs 0 points, even at 1 shot at 14" it has a good punch, F5 and FP-2 is nothing to ignore.
I gotta disagree. Two S4 AP-1 shots is probably going to be better than one S5 AP-2. Then you need to get within 7" for rapid fire range.
Also it's great to know Necrons won't be getting redone Dynasty Codes! No readjusting or two parters! That's only for Marines, everyone!
What a fething joke.
They're clearly referring to them in the current codex/early 9th ed. Remind me what the necron rules are in pariah? Likewkse there is obviously a new codex on the way unless you think all those new units and loadouts will be in that one box exclusive pamphlet.
I want to say one thing that's been bugging me for a long time. It's not specific about this release, but we are seeing it said by the community. No, players do not need to be grateful that they get releases. Games workshop, as a company, are in the business of selling models, books and other accessories to their players. They release new stuff to serve the business need of making profit, and increasing their market. Nothing wrong with that. But those who assume that we have to be kind and nice to the multi-million dollar company, or like pretty much everything that comes out, is absurd. This isn't actually anywhere near as bad for this release as it has been for some other launches, but I'm still seeing it all the time. People do not have to like the release, and people can have whatever opinion they want, because at the end of the day it's all about getting people spending cash.
MajorWesJanson wrote: Or they are opening up more design space- You can now have both a captain who gives a buff to all units within 6" but can be shut down by other abilities, or a commander who only gives that same buff to one specific unit, but at a longer range and without a counter.
For that to make sense it would need to be lot more common counter than what, 2 factions out of 30?
Biggest issue with the article for me, isn't that it is lacking in rules for all the new Necron models, it is that they have the main section dedicated to "how they play in 9th edition" but then don't tell us how they will actually play in 9th ed.
Hell, it doesn't even tell new players how they currently play (something which the WC team on Facebook are saying is the article intent).
I fear that the vast majority of articles from now until launch are going to be similar articles that are there to just provide the daily content.
Galas wrote: The price bump to necron warriors is reasonable but a little dissapointing not because I believe they should be more expensive (necron warriors for 12 vs intercessors at 20 are ok) but because I would have wished for a bigger point increase for everything.
The new weapon is very good. If it costs 0 points, even at 1 shot at 14" it has a good punch, F5 and FP-2 is nothing to ignore.
Warriors are junk in 8th ed so large point increase isn't reasonable at all. 2 point increase would have been about same % increase as marine troop while being worse AND getting hit by nerfbat in 9th ed core rules. Marines don't care about blast rule. Necron warriors have to subject themselves as they pay too much for RP to not even try to get it. As it is during 8th ed they were totally outclassed already by ghost ark. The "warrior support vehicle" you took without warriors to do what warriors used to be there for...Doing everything except doing it better. And unless ghost arks get huge paint increase trend likely to continues. Only issue being needing some infantry tax to bring ghost arks. But with 9th ed buffing vehicles and hitting hard light infantry like warriors the ghost ark price increase needs to be LOT more than 9% to make a difference.
New gun comes likely popular with veil of darkness if you don't use it to pull stuff out of 3 pointed.
They haven’t even announced a new Necrons codex, of course the previewed rules are the same we have now (excluding new stuff from the Indomitus box and the BLAST keyword).
These “previews” are going to be pretty useless, new point costs and BLAST weapons aside.
That said, the new weapon option on Warriors is laughably bad. 14” on a unit that moves 5” is bad, full stop. Being on a 32mm base, a Warrior back in the ranks of its large unit may not even be in range of the enemy most of the time.
The only new info we got was the profile for the new Warriors gun and that the Doomscythe gun is getting Blast.
I was expecting a lot more and now i'm not looking forward to the rest of this "faction focus series".
And confirmation d3 blasts indeed get max shots vs 6+.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Aenar wrote: They haven’t even announced a new Necrons codex, of course the previewed rules are the same we have now (excluding new stuff from the Indomitus box and the BLAST keyword).
These “previews” are going to be pretty useless, new point costs and BLAST weapons aside.
That said, the new weapon option on Warriors is laughably bad. 14” on a unit that moves 5” is bad, full stop. Being on a 32mm base, a Warrior back in the ranks of its large unit may not even be in range of the enemy most of the time.
Too bad it's not assault weapon. Would suit my nephreks just fine doing 11/12 move and then fire.
i must really be out of touch, last time i played 40K, necron warriors were equal pretty much with space marines...
and with their reconstruction thing, maybe better in some battles.
StarFyre wrote: i must really be out of touch, last time i played 40K, necron warriors were equal pretty much with space marines...
and with their reconstruction thing, maybe better in some battles.
SF
They are now 4+ save with worse gun than marines have(RF24" with -1 AP...when marines have 30" range and -1 and can get to even -2...). Resurection protocol SOUNDS nice(you come back on 5+! Yey!) until you realize you need to have survivors to roll it and 20 T4 4+ wounds is not easy to take down. And immortals despite having 3+ save isn't much better. Just 10 wounds sucks.
They most definitely need to be lot cheaper than marines(who btw have 2 wounds per model vs your 1...So 1 basic primaris marine is 20 pts, 3+, 2 wounds vs your 24 pts for 2 4+ save wounds).
Warriors haven't been hot for necrons for long time. For long time in 8th it was immortals with their tesla's and proccing more hits on 4+ or 5+. And these days even those are often reduced favouring wraiths, destroyers and tomb blades.
And of course in december chapter approved ghost ark got so cheap that for mere 10 pts more than 10 warriors you get more wounds, bigger toughhess, quantum shielding, same firepower and FLY keyword + faster speed...You lose in area of board you can control and don't have resurection protocol(in the offchance you get to use it) but heal 1 wound per turn automatically(and thanks to QS this actually gets to see some use). If this was troop you might not even see any necron infantry anymore...But for CP you needed either warriors or immortals.
yeah i got rid of my 40K models years ago. i had a metal grey knights army. then got the plastic ones to do a paladin army cause it looks cool but then got out of warhammer fantasy/40k (my main was lizardmen, but then rumors came out that they wont get anymore actual army unit models anymore - just kept a couple cool models).
that said, i must have some of the new necron stuff. looks cool.
They're clearly referring to them in the current codex/early 9th ed. Remind me what the necron rules are in pariah? Likewkse there is obviously a new codex on the way unless you think all those new units and loadouts will be in that one box exclusive pamphlet.
Claim down.
This is a very good point. Once the new Codex is closer then the codes and other rules will probably get tweaked and there will be a whole series of special previews just for that book. But for now its just about how the current Codex works with 9th.
Not bad for the old Necron Warrior. They have effectively gotten a points cut compared to both of the units. At a 1 point increase, the only units that will not be more expensive by comparison are those worth more points that increase by less than 1 point per 10 points of current value.
I strongly feel some people are mistaking a call for people to take it easy until we can see thr full picture for a.claim that GW is perfect and we should all sacrifice money to the altar of Space Marines.
I can't speak for everyone but all I've been advocating is less snap judgements that lead people to sell/burn their collections only to need to repurchase stuff later when they discover that they actually like the stuff they thought they'd hate.
It's never too late to sell your army later after all.
I've been sitting on units for a while now because I can't accurately judge what wargear I want to give them for the new edition (for an example: Assault Centurions, is the melta or flamer better in 9th? No idea).
And I'm building Black Templars so it's not like I'm starting in a strong position coming out of 8th compared to the rest of the Marine factions.
I actually think the fact that points aren't a flat increase may result in things ending up better than they are now since it means GW can try and balance the game more than a flat 20t increase would do. I can always be wrong of course, but I can imagine that with so many tournament players playtesting that there are likely good reasons for why points shifted like they did.
ClockworkZion wrote: I strongly feel some people are mistaking a call for people to take it easy until we can see thr full picture for a.claim that GW is perfect and we should all sacrifice money to the altar of Space Marines.
I can't speak for everyone but all I've been advocating is less snap judgements that lead people to sell/burn their collections only to need to repurchase stuff later when they discover that they actually like the stuff they thought they'd hate.
It's never too late to sell your army later after all.
I've been sitting on units for a while now because I can't accurately judge what wargear I want to give them for the new edition (for an example: Assault Centurions, is the melta or flamer better in 9th? No idea).
And I'm building Black Templars so it's not like I'm starting in a strong position coming out of 8th compared to the rest of the Marine factions.
I actually think the fact that points aren't a flat increase may result in things ending up better than they are now since it means GW can try and balance the game more than a flat 20t increase would do. I can always be wrong of course, but I can imagine that with so many tournament players playtesting that there are likely good reasons for why points shifted like they did.
This is important to highlight for everyone in general. Don't make snap judgements one way or the other. For one, there's a lot we don't know, and I know that we don't have much choice but to make guesses. For that we can blame Games workshop for their poor marketing, but for the actual contents of the rules, we simply don't actually know. Let's see what things will look like until there's actual substance to what's being said. And for Games workshop, I'd reconsider their marketing approach. This isn't the first time that they've spread details out too thin and left out key information, but this is the worst that I can remember it from a community backlash perspective in a long time.
ClockworkZion wrote: I strongly feel some people are mistaking a call for people to take it easy until we can see thr full picture for a.claim that GW is perfect and we should all sacrifice money to the altar of Space Marines.
I can't speak for everyone but all I've been advocating is less snap judgements that lead people to sell/burn their collections only to need to repurchase stuff later when they discover that they actually like the stuff they thought they'd hate.
It's never too late to sell your army later after all.
I've been sitting on units for a while now because I can't accurately judge what wargear I want to give them for the new edition (for an example: Assault Centurions, is the melta or flamer better in 9th? No idea).
And I'm building Black Templars so it's not like I'm starting in a strong position coming out of 8th compared to the rest of the Marine factions.
I actually think the fact that points aren't a flat increase may result in things ending up better than they are now since it means GW can try and balance the game more than a flat 20t increase would do. I can always be wrong of course, but I can imagine that with so many tournament players playtesting that there are likely good reasons for why points shifted like they did.
This is important to highlight for everyone in general. Don't make snap judgements one way or the other. For one, there's a lot we don't know, and I know that we don't have much choice but to make guesses. For that we can blame Games workshop for their poor marketing, but for the actual contents of the rules, we simply don't actually know. Let's see what things will look like until there's actual substance to what's being said. And for Games workshop, I'd reconsider their marketing approach. This isn't the first time that they've spread details out too thin and left out key information, but this is the worst that I can remember it from a community backlash perspective in a long time.
If they weren't going to continue the 9th ed previews this far out the least they could have done was release the free rules to let us get accustomed to the core mechanics before we need to worry about the missions or points changes.
I was happy to see the drip feed, but cutting it off like this does not sell 9th edition effectively.
lol. You assume a) that playtesters are infallible b) they aren't driving their agenda. They are guys who have been turning with their house rules 8th ed toward pro marine gun lines, down for hordes.
