BlackoCatto wrote: Yes, resources spent that could always make the new Primaris Space [Insert Word with 'er' or 'or'] Marine.
It has been a while since the last Lieutenant. Maybe someone on Dakka should do a wellness check on the team in Nottingham just to make sure they're ok?
Pyroalchi wrote: But then again, what do I know of economy. *shrugg*
this has more to do with the brand of GW
WGA can sell Guard models for cheap, if GW would buy them and sell Premium Plastic Models at a Premium Price, they cannot sell them for less than their own models, so WGA Guard would than cost the same as Cadians
the other problem is that those companies don't do in house plastic casting, so GW cannot just buy them and continue, they can only buy the design and stock, and need to make their own moulds for the casting in house, which is already overloaded with the plastics they are doing from their own designs
and they would gain nothing, no cheap alternative to keep the numbers of players high enough for others to buy GW models without a 2nd thought, while adding stuff to produce to a facility that is already fully booked
GW would rather hire new sculptors than buy whole miniature companies. And "profitable" on the miniature market really doesn't mean anything in comparison to other fields where this is common practice. It's too niche to be that interesting, in the end.
Besides, I believe GW will eventually sell other regiments than Cadia in the future. Just not in one big release, because that's clearly not how they work anymore.
New cadians are just more in line with what they have done previously on other human sized miniatures in Kill Team and Black Fortress. They'll never beat my catgirl regiment, though. No 3rd party would as well.
WGA can sell Guard models for cheap, if GW would buy them and sell Premium Plastic Models at a Premium Price, they cannot sell them for less than their own models, so WGA Guard would than cost the same as Cadians
the other problem is that those companies don't do in house plastic casting, so GW cannot just buy them and continue, they can only buy the design and stock, and need to make their own moulds for the casting in house, which is already overloaded with the plastics they are doing from their own designs
and they would gain nothing, no cheap alternative to keep the numbers of players high enough for others to buy GW models without a 2nd thought, while adding stuff to produce to a facility that is already fully booked
Just to make sure: my comment on "what do I know of economy" was not meant sarcastically, I really don't have much knowledge there.
I imagined it to be something like: lets say company X produces obvious "not Cadians". The whole company is worth 10 million, they make a profit of 1 million a year, even though their minis are not legal in tournaments etc. But they are surfing on the WH40k wave which as a brand is carried by PR that GW is paying for. As I said, I don't know anything about economy, but what would technically keep GW from just buying everything for the 10 million and NOT try to produce it themselves? Never touch a running system, you know? The stuff is produced at the moment, so obviously it works somehow. Just because the overall owner changes, the production and distribution model doesn't have to.
And on the plus side: instead of designing themselves (with the risk of their design being met with little love by the costumer) they can directly buy one of the companys who has survived the selection process. There were numerous companies trying to sell "not guardsmen" yet some of them have proven to have better received designs. It seems to me less risky to buy those instead of trying yourself.
Again: *shrugg*, maybe I'm completely wrong, quite likely actually. Still I find it hard to understand where.
Pyroalchi wrote: Again: *shrugg*, maybe I'm completely wrong, quite likely actually. Still I find it hard to understand where.
first of all, the owner need to be willing to sell it to GW and why cannot just buy them and keep everything the same is written in my previous post, or in short, they don't want those Minis under the GW brand
they already had enough trouble integrating ForgeWorld from a Sub-Company that is doing their own stuff, into the GW studio, following the GW "plans", they won't to this with a 3rd party company anytime soon
Undead_Love-Machine wrote: I don't think that it would be a financial gamble for GW to produce different regiments in plastic.
It's what, three different kits per regiment (troops, command, heavy weapons)?
There are plenty of examples accross the board of plastic GW kits that are way more niche, the price of HIPs production is much lower for GW than it used to be.
I want multiple regiments.
But, you can't just think of this as them supporting 6 regiments. How many games is the company making now compared to six years ago?
40K 30K AoS The Old World (Future Addition) Adeptus Titanicus Aeronautical Imperialis Necromunda Blood Bowl Kill Team Underworlds Warcry Specialist games (Blackstone, Quest, etc)
I feel like a lot of times people do not stop to really think about how much stuff the company has or is building/creating at any given time, while at the same time understanding that, as the hobby is growing, it's still quite a small niche market when compared to something like Video Games or Star Wars. Adding in some more regiments might not seem like a lot, but when you consider there is something like 20 factions in 40K alone, another 18 or so in AoS and dozens upon Dozens in the other systems, three more can be a lot. I'm honestly shocked that they haven't just gone entirely with Cadia as the default guard regiment and then built sub factions based around concepts like Armored Company, Infantry Company, Heavy Weapons Company, Aerial Company, etc. I'm even more shocked that they brought Custodes, GSC, Squats back alongside the rumors about a revamp of Inquisition. It's a lot of stuff!
It could be a leaf, could be a feather or plume idk. Also it's not certain that those obvious fronds are at ground level. They aren't reminiscent of Empire to me though (though a Conquistador Sigmar cities vs Lizards would be pretty cool).
Yeah but that team has clear cut fern fronds, as well as feathers that aren't looking so dissimilar at all to the 'leaf' in question here https://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/WHU-The-Starblood-Stalkers-EN-2021 so still I'm not convinced that it's definitely a leaf, could still go either way imo. /Edit - more I look, and compare it to these skinks, more I think it's a feather, I'd bet money in fact. Calling it for feather!
Agamemnon2 wrote: That's obviously a fern, stop clutching at straws.
Just to be clear, people aren’t talking about the main part of the photo (as far as I know) which is clearly a fern, but the smaller part to the left which does kinda look like a feather (although from context I’m assuming it’s a plant still).
Agamemnon2 wrote: That's obviously a fern, stop clutching at straws.
Just to be clear, people aren’t talking about the main part of the photo (as far as I know) which is clearly a fern, but the smaller part to the left which does kinda look like a feather (although from context I’m assuming it’s a plant still).
Yeah, it could be a feather... but from context it's almost certainly a leaf. There's a frond and a blade of grass, so it's pretty logical that the other thing is going to be a leaf.
Agamemnon2 wrote: That's obviously a fern, stop clutching at straws.
Just to be clear, people aren’t talking about the main part of the photo (as far as I know) which is clearly a fern, but the smaller part to the left which does kinda look like a feather (although from context I’m assuming it’s a plant still).
Yeah but why would anyone stick ferns into their decolative helmet feathers?
Kanluwen wrote: From a Reddit exchange with OK_E(I'm just reposting, was not mine!):
Q: any idea if any FW krieg units will be in the 9th ed guard codex? Will this supersede the Imperial Armour Compendium regiment traits?
None
So, no additional Krieg units in the Guard book...there might be something to the rumour of a supplement book for some of the big Guard Regiments?
None as in no kreig or none as in no idea?
Given that the question was if FW Krieg units will be in the Guard Codex?
The "none" would be for that.
silverstu is correct in that there was another post:
There is a unit which has the krieg keyword in it
Awhile back they stated that the new Cadian Shock Troop kit(not the Kasrkin!) were getting a unit datasheet of their own...so who knows what's going to happen!
A bit more:
Rough riders yes, death riders no
And a lil' bit more, the Rough Riders apparently can build Atillan Rough Riders as well as Krieg looking RR.
This chain came after the "there is a unit with the Krieg keyword in it":
Death Riders FTW!
Dual build kit with rough riders? Or just no rough riders at all?
Ok_Entrepreneur3004 2 points · 1 day ago Rough riders yes, death riders no
Then there was this, after that bit was settled:
Will there be attilan rough rider bits?
Ok_Entrepreneur3004 1 point · 4 hours ago Yup
I know there's a lot of potential conjecture, but the line of discussion points towards:
-There are not Death Riders in the codex. There are Rough Riders. There are Attillan Rough Rider bits in there, and there's also Death Korps Rough Rider parts.
Reddit makes some of this stuff a lot harder to follow, so maybe I'm just reading into it something which is not really there...but it does kind of jibe with what we've seen. Cadian Shock Troops are supposed to always have the Cadian keyword. It would make sense for Death Korps of Krieg Siege Troopers(or whatever) to have the same thing happen.
Add in the rumors of Grenadiers/Engineers, no confirmation on the Kasrkin being said to have their own datasheet(just that whatever they are is "restricted to 3, tops"), the rumored "Death Riders"(which might just have been Rough Riders from the get-go!) and it looks like they're adding some potential localized variants of things.
I know its only a corner of it, but does that vehicle look more rounded than usual? I hope they aren't changing the style of Guard vehicles. They did with the sentinel where it's much rounder and less angular.
Bobthehero wrote: Those backpacks are very similar to the Forgeworld ones, but the rest of the Cadians seem new.
When the previous potato-cam image of guardsmen came out, the rumor suggested there were not just Kasrkin, but also Veteran cadians. GW revealed the Kasrkin, Ursula Creed, and the Sentinel, but the new heavy weapons teams and Cadian Veterans were held back from reveal.
Those backpacks are very likely for the new Cadian Veterans team.
Bobthehero wrote: Those backpacks are very similar to the Forgeworld ones, but the rest of the Cadians seem new.
When the previous potato-cam image of guardsmen came out, the rumor suggested there were not just Kasrkin, but also Veteran cadians. GW revealed the Kasrkin, Ursula Creed, and the Sentinel, but the new heavy weapons teams and Cadian Veterans were held back from reveal.
Those backpacks are very likely for the new Cadian Veterans team.
Whatever weapon they have also don't seem to be lasguns, or a different pattern of it. Someone made the guess elsewhere that those could be Shotgun vets.
Kanluwen wrote: This chain came after the "there is a unit with the Krieg keyword in it":
Death Riders FTW!
Dual build kit with rough riders? Or just no rough riders at all?
Ok_Entrepreneur3004
2 points
·
1 day ago
Rough riders yes, death riders no
Then there was this, after that bit was settled:
Will there be attilan rough rider bits?
Ok_Entrepreneur3004
1 point
·
4 hours ago
Yup
I know there's a lot of potential conjecture, but the line of discussion points towards:
-There are not Death Riders in the codex. There are Rough Riders. There are Attillan Rough Rider bits in there, and there's also Death Korps Rough Rider parts.
Reddit makes some of this stuff a lot harder to follow, so maybe I'm just reading into it something which is not really there...but it does kind of jibe with what we've seen. Cadian Shock Troops are supposed to always have the Cadian keyword. It would make sense for Death Korps of Krieg Siege Troopers(or whatever) to have the same thing happen.
Add in the rumors of Grenadiers/Engineers, no confirmation on the Kasrkin being said to have their own datasheet(just that whatever they are is "restricted to 3, tops"), the rumored "Death Riders"(which might just have been Rough Riders from the get-go!) and it looks like they're adding some potential localized variants of things.
Umm wut? Where is it even implied that there are Death Korps Rough Rider parts??
Someone assumed Death Riders were there and asked if it was a dual build kit with rough riders.
OK_E responded there were rough riders, but not death riders.
Then someone asked if there were ATTILAN rough rider bits.
OK_E said yes.
There is *nowhere* here in which anything points to there being Rough Rider parts in the kit - in fact OK_E quite deliberately says no there are not.
Mentlegen324 wrote: I know its only a corner of it, but does that vehicle look more rounded than usual? I hope they aren't changing the style of Guard vehicles. They did with the sentinel where it's much rounder and less angular.
Guard tanks have always been different. Due to its height the Leman Russ has far more rounded track section ends than the Chimera's (see below). From the picture it seems that the new tank will be lower than a Russ, more like a Chimera, but feature tracks that employ the rounded, bulkier look of the Russ to make it appear heavier than a Chimera.
That doesn't rule out a generally more rounded appearance, of course. Evidently GW's designers were of the opinion that it's a good look for the Sentinel, so we'll have to see if they followed the same design for the new tank.
Why? Basically a Leman Russ (and the first Land Raider) is a chibi take on the Mark V. As a WW2 tank the Churchill may be more advanced but it's still largely designed around trench warfare. GW's designers have modernized Marine tanks to resemble more modern era tanks. I think we can count ourselves lucky if they went with a backwards WW2 design instead as that will at least neatly fit into the current lineup. And at least the little bit we can see so far keeps that hope alive.
Geifer wrote: For what it's worth I had the exact same thought.
Why? Basically a Leman Russ (and the first Land Raider) is a chibi take on the Mark V. As a WW2 tank the Churchill may be more advanced but it's still largely designed around trench warfare. GW's designers have modernized Marine tanks to resemble more modern era tanks. I think we can count ourselves lucky if they went with a backwards WW2 design instead as that will at least neatly fit into the current lineup. And at least the little bit we can see so far keeps that hope alive.
I think you're giving GW designers way too much credit, they can barely even design a gun nowadays
Any word from our Reddit seer whether Traitor Guard are featured in the new Guard book?
Also, as far as Kasrkin not having their datasheet, it makes me wonder if the data sheet will be just a generic “Grenadiers” or “Storm Troopers” one.
Someone pointed out the other day the teaser from yesterday for the Sunday Kill Team reveal has the Imperial Navy symbol on it. Maybe the Kasrkin kit is just supposed to be a generic special forces kit that can be used to represent Kasrkin, Grenadiers, Naval Security etc. After all it would make a lot more sense for a Naval Security team to board a Space Hulk than a random unit of Kasrkin. Could just be the painting team painted them that way because the iconic look.
