Tuesday, November 7, 2017
Chapter Approved 2017 Coming in December.... Whats in It.
Chapter Approved 2017 is coming in December according this set. Rules for Adeptus Sororitas and Space Wolves which should lead us to believe that there are no codex updates coming for them soon. You can also see that certain codices are not listed here.... like Dark Angels, Blood Angels, and Chaos Daemons which are now known to be the next 3 codices.
As always with things like this, always use a grain of salt until we get some official information. I'm certain we will start seeing more very very soon. The image above is just from a previous Warhammer Community article, where they gave us some insight into what is coming. You can see that here.
http://natfka.blogspot.com/2017/08/new-matched-play-rules-coming-in-next.html
New early information.........
via sources on Faeit 212
2017 Chapter Approved is coming is Soon-Dec
Rules for Open Play- apoc Narrative Play- planetstrike, stronghold assault
Matched Play- eternal war, maelstrom of war, and objective markers for each faction
Faction Rules for Adepta Sororitas, Deathwatch, Drukhari, Genestealer Cults, Harlquins, Imperial Knights, Necrons, Orks, Space Wolves, Tau Empire, and Thousand Sons
Scenery Rules, Point Cost changes
Adepta Sororitas
Strategems
1GP Martydom-use when a character dies and on a 2+ can perform an Act of Faith
1GP Purity of Faith- use when an enemy uses psychic powers within 24" on a 4+ negate it.
Warlord Trait
re-roll failed morale tests if within 6" of Warlord
Relic
Blade to replace power sword. Melee S +2 AP-3 D3
Space Wolves
1 GP shooting phase choose 1 unit within 1" of the enemy and use bolt weapons as if they are pistol 2 type.
1 GP set up a unit on the hunt- deploys at the end of any movement phase within 6" of any board edge and more than 9" away from enemy models.
Warlord Trait
Warlord can fight first even if he did not charge
Relic
Sword- melee S+1, AP-4, D1 can re-roll all failed to wound rolls.
Updated Point Values
Space Marines pts per model
Aggressor 21
Chaplain in Terminator Armour 100
Drop Pod 83
Inceptor 25
Intercessor 18
Librarian 88
Librarian in Terminator 120
Razorback 70
Stalker 75
Stormraven 192
Tartaros Terminator 26
Terminator Assault 26
Terminus Ultra 250
Vindicator 125
Whirlwind 70
1 GP shooting phase choose 1 unit within 1" of the enemy and use bolt weapons as if they are pistol 2 type.
Could this change a heavy bolter or a bolter weapon with one shot?
This is obviously not a complete list of the rules content of the book. Note that you don't see anything about drukhari, orks, etc though they were mentioned to get in there.
1 GP shooting phase choose 1 unit within 1" of the enemy and use bolt weapons as if they are pistol 2 type.
Could this change a heavy bolter or a bolter weapon with one shot?
I'm sure we'll have to see the rule to know what is a bolt weapon for sure... a Grey Hunter with a Bolter and Bolt Pistol has two bolt weapons, so 2 x Pistol 2 ?
Rule that you cant fire a pistol + another weapon would still apply. In effect if you already had a bolt pistol you would be able to use a bolt rifle/bolter as a pistol instead, it being pistol 2 means they are factoring in rapid fire.
WatcherZero wrote: Rule that you cant fire a pistol + another weapon would still apply. In effect if you already had a bolt pistol you would be able to use a bolt rifle/bolter as a pistol instead, it being pistol 2 means they are factoring in rapid fire.
I suspect you are right... I hope the rule isn't as badly written as the Elysian grenade spam order.
Stormonu wrote: We already got the Marines codex, WHY even more point changes (to cheaper even) for Space Marines?
Cause thb balance is all wonky there? Don't field guillimann? Screwed. Assault cannon razorbacks too good. Drop pods suck. As it is you want the flyer, guillimann and razorback spam. Rest are basically unlocking razorbacks and camp objectives. Good if gw tries to make other builds competive too
Stormonu wrote: We already got the Marines codex, WHY even more point changes (to cheaper even) for Space Marines?
Because the 3-4 weeks between 8th Edition release and the Space Marine (and possibly Death Guard too) Codex release are less than the time it even takes to ship the books from the printers in China to logistic centres around the world, much less actually print it before that, typeset it before even that and playtest it before even that.
Those things were probably finished before anyone even knew what a Primaris is. And as soft cover books like the Index books are done by GW in England with a much shorter turnaround, the Space Marine and Death Guard Codex were most likely finished even before they finished the Index books (even though those were released a few weeks earlier).
Sheesh, already another points update in december? So we have Index: Chaos, then Codex: CSM, then Codex: DG and now a point change to units within both of those?
The lack of internal testing and rushing things out the door is apparent.
Well, that's why they outsourced the testing to the ITC people, no? And having the Chapter Approved to adjust things as it goes along was the whole point of that particular publication, no?
Well, that's why they outsourced the testing to the ITC people, no? And having the Chapter Approved to adjust things as it goes along was the whole point of that particular publication, no?
They got comments but according to ITC people their role wasn't as huge as people seemed to think. Which isn't surprising seeing 8th ed is hardly balanced at all. So much for "competive suited 40k" people were hoping.
Still. Whole rumour sounds more like bogus anyway.
If GW keep up there current pace of codex releases and these are just a partial list of the faction stratagems it will be interesting to see how quickly they are outdated. If its not a partial stratagem list then SW and Sisters are probably not due until the tail end of 2018 if not later.
Kirasu wrote: Sheesh, already another points update in december? So we have Index: Chaos, then Codex: CSM, then Codex: DG and now a point change to units within both of those?
The lack of internal testing and rushing things out the door is apparent.
Someone clearly doesn't play video games. Regular balance updates are a normal part of the process, it's never going to be perfect the first time around.
This feels a little like wish listing, but if it's true, I'd be quite happy. Specifically the significant points drop for Deathshroud which is severely needed, and the Plague Marines down to 17ppm. But stuff like the blight launcher going down to 10pts instantly makes me think it's all false. But one can dream
Lance845 wrote: If any of this is true I would be very interested to know what "Terrain Rules" are. Current rules suck.
Terrain definitely needs an update. Things I'd like to see:
1. Terrain that causes negative movement
2. "Bad Terrain" that causes negative armor save modifiers. IE, your 4+ save is now a 5+ save.
3. Dangerous terrain
4. Falling from tall towers, like in 7th.
Hopefully Chapter Approved is along the lines of the 2017 AOS Generals Handbooks and actually sorts out some issues:
Hopefully it does not focus on the Codex Blessed but on the neglected factions as has been suggested with basic Chapter Tactics, Artefacts, Strategms etc.
then campaign, scenario stuff.
A full revised pts system would seem tricky since there are many more moving parts and options than in AOS.
We certainly don't want it to be Space Marines Codex mark 2.
Perhaps weasel words to some, but I don’t think the proof of CA’s pudding is going to be in this volume, but the 2nd, which I assume we’ll get in around a years time.
That’ll be when we properly get to see them at least attempting patch balance - tweaking points here, maybe redefining abilities there etc.
Right now, there’s not really enough out for it to make much of a balance difference. Astra Militarum seem to be riding high, but have just had a targeted swipe from the Nerf Bat which dealt with a particularly beardy combo.
Now, when most have their Codex, the playing field will be more level. Right now, Tau, Dark Eldar and Necrons players can complain about their [i]lack[/] of command point options. But until everyone’s got their full suite available, it’s hard to say if a given Codex has truly unfair ones (hypothetical example? Ignore All Morale this turn being 3CP for everyone but Necrons, who get it for 1CP etc. Only hypothetical mind!).
And that’s what CA will need to be addressing in the future.
Tl;dr: Roby, TwinAssault RB and Stromraven go up in points, Primaris and Terminatorarmour get's cheaper.
Interceptor with Bolter: 45 (was 60)
Interceptor with Plasma 59 (was 86)
Aggressor with Bolter 33 (was 43)
Stormraven with TwinAssaultCannon, two HurricaneBolter, Twin HeavyBolter and StormstrikeMissileLauncher 315 (was 274)
The lack of internal testing and rushing things out the door is apparent.
GW release books asap: "These are so rushed and lazy copy pastes you suck."
GW release books slowly: "why are releases so slow? My army is worse than Codex armies and I can't play properly you suck."
GW just can't win.
False dichotomy
Fallacy Fallacy, at least ADD something to the conversation if you're just going to mention a fallacy instead of acting like you can just argue a fallacy fallacy.
Anyways, people shouldn't be too worried about a Faeit rumor.. They are getting desperate when it comes to rumors since GW is releasing info ahead of time mostly now. At least from the Rumor Tracker anyways.
So some things I picked up from the GW Studio Seminar at Blood and Glory last weekend on this theme. (Direct from the mouth of Pete Foley):
Their current plan/policy is an errata/faq two weeks after book release that is intended to clarify any uncertainty/mistakes, not to rebalance. Then, twice a year, theyr're going to address balance issues gamewide. Chapter approved is one of the methods for this, which implied that there'll be something else happening at another point in the year that isn't chapter approved.
Forge World points values will be changed in chapter approved, implication was that rules wouldn't be changed. Wasnt sure whether this then implied that there might be rules changes to gw rules in chapter approved. My gut feel was no, or at least this wasn't an intended implication, true or not.
Another semi related tidbit i heard second/thirdhand, apparently via the design team, but treat with salt, is that Aetaos'rau'keres is going up to around 1400 points.
Its interesting to see everyone attack this need for regular balance tweaks these days. We saw something similar with PP last year and Wyrd have also been trying to figure out the right amount of errata. I think GW really needs a digital solution to make this all work, but I don't see that in the cards any time soon.
jamesterjlrb wrote: So some things I picked up from the GW Studio Seminar at Blood and Glory last weekend on this theme. (Direct from the mouth of Pete Foley):
Their current plan/policy is an errata/faq two weeks after book release that is intended to clarify any uncertainty/mistakes, not to rebalance. Then, twice a year, theyr're going to address balance issues gamewide. Chapter approved is one of the methods for this, which implied that there'll be something else happening at another point in the year that isn't chapter approved.
Forge World points values will be changed in chapter approved, implication was that rules wouldn't be changed. Wasnt sure whether this then implied that there might be rules changes to gw rules in chapter approved. My gut feel was no, or at least this wasn't an intended implication, true or not.
Another semi related tidbit i heard second/thirdhand, apparently via the design team, but treat with salt, is that Aetaos'rau'keres is going up to around 1400 points.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say this is probably mostly correct.
It smacks of someone who got a very small amount of time to look at the book and memorized a few things they thought people would be really interested in and then snuck out the back or w/e.
The changes suggested are reasonable and range from something we all expect to 'oh, huh; that's pretty neat actually.'They even have the SoB relic be an almost exact copy of the one from the 6th ed book (which would be MASSIVELY better now and OMG would I love it for that to be real. 61pts for infernus pistol 2+ rerolling alongside a S5 Powersword 2+ rerolling on a 3+4++ character is pretty nice for a backline reroll 1s character.
Obviously it's extra salty until confirmed but at the very least if they ARE fake. it's VERY well thought out fakes.
1 GP shooting phase choose 1 unit within 1" of the enemy and use bolt weapons as if they are pistol 2 type.
Could this change a heavy bolter or a bolter weapon with one shot?
Didn't you just get a really, really good Codex??
No. It's not that great. It's not terrible, but it's not great either. The book produces only a couple very specific army builds that are decent; overall there's quite a lot of missed opportunities.
Lance845 wrote: If any of this is true I would be very interested to know what "Terrain Rules" are. Current rules suck.
Terrain definitely needs an update. Things I'd like to see:
1. Terrain that causes negative movement
2. "Bad Terrain" that causes negative armor save modifiers. IE, your 4+ save is now a 5+ save.
3. Dangerous terrain
4. Falling from tall towers, like in 7th.
1.) I'd rather NOT see that. Any time you do that, people just run around terrain, especially if the movement modifier is in any way random. And I don't think it will happen, because then certain units that should be able to move through certain terrains easily would need new rules bolted on after the fact. Most units don't move enough to avoid being bogged in terrain for multiple turns. Rules should encourage the use of more terrain, not the other way around.
2.) How would you justify that? This idea is better served through dangerous terrain
3.) Yes to this idea.
4.) Sure, why not. In fact, destructible terrain would be nice as well.
Stormonu wrote: We already got the Marines codex, WHY even more point changes (to cheaper even) for Space Marines?
Because GWs new market strategy is to force you to buy EVERYTHING!
You still need the Indexes in order to play any codex released so far as codexes don't include everything that was in the index as an example.
This obvious and apparent marketing scheme is why I haven't bought one codex yet and I am using Battlescribe for all my army-building (and Codex for basic reference).
On an unrealted note, the card sets they put out are great value, IMO, and seem less likely to be changed on a whim.
Rhino point drop would be nice, as even with the supposed point changes to razorbacks you are still always better off taking razorbacks over rhinos until they drop rhino points.
72 pts for a T7 bullet shield with a storm bolter is still to high IMO.
Even if the rumours here are false, I do hope for some points changes...if only for the satisfaction of watching people who spam-list stuff to get a kick in the teeth. I admit, I get a silly joy from that.
Elbows wrote: Even if the rumours here are false, I do hope for some points changes...if only for the satisfaction of watching people who spam-list stuff to get a kick in the teeth. I admit, I get a silly joy from that.
GoatboyBeta wrote: If GW keep up there current pace of codex releases and these are just a partial list of the faction stratagems it will be interesting to see how quickly they are outdated. If its not a partial stratagem list then SW and Sisters are probably not due until the tail end of 2018 if not later.
What? That's a silly idea.
Sisters are not due at all. GW just thinks they make a great army to make jokes/troll people with that's all.
Elbows wrote: Even if the rumours here are false, I do hope for some points changes...if only for the satisfaction of watching people who spam-list stuff to get a kick in the teeth. I admit, I get a silly joy from that.
If this info is correct I'll get a considerable amount of new wiggle room in my list. Having all of those points drops seems a bit extreme, but I won't complain.
If those points values are indeed correct, I will be looking at a net decrease in points of around 30 pts. So who knows what I will be able to do with those points. Maybe some bodies for my Devastators. Not too shabby. Otherwise I am thinking of swapping my second squad of Hellblasters for a squad of Plasma Inceptors now that they are reasonably priced.
I will be very happy if Inceptor and Aggressor Points costs are correct. They are honestly useless as is because they're way too fragile for their Points.
I'm not thrilled with one of GK 's best sources of anti tank becoming more expensive but I guess I'll have to find a way to fit a stormraven in regardless
I'm increasingly considering getting codexes on download now. Shame, because I like a book, but a book and sheets of paper updates coupled with the uncertainty of whether my or my opponent are using the latest rules isn't as desirable.
My personal ideal is to get a download code with the book, either for the full codex, or maybe just have points online and rules in the book. None of which is perfect really.
GoatboyBeta wrote: If GW keep up there current pace of codex releases and these are just a partial list of the faction stratagems it will be interesting to see how quickly they are outdated. If its not a partial stratagem list then SW and Sisters are probably not due until the tail end of 2018 if not later.
What? That's a silly idea.
Sisters are not due at all. GW just thinks they make a great army to make jokes/troll people with that's all.
Celestine and the Twins sure seem to be popular inclusions in armies these days.
