The new Assassin rules in the March 2019 WD have been leaked...what do you think of the changes they made? The Eversor is imo absolutely OP as feth, gaining Fight Twice Stratagem, 4+++ FNP Stratagem and a host of new rules that makes him even more deadly than ever (Shooting attack when Units fall back, Extra attacks on Kills and 6" Consolidate). Also you can only include any single a single Assassin if you want for 1 CP and the price tag of that model (*Spoiler* they're all 85 pts now)

Can you link some pictures or an article?

Here's the rules...absolutely bonkers

https://imgur.com/a/kgH6ycq

BIG game changer....you can pick whatever assassin that fits the opponent.

Psykers will weep.

So, my imperial guard leave 85 points out as reinforcement and get an assassin of my choice dependant on opponent?

Punisher23 wrote:
So, my imperial guard leave 85 points out as reinforcement and get an assassin of my choice dependant on opponent?

Yes. You have access to the stratagems whether you take a detachment or not.

Jesus, that are some reaaally good rules.

Man, I can hear the tournament whinging already..."hey did your Castellan combination force not do quite as well as you wanted? Here you go!"

For 1 CP, I can get an assassin without having to have a dedicated attachment for them? No more Aux detachment for - CP? So I can have my 3 detachments AND an assassin?

 UMGuy wrote:
For 1 CP, I can get an assassin without having to have a dedicated attachment for them? No more Aux detachment for - CP? So I can have my 3 detachments AND an assassin?

Yup!

 UMGuy wrote:
For 1 CP, I can get an assassin without having to have a dedicated attachment for them? No more Aux detachment for - CP? So I can have my 3 detachments AND an assassin?

Yes. It's a little hard to spot on the pictures, but on the first page in these leaks, we can see under Stratagems it says "If your army is Battle-forged and includes any IMPERIUM Detachments (that is, a Detachment in which every unit has the IMPERIUM keyword), you have access to the stratagems shown here".

Alright... that feels OP. Basically the IK/AM/BA soup just got an assassin.

I hereby declare 2019 'year of the OP'.

My 3 Vindicares are gonna be very happy with this. The new Headshot hability and the stratagems are just bonkers. This just seems incredible OP tbh. Imperial Soup has received his cherry on top, as if they needed it.

That's...some really good stuff.

Yeah.... I can see tournaments banning the "add an Assassin to your army" stratagem.
Imperium didn't need this.

That callidus...good lord.

Reign of confusion is painful.

The good news is all the Assassins look legit dangerous now at least?

 Daedalus81 wrote:
That callidus...good lord.

Reign of confusion is painful.

Punishes armies with little access to CPs even more. Hardly what the game needs atm when the Command Point system is as busted as it is atm.

Well, being able to psychic a castellan to death was fun while it lasted.

Though, funnily enough, GSC can take an assassin of their own, too, as that Brood Brother detachment still has the Imperium tag. The corruption runs deep, apparently.

Headshot looks entirely stupid also. Goodbye any Ork character. I'm rapidly losing faith in GWs ability to balance this game.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
That callidus...good lord.

Reign of confusion is painful.

Rules are almost exactly the same as the index.
The Phase sword gained 1 Dmg is the only change I see at a glance.

 Ordana wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
That callidus...good lord.

Reign of confusion is painful.

Rules are almost exactly the same as the index.
The Phase sword gained 1 Dmg is the only change I see at a glance.

Could have sworn it was different. Probably, because it never saw play.

Seems like that is very likely now.

I was expecting a little buff for Assasins to make them worthwhile but all of this?

Double headshooting Vindicare that gives you +1Cp for character killed that doesn't even consumes you one of 3 detachments? It seems excesive.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
That callidus...good lord.

Reign of confusion is painful.

Rules are almost exactly the same as the index.
The Phase sword gained 1 Dmg is the only change I see at a glance.

Could have sworn it was different. Probably, because it never saw play.

Seems like that is very likely now.

It's quite funny now that there's a stratagem to turn the ability back on after the first round, but it costs 2 CPs. So you'll certainly need to be playing some Guard to get those excess CPs (plus the Guard strats aren't great anyways).

I'll be honest, I do prefer the Assassins being more powerful than what they were beforehand. They're super powerful assets, even rarer than Astartes forces when deployed.

However, they should have the price to accompany that, and I don't agree with being able to take them for CP. You take them as a 0CP Vanguard detachment, as part of your army, but I really don't like the metagame of keeping a portion of your list nebulous, and then cherrypicking after you see your enemy.

Remove that, bump up their price a bit, and I'm happy.

An Actual Englishman wrote:Headshot looks entirely stupid also. Goodbye any Ork character. I'm rapidly losing faith in GWs ability to balance this game.

How is that an issue for Ork characters, specifically? It works out to be about three damage a shot, on average. It's not great for Weird Boyz, with all that self-inflicted damage, but that's neither new nor unique to Orks.

Galas wrote:I was expecting a little buff for Assasins to make them worthwhile but all of this?

Double headshooting Vindicare that gives you +1Cp for character killed that doesn't even consumes you one of 3 detachments? It seems excesive.

That second shot has to be at a different target, though, so you can't splatter one character with it.

An now average of D3 per shot actually makes them somewhat dangerous at least.

Chaos force takes Cypher, makes him warlord.....immediately has ability to add an assassin to the army

 bullyboy wrote:
Chaos force takes Cypher, makes him warlord.....immediately has ability to add an assassin to the army

ugh lol, keywords are getting wonkier and wonkier and GW is not helping.

 bullyboy wrote:
Chaos force takes Cypher, makes him warlord.....immediately has ability to add an assassin to the army

Oh gak...Cypher might too big of a drag though.

Looks like they saw how good the new GSC characters were at assassinations and decided the super assassins needed a bump.

They look good for there points, not super broken but actually useful.

I think it's the ability to pick and choose the best one depending on opponent that may be a little too much though, heavy list tailoring at the start of a match seems like a bad idea.

Can’t wait to make 16 attacks with an eversor, consolidate 6” make 16 more then blow up 6”

As an Imperium player, why wouldn't you just hold 85pts aside and take one every game? They do look to be CP hungry, but it's not exactly like Imperium is starved for CP.

A Vindicare can easely even gain you CP in the course of the game, and pay for his own stratagems by killing characters.

The nice part is I can sorta make a Brigade or two Battalions with Skitarii. Creating conversions for one of each Assassin might be a good amount of fun!

Kommisar wrote:Can’t wait to make 16 attacks with an eversor, consolidate 6” make 16 more then blow up 6”

It's one bonus attack per kill, not even per hit. With either a completely vanilla power sword or a worse lightning claw, you're not going to be killing six models with his initial attacks. A couple of guardsmen or about a primaris marine each time he fights isn't exactly insane.

Galas wrote:A Vindicare can easely even gain you CP in the course of the game, and pay for his own stratagems by killing characters.

He's spending one CP a turn (assuming you're planning on double tapping) on top of the one to bring him in the first place. He only generates one per kill (and at effective ~D3, you'll need two turns per character you care about killing) since you still have to pay for the strat to gain them, which limits you to a max of one refunded per turn and, likely, only one every other turn or so.

Let's not run around like the sky is falling, none of these are that insane. The best part is the ability to pick the one you'll need that fight, but without that you'd never take such situationally useful utility pieces anyway.

It looks like the Culexus is pretty dang durable. Enemies count as being WS and BS 6 when trying to hit him, and no psychic power effect him.

Yesssssss my Vindicare will finally see more action!

 cuda1179 wrote:
It looks like the Culexus is pretty dang durable. Enemies count as being WS and BS 6 when trying to hit him, and no psychic power effect him.

Eh, just drown him in something cheap. Either your chaff eventually clubs him to death (besides the ws/bs thing he's less durable than a combat squad of tac marines) or he spends all game punching a few guardsmen to death. He's not a fan of flamers, though, as those don't care a whit about bs.

It is a little funny that one of the best counters to a Culexus seems to be a Vindicare, though, as he ignores everything his brother assassin has to protect him (hits on a flat 2+ regardless of bs/modifiers, ignores invuls, can target characters).

The Vindicare looks great, the addition of the Headshot rule is pretty sweet. Headshot is essentially the same as the psychic power Psychic Maelstrom, but without having to roll to see if the power goes off, and it's in addition to the already D3 damage.

It's like getting Smite + Maelstrom off from a Primaris Psyker, just limited to only infantry as a target.

So instead of taking Psykers to try to do mortal wounds, just take a Vindicare, and cast "level 10 Bullet!"

I'm happy with the Callidus. 2 dmg phase sword and that -1 to hit strategem that pretty much guarentees a successful charge. Does it cancel overwatch too, or do 6's always hit regardless?

Correct me if I'm wrong
Bring on a Vindicare (-1cp)
Use Double Kill (-1cp) target low wound characters, with Head Shot has a chance of killing both
Use Priority Threat Neutralised on both (-2cp) (+4cp)
Gain a Assassin, kill two enemy characters, come out even on command points.

 Rolsheen wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong
Bring on a Vindicare (-1cp)
Use Double Kill (-1cp) target low wound characters, with Head Shot has a chance of killing both
Use Priority Threat Neutralised on both (-2cp) (+4cp)
Gain a Assassin, kill two enemy characters, come out even on command points.

You can't use a stratagem more than once per turn, so you cannot get more than 2 CP (3 if killing a warlord) back from him.

He's also going to only average ~2-3 damage per turn, so while good, it's not guaranteed he'll kill stuff.

I think the stratagem is more about selling models. If you do not know what you need....most players will want the whole cast to choose from. So this just helps feed the marketing.

I was wrong.

 p5freak wrote:

 UMGuy wrote:
For 1 CP, I can get an assassin without having to have a dedicated attachment for them? No more Aux detachment for - CP? So I can have my 3 detachments AND an assassin?

Even better, because its used during deployment, you could add 10 of them Its not limited by the only one stratagem per phase rule

Read it again, you can use the stratagem only once per battle.

Spoletta wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

 UMGuy wrote:
For 1 CP, I can get an assassin without having to have a dedicated attachment for them? No more Aux detachment for - CP? So I can have my 3 detachments AND an assassin?

Even better, because its used during deployment, you could add 10 of them Its not limited by the only one stratagem per phase rule

Read it again, you can use the stratagem only once per battle.

Yes, sorry.

Slight change to the Culexus as I believe the original rules for his -2 to psychic tests didn't affect friendly models and now it does.

 Trimarius wrote:

An Actual Englishman wrote:Headshot looks entirely stupid also. Goodbye any Ork character. I'm rapidly losing faith in GWs ability to balance this game.

How is that an issue for Ork characters, specifically? It works out to be about three damage a shot, on average. It's not great for Weird Boyz, with all that self-inflicted damage, but that's neither new nor unique to Orks.

Well the vast majority of our characters only have 4W and a 6+ so do the maths. Oh and we don't get to take a KFF against it either. It's way over the top.

Well the vast majority of our characters only have 4W and a 6+ so do the maths. Oh and we don't get to take a KFF against it either. It's way over the top.

I don't see that hes much better vs orks than anything else, noone gets their invul save and even marines are reduced to a 6+ for their armour. I suppose terminator still have a okish save but then again so do megaarmoured boss/mech.

With these guys and the genestealer cults on the rise it would appear that gw is trying to discourage the mass bluffing characters meta or at least give some tools against it. Not a bad thing over all as the game would be better if more actual standard units were used.

Would CP generation by this mechanic fall under the normal CP generation restriction, ie one per battle round?

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Trimarius wrote:

An Actual Englishman wrote:Headshot looks entirely stupid also. Goodbye any Ork character. I'm rapidly losing faith in GWs ability to balance this game.

How is that an issue for Ork characters, specifically? It works out to be about three damage a shot, on average. It's not great for Weird Boyz, with all that self-inflicted damage, but that's neither new nor unique to Orks.

Well the vast majority of our characters only have 4W and a 6+ so do the maths. Oh and we don't get to take a KFF against it either. It's way over the top.

That's the same situation of many other factions. A librarian is 4W, like a Lt. The only difference between shooting a marine char or an Ork is a 6+ save.

This actually gives some more value to primaris chars, as they have an additional wound.

All AM chars are 4w too.

torblind wrote:
Would CP generation by this mechanic fall under the normal CP generation restriction, ie one per battle round?

Yes.

 WisdomLS wrote:

Well the vast majority of our characters only have 4W and a 6+ so do the maths. Oh and we don't get to take a KFF against it either. It's way over the top.

I don't see that hes much better vs orks than anything else, noone gets their invul save and even marines are reduced to a 6+ for their armour. I suppose terminator still have a okish save but then again so do megaarmoured boss/mech.

With these guys and the genestealer cults on the rise it would appear that gw is trying to discourage the mass bluffing characters meta or at least give some tools against it. Not a bad thing over all as the game would be better if more actual standard units were used.

Its probably because Orks have an over reliance on their characters to get around glaring weaknesses and the megarmoured boss doesn't exist outside of index. A save of any sort is infinitely better than no save. To be clear, this hurts any faction with low save, low wound characters.

For Orks specifically;

A SAG Big Mek is virtually mandatory to combat armour. Vindicares make him redundant.

A weirdboy is mandatory to get Boyz across the board. One perils means average Vindicares rolls kills you. Guaranteed.

A KFF Big Mek/MA Mek is mandatory to help with durability.

We can only use Grot Shields once per round (if we're lucky) so that doesn't help when the enemy can fire at two characters at once.

This reeks of GW creating an overpowered mess because they are unsure his to fix assassins. No army should be able to list tailor to their opponent on the fly. It's so obviously a poor design decision it even looks stupid when written down. Its introducing more mechanic breaking elements to the game and taking us closer and closer to the balance mess of 7th.

By the way the assassins could easily be the nail in the coffin for the ynnari at the competitive level.

Catlady, farseers, warlocks...so many good targets for many of the assassins.

I can easily see many imp list taking the full assassination force (and why you wouldn't for only 340?) and then using the stratagem to double down on the most needed assassin.

Another list which is heavily impacted by this list is the Tsons SCD. I will just spend a CP and put a culexus as the nearest target during deployment.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 WisdomLS wrote:

Well the vast majority of our characters only have 4W and a 6+ so do the maths. Oh and we don't get to take a KFF against it either. It's way over the top.

I don't see that hes much better vs orks than anything else, noone gets their invul save and even marines are reduced to a 6+ for their armour. I suppose terminator still have a okish save but then again so do megaarmoured boss/mech.

With these guys and the genestealer cults on the rise it would appear that gw is trying to discourage the mass bluffing characters meta or at least give some tools against it. Not a bad thing over all as the game would be better if more actual standard units were used.

Its probably because Orks have an over reliance on their characters to get around glaring weaknesses and the megarmoured boss doesn't exist outside of index. A save of any sort is infinitely better than no save. To be clear, this hurts any faction with low save, low wound characters.