Sabotage! wrote: Any word from our Reddit seer whether Traitor Guard are featured in the new Guard book?
Also, as far as Kasrkin not having their datasheet, it makes me wonder if the data sheet will be just a generic “Grenadiers” or “Storm Troopers” one.
Someone pointed out the other day the teaser from yesterday for the Sunday Kill Team reveal has the Imperial Navy symbol on it. Maybe the Kasrkin kit is just supposed to be a generic special forces kit that can be used to represent Kasrkin, Grenadiers, Naval Security etc. After all it would make a lot more sense for a Naval Security team to board a Space Hulk than a random unit of Kasrkin. Could just be the painting team painted them that way because the iconic look.
I think you missed the part that they will forever be the lost and damned, that is as in: Released as part of different game systems, but never allowed to join the real thing. (Apart from a short lived forgeworld stunt)
Hey, they were the real deal back in 3rd/4th with the Eye of Terror book!
You are probably right though, it would be like GW to put out an awesome kit for Traitor Guard and not giving them 40k rules, despite Traitor Guard outnumbering Chaos Space Marines by many orders of magnitude.
I’m happy playing them in Kill Team, don’t get me wrong, it’s a much better game than 40k in my opinion. Just a shame they likely won’t be included, as it’s a nice kit and with the new cultist stuff could make some very fluffy Lost and the Damned armies.
I mean it makes sense for GW to just combine deathriders and roughriders into 1 datasheet..
I don’t expect the same unit in 2 variants to exist in the future. I’ll be presently surprised though if they include dkok head options.
I do hope the unit that has the dkok keyword is the engineers or some form of combined grenediers/engineer kit..
I just really like the idea of shotgun and gas grenade veteran type deepstriking unit… give them hotshot lasguns option as well and a special mole launcher type weapon and I’ll be happy.
Now that supplements are a thing, it would make sense to make a Traitor Guard supplement for the Astra Militarum codex. They probably could use a tad more personalisation and bespoke rules than a random Imperial regiment, but should have most of the same base stuff than the normal Guard.
gungo wrote: I mean it makes sense for GW to just combine deathriders and roughriders into 1 datasheet..
I don’t expect the same unit in 2 variants to exist in the future. I’ll be presently surprised though if they include dkok head options.
I do hope the unit that has the dkok keyword is the engineers or some form of combined grenediers/engineer kit..
I just really like the idea of shotgun and gas grenade veteran type deepstriking unit… give them hotshot lasguns option as well and a special mole launcher type weapon and I’ll be happy.
It couldn't be just Death Riders with a head swap without a stark unit redesign, which the art in kill team does not suggest it would be.
They'd need the rebreather unit, different legs, different torso's (4+ save carapace on death riders) different arms to go with the trench coat... Basically, would need whole new riders, and then the steeds are also different with clawed hooves and hairless bodies.
Unless the Attileans had a big redesign of their kit. Datasheet wise, maybe they could be combined with the different options?
If the Rough Rider rumour pans out, I'm expecting a box/kit that can build three (a la Serberys Raiders / Sulphurhounds).
An alternate build option could be included, but I can't imagine two very visually distinct regiments such as the Atillans and
DKOK in the same box. Standard horse body with plain head and gasmask head might work for the mount, but the riders..
If the Rough Rider rumour pans out, I'm expecting a box/kit that can build three (a la Serberys Raiders / Sulphurhounds).
An alternate build option could be included, but I can't imagine two very visually distinct regiments such as the Atillans and
DKOK in the same box. Standard horse body with plain head and gasmask head might work for the mount, but the riders..
I imagine it will be all models having long coats, with a Generic/Attilan torso front and head combo that has light armour, and a DKOK one with heavier armour and gas mask heads.
A sprue of horses and a sprue of riders? The sprue of riders changes between Rough Riders and Death Riders box. This kind of... thing, isn't completly alien to GW, they did it at least once with Stormcast heroes, that have an identical torso sprue but everything else is on another sprue that changes between boxes
Crimson wrote: Now that supplements are a thing, it would make sense to make a Traitor Guard supplement for the Astra Militarum codex. They probably could use a tad more personalisation and bespoke rules than a random Imperial regiment, but should have most of the same base stuff than the normal Guard.
The could also do something like they did with the Belakor AoR and just allow them to pick up the cultist units from Codex: CSM.
Yeah... except supplements aren't really a thing. They're an 8th edition thing that had no momentum (beyond, oops, people care about Black Templars, might as well shovel that one out, too) and weren't done for any other faction but loyalist marines (chaos ones just got their options chopped- bye bye Crimson Slaughter, Purge, etc).
Someone out there claims we'll see them redone for the Loyalist 2.0 codex, but that still doesn't mean that any other army is going to be blessed/cursed by them.
MajorWesJanson wrote: I dont know why, but the feel I am getting from the pic is that it is inspired by the Churchill, with added sponsons.
Spoiler:
That was my immediate thought as well, before I'd even noticed the multimeltas. Looks like the guard have had some progression like the SM, they have now moved from WWI to WWII!
If the Rough Rider rumour pans out, I'm expecting a box/kit that can build three (a la Serberys Raiders / Sulphurhounds).
An alternate build option could be included, but I can't imagine two very visually distinct regiments such as the Atillans and
DKOK in the same box. Standard horse body with plain head and gasmask head might work for the mount, but the riders..
Why? The rumor (from a very reliable source) directly stated there are no DKoK rough riders/death riders in the kit.
It said there was not a Death Riders unit in the codex.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote: This chain came after the "there is a unit with the Krieg keyword in it":
Death Riders FTW!
Dual build kit with rough riders? Or just no rough riders at all?
Ok_Entrepreneur3004
2 points
·
1 day ago
Rough riders yes, death riders no
Then there was this, after that bit was settled:
Will there be attilan rough rider bits?
Ok_Entrepreneur3004
1 point
·
4 hours ago
Yup
I know there's a lot of potential conjecture, but the line of discussion points towards:
-There are not Death Riders in the codex. There are Rough Riders. There are Attillan Rough Rider bits in there, and there's also Death Korps Rough Rider parts.
Reddit makes some of this stuff a lot harder to follow, so maybe I'm just reading into it something which is not really there...but it does kind of jibe with what we've seen. Cadian Shock Troops are supposed to always have the Cadian keyword. It would make sense for Death Korps of Krieg Siege Troopers(or whatever) to have the same thing happen.
Add in the rumors of Grenadiers/Engineers, no confirmation on the Kasrkin being said to have their own datasheet(just that whatever they are is "restricted to 3, tops"), the rumored "Death Riders"(which might just have been Rough Riders from the get-go!) and it looks like they're adding some potential localized variants of things.
This is getting silly. He NEVER says there are Death Rider bits in the kit. In fact, he directly says that the kit does not build Death Riders.
To remove any doubt, heres the exchange on Reddit:
Its very clear that the other poster, ArynCrinn, assumed that Death Riders were the unit with the Krieg keyword and would be getting a kit. They asked if the supposed Death Rider kit would be dual build with Rough Riders. They were *NOT* as you theorized asking about Death Riders being in the Codex, and OK_E did *NOT* reply in a fashion that would be indicative of the presence of rules.
OK_E replied by clarifying "Rough Riders yes, Death Riders no" - meaning, "Its a Rough Riders kit, not a Death Riders kit".
The only bits or parts which OK_E confirmed the presence of at all are Attilan rough rider bits. Its unclear if that means that the Rough Riders are *only* Attilan or if they can be built as Attilan or Generic as some were speculating, etc. But what is clear is that at no point in this does he actually state anywhere that there are Death Rider parts in a forthcoming kit (if he does - please show me where because I went back through 6-9 months of his posts and found *NOTHING* to indicate that). In fact, if we go back far enough, we see another example of him clearly denying Death Rider miniatures exist - this is in response to the rumor engine image of what looks to be the tip of a hunting lance:
Note the exchange, Jazano107 asked "Krieg or regular". Ok_Entrepreneur replies "Attilan" - which is a mighty odd thing to say if the actual answer is "Krieg or Attilan", dont you think?
In short you're reading in a lot of information that is either unclear at best or is frankly not there at all. Stop.
Sure, maybe there are - but right now our most reliable rumor source on the topic seems to be indicating that there aren't based on the statements he's actually made.
Real question: why does anyone want plastic death riders? The current models are perfect already, why would anyone want a lower-detail plastic copy? Is price really that important?
They'd also be more modular for the most part, and FW resin unfortunately is very inconsistent when it comes to warping/bubbles, not as bad as finecast, but it's not a great sign when recasters often do a better job of quality control.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Because they'd be readily available and not made of resin.
So, lower detail and subject to the same stock issues as any other GW product? Gotcha. Still don't see the appeal.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grimskul wrote: They'd also be more modular for the most part, and FW resin unfortunately is very inconsistent when it comes to warping/bubbles, not as bad as finecast, but it's not a great sign when recasters often do a better job of quality control.
GW plastic also has major quality control issues. You get fewer warped parts but more mold lines and total cleanup time is about the same as FW resin. IMO the people who think plastic is easier are mostly the ones who carelessly tear parts off the sprue and glue them together as fast as possible with no attempt to make them look decent.
H.B.M.C. wrote: You seem to be caught in a vortex of time that puts you back 10-15 years ago when plastics weren't very detailed.
They aren't as detailed right now. Look at the plastic DKoK next to the FW originals and it's embarrassing how bad the plastic kit is. I have no idea why anyone would want to make a similar replacement with the death riders.
And like FW is any better with supply issues.
I never said it is, you're the one who claimed there's a difference in availability.
CadianSgtBob wrote: Real question: why does anyone want plastic death riders? The current models are perfect already, why would anyone want a lower-detail plastic copy? Is price really that important?
Because it ensures my 20 deathriders stay legal and don’t go straight to legends death.. when GW decides to retire the resin kit because they have a new plastic cavalry they want to sell.
I mean I’ll just end up with attilan rough riders using my death korps of kreig models regardless but it just means they won’t benefit from any kreig traits either.
If you own the resin version and like it… why do you care if they make a plastic version. Odds are I’ll just buy 4-5 kreig rough riders and designate them as my command squad.
gungo wrote: If you own the resin version and like it… why do you care if they make a plastic version.
Because GW has a nasty habit of letting older kits go OOP when they get a new resin version and I don't want to see the current ones disappear. But mostly I'm just baffled that people actually want these plastic kits for the sake of owning them, not just to preserve the rules for their FW collection.
CadianSgtBob wrote: Real question: why does anyone want plastic death riders? The current models are perfect already, why would anyone want a lower-detail plastic copy? Is price really that important?
Because plastic is a superior medium for miniatures and doesn't cost ridiculous amounts for sub-standard products. Might as well ask why we don't want them in pewter.
Scottywan82 wrote: Because plastic is a superior medium for miniatures and doesn't cost ridiculous amounts for sub-standard products. Might as well ask why we don't want them in pewter.
It's a lower cost medium. It's inferior if you want detail quality instead of minimum cost. And if you're paying GW prices for plastic it's not like you're getting a cheap product anyway so why settle for lower quality?
Because then it would be even more expensive?
I don't think the quality is that much better to demand, what, double the price?
Also, isn't resin a lot lighter and more delicate? Or is that just finecast? I remember picking up a finecast model once and being surprised by how little it weighed. Not to mention all of those stories of the damned stuff being so fragile and prone to warping / holes.
Or does proper resin have some mass and durability behind it?
At this point so what? It's not like we're getting $5 infantry squads or anything, if I'm paying $50 for a basic troops squad I'd rather pay $100 for a higher quality one. And I'd certainly rather see GW do something genuinely new and interesting instead of wasting a precious non-marine release slot on a lower quality ripoff of an existing kit. If I want cheap but poor quality there are plenty of third-party not-DKoK STLs available.
Also, isn't resin a lot lighter and more delicate? Or is that just finecast? I remember picking up a finecast model once and being surprised by how little it weighed. Not to mention all of those stories of the damned stuff being so fragile and prone to warping / holes.
Or does proper resin have some mass and durability behind it?
Yeah, Finecast is not resin. It's a weird pseudo-resin cast in molds that weren't designed for it, with the inevitable result of a 100% miscast rate and pieces that crumble or bend if you look at them too hard. Real resin like FW (and every other manufacturer) uses is slightly more fragile than plastic but it's not a problem unless you're really careless with your models. And I've certainly seen enough plastic kits with snapped off gun barrels/antennas/etc from careless handling.
I'm just saying, there would have be a pretty substantial increase in quality to demand 100 bucks for a set of basic troops. I just don't see how that's possible or worth it.
If it were just like, I dunno, 10 dollars more, I'd understand that. But knowing GW, it would probably be something ridiculous.
Look at the plastic DKoK, some of GW's newest work, next to the 10-15 year old resin originals and that's how. The original kits make the plastic ones look like a lame third-party STL ripoff. Same thing for the FWLRBT variants vs. the GW plastic kit, FW hazardous environment Cadians vs. the plastic kit, etc, although those plastic kits at least have the excuse of being old and in desperate need of replacement. Resin just has way better detail and if I'm paying for a premium product anyway I want that highest level of quality.