I am assuming there will be a Wolves and Agents of the Imperium Codex's sometime in 2018, if only so all the people who keep saying "everything is fine just wait for your own codex" can say they are "right" even if its a year after they have been received their own one.
Whats wrong with Faeit? 99% of what they post is just reposts from old new or early releases from GW (as NZ gets them first). Ill take it anyday over clickbait central...
Spartacus wrote: Whats wrong with Faeit? 99% of what they post is just reposts from old new or early releases from GW (as NZ gets them first). Ill take it anyday over clickbait central...
Faeit literally posts everything it hears.
Which is why its useless garbage, that only gets somethings right by sheer numbers.
If these rumors are fake then they are the best thought out fake rumor I have ever seen. It seems to address almost every concern I have. I haven’t heard anyone really argue the “leaked” changes are bad.
Certainly an interesting list of changes, though I’m expecting a fair amount more. If these alone are true/close to true I’d be saving 70+ points on my list!
However, I hope that the terrain changes are done properly and effectively. These, right now, are more important that the majority of the points changes.
Interceptor with Bolter: 45 (was 60)
Interceptor with Plasma 59 (was 86)
Aggressor with Bolter 33 (was 43)
Stormraven with TwinAssaultCannon, two HurricaneBolter, Twin HeavyBolter and StormstrikeMissileLauncher 315 (was 274)
Aggressors will be 37 once you factor in their fragstorm grenade launchers (which the original 43 does include). They are 6 points cheaper, not 10. Still a good change.
Weird that they don't seem to be doing anything with the flamer ones, which are worse.
Interceptor with Bolter: 45 (was 60)
Interceptor with Plasma 59 (was 86)
Aggressor with Bolter 33 (was 43)
Stormraven with TwinAssaultCannon, two HurricaneBolter, Twin HeavyBolter and StormstrikeMissileLauncher 315 (was 274)
Aggressors will be 37 once you factor in their fragstorm grenade launchers (which the original 43 does include). They are 6 points cheaper, not 10. Still a good change.
Weird that they don't seem to be doing anything with the flamer ones, which are worse.
Also, they are Inceptors, not Interceptors
I have 9 aggressors waiting to be built. Cannot decide how to split them, but a points drop for both (especially the flamer) is definitely required.
I'm curious to see if my enhanced edition codex updates, and if the new books coming out will have the new or old points values. I don't know whether we'll get the codices or the CA book first.
Well thats stupid. Could they not have done this for free through a rules Errata/FAQ?
If you refuse to purchase this new book to update the book you've already purchased, does that make your Codex invalid?
It makes the points values in your codex wrong, until you change them with information that will certainly be available all over the internet.
The CA book will have a lot more in it than points cost changes. But these changes are very welcome to make 40k a good game. I'm glad to see GW finally working to update their rules as they go. GW needs to pay for the work on keeping points up to date somehow, and if I have to buy a book for that then I will.
The AoS equivalent, the General's Handbook, has been very well received. If CA is as good as that then it'll be a great addition to the game.
Well thats stupid. Could they not have done this for free through a rules Errata/FAQ?
If you refuse to purchase this new book to update the book you've already purchased, does that make your Codex invalid?
If it's like the General's Handbook, the points cost updates are a tiny bit of a book that also contains new scenarios, campaign systems, additional rules, and much more, all for $20.
Well thats stupid. Could they not have done this for free through a rules Errata/FAQ?
If you refuse to purchase this new book to update the book you've already purchased, does that make your Codex invalid?
It makes the points values in your codex wrong, until you change them with information that will certainly be available all over the internet.
The CA book will have a lot more in it than points cost changes. But these changes are very welcome to make 40k a good game. I'm glad to see GW finally working to update their rules as they go. GW needs to pay for the work on keeping points up to date somehow, and if I have to buy a book for that then I will.
The AoS equivalent, the General's Handbook, has been very well received. If CA is as good as that then it'll be a great addition to the game.
The constant FAQs and changes was one reason I was actually hoping for softback Codices. I would have preferred cheaper, and easier to mark up with pens, etc. Have one proper codex and then a beaten up "game version" with notes scribbled in it etc.
As it is I've translated both of my codices into two double-sided sheets I simply laminate and use for quick reference -- that's also where I put and update my points values, rules, and stats etc. It's a bit annoying, but easier than compiling a new points cost chart every couple of weeks.
Some of the rumours seem genuine whilst others are just odd. As a Death Guard fan the Plagueburst Crawler has always been worth its current points so I have no idea why in the rumours it is getting a 10 point reduction.
The Lord of Contagion and Deathshroud point reductions make sense though, as does the -2 pts on Plague Marines. I guess we shall see.
xerxeshavelock wrote: I'm increasingly considering getting codexes on download now. Shame, because I like a book, but a book and sheets of paper updates coupled with the uncertainty of whether my or my opponent are using the latest rules isn't as desirable.
My personal ideal is to get a download code with the book, either for the full codex, or maybe just have points online and rules in the book. None of which is perfect really.
Does GW actually update their digital codexes with point and FAQ updates? I honestly assumed that they did not. If they do I'll likely buy purely digital in the future just to not have to print out FAQ's.
xerxeshavelock wrote: I'm increasingly considering getting codexes on download now. Shame, because I like a book, but a book and sheets of paper updates coupled with the uncertainty of whether my or my opponent are using the latest rules isn't as desirable.
My personal ideal is to get a download code with the book, either for the full codex, or maybe just have points online and rules in the book. None of which is perfect really.
Does GW actually update their digital codexes with point and FAQ updates? I honestly assumed that they did not. If they do I'll likely buy purely digital in the future just to not have to print out FAQ's.
This kind of remains to be seen. I think in theory they are supposed to, but it isn't happening in practice.
I've switched to enhanced edition codexes now that I've got an ipad. They aren't as much use on a phone as the text is very small. On the whole it's massively more convenient than having to lug a bunch of books around.
A particular advantage is that you get the rules for all weapons on a datasheet, not just a selection of them. And you can bring up the points costs of units and upgrades from the datasheet too, without needing to go to the back of the book. Of course, all of those points costs will soon be out of date if there's no update!
GW have produced an army builder tool for AoS that does seem to have been updated for the 2017 GH points costs. Likewise the AoS app has updated costs. The same ought to be possible for 40k.
Spartacus wrote:Whats wrong with Faeit? 99% of what they post is just reposts from old new or early releases from GW (as NZ gets them first). Ill take it anyday over clickbait central...
They are clickbait central. That's why he posts everything he sees without any consideration of how legitimate it is.
broxus wrote:If these rumors are fake then they are the best thought out fake rumor I have ever seen. It seems to address almost every concern I have. I haven’t heard anyone really argue the “leaked” changes are bad.
Obviously, you never some of the intentionally complex ones.
Balance updates should be free direct from the source, let's hope they release those parts for free. Doesn't matter if others post the info online, it definitely matters if the balance issues which were created by GW are fixed for free by GW.
Vertrucio wrote: Balance updates should be free direct from the source, let's hope they release those parts for free. Doesn't matter if others post the info online, it definitely matters if the balance issues which were created by GW are fixed for free by GW.
Or whether we see new GW settle back into old GW.
I don`t think anyone implied, that GW is going to charge for FAQs and erratas
ListenToMeWarriors wrote: Some of the rumours seem genuine whilst others are just odd. As a Death Guard fan the Plagueburst Crawler has always been worth its current points so I have no idea why in the rumours it is getting a 10 point reduction.
The Lord of Contagion and Deathshroud point reductions make sense though, as does the -2 pts on Plague Marines. I guess we shall see.
Spartacus wrote: Whats wrong with Faeit? 99% of what they post is just reposts from old new or early releases from GW (as NZ gets them first). Ill take it anyday over clickbait central...
Spartacus wrote: Whats wrong with Faeit? 99% of what they post is just reposts from old new or early releases from GW (as NZ gets them first). Ill take it anyday over clickbait central...
Fakeit IS Clickbait Central.
Possibly but it generates discussion and some clickvait rumours is more interest g to think on than nothing!
Spartacus wrote: Whats wrong with Faeit? 99% of what they post is just reposts from old new or early releases from GW (as NZ gets them first). Ill take it anyday over clickbait central...
Fakeit IS Clickbait Central.
Possibly but it generates discussion and some clickvait rumours is more interest g to think on than nothing!
Posting crap because it generates discussion is just bad form. It is just as easy to post something good that will generate discussion without presenting it as rumors.
Mymearan wrote: As an Imperial Fist player, I welcome any and all changes to terrain and cover rules
Likewise. Hopefully the newer rules make our CT more useful rather than the dumpster fire that they are.
Even without much change to terrain, I think that Imperial/Crimson Fist players can be pretty happy with the changes to dakka inceptors. Those are now a far more viable unit and our CTs make them extremely good at bullying enemy infantry.
IMO Chapter Approved is meant for matched play and will hopefully make/keep the matched play environment more fair, but I fear that in an attempt to maximize sales GW will add rules to entice everyone to buy it. Doing this will, over time, begin to weigh down the game and/or possibility be counterproductive.
I'm curious to see how the CA book will affect the use/need of the main rulebook as well.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Is anyone else wondering why Intercessors are rumored to go down in price. It makes the Tactical Marine even worse as a unit entry.
Maybe because the fact that Intercessors are better than Tacticals don't really make them balanced? Both Intercessors and Tacticals need a upgrade. I don't think price is the one.
The real upgrade is to mix both unit entrys and allow Intercessors to have the flexibility of Tacticals with their acces to heavy and special primaris weapons.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Is anyone else wondering why Intercessors are rumored to go down in price. It makes the Tactical Marine even worse as a unit entry.
No one is bringing tactical marines for bolters anyway. People sometimes bring them for their heavy weapon. Intercessors can't have a heavy weapon, so each model actually needs to be worth it since you'll never bring them as ablative wounds for another model.
Spartacus wrote:Whats wrong with Faeit? 99% of what they post is just reposts from old new or early releases from GW (as NZ gets them first). Ill take it anyday over clickbait central...
They are clickbait central. That's why he posts everything he sees without any consideration of how legitimate it is.
Plus how many of those "anonymous sources" are actually Faeith themselves...Especially when it's particularly clickbaiting title.
ListenToMeWarriors wrote: Some of the rumours seem genuine whilst others are just odd. As a Death Guard fan the Plagueburst Crawler has always been worth its current points so I have no idea why in the rumours it is getting a 10 point reduction.
The Lord of Contagion and Deathshroud point reductions make sense though, as does the -2 pts on Plague Marines. I guess we shall see.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Is anyone else wondering why Intercessors are rumored to go down in price. It makes the Tactical Marine even worse as a unit entry.
Well, playing Salamanders, Tacticals are fantastic for a special or heavy weapon. Intercessors are trash at doing anything more than sitting in cover trying to claim an objective for 100 points instead of 55-65.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Is anyone else wondering why Intercessors are rumored to go down in price. It makes the Tactical Marine even worse as a unit entry.
No, because NO ONE take intercessors over tacticals. Tacticals are WILDLY superior point for point in almost every regard. Intercessors are a joke unit like repentia or jokearo,
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Is anyone else wondering why Intercessors are rumored to go down in price. It makes the Tactical Marine even worse as a unit entry.
No, because NO ONE take intercessors over tacticals. Tacticals are WILDLY superior point for point in almost every regard. Intercessors are a joke unit like repentia or jokearo,
If they were like 16 pts per model, they wouldn't be that bad.
Tokhuah wrote: Do new chapter approved books overwrite past ones or are the contents cumulative?
Price?
Assuming Chapter Approved is like AoS's General's Handbook, it would be more accurate to say that they overlap. Scenarios from GHB 2016 are still valid, but GHB 2017 has newer ones. You could really use either set of scenarios. Where rules are added or changed, the newer rule will always be the "legal" rule, so the most recent points will be the right ones.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Is anyone else wondering why Intercessors are rumored to go down in price. It makes the Tactical Marine even worse as a unit entry.
No, because NO ONE take intercessors over tacticals. Tacticals are WILDLY superior point for point in almost every regard. Intercessors are a joke unit like repentia or jokearo,
Well that's definitely not true. Not sure how you got THAT math but alright.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Is anyone else wondering why Intercessors are rumored to go down in price. It makes the Tactical Marine even worse as a unit entry.
Well, playing Salamanders, Tacticals are fantastic for a special or heavy weapon. Intercessors are trash at doing anything more than sitting in cover trying to claim an objective for 100 points instead of 55-65.
Except they're THAT much better for claiming an objective. Any heavy weapon is better with Devastators due to the Signum and Cherub. No amount of Objective Secured is better than that.
The price of this book is tiny compared to the improvement in the game. Only one person in each group need buy it; the others can copy points into their books. Everyone can share it for the missions. Who wouldn't chip in $5 for the group to be more balanced?
Price changes are great for underperforming units, but the real question (at least for me) is whether they'll address the huge advantage of going first in nearly all games.
I've tried a house rule that worked fairly well at lower point games; additional command points for the players that go last.
In other game systems if you have first turn everything just counts as moving. This results in a -1 penalty for many units (normally the big damage units)
Mchaagen wrote: Price changes are great for underperforming units, but the real question (at least for me) is whether they'll address the huge advantage of going first in nearly all games.
I've tried a house rule that worked fairly well at lower point games; additional command points for the players that go last.
From what I've seen, it's kind of a yes and no.
They are adopting the ETC rules for first turn, so instead of always going first the person who finishes set up first gets +1 on a roll off after deployment is finished. I'm not sure if seizing the initiative will still be a thing - it would be kind of odd to have it under that system I think.
But it doesn't look as if anything will be done to make first turn a huge advantage, no.
One of the things that might be significant is the rules for imperial agents. Recent codices have included units like Phoenix Lords and regimental advisors who aren't from any craftworld/regiment. You can still take them in a detachment without breaking the craftworld/regiment bonuses for everyone else. I have always thought that inquisitors, and maybe some other kinds of imperial agents, ought to have a similar rule. Pure wishlisting here by the way, but it strikes me as an obvious change to make.
xerxeshavelock wrote: I'm increasingly considering getting codexes on download now. Shame, because I like a book, but a book and sheets of paper updates coupled with the uncertainty of whether my or my opponent are using the latest rules isn't as desirable.
My personal ideal is to get a download code with the book, either for the full codex, or maybe just have points online and rules in the book. None of which is perfect really.
Does GW actually update their digital codexes with point and FAQ updates? I honestly assumed that they did not. If they do I'll likely buy purely digital in the future just to not have to print out FAQ's.
This kind of remains to be seen. I think in theory they are supposed to, but it isn't happening in practice.
I've switched to enhanced edition codexes now that I've got an ipad. They aren't as much use on a phone as the text is very small. On the whole it's massively more convenient than having to lug a bunch of books around.
A particular advantage is that you get the rules for all weapons on a datasheet, not just a selection of them. And you can bring up the points costs of units and upgrades from the datasheet too, without needing to go to the back of the book. Of course, all of those points costs will soon be out of date if there's no update!
GW have produced an army builder tool for AoS that does seem to have been updated for the 2017 GH points costs. Likewise the AoS app has updated costs. The same ought to be possible for 40k.
I did the same for my SM Dex, and there are several errors (bring up the power maul profile for example) that have not been corrected. I really hope that at minimum GW can publish an update to correct those. It would be REAL nice to also provide updates to things like point values, fill in missing info, or update text that was clarified in the FAQ.
