Wow, RIP, I guess it was just too powerful for Thousand Sons to have 2 different cults, take their relic from one and their warlord trait from the other.
I get it, I get it, can't let these uppity NPC armies have too many options. Why that's nearly 1/3 of the number of relics any given space marine chapter would have access to!
vipoid wrote: Games Workshop - "Even our erratas need erratas."
Joking aside, I guess the price hike for Ogryns was intentional then?
either that or not enough people asked about it. Either way, i suspect the ship has sailed and the ogryns’ printed points cost is the their crystallised cost and will remain so.
the_scotsman wrote: Wow, RIP, I guess it was just too powerful for Thousand Sons to have 2 different cults, take their relic from one and their warlord trait from the other.
I get it, I get it, can't let these uppity NPC armies have too many options. Why that's nearly 1/3 of the number of relics any given space marine chapter would have access to!
Yeah this really really sucks, Cults really are so limitative
the_scotsman wrote: Wow, RIP, I guess it was just too powerful for Thousand Sons to have 2 different cults, take their relic from one and their warlord trait from the other.
I get it, I get it, can't let these uppity NPC armies have too many options. Why that's nearly 1/3 of the number of relics any given space marine chapter would have access to!
I find it kind of weird that you expected this would be a thing. I get that it probably wouldn't be as broken as marines are right now, but I don't want to go that direction.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not Online!!! wrote: They couldn't even be bothered to adapt the R&H chaos spawn?!?
Feth this
Saving it for the FW book no doubt. An easy thing for them to change temporarily at least, but they just don't want to for whatever reason.
Asmodai wrote: Iron Hands are fine. Apparently it's Ogryns and Aquilon Terminators that needed nerfs.
Iron Hands weren't in scope for either of these FAQ/errata documents, so I'm not sure why you're bring them up.
Possibly the Spring Big FAQ, more likely the Autumn Big FAQ.
Well, given how light this FAQ is and how long it took them....what the hell was the delay even about? I get it probably took a long time to comb through and find the missing entries, but...two months?
Asmodai wrote: Iron Hands are fine. Apparently it's Ogryns and Aquilon Terminators that needed nerfs.
Begrudgingly i'll admit that there probably aren't a ton of point changes that put IH in place without sacrificing all the other marines. The FW books need a revisit and hopefully Astartes first. The real fix does have to be March (better not be August or the community will riot more than now).
I'm just confounded that they sat on it this long and didn't do anything...more comprehensive.
Asmodai wrote: Iron Hands are fine. Apparently it's Ogryns and Aquilon Terminators that needed nerfs.
Begrudgingly i'll admit that there probably aren't a ton of point changes that put IH in place without sacrificing all the other marines. The FW books need a revisit and hopefully Astartes first. The real fix does have to be March (better not be August or the community will riot more than now).
I'm just confounded that they sat on it this long and didn't do anything...more comprehensive.
The only "issue" with IH isn't the models. It's how they can buff the models. I believe it was in another thread .To fix the issue without re-costing everything, severely damaging other lists. Change a couple of the keywords around. Instead of "Dreadnought" have "Heavy Dreadnought" or "Relic Dreadnought".
Asmodai wrote: Iron Hands are fine. Apparently it's Ogryns and Aquilon Terminators that needed nerfs.
Begrudgingly i'll admit that there probably aren't a ton of point changes that put IH in place without sacrificing all the other marines. The FW books need a revisit and hopefully Astartes first. The real fix does have to be March (better not be August or the community will riot more than now).
I'm just confounded that they sat on it this long and didn't do anything...more comprehensive.
The only "issue" with IH isn't the models. It's how they can buff the models. I believe it was in another thread .To fix the issue without re-costing everything, severely damaging other lists. Change a couple of the keywords around. Instead of "Dreadnought" have "Heavy Dreadnought" or "Relic Dreadnought".
That would create a whole other level of chaos. I support a variable point handicap for supplements. Like 150 to use IH, 100 for RG, etc. But people don't usually like that... and it's a half baked idea that will never get traction.
That would create a whole other level of chaos. I support a variable point handicap for supplements. Like 150 to use IH, 100 for RG, etc. But people don't usually like that... and it's a half baked idea that will never get traction.
I really dont like that idea, because it punishes fluffy Iron Hands lists that arent using immortal Dreads just because they could.
The balance needs to be on the actual specific things causing the problem, not punishing the entire sub faction.
I really dont like that idea, because it punishes fluffy Iron Hands lists that arent using immortal Dreads just because they could.