H.B.M.C. wrote: There's only one person who thinks plastic is bad...
I mean there are a lot of people who think plastic has a lot of negatives for our environment.
I don't think resin is any better on that front. Polystyrene is at least recyclable.
T'other day I was mulling over the idea that GW stores should have sprue collection bins for people to dump empty sprues in. They can then use their existing distribution networks to return the sprues to their factory for recycling back into the product manufacture.
T'other day I was mulling over the idea that GW stores should have sprue collection bins for people to dump empty sprues in. They can then use their existing distribution networks to return the sprues to their factory for recycling back into the product manufacture.
Personally I think GW's plastic kits are fantastic in terms of detail - and, unlike resin, at least they're consistent about them. You can fault them for a lot of things, but the quality of the detail on their plastic kits is absolutely not one of them.
T'other day I was mulling over the idea that GW stores should have sprue collection bins for people to dump empty sprues in. They can then use their existing distribution networks to return the sprues to their factory for recycling back into the product manufacture.
That would be excellent!
My old local GW used to have exactly that, people would drop off old sprues, some even with bits still on and you could come along and pick them clean.
H.B.M.C. wrote: There's only one person who thinks plastic is bad...
I mean there are a lot of people who think plastic has a lot of negatives for our environment.
I don't think resin is any better on that front. Polystyrene is at least recyclable.
T'other day I was mulling over the idea that GW stores should have sprue collection bins for people to dump empty sprues in. They can then use their existing distribution networks to return the sprues to their factory for recycling back into the product manufacture.
That would be great. I personally keep my sprues and use them as conversion fodder.
You can also use acetone to melt them down into "sprue goo" and use it to make stuff like capes and whatnot, but I haven't tried that myself.
T'other day I was mulling over the idea that GW stores should have sprue collection bins for people to dump empty sprues in. They can then use their existing distribution networks to return the sprues to their factory for recycling back into the product manufacture.
A (few?) companies tried to did this about ten years ago and the issue that was encountered was that the environmental cost of shipping empty sprues back combined with the recycling process (which iirc involves burning away an additive that is not present in the pellet source) is greater than the benefit.
I came here for Imperial Guard rumors, not one guy bitching about the quality of plastic kits.
And yet here we are, discussing plastic death riders despite the most credible source saying they don't exist. Why? Because people want to dream about plastic kits. So yes, the quality issues with plastic are entirely relevant when the only reason for discussing plastic death riders is whether or not plastic would be better.
Plastic recycling in general is a mess as its hyper-regionalized and localized, etc. DIfferent countries, regions, states, even municipalities have different recycling contracts with processors that have different capabilities, depending on the type of plastic and the form its in (some will recycle one type of plastic only if its in the form of a bottle but not if its in the form of a take-out container, etc.). Generally speaking, HIPS like GW minis/sprues isn't recycled, and where it is its done only for specific products. IIRC certain yogurt container brands were the big/mainstream recycled HIPS product, but they will only accept HIPS yogurt containers from certain brands with certain markings on them, they won't recycle your discarded sprue into a yogurt container. Bandais sprue recycling in Japan is another example - they will only recycle Bandai sprues and sprues that htey produce for others under license, etc. because they (like most HIPS product producers) have their own proprietary HIPS blend and recycling sprue from other manufacturers would screw up their blend and cause quality defects.
OK_E wrote: was going to mention this You can have two guards with special weapons in the cadian shock troop unit and no heavy weapon so it makes sense to combine it with the kasrkin
This was, for context, in a Reddit thread about someone speculating after seeing the Angron v Cadian photos.
It has rather solidified my thinking that whereever OK_E is in relation to upcoming releases? It's not somewhere that they see physical products but rather see book related material.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Indeed why would anyone want resin when we could have METAL
I for one, would absolutely welcome the return of metal character minis. Plastic is nice and all, but i want those crispy detail for my characters.
I remember a guy making a Necron army out of sprues.
The spruecrons? I have a picture of spruecrons somewhere. Don't know if it was a guy of /tg/ or not who made them, but thats where I remember seeing them years ago.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Indeed why would anyone want resin when we could have METAL
I for one, would absolutely welcome the return of metal character minis. Plastic is nice and all, but i want those crispy detail for my characters.
I remember a guy making a Necron army out of sprues.
The spruecrons? I have a picture of spruecrons somewhere. Don't know if it was a guy of /tg/ or not who made them, but thats where I remember seeing them years ago.
I think a bunch of people who've made spruecrons over the years, it's a dead simple hobby project and a great way to get rid of sprues if you're not using them for terrain/supports/whatever.
The Tzeentch cubes army still reigns supreme. I vaguely remember the person who made it got death threats from angry GW consumers, but I hope that's just embellishment added to memory by my dying brain.
Agamemnon2 wrote: The Tzeentch cubes army still reigns supreme. I vaguely remember the person who made it got death threats from angry GW consumers, but I hope that's just embellishment added to memory by my dying brain.
The Cubes were certainly one of the more interesting takes on a daemons army. And while they were divisive among community members, I don't know that he ever got death threats did he?
Also another worthy contender for most offbeat daemon army goes too this guy.
What is it with Australians and weird daemon armies?
What is it with Australians and weird daemon armies?
Probably has something to do with the price. Aussies pay more, I think. So if there's an opportunity to cobble something together they'll go for it, and daemons by their nature are meant to be formless and varied.
Agamemnon2 wrote: The Tzeentch cubes army still reigns supreme. I vaguely remember the person who made it got death threats from angry GW consumers, but I hope that's just embellishment added to memory by my dying brain.
The Cubes were certainly one of the more interesting takes on a daemons army. And while they were divisive among community members, I don't know that he ever got death threats did he?
Also another worthy contender for most offbeat daemon army goes too this guy.
What is it with Australians and weird daemon armies?
These are awesome! I love how out-there they are. My one worry would be struggling to identify them as a player, but the concept is excellent.
You won't be running pure cadians (of course you could) You will be able to mix and match different regiments into one force.
Your army bonus doesn't care that half is catachan and the other krieg, you'll still get your army rule.
The only benefit in running say a unit of catachan is to use a strat like "vicious traps"
In enemy charge phase spend X cp When a unit is charged and is in terrain, roll a d6 +1 if unit is catachan or guerrillas +1 if unit has a melta mine +1 if sly marbo is on the battlefield
On a 2-5 the enemy unit suffers d3 mortal wounds, on a 6+ the enemy unit suffers 2d3 mortal wounds
Field Ordnance is not the new heavy weapons team, per OK_E.
Kanluwen wrote: Field reports are coming in. The spymaster is pleased.
You won't be running pure cadians (of course you could) You will be able to mix and match different regiments into one force.
Your army bonus doesn't care that half is catachan and the other krieg, you'll still get your army rule.
The only benefit in running say a unit of catachan is to use a strat like "vicious traps"
In enemy charge phase spend X cp When a unit is charged and is in terrain, roll a d6 +1 if unit is catachan or guerrillas +1 if unit has a melta mine +1 if sly marbo is on the battlefield
On a 2-5 the enemy unit suffers d3 mortal wounds, on a 6+ the enemy unit suffers 2d3 mortal wounds
That sounds suspicoiously like there is no longer any regimental benefit at all? I'll wait and see, but that would really surprise me in a very non pleasing way.
People were wondering about new Cadians when there was an upgrade sprue... does this mean the IG combat patrol is getting the Ork treatment with push-fit models and the current guardsmen kit remains on sale too?
Kanluwen wrote: Field reports are coming in. The spymaster is pleased.
You won't be running pure cadians (of course you could) You will be able to mix and match different regiments into one force.
Your army bonus doesn't care that half is catachan and the other krieg, you'll still get your army rule.
The only benefit in running say a unit of catachan is to use a strat like "vicious traps"
In enemy charge phase spend X cp When a unit is charged and is in terrain, roll a d6 +1 if unit is catachan or guerrillas +1 if unit has a melta mine +1 if sly marbo is on the battlefield
On a 2-5 the enemy unit suffers d3 mortal wounds, on a 6+ the enemy unit suffers 2d3 mortal wounds
That sounds suspicoiously like there is no longer any regimental benefit at all? I'll wait and see, but that would really surprise me in a very non pleasing way.
Pretty much depends on whether the designers suffer from drug abuse or nostalgia. In 2nd ed it was perfectly normal to play a Guard army consisting of units from different regiments. If they want to emulate that they may drop restrictions for Guard that remain in place for other armies to establish a certain flavor for the army.
Its simpler than that: insisting on regimental models at this point means they're pushing people towards models that GW _doesn't sell_.
As a company they absolutely will not design regimental bonuses around Out of Print or 3rd party models. No more conveniently timed MTO or last chance to buy deals.
With other factions, its a color scheme, which isn't a threat to sales. So a switch to color=army power is the only way GW is likely to do it (barring dropping the concept). Otherwise they're going to have add Mordians, Tallarn, Valhallan, etc back into active production with new kits.
That sounds suspicoiously like there is no longer any regimental benefit at all? I'll wait and see, but that would really surprise me in a very non pleasing way.
"Scions range is now 24" get the regiments bonus and also 6's to hit score additional hits"
This seems to imply that Regimental traits are still there.
Maybe the regiments are now generic rather than specific, i.e. rather than playing "Cadian Shock Troops" or "Death Korps of Krieg", you are playing a "shock regiment" or a "siege regiment".
A Poster on Reddit wrote:So we're getting new stock Guardsmen?
Also, any idea on the release date? A Kasrkin character maybe? Anything new for the Scions?
Ok_E wrote:Nope, nope, nope
Scions range is now 24" get the regiments bonus and also 6's to hit score additional hits
What it looks like is the case?
There's "Regiments of Renown"(Catachans, Cadians, Krieg, etc) and then something generically vague. The "Vicious Traps" bit I had quoted earlier applies to "if unit is Catachan or guerillas". I wouldn't be shocked if there's a vague "army type" you can pick, ala Guerillas or Veterans or whatever.
What it looks like is the case?
There's "Regiments of Renown"(Catachans, Cadians, Krieg, etc) and then something generically vague. The "Vicious Traps" bit I had quoted earlier applies to "if unit is Catachan or guerillas". I wouldn't be shocked if there's a vague "army type" you can pick, ala Guerillas or Veterans or whatever.
I'm wondering if it's a custom regiment builder type thing which grants you specific keywords as a step up from the custom doctrines from The Greater Good.
What is it with Australians and weird daemon armies?
Probably has something to do with the price. Aussies pay more, I think.
So if there's an opportunity to cobble something together they'll go for it, and daemons by their nature are meant to be formless and varied.
The price of GW stuff down here is obscene. It's usually about 50% more than the USD prices.
Custom regiments never got specific stratagems or relics or warlord traits.
I think what they is referring to is how the Guard used to be in the 3rd/4th edition books, where when you made your army you picked 5 doctrines which either allowed access to special abilities (at a point cost sometimes), special equipment (also sometimes at a point cost), or special unit types (Ogryns, Halflings, Grenadiers, Stormtroopers, Rough Rider, etc). The famous regiments (at the time basically the Cadians, Catachans, Steel Legion and other metal regiments) and some others the team had made up (Harkoni Warhawks, Salvar Chem-Dogs) had five preselected doctrines if you picked them. Like Steel Legion had sometime like Mechanized, Conscripts, Ratling, Stormtroopers, etc.
But that was well before the time of stratagems, relics, and warlord traits.
Custom regiments never got specific stratagems or relics or warlord traits.
I think what they is referring to is how the Guard used to be in the 3rd/4th edition books, where when you made your army you picked 5 doctrines which either allowed access to special abilities (at a point cost sometimes), special equipment (also sometimes at a point cost), or special unit types (Ogryns, Halflings, Grenadiers, Stormtroopers, Rough Rider, etc). The famous regiments (at the time basically the Cadians, Catachans, Steel Legion and other metal regiments) and some others the team had made up (Harkoni Warhawks, Salvar Chem-Dogs) had five preselected doctrines if you picked them. Like Steel Legion had sometime like Mechanized, Conscripts, Ratling, Stormtroopers, etc.
But that was well before the time of stratagems, relics, and warlord traits.
Some of them had more than five. Cadians had seven. I was never totally clear about whether you could take all seven, or just the 5 that suited your army best out of seven.
I think the idea was that in trade for taking the fixed Cadian traits, you got more of them. It could be a good system for guard to return and combine build a regiment rules.
What is it with Australians and weird daemon armies?
Probably has something to do with the price. Aussies pay more, I think.
So if there's an opportunity to cobble something together they'll go for it, and daemons by their nature are meant to be formless and varied.
The price of GW stuff down here is obscene. It's usually about 50% more than the USD prices.
And the USD prices are already 25% higher than the European ones.
Custom regiments never got specific stratagems or relics or warlord traits.
I think what they is referring to is how the Guard used to be in the 3rd/4th edition books, where when you made your army you picked 5 doctrines which either allowed access to special abilities (at a point cost sometimes), special equipment (also sometimes at a point cost), or special unit types (Ogryns, Halflings, Grenadiers, Stormtroopers, Rough Rider, etc). The famous regiments (at the time basically the Cadians, Catachans, Steel Legion and other metal regiments) and some others the team had made up (Harkoni Warhawks, Salvar Chem-Dogs) had five preselected doctrines if you picked them. Like Steel Legion had sometime like Mechanized, Conscripts, Ratling, Stormtroopers, etc.