I did see someone mention a GW army builder for AOS. If they would do the same for 40k that would be a fantastic tool to have at our disposal. I bet we will see it in 2018. Doesn't make sense for them to give that to AOS and not 40k.
ListenToMeWarriors wrote: Some of the rumours seem genuine whilst others are just odd. As a Death Guard fan the Plagueburst Crawler has always been worth its current points so I have no idea why in the rumours it is getting a 10 point reduction.
The Lord of Contagion and Deathshroud point reductions make sense though, as does the -2 pts on Plague Marines. I guess we shall see.
I agree, the PBC point drop doesn't make sense.
I can kinda see the reasoning for the pbc point drop. BS 4+ is highly overrated and with the abundant -1 to hit available these days, which is one of the most used or sought after buffs, it really can be marginalized. You know if it moves that's another -1 to hit as well, it's BS also diminishes with wounds. With imperial guard battle tanks now shooting twice, they really seem lack luster in comparison.
Deathwatch
Warlord Trait- re-roll failed wound rolls
Relic- once per game at end of movement, teleport a friendly infantry or biker unit to within 6" and outside of 9" of enemy model
Stratagems
1. 1CP select an enemy vehicle within 1" of a watch master and on a 2+ vehicle suffers d3 mortal wounds
2. 1CP each time you make a hit roll a 6+ in the fight phase and its not an imperium or chaos aligned model, make an extra attack. additional attacks cant be created from these.
Drukari
Warlord Traits
1. Wych Cult- each roll of a 6+ in the fight phase causes 3 hits
2. Haemonculus Coven- heal d3 wounds at the start of each turn
3. re-roll to hits and to wound rolls of a 1 during the fight phase.
Relic- Pistol 2 R12 S1 AP-2 D2 wounds on a 2+ vehicles on a 6+. For each model killed bearer gains a wound
Strategem
1CP/3CP one infantry, beast, or biker unit or 2 for 3 CP may use the webway and emerge onto the battle at the end of any of your movement phases. Setting up anywhere that is 9" or more from enemy units. Can only be used once per battle.
Harlequins
Warlord Trait- re-roll hit rolls of a 1
Relic- Increase leadership by 1, and all enemy units within 6" reduce their leadership by 1
Stratagems
1. 1CP/3CP one infantry, beast, or biker unit or 2 for 3 CP may use the webway and emerge onto the battle at the end of any of your movement phases. Setting up anywhere that is 9" or more from enemy units. Can only be used once per battle.
2. 1CP after a harlequin unit has advanced, it gains a 3+ invul until start of next turn.
Genestealer Cults
Warlord Trait- friendly infantry units can do a Heroic Intervention within 6"
Relic- +1 strength to friendly infantry unit within 6"
Stratagems
1. 1CP end of movement phase, remove a infantry unit from the board that is more than 6" from enemy models. At the end of the next movement phase, return it to the board using Cult Ambush
2. 1CP before rolling on cult ambush table, roll 2 dice instead of 1 and choose the result. A Primus may roll 3 dice instead.
Imperial Knights
Warlord Trait- add one to Attacks
Relic- replace reaper chainsword with this Melee S+6 AP3 D6 Stratagem
1CP when a Questor Imperialis or Mechanicus unit with a invul save is targeted, you may add 1 to the invul save until the end of the phase.
Thousand Sons
Warlord Trait- re-roll deny witch tests
Relic- rolling doubles for psychic tests means the opponent may not resist with deny the witch or negate it by any means.
Psychic Power- warp charge of 7. Select an enemy unit within 18" and roll 9 dice. The unit suffers mortal wounds on each roll of a 6
Stratagems
1CP If within 6" of at least 2 other friendly TS psykers, you can add 2 to your psychic test.
For instance, Harlies have no Beasts. Unless they can take DE stuff *as* harlies (I really doubt they'll release new kits without a book).
Could be misremembering or something, though.
It's a straight up copy paste of what was written for the Drukhari since they have beasts, if it's true it will probably only say bikes and Infantry.
The Drukhari stuff is a bit meh, I mean the first two traits are decent but wont change the fact that our HQ's are rubbish, the 3rd trait is pointless. The relic is a nice update to the Parasites Kiss but the strategem is a copy paste job of the Craftworlders Webway Strike, and it's the wrong strategem to give us since all of our infantry are in vehicles and no one runs bikes so only beast packs will benefit in case someone likes to run Beastmasters and Clawed Fiends. Cloud Strike would have been much more useful for us.
So I guess this means that Thousand Sons are in fact going to get our own spell list... I should be excited about this but that means we're losing one of the best spell lists in the game so it largely just makes me nervous.
The best feature revealed for us is probably the warlord trait, largely because its a warlord trait and that means we only have to take it when it'll be useful (hopefully it isn't the signature trait for Magnus or Ahriman...).
Hmm even in the rumors there is no mention of Ynnari...I wonder if they will be stuck with index rules or they will get an FAQ/pamphlet rules before the year ends?
Tautastic wrote: Hmm even in the rumors there is no mention of Ynnari...I wonder if they will be stuck with index rules or they will get an FAQ/pamphlet rules before the year ends?
Ynnari is a soup army, giving them stratagems would be like giving Imperium stratagems.
GW could still do it, of course, but they shouldn't.
Tautastic wrote: Hmm even in the rumors there is no mention of Ynnari...I wonder if they will be stuck with index rules or they will get an FAQ/pamphlet rules before the year ends?
Ynnari is a soup army, giving them stratagems would be like giving Imperium stratagems.
GW could still do it, of course, but they shouldn't.
Well they are a little different than most soup armies. They have their own rules (SfD and Psychic powers). Also they have their own models (albeit only 3 but those 3 are unique to them unlike other soup armies using different codex models). Besides a pure Ynnari army has no access to stratagems too.
Now a better comparison to a soup army is an "Aeldari" army. I think a Ynnari is an army of their own.
Tautastic wrote: Hmm even in the rumors there is no mention of Ynnari...I wonder if they will be stuck with index rules or they will get an FAQ/pamphlet rules before the year ends?
... while the Triumvirate of Ynnead has been reboxed to include the new rules for the Ynnari from Index: Imperium 2, meaning you won’t need to buy this book if you’re looking to field a Ynnari army with your codex in open play.
If their rules were changing, they wouldn't have went through the effort to put the index rules in the kit.
Tautastic wrote: Hmm even in the rumors there is no mention of Ynnari...I wonder if they will be stuck with index rules or they will get an FAQ/pamphlet rules before the year ends?
... while the Triumvirate of Ynnead has been reboxed to include the new rules for the Ynnari from Index: Imperium 2, meaning you won’t need to buy this book if you’re looking to field a Ynnari army with your codex in open play.
If their rules were changing, they wouldn't have went through the effort to put the index rules in the kit.
I feel like this is a bit of confirmation bias.
We had it being plugged early on that Ynnari will be a faction in their own right and as such will see a Codex release at some point. We don't know when or how it will look, but the lack of a change to the rules of the Triumvirate of Ynnead does not mean that there won't be a Codex later.
I'm calling bull on this as compared to the General's Handbook these are really lackluster, and I can't imagine them going this "meh" for their first outing.
broxus wrote: In other game systems if you have first turn everything just counts as moving. This results in a -1 penalty for many units (normally the big damage units)
This would be awesome. Currently, even the roll-off is bad, as the winner of the roll-off still has a huge advantage.
I'm just miffed that there are no leaked changes to Grey Knights, who are currently stuck with the least interesting and least competitive codex thus far.
I am really hoping for a Chapter/Legion/Whatever trait for all of the armies that don't have them. Just one each. Basically, I want the armies to be on par with each other, even if codex armies have more choices.
greyknight12 wrote: I'm just miffed that there are no leaked changes to Grey Knights, who are currently stuck with the least interesting and least competitive codex thus far.
AdMech says hi, but...
Terminators going up in price was super insulting. I'm also still miffed that Purifiers lost their second attack.
... while the Triumvirate of Ynnead has been reboxed to include the new rules for the Ynnari from Index: Imperium 2, meaning you won’t need to buy this book if you’re looking to field a Ynnari army with your codex in open play.
If their rules were changing, they wouldn't have went through the effort to put the index rules in the kit.
So removing the 7th edition rules that will just confuse new players and keeping the box in line with the “kit includes rules” paradigm they’ve been pursuing for years isn’t a good enough reason?
Karthicus wrote: I did see someone mention a GW army builder for AOS. If they would do the same for 40k that would be a fantastic tool to have at our disposal. I bet we will see it in 2018. Doesn't make sense for them to give that to AOS and not 40k.
You know how 40k has power levels as a rough balance mechanism? AoS points are like that. It's X points for Y models, all upgrades and weapon options are free (and yes, this does affect balance like you might imagine). This means an army builder is far more simple for AoS than it would be for 40k.
... while the Triumvirate of Ynnead has been reboxed to include the new rules for the Ynnari from Index: Imperium 2, meaning you won’t need to buy this book if you’re looking to field a Ynnari army with your codex in open play.
If their rules were changing, they wouldn't have went through the effort to put the index rules in the kit.
So removing the 7th edition rules that will just confuse new players and keeping the box in line with the “kit includes rules” paradigm they’ve been pursuing for years isn’t a good enough reason?
So new players can be confused with out of date 8th edition rules instead if they change the rules in a few months? If the 8th edition index rules aren't going to be sticking around for a while, why even include them in the kit?
... while the Triumvirate of Ynnead has been reboxed to include the new rules for the Ynnari from Index: Imperium 2, meaning you won’t need to buy this book if you’re looking to field a Ynnari army with your codex in open play.
If their rules were changing, they wouldn't have went through the effort to put the index rules in the kit.
So removing the 7th edition rules that will just confuse new players and keeping the box in line with the “kit includes rules” paradigm they’ve been pursuing for years isn’t a good enough reason?
So new players can be confused with out of date 8th edition rules instead if they change the rules in a few months? If the 8th edition index rules aren't going to be sticking around for a while, why even include them in the kit?
For no other reason than to give you something stupid to complain about
Ynnari can go away, the same way the Albion Fen beast and truthsayer did inFantasy. You came, moved the story along, now either unite the Aeldar (CW, Dark & Clown types) or go away.
Uriels_Flame wrote: Ynnari can go away, the same way the Albion Fen beast and truthsayer did inFantasy. You came, moved the story along, now either unite the Aeldar (CW, Dark & Clown types) or go away.
I'd much rather they became a full fledged army in their own right than hodgepodge of some other armies.
I wonder whether the Dark Eldar and Harlequin webway strike stratagems can be used in addition to the Craftworlds one or whether the entire army can only use it once. It might be fun to see an army of mixed jetbikes explode out of reserves.
Thousand Sons
Warlord Trait- re-roll deny witch tests
Relic- rolling doubles for psychic tests means the opponent may not resist with deny the witch or negate it by any means.
Psychic Power- warp charge of 7. Select an enemy unit within 18" and roll 9 dice. The unit suffers mortal wounds on each roll of a 6
Stratagems
1CP If within 6" of at least 2 other friendly TS psykers, you can add 2 to your psychic test.
This is... dissappointing. Very so...
I hope this is not true. Warlord trait re-roll "deny the witch"? Maybe re-rolling psychic test for this army, but "deny the witch"? Why?
The psychic power is basically useless unless you have wildy good luck... In 6 dice the average is to get one 6. In 9 dice it would be 1.something or being really generous, 2. And with 7 warp charge is not really very easy... Comparing that with Smite that can make 1D3 mortal wounds, with difficulty 5, i really don't see the point for this power. Sure, with veeeery good luck you can have 9 mortal wounds... but with bad dice rolls you can do nothing. Much better the basic smite. If these are the kind of psychic powers we can expect for the "masters of the warp", well... And then in the same rumour we have the Harlequins, for 1 CP gaining a 3++ after advancing.
Very dissappointing... So i really hope this is not true.
broxus wrote: In other game systems if you have first turn everything just counts as moving. This results in a -1 penalty for many units (normally the big damage units)
This would be awesome. Currently, even the roll-off is bad, as the winner of the roll-off still has a huge advantage.
Honestly I think the return of night fighting (or Acid Rain in the open play cards) would go a long way to mitigate first turn advantage.
Thousand Sons
Warlord Trait- re-roll deny witch tests
Relic- rolling doubles for psychic tests means the opponent may not resist with deny the witch or negate it by any means.
Psychic Power- warp charge of 7. Select an enemy unit within 18" and roll 9 dice. The unit suffers mortal wounds on each roll of a 6
Stratagems
1CP If within 6" of at least 2 other friendly TS psykers, you can add 2 to your psychic test.
This is... dissappointing. Very so...
I hope this is not true. Warlord trait re-roll "deny the witch"? Maybe re-rolling psychic test for this army, but "deny the witch"? Why?
The psychic power is basically useless unless you have wildy good luck... In 6 dice the average is to get one 6. In 9 dice it would be 1.something or being really generous, 2. And with 7 warp charge is not really very easy... Comparing that with Smite that can make 1D3 mortal wounds, with difficulty 5, i really don't see the point for this power. Sure, with veeeery good luck you can have 9 mortal wounds... but with bad dice rolls you can do nothing. Much better the basic smite. If these are the kind of psychic powers we can expect for the "masters of the warp", well... And then in the same rumour we have the Harlequins, for 1 CP gaining a 3++ after advancing.
Very dissappointing... So i really hope this is not true.
I wonder how the relic interacts with Sisters of Silence etc?
Thousand Sons
Warlord Trait- re-roll deny witch tests
Relic- rolling doubles for psychic tests means the opponent may not resist with deny the witch or negate it by any means.
Psychic Power- warp charge of 7. Select an enemy unit within 18" and roll 9 dice. The unit suffers mortal wounds on each roll of a 6
Stratagems
1CP If within 6" of at least 2 other friendly TS psykers, you can add 2 to your psychic test.
This is... dissappointing. Very so...
I hope this is not true. Warlord trait re-roll "deny the witch"? Maybe re-rolling psychic test for this army, but "deny the witch"? Why?
The psychic power is basically useless unless you have wildy good luck... In 6 dice the average is to get one 6. In 9 dice it would be 1.something or being really generous, 2. And with 7 warp charge is not really very easy... Comparing that with Smite that can make 1D3 mortal wounds, with difficulty 5, i really don't see the point for this power. Sure, with veeeery good luck you can have 9 mortal wounds... but with bad dice rolls you can do nothing. Much better the basic smite. If these are the kind of psychic powers we can expect for the "masters of the warp", well... And then in the same rumour we have the Harlequins, for 1 CP gaining a 3++ after advancing.
Very dissappointing... So i really hope this is not true.
While I agree the power is lackluster, the main advantage over smite is picking a target rather than only hitting the closest.
Thousand Sons
Warlord Trait- re-roll deny witch tests
Relic- rolling doubles for psychic tests means the opponent may not resist with deny the witch or negate it by any means.
Psychic Power- warp charge of 7. Select an enemy unit within 18" and roll 9 dice. The unit suffers mortal wounds on each roll of a 6
Stratagems
1CP If within 6" of at least 2 other friendly TS psykers, you can add 2 to your psychic test.
This is... dissappointing. Very so...
I hope this is not true. Warlord trait re-roll "deny the witch"? Maybe re-rolling psychic test for this army, but "deny the witch"? Why?