For Orks specifically;

A SAG Big Mek is virtually mandatory to combat armour. Vindicares make him redundant.

A weirdboy is mandatory to get Boyz across the board. One perils means average Vindicares rolls kills you. Guaranteed.

A KFF Big Mek/MA Mek is mandatory to help with durability.

We can only use Grot Shields once per round (if we're lucky) so that doesn't help when the enemy can fire at two characters at once.

This reeks of GW creating an overpowered mess because they are unsure his to fix assassins. No army should be able to list tailor to their opponent on the fly. It's so obviously a poor design decision it even looks stupid when written down. Its introducing more mechanic breaking elements to the game and taking us closer and closer to the balance mess of 7th.

You realise that summoning for chaos also allows you to list tailor right?

But i gotta agree, charachter requiring armies now will face some significant threat.

I would actually be in favor of MORE list tailoring,it's a good thing for the game.

WM/H in the end was forced to accept this too.

Spoletta wrote:
I would actually be in favor of MORE list tailoring,it's a good thing for the game.

WM/H in the end was forced to accept this too.

one of the issues is that GW will forget about this for 6 months, and then a bunch of armys are left stuffed for an edition again.
With WM/H they do seem to at the very least design every faction to be playing the same game.

So i am sad to see it come like this, When a edition change. Or a full book and mini release for a bunch of army would have been better.
Something like a campagn book that try and give everyone a little something would have been great with this.

Not Online!!! wrote:

You realise that summoning for chaos also allows you to list tailor right?

Indeed but summoning is not automatic so there is a justified risk to that list tailoring, right?

Apple fox wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
I would actually be in favor of MORE list tailoring,it's a good thing for the game.

WM/H in the end was forced to accept this too.

one of the issues is that GW will forget about this for 6 months, and then a bunch of armys are left stuffed for an edition again.
With WM/H they do seem to at the very least design every faction to be playing the same game.

So i am sad to see it come like this, When a edition change. Or a full book and mini release for a bunch of army would have been better.
Something like a campagn book that try and give everyone a little something would have been great with this.

Exactly. List tailoring is fine when all armies are able to do it to the same extent or if there is an element of risk/reward.

Just as Apple fox has said, GW will leave this to Imperium players only and other factions will be gak outta luck, effectively playing a different game.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Its probably because Orks have an over reliance on their characters to get around glaring weaknesses and the megarmoured boss doesn't exist outside of index. A save of any sort is infinitely better than no save. To be clear, this hurts any faction with low save, low wound characters.

For Orks specifically;

A SAG Big Mek is virtually mandatory to combat armour. Vindicares make him redundant.

A weirdboy is mandatory to get Boyz across the board. One perils means average Vindicares rolls kills you. Guaranteed.

A KFF Big Mek/MA Mek is mandatory to help with durability.

We can only use Grot Shields once per round (if we're lucky) so that doesn't help when the enemy can fire at two characters at once.

This reeks of GW creating an overpowered mess because they are unsure his to fix assassins. No army should be able to list tailor to their opponent on the fly. It's so obviously a poor design decision it even looks stupid when written down. Its introducing more mechanic breaking elements to the game and taking us closer and closer to the balance mess of 7th.

Okay but can't the Big Mek with SAG just take the grot oiler. Vindicare shoots (and kills) the oiler. Since he kills the oiler he doesn't get that "Head Shot" mortal wound roll off. But he also can't use "double kill" since the grot oiler was technically the same target as the SAG big mek?

Am I wrong in assuming this?

I'm really surprised by this for 2 main reasons:

They have essentially made assassins an auto-include. For me the Vindcare is an outstanding option as I could sit him back and just pop off my opponents support characters, whilst also keeping himself safe behind the character keyword. Easily make his point back and weaken any deathstars. Meanwhile the Cullexis for more competitive games to blunt any alpha strikes relying on CP by making them all really expensive.

The second surprise is that GW didn't milk this cow for money. They have an assassin that could be released, which for a single model they could quickly make, sell for stupid money and if it's even slightly in line with the other assassins, be snapped up by every imperium army.

Biggest losers in all of this, Necrons.

 Trimarius wrote:
Well, being able to psychic a castellan to death was fun while it lasted.

Though, funnily enough, GSC can take an assassin of their own, too, as that Brood Brother detachment still has the Imperium tag. The corruption runs deep, apparently.

Seems you could also do chaos assasins. Cypher as warlord and then vanquard with 3+ assasins`? Or maybe battle brother rule screws that. Can chaos do legal non-aux det with fallen marines to use the strategem?

Well gak, looks like I am leaving my 85 pts of Culexus Assassin in my list, just that it will be whichever Assassin I want at any given time now. Culexus if it is Psyker heavy. Vindicare for HeroHammer. Eversor for murdering all of the rest.

These rules look awesome. The Vindicare is definitely a rockstar now. Definitely some broken things that can be done, but I just really like the Headshot ability.

tneva82 wrote:

 Trimarius wrote:
Well, being able to psychic a castellan to death was fun while it lasted.

Though, funnily enough, GSC can take an assassin of their own, too, as that Brood Brother detachment still has the Imperium tag. The corruption runs deep, apparently.

Seems you could also do chaos assasins. Cypher as warlord and then vanquard with 3+ assasins`? Or maybe battle brother rule screws that. Can chaos do legal non-aux det with fallen marines to use the strategem?

Assassins for everyone, except you Tau /Ork / necrons, you don't matter!!!!

GSC and Cypher will no doubt get FAQd. I can't see this standing very long.

Kind of sad that no name characters have better weapons and better rules.
Can this buff to assassins means end end of character armies and what will low wound characters do?
There are to many characters that are with 2-3 wounds, so the incoming assassin spam is not really healthy for the game.

Necrons have the vehicle character, (CCB), might offer some resiliance to this development

torblind wrote:
Necrons have the vehicle character, (CCB), might offer some resiliance to this development

Sure, the assassin player will play that 1 CP stratagem turbo penetrator round which inflicts D3 MW on a VEHICLE.

I love the assassins. Have done since that mini codex they released for 2nd Edition or whenever it was and I'm delighted that their rules read like how the fluff portrays them now.

HOWEVER.

I do think they're undercosted. I'm not sure by how much though, I'd need to put one on the table and actually use it to find out, but they seem better than some 150+ pts characters now.

 p5freak wrote:

torblind wrote:
Necrons have the vehicle character, (CCB), might offer some resiliance to this development

Sure, the assassin player will play that 1 CP stratagem turbo penetrator round which inflicts D3 MW on a VEHICLE.

Well. Good thing that necron thing has more than 3 wounds so not really too much fretted out by that.

 Sim-Life wrote:
I love the assassins. Have done since that mini codex they released for 2nd Edition or whenever it was and I'm delighted that their rules read like how the fluff portrays them now.

HOWEVER.

I do think they're undercosted. I'm not sure by how much though, I'd need to put one on the table and actually use it to find out, but they seem better than some 150+ pts characters now.

Your aware that 2 out of 4 got more expensive with this change right?
One got 5 points cheaper and 1 stayed the same.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 p5freak wrote:

torblind wrote:
Necrons have the vehicle character, (CCB), might offer some resiliance to this development

Sure, the assassin player will play that 1 CP stratagem turbo penetrator round which inflicts D3 MW on a VEHICLE.

I'm sure an 8 wound character that regenerates a wound per turn is really scared of your d3 wounds per turn.
It will only take you the entire game to not even kill him.

But wouldn't the turbo-penetrator round *snickers* cause the "Head Shot" mortal wound roll off to go off as well? That specifies ranged weapon, don't know if the stratagem counts towards that but considering you use it with the pistol or rifle I assume it does..

I don't know my necron characters but if that's the case then you could end up with significantly more than 3 wounds.

tneva82 wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

torblind wrote:
Necrons have the vehicle character, (CCB), might offer some resiliance to this development

Sure, the assassin player will play that 1 CP stratagem turbo penetrator round which inflicts D3 MW on a VEHICLE.

Well. Good thing that necron thing has more than 3 wounds so not really too much fretted out by that.

Shame about every other Necron character however

 Ordana wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
I love the assassins. Have done since that mini codex they released for 2nd Edition or whenever it was and I'm delighted that their rules read like how the fluff portrays them now.

HOWEVER.

I do think they're undercosted. I'm not sure by how much though, I'd need to put one on the table and actually use it to find out, but they seem better than some 150+ pts characters now.

Your aware that 2 out of 4 got more expensive with this change right?
One got 5 points cheaper and 1 stayed the same.

How does that effect what I said?

Marin wrote:Kind of sad that no name characters have better weapons and better rules.

If anyone should have rules this powerful, it absolutely should be the assassins. They're rarer and more powerful than Chapter Masters, and I'm cool with them being like that in game too. The price tag is where I have an issue.

Can this buff to assassins means end end of character armies and what will low wound characters do?

Honestly, I think character armies should have an end. Bring back more troops, more actual armies rather than HeroHammer.

Low wound characters absolutely should be threatened by these Assassins. What the issue is isn't in the Assasssins, but that these characters are used as a crutch. If an army NEEDS their support characters to function in any way, then they should be changed to have less reliance - or, the assassin should be more valuable, as you're paying a premium to disable an army in such a way.

There are to many characters that are with 2-3 wounds, so the incoming assassin spam is not really healthy for the game.

Which characters have 2 wounds?
Alternatively, I think the over-reliance on characters is more unhealthy for the game.

Sim-Life wrote:I love the assassins. Have done since that mini codex they released for 2nd Edition or whenever it was and I'm delighted that their rules read like how the fluff portrays them now.

HOWEVER.

I do think they're undercosted. I'm not sure by how much though, I'd need to put one on the table and actually use it to find out, but they seem better than some 150+ pts characters now.

Agreed. I would like them to be higher costed, but I think they absolutely should be this powerful. However, powerful should come with the price to accompany it.

I'm also still not a fan of the list tailoring aspect, being able to choose one after the game starts for any CP cost is not sitting well with me.
Why couldn't it just have been left at "You may take a single Assassin in a Vanguard Detachment, with no HQ, with no Command Benefits unless you have one of each type of Assassin"? I mean, I was doing that anyways, just with an Auxiliary Detachment.

PiñaColada wrote:But wouldn't the turbo-penetrator round *snickers* cause the "Head Shot" mortal wound roll off to go off as well? That specifies ranged weapon, don't know if the stratagem counts towards that but considering you use it with the pistol or rifle I assume it does..

I don't know my necron characters but if that's the case then you could end up with significantly more than 3 wounds.

Nope, because it specifically says that the Head Shot ability doesn't apply to any shots made with the Turbo-Penetrator Rounds - probably to stop Vindicares one-shotting vehicles.

JohnnyHell wrote:

torblind wrote:
Would CP generation by this mechanic fall under the normal CP generation restriction, ie one per battle round?

Yes.

No. Read the last sentence of the tactical restraint rule.

PiñaColada wrote:But wouldn't the turbo-penetrator round *snickers* cause the "Head Shot" mortal wound roll off to go off as well? That specifies ranged weapon, don't know if the stratagem counts towards that but considering you use it with the pistol or rifle I assume it does..

I don't know my necron characters but if that's the case then you could end up with significantly more than 3 wounds.

Turbo penetrator round does not trigger the headshot ability.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

PiñaColada wrote:But wouldn't the turbo-penetrator round *snickers* cause the "Head Shot" mortal wound roll off to go off as well? That specifies ranged weapon, don't know if the stratagem counts towards that but considering you use it with the pistol or rifle I assume it does..

I don't know my necron characters but if that's the case then you could end up with significantly more than 3 wounds.

Nope, because it specifically says that the Head Shot ability doesn't apply to any shots made with the Turbo-Penetrator Rounds - probably to stop Vindicares one-shotting vehicles.

Well, my reading comprehension is certainly suspect at this point

The best part is that Chaos now can use assassins! All you need to do is take a Patrol of Cypher and a minimum unit of Fallen and you have access to the "Buy an assassin" stratagem.

 p5freak wrote:

JohnnyHell wrote:

torblind wrote:
Would CP generation by this mechanic fall under the normal CP generation restriction, ie one per battle round?

Yes.

No. Read the last sentence of the tactical restraint rule.

Bummer

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The best part is that Chaos now can use assassins! All you need to do is take a Patrol of Cypher and a minimum unit of Fallen and you have access to the "Buy an assassin" stratagem.

Except that in a Patrol detachment you must take one unit of troops and the only troops you have access to are Cultists and Chaos Marines, and neither of those two have the Imperium keyword thus making you ineligible for the Assassin stratagems. You'd need to take a Vanguard detachment with Cypher and 3 units of Fallen to make this work. The minimum cost for this would be 290 points (before Assassin cost).

Anyone else think an Execution Force could prove a real hard counter to Bobby G, Morty, et al?

The Vindicare alone with exploding MW may make people think twice about bringing the Primarchs.

 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:
Anyone else think an Execution Force could prove a real hard counter to Bobby G, Morty, et al?

The Vindicare alone with exploding MW may make people think twice about bringing the Primarchs.

I mean, you still have to wound them. Even Guilliman is T6 and not infantry

 Nighttail wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The best part is that Chaos now can use assassins! All you need to do is take a Patrol of Cypher and a minimum unit of Fallen and you have access to the "Buy an assassin" stratagem.

Except that in a Patrol detachment you must take one unit of troops and the only troops you have access to are Cultists and Chaos Marines, and neither of those two have the Imperium keyword thus making you ineligible for the Assassin stratagems. You'd need to take a Vanguard detachment with Cypher and 3 units of Fallen to make this work. The minimum cost for this would be 290 points (before Assassin cost).

Yeah my bad I thought that Fallen were troops. Still doable though

Edit: It was pointed out to me that the Assassins stratagems do not exclude Auxiliary Support Detachments, so you can take a single Aux Detachment with Cypher (or under strength Fallen) and gain access to the stratagems.

Can somebody tell me by what rule you can add by the stratagem one Assasin? People is telling me that because he has the Imperium keyword you can't use it, as your Chaos Army doesn't share that.

One of those times I’m concerned that Tempestor Primes don’t get invulnerable saves.

 Galas wrote:
Can somebody tell me by what rule you can add by the stratagem one Assasin? People is telling me that because he has the Imperium keyword you can't use it, as your Chaos Army doesn't share that.

The rules for Assassin Stratagems says if you have an IMPERIUM detachment (i.e. One that all units have the IMPERIUM keyword) you get access to the stratagems.