But that was well before the time of stratagems, relics, and warlord traits.
Yep.
As Voss points out, GW simply aren't going to bring the old minis back to life as much as I would love them to.
So going back to that where you can pick however many things from a list seems like the likely scenario. Providing of course that all this info was right..
As Voss points out, GW simply aren't going to bring the old minis back to life as much as I would love them to.
So going back to that where you can pick however many things from a list seems like the likely scenario. Providing of course that all this info was right..
I'd argue that these changes makes it more likely for old minis to come back. The whole thing seems designed around supporting small numbers of different regiments piecemeal like how IG worked in 2nd edition, rather than repainting all your infantry should your favourite regiment receive an update later. The intent is clearly to sell a wider range of guard infantry than in recent editions. Therefore it would be odd to switch to a whole new rules mechanism that only covers the few regiments available in plastic (currently just Cadians, Krieg, Catachans).
More likely that we'll see MTO / rotated releases for at least some of the old regiments like Mordians & Tallarn, and they each get a corresponding stratagem in the codex. That leaves the door open for GW to develop further regiment-specific Kill Team sets at a later date that players can just plug in to the existing codex.
I've been wanting a field gun for Guard back since they took them away in 3rd ed. Hope it ends up looking good.
Anyone please remind me, did we ever get an idea when the Guard release might happen? Daemons are next, but after that? Are we completely in the dark about the order of codices?
The grim darkness of the 41st Millennium is about to change for good – the Leagues of Votann, the newest faction to join the carnage, are soon to blast onto store shelves, battlefields, and painting stations all around the world.
The Hernkyn have been dispatched and the main Oathband is on the march – meaning that the Leagues of Votann will be here sooner rather than later. Sign up to our newsletter to find out exactly when they’re going to be released.
Looks like Daemons > LOV > then either WE or Guard later this year. With them showing off Berserkers this week then I'd bet on Guard being early 2023.
I do suspect that LoV will be like Sisters or Elves with a launch box followed by a proper release later.
Daemons seem like a spacer release, since there are no rumors of any new models for them IIRC, though they could release the missing possessed gribbles from CSM, maybe the new Daemon Prince as well along the Daemon book.
Guard and World Eaters are both getting major range releases with their books.
MajorWesJanson wrote: I do suspect that LoV will be like Sisters or Elves with a launch box followed by a proper release later.
Daemons seem like a spacer release, since there are no rumors of any new models for them IIRC, though they could release the missing possessed gribbles from CSM, maybe the new Daemon Prince as well along the Daemon book.
Guard and World Eaters are both getting major range releases with their books.
Im pretty sure the Daemon Prince is coming with the Slaves to Darkness release.
If I were to guess, its going to go Daemons -> Votann -> SM 2.0 - > Guard/World Eaters -> ? -> World Eaters/Guard. I can't see GW doing two back-to-back releases with as many new minis as Guard/WE will be getting, so I have to imagine theres something else smaller in between.
Man, if the Guard codex really is coming out post LVO and 10th edition is really a hard reboot (which is doubt- but may get me playing again if it is), that means Guard players will get to use their book for what? 4 months before the new edition?
Sabotage! wrote: Man, if the Guard codex really is coming out post LVO and 10th edition is really a hard reboot (which is doubt- but may get me playing again if it is), that means Guard players will get to use their book for what? 4 months before the new edition?
Lvo as in las vegas open? Think it's post legion of votann which is coming this fall. Guard likely this year.
But yea still short time for book if it's hard reset but that's still just rumour. Might be bogus.
Yeah, I probably misread what someone posted earlier. I for one would really like a hard reset, but at a Guard player at heart that makes me sad such a major faction was neglected for so long in 9th.
OK_E wrote:There is no more special weapons or veteran squads anymore
I feel okay with this.
I'd say I'm bummed about it, but
1) I assume the functionality of those two squads can more or less be produced by a
other units (probably command squad)
2) I don't field either of those,so I feel like being upset about losing them would be a bit dishonest on my part
I'm okay with Vet squads being gone (the minis are still usable as a souped up squad of regular guardsmen, etc.), not entirely okay with special weapon squads being gone (even though they kinda sucked and nobody used them vs command squads which basically ended up doing the same thing).
BlaxicanX wrote: How are they being invalidated? Your heavy weapon squad models can still be used, just not as part of a regular guardsman squad.
Many of us build and paint units as complete units with squad markings, names and stories, etc. "Just use the models in some other unit" is not an acceptable solution.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote: Heavy Weapon Squads aren't gone, per what has been said
Oh great, so HWS are still around, that makes it perfectly fine that infantry squads, veterans, and SWS are wrecked by some idiot at GW that doesn't care about anything but next quarter's financial report.
BlaxicanX wrote: How are they being invalidated? Your heavy weapon squad models can still be used, just not as part of a regular guardsman squad.
Many of us build and paint units as complete units with squad markings, names and stories, etc. "Just use the models in some other unit" is not an acceptable solution.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote: Heavy Weapon Squads aren't gone, per what has been said
Oh great, so HWS are still around, that makes it perfectly fine that infantry squads, veterans, and SWS are wrecked by some idiot at GW that doesn't care about anything but next quarter's financial report.
I mean, based on how badly they fethed over everyone who plays Chaos Space Marines, I would 100% believe this rumor. Damn, GW cannot get their head out of their ass with these codices.
BlaxicanX wrote: How are they being invalidated? Your heavy weapon squad models can still be used, just not as part of a regular guardsman squad.
Many of us build and paint units as complete units with squad markings, names and stories, etc. "Just use the models in some other unit" is not an acceptable solution.
And many of us know how to remove decals or how to paint over squad markings or can alter that made-up story we had in the first place (since our stuff isn't canon) to fit with the new reality of the upcoming book.
Kanluwen wrote: Heavy Weapon Squads aren't gone, per what has been said
Oh great, so HWS are still around, that makes it perfectly fine that infantry squads,
Infantry Squads don't include Heavy Weapon Teams in their boxed set, unless you're buying the GSC Brood Brothers box or bought older metal kits.
veterans
Who have never had a kit.
and SWS are wrecked by some idiot at GW that doesn't care about anything but next quarter's financial report.
SWS were wrecked the first time the far, far superior D-99 versions were ever showcased.
Kanluwen wrote: And many of us know how to remove decals or how to paint over squad markings or can alter that made-up story we had in the first place (since our stuff isn't canon) to fit with the new reality of the upcoming book.
"Trash all your existing work because GW is a bunch of idiots" is not an acceptable solution.
Infantry Squads don't include Heavy Weapon Teams in their boxed set, unless you're buying the GSC Brood Brothers box or bought older metal kits.
So? Heavy weapons have been in infantry squads for at least a decade (and probably longer, I just don't have a second edition codex available to check) and invalidating existing units is a complete donkey-cave move by GW.
Who have never had a kit.
See above. "There isn't a kit with this specific name" is not an acceptable reason to invalidate existing units/armies. GW can GDIAF here.
You're the only one causing problems for yourself.
This isn't like Skitarii, where they flatout janked that unit profile. Or like any of the CSM stuff where they did the same thing.
You literally can fix the problem yourself. But for some reason, you're acting like your fan-created stuff should be enshrined and treated as official lore.
You're the only one causing problems for yourself.
This isn't like Skitarii, where they flatout janked that unit profile. Or like any of the CSM stuff where they did the same thing.
You literally can fix the problem yourself. But for some reason, you're acting like your fan-created stuff should be enshrined and treated as official lore.
What on earth are you talking about? A standard Guard squad has been 10 men including a special weapon and a heavy weapon team for the last 30 or so years. Nothing fan-made about it.
Additionally, heavy weapons were detached from the HW platoons so wouldn't have the same unit markings...which are the self-created problems I referred to.
I really don't think there's anything unreasonable about people feeling upset when GW makes changes to an army that negatively impact the time and energy they've devoted to their collection.
I don't know why they're removing heavy weapons from infantry squads. Was this really a problem? Maybe there's a good reason, but nothing is coming to mind.
Removing veterans seems like it must be motivated by the no-model-no-rule policy, which has never been in the best interest of the hobbiest.
Since Scions are available as troop choices under some circumstances, maybe they just want to encourage players to build armies with those models?
Honestly, I just hope they bring back the old Infantry Platoon in some form or other. That was so central to the guard's identity.
crumby_cataphract wrote: I really don't think there's anything unreasonable about people feeling upset when GW makes changes to an army that negatively impact the time and energy they've devoted to their collection.
Those same people are the ones who kept telling me to suck it up when I had to pull apart my Sergeants and Officers after the Doctrines book went to the Cruddace book. They're the same ones who told me to suck it up when GWjust recently flipped Skitarii Ranger/Vanguard loadouts onto their head.
They'll be fine.
I don't know why they're removing heavy weapons from infantry squads. Was this really a problem? Maybe there's a good reason, but nothing is coming to mind.
This is all assuming that infantry squads are staying. Cadian Shock Troops, Catachan Jungle Fighters, and Death Korps all are getting their own unit profiles.
Removing veterans seems like it must be motivated by the no-model-no-rule policy, which has never been in the best interest of the hobbiest.
Or because it was a terrible unit concept. There was nothing that made them unique or interesting outside of "they get more special weapons".
Since Scions are available as troop choices under some circumstances, maybe they just want to encourage players to build armies with those models?
There's no "circumstances". They're just plain Troop choices.
Honestly, I just hope they bring back the old Infantry Platoon in some form or other. That was so central to the guard's identity.
It really wasn't though. It just reinforced Cruddace's trashy trope of Stalingradian Guardsmen.
Anyways, I've been saying for YEARS that Infantry Squads were going to lose Heavy Weapon Teams. And there's literally no excuse to be this upset, as unless you're working exclusively with the old metal squad boxes? You had 10 models in your IS box, then had to buy HWTs separately.
crumby_cataphract wrote: I really don't think there's anything unreasonable about people feeling upset when GW makes changes to an army that negatively impact the time and energy they've devoted to their collection.
I don't know why they're removing heavy weapons from infantry squads. Was this really a problem? Maybe there's a good reason, but nothing is coming to mind.
If I had to guess I'd say it's because they want to keep releasing variant plastic guardsmen squads (such as Catachan or Steel Legion) via Kill Team in future, without the baggage of matching heavy weapons dudes.
The new rules seem designed to let people mix up different squads without needing to re-buy or re-paint the entire army.
crumby_cataphract wrote: I really don't think there's anything unreasonable about people feeling upset when GW makes changes to an army that negatively impact the time and energy they've devoted to their collection.
I don't know why they're removing heavy weapons from infantry squads. Was this really a problem? Maybe there's a good reason, but nothing is coming to mind.
If I had to guess I'd say it's because they want to keep releasing variant plastic guardsmen squads (such as Catachan or Steel Legion) via Kill Team in future, without the baggage of matching heavy weapons dudes.
The new rules seem designed to let people mix up different squads without needing to re-buy or re-paint the entire army.
Catachans are coming with the codex, per OK_E...but how large of a release is not yet known.
Scrapping existing units is not an acceptable solution. Changing the rules for how these units work after literal decades of people building units that way is a complete TFG move by GW.
Additionally, heavy weapons were detached from the HW platoons so wouldn't have the same unit markings...which are the self-created problems I referred to.
"It's all your fault for using the options that were provided."
Is there a limit to your GW apologism? Is there any line they can cross where you won't white knight for them?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote: Those same people are the ones who kept telling me to suck it up when I had to pull apart my Sergeants and Officers after the Doctrines book went to the Cruddace book. They're the same ones who told me to suck it up when GWjust recently flipped Skitarii Ranger/Vanguard loadouts onto their head.
That's certainly a theory you can have. In the real world, no, I haven't told you any of those things. And regardless of what these hypothetical "same people" have said in the past it's still a profoundly stupid and anti-consumer move by GW to do this.
Or because it was a terrible unit concept. There was nothing that made them unique or interesting outside of "they get more special weapons".
Not interesting to you maybe. Some of us like having elite guardsmen with improved stats and better gear. But at least your position here fits with your stated "I've got mine, screw you" approach to the game, if you don't like a particular unit why should anyone else be able to use it?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote: You had 10 models in your IS box, then had to buy HWTs separately.
Who cares what's in the box? How GW chooses to package their units is irrelevant and "no model no rules" is a profoundly stupid approach to game design. Or do you think that a plasma gun should be a separate unit because you can buy a box of 10 plasma guns?
Kanluwen wrote: From earlier on, it's been noted that regular squads are going to 2 specials and no heavies.
Just Cadian Shock Troops isn't it? He's said that they are getting their own entry (kind of replacing 'Veterans', so Vets are now represented as surviving Cadian squads adopted by other regiments)
Scrapping existing units is not an acceptable solution. Changing the rules for how these units work after literal decades of people building units that way is a complete TFG move by GW.
Oh no, GW's actually paying attention to Guard as more than just a cursory reprinting of older rules! Whatever shall we do?!
Additionally, heavy weapons were detached from the HW platoons so wouldn't have the same unit markings...which are the self-created problems I referred to.
"It's all your fault for using the options that were provided."
Is there a limit to your GW apologism? Is there any line they can cross where you won't white knight for them?