They have their own agenda. They aren't interested in helping light infantry be useful seeing they have spent last years trying to get rid of those in tournaments. That pattern isn't going anywhere. It's about small units and solo models for them rather than light infantry.
The canoptek thing looks great, but that buff is really weak. Not even an aura? This thing better be dirt cheap because I wouldn't pay many points for that +1 to one single unit.
And my Warriors have been pretty useless all 8th edition, can't see that they're any better now. That weapon is of little use - it's a rare thing that my Warriors have ever gotten to shoot at 18" before being wiped off the board.
The new models are lovely, but that article sadly didn't get me very excited to dust my Necrons off. If they would have updated RP they would surely have said something about it, right? Being kinda "the" thing making Necrons unique.
The canoptek thing looks great, but that buff is really weak. Not even an aura? This thing better be dirt cheap because I wouldn't pay many points for that +1 to one single unit.
But it could stack with a normal Cryptek, which would give one particular unit +2, potentially. Could be useful.
tneva82 wrote: lol. You assume a) that playtesters are infallible b) they aren't driving their agenda. They are guys who have been turning with their house rules 8th ed toward pro marine gun lines, down for hordes.
They have their own agenda. They aren't interested in helping light infantry be useful seeing they have spent last years trying to get rid of those in tournaments. That pattern isn't going anywhere. It's about small units and solo models for them rather than light infantry.
Well since you clearly know so much about 9th edition you must already have the rules. Want to leak some proof or are you going to keep making empty claims and attacking people you don't know just because you don't like how things currently sound based on limited information?
And you assume too much. Not every playtested thinks the way you claim they do. Lumping a diverse group of narrative, matched and tournament players into a single group and then declaring a conspiracy is definitely reaching.
The canoptek thing looks great, but that buff is really weak. Not even an aura? This thing better be dirt cheap because I wouldn't pay many points for that +1 to one single unit.
But it could stack with a normal Cryptek, which would give one particular unit +2, potentially. Could be useful.
Still won't help if they're wiped, which is what usually happens.
The problem with RP is not that you need a buff to the roll, it's that you so rarely get to use the rule at all.
Leth wrote: Percentages in these discussions is pretty deceptive. Low cost units are always going to be significantly more impacted.
A cultist at 4 points is changed in increments of 25% so even a 1 point change is going to be more than most units will be.
I will withhold judgement until we will see how the points costs of things are overall. I know that with the change to detachments, and how army list construction will change as a result, I can see more expensive basic troops having less of an impact than people are concerned about.
I don't understand. You can't raise the cost of a 4 pt model by 10% but you can certainly raise the cost of a 20 pt model by 25%. They apparently chose not to do so. That doesn't mean a 25% increase for the 4 pt model is somehow not a 25% increase.
My point is that because something can not possibly change by less than 25% that by presenting it solely as a percantage it paints a much more deceptive picture on the overall impact the change will have on the game/an army list when it’s points change.
10 cultists is 20 more points and 10 Intercessors are 30 more points, i could present it as intercessors went up by 50% more than cultists did” naturally everyone would call this a flawed presentation of the situation. Comparing two fundamentally different units in different books is fundamentally flawed from a balance perspective
ClockworkZion wrote: If they weren't going to continue the 9th ed previews this far out the least they could have done was release the free rules to let us get accustomed to the core mechanics before we need to worry about the missions or points changes.
I was happy with the drip feed, but cutting it off like this does not sell 9th edition effectively
Just because they didn't have a rules preview today doesn't mean that they're done with them...
ClockworkZion wrote: If they weren't going to continue the 9th ed previews this far out the least they could have done was release the free rules to let us get accustomed to the core mechanics before we need to worry about the missions or points changes.
I was happy with the drip feed, but cutting it off like this does not sell 9th edition effectively
Just because they didn't have a rules preview today doesn't mean that they're done with them...
Spoiler:
I watched the "preview" today and it was about painting the new minis.
I can imagine the rest of this week is going to be just about that box and not about the core rules.
It could have been anything from this being planned or Stu not being able to do the show today. There is no reason to believe that there are no more rules previews...
ClockworkZion wrote: I can't speak for everyone but all I've been advocating is less snap judgements...
That article is so weird, and it's even weirder they're putting the words in the mouth of a supposedly top tournament player, when a lot of the advice is just so obviously bad. For example:
With the updated rules for Aircraft in the new edition, Necron Flyers will no longer fear having their movement blocked by units on the ground,
Um, move-blocking flyers will still very much be a thing, because they still can't land somewhere their base overlaps with the bases of any other model according to the rules we were given. The ability to move within 1" makes it substantially harder to move block with a flyer, but does comparatively little to make it harder to move block the flyer with other models. All you need to do is spread out your models so there's no room for a flyer's huge base to fit. The idea that you'll "no longer have to fear" having a flyer's movement blocked is the sort of thing that anyone who has played competitive 40k at all will immediately say "no, that's just wrong." Now if he had said "it will be slightly harder to move block flyers," that would be true. But the statement is such a ridiculous exaggeration that the person makes it loses a lot of credibility.
I suppose the other possibility is that the rules we have been given for aircraft are not accurate, and you actually can end a move on top of another model. But if they were going to do something that radical a departure from the basic rules of the game, wouldn't they have said so? And what a mess that would be too - talk about wobbly model syndrome.
Flyers can just elect to fly off the table instead if they're going to be move blocked on the table. It's very rare that a flyer can move and not be in range of a table edge if they're also in range of the opponent's models.
If you don't mind losing a turn of shooting - and he says that after the comma. But the point is the bit before the comma is just wrong, unless we've been misled as to what the rule is.
It also says the Obelisk is a "devastatingly powerful unit," which has got to be the late April Fools joke of the century. Yes, the same unit that was recently voted as the worst unit in all of 40k.
yukishiro1 wrote: If you don't mind losing a turn of shooting - and he says that after the comma. But the point is the bit before the comma is just wrong, unless we've been misled as to what the rule is.
Losing a turn of shooting is an improvement over losing the model. It is definitely an improvement.
yukishiro1 wrote: If you don't mind losing a turn of shooting - and he says that after the comma. But the point is the bit before the comma is just wrong, unless we've been misled as to what the rule is.
Losing a turn of shooting is an improvement over losing the model. It is definitely an improvement.
Yes, but it is simply not true to say that flyers "will no longer fear having their movement blocked by units on the ground." I dunno why you're arguing this. Nobody said it isn't an improvement, but the statement made is simply categorically wrong based on the rules we have been given.
yukishiro1 wrote: It also says the Obelisk is a "devastatingly powerful unit," which has got to be the late April Fools joke of the century.
I genuinely laughed aloud when I clicked on that link and it opened the Obelisk page on Games workshop's website. In my mind I'm hoping it was meant to be ironic, but I think they were actually being serious.
Leth wrote: Percentages in these discussions is pretty deceptive. Low cost units are always going to be significantly more impacted.
A cultist at 4 points is changed in increments of 25% so even a 1 point change is going to be more than most units will be.
I will withhold judgement until we will see how the points costs of things are overall. I know that with the change to detachments, and how army list construction will change as a result, I can see more expensive basic troops having less of an impact than people are concerned about.
I don't understand. You can't raise the cost of a 4 pt model by 10% but you can certainly raise the cost of a 20 pt model by 25%. They apparently chose not to do so. That doesn't mean a 25% increase for the 4 pt model is somehow not a 25% increase.
My point is that because something can not possibly change by less than 25% that by presenting it solely as a percantage it paints a much more deceptive picture on the overall impact the change will have on the game/an army list when it’s points change.
10 cultists is 20 more points and 10 Intercessors are 30 more points, i could present it as intercessors went up by 50% more than cultists did” naturally everyone would call this a flawed presentation of the situation. Comparing two fundamentally different units in different books is fundamentally flawed from a balance perspective
no. if you are going absolute point value, you should compare the total point value. 21 cultists are 84 points 5 intercessors are 85 points
in 9th: 21 cultists are 126 points 5 interssecors are 100 points
cultists went up by 42 points, intercessors by 15 points....
because guess what? low point models are often fielded in large numbers... compensating for their low cost... thats why looking at the percentage value offers more insight then arbitary absolute numbers
Leth wrote: Percentages in these discussions is pretty deceptive. Low cost units are always going to be significantly more impacted.
A cultist at 4 points is changed in increments of 25% so even a 1 point change is going to be more than most units will be.
I will withhold judgement until we will see how the points costs of things are overall. I know that with the change to detachments, and how army list construction will change as a result, I can see more expensive basic troops having less of an impact than people are concerned about.
This is such a weird argument, because it literally defeats itself on this specific example. They could have raised cultists by 1 point, not 2, and that would have made the increase much closer to the increase in intercessors. But they didn't. So clearly the reason this increase is way out of step with the intercessor increase is not that that they simply couldn't increase it by any less than they did.
ClockworkZion wrote: I think it's a bit premature to assume no Necron mechanics are changing based on seeing the Dynastic code of a single tomb world.
On a dofferent note I think we can declare the "everything is going up 20%" claims that were being made when they did the initial points reveal dead and buried. Even if armies lose 200 points it looks like they aren't losing 20% of every unit universally.
And to the complaint about Necrons being more elite than Marines: that died in 5th when Necron Warriors went to a 4+ to make them play more differently than the more heavilly armoured Immortals.
Leth wrote: Percentages in these discussions is pretty deceptive. Low cost units are always going to be significantly more impacted.
A cultist at 4 points is changed in increments of 25% so even a 1 point change is going to be more than most units will be.
I will withhold judgement until we will see how the points costs of things are overall. I know that with the change to detachments, and how army list construction will change as a result, I can see more expensive basic troops having less of an impact than people are concerned about.
I don't understand. You can't raise the cost of a 4 pt model by 10% but you can certainly raise the cost of a 20 pt model by 25%. They apparently chose not to do so. That doesn't mean a 25% increase for the 4 pt model is somehow not a 25% increase.
It was a 50% increase for the Cultist, and while they didn't move Intercessors that far we don't know how far other things moved. For all we know that's the smallest points shift for Primaris, or wargear will be seeing a points shift that covers the gap.
All I know is everytime I see the wild claims about ehat GW is doing wrong with 9th I start quoting Holmes: "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
I just requite more clay before I start making bricks.
Literally no one on earth ever said that units were going up 20% across the board, uniformly. We as a community took the point increases we saw and determined that armies as a whole would likely go up around 20%, with the understanding that that would be A: On aggregate and B, different faction to faction. You're making up a thing that never happened.
If I wanted to make things up I'd work for Black Library. There were claims that Cultists were being unfairly targeted and 20% was the average for everyone else.
Meanwhile Necron Warriors moved 9% which throws any claims on how points costs were adjusted out the window.
You can pretend the "community" was acting as a hive mind on this but there was a.lot of hyperbolic claims being made when the points change was announced.