The balance needs to be on the actual specific things causing the problem, not punishing the entire sub faction.
I get that, but I think the whole pile of IH is somewhat problematic given their rules stacking - not just dreads. It's a discounted cost for getting a captain for every unit and then some.
Asmodai wrote: Iron Hands are fine. Apparently it's Ogryns and Aquilon Terminators that needed nerfs.
Begrudgingly i'll admit that there probably aren't a ton of point changes that put IH in place without sacrificing all the other marines. The FW books need a revisit and hopefully Astartes first. The real fix does have to be March (better not be August or the community will riot more than now).
I'm just confounded that they sat on it this long and didn't do anything...more comprehensive.
Yeah this should have been released within the typical 2 week timeframe. Nothing here required this long to address.
As far as
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not Online!!! wrote: They couldn't even be bothered to adapt the R&H chaos spawn?!?
Feth this
Agreed. Just because they're doing new fw books doesn't mean they couldn't balance fw units based on the rules they had at the time ca was written. Isn't that the whole point of the damned book?
I really dont like that idea, because it punishes fluffy Iron Hands lists that arent using immortal Dreads just because they could.
The balance needs to be on the actual specific things causing the problem, not punishing the entire sub faction.
I get that, but I think the whole pile of IH is somewhat problematic given their rules stacking - not just dreads. It's a discounted cost for getting a captain for every unit and then some.
It certainly is not a nuanced solution.
Knowing their typical approach they'll take down all marines with ih. Gw rarely does "nuanced ".
Bdrone wrote: ...well, that was disappointing. some Custodes models went back up in points in this errata, and it's ones i liked. wonderful...
Yeah. I don't know how I'm going to cut another 10 points for the Lastrum Bolt Cannons, my current Custodes list really doesn't have any fat left on it.
60pt twin punisher. The vulture was already a bit outclassed by the punisher russ. Now we have both PA buffs for russes and a 20pt price hike on the vulture. I'm beginning to think GW doesn't actually want people using FW units anymore, they keep getting either neglected, badly rewritten, or nerfed.
I guess it is just removing an overlooked discount but it still annoys me. The russ gets to shoot twice so having the same cost seems weird.
Trickstick wrote: 60pt twin punisher. The vulture was already a bit outclassed by the punisher russ. Now we have both PA buffs for russes and a 20pt price hike on the vulture. I'm beginning to think GW doesn't actually want people using FW units anymore, they keep getting either neglected, badly rewritten, or nerfed.
I guess it is just removing an overlooked discount but it still annoys me. The russ gets to shoot twice so having the same cost seems weird.
Unless it's a fw model with "primaris " in the description. See: astreus.
Trickstick wrote: 60pt twin punisher. The vulture was already a bit outclassed by the punisher russ. Now we have both PA buffs for russes and a 20pt price hike on the vulture. I'm beginning to think GW doesn't actually want people using FW units anymore, they keep getting either neglected, badly rewritten, or nerfed.
I guess it is just removing an overlooked discount but it still annoys me. The russ gets to shoot twice so having the same cost seems weird.
Well duh no kidding. 100£ spent on FW models gives less profit than 100£ spent on GW plastic. Plastic is automated cast. Put in mould, press button and wait as sprues pop out. FW resin is much more manual labour intensive.
If they could get collectors to buy multiples of something like gamers rather than little bit of this and that they wouldn't bother with FW at all. But to get maximum from collectors you need to offer more units to sell rather than sell same stuff over and over
Trickstick wrote: 60pt twin punisher. The vulture was already a bit outclassed by the punisher russ. Now we have both PA buffs for russes and a 20pt price hike on the vulture. I'm beginning to think GW doesn't actually want people using FW units anymore, they keep getting either neglected, badly rewritten, or nerfed.
I guess it is just removing an overlooked discount but it still annoys me. The russ gets to shoot twice so having the same cost seems weird.
Well duh no kidding. 100£ spent on FW models gives less profit than 100£ spent on GW plastic. Plastic is automated cast. Put in mould, press button and wait as sprues pop out. FW resin is much more manual labour intensive.
If they could get collectors to buy multiples of something like gamers rather than little bit of this and that they wouldn't bother with FW at all. But to get maximum from collectors you need to offer more units to sell rather than sell same stuff over and over
And I thought broken records stopped being a problem after we got eight tracks.