Ah, ad hominems. Boy howdy.
Kanluwen wrote: Those same people are the ones who kept telling me to suck it up when I had to pull apart my Sergeants and Officers after the Doctrines book went to the Cruddace book. They're the same ones who told me to suck it up when GWjust recently flipped Skitarii Ranger/Vanguard loadouts onto their head.
That's certainly a theory you can have. In the real world, no, I haven't told you any of those things. And regardless of what these hypothetical "same people" have said in the past it's still a profoundly stupid and anti-consumer move by GW to do this.
Yes, it's so much more stupid and anti-consumer than--say--having an army that requires almost 3x the price for an initial buy-in as other armies.
Where a single troops choice requires you to buy 3 separate boxes just to fill out the options. And not because you're doing duplicates or a larger than base unit. But because the kits are older than some of your bloody customers.
If you want me to specify "it's the same type of person" rather than "these are literally the exact same people", sure thing then. You're the same type of person who told me those things.
Or because it was a terrible unit concept. There was nothing that made them unique or interesting outside of "they get more special weapons".
Not interesting to you maybe. Some of us like having elite guardsmen with improved stats and better gear.
looool.
What better gear? You got 2 more special weapon options. You didn't get Carapace Armor, you didn't get anything unique or interesting to showcase how they were veterans.
Literally anything and everything for Veterans is "they get more special weapon options!".
But at least your position here fits with your stated "I've got mine, screw you" approach to the game, if you don't like a particular unit why should anyone else be able to use it?
Or maybe, just maybe, I didn't like them because there were far far more interesting design concepts that got axed to keep people like yourself who wanted to keep a status quo intact happy? Units like the Kasrkin, concepts like the Grenadiers or Detachment 99's unique version of Special Weapon Squads were far, far, faaaaaaaaar more interesting.
Veterans were boring. They've been boring for some time. They provided nothing unique or interesting to the army, given that they were simply Infantry Squads +1. One of the few things Cruddace's book did okay was the addition of veteran skills/"traits"(really these were just loadouts).
Kanluwen wrote: You had 10 models in your IS box, then had to buy HWTs separately.
Who cares what's in the box? How GW chooses to package their units is irrelevant and "no model no rules" is a profoundly stupid approach to game design.
You're rambling about how unjust it is that you get treated this way and that you have to fix it.
There's nothing to fix. You had the answer all along.
Or do you think that a plasma gun should be a separate unit because you can buy a box of 10 plasma guns?
I mean, ideally they should be seeing unique and special units for different types of special weapons. The training would be different, as would the role.
But being a Real Guard Player, you should know that.
Veterans used to have things that made them interesting. In 3rd, they were this cool unit that could even take a veteran officer, to represent how they were the last remnants of a company or regiment. In 3.5th, they had infiltrate. In 5th, they could be upgraded to have carapace armour, camo cloaks and snare mines, or meltabombs and a demo charge (I think they could take all three too). That is quite a lot of different roles that vets could've been given.
Just turning them in to BS3 infantry and then removing them is the boring option.
Personally, I will be bummed out if special weapon squads and heavy weapon teams in infantry squads are removed. I have >100 Steel Legion as my primary army, and they came with a missile launcher in every squad. It is pretty difficult to find somewhere to use the heavy weapons teams if I can't squeeze them into infantry squads. At present, I have three platoons, and I've already extracted enough weapons teams to make a heavy weapons squad per platoon. I have also built a special weapons squad per platoon.
Is it the end of the world if GW near totally invalidates my army? No. But it will be very annoying.
Kanluwen wrote: From earlier on, it's been noted that regular squads are going to 2 specials and no heavies.
Just Cadian Shock Troops isn't it?
NOPE.
He's said that they are getting their own entry
Correct.
(kind of replacing 'Veterans', so Vets are now represented as surviving Cadian squads adopted by other regiments)
NOPE.
Veterans are just flatout gone.
Additionally:
ust a little bit of information for you
You won't be running pure cadians (of course you could) You will be able to mix and match different regiments into one force.
Your army bonus doesn't care that half is catachan and the other krieg, you'll still get your army rule.
The only benefit in running say a unit of catachan is to use a strat like "vicious traps"
In enemy charge phase spend X cp When a unit is charged and is in terrain, roll a d6 +1 if unit is catachan or guerrillas +1 if unit has a melta mine +1 if sly marbo is on the battlefield
On a 2-5 the enemy unit suffers d3 mortal wounds, on a 6+ the enemy unit suffers 2d3 mortal wounds
See, Haighus is the kind of Guard player I'd have sympathy for. There was no way to know about this down the line way back when.
Well, I bought quite a lot of them fairly recently, I love the sculpts.
To be honest, I don't really play anymore, so I tend to build my armies to the background/incorporating aspects of old rules even if they don't matter anymore, rather than the current rules (which are a shadow of what they used to be). I miss all the cool stuff like demo charges and carapace armour and chem-inhalers.
Also, technically GW do sell a veterans unit these days- the Krieg squad is explicitly labelled as veterans and is listed in the AM section on the webstore.
Kanluwen wrote: Oh no, GW's actually paying attention to Guard as more than just a cursory reprinting of older rules! Whatever shall we do?!
If "paying attention" means deleting stuff for no good reason then I'd rather keep the current codex forever. I want a real codex, not more "no model no rules" idiocy.
This change is long overdue.
"People have been having fun in ways I don't like for too long!"
Yes, it's so much more stupid and anti-consumer than--say--having an army that requires almost 3x the price for an initial buy-in as other armies.
Which is because guard require more models than space marines, not because you have special/heavy weapon options. Unless you want to make guard 15ppm elites like space marines they're going to be more expensive.
You're the same type of person who told me those things.
That is certainly a theory you can have. It's nonsense, but I suppose you're allowed to believe that my opposition to GW removing options and invalidating existing armies makes me just like all the people who think it's fine for GW to remove options and invalidate existing armies.
What better gear? You got 2 more special weapon options. You didn't get Carapace Armor, you didn't get anything unique or interesting to showcase how they were veterans.
"GW removed some options, instead of putting them back they should remove the unit entirely."
PS: having BS 3+ is still a relevant fact.
Or maybe, just maybe, I didn't like them because there were far far more interesting design concepts that got axed to keep people like yourself who wanted to keep a status quo intact happy? Units like the Kasrkin, concepts like the Grenadiers or Detachment 99's unique version of Special Weapon Squads were far, far, faaaaaaaaar more interesting.
In what bizarre alternate world does "don't remove options" mean "remove a bunch of old options and never add anything interesting"?
You had the answer all along.
And the answer was "an infantry squad can take one heavy and one special weapon". How GW packaged their kits made no difference in any previous edition and "each unit must be made from a single box and each box must make a specific unit" is an idiotic approach to game design.
I mean, ideally they should be seeing unique and special units for different types of special weapons. The training would be different, as would the role.
Yes, it's so much more stupid and anti-consumer than--say--having an army that requires almost 3x the price for an initial buy-in as other armies.
Which is because guard require more models than space marines, not because you have special/heavy weapon options. Unless you want to make guard 15ppm elites like space marines they're going to be more expensive.
It's literally because you have special and heavy weapon options that aren't included in the box for your basic troops choice.
The fact that you don't seem to understand or want to acknowledge that is troubling.
You had the answer all along.
And the answer was "an infantry squad can take one heavy and one special weapon". How GW packaged their kits made no difference in any previous edition and "each unit must be made from a single box and each box must make a specific unit" is an idiotic approach to game design.
It's a better approach to game design than "let's keep everything the same forever", which has been the previous approach to Guard.
I mean, ideally they should be seeing unique and special units for different types of special weapons. The training would be different, as would the role.
Mate, did you actually read what you posted a link to?
Upgrade your MKVI Tactical Squad Legionaries into Tactical Support Squads Contains 60 special weapons - flamers, meltaguns, plasma guns, rotor cannons, volkite calivers, and volkite chargers Outfit up to 12 separate squads with guns to suit any situation
Also, frigging lol throwing out a link to the Horus Heresy. Literally a spot where there are entire squads, across multiple factions, devoted to carrying specific weapon types.
And at this point it's obvious just how hard you're grasping at straws.
How dare GW sell kits you're expected to combine with other kits to make a complete unit.
So your argument is what? That Guard should get specific weapon sprues, like the Heresy units do?
That'd be nice. It's not the case though. You have to buy a Heavy Weapon Squad box to get a HWT and a Command Squad box to fully outfit a Catachan squad with the Codex options. Cadians are a bit better off since it's just the new-est version of the Cadian Shock Troops box and a HWS box but y'know...that's still making it so you have to buy multiple boxes for a single Troops choice.
Kanluwen wrote: You have to buy a Heavy Weapon Squad box to get a HWT and a Command Squad box to fully outfit a Catachan squad with the Codex options.
O RLY?
What's that then? GW was selling plasma/melta/flamer packs since forever and explicitly told you to use these with IG (have you ever seen photos of featured GW staff Guard armies? maybe look them up?) if you had too little special weapons, yes they were removed recently but you can use the exact same process with plastic HH guns that replaced them. You only "had" to buy if you were incapable of making a simple snip so that's not an issue. You don't "need" to buy anything, using it as excuse for removal of veterans is stupid. Replacing them with regimental units is not really a solution either because that leaves other/custom regiments with nothing, there needs to be a generic veteran unit these can take.
And "it's just more special guns" is comically stupid take, not only they have different stat line, but by that logic, we should delete nobz (just boyz with more melee weapons), hive tyrants (just bigger warriors), 80% of Sister range, aspect warriors and DE noble squads, etc, etc...
Kanluwen wrote: From earlier on, it's been noted that regular squads are going to 2 specials and no heavies.
Just Cadian Shock Troops isn't it?
NOPE.
He's said that they are getting their own entry
Correct.
(kind of replacing 'Veterans', so Vets are now represented as surviving Cadian squads adopted by other regiments)
NOPE.
Veterans are just flatout gone.
Additionally:
See, Haighus is the kind of Guard player I'd have sympathy for. There was no way to know about this down the line way back when.
All we know* is that Cadian Shock Troops get an entry as something distinct and that they have two special weapons and share a sprue with Kasrkin. He's said nothing about what the common infantry squad looks like and to me looks like the opposite. Command squads exist, heavy weapon squads exist - I assume infantry do too and that Cadian Shock Troopers are something different, even if you had an army of them.
They're either elite, experienced infantry squads in a Cadian regiment (or a regiment of just Cadian Shock Troopers), or the remnants of Cadian units backfilled and absorbed by other Regiments. In a word, a Veteran squad within another newly raised regiment, was what I was implying. There is not veteran option outside of Kill team, but the Cadians are a close match having more special weapons than normal and probably better stats/rules. I.E Veterans got extra rules (+the Cadian keyword) but lost the third special weapon.
*I believe him. I don't expect the 'Cadian veterans' can double up on special weapons either, given Krieg veterans are a box, but I could be suprised. Command squads definitely aren't going to.
I've done a run through recently, I've not seen anything saying that infantry squads are changing but I'd be easily convinced by something I've overlooked.
Kanluwen wrote: It's literally because you have special and heavy weapon options that aren't included in the box for your basic troops choice.
Cadian box: $50, includes all special weapon and sergeant options.
HWT: $14 ($42 per three squads), includes all heavy weapon options. If you're willing to do a bit of conversion work you can drop this cost even further by using all of the different heavy weapons to arm 6+ squads from a single box.
A 28% increase in the cost of a basic troops box is not why a guard army costs 3x as much as whatever you're comparing it to.
It's a better approach to game design than "let's keep everything the same forever", which has been the previous approach to Guard.
Stop making straw man arguments. Keeping existing units valid does not mean that nothing can ever change. You can have all the shiny new options you like as long as the existing options are still included.
Mate, did you actually read what you posted a link to?
Upgrade your MKVI Tactical Squad Legionaries into Tactical Support Squads
Contains 60 special weapons - flamers, meltaguns, plasma guns, rotor cannons, volkite calivers, and volkite chargers
Outfit up to 12 separate squads with guns to suit any situation
Exactly! Here you have a box of plasma guns intended to be used to upgrade other units, creating a single unit from multiple boxes. By your absurd "one box = one unit" argument this should not be permitted and the plasma guns should be a separate unit. So should the Baneblade sponsons and upgrades, you should have a unit with four sponsons on 60mm bases and the hunter-killer missile and pintle guns on 25mm bases.
So your argument is what? That Guard should get specific weapon sprues, like the Heresy units do?
I don't care how they're packaged. Existing units should continue to be valid, period.
BlaxicanX wrote: How are they being invalidated? Your heavy weapon squad models can still be used, just not as part of a regular guardsman squad.
Many of us build and paint units as complete units with squad markings, names and stories, etc. "Just use the models in some other unit" is not an acceptable solution.
Nothing you listed makes "use the models in a different unit" an unacceptable solution. Squad markings, names, stories etc can all be changed relatively easily.
Like there are people who own things like Chaos Lords on bikes, things that are literally useless paperweights now.
BlaxicanX wrote: Nothing you listed makes "use the models in a different unit" an unacceptable solution. Squad markings, names, stories etc can all be changed relatively easily.
Maybe if your standards for painting aren't that high. Painting over existing stuff creates all kinds of problems with color matching, keeping consistency with weathering, etc. And it's still modifying a model I was perfectly happy with already.