Honestly at this point I can imagine some skew lists migjt be unchanged.
yukishiro1 wrote: It also says the Obelisk is a "devastatingly powerful unit," which has got to be the late April Fools joke of the century.
I genuinely laughed aloud when I clicked on that link and it opened the Obelisk page on Games workshop's website. In my mind I'm hoping it was meant to be ironic, but I think they were actually being serious.
Or, as I'm having to mention yet again, they playtesters are looking at their rules in the 9th ed codex? There is very obviously a new codex on the horizon, the obelisk might be a devastatingly powerful in the unit in the next book.
The canoptek thing looks great, but that buff is really weak. Not even an aura? This thing better be dirt cheap because I wouldn't pay many points for that +1 to one single unit.
And my Warriors have been pretty useless all 8th edition, can't see that they're any better now. That weapon is of little use - it's a rare thing that my Warriors have ever gotten to shoot at 18" before being wiped off the board.
The new models are lovely, but that article sadly didn't get me very excited to dust my Necrons off. If they would have updated RP they would surely have said something about it, right? Being kinda "the" thing making Necrons unique.
So many things here that we don't know, that while the reveal is rather spare, it's hard to tell if it is bad.
How expensive, dangerous, and resilient is the Canoptek Reanimator?
With cheaper warrior and more expensive other units, will Warriors still be summarily wiped off the board in 9th?
Any good stratagems in PA Pariah to help out the Warriors?
Will Reanimation Protocols change in either the Day 1 FAQ or the almost inevitable new codex?
yukishiro1 wrote: It also says the Obelisk is a "devastatingly powerful unit," which has got to be the late April Fools joke of the century.
I genuinely laughed aloud when I clicked on that link and it opened the Obelisk page on Games workshop's website. In my mind I'm hoping it was meant to be ironic, but I think they were actually being serious.
Or, as I'm having to mention yet again, they playtesters are looking at their rules in the 9th ed codex? There is very obviously a new codex on the horizon, the obelisk might be a devastatingly powerful in the unit in the next book.
It literally says:
The Necrons are already blessed with a number of devastatingly powerful units,
You might not have to keep saying it if you'd check to make sure it's applicable first.
Now if they had said "old Necron models that are terrible currently are going to be improved into devastatingly powerful units," nobody would be laughing. It's the suggestion that the Obelisk is "already" a "devastatingly powerful unit" that is so funny.
Yes, you can try to parse it and say that "already" refers both to an already-existing model and to a hypothetical future 9th edition state of that model even though that's the opposite of the actual meaning of the word...but that's getting downright silly. GW done goofed, there's no need to try to find an angle to defend them on.
tneva82 wrote: lol. You assume a) that playtesters are infallible b) they aren't driving their agenda. They are guys who have been turning with their house rules 8th ed toward pro marine gun lines, down for hordes.
They have their own agenda. They aren't interested in helping light infantry be useful seeing they have spent last years trying to get rid of those in tournaments. That pattern isn't going anywhere. It's about small units and solo models for them rather than light infantry.
This is the single dumbest take that ever comes up. Most top end players don't have that string of preference for any one faction or playstyle. Sure, they have some they like more, but none of them are 'ur i love gunlins dur'. That's fethin stupid
Its got to the point where I think those that are engaging in the gross hyperbole and already writing things off should be forced to display their tournament accolades/win records so us people that don't really want to read pages and pages of this c**p can make an informed decision on who is actually liable to be correct and who is chatting utter bubbles because they revel in this obscene drama about plastic soldiers.
If anything, my sense is that top competitive players almost universally despise static gunlines that just roll dice to win. Competitive players like to play lists where they feel like they're winning, not their units or dice are winning.
That said, top competitive players and GW's playtesters are not the same group, and, most importantly of all, it isn't the playtesters that decide the rules. GW frequently simply overrules playtester feedback, as they infamously did with the IH supplement.
yukishiro1 wrote: If anything, my sense is that top competitive players almost universally despise static gunlines that just roll dice to win. Competitive players like to play lists where they feel like they're winning, not their units or dice are winning.
That said, top competitive players and GW's playtesters are not the same group, and, most importantly of all, it isn't the playtesters that decide the rules. GW frequently simply overrules playtester feedback, as they infamously did with the IH supplement.
No. Why would I need to be? Are you challenging the assertion that GW ignored playtester feedback on the IH supplement? They literally said so themselves in their own FAQ nerfing it. Were you unaware of this?
It's also hardly a secret that the GW rules team has had a checkered past with incorporating feedback from play testers in previous editions. Some of the play testers for 9th have even come out and basically said "guys, they're actually paying attention this time around." Which is good news. But not exactly an endorsement of past practice.
tneva82 wrote: lol. You assume a) that playtesters are infallible b) they aren't driving their agenda. They are guys who have been turning with their house rules 8th ed toward pro marine gun lines, down for hordes.
They have their own agenda. They aren't interested in helping light infantry be useful seeing they have spent last years trying to get rid of those in tournaments. That pattern isn't going anywhere. It's about small units and solo models for them rather than light infantry.
This is the single dumbest take that ever comes up. Most top end players don't have that string of preference for any one faction or playstyle. Sure, they have some they like more, but none of them are 'ur i love gunlins dur'. That's fethin stupid
We can say that, but remember Phil Kelly's codices proving biased writing can do just the same as biased playtesting.
tneva82 wrote: lol. You assume a) that playtesters are infallible b) they aren't driving their agenda. They are guys who have been turning with their house rules 8th ed toward pro marine gun lines, down for hordes.
They have their own agenda. They aren't interested in helping light infantry be useful seeing they have spent last years trying to get rid of those in tournaments. That pattern isn't going anywhere. It's about small units and solo models for them rather than light infantry.
This is the single dumbest take that ever comes up. Most top end players don't have that string of preference for any one faction or playstyle. Sure, they have some they like more, but none of them are 'ur i love gunlins dur'. That's fethin stupid
We can say that, but remember Phil Kelly's codices proving biased writing can do just the same as biased playtesting.
That was from an era where a single person was largely in charge of each book rather than a collaborative effort. The bias has gone down quite a bit in 8th since they moved to a committee approach.
On the playtester front i agree about bias, even if its unintentional and even if they did the most balanced testing ever and fed that back it matters not.
40K for GW is a package, it always has been. The rules are one component of that. They wanna build a package which also has lore, art style, model coolness, buisness and marketability factors.
For them its like the equalizer on an old stereo, they tweak each lever until they get an overall sound they are happy with.
Latro_ wrote: On the playtester front i agree about bias, even if its unintentional and even if they did the most balanced testing ever and fed that back it matters not.
40K for GW is a package, it always has been. The rules are one component of that. They wanna build a package which also has lore, art style, model coolness, buisness and marketability factors.
For them its like the equalizer on an old stereo, they tweak each lever until they get an overall sound they are happy with.
Well can someone please tell them to turn the knob away from Dragon Force and back towards Bolt Thrower?
Latro_ wrote: On the playtester front i agree about bias, even if its unintentional and even if they did the most balanced testing ever and fed that back it matters not.
40K for GW is a package, it always has been. The rules are one component of that. They wanna build a package which also has lore, art style, model coolness, buisness and marketability factors.
For them its like the equalizer on an old stereo, they tweak each lever until they get an overall sound they are happy with.
Well can someone please tell them to turn the knob away from Dragon Force and back towards Bolt Thrower?
Latro_ wrote: On the playtester front i agree about bias, even if its unintentional and even if they did the most balanced testing ever and fed that back it matters not.
40K for GW is a package, it always has been. The rules are one component of that. They wanna build a package which also has lore, art style, model coolness, buisness and marketability factors.
For them its like the equalizer on an old stereo, they tweak each lever until they get an overall sound they are happy with.
Well can someone please tell them to turn the knob away from Dragon Force and back towards Bolt Thrower?
Mine is stuck on Gloryhammer.
Gogo Laibach? I mean, for the Imperium, obviously won't work for the eldars .
Kdash wrote: Biggest issue with the article for me, isn't that it is lacking in rules for all the new Necron models, it is that they have the main section dedicated to "how they play in 9th edition" but then don't tell us how they will actually play in 9th ed.
Yeah no kidding.
Most of the article is complete waffling garbage:
"One of the biggest improvements for the Necrons is they’ll no longer be hurting for Command points (CPs)." - Cool. That has nothing to do with the Necrons. That's something everybody gets, and something we already know.
"Vehicles are already a mainstay of many Necron armies, but they’re about to get even better!" - Again, not a Necron thing, that's an everybody thing. We know this already.
"Mephrit Rules!" - ... haven't changed. Why are we being told this?
"With the updated rules for Aircraft in the new edition, Necron Flyers will no longer fear having their movement blocked by units on the ground, and they will also be able to move back onto the battlefield in a later turn should they leave combat airspace." - As above, this isn't a Necron thing. This is something that applies to everyone with flyers.
"Grand Illusion" - ... hasn't changed. Why are you highlighting rules we already know???
"Doom Scythe" - The preview for its gun is the same as what it has now, but finally we do get some confirmation of how a new role affects the Necrons. It has Blast.
"Necron Warriors" - Actual new information. Well done.
If this is what we can expect from future "What does #Nu40K mean for your army..." then the end result will be a resounding "We don't know. You didn't tell us anything!"
I mean why bother having a bunch of the play-testers write articles to spruik your new product if you're not actually going to let them discuss things that we don't already know, and aren't the most generic "This new rule benefits army X!" type of banal trivial page-filling generalities?
Leth wrote: Percentages in these discussions is pretty deceptive. Low cost units are always going to be significantly more impacted.
A cultist at 4 points is changed in increments of 25% so even a 1 point change is going to be more than most units will be.
I will withhold judgement until we will see how the points costs of things are overall. I know that with the change to detachments, and how army list construction will change as a result, I can see more expensive basic troops having less of an impact than people are concerned about.
I don't understand. You can't raise the cost of a 4 pt model by 10% but you can certainly raise the cost of a 20 pt model by 25%. They apparently chose not to do so. That doesn't mean a 25% increase for the 4 pt model is somehow not a 25% increase.
My point is that because something can not possibly change by less than 25% that by presenting it solely as a percantage it paints a much more deceptive picture on the overall impact the change will have on the game/an army list when it’s points change.
10 cultists is 20 more points and 10 Intercessors are 30 more points, i could present it as intercessors went up by 50% more than cultists did” naturally everyone would call this a flawed presentation of the situation. Comparing two fundamentally different units in different books is fundamentally flawed from a balance perspective
Isn't the whole purpose of points to allow you to compare different units in different books? One went up by 25% and the other by a lot less. I don't see how that's deceptive. That seems pretty straightforward to me.
Latro_ wrote: On the playtester front i agree about bias, even if its unintentional and even if they did the most balanced testing ever and fed that back it matters not.