If you take a detachment of Fallen, who have both the IMPERIUM and CHAOS keyword, you can use the Assassin stratagems to pay 1CP and 85 points to add an Assassin during deployment. Since it has the CHAOS keyword, you can include other detachments so long as they also all have the CHAOS keyword.

e.g. You take an Aux detachment of Cypher. It's a legal matched play detachment because you're using the FALLEN keyword to bind it together. You take a detachment of Thousand Sons. It's a legal matched play detachment because you're using the THOUSAND SONS keyword to bind it together. All units in your army share a keyword, the CHAOS keyword, thus it's a legal matched play army.

Furthermore, because it doesn't exclude Auxiliary Support Detachments, you can take an Aux detachment of Cypher or an understrength Fallen unit to unlock Assassins stratagems.

 Galas wrote:
Can somebody tell me by what rule you can add by the stratagem one Assasin? People is telling me that because he has the Imperium keyword you can't use it, as your Chaos Army doesn't share that.

The start of the new index says you have access to the Stratagems if you have any IMPERIUM detachments in your army.

GSC Brood Brothers have the IMPERIUM keyword, as does Cypher. So either can allow access to an IMPERIUM detachment.

It doesn't allow you to take Assassins normally, but it does allow access to the Stratagem that lets you use Reinforcement points to add an Assassin to your army. You can only use it once though.

I definitely see this as an unintended loophole that will be likely closed in a forthcoming FAQ.

Thanks guys.

 Stux wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Can somebody tell me by what rule you can add by the stratagem one Assasin? People is telling me that because he has the Imperium keyword you can't use it, as your Chaos Army doesn't share that.

The start of the new index says you have access to the Stratagems if you have any IMPERIUM detachments in your army.

GSC Brood Brothers have the IMPERIUM keyword, as does Cypher. So either can allow access to an IMPERIUM detachment.

It doesn't allow you to take Assassins normally, but it does allow access to the Stratagem that lets you use Reinforcement points to add an Assassin to your army. You can only use it once though.

I definitely see this as an unintended loophole that will be likely closed in a forthcoming FAQ.

Then again with chaos inquisitors and why not why not assasins as well. Chaos pays extra for that anyway.

tneva82 wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Can somebody tell me by what rule you can add by the stratagem one Assasin? People is telling me that because he has the Imperium keyword you can't use it, as your Chaos Army doesn't share that.

The start of the new index says you have access to the Stratagems if you have any IMPERIUM detachments in your army.

GSC Brood Brothers have the IMPERIUM keyword, as does Cypher. So either can allow access to an IMPERIUM detachment.

It doesn't allow you to take Assassins normally, but it does allow access to the Stratagem that lets you use Reinforcement points to add an Assassin to your army. You can only use it once though.

I definitely see this as an unintended loophole that will be likely closed in a forthcoming FAQ.

Then again with chaos inquisitors and why not why not assasins as well. Chaos pays extra for that anyway.

Chaos Assassins would indeed be cool, but I don't think it makes sense to just give them access to the Imperium ones. The Assassinorum started after the Heresy after all. Not to mention that a Cullexus Assassin is probably impossible to corrupt due to its unique nature.

Getting some bespoke Chaos ones would be ace though!

 Stux wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Can somebody tell me by what rule you can add by the stratagem one Assasin? People is telling me that because he has the Imperium keyword you can't use it, as your Chaos Army doesn't share that.

The start of the new index says you have access to the Stratagems if you have any IMPERIUM detachments in your army.

GSC Brood Brothers have the IMPERIUM keyword, as does Cypher. So either can allow access to an IMPERIUM detachment.

It doesn't allow you to take Assassins normally, but it does allow access to the Stratagem that lets you use Reinforcement points to add an Assassin to your army. You can only use it once though.

I definitely see this as an unintended loophole that will be likely closed in a forthcoming FAQ.

No loophole here (for GSC anyway). Your Warlord must be IMPERIUM to use the "Add an Assassin" stratagem, which you can't do with Brood Brothers.

You can make Cypher or a random Fallen your Warlord though and get access to them.

Seeing new forces join chaos al' the time pre heresy or not is fairly irrelelevant. Plus assasins existed during heresy as well

Ah quite right. That one is all good then!

What's the nastiest and most point efficient and command point efficient combo people can think up in a soup situation for an eversor in terms of munching a standard horde type troop, such as guard, basic marines, eldar guardians, ork boys etc etc....

Key priorities would be to allow to ignore overwatch, boost attacks and strength (psychic powers?). reroll to hits (and wounds if possible), maybe reduce targets toughness if it is a further advantage to do this in combination with improved strength against certain units?

If the combo requires other units going into the same combat such as a BA smash captain to negate the over watch that is okay, just looking at maximizing eversor killing potential any means how.

tneva82 wrote:
Seeing new forces join chaos al' the time pre heresy or not is fairly irrelelevant. Plus assasins existed during heresy as well

Not these assassins, different ones. As I say, Cullexus being Choas makes no sense too!

It makes perfect sense. Khorne needs someone to slap those uppity Tzeentch wizards about.

 Stux wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Seeing new forces join chaos al' the time pre heresy or not is fairly irrelelevant. Plus assasins existed during heresy as well

Not these assassins, different ones. As I say, Cullexus being Choas makes no sense too!

Being chaos yes, going rogue though? Offering their services to whoever can allow them to service their wants and desires? Who knows? It certainly has potential if an incredibly niche scenario. Sort of like the whole idea that grey knights are incorruptible... That surely is impossibly to guard against, and yes it hasn't happened yet but that doesn't mean it could not.

In addition to this, maybe allying with a chaos force allows the perfect opportunity to assassinate their intended target, maybe chaos forces are within touching distance of it, which the assassin would find difficult to get them self into an equal or greater advantage. Heck, they may not be allied, the assassin could just be dropping in on that battlefield to take out their target, it's just the chaos forces are destroying the guards around the assassins target... The enemy of my enemy is my friend and all that.

I just think it's way too niche though. Choas having Assassins makes sense. Chaos having access to these Assassins much less so. Needing Cypher in the mix too? Bonkers.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Headshot looks entirely stupid also. Goodbye any Ork character. I'm rapidly losing faith in GWs ability to balance this game.

I think for most people that faith disappeared the minute they moved away from the Index (or even during). Honestly, is anyone surprised? Did anyone really buy that BS about balancing the game? It was a PR stunt like virtually everything else they mentioned in the previews, in politician-level doublespeak so they could renege on it later and make it out like they never said anything of the sort.

Wayniac wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Headshot looks entirely stupid also. Goodbye any Ork character. I'm rapidly losing faith in GWs ability to balance this game.

I think for most people that faith disappeared the minute they moved away from the Index (or even during). Honestly, is anyone surprised? Did anyone really buy that BS about balancing the game? It was a PR stunt like virtually everything else they mentioned in the previews, in politician-level doublespeak so they could renege on it later and make it out like they never said anything of the sort.

Want to know what I think is incredibly stupid? Every ork in an army being covered by a 5++ save.

Wayniac wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Headshot looks entirely stupid also. Goodbye any Ork character. I'm rapidly losing faith in GWs ability to balance this game.

I think for most people that faith disappeared the minute they moved away from the Index (or even during). Honestly, is anyone surprised? Did anyone really buy that BS about balancing the game? It was a PR stunt like virtually everything else they mentioned in the previews, in politician-level doublespeak so they could renege on it later and make it out like they never said anything of the sort.

This is so silly. Of they want to make a good game! So much cynicism here. Yeah, they don't always get it right, but it's a hell of a lot harder than anyone gives credit. Ridiculous number of variables, it's inherently unbalancable.

Well, my TS army is now officially dead now that every imperial player has a pocket assassin that would be geared into a Culexus.

Guess its time to play Tau again.
Not sure they are not equally punked by this though...

If you are not IoM you are having a very bad day once this ruleset drops.
The ability to easily switch in any assassin you needs for a mere 1CP (and reserving the cost, but that's normal) is brutal. whatever strategy the opponent has, you got a clear counter,

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Headshot looks entirely stupid also. Goodbye any Ork character. I'm rapidly losing faith in GWs ability to balance this game.

I think for most people that faith disappeared the minute they moved away from the Index (or even during). Honestly, is anyone surprised? Did anyone really buy that BS about balancing the game? It was a PR stunt like virtually everything else they mentioned in the previews, in politician-level doublespeak so they could renege on it later and make it out like they never said anything of the sort.

Want to know what I think is incredibly stupid? Every ork in an army being covered by a 5++ save.

*cough * requires huge amount of points and logistics that offers a fine balance for a skilled player who organises their army well vs a player who brings a unit, stands still, shoots and easily kills that 1 character and causes your entire plan to down fall *cough*

 lolman1c wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Headshot looks entirely stupid also. Goodbye any Ork character. I'm rapidly losing faith in GWs ability to balance this game.

I think for most people that faith disappeared the minute they moved away from the Index (or even during). Honestly, is anyone surprised? Did anyone really buy that BS about balancing the game? It was a PR stunt like virtually everything else they mentioned in the previews, in politician-level doublespeak so they could renege on it later and make it out like they never said anything of the sort.

Want to know what I think is incredibly stupid? Every ork in an army being covered by a 5++ save.

*cough * requires huge amount of points and logistics that offers a fine balance for a skilled player who organises their army well vs a player who brings a unit, stands still, shoots and easily kills that 1 character and causes your entire plan to down fall *cough*

**cough, cough** A highly skilled player wouldn't put all their eggs in one basket **cough**

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Headshot looks entirely stupid also. Goodbye any Ork character. I'm rapidly losing faith in GWs ability to balance this game.

I think for most people that faith disappeared the minute they moved away from the Index (or even during). Honestly, is anyone surprised? Did anyone really buy that BS about balancing the game? It was a PR stunt like virtually everything else they mentioned in the previews, in politician-level doublespeak so they could renege on it later and make it out like they never said anything of the sort.

Want to know what I think is incredibly stupid? Every ork in an army being covered by a 5++ save.

I have yet to see such army. It takes expensive 100+ pts model, one generally not enough to cover entire army as 9" is rather narrow. Remember for added fun if unit is partially within KFF #1 and partially within KFF #2 no 5++.

This change has a meaning if it comes together with a limitation on CP. In that case using that CP AND having to devolve CPs to assassins in addition to your army, becomes a choice.

 Stux wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Headshot looks entirely stupid also. Goodbye any Ork character. I'm rapidly losing faith in GWs ability to balance this game.

I think for most people that faith disappeared the minute they moved away from the Index (or even during). Honestly, is anyone surprised? Did anyone really buy that BS about balancing the game? It was a PR stunt like virtually everything else they mentioned in the previews, in politician-level doublespeak so they could renege on it later and make it out like they never said anything of the sort.

This is so silly. Of they want to make a good game! So much cynicism here. Yeah, they don't always get it right, but it's a hell of a lot harder than anyone gives credit. Ridiculous number of variables, it's inherently unbalancable.

Spending 1CP to gain 2CP HAS to be the best stratgem ever!

 BoomWolf wrote:
Well, my TS army is now officially dead now that every imperial player has a pocket assassin that would be geared into a Culexus.

Guess its time to play Tau again.
Not sure they are not equally punked by this though...

Drones and Bodyguards are probably a good defense against Vindicare, FWIW.

Pancakey wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Headshot looks entirely stupid also. Goodbye any Ork character. I'm rapidly losing faith in GWs ability to balance this game.

I think for most people that faith disappeared the minute they moved away from the Index (or even during). Honestly, is anyone surprised? Did anyone really buy that BS about balancing the game? It was a PR stunt like virtually everything else they mentioned in the previews, in politician-level doublespeak so they could renege on it later and make it out like they never said anything of the sort.

This is so silly. Of they want to make a good game! So much cynicism here. Yeah, they don't always get it right, but it's a hell of a lot harder than anyone gives credit. Ridiculous number of variables, it's inherently unbalancable.

Spending 1CP to gain 2CP HAS to be the best stratgem ever!

Tyranids already had it, it's nothing new.

Pancakey wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Headshot looks entirely stupid also. Goodbye any Ork character. I'm rapidly losing faith in GWs ability to balance this game.

I think for most people that faith disappeared the minute they moved away from the Index (or even during). Honestly, is anyone surprised? Did anyone really buy that BS about balancing the game? It was a PR stunt like virtually everything else they mentioned in the previews, in politician-level doublespeak so they could renege on it later and make it out like they never said anything of the sort.

This is so silly. Of they want to make a good game! So much cynicism here. Yeah, they don't always get it right, but it's a hell of a lot harder than anyone gives credit. Ridiculous number of variables, it's inherently unbalancable.

Spending 1CP to gain 2CP HAS to be the best stratgem ever!

You can only gain 1 per turn anyway, so if you have Kurov's Aquilla it's basically redundant. Only works when you kill a character, which you'll be lucky to do once every two turns. And that assumes that you're bringing CP to shoot twice, against most armies, to have a decent chance of killing something.

It's not that good a Strat. Something that actually does something would probably be better.

 BoomWolf wrote:
Well, my TS army is now officially dead now that every imperial player has a pocket assassin that would be geared into a Culexus.

They've actually stealth-nerfed the Culexus - it's aura now affects friendly psykers.

Of course being able to take an assassin in an all-comers list without finding that they are a bit useless on the day is well worth a CP.

 Stux wrote:

You can only gain 1 per turn anyway, so if you have Kurov's Aquilla it's basically redundant.

Wrong. Read the tactical restraint rule, the last sentence.

 p5freak wrote:

 Stux wrote:

You can only gain 1 per turn anyway, so if you have Kurov's Aquilla it's basically redundant.

Wrong. Read the tactical restraint rule, the last sentence.

I know you do get 2 from the strat, I'm saying it's a net gain of 1. If you have gained 1 from Kurov's Aquilla already then this strat will do nothing though.

 BoomWolf wrote:
Well, my TS army is now officially dead now that every imperial player has a pocket assassin that would be geared into a Culexus.

Guess its time to play Tau again.
Not sure they are not equally punked by this though...

If you are not IoM you are having a very bad day once this ruleset drops.
The ability to easily switch in any assassin you needs for a mere 1CP (and reserving the cost, but that's normal) is brutal. whatever strategy the opponent has, you got a clear counter,

it's just an additional +2 to your cast, not exactly going to break the game. I played an army with a single Culexus at the LVO and had no problemt keeping out of 18" of it. Also played vs 3 Culexus where I couln't avoid the aura, but still got some psychics off. Would have been easier if I'd had a warlock too to be able to do +1 cast.

 Stux wrote:

I know you do get 2 from the strat, I'm saying it's a net gain of 1. If you have gained 1 from Kurov's Aquilla already then this strat will do nothing though.

You get 1 from kurovs aquila and you get 1 (or 2 if the killed character is the enemy warlord) from the stratagem, in the same battle round. The tactical restraint rule doesnt apply to stratagems.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
BIG game changer....you can pick whatever assassin that fits the opponent.

Psykers will weep.