The psychic power is basically useless unless you have wildy good luck... In 6 dice the average is to get one 6. In 9 dice it would be 1.something or being really generous, 2. And with 7 warp charge is not really very easy... Comparing that with Smite that can make 1D3 mortal wounds, with difficulty 5, i really don't see the point for this power. Sure, with veeeery good luck you can have 9 mortal wounds... but with bad dice rolls you can do nothing. Much better the basic smite. If these are the kind of psychic powers we can expect for the "masters of the warp", well... And then in the same rumour we have the Harlequins, for 1 CP gaining a 3++ after advancing.
Very dissappointing... So i really hope this is not true.
While I agree the power is lackluster, the main advantage over smite is picking a target rather than only hitting the closest.
We have Infernal Gaze (less Warp charge, on average does the same damage as the new power) and Gift of Chaos (cheaper, but much shorter ranged and they have to pass a toughness test, but does more damage). Not sure why you'd use the new power, unless Aspiring Sorcerers can use it instead of Smite? Even then...
Camundongo wrote: We have Infernal Gaze (less Warp charge, on average does the same damage as the new power) and Gift of Chaos (cheaper, but much shorter ranged and they have to pass a toughness test, but does more damage). Not sure why you'd use the new power, unless Aspiring Sorcerers can use it instead of Smite? Even then...
Chances are we won't have Infernal Gaze or Gift of Chaos when the new list rolls around. Or more importantly, we won't have Warptime or Prescience either... it'll be difficult for them to even break even with the CSM list.
Thousand Sons
Warlord Trait- re-roll deny witch tests
Relic- rolling doubles for psychic tests means the opponent may not resist with deny the witch or negate it by any means.
Psychic Power- warp charge of 7. Select an enemy unit within 18" and roll 9 dice. The unit suffers mortal wounds on each roll of a 6
Stratagems
1CP If within 6" of at least 2 other friendly TS psykers, you can add 2 to your psychic test.
This is... dissappointing. Very so...
I hope this is not true. Warlord trait re-roll "deny the witch"? Maybe re-rolling psychic test for this army, but "deny the witch"? Why?
The psychic power is basically useless unless you have wildy good luck... In 6 dice the average is to get one 6. In 9 dice it would be 1.something or being really generous, 2. And with 7 warp charge is not really very easy... Comparing that with Smite that can make 1D3 mortal wounds, with difficulty 5, i really don't see the point for this power. Sure, with veeeery good luck you can have 9 mortal wounds... but with bad dice rolls you can do nothing. Much better the basic smite. If these are the kind of psychic powers we can expect for the "masters of the warp", well... And then in the same rumour we have the Harlequins, for 1 CP gaining a 3++ after advancing.
Very dissappointing... So i really hope this is not true.
but is it re-roll YOUR deny the witch (pretty Meh) or force your opponent to reroll their deny the witch if you choose (pretty good since it would make it a lot harder for them to block your stronger powers)
Thousand Sons
Warlord Trait- re-roll deny witch tests
Relic- rolling doubles for psychic tests means the opponent may not resist with deny the witch or negate it by any means.
Psychic Power- warp charge of 7. Select an enemy unit within 18" and roll 9 dice. The unit suffers mortal wounds on each roll of a 6
Stratagems
1CP If within 6" of at least 2 other friendly TS psykers, you can add 2 to your psychic test.
This is... dissappointing. Very so...
I hope this is not true. Warlord trait re-roll "deny the witch"? Maybe re-rolling psychic test for this army, but "deny the witch"? Why?
The psychic power is basically useless unless you have wildy good luck... In 6 dice the average is to get one 6. In 9 dice it would be 1.something or being really generous, 2. And with 7 warp charge is not really very easy... Comparing that with Smite that can make 1D3 mortal wounds, with difficulty 5, i really don't see the point for this power. Sure, with veeeery good luck you can have 9 mortal wounds... but with bad dice rolls you can do nothing. Much better the basic smite. If these are the kind of psychic powers we can expect for the "masters of the warp", well... And then in the same rumour we have the Harlequins, for 1 CP gaining a 3++ after advancing.
Very dissappointing... So i really hope this is not true.
While I agree the power is lackluster, the main advantage over smite is picking a target rather than only hitting the closest.
We have Infernal Gaze (less Warp charge, on average does the same damage as the new power) and Gift of Chaos (cheaper, but much shorter ranged and they have to pass a toughness test, but does more damage). Not sure why you'd use the new power, unless Aspiring Sorcerers can use it instead of Smite? Even then...
Like I said, that doesn't make it at all good but there is at least some reason to use it over smite if those are the two options. In a TS army its also entirely possible that the two powers you mentioned were already used in the same phase and accordingly can't be used again until the next turn.
Uriels_Flame wrote: Ynnari can go away, the same way the Albion Fen beast and truthsayer did inFantasy. You came, moved the story along, now either unite the Aeldar (CW, Dark & Clown types) or go away.
I'd much rather they became a full fledged army in their own right than hodgepodge of some other armies.
It would be better IMHO for them to be like Imperial Guard Storm Troopers and Auxiliary. A "out of faction" choice, that still allows you to count as a single faction. The don't benefit from your craft world abilities, but don't stop you from taking them if in the same detachment.
Uriels_Flame wrote: Ynnari can go away, the same way the Albion Fen beast and truthsayer did inFantasy. You came, moved the story along, now either unite the Aeldar (CW, Dark & Clown types) or go away.
I'd much rather they became a full fledged army in their own right than hodgepodge of some other armies.
It would be better IMHO for them to be like Imperial Guard Storm Troopers and Auxiliary. A "out of faction" choice, that still allows you to count as a single faction. The don't benefit from your craft world abilities, but don't stop you from taking them if in the same detachment.
The problem with this is that there is another part to that: Militarum Tempestus units taken as part of, say, a Catachan Detachment? They don't benefit from the Catachan rules nor do they prevent the Catachans from benefitting from theirs...but they also do not get their own benefits. Scions do actually have their own Regimental rules(Stormtroopers: models shooting at half range or less can make an extra shot for each hit roll of 6+ that they make) that they don't get for being part of another Regimental detachment.
So if Ynnari were given that setup, they shouldn't get their special perks in a Craftworld Detachment. At all.
greyknight12 wrote: I'm just miffed that there are no leaked changes to Grey Knights, who are currently stuck with the least interesting and least competitive codex thus far.
greyknight12 wrote: I'm just miffed that there are no leaked changes to Grey Knights, who are currently stuck with the least interesting and least competitive codex thus far.
You and me both, brother.
I wouldn't read much into it one way or the other. It's highly unlikely that these are in fact real changes.
greyknight12 wrote: I'm just miffed that there are no leaked changes to Grey Knights, who are currently stuck with the least interesting and least competitive codex thus far.
You and me both, brother.
I wouldn't read much into it one way or the other. It's highly unlikely that these are in fact real changes.
Agreed. Technically, none of factions got leaks...only rumors.
greyknight12 wrote: I'm just miffed that there are no leaked changes to Grey Knights, who are currently stuck with the least interesting and least competitive codex thus far.
You and me both, brother.
I wouldn't read much into it one way or the other. It's highly unlikely that these are in fact real changes.
Agreed. Technically, none of factions got leaks...only rumors.
And really, from the way it's being presented all of the "rumors" are the only thing that each faction gets. Which is...questionable at best. My Wanderers in AoS saw a full table of Command Traits, 6 Relics, and then some new special rules to bring them roughly to parity with those armies which had full army books.
greyknight12 wrote: I'm just miffed that there are no leaked changes to Grey Knights, who are currently stuck with the least interesting and least competitive codex thus far.
You and me both, brother.
I wouldn't read much into it one way or the other. It's highly unlikely that these are in fact real changes.
Agreed. Technically, none of factions got leaks...only rumors.
And really, from the way it's being presented all of the "rumors" are the only thing that each faction gets. Which is...questionable at best. My Wanderers in AoS saw a full table of Command Traits, 6 Relics, and then some new special rules to bring them roughly to parity with those armies which had full army books.
I don't think we're going to get full parity anyway. If we did, why would anyone bother to buy the codex?
Like it or not, it's obvious that the indexes were deliberately weakened relative to the codexes to make sure people bought both. I don't see CA breaking that trend. I just means we get to buy three things instead of two.
JimOnMars wrote: I don't think we're going to get full parity anyway. If we did, why would anyone bother to buy the codex?
Because you don't have option if we want to play tournaments? Players are excelent at self-policying themselves into following GW's dictations even stricter than GW is trying and now even GW is "latest only" for pretty much first time.
JimOnMars wrote: I don't think we're going to get full parity anyway. If we did, why would anyone bother to buy the codex?
Like it or not, it's obvious that the indexes were deliberately weakened relative to the codexes to make sure people bought both. I don't see CA breaking that trend. I just means we get to buy three things instead of two.
See, I don't think we were going to get full parity but at the least they know their schedule for what books are in testing and what books aren't. I could easily see Chapter Approved making it so that they can sneak some of the material they want tested into the open and see how it gets responded to.
At the very least, I expect if they're going to do anything for the Index Armies in Chapter Approved to try and balance them up to where the Codex armies are?
-A full Warlord table.
-A number of generic Relics.
-A selection of Stratagems that are thematic for that faction.
-A selection of point tweaks.
-MAYBE a few <Insert Fancy Name Here> traits, at least for the ones ties to specific worlds/groups(T'au and Farsight Enclaves for the Tau and Goffs for the Orks, for example)
You'd be looking at 6 Warlord Traits, 6 Relics, and maybe 6 Stratagems plus the tweaks to points and the "sneak peek" of specific traits. By doing it like that, you maintain the incentive for buying the actual Codex once it comes out while still showing a commitment to making things balanced.
JimOnMars wrote: I don't think we're going to get full parity anyway. If we did, why would anyone bother to buy the codex?
Like it or not, it's obvious that the indexes were deliberately weakened relative to the codexes to make sure people bought both. I don't see CA breaking that trend. I just means we get to buy three things instead of two.
See, I don't think we were going to get full parity but at the least they know their schedule for what books are in testing and what books aren't. I could easily see Chapter Approved making it so that they can sneak some of the material they want tested into the open and see how it gets responded to.
At the very least, I expect if they're going to do anything for the Index Armies in Chapter Approved to try and balance them up to where the Codex armies are?
-A full Warlord table.
-A number of generic Relics.
-A selection of Stratagems that are thematic for that faction.
-A selection of point tweaks.
-MAYBE a few <Insert Fancy Name Here> traits, at least for the ones ties to specific worlds/groups(T'au and Farsight Enclaves for the Tau and Goffs for the Orks, for example)
You'd be looking at 6 Warlord Traits, 6 Relics, and maybe 6 Stratagems plus the tweaks to points and the "sneak peek" of specific traits. By doing it like that, you maintain the incentive for buying the actual Codex once it comes out while still showing a commitment to making things balanced.
More likely, ONE trait, ONE strategem, and maybe one faction rule. I would be fine with that. I'm only waiting for my Orkz update and they're gonna be bottom barrel regardless.
Thousand Sons
Warlord Trait- re-roll deny witch tests
Relic- rolling doubles for psychic tests means the opponent may not resist with deny the witch or negate it by any means.
Psychic Power- warp charge of 7. Select an enemy unit within 18" and roll 9 dice. The unit suffers mortal wounds on each roll of a 6
Stratagems
1CP If within 6" of at least 2 other friendly TS psykers, you can add 2 to your psychic test.
This better not be what we get. The trait is crap, the Psy power is somehow worse, the relic is laughable, and the stratagem is barely decent.
Allow me to elaborate though.
The Trait is a non-buff buff. It doesn't actually add anything to your capabilities since your going to have either Ahriman or Magnus as your warlord and they already have a bonus to thier deny. The only time it will be really helpful is against extreamly high rolls which will be so rare that it will be almost useless to bring.
That epic Psychic Power... 10,000 years and they managed to get a spell slightly worse then Smite? No wonder Prospero fell, maybe next time work on something useful like a spell that cleans armor or does the dishes.
The Relic, I mean my god a 4/36 chance of getting something out of a Relic is super reasonable. Not like the only Charcters able to use it can only cast 2 spells per turn or anything, which would mean it MIGHT work once per game on to be determined spell, and thats if you don't kill yourself in the process.
Why...why would they even add a strat to an army that can barely get 9 CP at 2k points, that is if you want to have a chance at winning. How about a Strat that allows a reroll for all psychic tests in the paychic phase? So my army dosent occasionally implode. But then again if you use it with magnus he gets a +4 to his roll which means a 6+ gets you 2D6 mortal wounds dosent it?
4/36 chance, with reasonable simplified math, is a 1/9 chance. Calling it 4/36 to make it seem worse than it is is like calling it a 12/108 chance. "96 out of 108 times it will fail!" Also... 8 out of 9. Not the worst.
How many Tson units in a list can cast powers? How many powers do you think your generally casting a turn? A game?
Lance845 wrote: 4/36 chance, with reasonable simplified math, is a 1/9 chance. Calling it 4/36 to make it seem worse than it is is like calling it a 12/108 chance. "96 out of 108 times it will fail!" Also... 8 out of 9. Not the worst.
How many Tson units in a list can cast powers? How many powers do you think your generally casting a turn? A game?
Not many, to be honest. Almost all of your casting is done by Magnus and Ahriman, neither of which can take relics. I usually have at most one or two other sorcerers in a list who are largely just there for a specific purpose (like a Prescience Termi Sorc to drop next to my SOT's) and outside of that just cast Smite.
Lance845 wrote: 4/36 chance, with reasonable simplified math, is a 1/9 chance. Calling it 4/36 to make it seem worse than it is is like calling it a 12/108 chance. "96 out of 108 times it will fail!" Also... 8 out of 9. Not the worst.
How many Tson units in a list can cast powers? How many powers do you think your generally casting a turn? A game?
Not many, to be honest. Almost all of your casting is done by Magnus and Ahriman, neither of which can take relics. I usually have at most one or two other sorcerers in a list who are largely just there for a specific purpose (like a Prescience Termi Sorc to drop next to my SOT's) and outside of that just cast Smite.
It's also more likely a 1/12 chance, double 1 and double 2 are fails whilst it's very unusual for an opponent to be able to deny a double 6.
JimOnMars wrote: I don't think we're going to get full parity anyway. If we did, why would anyone bother to buy the codex?
Like it or not, it's obvious that the indexes were deliberately weakened relative to the codexes to make sure people bought both. I don't see CA breaking that trend. I just means we get to buy three things instead of two.
See, I don't think we were going to get full parity but at the least they know their schedule for what books are in testing and what books aren't. I could easily see Chapter Approved making it so that they can sneak some of the material they want tested into the open and see how it gets responded to.
At the very least, I expect if they're going to do anything for the Index Armies in Chapter Approved to try and balance them up to where the Codex armies are?
-A full Warlord table.
-A number of generic Relics.
-A selection of Stratagems that are thematic for that faction.
-A selection of point tweaks.
-MAYBE a few <Insert Fancy Name Here> traits, at least for the ones ties to specific worlds/groups(T'au and Farsight Enclaves for the Tau and Goffs for the Orks, for example)
You'd be looking at 6 Warlord Traits, 6 Relics, and maybe 6 Stratagems plus the tweaks to points and the "sneak peek" of specific traits. By doing it like that, you maintain the incentive for buying the actual Codex once it comes out while still showing a commitment to making things balanced.