40K for GW is a package, it always has been. The rules are one component of that. They wanna build a package which also has lore, art style, model coolness, buisness and marketability factors.
For them its like the equalizer on an old stereo, they tweak each lever until they get an overall sound they are happy with.
Well can someone please tell them to turn the knob away from Dragon Force and back towards Bolt Thrower?
Mine is stuck on Gloryhammer.
Gaahhh!!! Dang it! I looked that up. Do you know how much black metal I'll have to listen to to bleach that out of my ears? (Actually, that won't be a bad thing).
The purpose of points is to attempt to make a comparable army when playing someone else. Something that is worth x points in one army might be functionally worth more in a different army just because of rules, stratagems, and other differences. . What might not be good in one book would be a no brainer another book. Obviously it’s not perfect and other synergies within any given list will have disparate impact but the idea is there.
I was saying that percentages are easily deceptive/misleading in trying to compare different units across books. If it was an internal comparison like scouts to intercessors or cultists to chaos marines then we could have a much more concrete discussion.
Someone says cultists went up by 50% while marines went up x% I can argue that marines went up by 50% more than cultists did. Again both are true statements, but the impression given is the opposite.
tneva82 wrote: They most definitely need to be lot cheaper than marines(who btw have 2 wounds per model vs your 1...So 1 basic primaris marine is 20 pts, 3+, 2 wounds vs your 24 pts for 2 4+ save wounds).
If you ever needed more proof that GW designs things in a vacuum, look no further than this example.
tneva82 wrote: They most definitely need to be lot cheaper than marines(who btw have 2 wounds per model vs your 1...So 1 basic primaris marine is 20 pts, 3+, 2 wounds vs your 24 pts for 2 4+ save wounds).
If you ever needed more proof that GW designs things in a vacuum, look no further than this example.
I think it proves that dakka posters complain in a vacuum. Points are based on more the bit of data quoted. that 24 pts buys 2 guns vs 1, there are different other abilities (resurection vs ATSKNF etc). It may work out as bad, but not simply in the vacuum of saves and wounds.
Latro_ wrote: On the playtester front i agree about bias, even if its unintentional and even if they did the most balanced testing ever and fed that back it matters not.
40K for GW is a package, it always has been. The rules are one component of that. They wanna build a package which also has lore, art style, model coolness, buisness and marketability factors.
For them its like the equalizer on an old stereo, they tweak each lever until they get an overall sound they are happy with.
Well can someone please tell them to turn the knob away from Dragon Force and back towards Bolt Thrower?
Mine is stuck on Gloryhammer.
Gaahhh!!! Dang it! I looked that up. Do you know how much black metal I'll have to listen to to bleach that out of my ears? (Actually, that won't be a bad thing).
tneva82 wrote: They most definitely need to be lot cheaper than marines(who btw have 2 wounds per model vs your 1...So 1 basic primaris marine is 20 pts, 3+, 2 wounds vs your 24 pts for 2 4+ save wounds).
If you ever needed more proof that GW designs things in a vacuum, look no further than this example.
I think it proves that dakka posters complain in a vacuum. Points are based on more the bit of data quoted. that 24 pts buys 2 guns vs 1, there are different other abilities (resurection vs ATSKNF etc). It may work out as bad, but not simply in the vacuum of saves and wounds.
yeaaah looking at defence while ignoring offense is downright silly. we all know firepower is almost always > defence.
Leth wrote:The purpose of points is to attempt to make a comparable army when playing someone else. Something that is worth x points in one army might be functionally worth more in a different army just because of rules, stratagems, and other differences. . What might not be good in one book would be a no brainer another book. Obviously it’s not perfect and other synergies within any given list will have disparate impact but the idea is there.
I was saying that percentages are easily deceptive/misleading in trying to compare different units across books. If it was an internal comparison like scouts to intercessors or cultists to chaos marines then we could have a much more concrete discussion.
Someone says cultists went up by 50% while marines went up x% I can argue that marines went up by 50% more than cultists did. Again both are true statements, but the impression given is the opposite.
Ok, what "rules, strategems, and other differences" explain why a 1W, 6+ save chaff unit that doesn't get legion traits went up by 50% while a 2W, 3+ save unit that benefits from chapter tactics, doctrines, and super doctrines and is generally considered to be the best troops choice in the game only went up by 17%?
Latro_ wrote: On the playtester front i agree about bias, even if its unintentional and even if they did the most balanced testing ever and fed that back it matters not.
40K for GW is a package, it always has been. The rules are one component of that. They wanna build a package which also has lore, art style, model coolness, buisness and marketability factors.
For them its like the equalizer on an old stereo, they tweak each lever until they get an overall sound they are happy with.
Well can someone please tell them to turn the knob away from Dragon Force and back towards Bolt Thrower?
Mine is stuck on Gloryhammer.
Gaahhh!!! Dang it! I looked that up. Do you know how much black metal I'll have to listen to to bleach that out of my ears? (Actually, that won't be a bad thing).
No idea, I don’t have enough information to make a claim one way or the other on it.
Also, your argument would be better served by saying one went from x points to y rather than using the percentage argument that we already know is a skewed representation of the information. As I have shown I can present it as just as skewed with percentages in the opposite direction.
Same with sticking to within book comparisons rather than across books. If something isn’t an option for a book then it is not a Realistic comparison point since those are not the options for any given army.
tneva82 wrote: They most definitely need to be lot cheaper than marines(who btw have 2 wounds per model vs your 1...So 1 basic primaris marine is 20 pts, 3+, 2 wounds vs your 24 pts for 2 4+ save wounds).
If you ever needed more proof that GW designs things in a vacuum, look no further than this example.
So you're saying an army with 2-wound models DOES have something going for it?
tneva82 wrote: They most definitely need to be lot cheaper than marines(who btw have 2 wounds per model vs your 1...So 1 basic primaris marine is 20 pts, 3+, 2 wounds vs your 24 pts for 2 4+ save wounds).
If you ever needed more proof that GW designs things in a vacuum, look no further than this example.
So you're saying an army with 2-wound models DOES have something going for it?
Beautifully done. All the better when the 2nd Marine book was 8th's 3.5 Chaos dex
Leth wrote:No idea, I don’t have enough information to make a claim one way or the other on it.
Also, your argument would be better served by saying one went from x points to y rather than using the percentage argument that we already know is a skewed representation of the information. As I have shown I can present it as just as skewed with percentages in the opposite direction.
Same with sticking to within book comparisons rather than across books. If something isn’t an option for a book then it is not a Realistic comparison point since those are not the options for any given army.
No, you can't. It is a fact that cultists increased in price by 50% while intercessors increased by 17%. Your argument isn't a fair comparison. It twists numbers.
Eldarain wrote:Beautifully done. All the better when the 2nd Marine book was 8th's 3.5 Chaos dex
Leth wrote: Also, your argument would be better served by saying one went from x points to y rather than using the percentage argument that we already know is a skewed representation of the information. As I have shown I can present it as just as skewed with percentages in the opposite direction.
Your argument would be better served by using math correctly. There's nothing wrong with comparing percentage increases. In fact, the whole point of doing it that way is so that we can compare relative increases between models that currently have different base costs. You cannot argue that a model whose cost goes up by 50% isn't somehow worse off relative to a model whose cost goes up by 17%, all else being equal. Now we know that all else is not equal because the rules are changing too. But that's different than somehow arguing that percentages don't work.
Intercessors increased in points by 50% more than cultists did, true or false? Cultists received 33% less of a points increase than intercessors did, true or false?
I didn’t say percentages don’t work, I said that they present a skewed picture as I just illustrated. Percentages only work when comparing reasonably close items, otherwise so many other variables can account for the variance in outcomes that a direct comparison is pointless at best and maliciously misleading at worst.
Now if you want to argue that cultists and intercessors fill comparable roles on the battlefield in a marine and chaos army, and that they are primarily used for the same thing, then you might be making a valid comparison. However that would require a lot of quantifying of different stats, it’s values, and other such things that I highly doubt you have done.
If someone’s primary goal is to fill a battalions troop requirements for a cheap as possible than a cultist is vastly more efficient than an intercessors. If they want their unit to have offensive output? Then the intercessors is vastly more efficient, So on and so forth.
Hence, I can’t say that one is significantly better than the other given they fill significantly different purposes and roles, especially with how army composition has changed. Before you might need 60 cultists to get the CP you want, now you only need 30.
Leth wrote: Intercessors increased in points by 50% more than cultists did, true or false? Cultists received 33% less of a points increase than intercessors did, true or false?
I didn’t say percentages don’t work, I said that they present a skewed picture as I just illustrated. Percentages only work when comparing reasonably close items, otherwise so many other variables can account for the variance in outcomes that a direct comparison is pointless at best and maliciously misleading at worst.
You didn't illustrate anything. The stats you posted are irrelevant. Why are you dividing the pts increase of the intercessors by the pts increase of cultists? What question does that calculation seek to answer?
I can take any 2 random pt values and divide them to come up with a percentage too. That doesn't make the percentage meaningful. But the percent increase in cost however is meaningful. You get a certain amount of utility for the pts you pay. For cultists that utility is now 50% more expensive. For primaris it's 17%. Unless the underlying utility of each unit also changed a comparable amount under the new ruleset the cultists received a nerf relative to primaris. How is this difficult to understand?
Leth wrote: Intercessors increased in points by 50% more than cultists did, true or false? Cultists received 33% less of a points increase than intercessors did, true or false?
I didn’t say percentages don’t work, I said that they present a skewed picture as I just illustrated. Percentages only work when comparing reasonably close items, otherwise so many other variables can account for the variance in outcomes that a direct comparison is pointless at best and maliciously misleading at worst.
You didn't illustrate anything. The stats you posted are irrelevant. Why are you dividing the pts increase of the intercessors by the pts increase of cultists? What question does that calculation seek to answer?
I can take any 2 random pt values and divide them to come up with a percentage too. That doesn't make the percentage meaningful. But the percent increase in cost however is meaningful. You get a certain amount of utility for the pts you pay. For cultists that utility is now 50% more expensive. For primaris it's 17%. Unless the underlying utility of each unit also changed a comparable amount under the new ruleset the cultists received a nerf relative to primaris. How is this difficult to understand?
Honestly why is anyone trying to compare percentages of points increase between two units in two different codexes whose points costs aren't even that close to each other to start with?
No one posting here arguing the points changes in any direction knows more than anyone else. All this back and forth about one unit getting shafted or not is honestly premature. For all we know there may be a rule for scoring that favors hordes, or Cultists might lose the "Mere Mortal" rule in 9th. Who the heck knows.
Yes, in 8th edition such a points hike for Cultists would only break the unit further, but in 9th? Can anyone honestly say they know for a fact that Cultists are going to be better or worse than before?