Like there are people who own things like Chaos Lords on bikes, things that are literally useless paperweights now.
One profoundly stupid decision by GW does not justify making more profoundly stupid decisions.
GW is gonna do GW things, like it or not. I'll admit that how the IG have been set up has been relatively static for 20+ years. Change for the sake of change isn't necessarily a net positive though.
I'm firmly in the "non models, no rules" is silly camp. GW isn't doing this to make the game easier to understand or easier for beginners. If they wanted to do that they need to look to their rules first. When people say that "well, heavy weapons aren't in the troops box", well yes that's true. However they are also redoing the Catachans, and perhaps Cadians too. There's no reason they couldn't have made a new sprue with heavy weapons if that was their concern.
In the end though, we do need to adapt to GW when they want to lay down new rules. It's not the end of the world, but let's not pretend it doesn't royally suck for some people too.
You are so full of crap, it is just mind boggling how anyone can have the ball-tearingly arrogant "don't care, got mine" attitude you not only have, but lord over everyone as if they're stupid for not being you.
Guard Squads with heavy weapons has been a staple of that faction pretty much since their inception. Even the old RT-era kits had heavy weapons included in their sprues. When it came to 2nd Ed they introduced major mechanics around the heavy weapon teams within Guard squads. They've been part of the Guard ever since. It's been over THIRTY YEARS of Guard with heavy weapons, and you're just going to pretend like they were an "optional upgrade".
Guess what Kan: So are special weapons, but they're not going anywhere?
Aecus Decimus wrote: "It's all your fault for using the options that were provided."
Is there a limit to your GW apologism? Is there any line they can cross where you won't white knight for them?
There is no limit. He's been blaming the players for every little thing for years and years now. In his mind, GW can do no wrong, unless they happen to do something to one of his pet armies (Cadians, AdMech, etc.). Then he gets really angry, but also mostly still blames the players for making GW do whatever they did.
BlaxicanX wrote: How are they being invalidated? Your heavy weapon squad models can still be used, just not as part of a regular guardsman squad.
Ugh, this sucks! One of my infantry squads is an RT penal legion and I did a lot of work to get them a matching HW team. Now I'll have an orphaned Heavy Bolter team and I'll need to find two more RT penal legionaires
(It's also probably a good thing I never finished my special weapon squads I guess?)
Kanluwen wrote: Or because it was a terrible unit concept. There was nothing that made them unique or interesting outside of "they get more special weapons".
Anyways, I've been saying for YEARS that Infantry Squads were going to lose Heavy Weapon Teams. And there's literally no excuse to be this upset, as unless you're working exclusively with the old metal squad boxes? You had 10 models in your IS box, then had to buy HWTs separately.
Regarding the first point: in different editions, Veterans had increased stats, the option for an integrated commander, additional special rules, the option to take explosives and carapace armour, and the extra weapon options that you mention. But their main draw - at least for me - has always been their narrative. They were a way for me to make my army feel more "enduring" than a typical IG meat grinder force. They felt like a great way to personalize my own collection. There really wasn't anything terrible about this unit concept, as far as I can see, and I'm sad to see them removed.
On the second point...it seems like you've given exactly the reason why people might feel rightfully upset for this change. If I invested in extra models, took the time to paint them as part of that unit, and built my army in part around those units, I think I'd feel quite justifiably miffed if GW then told me that those models which I had purchased and painted to match the rest of the infantry squads were now no longer usable in that way. I'm not suggesting it's some sort of unforgivable offense, or even that GW doesn't have a good reason for this change (though I can't really imagine what it is), but it's just silly to say that other people had "literally no excuse" for being sucker-punched by GW after investing time and money into their army. I mean, come on, friend. You must see that. (And I say all this as someone who never actually added a HW team to a single infantry squad)
"No model, no rules". GW's current position is that two things must be true: each unit is built from exactly one box, each box builds exactly one unit. GW is pushing out the sand box philosophy of giving broad (and fluff-accurate) rules and encouraging conversions in favor of a very narrow theme park concept. The goal is that an e-sport player or 16 year old with no attention span buys a box, builds it exactly according to the directions, and uses the matching datasheet in game. Conversions are bad because they require you to think outside the box, not just follow the directions and receive instant gratification. And the e-sport players will rage if the one-box build is 5% less effective than a conversion because having to convert their models takes away precious practice time.
Of course I'm sure Kanluwen will be along shortly to white knight and inform us of how having fewer options is better and you're an idiot for building units according to the printed rules instead of a "no model, no rules" policy that didn't exist when many of those units were built.
Those are some interesting takes there, Kan. They feel absolutely bonkers to me, but interesting nonetheless.
I don't really feel like having to mess around with my 250 guards to see what I have to fix to make them useable, so I guess I won't be needing anything for the army when GW releases the new stuff.
Well I'm taking this update with an unhealthy amount of gallows humor.
It's like the opposite of the LoV release, where by now we have so many Mary Sue stories I'm starting to wonder when the grim dark will set in. For guard it's only grim dark so far, less options, less flexibility and the only thing "new" so far is, that they invest in a model update that was due 10 years ago.
From a strategical point I don't really mind the loss of veterans and special weapon squads. Their identity was so diluted from their 3rd edition implementation, they were basically redundant to the Command squad.
But I'm curious how they plan on ever selling a HWT again if they can't be part of a unit? HWS are pointless, to put it mildly. When comparatively a Manticore could be in that Heavy Support slot. I had hoped Platoons would come back, but alas....
And in addition they drop Regiments in total? So back to 5th but this time without the Special Characters to destinct your Army? While every other Army, besides Demons, has more destinctions than ever?
I always felt GW didn't know feth all what to make with Guard, hence they are on the last slot, hardly mentioned in the BRB and their balancing updates completely bonkers. This sounds like they just want to get over with it.
So waiting for the good news it is and gallow humor until then. Btw, food for thought about the release schedule: the Angron leak had the new Cadians in it. So likely it is a picture out of their Dex, hence that one is rather likely to be published after IG.
"No model, no rules". GW's current position is that two things must be true: each unit is built from exactly one box, each box builds exactly one unit. GW is pushing out the sand box philosophy of giving broad (and fluff-accurate) rules and encouraging conversions in favor of a very narrow theme park concept. The goal is that an e-sport player or 16 year old with no attention span buys a box, builds it exactly according to the directions, and uses the matching datasheet in game. Conversions are bad because they require you to think outside the box, not just follow the directions and receive instant gratification. And the e-sport players will rage if the one-box build is 5% less effective than a conversion because having to convert their models takes away precious practice time.
Of course I'm sure Kanluwen will be along shortly to white knight and inform us of how having fewer options is better and you're an idiot for building units according to the printed rules instead of a "no model, no rules" policy that didn't exist when many of those units were built.
I agree with everything you said, except the part where you started insulting people who’re looking for something different from the hobby than you are.
Tastyfish wrote: Krieg's trait is apparently they can only be wounded on a 3+! That feels pretty significant.
That just seems silly. Krieg aren't supposed to be physically tougher, only mentally tougher. They are quite willing to die so long as they do their duty.
I feel they would be better served by rules that allow them to fight after being killed in melee and so on- get one past blow in before the Emperor takes 'em vibe.
It's a dreadfully backwards rule. Instead of being better at shrugging off lower strength weapons a little bit better than less devoted Guardsmen, they somehow become more resilient to weapons that won't leave enough of the Guardsman intact to keep functioning while being put down just as easily with lower strength weaponry. Completely non-immersive design if true.
I guess it would explain the unkillable Guardsman in the Tau animation, though...
Tastyfish wrote: Krieg's trait is apparently they can only be wounded on a 3+! That feels pretty significant.
It might feel significant, but on a statistical point it is pretty insignificant.
At best it's 25% reduction to fire from poison(2+)/S6+ weaponry. But realistically, everything that used to wound on a 3/4/5/6 is now still wounding you on a 3/4/5/6. But now you have less dudes total.
I'm actually surprised, I thought they already scraped the barrel of gak rules by giving Krieg their current Know No Fear/one last attack combo, but transhuman physiology? Wow, seems like there new lows we haven't found yet.
Geifer wrote: It's a dreadfully backwards rule. Instead of being better at shrugging off lower strength weapons a little bit better than less devoted Guardsmen, they somehow become more resilient to weapons that won't leave enough of the Guardsman intact to keep functioning while being put down just as easily with lower strength weaponry.
No one uses S6+ guns on guardsmen, really. No, the main point of this rule is turning off +1 to wound gak that is getting more and more common due to stupid stat and gear inflation on xenos armies. Which is okay, I guess, that junk needs counters so people won't just mindlessly spam it but actually have to think when constructing an army.
Though I feel it's kinda funny Blood Angels and such are in such awe of Kriegers they forgot how to swing their swords harder at them
And many of us know how to remove decals or how to paint over squad markings or can alter that made-up story we had in the first place (since our stuff isn't canon) to fit with the new reality of the upcoming book.
Says the person who whined for years about Sergeants losing lasguns.
Tastyfish wrote: Krieg's trait is apparently they can only be wounded on a 3+! That feels pretty significant.
That just seems silly. Krieg aren't supposed to be physically tougher, only mentally tougher. They are quite willing to die so long as they do their duty.
Right, which is why they're making it harder to wound them. They're fightin' through the pain.
I feel they would be better served by rules that allow them to fight after being killed in melee and so on- get one past blow in before the Emperor takes 'em vibe.
And what good is that when someone just shoots them off the board?
Tastyfish wrote: Krieg's trait is apparently they can only be wounded on a 3+! That feels pretty significant.
That just seems silly. Krieg aren't supposed to be physically tougher, only mentally tougher. They are quite willing to die so long as they do their duty.
Right, which is why they're making it harder to wound them. They're fightin' through the pain.
I feel they would be better served by rules that allow them to fight after being killed in melee and so on- get one past blow in before the Emperor takes 'em vibe.
And what good is that when someone just shoots them off the board?
Fighting through the pain of being hit by artillery, but are unable to fight through the pain of being hit by small arms, which kill as easily as before? Yeah, I agree with the above poster, it is totally backwards.
Eh, it can be balanced by a good other half to the trait, but it was just a quick thought. But the traits should make fluff sense as well as being good. Shrugging off big guns but not small arms for guardsmen is silly.
Jidmah wrote: I'd say shrugging off artillery makes more sense for a regiment that is supposed to be dug into a trench than for marines.
Blanket damage reduction doesn't do that. If you want to represent the effects of cover, tie the damage reduction rule to a suitable cover rule.
It's abstract. 9th edition doesn't support actually digging trenches, and I think most hosts wouldn't be to fond of you carving a trench into their table.
Jidmah wrote: I'd say shrugging off artillery makes more sense for a regiment that is supposed to be dug into a trench than for marines.
Blanket damage reduction doesn't do that. If you want to represent the effects of cover, tie the damage reduction rule to a suitable cover rule.
It's abstract. 9th edition doesn't support actually digging trenches, and I think most hosts wouldn't be to fond of you carving a trench into their table.
Well, they should have thought of that before they rejected the Emperor's benevolent rule.
Jidmah wrote: I'd say shrugging off artillery makes more sense for a regiment that is supposed to be dug into a trench than for marines.
But they're not shrugging off all artillery. A Basilisk has a harder time wounding them but a Wyvern, a dedicated infantry killing artillery tank, doesn't lose any effectiveness at all. As HBMC said, it's a dumb rule when applied to marines and it's a really dumb rule when guardsmen get it. If you want to represent durability against small arms fire give them FNP 5+ against weapons with strength 6 or less.
And many of us know how to remove decals or how to paint over squad markings or can alter that made-up story we had in the first place (since our stuff isn't canon) to fit with the new reality of the upcoming book.
Says the person who whined for years about Sergeants losing lasguns.
Never change, WrongBadFun.
Lol. That explains quite a bit. "I've got mine, screw you" indeed.
Mechanically, it is a lot simpler to remove heavy weapons from infantry squads if they want to do something different with them like bumping toughness. And if there are now proper artillery batteries in Heavy Support, HW squads could move to a take one per infantry squad without using up a FoC slot.
MajorWesJanson wrote: Mechanically, it is a lot simpler to remove heavy weapons from infantry squads if they want to do something different with them like bumping toughness. And if there are now proper artillery batteries in Heavy Support, HW squads could move to a take one per infantry squad without using up a FoC slot.
Fortunately, for me, my IG army is a 2nd Ed metal beast.
I never glued my heavy weapon crews to a 60mm base but just plonked them on one for games leaving the crews on their 25mm bases.
Future opponents will just have to accept that, for unknown reasons, infantry squad members are lugging heavy bolter magazines, lascannon packs and mortar bombs around like some form of heavy ordnance security blankie.
Tastyfish wrote: Krieg's trait is apparently they can only be wounded on a 3+! That feels pretty significant.
OK_Entrepreneur3004 clarified that this is not their regimental trait, but appears on their datasheet instead.
Hey, since you're posting over there now--ask if the field ordnance is Cadian locked or a generic kit!
It sounds like there is just one Cadian, Krieg and (probably) Catachan unit - Shock Troops, (probably) Death Korp and (probably) Devils.