I would hope that would be the case - least they can do for those not blessed with a Codex. It would be in line with the Generals Handbook 2017.
I would be very surprised if Chapter Approved is as comprehensive as the Generals Handbook in giving out additional rules to the armies. With the GHB you expect most of those armies to never see a Battletome release whilst we know that within the next year everything faction will end up with a codex for 40K so there's no where near as much need.
Imateria wrote: I would be very surprised if Chapter Approved is as comprehensive as the Generals Handbook in giving out additional rules to the armies. With the GHB you expect most of those armies to never see a Battletome release whilst we know that within the next year everything faction will end up with a codex for 40K so there's no where near as much need.
So some armies should wait "just" another year to have anything cool? Yeah thats just awesome. They did not say everyone - they said every major faction iirc.
Still alot of Codexs to come out - plus likely Campaign books:
Thousand Sons, Space Wolves, Dark Eldar, Orks, Tau , Genestaler Cults, Plus maybe DeathWatch, Agents of Imperium, Custodes, Sister of Silence, Emperors Children, I can see them doing some of these in CA just so they donlt have to bother with a Codex for them
I can't see Primaris not getting a Codex - otherwise not enough Marine releases and they will have to start again with yet another Codex Marines
Imateria wrote: I would be very surprised if Chapter Approved is as comprehensive as the Generals Handbook in giving out additional rules to the armies. With the GHB you expect most of those armies to never see a Battletome release whilst we know that within the next year everything faction will end up with a codex for 40K so there's no where near as much need.
So some armies should wait "just" another year to have anything cool? Yeah thats just awesome. They did not say everyone - they said every major faction iirc.
Still alot of Codexs to come out - plus likely Campaign books:
Thousand Sons, Space Wolves, Dark Eldar, Orks, Tau , Genestaler Cults, Plus maybe DeathWatch, Agents of Imperium, Custodes, Sister of Silence, Emperors Children, I can see them doing some of these in CA just so they donlt have to bother with a Codex for them
I can't see Primaris not getting a Codex - otherwise not enough Marine releases and they will have to start again with yet another Codex Marines
They've said Primaris aren't getting a Codex.
With the way they're pushing for rules in the boxes and points as PDFs if they're not out or in a book yet, they don't need to update the books right off the bat.
Lance845 wrote: 4/36 chance, with reasonable simplified math, is a 1/9 chance. Calling it 4/36 to make it seem worse than it is is like calling it a 12/108 chance. "96 out of 108 times it will fail!" Also... 8 out of 9. Not the worst.
How many Tson units in a list can cast powers? How many powers do you think your generally casting a turn? A game?
Take a stats class and they will explain to you why you dont say 4/36 is the same as 1/9. Mostly because it isn't.
Either way. One would hope any possible Thousand Sons additions would go some way towards making Ahriman and Magnus less of an auto-include and all other HQ sections balanced against lists with those two.
The auto-include of the named guys and clear advantage they enjoy over lists without them seems to be the biggest problem with TS at the moment.
Imateria wrote: I would be very surprised if Chapter Approved is as comprehensive as the Generals Handbook in giving out additional rules to the armies. With the GHB you expect most of those armies to never see a Battletome release whilst we know that within the next year everything faction will end up with a codex for 40K so there's no where near as much need.
So some armies should wait "just" another year to have anything cool? Yeah thats just awesome. They did not say everyone - they said every major faction iirc.
Still alot of Codexs to come out - plus likely Campaign books:
Thousand Sons, Space Wolves, Dark Eldar, Orks, Tau , Genestaler Cults, Plus maybe DeathWatch, Agents of Imperium, Custodes, Sister of Silence, Emperors Children, I can see them doing some of these in CA just so they donlt have to bother with a Codex for them
I can't see Primaris not getting a Codex - otherwise not enough Marine releases and they will have to start again with yet another Codex Marines
Less than a year at the current rate. And they've already said campaign books will be after the codecies. Considering it took 14 years for Dark Eldar to go from their first to their second codex I think knowing that having a new one within a year of a major rules change is pretty good going, especially since all factions will be in the same boat.
Also, for your reading fail, I said "as comprehensive", that doesn't mean getting nothing at all. There's no way BW was ever going to put anywhwere near as much into the CA as they would a codex for each faction a then there would be no need for a codex.
Karthicus wrote: I did see someone mention a GW army builder for AOS. If they would do the same for 40k that would be a fantastic tool to have at our disposal. I bet we will see it in 2018. Doesn't make sense for them to give that to AOS and not 40k.
You know how 40k has power levels as a rough balance mechanism? AoS points are like that. It's X points for Y models, all upgrades and weapon options are free (and yes, this does affect balance like you might imagine). This means an army builder is far more simple for AoS than it would be for 40k.
Not really actually, the AoS army builder has all the nuts and bolts for adding weapons per squad and such already built in, it would be practically trivial to add in the points values to each item. As it stands the AoS app is ready to take on 40k with little change.
Lance845 wrote: 4/36 chance, with reasonable simplified math, is a 1/9 chance. Calling it 4/36 to make it seem worse than it is is like calling it a 12/108 chance. "96 out of 108 times it will fail!" Also... 8 out of 9. Not the worst.
How many Tson units in a list can cast powers? How many powers do you think your generally casting a turn? A game?
Take a stats class and they will explain to you why you dont say 4/36 is the same as 1/9. Mostly because it isn't.
...take a stats class...to better understand why certain rules don’t favour someone else’s army in a tabletop war game? Truly compelling discourse in favour of a buff to Magnus’ dust pharaohs.
How many codexes do we have left after those that have been announced?
Deathwatch
Space Wolves
Adeptus Ministorum/Sisters of Battle
Adeptus Custodes
Sisters of Silence
Inquisition
Imperial Knights
Officio Assassinorum
Thousand Sons
Renegade Knights
Orks
Harlequins
Dark Eldar
Ynnari
Necrons
T'au
Genestealer Cults
Right away, I am going to say that Custodes, Sisters of Silence, Inquisition and the Assassins could be lumped together in a single book called "Forces of the Imperium". All of the armies inside may not share a keyword but many of them are too small to justify their own book.
That drops the total down to, what, 14 codexes? Release a codex every 2 weeks starting in late January and you will have them all out by the end of July.
I expect Sisters of Silence & Custodes to get put into one book. They were called the "Talons of the Emperor" in a few spots recently so that's one book.
Assassins and Inquisition could be another book and be called "Hand of Terra" or something of that nature.
Sisters of Battle will likely be their own book; Adeptus Ministorum stuff will depend on what they opt to carry over.
Imperial Agents or Agents of the Throne would also be good titles but they may just go with a simple Inquisition title.
I cant see Imperial Knights getting their own codex after being in Adeptus Mechanicus. Renegade knights could be included in a Chaos Cultists codex similar to the Forgeworld Renegades.
WatcherZero wrote: Imperial Agents or Agents of the Throne would also be good titles but they may just go with a simple Inquisition title.
I cant see Imperial Knights getting their own codex after being in Adeptus Mechanicus. Renegade knights could be included in a Chaos Cultists codex similar to the Forgeworld Renegades.
The Adeptus Mechanicus book covered those sworn to the Adeptus Mechanicus.
I absolutely 100% can see a Knights book since there are also Imperial sworn Houses and Freeblades.
WatcherZero wrote: Imperial Agents or Agents of the Throne would also be good titles but they may just go with a simple Inquisition title.
I cant see Imperial Knights getting their own codex after being in Adeptus Mechanicus. Renegade knights could be included in a Chaos Cultists codex similar to the Forgeworld Renegades.
The Adeptus Mechanicus book covered those sworn to the Adeptus Mechanicus.
I absolutely 100% can see a Knights book since there are also Imperial sworn Houses and Freeblades.
I, for one, am very excited for my Mechanicus Knights to be Strictly Worse than Imperial or Freeblade Knights.
Sim-Life wrote: I think its more likely that Custodes, Sister of Silence, Ministorum, Sisters of Battle, Assassins and Inquisition will all be one book.
Knight I could see as staying their own.
Can I dream about SoB being the last Codex released for 8th, with a new nice plastic range to go with it?
You can dream but it would turn into a waking nightmare when 9th launches a month later, GW waffles on the core changes in 8th so 9th is a top down overhaul needing indexes again, invalidating the SoB book after 4 short weeks. Oh, and the plastic range would launch with the book like Death Guard and the blight hauler. Vapourware lol.
On the other hand maybe SoB launch after Daemons of Chaos. Who knows.
Sim-Life wrote: I think its more likely that Custodes, Sister of Silence, Ministorum, Sisters of Battle, Assassins and Inquisition will all be one book.
Knight I could see as staying their own.
Can I dream about SoB being the last Codex released for 8th, with a new nice plastic range to go with it?
Can I?
There is a lot of precedent for SoB dropping right before the edition change.
The codex can be flaming poo if they drop my some sweet, sweet Sister of Battle plastic minatures. I started back in 4th Edition and the only new sisters models have been Celestine and the Geminae Superiors.
Lance845 wrote: 4/36 chance, with reasonable simplified math, is a 1/9 chance. Calling it 4/36 to make it seem worse than it is is like calling it a 12/108 chance. "96 out of 108 times it will fail!" Also... 8 out of 9. Not the worst.
How many Tson units in a list can cast powers? How many powers do you think your generally casting a turn? A game?
Take a stats class and they will explain to you why you dont say 4/36 is the same as 1/9. Mostly because it isn't.
What? They are literally the same.
No they aren't the probablity of having 1 success out of 10 iterations which have a success rate of 1 in 9 is different then the probably of having 1 success out of 10 iterations which have a success rate of 4 in 36.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bremon wrote: ...take a stats class...to better understand why certain rules don’t favour someone else’s army in a tabletop war game? Truly compelling discourse in favour of a buff to Magnus’ dust pharaohs.
Where did I say "boof muh armi"? I said the stuff was crap cause it is, but thats not asking for a buff. If I did ask for something it would be an actual Legion Trait since we are the only ones left without one.
Sim-Life wrote: I think its more likely that Custodes, Sister of Silence, Ministorum, Sisters of Battle, Assassins and Inquisition will all be one book.
Knight I could see as staying their own.
Can I dream about SoB being the last Codex released for 8th, with a new nice plastic range to go with it?
Can I?
Plastic sisters in 2025, that is the estimated sales time to clear the amount of metal sisters still in gw were house
Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote: No they aren't the probablity of having 1 success out of 10 iterations which have a success rate of 1 in 9 is different then the probably of having 1 success out of 10 iterations which have a success rate of 4 in 36.
Are you saying a probability of 1/9 is different than a probability of 4/36?
- Khorne Daemonkin
- Crimson Slaughter
- hopefully another non-Heresy Chaos-variant (Red Corsairs?) to balance things out if/when they do Emperor's Children
Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote: No they aren't the probablity of having 1 success out of 10 iterations which have a success rate of 1 in 9 is different then the probably of having 1 success out of 10 iterations which have a success rate of 4 in 36.
Are you saying a probability of 1/9 is different than a probability of 4/36?
Looks like Mr. Maths Wizard here is gunning for the Abel Prize by showing you plebs that equivalent fractions are, in fact, unequivalent.
Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote: No they aren't the probablity of having 1 success out of 10 iterations which have a success rate of 1 in 9 is different then the probably of having 1 success out of 10 iterations which have a success rate of 4 in 36.
Are you saying a probability of 1/9 is different than a probability of 4/36?
Looks like Mr. Maths Wizard here is gunning for the Abel Prize by showing you plebs that equivalent fractions are, in fact, unequivalent.
You're lying if you say you don't want to see the mental gymnastics there.
Lance845 wrote: 4/36 chance, with reasonable simplified math, is a 1/9 chance. Calling it 4/36 to make it seem worse than it is is like calling it a 12/108 chance. "96 out of 108 times it will fail!" Also... 8 out of 9. Not the worst.
How many Tson units in a list can cast powers? How many powers do you think your generally casting a turn? A game?
Take a stats class and they will explain to you why you dont say 4/36 is the same as 1/9. Mostly because it isn't.
What? They are literally the same.
No they aren't the probablity of having 1 success out of 10 iterations which have a success rate of 1 in 9 is different then the probably of having 1 success out of 10 iterations which have a success rate of 4 in 36.
Which doesn’t apply in a dice game because there is no such thing as a fixed set of “successes”. 1/9 and 4/36 is relevant if your possible results are a closed set of possibilities such as a card game in which the deck is not reshuffled every play. Using dice which can give you any result any number of times in a row there is no difference between 1/9 and 4/36 because it resets every time you roll the dice. Only BAD gamblers think they’ll have an increased chance based on the # of failures in their previous rolls.
There is a reason why Magic the Gathering probability and 40k probability are different animals.
Wonderwolf wrote: - Khorne Daemonkin
- Crimson Slaughter
- hopefully another non-Heresy Chaos-variant (Red Corsairs?) to balance things out if/when they do Emperor's Children
I can't see any of them getting a codex. Crimson Slaughter have never had a codex, they were a supplement and may turn up in a future campaign book but have no chance of being a codex, same goes for some other Heretic Astartes codex. Khorn Daemonkin came into being to support the plastic Bloodthirster, by accident it became a rather good and fun way to run a Khorn themed army. Unlike the other two, whilst I wouldn't say it was guaranteed they wont get a codex, I wouldn't bet on it.
Greyfag is also a SOB before she become Inquisitor.
Canoness Veridyan also has no rules, and unless I'm wrong is already no longer available?
Greyfax is an inquisitor. It doesn't matter what she used to be, it's kind of hilarious that you're going for the "Shut up, you got a lady miniature!" route here.
And Canoness Viridian is a Webstore Exclusive Resin model. Not a plastic model. We can only pray the fact this initially limited edition model is still available means GW will actually someday put out plastic sisters.
Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote: Where did I say "boof muh armi"? I said the stuff was crap cause it is, but thats not asking for a buff. If I did ask for something it would be an actual Legion Trait since we are the only ones left without one.
“This stuff is crap” is more equivalent to “I want better” than 4/36 is to 1/9
Greyfax is an inquisitor. It doesn't matter what she used to be, it's kind of hilarious that you're going for the "Shut up, you got a lady miniature!" route here.
What I meant is you can literally use Greyfax as a canoness, she have the SOB armor, she have the SOB hair, she have the correct Canoness loadout. She is a canoness without any conversion required. And this is the only model with the Condemer Boltgun. I didn't tell you to "Shut up you got a female miniature" It's just you telling yourself that.
I could make a better complain about Eldar receive 0 new model and those from Gathering Storm do not fit to replace anything in an CWE/DE army, the aesthetic and armor do not match the army, the loadout is awful, the base of Yvraine is too big,... But I didn't. But I would be happy if GW make a not-Eldar character but with everything match an CWE/DE character, you know, like Greyfax.
Wonderwolf wrote: - Khorne Daemonkin
- Crimson Slaughter
- hopefully another non-Heresy Chaos-variant (Red Corsairs?) to balance things out if/when they do Emperor's Children
I can't see any of them getting a codex. Crimson Slaughter have never had a codex, they were a supplement and may turn up in a future campaign book but have no chance of being a codex, same goes for some other Heretic Astartes codex. Khorn Daemonkin came into being to support the plastic Bloodthirster, by accident it became a rather good and fun way to run a Khorn themed army. Unlike the other two, whilst I wouldn't say it was guaranteed they wont get a codex, I wouldn't bet on it.