Really the issue of % increase in the cost of Intercessors versus Cultist is looking at the issue the wrong way. The question isn't which unit had a bigger % increase in points. The question is are the current points values a better representation of their overall effectiveness in the game. In sort, which if these is more accurate:
A) 1 Intercessor (17 points) is slightly better than 4 Cultist (4 points each for 16 points)
B) 1 Intercessor (20 points) is slightly better than 3 Cultist (6 points each for 18 points)
alextroy wrote: Really the issue of % increase in the cost of Intercessors versus Cultist is looking at the issue the wrong way. The question isn't which unit had a bigger % increase in points. The question is are the current points values a better representation of their overall effectiveness in the game. In sort, which if these is more accurate:
A) 1 Intercessor (17 points) is slightly better than 4 Cultist (4 points each for 16 points)
B) 1 Intercessor (20 points) is slightly better than 3 Cultist (6 points each for 18 points)
Both of which are impossible to judge on the basis of 9th ed's standards.
Leth wrote: Intercessors increased in points by 50% more than cultists did, true or false? Cultists received 33% less of a points increase than intercessors did, true or false?
I didn’t say percentages don’t work, I said that they present a skewed picture as I just illustrated. Percentages only work when comparing reasonably close items, otherwise so many other variables can account for the variance in outcomes that a direct comparison is pointless at best and maliciously misleading at worst.
You didn't illustrate anything. The stats you posted are irrelevant. Why are you dividing the pts increase of the intercessors by the pts increase of cultists? What question does that calculation seek to answer?
I can take any 2 random pt values and divide them to come up with a percentage too. That doesn't make the percentage meaningful. But the percent increase in cost however is meaningful. You get a certain amount of utility for the pts you pay. For cultists that utility is now 50% more expensive. For primaris it's 17%. Unless the underlying utility of each unit also changed a comparable amount under the new ruleset the cultists received a nerf relative to primaris. How is this difficult to understand?
Honestly why is anyone trying to compare percentages of points increase between two units in two different codexes whose points costs aren't even that close to each other to start with?
No one posting here arguing the points changes in any direction knows more than anyone else. All this back and forth about one unit getting shafted or not is honestly premature. For all we know there may be a rule for scoring that favors hordes, or Cultists might lose the "Mere Mortal" rule in 9th. Who the heck knows.
Yes, in 8th edition such a points hike for Cultists would only break the unit further, but in 9th? Can anyone honestly say they know for a fact that Cultists are going to be better or worse than before?
No, but it's unlikely that anything could warrant that much of an increase relative to intercessors. Losing "Mere Mortals" wouldn't do it. The only mission we've seen so far doesn't seem to favor hordes. In fact, the inclusion of secondary objectives is supposed to make it easier to score with different types of forces. So it seems doubtful that hordes will be favored. New information could change these perceptions, but until anything new comes forward the points increase of cultists relative to intercessors doesn't make sense and looks unfair.
alextroy wrote: Really the issue of % increase in the cost of Intercessors versus Cultist is looking at the issue the wrong way. The question isn't which unit had a bigger % increase in points. The question is are the current points values a better representation of their overall effectiveness in the game. In sort, which if these is more accurate:
A) 1 Intercessor (17 points) is slightly better than 4 Cultist (4 points each for 16 points)
B) 1 Intercessor (20 points) is slightly better than 3 Cultist (6 points each for 18 points)
Both of which are impossible to judge on the basis of 9th ed's standards.
Then why argue about the merits of the relative points increase?
Besides, which is closer to true in 8th Edition? 9th will have changes, but nothing so far is so earth shattering to make the comparison completely useless before you have the full rules in your hand.
Leth wrote: Intercessors increased in points by 50% more than cultists did, true or false? Cultists received 33% less of a points increase than intercessors did, true or false?
I didn’t say percentages don’t work, I said that they present a skewed picture as I just illustrated. Percentages only work when comparing reasonably close items, otherwise so many other variables can account for the variance in outcomes that a direct comparison is pointless at best and maliciously misleading at worst.
You didn't illustrate anything. The stats you posted are irrelevant. Why are you dividing the pts increase of the intercessors by the pts increase of cultists? What question does that calculation seek to answer?
I can take any 2 random pt values and divide them to come up with a percentage too. That doesn't make the percentage meaningful. But the percent increase in cost however is meaningful. You get a certain amount of utility for the pts you pay. For cultists that utility is now 50% more expensive. For primaris it's 17%. Unless the underlying utility of each unit also changed a comparable amount under the new ruleset the cultists received a nerf relative to primaris. How is this difficult to understand?
Honestly why is anyone trying to compare percentages of points increase between two units in two different codexes whose points costs aren't even that close to each other to start with?
No one posting here arguing the points changes in any direction knows more than anyone else. All this back and forth about one unit getting shafted or not is honestly premature. For all we know there may be a rule for scoring that favors hordes, or Cultists might lose the "Mere Mortal" rule in 9th. Who the heck knows.
Yes, in 8th edition such a points hike for Cultists would only break the unit further, but in 9th? Can anyone honestly say they know for a fact that Cultists are going to be better or worse than before?
No, but it's unlikely that anything could warrant that much of an increase relative to intercessors. Losing "Mere Mortals" wouldn't do it. The only mission we've seen so far doesn't seem to favor hordes. In fact, the inclusion of secondary objectives is supposed to make it easier to score with different types of forces. So it seems doubtful that hordes will be favored. New information could change these perceptions, but until anything new comes forward the points increase of cultists relative to intercessors doesn't make sense and looks unfair.
Honestly this is the issue when dealing with comparisons across such a massive points spread.
If I said unit A got a 2ppm increase but Unit B got a 3ppm increase in a vaccuum that sounds like Unit B got the larger increase. If you say Unit A went up 50%ppm while unit B went up 20%ppm then it sounds like unit A got the larger increase.
Neither represents the fact that Unit A was 4ppm while unit B was 17ppm.
And that information doesn't reflect the unknown variables we haven't seen.
Look, I get that people want to make snap decisions from incomplete information, but jumping to conclusions on how the game works, or will work based on what we know is just setting yourself up to end up burnt out from being upset about everything all the time.
I prefer to be mad knowing everything so I can form a coherent and complete argument over all this back and forth over what is basically a big case of "well it looks bad out of context".
alextroy wrote: Really the issue of % increase in the cost of Intercessors versus Cultist is looking at the issue the wrong way. The question isn't which unit had a bigger % increase in points. The question is are the current points values a better representation of their overall effectiveness in the game. In sort, which if these is more accurate:
A) 1 Intercessor (17 points) is slightly better than 4 Cultist (4 points each for 16 points)
B) 1 Intercessor (20 points) is slightly better than 3 Cultist (6 points each for 18 points)
Both of which are impossible to judge on the basis of 9th ed's standards.
Then why argue about the merits of the relative points increase?
Besides, which is closer to true in 8th Edition? 9th will have changes, but nothing so far is so earth shattering to make the comparison completely useless before you have the full rules in your hand.
My point is there is no merit in arguing over the points changes based on what we know. Because we basically don't know anything right now and it's a waste of time spending page after page arguing if Cultists really got screwed or not.
Leth wrote: Intercessors increased in points by 50% more than cultists did, true or false? Cultists received 33% less of a points increase than intercessors did, true or false?
I didn’t say percentages don’t work, I said that they present a skewed picture as I just illustrated. Percentages only work when comparing reasonably close items, otherwise so many other variables can account for the variance in outcomes that a direct comparison is pointless at best and maliciously misleading at worst.
You didn't illustrate anything. The stats you posted are irrelevant. Why are you dividing the pts increase of the intercessors by the pts increase of cultists? What question does that calculation seek to answer?
I can take any 2 random pt values and divide them to come up with a percentage too. That doesn't make the percentage meaningful. But the percent increase in cost however is meaningful. You get a certain amount of utility for the pts you pay. For cultists that utility is now 50% more expensive. For primaris it's 17%. Unless the underlying utility of each unit also changed a comparable amount under the new ruleset the cultists received a nerf relative to primaris. How is this difficult to understand?
Honestly why is anyone trying to compare percentages of points increase between two units in two different codexes whose points costs aren't even that close to each other to start with?
No one posting here arguing the points changes in any direction knows more than anyone else. All this back and forth about one unit getting shafted or not is honestly premature. For all we know there may be a rule for scoring that favors hordes, or Cultists might lose the "Mere Mortal" rule in 9th. Who the heck knows.
Yes, in 8th edition such a points hike for Cultists would only break the unit further, but in 9th? Can anyone honestly say they know for a fact that Cultists are going to be better or worse than before?
No, but it's unlikely that anything could warrant that much of an increase relative to intercessors. Losing "Mere Mortals" wouldn't do it. The only mission we've seen so far doesn't seem to favor hordes. In fact, the inclusion of secondary objectives is supposed to make it easier to score with different types of forces. So it seems doubtful that hordes will be favored. New information could change these perceptions, but until anything new comes forward the points increase of cultists relative to intercessors doesn't make sense and looks unfair.
Honestly this is the issue when dealing with comparisons across such a massive points spread.
If I said unit A got a 2ppm increase but Unit B got a 3ppm increase in a vaccuum that sounds like Unit B got the larger increase. If you say Unit A went up 50%ppm while unit B went up 20%ppm then it sounds like unit A got the larger increase.
Neither represents the fact that Unit A was 4ppm while unit B was 17ppm.
And that information doesn't reflect the unknown variables we haven't seen.
Look, I get that people want to make snap decisions from incomplete information, but jumping to conclusions on how the game works, or will work based on what we know is just setting yourself up to end up burnt out from being upset about everything all the time.
I prefer to be mad knowing everything so I can form a coherent and complete argument over all this back and forth over what is basically a big case of "well it looks bad out of context".
I agree that we don't have enough information to get angry. I'm just explaining why this doesn't look good. The problem is that gw is being tight lipped and nothing they've shown so far explains the disparity between the two units. The Necron Warriors increase throws another monkey wrench into the whole thing. I don't want to argue about it for pages on end either. But right now it looks bad. I hope they have a reason for these points changes, and I hope they hurry up and show it to us. And it had better be good.
Then we can get back to more important stuff, like making fun of each others tastes in music. I mean, you really like that stuff?
Leth wrote: Intercessors increased in points by 50% more than cultists did, true or false? Cultists received 33% less of a points increase than intercessors did, true or false?
I didn’t say percentages don’t work, I said that they present a skewed picture as I just illustrated. Percentages only work when comparing reasonably close items, otherwise so many other variables can account for the variance in outcomes that a direct comparison is pointless at best and maliciously misleading at worst.
You didn't illustrate anything. The stats you posted are irrelevant. Why are you dividing the pts increase of the intercessors by the pts increase of cultists? What question does that calculation seek to answer?