I just saw that now. That would explain why you can't get command benefits unless you field all 4 assassins.
I hope some of the culexus rules finds their way into the necron dex, because that's the anti-psychic stuff I'm looking for.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Headshot looks entirely stupid also. Goodbye any Ork character. I'm rapidly losing faith in GWs ability to balance this game.

I think for most people that faith disappeared the minute they moved away from the Index (or even during). Honestly, is anyone surprised? Did anyone really buy that BS about balancing the game? It was a PR stunt like virtually everything else they mentioned in the previews, in politician-level doublespeak so they could renege on it later and make it out like they never said anything of the sort.

Want to know what I think is incredibly stupid? Every ork in an army being covered by a 5++ save.

Against range weapons only, if they stay within 9 of an incredibly expensive character.

Also completely off topic. The misdirections people will use to try and detract from broken things they like the sound of never ceases to amuse.

 bullyboy wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
Well, my TS army is now officially dead now that every imperial player has a pocket assassin that would be geared into a Culexus.

Guess its time to play Tau again.
Not sure they are not equally punked by this though...

If you are not IoM you are having a very bad day once this ruleset drops.
The ability to easily switch in any assassin you needs for a mere 1CP (and reserving the cost, but that's normal) is brutal. whatever strategy the opponent has, you got a clear counter,

it's just an additional +2 to your cast, not exactly going to break the game. I played an army with a single Culexus at the LVO and had no problemt keeping out of 18" of it. Also played vs 3 Culexus where I couln't avoid the aura, but still got some psychics off. Would have been easier if I'd had a warlock too to be able to do +1 cast.

+2 is pretty significant.

5+ goes from 83% to 58%
7+ goes from 58% to 28%

Thousand Sons have an easier time staying out of 18", but when you have a big screen preventing you from getting in any deeper it can become a problem.

I'm not saying it's broken, but it gives pretty significant challenges.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Headshot looks entirely stupid also. Goodbye any Ork character. I'm rapidly losing faith in GWs ability to balance this game.

I think for most people that faith disappeared the minute they moved away from the Index (or even during). Honestly, is anyone surprised? Did anyone really buy that BS about balancing the game? It was a PR stunt like virtually everything else they mentioned in the previews, in politician-level doublespeak so they could renege on it later and make it out like they never said anything of the sort.

Want to know what I think is incredibly stupid? Every ork in an army being covered by a 5++ save.

Against range weapons only, if they stay within 9 of an incredibly expensive character.

Also completely off topic. The misdirections people will use to try and detract from broken things they like the sound of never ceases to amuse.

I would hardly call that incredibly expensive or hard to do. In any case much of these weapons ignore invulvs.

Orks have runts, oilers, grots, and a D3 heal. They're not under significant threat from snipers. Eversors should be the bigger concern since one could take 20 boyz.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

A.T. wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
Well, my TS army is now officially dead now that every imperial player has a pocket assassin that would be geared into a Culexus.

They've actually stealth-nerfed the Culexus - it's aura now affects friendly psykers.

Of course being able to take an assassin in an all-comers list without finding that they are a bit useless on the day is well worth a CP.

Culexus will likely feature in Castellan lists. If it means 8 or so fewer mortars then maybe we're better off. It will be interesting anyway.

Surely they should have said that the entire army needs to share the IMPERIUM keyword to use an assassin, rather than just a detachment.

Anyways, they were already good. Now with the buffs and strats, they are pretty OP. But I guess that's par for the course with the amount of power creep we are seeing. And I'd rather them be OP than be bad and never see action, because they sure are cool

Cynista wrote:
Surely they should have said that the entire army needs to share the IMPERIUM keyword to use an assassin, rather than just a detachment.

Anyways, they were already good. Now with the buffs and strats, they are pretty OP. But I guess that's par for the course with the amount of power creep we are seeing. And I'd rather them be OP than be bad and never see action, because they sure are cool

I expect that will be the fix.

They were good at the launch of 8e, when everything was Index. Through most of 8th so far they've been lackluster to poor. This gets them back up to playable imo.

I don't hate the abilities - they need some testing to see if they are too cheap at 85 points, but if they are going to be meta relevant they can't be too expensive.
I really don't like the list tailoring stratagem though. That feels like something that shouldn't be in matched play.

The Culexus was good, is good and will continue to be the go to option. +2 on psychic tests is massive and he is weirdly good as a chaff/blocking unit due to only taking hits on 6s. Also - oh, you charged my knight and I'm now in 3" of you? I'm sorry, you fight last. Enjoy the tap dance. This is another nail in assault-based armies versus our IG+Castelan overlords. Actual offensive output is so-so, but with all these perks? Not sure it matters.

I think the Callidus is the weakest on paper (has this been the case from 2nd edition?) but reign of confusion over two turns could really mess with some stratagem dependent armies.

For me both the Vindicare and Eversor are theoretically good against certain opponents, mediocre against others and I therefore suspect they won't see much use. Could be totally wrong here though.

Wasn't the Callidus using Polymorphine and Terminator armour a silly combo in 2nd?

Just take a look at Illic Nightspear to see the power difference between 2 Sniper characters for 85 points.

I seriously hope the Vindicare it's fixed with only triggering the Headshot in wound rolls of 6+ it would be quite Op anyway but not stupidly broken vs several armies.

edited by ingtaer, please don't use that word in that context.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Wasn't the Callidus using Polymorphine and Terminator armour a silly combo in 2nd?

While on a bike!

 Stux wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Headshot looks entirely stupid also. Goodbye any Ork character. I'm rapidly losing faith in GWs ability to balance this game.

I think for most people that faith disappeared the minute they moved away from the Index (or even during). Honestly, is anyone surprised? Did anyone really buy that BS about balancing the game? It was a PR stunt like virtually everything else they mentioned in the previews, in politician-level doublespeak so they could renege on it later and make it out like they never said anything of the sort.

This is so silly. Of they want to make a good game! So much cynicism here. Yeah, they don't always get it right, but it's a hell of a lot harder than anyone gives credit. Ridiculous number of variables, it's inherently unbalancable.

Welcome to Dakka Dakka.
We have a tradition here of blowing everything out of proportion as quickly as we possibly can and always assuming the worst.
It's a glorious place, a place where armies are terrible right to the point where some player starts winning with it (then it becomes OP and needs NERFS NOW or OMG GW WANTS THEIR GAME TO BE UNBALANCED!!!!)

Enjoy your stay.


In all seriousness though, I highly doubt Assassins are going to break the game.

The Culexus is roughly the same as it was, maybe slightly worse depending on if you bring your own Psychers or not.

The Callidus and Vindicare are probably worth taking now compared to the other two.
The main function of the Callidus is still forcing your opponent to spend more CPs than planned ( lol at making Agents of Vect cost 5CPs).

Vindicare still suffers from the issues Sniper characters have had this whole edition, always just a single dice roll away from accomplishing nothing. Might actually make players think a little about character placement (like use LOS blocking cover) rather than just wandering around in the open and abusing targeting rules.

The Eversor is good, really just a beat stick, best against chaff, as opposed to something like a Solitaire which is best against characters.

To get full use out of them they're going to be CP hogs too, and combined with other armies that are also CP hogs (knights, BAs, etc). A Guard, knight, etc list that then goes against another imperial list with a Callidus is going to run out of CPs fast especially considering most CPs are spent in the first 2 turns of the game.

Tyel wrote:
I don't hate the abilities - they need some testing to see if they are too cheap at 85 points, but if they are going to be meta relevant they can't be too expensive.

The vindicare is the one to watch.

The other three haven't really changed outside of the utility strats, the melee damage buffs just pulling them along in line with the changes since release - the eversor in particular with all of his improvements is still looking at burning 2CPs just to wipe out a 5 man tactical squad.

Tyel wrote:
I don't hate the abilities - they need some testing to see if they are too cheap at 85 points, but if they are going to be meta relevant they can't be too expensive.
I really don't like the list tailoring stratagem though. That feels like something that shouldn't be in matched play.

The Culexus was good, is good and will continue to be the go to option. +2 on psychic tests is massive and he is weirdly good as a chaff/blocking unit due to only taking hits on 6s. Also - oh, you charged my knight and I'm now in 3" of you? I'm sorry, you fight last. Enjoy the tap dance. This is another nail in assault-based armies versus our IG+Castelan overlords. Actual offensive output is so-so, but with all these perks? Not sure it matters.

I think the Callidus is the weakest on paper (has this been the case from 2nd edition?) but reign of confusion over two turns could really mess with some stratagem dependent armies.

For me both the Vindicare and Eversor are theoretically good against certain opponents, mediocre against others and I therefore suspect they won't see much use. Could be totally wrong here though.

Well, people did use assassins earlier this edition. I think people just found the detachment too cumbersome as well as dead weight for less than psychic opponents.

It still has to replace something - mortars, a wyvern, ogryns? Depending on your list that might be better or worse.

Welp, now I need to see the Primaris Scouts to know if they're worthy... the Vindicare is a beast now

 Vector Strike wrote:
Welp, now I need to see the Primaris Scouts to know if they're worthy... the Vindicare is a beast now

Agreed. This sort of killed my desire to run the Primaris Snipers. Vindicare will likely exceed their abilities. And Headshot takes care of one of the major weaknesses of the Vindy, not doing enough damage.

No saves against Culexus melee weapons...
He has no melee weapons.

 DeffDred wrote:
No saves against Culexus melee weapons...
He has no melee weapons.

He has his hands, which is exactly how he killed things in past editions, by ripping them apart by hand.

 DeffDred wrote:
No saves against Culexus melee weapons...
He has no melee weapons.

BRB disagrees.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Against range weapons only, if they stay within 9 of an incredibly expensive character.

Also completely off topic. The misdirections people will use to try and detract from broken things they like the sound of never ceases to amuse.

I would hardly call that incredibly expensive or hard to do. In any case much of these weapons ignore invulvs.

Orks have runts, oilers, grots, and a D3 heal. They're not under significant threat from snipers. Eversors should be the bigger concern since one could take 20 boyz.

120 pts is expensive for Orks.

D3 heal is on a 4W character with a 6+ save that the Vindicare will kill first.
Grots is a stratagem so can only be used once per phase.
Oilers and Runts protect our characters for a turn.

Eversors are indeed another greater problem but we should be able to counter charge them.

What baffles me about all this is GW is buffing the strongest faction even more. What are they thinking? Do we all have to play Imperium to play at the highest level?
E - formatting

I dont think GW is planning to buff a particular faction, it just happens to be that the good guys team up together. If they were to balance the game, they would have to intentionally make imperium weaker to make up for all the ally potential. At least now they try and make cool rules for armies.

At the end of the day they want to sell models so it will always be compromised.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:


What baffles me about all this is GW is buffing the strongest faction even more. What are they thinking? Do we all have to play Imperium to play at the highest level?

Incidentally buffing them. They're addressing an unused portion of the game that *may* also help the strongest soup.

There's still a lot to unpack.

The more I ponder the more I think 3 Vindicares could be quite scary. 255 points for 3.

2 * .833 * .833 * .833 * 2 = 2.3 + at least 1.3 from headshot is just about 4 wounds
Then double tap another target and the third vindi uses turbo : 1.2 + .7 + 2 is also about 4 wounds.

So two non-primaris / non-termie HQs dead in one turn - disregarding any lucky 6s.

If this takes root along with GSC then transports are going to be absolutely mandatory. What does that mean for IG/Castellan? They need to spend a ton more on defense. This might get interesting - sniping out the priest makes Bullgryns that much weaker. Sniping Straken as well makes Catachans doubly worse.

Yeah the problem with Vindicares is not 1. With 1 you aren't gonna kill anything as fast as you need to do it to be worthwhile.

But with 3? 3 vindicares will be popping characters left and right, without a problem, and even sit on objetives with a -2 to hit and character protection.

Vindicare is now my answer for solitaires. Praise the emperor!

 Galas wrote:
Yeah the problem with Vindicares is not 1. With 1 you aren't gonna kill anything as fast as you need to do it to be worthwhile.

But with 3? 3 vindicares will be popping characters left and right, without a problem, and even sit on objetives with a -2 to hit and character protection.

But your paying 255pts so it seems a fair trade. If your an enemy character you just need to use terrain better or use a transport (either inside it or use it for cover). With fair terrain you should be able to counter deploy against vindicares too.

 Smirrors wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Yeah the problem with Vindicares is not 1. With 1 you aren't gonna kill anything as fast as you need to do it to be worthwhile.

But with 3? 3 vindicares will be popping characters left and right, without a problem, and even sit on objetives with a -2 to hit and character protection.

But your paying 255pts so it seems a fair trade. If your an enemy character you just need to use terrain better or use a transport (either inside it or use it for cover). With fair terrain you should be able to counter deploy against vindicares too.

Vindicares ignore cover. The only way to prevent them from shooting you at a 2+ to hit is by making it so they can't see you.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

 lolman1c wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Headshot looks entirely stupid also. Goodbye any Ork character. I'm rapidly losing faith in GWs ability to balance this game.

I think for most people that faith disappeared the minute they moved away from the Index (or even during). Honestly, is anyone surprised? Did anyone really buy that BS about balancing the game? It was a PR stunt like virtually everything else they mentioned in the previews, in politician-level doublespeak so they could renege on it later and make it out like they never said anything of the sort.

Want to know what I think is incredibly stupid? Every ork in an army being covered by a 5++ save.

*cough * requires huge amount of points and logistics that offers a fine balance for a skilled player who organises their army well vs a player who brings a unit, stands still, shoots and easily kills that 1 character and causes your entire plan to down fall *cough*

**cough, cough** A highly skilled player wouldn't put all their eggs in one basket **cough**

**cough, cough, cough** then why tf are you complaining? All ork players are skilled. Now go annoy a daemon player...

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Vindicares ignore cover. The only way to prevent them from shooting you at a 2+ to hit is by making it so they can't see you.

Thats what I meant. If they cant see you they cant shoot you. Character rules already allow some silly interactions. Now you can't sit you character in the open and expect them to survive which is highly thematic.

255pts is nothing to sneeze at. I know personally when I list build I want to cram so much stuff in that I can see myself freeing up 85pts but 255pts is a whole new ball game.

 lolman1c wrote:


**cough, cough, cough** then why tf are you complaining? All ork players are skilled. Now go annoy a daemon player...

Mini-daemon HQs are going to get the super shaft from assassins and GSC unless they get some sort of character protection rule, but they're the outlier, I think.

255pts is nothing to sneeze at. I know personally when I list build I want to cram so much stuff in that I can see myself freeing up 85pts but 255pts is a whole new ball game.

Also, 3 Vindicares means one of your three (or less!) detachments is a 0CP Vanguard Detachment, which could itself be a pretty hefty downside.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:


What baffles me about all this is GW is buffing the strongest faction even more. What are they thinking? Do we all have to play Imperium to play at the highest level?