Codexes dedicated to each Chaos Power would have been great - sigh - I guess they will just keep churning out the (different) Marines dexes instead.
What I meant is you can literally use Greyfax as a canoness, she have the SOB armor, she have the SOB hair, she have the correct Canoness loadout. She is a canoness without any conversion required. And this is the only model with the Condemer Boltgun. I didn't tell you to "Shut up you got a female miniature" It's just you telling yourself that.
Oh look, another thread sabotaged by Sisters nonsense...
Say the same for pretty much the entire Blood Angel army - why exactly do they need all those separate models again? Just paint them red with BA insignia.
As for the Thousand Sons, the rumored stuff we are getting doesn't seem that great, however it is better than nothing I guess. I sometimes have a few sorcerers near each other, so that stratagem will probably see some use for an attempt at a better smite. The staff is meeewa, but since I can't put any relics in my army right now, I guess it is ok, especially since it is essentially free. I actually like the warlord trait somewhat as that might be really helpful for shutting down other psyker heavy armies like Eldar, Nids, and Grey Knights. Again, right now my Warlord can only take the generic ones, which are not that great, so I could see taking this against certain armies. Also, we did not see a "legion tactic" yet, I am hoping we get the +1 to casting like Grey Knights,
However, what I am really hoping for is that the Chapter Approved says something that allows us to use CSM stratagems, warlord traits, etc. like we can use the new psyker powers. That would really be helpful and if we could use those then I would happily wait till the end of the codex cycle for my codex, assuming that would mean a needed model drop as well (we only have one fast attack right now). But I doubt this will happen.
Wonderwolf wrote: - Khorne Daemonkin
- Crimson Slaughter
- hopefully another non-Heresy Chaos-variant (Red Corsairs?) to balance things out if/when they do Emperor's Children
I would guess that Khorne Deamonkin will be replaced with "Codex World Eaters"
And that the January Deamons codex will have base non-human deamon armies contained within it. Crimson Slaughter could get their own book, but that's assuming they go the rout of giving Loyalist chapters such as IF and SM their own books.
My suspicion is this.
Loyalist
Leman Russ and His Wolves
Sanguinius Reborn and His Angels
Roboute and His Ultramarines (Base SM Codex)
The Lion and His Angles
Chaos
Magnus and His Thousand Sons
Mortarion and His Death Guard
Angron and His World Eaters
Fulgrim and His Emperors Children
I could see them doing something like Guilliman and the Mechanicus turn off the throne. The Emperor dies, but reveals that he will be reborn. The Sanginor is a part of Sanguinius soul, and together the fragmented emperor and the Sanginor will from a new "Emperor Ascendant" Less powerful than the previous Emperor, and not entirely the same being, but still more powerful than a mere Primarch. This being will lead the Imperium into a new age.
This way, you get Sanguinus back "kind of" and you don't have to step out of established lore too much to do it.
I could see them doing something like Guilliman and the Mechanicus turn off the throne. The Emperor dies, but reveals that he will be reborn. The Sanginor is a part of Sanguinius soul, and together the fragmented emperor and the Sanginor will from a new "Emperor Ascendant" Less powerful than the previous Emperor, and not entirely the same being, but still more powerful than a mere Primarch. This being will lead the Imperium into a new age.
This way, you get Sanguinus back "kind of" and you don't have to step out of established lore too much to do it.
Except you step out of all of the lore by having them do some dragonball fusion crap. Emp dies he just comes back, not weaker or stronger, just as he was. So no reason to have sang be a part of that
How nice. Say you want plastic models and say nothing about anyone else not deserving new models and still get accused of ruining a tread. I know we Sisters players can't win, but really?
alextroy wrote: And Canoness Viridian is a Webstore Exclusive Resin model. Not a plastic model. We can only pray the fact this initially limited edition model is still available means GW will actually someday put out plastic sisters.
They're coming. I do not believe GW would have made the comment in last years Magnus video and not have an intention of delivering on it. They're extremely busy with the new edition and the turn around of the company atm.
Lance845 wrote: 4/36 chance, with reasonable simplified math, is a 1/9 chance. Calling it 4/36 to make it seem worse than it is is like calling it a 12/108 chance. "96 out of 108 times it will fail!" Also... 8 out of 9. Not the worst.
How many Tson units in a list can cast powers? How many powers do you think your generally casting a turn? A game?
Take a stats class and they will explain to you why you dont say 4/36 is the same as 1/9. Mostly because it isn't.
What? They are literally the same.
No they aren't the probablity of having 1 success out of 10 iterations which have a success rate of 1 in 9 is different then the probably of having 1 success out of 10 iterations which have a success rate of 4 in 36.
No, they are not.
When I roll a 6 sided die the chance of me rolling a 6 is 4 in 24. or... you know... 1 in 6. It's the exact same probability. It's a basic tenant of all math you learn in elementary school called simplifying your math.
They're coming. I do not believe GW would have made the comment in last years Magnus video and not have an intention of delivering on it. They're extremely busy with the new edition and the turn around of the company atm.
Pretty sure that was a joke/preview of Celestine and her girls, who were released 6-8 weeks after Magnus.
GW has a pretty long development time, but actual plastic sprues are a very final, last part of that. A good part of 'Eavy Metal minis on box art, in the White Dwarf, even in the Codex (if it's new releases) etc.. are actually resin masters.
Greyfax is an inquisitor. It doesn't matter what she used to be, it's kind of hilarious that you're going for the "Shut up, you got a lady miniature!" route here.
What I meant is you can literally use Greyfax as a canoness, she have the SOB armor, she have the SOB hair, she have the correct Canoness loadout. She is a canoness without any conversion required. And this is the only model with the Condemer Boltgun. I didn't tell you to "Shut up you got a female miniature" It's just you telling yourself that.
I could make a better complain about Eldar receive 0 new model and those from Gathering Storm do not fit to replace anything in an CWE/DE army, the aesthetic and armor do not match the army, the loadout is awful, the base of Yvraine is too big,... But I didn't. But I would be happy if GW make a not-Eldar character but with everything match an CWE/DE character, you know, like Greyfax.
Yeah if only GW had made a character with the correct armor and weapon design to match existing DE and CWE models
What do you mean they gonna list Aetaos'Rao'Keres around 1400 points? I have just barely finished painting him and at 700 He already weights heavily on my army and it feels his fair price is around 550-600 points. His wounds count barely justifies his points superiority over Magnus, who is reliable as AK-47.
xeen wrote: As for the Thousand Sons, the rumored stuff we are getting doesn't seem that great, however it is better than nothing I guess. I sometimes have a few sorcerers near each other, so that stratagem will probably see some use for an attempt at a better smite. The staff is meeewa, but since I can't put any relics in my army right now, I guess it is ok, especially since it is essentially free. I actually like the warlord trait somewhat as that might be really helpful for shutting down other psyker heavy armies like Eldar, Nids, and Grey Knights. Again, right now my Warlord can only take the generic ones, which are not that great, so I could see taking this against certain armies. Also, we did not see a "legion tactic" yet, I am hoping we get the +1 to casting like Grey Knights,
However, what I am really hoping for is that the Chapter Approved says something that allows us to use CSM stratagems, warlord traits, etc. like we can use the new psyker powers. That would really be helpful and if we could use those then I would happily wait till the end of the codex cycle for my codex, assuming that would mean a needed model drop as well (we only have one fast attack right now). But I doubt this will happen.
I kinda suspect our Legion Trait won't have anything to do with psychic powers, actually. I assume this because it'll have to apply to our infantry and helbrutes, which (unlike Grey Knights where literally every model can cast at least smite) largely includes units that don't have any psychic powers.
Personally I just hope they don't forget to include freaking cavalry.
He had lot of uniqueness that prevent him from being substitute as other "Generic character" in a CWE or DE. He just kinda stuck in between.
-Straight PSword and Forceshield, Spiritstone armor is from CWE .
-Trophy rack on armor, pointy helmet is a DE design.
-Hanging Spiritstones on rack and cloak is straight up disturbing for CWE, You can say it is a DE/Harllie thing but it's in reality is unique to the Ynnari.
And the most important thing : The Visarch loadout from the box is straight up illegal in any codex, index for Archon, Autarch, and he had no gun. Ehh, I'd prefer something that save me of that trouble.
Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote: No they aren't the probablity of having 1 success out of 10 iterations which have a success rate of 1 in 9 is different then the probably of having 1 success out of 10 iterations which have a success rate of 4 in 36.
Are you saying a probability of 1/9 is different than a probability of 4/36?
Ratius wrote: Any actual rumours left in here? Or just wish-listing debating?
Seems like it's become a wish-list contest. I was a little excited when I returned to the forum seeing two new pages, expecting more rumours or rumour confirmations...
Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote: No they aren't the probablity of having 1 success out of 10 iterations which have a success rate of 1 in 9 is different then the probably of having 1 success out of 10 iterations which have a success rate of 4 in 36.
Are you saying a probability of 1/9 is different than a probability of 4/36?
When it comes to statistical analysis yes.
And how? You have same chance of rolling success with either way since previous rolls are irrelevant.
Now if after failure that failure could not come again(like in card game) it would be different but dices don't work like that.
Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote: No they aren't the probablity of having 1 success out of 10 iterations which have a success rate of 1 in 9 is different then the probably of having 1 success out of 10 iterations which have a success rate of 4 in 36.
Are you saying a probability of 1/9 is different than a probability of 4/36?
When it comes to statistical analysis yes.
And how? You have same chance of rolling success with either way since previous rolls are irrelevant.
Now if after failure that failure could not come again(like in card game) it would be different but dices don't work like that.
Because of the number of iterations. Roll 2 dice 9 times if you get anything more or less then 1 you are off by 100% of every time you get anything other then 1 success. Then roll 2 dice 36 times if you get 1 success your 75% off 2 and your 50% off 3 and your 25% off so on so forth. It makes your predictions more accurate becuase you can roll 9 times and get 0 success and then get 3 in a row on another which isn't a very good predictive model. This isn't artifical either its just more accurate. If you were rolling a single D6 i would say the ratio to get a single 6 is 1/9 becuase that's more accurate, but the majority of people on this forum wpuld say no its 16.5 percent which is 1/6 which is inaccurate.
Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote: No they aren't the probablity of having 1 success out of 10 iterations which have a success rate of 1 in 9 is different then the probably of having 1 success out of 10 iterations which have a success rate of 4 in 36.
Are you saying a probability of 1/9 is different than a probability of 4/36?
When it comes to statistical analysis yes.
And how? You have same chance of rolling success with either way since previous rolls are irrelevant.
Now if after failure that failure could not come again(like in card game) it would be different but dices don't work like that.
Because of the number of iterations. Roll 2 dice 9 times if you get anything more or less then 1 you are off by 100% of every time you get anything other then 1 success. Then roll 2 dice 36 times if you get 1 success your 75% off 2 and your 50% off 3 and your 25% off so on so forth. It makes your predictions more accurate becuase you can roll 9 times and get 0 success and then get 3 in a row on another which isn't a very good predictive model. This isn't artifical either its just more accurate. If you were rolling a single D6 i would say the ratio to get a single 6 is 1/9 becuase that's more accurate, but the majority of people on this forum wpuld say no its 16.5 percent which is 1/6 which is inaccurate.
So you're saying with a larger sample size the results of a dice roll is more likely to match the expected probability distribution? I'll stick the Nobel prize in the post
Still doesn't change the fact that 1/9 and 4/36 are exactly the same thing!
Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote: No they aren't the probablity of having 1 success out of 10 iterations which have a success rate of 1 in 9 is different then the probably of having 1 success out of 10 iterations which have a success rate of 4 in 36.
Are you saying a probability of 1/9 is different than a probability of 4/36?
When it comes to statistical analysis yes.
And how? You have same chance of rolling success with either way since previous rolls are irrelevant.
Now if after failure that failure could not come again(like in card game) it would be different but dices don't work like that.
Because of the number of iterations. Roll 2 dice 9 times if you get anything more or less then 1 you are off by 100% of every time you get anything other then 1 success. Then roll 2 dice 36 times if you get 1 success your 75% off 2 and your 50% off 3 and your 25% off so on so forth. It makes your predictions more accurate becuase you can roll 9 times and get 0 success and then get 3 in a row on another which isn't a very good predictive model. This isn't artifical either its just more accurate. If you were rolling a single D6 i would say the ratio to get a single 6 is 1/9 becuase that's more accurate, but the majority of people on this forum wpuld say no its 16.5 percent which is 1/6 which is inaccurate.
lolwtf
So, roll a dice and the "ratio" to get a six is 1/9?
Ok.
So, I assume the ratio to get any other single number, like a 2, is 1/9 too. Or are some numbers easier to roll than others?
Which would make the "ratio" of rolling anything at all 6/9. Which again would make the "ratio" of getting no result whatsoever 1/3... sorry... 3/9?
Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote: No they aren't the probablity of having 1 success out of 10 iterations which have a success rate of 1 in 9 is different then the probably of having 1 success out of 10 iterations which have a success rate of 4 in 36.
Are you saying a probability of 1/9 is different than a probability of 4/36?
When it comes to statistical analysis yes.
And how? You have same chance of rolling success with either way since previous rolls are irrelevant.
Now if after failure that failure could not come again(like in card game) it would be different but dices don't work like that.
Because of the number of iterations. Roll 2 dice 9 times if you get anything more or less then 1 you are off by 100% of every time you get anything other then 1 success. Then roll 2 dice 36 times if you get 1 success your 75% off 2 and your 50% off 3 and your 25% off so on so forth. It makes your predictions more accurate becuase you can roll 9 times and get 0 success and then get 3 in a row on another which isn't a very good predictive model. This isn't artifical either its just more accurate. If you were rolling a single D6 i would say the ratio to get a single 6 is 1/9 becuase that's more accurate, but the majority of people on this forum wpuld say no its 16.5 percent which is 1/6 which is inaccurate.
So you're saying with a larger sample size the results of a dice roll is more likely to match the expected probability distribution? I'll stick the Nobel prize in the post
Still doesn't change the fact that 1/9 and 4/36 are exactly the same thing!
Except there not in this case as 4/36 is a more accurate model then 1/9, and this whole thing is about being able to predict what will happen when you start rollong dice. So if I habe 2 choices and 1 is more accurate then ill go with that one since you know it's more accurate.
Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote: No they aren't the probablity of having 1 success out of 10 iterations which have a success rate of 1 in 9 is different then the probably of having 1 success out of 10 iterations which have a success rate of 4 in 36.
Are you saying a probability of 1/9 is different than a probability of 4/36?
When it comes to statistical analysis yes.
And how? You have same chance of rolling success with either way since previous rolls are irrelevant.
Now if after failure that failure could not come again(like in card game) it would be different but dices don't work like that.
Your talking about dependent vs. Independent results which has nothing to do with what im saying.
I think you're conflating two different things, sample size and probability of success.
If one event has a probability of success of 1/9, then the larger your sample size the more likely that 1 in 9 or your events would be successful, so you would expect 4 in 36 events. But the probability of any one event being successful is still 1/9.
Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote: No they aren't the probablity of having 1 success out of 10 iterations which have a success rate of 1 in 9 is different then the probably of having 1 success out of 10 iterations which have a success rate of 4 in 36.
Are you saying a probability of 1/9 is different than a probability of 4/36?