No word as yet if there is also generic infantry, but to me it sounds like there is from how he described the strats working for Catachan and 'Guerilla' units.
Infantry and sentinels have the equivalent of the regimental trait - Born Soldiers (default), Guerillas or something else. This trait also effects your specific regiment troops.
Doesn't sound like anything is regiment locked, and that there isn't a regiment system to lock things in.
OK_E wrote:There is no more special weapons or veteran squads anymore
I feel okay with this.
Can I make an educated guess and assume that Demolition Charges will be available for the Infantry Squads (or the Special Snowflake Catachan Squad)? Because that would be nice. I like me some Demolition Charges.
chaos0xomega wrote: Guess they probably got found out or people were on to them and they are covering their tracks.
....or it was fake and they deleted the account before anyone found out.
Did he mention the new Tank that we know is coming? It would be a little strange if not, considering how specific he was with other stuff we don't know about
chaos0xomega wrote: Guess they probably got found out or people were on to them and they are covering their tracks.
....or it was fake and they deleted the account before anyone found out.
They've been 100% accurate for every release, including rule snippits, since last fall when they reported on the contents of the Eldar vs Chaos box. The only thing that wasn't correct was apparently the CSM update coming with new bikes.
But there is 0 reason so far to doubt what they shared.
EDIT: Yes, they mentioned the Rogal Dorn tank. It has twin Gatling style guns (don't remember what class) as default but can be switched to a battle cannon.
Also the tread sticking out in the front of the leaked WE photo is the Rogal Dorn apparently.
chaos0xomega wrote: Guess they probably got found out or people were on to them and they are covering their tracks.
....or it was fake and they deleted the account before anyone found out.
Did he mention the new Tank that we know is coming? It would be a little strange if not, considering how specific he was with other stuff we don't know about
What Jack Flask said. Pretty much 100% accuracy for the past 12-18 months, definitely not a faker. The only thing I know of that he tentatively got wrong was that he posted about 2 months ago that we should not expect World Eaters this year, but its currently looking like thats exactly what we should expect.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Transhuman doesn't make much sense with Marines
With squats, maybe, but it should be hardcoded rule on every single primaris model. Especially now that they lost their +1 W advantage. The whole point of 2/3 of their implants is to make the host more durable, it's pants on head stupid rules don't reflect this
Aecus Decimus wrote: If you want to represent durability against small arms fire give them FNP 5+ against weapons with strength 6 or less.
That's not how GW does it now. After complains about too many rolls in 8th, GW drastically cut on sources of secondary rolls, replacing say reroll 1s auras with +1 to hit/wound and shifting from FNP to +1 T or +1 W or Transhuman or similar rules. Their whole goal is less rolling, and if rule does achieve similar results with some workaround (like the Krieg one) then the player is supposed to accept that bit was abstracted as they no longer make crunch forcibly 100% fluffy, just end result of it.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Transhuman doesn't make much sense with Marines
With squats, maybe, but it should be hardcoded rule on every single primaris model. Especially now that they lost their +1 W advantage. The whole point of 2/3 of their implants is to make the host more durable, it's pants on head stupid rules don't reflect this
Nooope......still stupid. I don't care how many extra organs Cawl sticks in them, when they get shot in the face with a melta.....they're slag and ashes. And when that dreadnought's chainfist hits, there's suddenly two marines, instead of one, and all of those extra organs are just decorating the scenery.
Strength = 2×Toughness or more = Instant Death. That's what a sensible ruleset does.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Transhuman doesn't make much sense with Marines
With squats, maybe, but it should be hardcoded rule on every single primaris model. Especially now that they lost their +1 W advantage. The whole point of 2/3 of their implants is to make the host more durable, it's pants on head stupid rules don't reflect this
Nooope......still stupid. I don't care how many extra organs Cawl sticks in them, when they get shot in the face with a melta.....they're slag and ashes. And when that dreadnought's chainfist hits, there's suddenly two marines, instead of one, and all of those extra organs are just decorating the scenery.
Strength = 2×Toughness or more = Instant Death. That's what a sensible ruleset does.
Only if the opposite is also true, T > Sx2 meaning no wounding no matter what.
Turns out all the veteran squads were all gone... to find him
People discarding accounts on reddit is regularly done for various reasons, and not getting caught leaking company internals is quite a good reason for that.
It's also possible that fake information gets published to certain circles within a company (like chaos bikes) to narrow down who might be leaking stuff.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Transhuman doesn't make much sense with Marines
With squats, maybe, but it should be hardcoded rule on every single primaris model. Especially now that they lost their +1 W advantage. The whole point of 2/3 of their implants is to make the host more durable, it's pants on head stupid rules don't reflect this
Nooope......still stupid. I don't care how many extra organs Cawl sticks in them, when they get shot in the face with a melta.....they're slag and ashes. And when that dreadnought's chainfist hits, there's suddenly two marines, instead of one, and all of those extra organs are just decorating the scenery.
Strength = 2×Toughness or more = Instant Death. That's what a sensible ruleset does.
You are confusing strength with damage. Instant death has no place in a ruleset which defines how much damage a weapon does. Terminators don't explode into red mist because a goff runtherd poked them with a grot prod.
If you failed your wound roll, you simply did not hit a marine in the face and that chainfist glanced the marine at best.
People also need to understand that most stratagems do not represent fluff, but are merely given flavorful names, just like all those bespoke rules. Unless you genuinely think that primaris marines get a vox call from chapter command to use their extra organs and just lie down and die otherwise, you should absolutely not be complaining about the math of a stratagem.
You are confusing strength with damage. Instant death has no place in a ruleset which defines how much damage a weapon does. Terminators don't explode into red mist because a goff runtherd poked them with a grot prod.
Don't forget that this is your personal opinion. Instant death at S>=2*T used to be a thing in past editions. Admitedly under different circumstances (less mutliwound models, less damage in the weapon profiles etc), but still. It has every right to "belong" in a ruleset as any other rule, even if you personally disagree.
You are confusing strength with damage. Instant death has no place in a ruleset which defines how much damage a weapon does. Terminators don't explode into red mist because a goff runtherd poked them with a grot prod.
Don't forget that this is your personal opinion. Instant death at S>=2*T used to be a thing in past editions. Admitedly under different circumstances (less mutliwound models, less damage in the weapon profiles etc), but still. It has every right to "belong" in a ruleset as any other rule, even if you personally disagree.
I think what he’s saying is that if you have a variable damage mechanic then you don’t need “instant death” as a rule because a lascannon can do enough wounds to kill characters and multi wound models anyway. And that makes sense as a design, not just opinion. Instant death only existed because all weapons had a damage stat of 1 in old editions.
You are confusing strength with damage. Instant death has no place in a ruleset which defines how much damage a weapon does. Terminators don't explode into red mist because a goff runtherd poked them with a grot prod.
Don't forget that this is your personal opinion. Instant death at S>=2*T used to be a thing in past editions. Admitedly under different circumstances (less mutliwound models, less damage in the weapon profiles etc), but still. It has every right to "belong" in a ruleset as any other rule, even if you personally disagree.
Not really. The stat that decides how deadly a weapon is in 8th and 9th is damage, not strength. The melta melts a marine it hits because it does d6+2 damage, not because of S8. The dreadnaught fist crushes a marine because of 3 damage, not because of S12. That is a fact, not an opinion. In older editions it used to be strength because damage did not exist, and it didn't really work well and caused eternal warrior to creep everywhere and most multi-wound characters and units without EW were considered useless.
As pointed out, a goff runtherd with a shockprod can easily be S8, which would be sufficient to instant-death a chapter master. That objectively makes no sense, neither from a balance nor from a lore point of view.
Not really. The stat that decides how deadly a weapon is in 8th and 9th is damage, not strength. The melta melts a marine it hits because it does d6+2 damage, not because of S8. The dreadnaught fist crushes a marine because of 3 damage, not because of S12. That is a fact, not an opinion.
In older editions it used to be strength because damage did not exist, and it didn't really work well and caused eternal warrior to creep everywhere and most multi-wound characters and units without EW were considered useless.
As pointed out, a goff runtherd with a shockprod can easily be S8, which would be sufficient to instant-death a chapter master. That objectively makes no sense, neither from a balance nor from a lore point of view.
Of course you are entitled to your own opinion. I see it differently though, we could easily add the rules mentioned above: S>=T*2: Instant Kill, T>=2*S: no wounding possible. And what would change? Some diagrams and statistical models. That is objective truth. Every Stat, every special rule is in the end just a factor for a very (I would say too) complex calculation to decide if you manage to wound/kill a model or not. Everything else is just made up believe, that is usually supported by a sentence like "this is supposed to reflect..." But does it though? If a Lasrifle can potentionally wound a titan, does S then really reflect if a weapon is Strong enough to punch through the Armour? And why is Armour reflected in both T and then Armour roll? So T is just the structural integrity of something? Why does it not degrade then? And why does a shield only work if the Armour is not better at protection? Should not every additional layer improve chances of survival? And what about 5+++, another role to represent how tough the target is. I can keep on with examples for hours. 40K is very far away from being free of contradictions.
Or to put it in other words, 10th edition might as well come out and say: "We reintroduce Instant death. This rule is supposed to show that a weapon can be so powerful, it will just outright destroy smaller targets. We still keep the damage charactaristic though, in order to reflect the damage that it does to targets that are not outright destroyed".
And then the rule is there and that is it. Independent of your personal feelings if it has a right to exist. You might than say, "but the runtherd is inconsistent!" and people will tell you: "so was lasrifles wounding titans last edition". Because at the end of the day, 40K will always be full of inconstent rules.
GiToRaZor wrote: Of course you are entitled to your own opinion. I see it differently though, we could easily add the rules mentioned above: S>=T*2: Instant Kill, T>=2*S: no wounding possible. And what would change? Some diagrams and statistical models. That is objective truth.
The objective truth is that instant death could potentially increase damage of a single shot by tenfold or more. There is no way to balance that, and therefore it has no place in this game anymore.
Everything else is just made up believe, that is usually supported by a sentence like "this is supposed to reflect..." But does it though? If a Lasrifle can potentionally wound a titan, does S then really reflect if a weapon is Strong enough to punch through the Armour? And why is Armour reflected in both T and then Armour roll? So T is just the structural integrity of something? Why does it not degrade then? And why does a shield only work if the Armour is not better at protection? Should not every additional layer improve chances of survival? And what about 5+++, another role to represent how tough the target is. I can keep on with examples for hours. 40K is very far away from being free of contradictions.
It makes perfect sense when you understand that numbers are abstractions and not exact measurements for what happens in the highly inconsistent lore. A lasgun shot has a 1.38% chance of wounding a reaver titan. During a Waaagh! Ghazghkull Thrakka has a 81.02% chance of causing instant death to a 70 wound reaver titan with every. single. attack. That's a 99.9932% chance to kill almost every single model in the game unless it has some way of not being hit by a S16 AP-5 attack. "Both are problematic" is just whataboutsim.
Two question: Do you think that S16 should cause instant death to titans with 50-70 wounds? Like, to five of them in a single round of combat? Do you think that this is the same magnitude as a titan losing 2-3 wounds of the course of a game from small arms fire?
If you answer those questions truthfully, you see how idiotic comparing these two cases is.
Two question:
Do you think that S16 should cause instant death to titans with 50-70 wounds? Like, to five of them in a single round of combat?
Do you think that this is the same magnitude as a titan losing 2-3 wounds of the course of a game from small arms fire?
If you answer those questions truthfully, you see how idiotic comparing these two cases is.
We're in "if you give a moose a muffin" territory. The response is going to be "well, titans shouldn't have toughness values and should have AV values" and eventually the discussion spirals into how the 8th edition re-design was the bane of existence and everything should be 3rd edition rules still.
Rather than poisoning the well, let's see if there isn't a really simple way to solve this:
Instant Death: If a weapon's Strength is twice (or higher) than the target's Toughness, and the target has the Infantry Keyword, then a failed save will result in the model being removed a casualty regardless of how many Wounds it has, or the Damage of the weapon.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Rather than poisoning the well, let's see if there isn't a really simple way to solve this:
Instant Death: If a weapon's Strength is twice (or higher) than the target's Toughness, and the target has the Infantry Keyword, then a failed save will result in the model being removed a casualty regardless of how many Wounds it has, or the Damage of the weapon.
Use the keywords! It's why they're there!
Why add another layer of special rules when the damage stat was designed to replace it to begin with? And why clog up the Guard thread with this discussion?
On the actual topic, we know about a bunch of Cadian kits, heard of Kreig and possibly Catachan ones as well. Any chance Traitor guard will get a couple kits later, maybe a supplement?
H.B.M.C. wrote: Rather than poisoning the well, let's see if there isn't a really simple way to solve this:
Instant Death: If a weapon's Strength is twice (or higher) than the target's Toughness, and the target has the Infantry Keyword, then a failed save will result in the model being removed a casualty regardless of how many Wounds it has, or the Damage of the weapon.
Use the keywords! It's why they're there!
Suddenly, scarabs and warbikers survive getting shot by a d-scythe but chapter masters and warbosses don't. I totally can see GW implement a rule like that.
Instant death is a bad rule and should never, ever return. If you want to a gun to ker-splat infantry put the right amount of damage on it.
So any news about Imperial Guard, or is this a how weapons work in the rules thread?