Incidentally buffing them. They're addressing an unused portion of the game that *may* also help the strongest soup.

There's still a lot to unpack.

The more I ponder the more I think 3 Vindicares could be quite scary. 255 points for 3.

2 * .833 * .833 * .833 * 2 = 2.3 + at least 1.3 from headshot is just about 4 wounds
Then double tap another target and the third vindi uses turbo : 1.2 + .7 + 2 is also about 4 wounds.

So two non-primaris / non-termie HQs dead in one turn - disregarding any lucky 6s.

If this takes root along with GSC then transports are going to be absolutely mandatory. What does that mean for IG/Castellan? They need to spend a ton more on defense. This might get interesting - sniping out the priest makes Bullgryns that much weaker. Sniping Straken as well makes Catachans doubly worse.

I view it like this: Ork players have had almost no defence for their HQ'S since 8th, all while being on an unequal playing feilds by being unable to snipe another players HQ's/characters back. Even with an invulnerable save you have snipers that just bypass it. Orks have almost zero defence against an assassin who sits in the back surrounded by cheap guard (I know from testing them out). From my groups experiments during the index phase, the Orks would lose a good 2 or 3 HQ'S or characters by turn 2 from assassins sat on the other side of the field. A well placed buffer zone can make them neigh invulnerable to factions that don't have snipers. However, recently, it has got to the point where even if we had snipers it wouldn't matter as the vast majority of Imperial players warlords are Knights!

The callidus just became a "must take" in any imperial army...…...

While I've always liked the Assassins as concept and a faction, giving IOM another +1 just slot me in option with no real downside is not what the game needs. The fact you don't even need to pick one ahead of time is even more insane.

I really hope that the does not become a trend. Being able to put points aside and just pull a tool from a diverse list depending on my opponent is a bad game play mechanic.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
While I've always liked the Assassins as concept and a faction, giving IOM another +1 just slot me in option with no real downside is not what the game needs. The fact you don't even need to pick one ahead of time is even more insane.

I really hope that the does not become a trend. Being able to put points aside and just pull a tool from a diverse list depending on my opponent is a bad game play mechanic.

Its like MtG side boards, you have more tools and opponents cannot build lists to specifically to counter yours; its already in play such as daemon summonings.

Your list should be your list. It should be made with the meta in mind and at most a rough idea of what faction your opponents might have. I should not be able to look at my opponents list and then a minute before the game starts say hmm took a bunch of xyz, slot in relevant countermeasures.

The assassins are specialized units and when you take a unit that is that specialized you should run the risk of your opponent not taking things that will play to that unit's strengths.


The fact that IOM super friends is the last army that needed another ace option that gives it a one up is also relevant.

Sideboarding is actualy a very GOOD addition to the game competitively. The issue is some armies cannot sideboard and some can.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Your list should be your list. It should be made with the meta in mind and at most a rough idea of what faction your opponents might have. I should not be able to look at my opponents list and then a minute before the game starts say hmm took a bunch of xyz, slot in relevant countermeasures.

The assassins are specialized units and when you take a unit that is that specialized you should run the risk of your opponent not taking things that will play to that unit's strengths.


The fact that IOM super friends is the last army that needed another ace option that gives it a one up is also relevant.

It is thematically appropriate that the right Assassin can be selected for the job at any given time. They are deployed in miniature drop pods in the fluff. Calling up and saying "We've got enemy Psykers, send a Culexus" is definitely something I could see happening.

HoundsofDemos wrote:

The fact that IOM super friends is the last army that needed another ace option that gives it a one up is also relevant.

But that's the thing - IOM needs to worry about it, too, which means their lists will possibly skew toward defense.

nevermind

Looks like fun to me! I <3 Vindicare Assassins!

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Sideboarding is actualy a very GOOD addition to the game competitively. The issue is some armies cannot sideboard and some can.

Been to an OLD tournament for 40k 5th. 1600 with 150pt side board, (1750pt tournament) fun tournament, best one i've been too. You got to see the Mission and opponents Faction then got to pick to what you wanted (You have 1600 point core with 2 units being 150pts each, then each game you picked what unit you wanted to play with).

I was Nids at the time, so i had 2 Terivgon HQ's, 6 Hiveguards, 1 Doom+Pod, 50 Genestealers, the optional was lots of Gargoyles and the other was Zoanthropes. Goyles for mission that needed fast objective holders and more screens, ZOans for Rhino rush.

The raw combat capabilities just looking at their stats and weapons aren't all that insane, but the stratagems and individual abilities are quite powerful. These look open to some pretty abuseable shennanigans, but I don't know if they're any worse than anything already out. They certainly don't look to help anything though on that front.

The stuff messing with the opponent's CP's and the condoned list tailoring (at least within the context of matched play) for 1 CP is pretty silly.

I'm curious if the greatest utility will come from what they kill or the other disruption they bring.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Your list should be your list. It should be made with the meta in mind and at most a rough idea of what faction your opponents might have. I should not be able to look at my opponents list and then a minute before the game starts say hmm took a bunch of xyz, slot in relevant countermeasures.

The assassins are specialized units and when you take a unit that is that specialized you should run the risk of your opponent not taking things that will play to that unit's strengths.


The fact that IOM super friends is the last army that needed another ace option that gives it a one up is also relevant.

It is thematically appropriate that the right Assassin can be selected for the job at any given time. They are deployed in miniature drop pods in the fluff. Calling up and saying "We've got enemy Psykers, send a Culexus" is definitely something I could see happening.

It takes a really long time to get around the galexy, Calling up and getting a Culexus when they have spot a psyker would be a waste of time. It would likely be months before one could even turn up.
Its also another thing the imperium gets that no one else can, Farseers look into the future So why not being able to pick units to better fit your opponent as well or Orks retrofitting units as they go.

So its not particularly extra fluffy to be able to skip what would be planing and deployment of resources.
If this was part of a side board like structure, it would probably be good for the game. But i do not hold very high the design of 40k to pull though with that.

I think a better justification would be having an Inquisitor or Rogue Trader as your Warlord would give you access to that particular Strategem. That's how I would balance it, anyway.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I think a better justification would be having an Inquisitor or Rogue Trader as your Warlord would give you access to that particular Strategem. That's how I would balance it, anyway.

Makes sense, only high level guys like them would have the authority to bring in Assassins anyhow. Gives Inquisitors to have a reason to even be in an army before their own redo.

Apple fox wrote:

It takes a really long time to get around the galexy, Calling up and getting a Culexus when they have spot a psyker would be a waste of time. It would likely be months before one could even turn up.
Its also another thing the imperium gets that no one else can, Farseers look into the future So why not being able to pick units to better fit your opponent as well or Orks retrofitting units as they go.

So its not particularly extra fluffy to be able to skip what would be planing and deployment of resources.
If this was part of a side board like structure, it would probably be good for the game. But i do not hold very high the design of 40k to pull though with that.

Well if you really want to explain it, the assassins would have been dispatched by their controllers way before the IoM army would have any idea who their opposition was.

 Big Mac wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
While I've always liked the Assassins as concept and a faction, giving IOM another +1 just slot me in option with no real downside is not what the game needs. The fact you don't even need to pick one ahead of time is even more insane.

I really hope that the does not become a trend. Being able to put points aside and just pull a tool from a diverse list depending on my opponent is a bad game play mechanic.

Its like MtG side boards, you have more tools and opponents cannot build lists to specifically to counter yours; its already in play such as daemon summonings.

Daemon summoning however has so hefty penalties that makes daemon summoning rather weak. You lose all your traits etc and have to have character sitting duck to bring them in.

Apple fox wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Your list should be your list. It should be made with the meta in mind and at most a rough idea of what faction your opponents might have. I should not be able to look at my opponents list and then a minute before the game starts say hmm took a bunch of xyz, slot in relevant countermeasures.

The assassins are specialized units and when you take a unit that is that specialized you should run the risk of your opponent not taking things that will play to that unit's strengths.


The fact that IOM super friends is the last army that needed another ace option that gives it a one up is also relevant.

It is thematically appropriate that the right Assassin can be selected for the job at any given time. They are deployed in miniature drop pods in the fluff. Calling up and saying "We've got enemy Psykers, send a Culexus" is definitely something I could see happening.

It takes a really long time to get around the galexy, Calling up and getting a Culexus when they have spot a psyker would be a waste of time. It would likely be months before one could even turn up.
Its also another thing the imperium gets that no one else can, Farseers look into the future So why not being able to pick units to better fit your opponent as well or Orks retrofitting units as they go.

So its not particularly extra fluffy to be able to skip what would be planing and deployment of resources.
If this was part of a side board like structure, it would probably be good for the game. But i do not hold very high the design of 40k to pull though with that.

I look at it the other way around. This strat doesn't represent you choosing an Assassin at the last minute. It represents the Imperium having done that planning and recon necessary months or even years in advance to know which specific Assassin was required for this engagement.

Sure, fluff-wise its pretty good.

But is it healthy for the game? hell no.

This strat should be a 2CP at the very least. maybe even 3.

 Stux wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Your list should be your list. It should be made with the meta in mind and at most a rough idea of what faction your opponents might have. I should not be able to look at my opponents list and then a minute before the game starts say hmm took a bunch of xyz, slot in relevant countermeasures.

The assassins are specialized units and when you take a unit that is that specialized you should run the risk of your opponent not taking things that will play to that unit's strengths.


The fact that IOM super friends is the last army that needed another ace option that gives it a one up is also relevant.

It is thematically appropriate that the right Assassin can be selected for the job at any given time. They are deployed in miniature drop pods in the fluff. Calling up and saying "We've got enemy Psykers, send a Culexus" is definitely something I could see happening.

It takes a really long time to get around the galexy, Calling up and getting a Culexus when they have spot a psyker would be a waste of time. It would likely be months before one could even turn up.
Its also another thing the imperium gets that no one else can, Farseers look into the future So why not being able to pick units to better fit your opponent as well or Orks retrofitting units as they go.

So its not particularly extra fluffy to be able to skip what would be planing and deployment of resources.
If this was part of a side board like structure, it would probably be good for the game. But i do not hold very high the design of 40k to pull though with that.

I look at it the other way around. This strat doesn't represent you choosing an Assassin at the last minute. It represents the Imperium having done that planning and recon necessary months or even years in advance to know which specific Assassin was required for this engagement.

That should be left to narrative games, unless they bring it to other factions. Eldar and other Factions should and would have similar things. its a issue of game design simply being all over the place. It also completely removes The narrative elements of Eldar almost always being a surprise and swift attacks. Tyranids are foreboding creatures that not only come almost without warning, but block of communication.

The fact there is an assassin there at all would more likely be, ether a target there in the first place. Or they are part of the force organically. They are supposed to be rare assets, and if i remember some of them are fairly specific to some places. So its a rule of feelsies rather than anything more than that.
Outside of incredibly large battles, or part of a inquisitor retinue. They would likely have the same planing as any space marine chapter being anywhere of worth.
Its why having it as a inquisitor thing would be so cool, since it would be far more likly for one to have greater access.

I don't think most of what you said is a problem, so long as there's no balance issue. Not every aspect of lore can be represented on the tabletop.

That said, I do like the idea of needing an Inquisitor. Whether or not they're the warlord. It's fluffy, solves access leaks through Cypher, and gives a purpose to Inquisitors that they sorely lack right now!

 Stux wrote:
I don't think most of what you said is a problem, so long as there's no balance issue. Not every aspect of lore can be represented on the tabletop.

That said, I do like the idea of needing an Inquisitor. Whether or not they're the warlord. It's fluffy, solves access leaks through Cypher, and gives a purpose to Inquisitors that they sorely lack right now!

That is the problem, its not particularly fluffy in any special way. And its another thing that excludes many players. And it is a balance issue, if some players can take a highly specialized unit against specific foes and others cannot.
Its completely the case of Rule of cool doing something not particularly cool.

Really, it would probably be fine to give every army access, and remove it on specific cases for Necron, tyranids and coming up with something special for those factions. To represent assassins using all resources nececery to complete the mission.

 Stux wrote:
I don't think most of what you said is a problem, so long as there's no balance issue. Not every aspect of lore can be represented on the tabletop.

That said, I do like the idea of needing an Inquisitor. Whether or not they're the warlord. It's fluffy, solves access leaks through Cypher, and gives a purpose to Inquisitors that they sorely lack right now!

Well it IS balance issue. Already most powerful faction gets access to even more tools without any real disadvantage. Compare that to daemon summoning that has much bigger restrictions.

So rich gets richer, poor keeps wondering why they even bother trying to win.

40k has always been play to win but this feels super pay to win... a person can't just buy 1 assassin anymore... they are being told by the rules they're probably going to need all of them to be competitive.

I do think that assasins have gone from not worth while to OP with this change but unfortunately that's kinda textbook GW when people complain cool charictors are trash.

I'm more disappointed that it's yet more doubling down on spam the most efficent CP generation system rewarding with the ability to power the units that are supposed to be epic but limited to 1 turn to sustain 2 or 3 turns of turning it up to 11. Combined with the pick at the table for CP option it's not about who can out play the other player after a blind match up vrs 1 player now being able to change a big chunk of how their list works.

Eh, not a fan that they're so cheap and ofc for Imperium with more options than any other faction.

Personally though the only one which has me slightly worried is the anti psyker assassin for my Tyranids/Eldar as I do rely on psychic powers a fair amount. The vindicare doesn't bother me or my Tyrants/Tervigons as compared to the heavy firepower that normally gets thrown their way the rifle will tickle, and the eversor just can't compete with genestealers/ Cannot actually kill my Carnifexs reliably.

I do love the idea of a narrative game of these new assassins attempting to plant virus bombs in a hive fleet mothership, whilst fighting off defenders, these rules seem perfect for that!

I really think the new datasheets for them all are thematic and pretty balance, each does its job quite well.

The problems start with the stratagems, as usual they just dial the game and more often than not the lethality, up to 11. The pre-game choose your flavour strat is list tailoring with very specific counter play models and also breaks the detachment rules which are one of the main restraints to list design.

I wonder how the game would play with just the three(four) basic brb stratagems but all the datatsheets and everything else from the codexs. Would it be more balanced? I think it would certainly be alot quicker.

The game would be infinitely easier to balance without faction specific stratagems, but it would also get kinda boring. They tend to add a lot of flavor and pop to certain armies.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
The game would be infinitely easier to balance without faction specific stratagems, but it would also get kinda boring. They tend to add a lot of flavor and pop to certain armies.

Game managed just fine before they were added to the game though...Without being as unscalable as strategems by their nature are(along with encouraging deathstar type of units)

 Eihnlazer wrote:
The game would be infinitely easier to balance without faction specific stratagems, but it would also get kinda boring. They tend to add a lot of flavor and pop to certain armies.