I can take any 2 random pt values and divide them to come up with a percentage too. That doesn't make the percentage meaningful. But the percent increase in cost however is meaningful. You get a certain amount of utility for the pts you pay. For cultists that utility is now 50% more expensive. For primaris it's 17%. Unless the underlying utility of each unit also changed a comparable amount under the new ruleset the cultists received a nerf relative to primaris. How is this difficult to understand?
I’m with Leth on this one. No matter what they did with Cultist points, they’d go up more than the 17% of Intercessors, because just 1 point is worth 25% for a cultist. The funny thing is, even at 6ppm there’s not much granularity with them, they’re still so damn cheap. But at least every point isn’t worth a quarter of your cost.
Leth wrote: Percentages in these discussions is pretty deceptive. Low cost units are always going to be significantly more impacted.
A cultist at 4 points is changed in increments of 25% so even a 1 point change is going to be more than most units will be.
I will withhold judgement until we will see how the points costs of things are overall. I know that with the change to detachments, and how army list construction will change as a result, I can see more expensive basic troops having less of an impact than people are concerned about.
I don't understand. You can't raise the cost of a 4 pt model by 10% but you can certainly raise the cost of a 20 pt model by 25%. They apparently chose not to do so. That doesn't mean a 25% increase for the 4 pt model is somehow not a 25% increase.
My point is that because something can not possibly change by less than 25% that by presenting it solely as a percantage it paints a much more deceptive picture on the overall impact the change will have on the game/an army list when it’s points change.
10 cultists is 20 more points and 10 Intercessors are 30 more points, i could present it as intercessors went up by 50% more than cultists did” naturally everyone would call this a flawed presentation of the situation. Comparing two fundamentally different units in different books is fundamentally flawed from a balance perspective
It's the absolute value that is deceptive. If you want to show how it REALLY affects things is % increase.
50% up vs 17% is lot more truthfull and meaningful than 2 pts and 3 pts.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: That article is so weird, and it's even weirder they're putting the words in the mouth of a supposedly top tournament player, when a lot of the advice is just so obviously bad. For example:
With the updated rules for Aircraft in the new edition, Necron Flyers will no longer fear having their movement blocked by units on the ground,
Um, move-blocking flyers will still very much be a thing, because they still can't land somewhere their base overlaps with the bases of any other model according to the rules we were given. The ability to move within 1" makes it substantially harder to move block with a flyer, but does comparatively little to make it harder to move block the flyer with other models. All you need to do is spread out your models so there's no room for a flyer's huge base to fit. The idea that you'll "no longer have to fear" having a flyer's movement blocked is the sort of thing that anyone who has played competitive 40k at all will immediately say "no, that's just wrong." Now if he had said "it will be slightly harder to move block flyers," that would be true. But the statement is such a ridiculous exaggeration that the person makes it loses a lot of credibility.
I suppose the other possibility is that the rules we have been given for aircraft are not accurate, and you actually can end a move on top of another model. But if they were going to do something that radical a departure from the basic rules of the game, wouldn't they have said so? And what a mess that would be too - talk about wobbly model syndrome.
Eh there's difference between "have to go offboard and come back later" and "boom you are destroyed". DUCY?
yukishiro1 wrote: If you don't mind losing a turn of shooting - and he says that after the comma. But the point is the bit before the comma is just wrong, unless we've been misled as to what the rule is.
Losing a turn of shooting is an improvement over losing the model. It is definitely an improvement.
Yes, but it is simply not true to say that flyers "will no longer fear having their movement blocked by units on the ground." I dunno why you're arguing this. Nobody said it isn't an improvement, but the statement made is simply categorically wrong based on the rules we have been given.
So you are "ah I'm going to lose a vehicle. Nothing to fear about it! Let it gooooo! Let it GOOOOOOO!"?
Taking out vehicles by movement blocking has been valid strategy for 3 years. That goes away.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Leth wrote: Someone says cultists went up by 50% while marines went up x% I can argue that marines went up by 50% more than cultists did. Again both are true statements, but the impression given is the opposite.
You could...And you would be lying. Cultist went up 50%, marine went up 17%. That's the only comparison that matters.
tneva82 wrote: They most definitely need to be lot cheaper than marines(who btw have 2 wounds per model vs your 1...So 1 basic primaris marine is 20 pts, 3+, 2 wounds vs your 24 pts for 2 4+ save wounds).
If you ever needed more proof that GW designs things in a vacuum, look no further than this example.
I think it proves that dakka posters complain in a vacuum. Points are based on more the bit of data quoted. that 24 pts buys 2 guns vs 1, there are different other abilities (resurection vs ATSKNF etc). It may work out as bad, but not simply in the vacuum of saves and wounds.
yeaaah looking at defence while ignoring offense is downright silly. we all know firepower is almost always > defence.
If I had put that down as well necron warrior would be looking even more silly...They don't even posses good offensive output.
I was trying to be kind to the necron warriors and not just slam them to dirt. But thanks for bringing up how bad they are.
Oh and ATSKNF is worthless but so is RP(both suffer from same issue. To use it one has to actually survive it). But marines have other free bonuses that trump necron ones. Necrons have 1 bonus from dynasty, marines 2. And no super doctrine either.
I really don't get how so many people are confused with very straightforward math.
In 8th edition, you get about 21 cultist for 5 intercessors. In 9th edition, you get about 16 cultists for 5 intercessors. It's fairly obvious that cultists have gone up in points more.
In addition, the relative worth of cultists has dropped even more with new blast rules (and general access to blast weapons across the armies), so there's nothing to indicate that the cost hike is objectively justified.
All in all, it appears that marines will come out of all this with yet another buff in the form of relative price reduction.
Dreamchild wrote: I really don't get how so many people are confused with very straightforward math.
In 8th edition, you get about 21 cultist for 5 intercessors. In 9th edition, you get about 16 cultists for 5 intercessors. It's fairly obvious that cultists have gone up in points more.
In addition, the relative worth of cultists has dropped even more with new blast rules (and general access to blast weapons across the armies), so there's nothing to indicate that the cost hike is objectively justified.
All in all, it appears that marines will come out of all this with yet another buff in the form of relative price reduction.
There is still a chance yet that the intercessor weapons have an inflated points cost to match, not necessarily to outweigh the change, but might narrow the gap.
Another factor is opportunity cost, your 60 point cultist unit not moving or shooting to score a vp might be better than your 5 intercessors doing that.
BoomWolf wrote: True, the new actions may make the mere existence of a squad more valuable
An existence so pitifull that they die when secondary or tertiary armament Looks in their average direction.
And no there are no defensive buffs on them worth mentioning, because those will be needed in the actual workers of a csm list to compensate the lack of half the bloddy csm roster in regards to traits.
Dreamchild wrote: I really don't get how so many people are confused with very straightforward math.
In 8th edition, you get about 21 cultist for 5 intercessors. In 9th edition, you get about 16 cultists for 5 intercessors. It's fairly obvious that cultists have gone up in points more.
In addition, the relative worth of cultists has dropped even more with new blast rules (and general access to blast weapons across the armies), so there's nothing to indicate that the cost hike is objectively justified.
All in all, it appears that marines will come out of all this with yet another buff in the form of relative price reduction.
There is still a chance yet that the intercessor weapons have an inflated points cost to match, not necessarily to outweigh the change, but might narrow the gap.
Another factor is opportunity cost, your 60 point cultist unit not moving or shooting to score a vp might be better than your 5 intercessors doing that.
I respectfully disagree. 16 wounds with non-existent save will crumble much faster than 10 wounds with 3+. And even before we factor in various buffs (from terrain to auras, spells, Stratagems and passive army buffs), 5 intercessors can easily wipe out the cost-equivalent cultist unit with shooting & morale combined, whereas cultists can't so much as graze the intercessors. With all those buffs, the outcome leans even further to intercessors' favour, especially given the smaller terrain size.
Dreamchild wrote: I really don't get how so many people are confused with very straightforward math.
In 8th edition, you get about 21 cultist for 5 intercessors. In 9th edition, you get about 16 cultists for 5 intercessors. It's fairly obvious that cultists have gone up in points more.
In addition, the relative worth of cultists has dropped even more with new blast rules (and general access to blast weapons across the armies), so there's nothing to indicate that the cost hike is objectively justified.
All in all, it appears that marines will come out of all this with yet another buff in the form of relative price reduction.
There is still a chance yet that the intercessor weapons have an inflated points cost to match, not necessarily to outweigh the change, but might narrow the gap.
Another factor is opportunity cost, your 60 point cultist unit not moving or shooting to score a vp might be better than your 5 intercessors doing that.
I respectfully disagree. 16 wounds with non-existent save will crumble much faster than 10 wounds with 3+. And even before we factor in various buffs (from terrain to auras, spells, Stratagems and passive army buffs), 5 intercessors can easily wipe out the cost-equivalent cultist unit with shooting & morale combined, whereas cultists can't so much as graze the intercessors. With all those buffs, the outcome leans even further to intercessors' favour, especially given the smaller terrain size.
You're justifying my perspective though, if you raise a flag with those intercessors you lose more firepower than if you do with the cultists.
Not saying 6 point cultists are great or even reasonable in a lot of ways, but table presence is worth something beyond killing power and having a cheap throw away to waste turns earning some VP isn't a bad idea. Again it boils down to opportunity cost, you take an action to score, the 5 intercessors can kill an equivalent point unit of cultists, so do you go for an easy kill but no VP or cap the objective and leave them alive. Because the cultists are cheap and you don't care about a little min squad, you will 9/10 just cap the VP as you're wasting less that way.
Dreamchild wrote: I really don't get how so many people are confused with very straightforward math.
In 8th edition, you get about 21 cultist for 5 intercessors. In 9th edition, you get about 16 cultists for 5 intercessors. It's fairly obvious that cultists have gone up in points more.
In addition, the relative worth of cultists has dropped even more with new blast rules (and general access to blast weapons across the armies), so there's nothing to indicate that the cost hike is objectively justified.
All in all, it appears that marines will come out of all this with yet another buff in the form of relative price reduction.
There is still a chance yet that the intercessor weapons have an inflated points cost to match, not necessarily to outweigh the change, but might narrow the gap.
Another factor is opportunity cost, your 60 point cultist unit not moving or shooting to score a vp might be better than your 5 intercessors doing that.
I respectfully disagree. 16 wounds with non-existent save will crumble much faster than 10 wounds with 3+. And even before we factor in various buffs (from terrain to auras, spells, Stratagems and passive army buffs), 5 intercessors can easily wipe out the cost-equivalent cultist unit with shooting & morale combined, whereas cultists can't so much as graze the intercessors. With all those buffs, the outcome leans even further to intercessors' favour, especially given the smaller terrain size.
You're justifying my perspective though, if you raise a flag with those intercessors you lose more firepower than if you do with the cultists.