Like a true guardsman, despite knowing you're not likely to stop anything on your own, you still hold the line and try to bring the thread back on topic. Don't worry though, you're not alone. I'll stand with you. Now to fish for 6's.
What's the best way to keep an eye out for new rumors? Do y'all just google astra militarum rumors regularly or is it more of a case of checking a bunch of different places (discord servers, reddit, youtube, etc.)?
B&C and the 40k subreddits are the best way to track rumors, if you regularly check youtube, auspex tactics makes videos about pretty much every rumor.
Rumor mongers have left dakka long ago, you only get second hand knowledge here from dakkanauts who frequent other communities.
So any news about Imperial Guard, or is this a how weapons work in the rules thread?
Like a true guardsman, despite knowing you're not likely to stop anything on your own, you still hold the line and try to bring the thread back on topic. Don't worry though, you're not alone. I'll stand with you. Now to fish for 6's.
What's the best way to keep an eye out for new rumors? Do y'all just google astra militarum rumors regularly or is it more of a case of checking a bunch of different places (discord servers, reddit, youtube, etc.)?
Discord is the go-to place these days. There's a whole bunch of different 40k-related servers, many of which are faction specific. Finding an astra militarum server is a safe bet, while the GSC server tends to get a lot of reliable 40k rumours in general.
Usually any plausible rumour gets shared around several different servers pretty quickly, so you don't need to join that many to see them.
New Question - Since it appears we're getting Kasrkin as a grenedier/heavy infantry type options, does anyone know or care to guess what the rules might be like?
Troops/elites?
2 special weapons? 4 for a full sized squad?
Helguns? Shotguns? Choice?
I ask as the proud owner of a crapton of Adepus Arbites and hope these rules might work for them.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: New Question - Since it appears we're getting Kasrkin as a grenedier/heavy infantry type options, does anyone know or care to guess what the rules might be like?
Troops/elites?
2 special weapons? 4 for a full sized squad?
Helguns? Shotguns? Choice?
I ask as the proud owner of a crapton of Adepus Arbites and hope these rules might work for them.
I have a crap ton of metal Kasrkin and am wondering if I should sell them....the prices are so high now I would never take them to a store to game for fear of theft. I have lost at least 1 squad that way already.
I have a crap ton of metal Kasrkin and am wondering if I should sell them....the prices are so high now I would never take them to a store to game for fear of theft. I have lost at least 1 squad that way already.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: New Question - Since it appears we're getting Kasrkin as a grenedier/heavy infantry type options, does anyone know or care to guess what the rules might be like?
My guess: Elites, hellguns that are totally different than hot-shot lasguns (probably high RoF lasguns), 2 specials, some kind of movement/shooting ability. Kinda like the Primaris: you get the basic squad (Cadians/Intercessors) and then its totally Elite special snowflake version that has different/better gear and an extra special ability (Kasrkin/Aggressors/Inceptors/whathaveyou).
Jidmah wrote: Suddenly, scarabs and warbikers survive getting shot by a d-scythe but chapter masters and warbosses don't. I totally can see GW implement a rule like that.
*sigh* Honestly Jid...
It was an example of how you can solve an issue with the keywords system, something GW doesn't do enough of. Not a final solid rule to end all rules discussion. C'mon man. Of course it left things out, because it was an example of trying to find a solution, rather than just trying to come up with more reasons not to do something, which is all you've done since the concept was first floated here.
Really, this ain't rocket science. Rather than saying something constructive like "Do you think that such a rule should include Swarms and Bikes?" you instead say "Well now bikes are immune whilst this unit isn't and that's stupid!". Rather than coming up with a solution, rather than even attempting to be helpful, you just waved your arms around and screamed about how it wouldn't work.
On the actual topic, we know about a bunch of Cadian kits, heard of Kreig and possibly Catachan ones as well. Any chance Traitor guard will get a couple kits later, maybe a supplement?
I don't think we heard anything about it. If I had to guess, I'd say the best chances are currently a pdf update to the CSM dex for a generic squad, once the Killteam box is split up.
On the actual topic, we know about a bunch of Cadian kits, heard of Kreig and possibly Catachan ones as well. Any chance Traitor guard will get a couple kits later, maybe a supplement?
I don't think we heard anything about it. If I had to guess, I'd say the best chances are currently a pdf update to the CSM dex for a generic squad, once the Killteam box is split up.
Wasn't there something about traitor guard in a rumor in the past several months? I might just be misremembering or have misunderstood...that said, I distinctly remember thinking "oh, I hope they add that to the guard codex as a subfaction (a la brood brothers) instead of just having a one off unit in CSM" I want to say it was in the early days of the CSM rumors, but again, my memory is fuzzy.
The new cultist kit (IMHO the worst value for money GW has made in some time) has no options for rifles or special weapons. It's possible the Traitor Guard we've seen will just be cultists with different weapon options, rifles but no pistol/CC.
The new cultist kit (IMHO the worst value for money GW has made in some time) has no options for rifles or special weapons. It's possible the Traitor Guard we've seen will just be cultists with different weapon options, rifles but no pistol/CC.
The Traitor Guard is already out, just locked inside a box
Yeah, this is a problem. Right now GW does not make Chaos cultists with rifles and special weapons (as far as I know, plenty of other kits that can do the job of course), so these could be used to fill that role. But no rules for their plasma gun and odd ball equipment.
Yeah, this is a problem. Right now GW does not make Chaos cultists with rifles and special weapons (as far as I know, plenty of other kits that can do the job of course), so these could be used to fill that role. But no rules for their plasma gun and odd ball equipment.
I mean, they could be cultists, but - as you pointed out - in the same way any of the Necromunda gangs or the Neophyte Hybrids could be chaos cultists. They aren't intended to be at all, but make interesting proxies. They have plasma guns and sniper rifles, but lack an option for a heavy stubber.
Sorry, the lack of weapon options on the new cultists is still raw. I bought more of the BSF figures hoping to supplement them in a cultist army. I got burned and it frustrates me.
Mentlegen324 wrote: Doesn't Necromunda sort of invalidate the whole "No model, no rules" somewhat considering there are rules for things that don't have models?
Reliable leaks have already established that the guard codex is going to be gutted by NMNR. SWS and veterans are gone and HWTs are removed from infantry squads. There are a lot of currently-legal units/armies that are going to be invalidated as soon as the new codex arrives and it would be really surprising for GW to do that and then put them all back in 10th.
Mentlegen324 wrote: Doesn't Necromunda sort of invalidate the whole "No model, no rules" somewhat considering there are rules for things that don't have models?
Reliable leaks have already established that the guard codex is going to be gutted by NMNR. SWS and veterans are gone and HWTs are removed from infantry squads. There are a lot of currently-legal units/armies that are going to be invalidated as soon as the new codex arrives and it would be really surprising for GW to do that and then put them all back in 10th.
The idea that they're being removed because they don't have their own models directly just seems odd to me considering they're releasing new Imperial Guard models and could have easily done those alongside them, as well as how GW has been adding things that have rules but no models in things like Necromunda.
Mentlegen324 wrote: The idea that they're being removed because they don't have their own models directly just seems odd to me considering they're releasing new Imperial Guard models and could have easily done those alongside them, as well as how GW has been adding things that have rules but no models in things like Necromunda.
Necromunda is not a core game and gets different treatment. For 40k NMNR is the policy and everything that breaks it is living on borrowed time.
The rumours for guard rules ain't looking so hot, which is pretty disappointing for how long they've been waiting for a substantial rules update. For what is the primary fighting force of the Imperium, it's a shame they get thrown under the bus narratively and model-wise.
Reliable leaks have already established that the guard codex is going to be gutted by NMNR. SWS and veterans are gone and HWTs are removed from infantry squads. There are a lot of currently-legal units/armies that are going to be invalidated as soon as the new codex arrives and it would be really surprising for GW to do that and then put them all back in 10th.
(looks at multiple converted and/or OOP units and armies, sheds single manly tear)
Reliable leaks have already established that the guard codex is going to be gutted by NMNR. SWS and veterans are gone and HWTs are removed from infantry squads. There are a lot of currently-legal units/armies that are going to be invalidated as soon as the new codex arrives and it would be really surprising for GW to do that and then put them all back in 10th.
(looks at multiple converted and/or OOP units and armies, sheds single manly tear)
L-Legends? Maybe?
At least we can all sleep soundly knowing that the Deathstike Missile launcher will never go out of print -_-
Mentlegen324 wrote: The idea that they're being removed because they don't have their own models directly just seems odd to me considering they're releasing new Imperial Guard models and could have easily done those alongside them, as well as how GW has been adding things that have rules but no models in things like Necromunda.
The existence of Necromunda doesn't change the fact that no model/no rule has been the law of the land in everything else GW does for years.
Mentlegen324 wrote: The idea that they're being removed because they don't have their own models directly just seems odd to me considering they're releasing new Imperial Guard models and could have easily done those alongside them, as well as how GW has been adding things that have rules but no models in things like Necromunda.
The existence of Necromunda doesn't change the fact that no model/no rule has been the law of the land in everything else GW does for years.
Until the recent Chaos Codex that is, where even having models wasn't a guarantee something would keep/get it's rules.
DeadliestIdiot wrote: At least we can all sleep soundly knowing that the Deathstike Missile launcher will never go out of print -_-
Cue the GW apologists and competitive players insisting that it's fine that half your existing army just got invalidated because Deathstrike spam is the new tournament meta and guard have a 70% win rate.
I’d also point out that this isn’t even “no models, no rules” (apart from veterans), there are official models for all of the options for SWS and heavy weapons in squads, it’s just that you have to buy multiple boxes.
Mentlegen324 wrote: The idea that they're being removed because they don't have their own models directly just seems odd to me considering they're releasing new Imperial Guard models and could have easily done those alongside them, as well as how GW has been adding things that have rules but no models in things like Necromunda.
The existence of Necromunda doesn't change the fact that no model/no rule has been the law of the land in everything else GW does for years.
Until the recent Chaos Codex that is, where even having models wasn't a guarantee something would keep/get it's rules.
While it won't help predict in detail what's going to happen, it's worth keeping in mind that GW has a nasty habit of changing design paradigm halfway through an edition and we are now firmly past that point. Railguns with previously unheard of damage profile? Humorously overpowered Tyranids? The absolute mess of the Chaos codex? There is no guarantee that things which get released now can be predicted by looking at releases from the first half of 9th ed. The design team is in full 10th ed mode now and any dumb idea they have for that edition runs the risk of trickling back to the remaining 9th ed releases.
The only reason why I wouldn't expect the Guard codex to be quite as hotly debated a disaster as the Chaos Marine codex is because Chaos tends to get it extra bad. But with the rumors of unit entry changes, things don't exactly look promising for Guard either.
Jadenim wrote: I’d also point out that this isn’t even “no models, no rules” (apart from veterans), there are official models for all of the options for SWS and heavy weapons in squads, it’s just that you have to buy multiple boxes.
It doesn't matter whether you have official models, it just matters whether GW remembers that you do.
Orks have been losing options and units for years despite their being official models for them, so anything that is not obvious to a space marine player seeing your model range in the GW online store is fair game for getting the axe.
Jadenim wrote: I’d also point out that this isn’t even “no models, no rules” (apart from veterans), there are official models for all of the options for SWS and heavy weapons in squads, it’s just that you have to buy multiple boxes.
It doesn't matter whether you have official models, it just matters whether GW remembers that you do.
Orks have been losing options and units for years despite their being official models for them, so anything that is not obvious to a space marine player seeing your model range in the GW online store is fair game for getting the axe.
This really doesn't seem like a case of "no models no rules", it seems more like a "change for the sake of change" thing.
As for the Orks, clearly that's just because they hate you and want to take away your models.
Jadenim wrote: I’d also point out that this isn’t even “no models, no rules” (apart from veterans), there are official models for all of the options for SWS and heavy weapons in squads, it’s just that you have to buy multiple boxes.
It doesn't matter whether you have official models, it just matters whether GW remembers that you do.
Orks have been losing options and units for years despite their being official models for them, so anything that is not obvious to a space marine player seeing your model range in the GW online store is fair game for getting the axe.
Genuine question and snarky ness intended, what stuff have ORKS lost?
Jadenim wrote: I’d also point out that this isn’t even “no models, no rules” (apart from veterans), there are official models for all of the options for SWS and heavy weapons in squads, it’s just that you have to buy multiple boxes.
It doesn't matter whether you have official models, it just matters whether GW remembers that you do.
Orks have been losing options and units for years despite their being official models for them, so anything that is not obvious to a space marine player seeing your model range in the GW online store is fair game for getting the axe.
Genuine question and snarky ness intended, what stuff have ORKS lost?
Iirc, they lost the following :
- Tankbusta nobs being able to take power klaws
- Biker boss
- Biker Wyrdboy
- Biker Painboss
-Looted Wagons (No, Open Play doesn't count)
-Mega Armoured Warboss with Power Klaw
- Pretty sure Trukks can't take rokkit launchers anymore either
They probably lost more, but it hasn't come to mind.
Meanwhile Space Marines get more variants of bolters than they know what to do with.
/https://files.cults3d.com/uploaders/20557741/photo-file/c24e1f2c-78ec-4f3b-a253-2b03c57126c8/TestNyokan.jpg)
METAL 
you 