When it comes to statistical analysis yes.
And how? You have same chance of rolling success with either way since previous rolls are irrelevant.
Now if after failure that failure could not come again(like in card game) it would be different but dices don't work like that.
Because of the number of iterations. Roll 2 dice 9 times if you get anything more or less then 1 you are off by 100% of every time you get anything other then 1 success. Then roll 2 dice 36 times if you get 1 success your 75% off 2 and your 50% off 3 and your 25% off so on so forth. It makes your predictions more accurate becuase you can roll 9 times and get 0 success and then get 3 in a row on another which isn't a very good predictive model. This isn't artifical either its just more accurate. If you were rolling a single D6 i would say the ratio to get a single 6 is 1/9 becuase that's more accurate, but the majority of people on this forum wpuld say no its 16.5 percent which is 1/6 which is inaccurate.
So you're saying with a larger sample size the results of a dice roll is more likely to match the expected probability distribution? I'll stick the Nobel prize in the post
Still doesn't change the fact that 1/9 and 4/36 are exactly the same thing!
Except there not in this case as 4/36 is a more accurate model then 1/9, and this whole thing is about being able to predict what will happen when you start rollong dice. So if I habe 2 choices and 1 is more accurate then ill go with that one since you know it's more accurate.
Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote: No they aren't the probablity of having 1 success out of 10 iterations which have a success rate of 1 in 9 is different then the probably of having 1 success out of 10 iterations which have a success rate of 4 in 36.
Are you saying a probability of 1/9 is different than a probability of 4/36?
When it comes to statistical analysis yes.
And how? You have same chance of rolling success with either way since previous rolls are irrelevant.
Now if after failure that failure could not come again(like in card game) it would be different but dices don't work like that.
Your talking about dependent vs. Independent results which has nothing to do with what im saying.
If I roll 9 dice I can expect to get 1 success, if I do this 4 times, I've rolled 36 dice. Hence 1/9 = 4/36 mathematically. It doesn't matter how you dress it up they are the exact same thing if I have 1/4 of a pie having 4/16 doesn't make my slice more accurate.
Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote: No they aren't the probablity of having 1 success out of 10 iterations which have a success rate of 1 in 9 is different then the probably of having 1 success out of 10 iterations which have a success rate of 4 in 36.
Are you saying a probability of 1/9 is different than a probability of 4/36?
When it comes to statistical analysis yes.
Based on your following posts, you seem to mix probabilities and probability distributions.
A probability of 1/9 and a probability of 4/36 are the same; they're both the same number.
Two probability distributions with an expected value of 1/9 can, however, be different. In particular, they can have different variances (what you seem to refer as "accuracy").
Fan67 wrote: What do you mean they gonna list Aetaos'Rao'Keres around 1400 points? I have just barely finished painting him and at 700 He already weights heavily on my army and it feels his fair price is around 550-600 points. His wounds count barely justifies his points superiority over Magnus, who is reliable as AK-47.
As i said, that rumour came to me in a much less reliable fashion than the other bits I got. And was the result of a conversation about how powerful he was (I played him round 1 of the tourney he was at. I think the problem is he's too powerful at all aspects of the game. He's hugely survivable, with a guaranteed 3++ and a load of wounds and Toughness 8, and the ability to ignore a third of psychic powers that target him, let alone if you take the warlord trait that lets him ignore a 6th of wounds giving him 32.4 effective wounds (and of course you'll be taking the changeling for -1 to hit him if you happen to go second). He does 2D6 superlascannon shots (additional point of ap to make most tanks have no save) and flat 3 damage, that hits on 2+, and of course isn't heavy (its assault) and has the range of almost a board length. He's no slouch in the psychic phase, with bonuses to cast and 4ft smite range. And he's pretty monstrous in the assault phase, although he may struggle with large hordes. So tarpit him right? Wrong, he has a 20" base fly move and even if he doesn't want to fall back, he can shoot his staff out of and INTO ANY combat at will. And just for giggles he has a LD10 bubble for Tzeentch units and can reroll summoning if that's how you play your army. 1400 may well be a bit excessive, but 700 is criminally undercosted.
t the tournament I went to there were at least two armies with him and Magnus tagteaming with the Changeling and a horror horde. And some room for 3 basilisks etc. for fun. The problem is that he has a great set of powers/attacks/abilities, on a very survivable platform. If his invuln was straight 4++ and he was T7, then we'd be talking.
I understand what he is saying, but it is flawed. 4 in 36 is the same as 1 in 9. You collect 36 random people, and find that 4 have a specific trait or quality, then you determine that 1 in 9 people will have that trait in another sample. Or, if there are 36 outcomes and 4 of which are favorable to you, then you determine that there is a 1 in 9 chances of you winning. In the case of the gambler, who mistakenly thinks that previous events have any effect on the probability of the next event, i.e. craps, or even 21 since casinos fixed counting cards to the point of it being a negligable advantage, the fact is that with 36 outcomes and 4 being favorable still means that there is a 4 out of 36, or 1 in 9, outcomes that are favorable, and the statistic he clings to is that the odds of losing 9 games in a row is 34 percent, or losing 20 games in a row is just shy of 10 percent. Which means theres a 90 percent chance that he would have won at leapt a game in the 20 games he has played, except that in reality, when you play 20 games, there is the same probability that you would have lost all the games as there is that you would have lost all but the last one, or won the first and no other game, or even won the 3rd only. At the 20th game, there is still 4 out of 36 possible favorable outcomes, or 1 in 9 chances of winning. That is the distinction you are failing to make.
Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote: No they aren't the probablity of having 1 success out of 10 iterations which have a success rate of 1 in 9 is different then the probably of having 1 success out of 10 iterations which have a success rate of 4 in 36.
Are you saying a probability of 1/9 is different than a probability of 4/36?
Nightlord1987 wrote: Am I the only one that kinda wishes they add an Ancient Enemies rule to the whole Magnus Morty team up? It's fluff heresy to say the least.
As Morty is now a Psyker as well as Magnus, I don’t think there will be much ground for the fluff hate that was present in 30k. Mortarian’s whole problem before was based on the Warp and well now…
Somehow, "off-topic" just doesn't quite say it. Please drop the statistical analysis discussion before the thread gets locked. Though honestly, I don't see much in the way of "news" nor "rumors" over the last several pages. It may be time to lock the thread anyway.
Nightlord1987 wrote: Am I the only one that kinda wishes they add an Ancient Enemies rule to the whole Magnus Morty team up? It's fluff heresy to say the least.
As Morty is now a Psyker as well as Magnus, I don’t think there will be much ground for the fluff hate that was present in 30k. Mortarian’s whole problem before was based on the Warp and well now…
Nurgle and Tzeentch are archenemies though. One would think that their favoured sons hate each other, too.
Nightlord1987 wrote: Am I the only one that kinda wishes they add an Ancient Enemies rule to the whole Magnus Morty team up? It's fluff heresy to say the least.
As Morty is now a Psyker as well as Magnus, I don’t think there will be much ground for the fluff hate that was present in 30k. Mortarian’s whole problem before was based on the Warp and well now…
Nurgle and Tzeentch are archenemies though. One would think that their favoured sons hate each other, too.
Nightlord1987 wrote: Am I the only one that kinda wishes they add an Ancient Enemies rule to the whole Magnus Morty team up? It's fluff heresy to say the least.
As Morty is now a Psyker as well as Magnus, I don’t think there will be much ground for the fluff hate that was present in 30k. Mortarian’s whole problem before was based on the Warp and well now…
I think the way Morty is currently lends itself to the fluff very well. He did despise psykers and once he was betrayed and delivered to Nurgle, he was transformed into a demon prince and along with that comes a connection to the warp. The fact that he can only cast 2 spells but can deny 3 hints at this heavily.
Nope. Nope. Nope.
So much for any hope of 8th becoming sane and rational once codex releases started.
From a Chaos Titan-killer bristling with lascannons, to a Space Wolves assault vehicle armed with both helfrost and inferno cannons, there’s a huge range of possibilities available.
Yep. All sorts of possibilities than involving making transport capacity as small as possible and killing ability as large as possible for the fewest points. What a fantastic idea.
Nope. Nope. Nope.
So much for any hope of 8th becoming sane and rational once codex releases started.
From a Chaos Titan-killer bristling with lascannons, to a Space Wolves assault vehicle armed with both helfrost and inferno cannons, there’s a huge range of possibilities available.
Yep. All sorts of possibilities than involving making transport capacity as small as possible and killing ability as large as possible for the fewest points. What a fantastic idea.
This is why it's a test system that isn't legal for matched play...
Nope. Nope. Nope.
So much for any hope of 8th becoming sane and rational once codex releases started.
From a Chaos Titan-killer bristling with lascannons, to a Space Wolves assault vehicle armed with both helfrost and inferno cannons, there’s a huge range of possibilities available.
Yep. All sorts of possibilities than involving making transport capacity as small as possible and killing ability as large as possible for the fewest points. What a fantastic idea.
This is Narrative only. So calm down your tits budy.
Mandragola wrote: Yeah the VDR thing that was hinted at is in fact laughably specific. It's barely a change at all.
Bring on the news of what's actually going to be different!
Did you actually pay attention to when the CA was announced?
Because they specifically called it out as VDR for Land Raider chassis. They didn't imply or state or hint or anything that there would be generic VDR rules.
Mandragola wrote: Yeah the VDR thing that was hinted at is in fact laughably specific. It's barely a change at all.
Bring on the news of what's actually going to be different!
Did you actually pay attention to when the CA was announced?
Because they specifically called it out as VDR for Land Raider chassis. They didn't imply or state or hint or anything that there would be generic VDR rules.
No not really. I don't really care about it. Like I said, bring on the changes that matter!
Nope. Nope. Nope.
So much for any hope of 8th becoming sane and rational once codex releases started.
From a Chaos Titan-killer bristling with lascannons, to a Space Wolves assault vehicle armed with both helfrost and inferno cannons, there’s a huge range of possibilities available.
Yep. All sorts of possibilities than involving making transport capacity as small as possible and killing ability as large as possible for the fewest points. What a fantastic idea.
This is Narrative only. So calm down your tits budy.
Dosen't seem to be too much of an over reaction given helfrost and inferno cannons on a Landraider would be an absolute nightmare to deal with even if the thing did cost over 1k in points. Not to mention you may have the ability to drop all transport capabilities to add a stupid amount of weaponery.
When they first announced it I assumed Land Raiders were just an example, as it would be completely stupid to publish rules for customising Land Raiders only. Oh well...
Nope. Nope. Nope.
So much for any hope of 8th becoming sane and rational once codex releases started.
From a Chaos Titan-killer bristling with lascannons, to a Space Wolves assault vehicle armed with both helfrost and inferno cannons, there’s a huge range of possibilities available.
Yep. All sorts of possibilities than involving making transport capacity as small as possible and killing ability as large as possible for the fewest points. What a fantastic idea.
This is Narrative only. So calm down your tits budy.
Dosen't seem to be too much of an over reaction given helfrost and inferno cannons on a Landraider would be an absolute nightmare to deal with even if the thing did cost over 1k in points. Not to mention you may have the ability to drop all transport capabilities to add a stupid amount of weaponery.
Isn't this stuff all just narrative and open play only? The article specifically calls out open play when talking about customizing land raiders and never once says that this will be a matched play thing. Seems like unless you play narrative and open exclusively, there shouldn't be much of an issue with this.
Crimson wrote: When they first announced it I assumed Land Raiders were just an example, as it would be completely stupid to publish rules for customising Land Raiders only. Oh well...
We are also bringing a whole new feature to Open Play. Designing and building your own vehicles is a feature that hasn’t appeared in Warhammer 40,000 since 5th Edition. We are going to trial some new rules to allow you to design your very own Land Raider variants and field these behemoths on the battlefields of the 41st Millennium.
Crimson wrote: So the vehicle design rules are actually literally just rules for customising Land Raiders... Seems pointlessly specific.
I'm sure this are they testing the waters. Is better to start small to see how the system works and how the players break it. Then you can expand.
Given that these are the third or fourth variation on VDR rules, they should have worked out how the system should work, and how players will break it (2nd ed. 2pt Land Raiders IIRC!) literally years ago.
Crimson wrote: So the vehicle design rules are actually literally just rules for customising Land Raiders... Seems pointlessly specific.
I'm sure this are they testing the waters. Is better to start small to see how the system works and how the players break it. Then you can expand.
Given that these are the third or fourth variation on VDR rules, they should have worked out how the system should work, and how players will break it (2nd ed. 2pt Land Raiders IIRC!) literally years ago.
They are optimistics who think it might actually work when any design that works on formula\s is 100% quaranteed to fail utterly in balancing.
Crimson wrote: So the vehicle design rules are actually literally just rules for customising Land Raiders... Seems pointlessly specific.
I'm sure this are they testing the waters. Is better to start small to see how the system works and how the players break it. Then you can expand.
Given that these are the third or fourth variation on VDR rules, they should have worked out how the system should work, and how players will break it (2nd ed. 2pt Land Raiders IIRC!) literally years ago.
Lol how did they manage to get 2pt land raiders, that sounds hilarious.
There was some option or other that reduced the cost, like slowing it down or making it open topped or something and someone decided to spam that as much as possible…
The only problem was, of course, that the VDR explicitly was absolute WYSIWYG, even more than the regular game rules, so all the hypothetical hundred-bolter open-topped rolling walls would never actually see play without a lot of effort which is not the sort of thing that the people that come up with this kind of junk are generally prepared to do…
So far, those pictures seem to limit customization to two large sponsons, two smaller (predator) sponsons, and a front mounted twin-linked weapon of some sort.
I certainly hope there's rules for fun stuff like mounting a Demolisher Cannon or the like.
Sounds kind of cool, but I must admit I also hoped to see more than just Land Raiders. And apply Chaos tears here for being obviously only loyalist Land Raiders. Would've been nice to see destroyer blades return, but I'll be patient then .
I think what people are missing quite a bit - with the VDR rules being aimed solely at Open War...you can just VDR your own stuff. Don't be a witch about it, and make the points reasonable (test it a few games and get feedback). There's absolutely nothing stopping you from designing your own stuff.
I've considered doing some of the older Eldar Epic tanks in 40K. Would be really easy to come up with the rules. Just make sure to tag on 5-10% additional cost as a kind of tax for creating your own unit.
Personally I am very curious to see how this will apply to other factions (assuming we actually get these rules for anything beyond Space Marines of course). Obviously Imperium and Chaos stuff will work given their plethora of options. Orks could have a ton of fun with this stuff. Eldar could probably make some use of these rules, as could Dark Eldar (although I don't really know enough about their vehicle rules and set ups to say that for certain). Tyranids likely are right out of getting anything like this. Tau and Necrons are gonna be tricky if they do get this stuff. I can't speak much about current Necrons but I believe their vehicles don't really have enough options to really make use of this. Same for Tau, I know that there really isn't anything we can do with our vehicles without drastically changing how our vehicles are designed.
Ah, who am I kidding. This is probably just gonna be a Space Marines thing (maybe full Imperium getting it and Chaos as well if GW is feeling super generous). Xenos won't see anything from this for years probably, if ever.
Elbows wrote: I think what people are missing quite a bit - with the VDR rules being aimed solely at Open War...you can just VDR your own stuff. Don't be a witch about it, and make the points reasonable (test it a few games and get feedback). There's absolutely nothing stopping you from designing your own stuff.