Not saying 6 point cultists are great or even reasonable in a lot of ways, but table presence is worth something beyond killing power and having a cheap throw away to waste turns earning some VP isn't a bad idea. Again it boils down to opportunity cost, you take an action to score, the 5 intercessors can kill an equivalent point unit of cultists, so do you go for an easy kill but no VP or cap the objective and leave them alive. Because the cultists are cheap and you don't care about a little min squad, you will 9/10 just cap the VP as you're wasting less that way.
BoomWolf wrote: True, the new actions may make the mere existence of a squad more valuable
Except marines can just pick up secondaries that don't require sacrificing moving and shooting.
You may need to perform actions for primary objectives in some missions, we don't know.
That's certainly a valuable perspective to keep in mind, and thanks for bringing the whole concept about raising flags (and whatever other mechanics 9th may bring) - I admit I haven't thought about it.
But even so, in both cases you're using 100 pts of your army to perform a "non aggressive" action - one where survivability possibly outweighs killing power - and intercessors with 2w 3+ win even on that front.
The only potential drawback for marines I could see in this whole thing is that you can't spend less than 100 pts on intercessors whereas you can on cultists. However, they still remain overcosted regarding their relative worth, and scouts still haven't been phased out, so SMs still have a better option for cheap/durable table presence than CSM I.E cultists do.
tneva82 wrote: They most definitely need to be lot cheaper than marines(who btw have 2 wounds per model vs your 1...So 1 basic primaris marine is 20 pts, 3+, 2 wounds vs your 24 pts for 2 4+ save wounds).
If you ever needed more proof that GW designs things in a vacuum, look no further than this example.
I think it proves that dakka posters complain in a vacuum. Points are based on more the bit of data quoted. that 24 pts buys 2 guns vs 1, there are different other abilities (resurection vs ATSKNF etc). It may work out as bad, but not simply in the vacuum of saves and wounds.
Two guns that the marine can counter by simply standing still and firing twice
His example did make me think twice about the the new points to be fair. The simple of simple you have a 600pt army of 30 intercessors vs my army of 50 necron warriors.... dunno, not seeing the necrons winning 50% of the time if you played a million games. ofc this is not how armies are pointed, like at all. But these could be two kid's forces.
tneva82 wrote: They most definitely need to be lot cheaper than marines(who btw have 2 wounds per model vs your 1...So 1 basic primaris marine is 20 pts, 3+, 2 wounds vs your 24 pts for 2 4+ save wounds).
If you ever needed more proof that GW designs things in a vacuum, look no further than this example.
I think it proves that dakka posters complain in a vacuum. Points are based on more the bit of data quoted. that 24 pts buys 2 guns vs 1, there are different other abilities (resurection vs ATSKNF etc). It may work out as bad, but not simply in the vacuum of saves and wounds.
Two guns that the marine can counter by simply standing still and firing twice
tneva82 wrote: They most definitely need to be lot cheaper than marines(who btw have 2 wounds per model vs your 1...So 1 basic primaris marine is 20 pts, 3+, 2 wounds vs your 24 pts for 2 4+ save wounds).
If you ever needed more proof that GW designs things in a vacuum, look no further than this example.
I think it proves that dakka posters complain in a vacuum. Points are based on more the bit of data quoted. that 24 pts buys 2 guns vs 1, there are different other abilities (resurection vs ATSKNF etc). It may work out as bad, but not simply in the vacuum of saves and wounds.
Two guns that the marine can counter by simply standing still and firing twice
But not at 12".
they'll never get within 12" and if they do, ye getting assaulted and killed next turn with 3 attacks each. As i said we can play this unit vs unit game forever it's been done before a million times. Marines are objectivly better than necron warriors pt for pt already and will be more so in 9th.
now will necrons have some mental strats and thinking man's rules to offset this? probably.
Latro_ wrote: On the playtester front i agree about bias, even if its unintentional and even if they did the most balanced testing ever and fed that back it matters not.
40K for GW is a package, it always has been. The rules are one component of that. They wanna build a package which also has lore, art style, model coolness, buisness and marketability factors.
For them its like the equalizer on an old stereo, they tweak each lever until they get an overall sound they are happy with.
Well can someone please tell them to turn the knob away from Dragon Force and back towards Bolt Thrower?
Mine is stuck on Gloryhammer.
Gaahhh!!! Dang it! I looked that up. Do you know how much black metal I'll have to listen to to bleach that out of my ears? (Actually, that won't be a bad thing).
What, no Baby Metal?
No, I think what Gadzilla666 need is some good old chipmunk metal! The best bleach for your hears! (Yes I chose Evanescence for my example, as they are widely recognized as the best metal band!)
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I think it needs to go beyond Dragon Force. Needs to be Spinal Tap.
Or just crank it to Alestorm.
Better to save Alestorm for AoS. I hear people have been clambering for vampire pirates in that game lately.
Two thoughts crossed my mind when the comparison of 5 Intercessors versus 16 Cultists in 9th came up:
1. That's 5 models versus 16 for scoring purposes
2. The worse a unit is at combat the better they are for performing actions since they have a lower opportunity cost
I won't claim that it's why Cultists will be 6ppm, but I wouldn't be too shocked that those were factors.
Two thoughts crossed my mind when the comparison of 5 Intercessors versus 16 Cultists in 9th came up: 1. That's 5 models versus 16 for scoring purposes 2. The worse a unit is at combat the better they are for performing actions since they have a lower opportunity cost
I won't claim that it's why Cultists will be 6ppm, but I wouldn't be too shocked that those were factors.
that is simply not true.if at all it shows you how useless a unit is for other then occupying space. take gretchins... their whole purpose is exactly that. hold stuff and get in the way. but they can only do that because they are so cheap. because every point invested in them is wasted otherwise. they cant shoot or kill anyone in CC and die if look at them hard enough. but as i said... since they are so damn cheap its ok. but if you increase their points too much i'd rather take soming else that could (if needed be) actually do something. Intercessors have range, dakka, can CC, have high morale, durable and can also be buffed. if i have to hold an object for one turn... ok next turn they can shoot, attack or do anything else, beside just blocking space. and by the way.... if you want to hold objectives... just take scouts if they also increase about 15-20% they cost as much as the cultists
EDIT: i mean yes... i get it... you cant just look at pointcost in a vacuum, granted. But it gives you an indication of things to come. 9th wont be as different as 8th was to 7th.
i really hope the 'perform action' stuff will be important as it brings a whole new element to the game. Tactics and army composition will be effected and new tactics will be requiered, other than shoot stuff and make things go bang to win. which would be welcomed by me and would give your point much more vadility
Cultists are also less vulnerable to multi damage weapons.
To wipe out each unit in turn with your standard D1 weapon will take, respectively, 10 and 16 shots.
But, turn D2 or more damage weapons on them? And it drops to 5 for the Intercessors....but remains 16 for Cultists.
Yes, Intercessors are far more resilient. They’re tougher and have vastly superior armour. But the risk remains. 5 Autocannons can wipe out 5 Intercessors, but they can still only ever kill a total of 10 Cultists (two shots each for the Autocannon). So even in worst case scenarios for the Intercessor and Cultists, the Cultists will still be left with 6 models on the table after that batch of shooting.
In turn, when it comes to more exotic builds (say, Nidzilla, Armoured Company etc), Intercessors are just far more vulnerable, because of the plethora of multi damage weapons. A Carnifex with boosted attacks and all the re- rolls in the world will still chew through the Intercessors faster than the Cultists.
And all that time they remain on the board, the Cultists are still capable of achieving something. Sure, they’re pretty unlikely to go smashing up enemy units....but they can scuttle off into cover, ready to make a late game break for an objective, or block the foe from charging a more critical unit.
Their very disposability is a factor in their points value, or at least it should be. Because all the time they’re being a nuisance of some kind, they’re a distraction for the enemy’s finite kill potential in a given turn. Yes, they’ll die to a stiff breeze, but don’t die in any greater number against really nasty stuff.
Should probably add I’m not saying 6 point Cultists are well priced, as we simply cannot know that now until we’ve seen how everything else stacks up. Just trying to illustrate that points are about more than just kill power and armour save.
actually I find the points increases in general terms a good thing, I used to play Flames of War, that also had a system whereby roughly 1,750-2,000 points was a game. a lot of things were in 5 point increments but it worked.
they decided that was too complicated and re-scaled for 50,75 & 100 point games. the loss of granularity consigned a lot of units to the scrap yard and caused all sorts of problems when they picked the wrong units as the baseline (e.g. there are a lot of lower end Soviet units they simply cannot include without using fractions)
its nice to see a company admitting how this works and accepting you need space at the lower end so uplifting things a bit.
for me I would make something like an unarmed Grot be 10 points and work from there, I would also go back to upgrades being costed against the unit/character who will have them and not universally - I liked the universal costs when they came out, I admit I was wrong, it basically doesn't work - GW have admitted as much with differential pricing in the Guard list for BS3+/BS4+ units.
No idea what a marine, new or old, would come out as on that system but it will be high enough you have space to be flexible with it.
it also provides space to avoid zero cost upgrades, everything can be given a cost, even if only 1 point.
and if they did it right they could even get to the point where a game of 40k was scaled around using '40k' points, bigger numbers are not scary
To wipe out each unit in turn with your standard D1 weapon will take, respectively, 10 and 16 shots.
But, turn D2 or more damage weapons on them? And it drops to 5 for the Intercessors....but remains 16 for Cultists.
Yes, Intercessors are far more resilient. They’re tougher and have vastly superior armour. But the risk remains. 5 Autocannons can wipe out 5 Intercessors, but they can still only ever kill a total of 10 Cultists (two shots each for the Autocannon). So even in worst case scenarios for the Intercessor and Cultists, the Cultists will still be left with 6 models on the table after that batch of shooting.
In turn, when it comes to more exotic builds (say, Nidzilla, Armoured Company etc), Intercessors are just far more vulnerable, because of the plethora of multi damage weapons. A Carnifex with boosted attacks and all the re- rolls in the world will still chew through the Intercessors faster than the Cultists.
And all that time they remain on the board, the Cultists are still capable of achieving something. Sure, they’re pretty unlikely to go smashing up enemy units....but they can scuttle off into cover, ready to make a late game break for an objective, or block the foe from charging a more critical unit.
Their very disposability is a factor in their points value, or at least it should be. Because all the time they’re being a nuisance of some kind, they’re a distraction for the enemy’s finite kill potential in a given turn. Yes, they’ll die to a stiff breeze, but don’t die in any greater number against really nasty stuff.
Should probably add I’m not saying 6 point Cultists are well priced, as we simply cannot know that now until we’ve seen how everything else stacks up. Just trying to illustrate that points are about more than just kill power and armour save.
In your example of firing autocannons at the two units, an autocannon fired by a BS3+ model kills 8.7pts of 20-point intercessors and 6.7 points of 6-point cultists. A difference small enough that if you choose to take the resilent chapter trait (which cultists do not have access to at all) the space marines are tougher pound-for-pound. Vs autcannons. Compared to ing cultists.