I found the game much more fun before them, and games without such things tend to be far more fun as well. So i would see it as zero loss to gain much more. And nothing says you cannot put similar rules onto units as well.

Stratagems could easily be rolled into points. Pay a certain amount of points to be able to fire twice once a battle. Keep points in reserve to be flexible in terms of what stratagems you employ and/or may want to duplicate again in a later round.

Basically paying for special rules in points, rather than spending points to earn a form of points (command points) to then spend them in the game to enact special rules.

Apple fox wrote:

 Eihnlazer wrote:
The game would be infinitely easier to balance without faction specific stratagems, but it would also get kinda boring. They tend to add a lot of flavor and pop to certain armies.

I found the game much more fun before them, and games without such things tend to be far more fun as well. So i would see it as zero loss to gain much more. And nothing says you cannot put similar rules onto units as well.

See heres the thing though, a lot of the stratagems we have were already things we could do in previous editions. A lot of USR's that units had were turned into stratagems this edition.

 Eihnlazer wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

 Eihnlazer wrote:
The game would be infinitely easier to balance without faction specific stratagems, but it would also get kinda boring. They tend to add a lot of flavor and pop to certain armies.

I found the game much more fun before them, and games without such things tend to be far more fun as well. So i would see it as zero loss to gain much more. And nothing says you cannot put similar rules onto units as well.

See heres the thing though, a lot of the stratagems we have were already things we could do in previous editions. A lot of USR's that units had were turned into stratagems this edition.

Yes. And as such before they were lot more scalable and less deathstar encouraging as you could shock horror do it with more than 1 unit in the game whether you are playing 500 pts or 3000 pts game. Not to mention didn't force you to get your loyal 32's and are more easily to balance in points.

tneva82 wrote:

 Eihnlazer wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

 Eihnlazer wrote:
The game would be infinitely easier to balance without faction specific stratagems, but it would also get kinda boring. They tend to add a lot of flavor and pop to certain armies.

I found the game much more fun before them, and games without such things tend to be far more fun as well. So i would see it as zero loss to gain much more. And nothing says you cannot put similar rules onto units as well.

See heres the thing though, a lot of the stratagems we have were already things we could do in previous editions. A lot of USR's that units had were turned into stratagems this edition.

Yes. And as such before they were lot more scalable and less deathstar encouraging as you could shock horror do it with more than 1 unit in the game whether you are playing 500 pts or 3000 pts game. Not to mention didn't force you to get your loyal 32's and are more easily to balance in points.

So in a word the previous system rewarded spamming the most efficient unit with the most broken rules. Yeah you are right.

At least the current stratagem system leads to lists with contained spam and many troops.

Will be interesting to see how tournaments handle them. Leave as is, or disallow if 3 detachments are already taken? I suspect the former. Most of the issues go away if CPs were just allowed for the detachment that generated them (outside of the 3CP for being Battleforged that any detachment could use). An assassin would only have 3CP to work with, using 1 to be taken as an individual before battle began. You'd maybe then just get 1, possibly 2 of the strategems off for the assassin in an entire game.
I feel that this is what the strategems should have been, occasional boons to your army that maybe you get to use once or twice a game. Instead it's turned into a standard that is used practically every turn and might as well just been added to the datasheet.

Apple fox 771623 10351022 wrote:

It takes a really long time to get around the galexy, Calling up and getting a Culexus when they have spot a psyker would be a waste of time. It would likely be months before one could even turn up.
Its also another thing the imperium gets that no one else can, Farseers look into the future So why not being able to pick units to better fit your opponent as well or Orks retrofitting units as they go.

So its not particularly extra fluffy to be able to skip what would be planing and deployment of resources.
If this was part of a side board like structure, it would probably be good for the game. But i do not hold very high the design of 40k to pull though with that.

Maybe the assasin temples have almost as good precogs as GK have. GK now in advance when an attack is going to happen so they have send a brother hood sometimes years in advcance to intercept the right target. Same could be happening here.

tneva82 wrote:

 Eihnlazer wrote:
The game would be infinitely easier to balance without faction specific stratagems, but it would also get kinda boring. They tend to add a lot of flavor and pop to certain armies.

Game managed just fine before they were added to the game though...Without being as unscalable as strategems by their nature are(along with encouraging deathstar type of units)

Haha, remember when you actually had to pay points for red paint on Orks or a better armour save? You'd think being able to upgrade your Orks in the direction you want would make the game more balanced... Nope, just give it to everyone for free!

Why not just make it simple and just make all orc vehicles move as if they were painted red? Why add another layer of points that encourages souping, and hurts armies that can't do it or which are bad it, be it because they are just bad, or because they had little to no interactions with other armies.

tneva82 wrote:


Daemon summoning however has so hefty penalties that makes daemon summoning rather weak. You lose all your traits etc and have to have character sitting duck to bring them in.

The tides are changing on that. The Enchantress makes it easier and the new tick seems to lean that way as well.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:


Daemon summoning however has so hefty penalties that makes daemon summoning rather weak. You lose all your traits etc and have to have character sitting duck to bring them in.

The tides are changing on that. The Enchantress makes it easier and the new tick seems to lean that way as well.

Yeah, seeing a list at LVO that included a huge chunk of points for summoning do very well was quite surprising!

 BoomWolf wrote:
Sure, fluff-wise its pretty good.

But is it healthy for the game? hell no.

This strat should be a 2CP at the very least. maybe even 3.

Too early to tell.

What does a Castellan list drop to make an assassin fit?
How much CP are people going to invest in these that takes away from Castellans?
How common will 3 Vindicares be? Are dark reapers going to keep them at bay?

Karol wrote:

Apple fox 771623 10351022 wrote:

It takes a really long time to get around the galexy, Calling up and getting a Culexus when they have spot a psyker would be a waste of time. It would likely be months before one could even turn up.
Its also another thing the imperium gets that no one else can, Farseers look into the future So why not being able to pick units to better fit your opponent as well or Orks retrofitting units as they go.

So its not particularly extra fluffy to be able to skip what would be planing and deployment of resources.
If this was part of a side board like structure, it would probably be good for the game. But i do not hold very high the design of 40k to pull though with that.

Maybe the assasin temples have almost as good precogs as GK have. GK now in advance when an attack is going to happen so they have send a brother hood sometimes years in advcance to intercept the right target. Same could be happening here.

Or...get this. Assassins are part of Execution Forces. All four are there to begin with. All that changes is which one is deployed from orbit via drop pod.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

Karol wrote:

Apple fox 771623 10351022 wrote:

It takes a really long time to get around the galexy, Calling up and getting a Culexus when they have spot a psyker would be a waste of time. It would likely be months before one could even turn up.
Its also another thing the imperium gets that no one else can, Farseers look into the future So why not being able to pick units to better fit your opponent as well or Orks retrofitting units as they go.

So its not particularly extra fluffy to be able to skip what would be planing and deployment of resources.
If this was part of a side board like structure, it would probably be good for the game. But i do not hold very high the design of 40k to pull though with that.

Maybe the assasin temples have almost as good precogs as GK have. GK now in advance when an attack is going to happen so they have send a brother hood sometimes years in advcance to intercept the right target. Same could be happening here.

Or...get this. Assassins are part of Execution Forces. All four are there to begin with. All that changes is which one is deployed from orbit via drop pod.

Why do not all factions get such a rule where applicable. Craftworld Eldar operate just like this, dark Eldar, tyranids and space marines all would to some degree have units that could.
Not to mention the fluff was covered by other stalth rules to begin with.

Which faction would not have units in 40k that could not operate under these style of rules, it’s a potential rule nightmare and I do not think it’s worth the weak fluff to support it. Maybe GW will actually follow through and give other factions access to such things, probably won’t.
As said above, this would be a positive to the game if GW would think passed this one instance.

The new assassins are obviously fantastic, but i can only think of one faction that will really be able to ally them in and take full advantage. Cough, obvious, cough.

Honestly if I weren't already points heavy with my Deathwatch as is...

Apple fox 771623 10351471 wrote:
Why do not all factions get such a rule where applicable. Craftworld Eldar operate just like this, dark Eldar, tyranids and space marines all would to some degree have units that could.
Not to mention the fluff was covered by other stalth rules to begin with.

Which faction would not have units in 40k that could not operate under these style of rules, it’s a potential rule nightmare and I do not think it’s worth the weak fluff to support it. Maybe GW will actually follow through and give other factions access to such things, probably won’t.
As said above, this would be a positive to the game if GW would think passed this one instance.

But eldar do not operate the same way. From what I understand their visions are at best open ended, and farseers oftern don't interpret the same ones in the same ways. GK precogs are unfailable and are always right, and there is no vogueness in them.

I actually wish there was more sideboarding to 40K - especially if the "sideboard" points was something you had to bring in as reserves.

Having a fixed army, with no way to modify it once you get to the table kind of annoys me as you're at the mercy of hoping you've brought the "right" list - which the game so heavily depends on.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Your list should be your list. It should be made with the meta in mind and at most a rough idea of what faction your opponents might have. I should not be able to look at my opponents list and then a minute before the game starts say hmm took a bunch of xyz, slot in relevant countermeasures.

The assassins are specialized units and when you take a unit that is that specialized you should run the risk of your opponent not taking things that will play to that unit's strengths.


The fact that IOM super friends is the last army that needed another ace option that gives it a one up is also relevant.

Summoning has been in 8th for like 2 years.

Karol wrote:

Apple fox 771623 10351471 wrote:
Why do not all factions get such a rule where applicable. Craftworld Eldar operate just like this, dark Eldar, tyranids and space marines all would to some degree have units that could.
Not to mention the fluff was covered by other stalth rules to begin with.

Which faction would not have units in 40k that could not operate under these style of rules, it’s a potential rule nightmare and I do not think it’s worth the weak fluff to support it. Maybe GW will actually follow through and give other factions access to such things, probably won’t.
As said above, this would be a positive to the game if GW would think passed this one instance.

But eldar do not operate the same way. From what I understand their visions are at best open ended, and farseers oftern don't interpret the same ones in the same ways. GK precogs are unfailable and are always right, and there is no vogueness in them.

This actually remind me about how inconsistent GW can be with there narrative, the GK are perfect and pure beyond even the space marines. Nothing can be wrong.
A defining trait of farseers is inconsistent at best, and nearing uselessness at worst.
So why cannot gray knights use similar rules

For farseers the last I read it was like following threads, they follow likely futures, that can change an diverge at points. It actually puts a interesting point, the way it works for Eldar is in direct contradiction to GK. One of them should be impossible within the way it gets defined.
Mind you, that was introduced in the ward codex? I can safely say that writing basically broke my love for 40k

And I think this is why rules like the assassins are such a down for me, rather than ad a new dynamic. It will ether be forgot about, or a powerful new thing for half the players to play with and the other half left wandering when they get a turn.

Don’t get me wrong, I like the looks of the Assassins, but I don’t think I’d consider fielding them outside a tournament venue unless I was using a very specific list idea, like Scion Battalion, Inquisition Vanguard, and a battalion of that Inquistor’s respective militant order. I would have to go all in on the special forces feel to justify using one. Let alone buying one for 32 USD.

 BoomWolf wrote:
Well, my TS army is now officially dead now that every imperial player has a pocket assassin that would be geared into a Culexus.

Guess its time to play Tau again.
Not sure they are not equally punked by this though...

If you are not IoM you are having a very bad day once this ruleset drops.
The ability to easily switch in any assassin you needs for a mere 1CP (and reserving the cost, but that's normal) is brutal. whatever strategy the opponent has, you got a clear counter,

Not at least that you are a GK player. In which case you are equally screwed.

They should have rolled these guys into a combo Inquisition/Grey Knights codex. “You want to run Assassins? Lol well you need to take these worthless GK or daemonhosts first”.

But this release demonstrates in so many ways why Soup has a negative effect on the game. Imbalance, cherry-picking, faction bias...you’ve got it all right here, folks.

 greyknight12 wrote:
But this release demonstrates in so many ways why Soup has a negative effect on the game. Imbalance, cherry-picking, faction bias...you’ve got it all right here, folks.

Assassins are probably not the best example of that, given that they've been an allied unit in every single edition of 40k

 greyknight12 wrote:


But this release demonstrates in so many ways why Soup has a negative effect on the game. Imbalance, cherry-picking, faction bias...you’ve got it all right here, folks.

Again - this affects the lists that IoM can take, too. This isn't just one faction getting all the benefits and seeing none of the consequences.

This will break Grey knights further. Every imperial list will have an assassin slot, which will be a Cullexus against GKs. One model to turn off an army at the snap of the fingers.

 greyknight12 wrote:
They should have rolled these guys into a combo Inquisition/Grey Knights codex. “You want to run Assassins? Lol well you need to take these worthless GK or daemonhosts first”.

But this release demonstrates in so many ways why Soup has a negative effect on the game. Imbalance, cherry-picking, faction bias...you’ve got it all right here, folks.

Yes because armies should have units so bad you're forced into taking units from other codices to do those jobs. Ya know, allies are clearly a problem and not the crap internal and external balancing of mono armies in the first place.

I like the idea behind this but for 85 points and a single cp having a tailored in assassin just seems too strong.... Oh I'm facing thousand sons this game, good thing i left those 85 points out. Im thinking 2-3 cp plus the points is most likely more balanced at 1 cp it just seems like its too obvious of a take

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:


But this release demonstrates in so many ways why Soup has a negative effect on the game. Imbalance, cherry-picking, faction bias...you’ve got it all right here, folks.

Again - this affects the lists that IoM can take, too. This isn't just one faction getting all the benefits and seeing none of the consequences.

Exactly. This harms soup just as much as it helps it.

Asmodios wrote:
I like the idea behind this but for 85 points and a single cp having a tailored in assassin just seems too strong.... Oh I'm facing thousand sons this game, good thing i left those 85 points out. Im thinking 2-3 cp plus the points is most likely more balanced at 1 cp it just seems like its too obvious of a take

Like I already said, the easiest way to balance that is to make the Strategem only accessible if you have an Inquisitor or Rogue Trader as your Warlord. Bam, done.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
I like the idea behind this but for 85 points and a single cp having a tailored in assassin just seems too strong.... Oh I'm facing thousand sons this game, good thing i left those 85 points out. Im thinking 2-3 cp plus the points is most likely more balanced at 1 cp it just seems like its too obvious of a take

Like I already said, the easiest way to balance that is to make the Strategem only accessible if you have an Inquisitor or Rogue Trader as your Warlord. Bam, done.