Kind of defeats the object of having a VDR set in the first place though, doesn't it..?
If you can design your own stuff without needing them covered by the VDR and playtest it yourself (which you can, and have obviously always been able to do), why are GW trying to sell us VDR?
Elbows wrote: I think what people are missing quite a bit - with the VDR rules being aimed solely at Open War...you can just VDR your own stuff. Don't be a witch about it, and make the points reasonable (test it a few games and get feedback). There's absolutely nothing stopping you from designing your own stuff.
Kind of defeats the object of having a VDR set in the first place though, doesn't it..?
If you can design your own stuff without needing them covered by the VDR and playtest it yourself (which you can, and have obviously always been able to do), why are GW trying to sell us VDR?
They aren't trying to sell you anything. They are just giving again funny rules to make your own custom Land Raiders and probably other vehicles in the future to use in narrative and open games. I know for many people only "Matched Play" exist, but this is exactly the kind of things they need to do to expand Narrative (And Open) in their own thing, instead of "Matched but with Powerlevels"
I think GW also know their target audience. GW is one of the only companies which has such a hold on maybe half of their customers. I see people appearing terrified of actually making up their own scenarios, or adjusting rules, or buying their own non-GW tape measures.
Elbows wrote: I think GW also know their target audience. GW is one of the only companies which has such a hold on maybe half of their customers. I see people appearing terrified of actually making up their own scenarios, or adjusting rules, or buying their own non-GW tape measures.
What's the point of making up rules? Why not make up the rule "I win"?
If you win after making up an unbalanced rule, did you win or did the rule?
I think this is the problem with a lot of people, they’re all about min/maxing everything, GW has given some vehicle design rules for open play so if you like you and your buddies can make up your own land raider variant and have some fun with it, even throw it in to your own made narrative campaign, maybe your friends genestealer cults stole all of the las cannons so your marines fitted extra bolters on to their land raiders, it’s there for fun and nothing else, or they could have not bothered, left the few pages in chapter approved that the VDR will take up and still sell the book for the same price.
Tiberius501 wrote: I'm slightly worried they didn't mention points changing in the writeup about what Chapter Aprove is bringing. Hopefully that's still a thing
Well this wasn't really a write up about Chapter Approved, this was a write up about the customizable Land Raider rules, which happen to be coming in Chapter Approved. Given that Chapter Approved is meant to be the annual(?) official balance release for 40k, I can't imagine they won't do it like AoS's General Handbook and include points adjustments. Odds are we'll get a release in the next week that will talk about the other stuff in Chapter Approved, today's release was just a teaser for something unique and exciting coming in the book to hype it up for everyone rather than just those of us interested in the balance changes.
They aren't trying to sell you anything. They are just giving again funny rules to make your own custom Land Raiders and probably other vehicles in the future to use in narrative and open games. I know for many people only "Matched Play" exist, but this is exactly the kind of things they need to do to expand Narrative (And Open) in their own thing, instead of "Matched but with Powerlevels"
Point being releasing this limited system in open is pretty pointless as open already has even more varied system. Custom land raider? Pff. What about custom ork boy? Custom fire warrior? Custom aspect warrior?
They aren't trying to sell you anything. They are just giving again funny rules to make your own custom Land Raiders and probably other vehicles in the future to use in narrative and open games. I know for many people only "Matched Play" exist, but this is exactly the kind of things they need to do to expand Narrative (And Open) in their own thing, instead of "Matched but with Powerlevels"
Point being releasing this limited system in open is pretty pointless as open already has even more varied system. Custom land raider? Pff. What about custom ork boy? Custom fire warrior? Custom aspect warrior?
Literally no equivalent exists, and it is dishonest to say otherwise.
Considering that now the vehicle hulls and weapons already have separate point costs, I have hard time imagining what this VDR can contain that people wanting to do this sort of thing couldn't already easily do.
In any case, In addition to point adjustments and some stuff for neglected minor factions (crosses fingers for the return of proper gear options for Inquisitors) one thing I'd really like to see in this is expanded terrain rules, as that is the one aspect in the main rules I find is really lacking.
Crimson wrote: Considering that now the vehicle hulls and weapons already have separate point costs, I have hard time imagining what this VDR can contain that people wanting to do this sort of thing couldn't already easily do.
Give them an official way of doing so?
In any case, In addition to point adjustments and some stuff for neglected minor factions (crosses fingers for the return of proper gear options for Inquisitors) one thing I'd really like to see in this is expanded terrain rules, as that is the one aspect in the main rules I find is really lacking.
Nope. Nope. Nope.
So much for any hope of 8th becoming sane and rational once codex releases started.
Have you not been paying attention? this has been the plan from the very outset; additional rules and scenarios and points revisions annually, like with Age of Sigmar.
Crimson wrote: Considering that now the vehicle hulls and weapons already have separate point costs, I have hard time imagining what this VDR can contain that people wanting to do this sort of thing couldn't already easily do.
Give them an official way of doing so?
More than that - it tells them that this sort of customisation is allowed and approved. A bit contradictory that people might need official approval to do their own thing, but that's the hobby these days, it seems.
adamsouza wrote: Honestly, I think it's mostly a novel way to sell more land raiders.
The VDR vehicles are not MATCH PLAY legal.
It gives me a reason to seek out the Deathwatch Land Raider, but otherwise, unless they start selling additional parts for Land Raiders separately, these rules won't sell any new kits.
What I'm gathering from this thread and the Community post is that there's now more options to stick on vehicles. Does that mean Baal Predator bits too?
It might be a bit novel and a bit unnecessary but it's a fun idea. And there seems to be rules like that for every faction too, so it's not just more stuff for Marines.
anyname121 wrote: What I'm gathering from this thread and the Community post is that there's now more options to stick on vehicles. Does that mean Baal Predator bits too?
It might be a bit novel and a bit unnecessary but it's a fun idea. And there seems to be rules like that for every faction too, so it's not just more stuff for Marines.
The VDR rules are literally just for creating Land Raiders. There's a "guideline" there it seems that can be used for other designs, but the intention is just Marines for the moment.
Likely it has everything to do with the fact that Land Raiders, as a chassis, have very little in the way options right now. There's 3 different builds but they are basically just weapon swaps.
anyname121 wrote: What I'm gathering from this thread and the Community post is that there's now more options to stick on vehicles. Does that mean Baal Predator bits too?
It might be a bit novel and a bit unnecessary but it's a fun idea. And there seems to be rules like that for every faction too, so it's not just more stuff for Marines.
The VDR rules are literally just for creating Land Raiders. There's a "guideline" there it seems that can be used for other designs, but the intention is just Marines for the moment.
Likely it has everything to do with the fact that Land Raiders, as a chassis, have very little in the way options right now. There's 3 different builds but they are basically just weapon swaps.
Yes, but the Baal Predator Sponsons bits work on a Land Raider, so Heavy Flamer Sponsons can go on a Land Raider. Same with the Helfrost Cannon turrets.
Nope. Nope. Nope.
So much for any hope of 8th becoming sane and rational once codex releases started.
From a Chaos Titan-killer bristling with lascannons, to a Space Wolves assault vehicle armed with both helfrost and inferno cannons, there’s a huge range of possibilities available.
Yep. All sorts of possibilities than involving making transport capacity as small as possible and killing ability as large as possible for the fewest points. What a fantastic idea.
Yeah, it's wonderful since it cannot be used for matched play.
Mr Morden wrote: Hopefully the transport options for LR's include an ability to carry Primaris but I doubt it.
Same with custom LR's for Inquisition, Custodes, and Deathwatch - Inquisition would be THE most likely to have a custom version.
I would pay points for a Land Raider or Rhino to have the ability to take Primaris. I wouldn't even bat an eye if they took twice as many slots as a regular Marine.
Nope. Nope. Nope.
So much for any hope of 8th becoming sane and rational once codex releases started.
From a Chaos Titan-killer bristling with lascannons, to a Space Wolves assault vehicle armed with both helfrost and inferno cannons, there’s a huge range of possibilities available.
Yep. All sorts of possibilities than involving making transport capacity as small as possible and killing ability as large as possible for the fewest points. What a fantastic idea.
Yeah, it's wonderful since it cannot be used for matched play.
Matched Play isn't the be-all and end-all. Never saw the point of it, myself.
Hopefully we'll see most of the vehicles get reworked a bit. The Knights are perhaps the silliest ones for me, with 5 variants that essentially amount to "pick 2 arms". There's only one combination that isn't legal and it doesn't even like that strong of a choice. No reason that can't be reworked into a single codex entry.
LunarSol wrote: Hopefully we'll see most of the vehicles get reworked a bit. The Knights are perhaps the silliest ones for me, with 5 variants that essentially amount to "pick 2 arms". There's only one combination that isn't legal and it doesn't even like that strong of a choice. No reason that can't be reworked into a single codex entry.
OR they could build upon these "different hands" design and add some flavorful rules for knight variants.
Something like exalted court of house Terryn formation gave to them, to add some sense into taking certain suboptimal builds.
Devastators are essentially tacticals with different weapons as well, but thet got some nice gadjets and now feel more differentiated.
But I agree that Knight Renegade entry shows how pityful Codex Imperial Knights looks, i wish they could afford including forgeworld knitghts or just overhaul knights' codex into more complex supplement with some household infantry support units and may be something else.
Nope. Nope. Nope.
So much for any hope of 8th becoming sane and rational once codex releases started.
Have you not been paying attention? this has been the plan from the very outset; additional rules and scenarios and points revisions annually, like with Age of Sigmar.
Crimson wrote: Considering that now the vehicle hulls and weapons already have separate point costs, I have hard time imagining what this VDR can contain that people wanting to do this sort of thing couldn't already easily do.
Give them an official way of doing so?
More than that - it tells them that this sort of customisation is allowed and approved. A bit contradictory that people might need official approval to do their own thing, but that's the hobby these days, it seems.
Its mostly due to the size of this hobby. Because of how popular 40k is, local groups can be quite a bit larger than those of other gaming systems, and you're much more likely to encounter new faces at your shop popping in to play a couple games of 40k compared to, say, Malifaux, Infinity, or Warmahordes. Something being in the official rules makes it much easier for everyone involved to do these kinda things compared to having to explain local house rules to new players every time and potentially have arguments over them. Its much more painless to simply say "It says I can field a LR with half a dozen flamers on it in this book here since we're playing Narrative or Open play" instead of "our house rules here say you can customize your vehicles however you want so long as they are WYSIWYG, so this LR with half a dozen flamers on it with 6 assault terminators in it is totally allowed".
Nothing wrong with making official rules allowing people to customize things, especially given how .... "understanding", "cooperative", and "compromising" your average wargamer is.
anyname121 wrote: What I'm gathering from this thread and the Community post is that there's now more options to stick on vehicles. Does that mean Baal Predator bits too?
It might be a bit novel and a bit unnecessary but it's a fun idea. And there seems to be rules like that for every faction too, so it's not just more stuff for Marines.
The VDR rules are literally just for creating Land Raiders. There's a "guideline" there it seems that can be used for other designs, but the intention is just Marines for the moment.
Likely it has everything to do with the fact that Land Raiders, as a chassis, have very little in the way options right now. There's 3 different builds but they are basically just weapon swaps.
Yes, but the Baal Predator Sponsons bits work on a Land Raider, so Heavy Flamer Sponsons can go on a Land Raider. Same with the Helfrost Cannon turrets.
"What’s best about these rules is that they’re just guidelines, aimed at providing a strong base for you to build on with conversions of your own. The beauty of open play is the variety and experimentation it allows, and perhaps you could apply these rules to Predators or even Tyranid bio-beasts."
Direct quote from the Warhammer Community page, so it looks like you're right. I'd like to see some official stuff for other vehicles but if Land Raiders then Predators too. At least that's what I'm going to do with it. Do Hurricane Bolter sponsons work on Rhino chassis? That's the real question.
anyname121 wrote: Direct quote from the Warhammer Community page, so it looks like you're right. I'd like to see some official stuff for other vehicles but if Land Raiders then Predators too. At least that's what I'm going to do with it. Do Hurricane Bolter sponsons work on Rhino chassis? That's the real question.
The ones from the Stormraven kit should be for rhino sized doors.
Stormraven Hurricane Bolters absolutely do work for the Rhino Chassis. Back in 7th, there was a custom variant of the Razorback that had twin Assault Cannons and Hurricane Bolters.
What would be cool is a Stormraven sporting some of the Predator Sponsons (HB or Lascannons). Could do 2x2 Twin Lascannons and Twin Multi-Meltas.
They aren't trying to sell you anything. They are just giving again funny rules to make your own custom Land Raiders and probably other vehicles in the future to use in narrative and open games. I know for many people only "Matched Play" exist, but this is exactly the kind of things they need to do to expand Narrative (And Open) in their own thing, instead of "Matched but with Powerlevels"
Point being releasing this limited system in open is pretty pointless as open already has even more varied system. Custom land raider? Pff. What about custom ork boy? Custom fire warrior? Custom aspect warrior?
Literally no equivalent exists, and it is dishonest to say otherwise.
Lol yeah right I forgot these days players need GW official approval stamp even in games where point is hash it out with your friends.
Sigh. No wonder creativity is dying in this hobby when even on rule system(open game) that is all about freedom and sorting it out with your friends you still need rules how to sort it out. Why bother with open game system then if there's no...you know actual OPEN in it?
People don’t normally allow others to use homebrew rules in pickup games at the LGS. Even if they do, that’s more negotiation before the game, where your rules need to be inspected to make sure you’re not creating something horrible in the name of WAAC.
Verviedi wrote: People don’t normally allow others to use homebrew rules in pickup games at the LGS. Even if they do, that’s more negotiation before the game, where your rules need to be inspected to make sure you’re not creating something horrible in the name of WAAC.
Open games aren't exactly pick up games though...If you play open game you need to be sorting out everything yourself including forces. If you are looking for quick let's start roll dice you are looking at the matched play with points etc. Not open.
When VDR came out the first time in the early days of chapter approved it caused a ragestorm on forums back then as well.
So this is kind of history repeating itself.
However back in the day there was no concept of matched play and open play, so if the VDR rules are not usable in matched play I think that it won't be as bad.
I also think it will be dead on arrival because if its not matched play, most people seem to ignore it (same as in AOS).
One wonders why someone would ever actually play “Open Play”. The negotiation before game saves no time - in the time spent on all of the bargaining and self-balancing, one could easily write a list with power levels, or if you really want to, points. The Open War cards combined with Narrative Play or Matched Play provide anything you’ll ever want diversitywise.
Verviedi wrote: One wonders why someone would ever actually play “Open Play”. The negotiation before game saves no time - in the time spent on all of the bargaining and self-balancing, one could easily write a list with power levels, or if you really want to, points. The Open War cards combined with Narrative Play or Matched Play provide anything you’ll ever want diversitywise.
/sarcasm on
One wonders why someone would ever actually play "Narrative Play". I don't want a story, I want to blow things up.
/sarcasm off
The reason for Open Play is so that people can play the game without having artificial restrictions that exist in Matched Play like "1 Officer: 1 Command Squad" or "Psykers can only ever cast the same power once per turn; even if they all know it."
Narrative Play is, quite frankly, never really going to be something that people jump up and down to play as pick-up games since the perception is that "Narrative Play is for running Campaigns".
And then in the same rumour we have the Harlequins, for 1 