And that's with, as you said, the autocannon losing HALF its damage efficiency versus the cultists.
Intercessors are fething absurd. I'm sorry. There's no universe where you can square intercessors at 20pts vs cultists at 6, not with the mechanics we know now. I'll be the first to eat my hat if morale is some super crazy tilted towards hordes thing that eats elite units for breakfast or something, but one, I find that highly unlikely given how much GW reaaaaaally likes space marines, and two, we aren't bringing in the terrain system we do know about which also massively favors marines.
To wipe out each unit in turn with your standard D1 weapon will take, respectively, 10 and 16 shots.
But, turn D2 or more damage weapons on them? And it drops to 5 for the Intercessors....but remains 16 for Cultists.
Yes, Intercessors are far more resilient. They’re tougher and have vastly superior armour. But the risk remains. 5 Autocannons can wipe out 5 Intercessors, but they can still only ever kill a total of 10 Cultists (two shots each for the Autocannon). So even in worst case scenarios for the Intercessor and Cultists, the Cultists will still be left with 6 models on the table after that batch of shooting.
In turn, when it comes to more exotic builds (say, Nidzilla, Armoured Company etc), Intercessors are just far more vulnerable, because of the plethora of multi damage weapons. A Carnifex with boosted attacks and all the re- rolls in the world will still chew through the Intercessors faster than the Cultists.
yes. and then you just used 5 autocannon shots on a troop. those shots could have gone into more heavy stuff... which is a net-positive for marines if you ask me. (troops can draw fire, that would otherwise threaten more important things in my army ) and this point is further moot, becauseof the new blast rules which in turn make the cultist far more vurnable to blast weapons...
And all that time they remain on the board, the Cultists are still capable of achieving something. Sure, they’re pretty unlikely to go smashing up enemy units....but they can scuttle off into cover, ready to make a late game break for an objective, or block the foe from charging a more critical unit.
Their very disposability is a factor in their points value, or at least it should be. Because all the time they’re being a nuisance of some kind, they’re a distraction for the enemy’s finite kill potential in a given turn. Yes, they’ll die to a stiff breeze, but don’t die in any greater number against really nasty stuff.
Should probably add I’m not saying 6 point Cultists are well priced, as we simply cannot know that now until we’ve seen how everything else stacks up. Just trying to illustrate that points are about more than just kill power and armour save.
that all is true for intercessors too thought, only they do a far better job while doing it because they can actually threaten stuff and are much more resilient :/
before, i could get two squads for one with the quadruple amounts of bodies, now its only one squad and triple the amount of bodies... how is that better than before??? All you said is true today in 8th. the comparision only becomes worse for the cultists, because of the rules that were leaked and the point increase! and that is all i am saying.
To wipe out each unit in turn with your standard D1 weapon will take, respectively, 10 and 16 shots.
But, turn D2 or more damage weapons on them? And it drops to 5 for the Intercessors....but remains 16 for Cultists.
Yes, Intercessors are far more resilient. They’re tougher and have vastly superior armour. But the risk remains. 5 Autocannons can wipe out 5 Intercessors, but they can still only ever kill a total of 10 Cultists (two shots each for the Autocannon). So even in worst case scenarios for the Intercessor and Cultists, the Cultists will still be left with 6 models on the table after that batch of shooting.
In turn, when it comes to more exotic builds (say, Nidzilla, Armoured Company etc), Intercessors are just far more vulnerable, because of the plethora of multi damage weapons. A Carnifex with boosted attacks and all the re- rolls in the world will still chew through the Intercessors faster than the Cultists.
And all that time they remain on the board, the Cultists are still capable of achieving something. Sure, they’re pretty unlikely to go smashing up enemy units....but they can scuttle off into cover, ready to make a late game break for an objective, or block the foe from charging a more critical unit.
Their very disposability is a factor in their points value, or at least it should be. Because all the time they’re being a nuisance of some kind, they’re a distraction for the enemy’s finite kill potential in a given turn. Yes, they’ll die to a stiff breeze, but don’t die in any greater number against really nasty stuff.
Should probably add I’m not saying 6 point Cultists are well priced, as we simply cannot know that now until we’ve seen how everything else stacks up. Just trying to illustrate that points are about more than just kill power and armour save.
In your example of firing autocannons at the two units, an autocannon fired by a BS3+ model kills 8.7pts of 20-point intercessors and 6.7 points of 6-point cultists. A difference small enough that if you choose to take the resilent chapter trait (which cultists do not have access to at all) the space marines are tougher pound-for-pound. Vs autcannons. Compared to ing cultists.
And that's with, as you said, the autocannon losing HALF its damage efficiency versus the cultists.
Intercessors are fething absurd. I'm sorry. There's no universe where you can square intercessors at 20pts vs cultists at 6, not with the mechanics we know now. I'll be the first to eat my hat if morale is some super crazy tilted towards hordes thing that eats elite units for breakfast or something, but one, I find that highly unlikely given how much GW reaaaaaally likes space marines, and two, we aren't bringing in the terrain system we do know about which also massively favors marines.
Isn't it kinda funny, that the Premiere Antiprimaris gun that is the AC, is worse against them then against their non prefered target?
It is very hard to see how all the changes previewed - which directly nerf cultists vis a vis 8th edition while buffing intercessors - add up to intercessors getting a much smaller points increase than cultists.
That doesn't mean it's impossible there are a lot of rules they haven't revealed that make low-points-value horde units much more valuable. But literally every piece of information we have so far is to the contrary.
ziggurattt wrote: They don't want to cause more arguments, so instead of talking about 9th edition, the GW guys are going to instead talk about Cyberpunk 2077.
Leth wrote: Intercessors increased in points by 50% more than cultists did, true or false? Cultists received 33% less of a points increase than intercessors did, true or false?
I didn’t say percentages don’t work, I said that they present a skewed picture as I just illustrated. Percentages only work when comparing reasonably close items, otherwise so many other variables can account for the variance in outcomes that a direct comparison is pointless at best and maliciously misleading at worst.
You didn't illustrate anything. The stats you posted are irrelevant. Why are you dividing the pts increase of the intercessors by the pts increase of cultists? What question does that calculation seek to answer?
I can take any 2 random pt values and divide them to come up with a percentage too. That doesn't make the percentage meaningful. But the percent increase in cost however is meaningful. You get a certain amount of utility for the pts you pay. For cultists that utility is now 50% more expensive. For primaris it's 17%. Unless the underlying utility of each unit also changed a comparable amount under the new ruleset the cultists received a nerf relative to primaris. How is this difficult to understand?
I’m with Leth on this one. No matter what they did with Cultist points, they’d go up more than the 17% of Intercessors, because just 1 point is worth 25% for a cultist. The funny thing is, even at 6ppm there’s not much granularity with them, they’re still so damn cheap. But at least every point isn’t worth a quarter of your cost.
You know that if they wanted to they could have increased intercessors by more than 17%, right? There are numbers greater than 20. In fact there's quite a lot of them!
Leth wrote: Intercessors increased in points by 50% more than cultists did, true or false? Cultists received 33% less of a points increase than intercessors did, true or false?
I didn’t say percentages don’t work, I said that they present a skewed picture as I just illustrated. Percentages only work when comparing reasonably close items, otherwise so many other variables can account for the variance in outcomes that a direct comparison is pointless at best and maliciously misleading at worst.
You didn't illustrate anything. The stats you posted are irrelevant. Why are you dividing the pts increase of the intercessors by the pts increase of cultists? What question does that calculation seek to answer?
I can take any 2 random pt values and divide them to come up with a percentage too. That doesn't make the percentage meaningful. But the percent increase in cost however is meaningful. You get a certain amount of utility for the pts you pay. For cultists that utility is now 50% more expensive. For primaris it's 17%. Unless the underlying utility of each unit also changed a comparable amount under the new ruleset the cultists received a nerf relative to primaris. How is this difficult to understand?
I’m with Leth on this one. No matter what they did with Cultist points, they’d go up more than the 17% of Intercessors, because just 1 point is worth 25% for a cultist. The funny thing is, even at 6ppm there’s not much granularity with them, they’re still so damn cheap. But at least every point isn’t worth a quarter of your cost.
You know that if they wanted to they could have increased intercessors by more than 17%, right? There are numbers greater than 20. In fact there's quite a lot of them!
Hell, they could've doubled the cost of everything and get really good granularity there, but instead we get the arbitrary increases that probably have no thought behind them.
"As you can see, the new bike is basically the same as the old bike. We made the rules better so you'll buy it though. Paint it whatever color! We can't wait to see you buy it and replace the thing you already bought that is the same!
Primaris Marines: The Iphone 11 of Warhammer. Now with 3 scopes, and in this metaphor, every weapon option is a headphone jack."
tneva82 wrote: They most definitely need to be lot cheaper than marines(who btw have 2 wounds per model vs your 1...So 1 basic primaris marine is 20 pts, 3+, 2 wounds vs your 24 pts for 2 4+ save wounds).
If you ever needed more proof that GW designs things in a vacuum, look no further than this example.
I think it proves that dakka posters complain in a vacuum. Points are based on more the bit of data quoted. that 24 pts buys 2 guns vs 1, there are different other abilities (resurection vs ATSKNF etc). It may work out as bad, but not simply in the vacuum of saves and wounds.
Marine gets 2 shots at s4 -1ap out to 30"
2 Necrons warriors get 2 at s4-1ap out to 24".....
Sure the warriors can move and still get those 2 shots pushing there range to...
Leth wrote: Intercessors increased in points by 50% more than cultists did, true or false? Cultists received 33% less of a points increase than intercessors did, true or false?
I didn’t say percentages don’t work, I said that they present a skewed picture as I just illustrated. Percentages only work when comparing reasonably close items, otherwise so many other variables can account for the variance in outcomes that a direct comparison is pointless at best and maliciously misleading at worst.
You didn't illustrate anything. The stats you posted are irrelevant. Why are you dividing the pts increase of the intercessors by the pts increase of cultists? What question does that calculation seek to answer?
I can take any 2 random pt values and divide them to come up with a percentage too. That doesn't make the percentage meaningful. But the percent increase in cost however is meaningful. You get a certain amount of utility for the pts you pay. For cultists that utility is now 50% more expensive. For primaris it's 17%. Unless the underlying utility of each unit also changed a comparable amount under the new ruleset the cultists received a nerf relative to primaris. How is this difficult to understand?
Honestly why is anyone trying to compare percentages of points increase between two units in two different codexes whose points costs aren't even that close to each other to start with?
Because that's the entire purpose of points....
I think it's that time of day where you need more coffee
.
), and that the connection between the torso/spine and the hips is FAR more robust than the current generation Warriors. Yet at the same time they, paradoxically, have more options. 
Just because they didn't have a rules preview today doesn't mean that they're done with them...