Yeah, that seems like it would work well to.... as it is in this leak it is just a no brainer and I'm not sure why you wouldn't include this in your list from a competitive standpoint

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
I like the idea behind this but for 85 points and a single cp having a tailored in assassin just seems too strong.... Oh I'm facing thousand sons this game, good thing i left those 85 points out. Im thinking 2-3 cp plus the points is most likely more balanced at 1 cp it just seems like its too obvious of a take

Like I already said, the easiest way to balance that is to make the Strategem only accessible if you have an Inquisitor or Rogue Trader as your Warlord. Bam, done.

Thats not as much balancing it as removing it from the game, at least until Rogue Traders and Inquisitors become genuine options to be the Warlords of a mixed Imperial Army (And that tbh would be ultra cool)

Asmodios wrote:
I like the idea behind this but for 85 points and a single cp having a tailored in assassin just seems too strong.... Oh I'm facing thousand sons this game, good thing i left those 85 points out. Im thinking 2-3 cp plus the points is most likely more balanced at 1 cp it just seems like its too obvious of a take

All you're doing is making it "Astra Militarum only" with that cost. Although these clearly benefit AM the most.

 Galas wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
I like the idea behind this but for 85 points and a single cp having a tailored in assassin just seems too strong.... Oh I'm facing thousand sons this game, good thing i left those 85 points out. Im thinking 2-3 cp plus the points is most likely more balanced at 1 cp it just seems like its too obvious of a take

Like I already said, the easiest way to balance that is to make the Strategem only accessible if you have an Inquisitor or Rogue Trader as your Warlord. Bam, done.

Thats not as much balancing it as removing it from the game, at least until Rogue Traders and Inquisitors become genuine options to be the Warlords of a mixed Imperial Army (And that tbh would be ultra cool)

I mean, at minimum Inquisition is gonna get a codex at some point. I don't consider that to really be an issue.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asmodios wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
I like the idea behind this but for 85 points and a single cp having a tailored in assassin just seems too strong.... Oh I'm facing thousand sons this game, good thing i left those 85 points out. Im thinking 2-3 cp plus the points is most likely more balanced at 1 cp it just seems like its too obvious of a take

Like I already said, the easiest way to balance that is to make the Strategem only accessible if you have an Inquisitor or Rogue Trader as your Warlord. Bam, done.

Yeah, that seems like it would work well to.... as it is in this leak it is just a no brainer and I'm not sure why you wouldn't include this in your list from a competitive standpoint

Agreed, but mostly from a fluff point it would make a LOT more sense too.

A.T. wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:
But this release demonstrates in so many ways why Soup has a negative effect on the game. Imbalance, cherry-picking, faction bias...you’ve got it all right here, folks.

Assassins are probably not the best example of that, given that they've been an allied unit in every single edition of 40k

Well, in 4th ed they were in Codex: Daemonhunters, 5th they were in GK codex and 6th the same...7th created their own codex and then you could take them as allies elsewhere. Death Cult Assassins were a little more prolific, but not the big 4.

As far as it hurting soup because other soup lists can also take them...lol. It’s like saying Hellblasters hurt space marines because other space marines can take them too.
The only way this hurts Imperial soup lists is that every Imperium player is going to have a version of the poison cup scene from “The Princess Bride” whenever deciding which Assassin to take against each other.

chnmmr wrote:
This will break Grey knights further. Every imperial list will have an assassin slot, which will be a Cullexus against GKs. One model to turn off an army at the snap of the fingers.

Grey Knights can pick up a Vindicare and snipe the Culexus, soo...I think Thousand Sons will struggle a little more despite the +6" range.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

chnmmr wrote:
This will break Grey knights further. Every imperial list will have an assassin slot, which will be a Cullexus against GKs. One model to turn off an army at the snap of the fingers.

Grey Knights can pick up a Vindicare and snipe the Culexus, soo...I think Thousand Sons will struggle a little more despite the +6" range.

Thousand Sons need to be made to function more without constant Smite to be fair. A small rework of internal balance would cover that, of course.

If I bring a culexus and vs a psyker army, then that player is at a disadvantage. Now everyone is at a disadvantage its almost fairer.

And as for the cost, it was the same before, take a single assassin and pay the -1CP tax. This does the same but changes how we select it. So not overly cheap compared to what we had before. One assassin wont break the game.

And when looking at new stratagems, many armies had to wait before their stratagems were release, this is virtually no different. Do GSC get more expensive now they have a new codex? No. 3 out of 4 assassins got a price increase to make up for it.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

chnmmr wrote:
This will break Grey knights further. Every imperial list will have an assassin slot, which will be a Cullexus against GKs. One model to turn off an army at the snap of the fingers.

Grey Knights can pick up a Vindicare and snipe the Culexus, soo...I think Thousand Sons will struggle a little more despite the +6" range.

How does the Vindicare always hit on a 2+ work against the Culexus who needs 6's to hit?

Slagmar wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

chnmmr wrote:
This will break Grey knights further. Every imperial list will have an assassin slot, which will be a Cullexus against GKs. One model to turn off an army at the snap of the fingers.

Grey Knights can pick up a Vindicare and snipe the Culexus, soo...I think Thousand Sons will struggle a little more despite the +6" range.

How does the Vindicare always hit on a 2+ work against the Culexus who needs 6's to hit?

It always hits on a 2. The Culexus modifies BS, but the Vindicare doesn't care about BS. A Vindi will wipe a Culexus pretty easily.

Slagmar wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

chnmmr wrote:
This will break Grey knights further. Every imperial list will have an assassin slot, which will be a Cullexus against GKs. One model to turn off an army at the snap of the fingers.

Grey Knights can pick up a Vindicare and snipe the Culexus, soo...I think Thousand Sons will struggle a little more despite the +6" range.

How does the Vindicare always hit on a 2+ work against the Culexus who needs 6's to hit?

He hits on a 2+ regardless of his BS. The Culexus changes BS/WS. So the Vindicare will still hit on a 2+. And wound on a 2+. So a Vindicare can easily deal with a Culexus. Maybe not in a single turn, though.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Maybe not in a single turn, though.

Probably highly likely with double tap and headshot.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Maybe not in a single turn, though.

Probably highly likely with double tap and headshot.

Double tap must be different targets. Haven't done math but I'm betting averages 2 turns

Audustum wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Maybe not in a single turn, though.

Probably highly likely with double tap and headshot.

Double tap must be different targets. Haven't done math but I'm betting averages 2 turns

Oh right - depends on how lucky you get with your wounding roll and headshot then.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:


But this release demonstrates in so many ways why Soup has a negative effect on the game. Imbalance, cherry-picking, faction bias...you’ve got it all right here, folks.

Again - this affects the lists that IoM can take, too. This isn't just one faction getting all the benefits and seeing none of the consequences.

How does it affect anything but mirror matches though? You have to be Imperial to take assassins, nobody else can. Sure there are mono-dex armies, but only Imperial ones can take the assassins. If anything it makes soup worse since IoM gets to select which silver bullet they will use after looking at their opponent's list. Mono-dex lists aren't as well rounded as soup so the assassins will naturally be more effective.

 DominayTrix wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:


But this release demonstrates in so many ways why Soup has a negative effect on the game. Imbalance, cherry-picking, faction bias...you’ve got it all right here, folks.

Again - this affects the lists that IoM can take, too. This isn't just one faction getting all the benefits and seeing none of the consequences.

How does it affect anything but mirror matches though? You have to be Imperial to take assassins, nobody else can. Sure there are mono-dex armies, but only Imperial ones can take the assassins. If anything it makes soup worse since IoM gets to select which silver bullet they will use after looking at their opponent's list. Mono-dex lists aren't as well rounded as soup so the assassins will naturally be more effective.

Write a Castellan / Catachan list that has room for an assassin and also protects things like the priest, CCs, and straken who are crucial to its function. It doesn't matter who it's facing. It still needs to be prepared for other IoM armies with assassins and potentially up to 3 Vindicares.

And since IoM is the most common soup it's the most urgent item to address, which means other armies benefit from IoM sniping at each other.

The issue is as usual, soup having no drawbacks, rather than assassins themselves.

Good luck finding 85 pts and sometimes the CP to get that assasin to counter someone elses assasin in a GK army.
Not to mention the fact that if your opponent gets his out first, it maybe too late to save a draigo or a GM NDK, making the whole thing more of a what turn to you want to lose on, then an actual counter.

good options for low cost armies though. I can imagine someone not wanting to buy a box of recast IG cavalery and instead use a counts as assasin. Same with marines.

I do hope though that GW is going to add the rules to a CA or put them online later on. My store gets 2 WDs, makes mass use of assasins kind of a hard.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Honestly if I weren't already points heavy with my Deathwatch as is...

my deathwatch list clocks in at about 1750 with loyal 32 allies and I am just 100% jazzed to cap that off with three assassins.

Karol wrote:
Good luck finding 85 pts and sometimes the CP to get that assasin to counter someone elses assasin in a GK army.
Not to mention the fact that if your opponent gets his out first, it maybe too late to save a draigo or a GM NDK, making the whole thing more of a what turn to you want to lose on, then an actual counter.

good options for low cost armies though. I can imagine someone not wanting to buy a box of recast IG cavalery and instead use a counts as assasin. Same with marines.

I do hope though that GW is going to add the rules to a CA or put them online later on. My store gets 2 WDs, makes mass use of assasins kind of a hard.

Ooooo, which assassin is the best to take out an assassin? Probably the vindicator I suppose.. A charging eversor should be able to deal out enough wounds with appropriate stratagems...

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

Karol wrote:
Good luck finding 85 pts and sometimes the CP to get that assasin to counter someone elses assasin in a GK army.
Not to mention the fact that if your opponent gets his out first, it maybe too late to save a draigo or a GM NDK, making the whole thing more of a what turn to you want to lose on, then an actual counter.

good options for low cost armies though. I can imagine someone not wanting to buy a box of recast IG cavalery and instead use a counts as assasin. Same with marines.

I do hope though that GW is going to add the rules to a CA or put them online later on. My store gets 2 WDs, makes mass use of assasins kind of a hard.

Ooooo, which assassin is the best to take out an assassin? Probably the vindicator I suppose.. A charging eversor should be able to deal out enough wounds with appropriate stratagems...

I imagine that for the two melee-primary assassins, the best counter would be stratagems that allow you to shoot things when they deep strike at you. For a culexus, I'd think including a couple autohitting weapons would be the way to go, though any kind of thing that grants you a +1 to hit will be extremely valuable (because you hit as if you're BS6+, but all +to hit stuff still applies there so you'd be hitting him on 5s or whatever.)

TBH besides the culexus vs vindicare matchup I don't think "assassins to hunt assassins" is that great a solution. Each one has their own thing that effectively counters it (hit when you DS strats for eversor+callidus, autohit weapons for culexus, alpha strike chargers for Vindicare) but they all have a thing I'd point to as part of a good TAC list that helps effectively bring them down.

I am 100% in favor of anything that makes characters a tiny bit more risky to just plop onto the board behind a screen. I like the new assassin rules a lot and I hope we see more updates to the current flatline "assassin style units" that just don't work atm like the solitaire, lictors, etc.

the_scotsman wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

Karol wrote:
Good luck finding 85 pts and sometimes the CP to get that assasin to counter someone elses assasin in a GK army.
Not to mention the fact that if your opponent gets his out first, it maybe too late to save a draigo or a GM NDK, making the whole thing more of a what turn to you want to lose on, then an actual counter.

good options for low cost armies though. I can imagine someone not wanting to buy a box of recast IG cavalery and instead use a counts as assasin. Same with marines.

I do hope though that GW is going to add the rules to a CA or put them online later on. My store gets 2 WDs, makes mass use of assasins kind of a hard.

Ooooo, which assassin is the best to take out an assassin? Probably the vindicator I suppose.. A charging eversor should be able to deal out enough wounds with appropriate stratagems...

I imagine that for the two melee-primary assassins, the best counter would be stratagems that allow you to shoot things when they deep strike at you. For a culexus, I'd think including a couple autohitting weapons would be the way to go, though any kind of thing that grants you a +1 to hit will be extremely valuable (because you hit as if you're BS6+, but all +to hit stuff still applies there so you'd be hitting him on 5s or whatever.)

TBH besides the culexus vs vindicare matchup I don't think "assassins to hunt assassins" is that great a solution. Each one has their own thing that effectively counters it (hit when you DS strats for eversor+callidus, autohit weapons for culexus, alpha strike chargers for Vindicare) but they all have a thing I'd point to as part of a good TAC list that helps effectively bring them down.

I am 100% in favor of anything that makes characters a tiny bit more risky to just plop onto the board behind a screen. I like the new assassin rules a lot and I hope we see more updates to the current flatline "assassin style units" that just don't work atm like the solitaire, lictors, etc.

Guess where the vindicare is going to be placed. (Hint: just plopped onto the board behind a screen). The whole vindicare thing is really weird. GW gave the characters short range buff auras because they are supposed to hang around units. If they were going to be played safely they would have 12" range on their auras or bigger. With 6", means that GW wants us to play the characters alongside units out in the open, since otherwise they can't buff anything. Then they go and make assassins that kill them... Then why make the characters like this in the first place?

Karol wrote:
Good luck finding 85 pts and sometimes the CP to get that assasin to counter someone elses assasin in a GK army.
Not to mention the fact that if your opponent gets his out first, it maybe too late to save a draigo or a GM NDK, making the whole thing more of a what turn to you want to lose on, then an actual counter.

good options for low cost armies though. I can imagine someone not wanting to buy a box of recast IG cavalery and instead use a counts as assasin. Same with marines.

I do hope though that GW is going to add the rules to a CA or put them online later on. My store gets 2 WDs, makes mass use of assasins kind of a hard.

An assassin is 4 strikes. Loyal 32 is also a thing.

GK are best equipped to deal with the assassin meta with a 2+ and W6. If an opponent brings a Culexus then they've wasted 85 points when the GK bring a vindicare.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
The issue is as usual, soup having no drawbacks, rather than assassins themselves.

Pretty much this. I don't think adding a single assassin is all that broken, even if you get to pick it on the spot. The issue is a CP battery of guard paired with an already potent primary detachment of Blood Angels or Knights.

I still don't know how to counter someone shuting off heed the prognosticator for a turn. This means that either all NDKs and heros have to hide for that turn and do nothing, or they try to move up field and die from the shoting all armies have. It is like using a two turn vect with a spread CP cost and a free calidus model someone gets. And they can just take it to piss you off, you hide durning deployment, and they don't drop a calidus on their turn, but something else. It is stupid same way demonic units returning is.

An assassin is 4 strikes. Loyal 32 is also a thing.

And? If I drop 4 strikes, and somehow get a model to use it. I am then playing with 2 troops, or would have to turn a unit of paladins in to normal termintors. I don't have IG models so I don't run IG, plus to run them I would have to get their codex.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

Karol wrote:
Good luck finding 85 pts and sometimes the CP to get that assasin to counter someone elses assasin in a GK army.
Not to mention the fact that if your opponent gets his out first, it maybe too late to save a draigo or a GM NDK, making the whole thing more of a what turn to you want to lose on, then an actual counter.

good options for low cost armies though. I can imagine someone not wanting to buy a box of recast IG cavalery and instead use a counts as assasin. Same with marines.

I do hope though that GW is going to add the rules to a CA or put them online later on. My store gets 2 WDs, makes mass use of assasins kind of a hard.

Ooooo, which assassin is the best to take out an assassin? Probably the vindicator I suppose.. A charging eversor should be able to deal out enough wounds with appropriate stratagems...

I imagine that for the two melee-primary assassins, the best counter would be stratagems that allow you to shoot things when they deep strike at you. For a culexus, I'd think including a couple autohitting weapons would be the way to go, though any kind of thing that grants you a +1 to hit will be extremely valuable (because you hit as if you're BS6+, but all +to hit stuff still applies there so you'd be hitting him on 5s or whatever.)

TBH besides the culexus vs vindicare matchup I don't think "assassins to hunt assassins" is that great a solution. Each one has their own thing that effectively counters it (hit when you DS strats for eversor+callidus, autohit weapons for culexus, alpha strike chargers for Vindicare) but they all have a thing I'd point to as part of a good TAC list that helps effectively bring them down.

I am 100% in favor of anything that makes characters a tiny bit more risky to just plop onto the board behind a screen. I like the new assassin rules a lot and I hope we see more updates to the current flatline "assassin style units" that just don't work atm like the solitaire, lictors, etc.

Guess where the vindicare is going to be placed. (Hint: just plopped onto the board behind a screen). The whole vindicare thing is really weird. GW gave the characters short range buff auras because they are supposed to hang around units. If they were going to be played safely they would have 12" range on their auras or bigger. With 6", means that GW wants us to play the characters alongside units out in the open, since otherwise they can't buff anything. Then they go and make assassins that kill them... Then why make the characters like this in the first place?

Almost like for most of the edition, aura-bot characters have run around with basically no risk to them because snipers have been kept horrifically underpowered for no reason (it should not take an average of 20-30 sniper rifle shots to down a basic captain level commander...) and it has resulted in some hilariously skewed aura parking lot lists revolving around OP buff characters.

The existence of a counter to that is not a bad thing, at all, for the health of the game.

I am sorry that it feels bad for your aurabuff character to get sniped. Dependent on the army you play, bring character bodyguards, transport them until their aura needs to be deployed, deep strike them, or hide them behind terrain. It really isn't that hard to counterplay a sniper, you're just finding issue with it because this is a sniper you can't just stand out in the open against anyway and laugh off like most of the snipers in the game.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
The issue is as usual, soup having no drawbacks, rather than assassins themselves.

Ah yes, because when everyone had access to use assassins with Daemonhunters and Witchhunters, everyone used them as they were broken.

OR you could actually evaluate the models themselves and realize some things are too over the top.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

Karol wrote:
Good luck finding 85 pts and sometimes the CP to get that assasin to counter someone elses assasin in a GK army.
Not to mention the fact that if your opponent gets his out first, it maybe too late to save a draigo or a GM NDK, making the whole thing more of a what turn to you want to lose on, then an actual counter.

good options for low cost armies though. I can imagine someone not wanting to buy a box of recast IG cavalery and instead use a counts as assasin. Same with marines.

I do hope though that GW is going to add the rules to a CA or put them online later on. My store gets 2 WDs, makes mass use of assasins kind of a hard.

Ooooo, which assassin is the best to take out an assassin? Probably the vindicator I suppose.. A charging eversor should be able to deal out enough wounds with appropriate stratagems...

I imagine that for the two melee-primary assassins, the best counter would be stratagems that allow you to shoot things when they deep strike at you. For a culexus, I'd think including a couple autohitting weapons would be the way to go, though any kind of thing that grants you a +1 to hit will be extremely valuable (because you hit as if you're BS6+, but all +to hit stuff still applies there so you'd be hitting him on 5s or whatever.)

TBH besides the culexus vs vindicare matchup I don't think "assassins to hunt assassins" is that great a solution. Each one has their own thing that effectively counters it (hit when you DS strats for eversor+callidus, autohit weapons for culexus, alpha strike chargers for Vindicare) but they all have a thing I'd point to as part of a good TAC list that helps effectively bring them down.

I am 100% in favor of anything that makes characters a tiny bit more risky to just plop onto the board behind a screen. I like the new assassin rules a lot and I hope we see more updates to the current flatline "assassin style units" that just don't work atm like the solitaire, lictors, etc.

Guess where the vindicare is going to be placed. (Hint: just plopped onto the board behind a screen). The whole vindicare thing is really weird. GW gave the characters short range buff auras because they are supposed to hang around units. If they were going to be played safely they would have 12" range on their auras or bigger. With 6", means that GW wants us to play the characters alongside units out in the open, since otherwise they can't buff anything. Then they go and make assassins that kill them... Then why make the characters like this in the first place?

Almost like for most of the edition, aura-bot characters have run around with basically no risk to them because snipers have been kept horrifically underpowered for no reason (it should not take an average of 20-30 sniper rifle shots to down a basic captain level commander...) and it has resulted in some hilariously skewed aura parking lot lists revolving around OP buff characters.

The existence of a counter to that is not a bad thing, at all, for the health of the game.

I am sorry that it feels bad for your aurabuff character to get sniped. Dependent on the army you play, bring character bodyguards, transport them until their aura needs to be deployed, deep strike them, or hide them behind terrain. It really isn't that hard to counterplay a sniper, you're just finding issue with it because this is a sniper you can't just stand out in the open against anyway and laugh off like most of the snipers in the game.

You DO realize the Vindicare can make his points back vs any bodyguards that aren't from Genestealer Cults. Ya know, when you made this argument the first time and I asked if you knew the actual price of bodyguard units.

Dependent on the army you play, bring character bodyguards, transport them until their aura needs to be deployed, deep strike them, or hide them behind terrain. It really isn't that hard to counterplay a sniper, you're just finding issue with it because this is a sniper you can't just stand out in the open against anyway and laugh off like most of the snipers in the game.

Ah yes, lets take a 200pts transport to protect a 180pts character. If you show me where bodyguard units are for GK it would be great though, are they FW ?

Karol wrote:

Dependent on the army you play, bring character bodyguards, transport them until their aura needs to be deployed, deep strike them, or hide them behind terrain. It really isn't that hard to counterplay a sniper, you're just finding issue with it because this is a sniper you can't just stand out in the open against anyway and laugh off like most of the snipers in the game.

Ah yes, lets take a 200pts transport to protect a 180pts character. If you show me where bodyguard units are for GK it would be great though, are they FW ?

Not even a Grey Knight Rhino costs 200 points.

I do agree that transports need to stop paying a huge cost for being able to transport things, but, if you are playing against a lost of snipers/psychic powers that can target characters, then sometimes a cheap transport works wonders.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
I still don't know how to counter someone shuting off heed the prognosticator for a turn. This means that either all NDKs and heros have to hide for that turn and do nothing, or they try to move up field and die from the shoting all armies have. It is like using a two turn vect with a spread CP cost and a free calidus model someone gets. And they can just take it to piss you off, you hide durning deployment, and they don't drop a calidus on their turn, but something else. It is stupid same way demonic units returning is.

An assassin is 4 strikes. Loyal 32 is also a thing.

And? If I drop 4 strikes, and somehow get a model to use it. I am then playing with 2 troops, or would have to turn a unit of paladins in to normal termintors. I don't have IG models so I don't run IG, plus to run them I would have to get their codex.

Also, Heed costs 2CP, and on a 50/50 dice roll costs 3CP instead. Sure, it's painful in terms of cost of a pure GK army, but, then again, a 2++ is just as painful for a lot of armies to deal with in return.

Besides, i think vs Pure GK you're more likely to see the Culexus

I suspect that the Eversor is going to be much less impactful in practice than he looks on paper.

He really wants to go after a squishy gun line... but the juiciest target in competitive play that fits such a profile is, like, the Shield Drone swarm around a couple of Riptides. And the Eversor would almost certainly die if he attempted a charge at such a target by eating a billion 5+ Greater Good overwatch shots.


Love the concept, though.

Karol wrote:

Dependent on the army you play, bring character bodyguards, transport them until their aura needs to be deployed, deep strike them, or hide them behind terrain. It really isn't that hard to counterplay a sniper, you're just finding issue with it because this is a sniper you can't just stand out in the open against anyway and laugh off like most of the snipers in the game.

Ah yes, lets take a 200pts transport to protect a 180pts character. If you show me where bodyguard units are for GK it would be great though, are they FW ?

Draigo is W7 2+

It would take a considerable amount of effort to bring him down.

Jyrgunkarrd wrote:
I suspect that the Eversor is going to be much less impactful in practice than he looks on paper.

He really wants to go after a squishy gun line... but the juiciest target in competitive play that fits such a profile is, like, the Shield Drone swarm around a couple of Riptides. And the Eversor would almost certainly die if he attempted a charge at such a target by eating a billion 5+ Greater Good overwatch shots.


Love the concept, though.

I agree he is probably overhyped.
The Culexus (for obvious reasons) and the Callidus are probably the go to for most situations.

Karol wrote:

And? If I drop 4 strikes, and somehow get a model to use it. I am then playing with 2 troops, or would have to turn a unit of paladins in to normal termintors. I don't have IG models so I don't run IG, plus to run them I would have to get their codex.

Everyone has to drop models to make it fit. GK are not special in this regard.

Draigo
Voldus
3x5 Strikes

Techmarine
Brother Captain
2x5 Strikes
1x10 Strikes
Ven Dread, HPC, ML

Knight or Stormraven and some paladins

Assassin

13CP

I DO not realize that, because it IS not true. Looking at a few different codexes, the vindicare assassin definitely does not make his points back against tau drones, guard bullgryn bodyguards or grots using the grot shield stratagem (and you mentioned GSC). For the codexes with more expensive bodyguards that have the shittier version of the bodyguard rule (intercept the lost wound rather than the whole hit, like Honor Guard, Sslyth and Lychguard) it would make sense to use them to keep him alive if needed, rather than to tank every wound of the hit.

An honor guard appears to be 26pts. assuming he's shooting at a regular space marine captain, the vindicare does an average of 2.8 damage to him including headshot damage, which is slightly misleading as an average because he tends to score big or miss big: he's got a 42.8% chance of not doing diddly squat against any character with a 3+ armor save. So, let's say he does score that hit, then he'll do an average of 3.7 damage (between headshot and the 1/6 chance of a D6 damage shot). If that gets the captain dangerously close to his 5 wounds, intercept a wound or two with a 26 point honor guard.

If you're playing a MEQ army I find it tough to believe you don't have a way to get 2 turns of use out of your characters with 1 vindicare focusing them down, even assuming he DOES hit every time. Assuming average rolls he should miss once every three shots, meaning you'll get three turns of use out of them.

1) if you go first, you get one turn out of him before your opponent shoots him. If you go second, start him in a transport or behind any terrain feature/vehicle and your opponent won't get to shoot him, then move him into the position you want on your turn.

2) Turn 2, he shoots your character and very likely does not kill him. He cannot double shoot the same target.

3) Turn 3, he kills the character. You've either gotten two, or three turns out of the character.

I said it in the keller thread and I will say it again: I am not afraid of something that takes 3 turns to kill my characters. At all. In almost every decently competitive game I play, I've blown all my CPs, all my combos, whatever, turn 1, 2, and 3. Rarely have both lists not run out of steam by turn 3 and devolved the game into an endgame scoring contest.

I don't care if my buff character is dead bottom of turn 3/top of turn 4. At that point if the stuff he's buffing isn't also mostly dead I have already steamrolled the game.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, if your character is in terminator armor, the vindicare has a 46% chance of wounding you at all. And if your character is a GMNDK, which is not an infantry model it all, he's got a WHOPPING 18.4% chance of causing a wound.

Damn, Grey Knights really are screwed huh, what are they going to do.

Why, if your opponent takes 3 vindicare assassins, they're going to be SCYTHING down your GMNDKs at a vicious rate of one every...

5.9 turns.

BRUTAL.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
sorry, I did the probability wrong for Headshot, the damage should really be

2*5/6 + 3.5*1/6

+.6666+ (.6666*.5) + (.666*.5*.333) + (.666*.5*.333*.17)

3.39, not 3.7.

the_scotsman wrote:


+.6666+ (.6666*.5) + (.666*.5*.333) + (.666*.5*.333*.17)

Good job on that piece. I didn't want to have to type that out so I'm glad you did instead of me!

Such a great change. This fixes those lists that could stand up to the IoM Soup lists!

 Daedalus81 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:


+.6666+ (.6666*.5) + (.666*.5*.333) + (.666*.5*.333*.17)

Good job on that piece. I didn't want to have to type that out so I'm glad you did instead of me!

Right. I don't know the official terminology but I think of it as "chain probability" - in order to get each subsequent result, all the results prior must have succeeded.

"Recursive", "Diminishing", and "Geometric".

"Recursive": If each step depends on the previous step, we can say it's recursive. In theory, you could define any given step without referencing the previous one, but for this sort of thing you generally wouldn't. This is probably the term you're looking for.

"Diminishing" just means each round is smaller.

"Geometric" is probably the best term, but this diminishes faster than "Geometric" typically does. When the odds of it occuring once (more), regardless of how many times it has ocurred, is some value, we can say it's geometric. So if it had a 1/6 chance to happen, and if it succeeds, it now has a 1/6 chance to happen, and soforth - that's considered geometric.

In this case, though, there are only 4 states (because we eventually get to a 7+ roll, which can't succeed). So we don't get to do the fancy math.

Someone keeps telling me that you can now take assassins in a chaos army because of cypher, is this true?

 Formosa wrote:
Someone keeps telling me that you can now take assassins in a chaos army because of cypher, is this true?

He's got the imperium keyword, and he can be your warlord, so yeppers!

the_scotsman wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Someone keeps telling me that you can now take assassins in a chaos army because of cypher, is this true?

He's got the imperium keyword, and he can be your warlord, so yeppers!

The problem is, you have to take Cypher as your Warlord....

Could you imagine the vitrol Aeldari would get if these rules or points values applied to:
Drahlzar
Illiac
Solitaire
Maugan'Ra?

Bharring wrote:
Could you imagine the vitrol Aeldari would get if these rules or points values applied to:
Drahlzar
Illiac
Solitaire
Maugan'Ra?

Well, frankly, the Phoenix lords and other Eldar 'ancient super dudes' should have stronger rules than they currently do. As for points, yeah, that's my only worry about these assassins, I think their rules are about what they should, but the point cost seems a tad cheap for what you get.