Trickstick wrote: 60pt twin punisher. The vulture was already a bit outclassed by the punisher russ. Now we have both PA buffs for russes and a 20pt price hike on the vulture. I'm beginning to think GW doesn't actually want people using FW units anymore, they keep getting either neglected, badly rewritten, or nerfed.
I guess it is just removing an overlooked discount but it still annoys me. The russ gets to shoot twice so having the same cost seems weird.
PGC is like 13 HB shots - so 35-ish points of HB. The TPGC should maybe be 5 or 10 cheaper for the twin-link discount like TLC, but it will never be a budget weapon that suddenly makes Vultures OP.
That said OotF can get them reroll 1s from cover and there's also the ability to pin units now.
Trickstick wrote: 60pt twin punisher. The vulture was already a bit outclassed by the punisher russ. Now we have both PA buffs for russes and a 20pt price hike on the vulture. I'm beginning to think GW doesn't actually want people using FW units anymore, they keep getting either neglected, badly rewritten, or nerfed.
I guess it is just removing an overlooked discount but it still annoys me. The russ gets to shoot twice so having the same cost seems weird.
Well duh no kidding. 100£ spent on FW models gives less profit than 100£ spent on GW plastic. Plastic is automated cast. Put in mould, press button and wait as sprues pop out. FW resin is much more manual labour intensive.
If they could get collectors to buy multiples of something like gamers rather than little bit of this and that they wouldn't bother with FW at all. But to get maximum from collectors you need to offer more units to sell rather than sell same stuff over and over
And I thought broken records stopped being a problem after we got eight tracks.
That dastardly separate company FW, who are in so much competition with GW that you have to walk throughGW's flagship store, at their flagship location to get to the FW store!
Grimtuff wrote: That dastardly separate company FW, who are in so much competition with GW that you have to walk throughGW's flagship store, at their flagship location to get to the FW store!
Oh Emperor, a RAW comment and a FW legality comment next to each other. Please stop, I don't think the fabric of the universe can take the strain!
Grimtuff wrote: That dastardly separate company FW, who are in so much competition with GW that you have to walk throughGW's flagship store, at their flagship location to get to the FW store!
Oh Emperor, a RAW comment and a FW legality comment next to each other. Please stop, I don't think the fabric of the universe can take the strain!
Grimtuff wrote: That dastardly separate company FW, who are in so much competition with GW that you have to walk throughGW's flagship store, at their flagship location to get to the FW store!
Oh Emperor, a RAW comment and a FW legality comment next to each other. Please stop, I don't think the fabric of the universe can take the strain!
I find it incredible that anyone could post all that straight-faced. It beggars belief. I... no, I've got nothing that wouldn't get flagged. Just... wow.
the_scotsman wrote: Wow, RIP, I guess it was just too powerful for Thousand Sons to have 2 different cults, take their relic from one and their warlord trait from the other.
I get it, I get it, can't let these uppity NPC armies have too many options. Why that's nearly 1/3 of the number of relics any given space marine chapter would have access to!
Ok I just re-read the FAQ and I see what you're saying. I read it differently previously, sorry. That really sucks the life out of relics.
the_scotsman wrote: Wow, RIP, I guess it was just too powerful for Thousand Sons to have 2 different cults, take their relic from one and their warlord trait from the other.
I get it, I get it, can't let these uppity NPC armies have too many options. Why that's nearly 1/3 of the number of relics any given space marine chapter would have access to!
Ok I just re-read the FAQ and I see what you're saying. I read it differently previously, sorry. That really sucks the life out of relics.
Gw: "Ok ok. You can have a gun too. What do you mean where's the bullets?"
Wayniac wrote: The bigger question is what did they forget/mess up in the errata of the errata
Bonesinger for one. Costs 70pts and is a HQ in legends but in CA19 its 50ts and it used to be an elites choice.
Many eldar players that like the unit and like fluffy wraith lists are peeved. I've been running him as elite at 50 pts..
JohnnyHell wrote: I find it incredible that anyone could post all that straight-faced. It beggars belief. I... no, I've got nothing that wouldn't get flagged. Just... wow.
As I stated in the locked thread: It's absurdism versus rationalism
SW fast attack was fixed, the Landspeeder dropped 30pts, skyclaws and swiftclaws have their proper unit count but cost the same. I was hoping for a TWC points drop, O well.
Asmodai wrote: Iron Hands are fine. Apparently it's Ogryns and Aquilon Terminators that needed nerfs.
I'm convinced that the Ogryn price is a victim of a copypasta from the Guard Codex.
In fact, looking at the Guard Codex, CA2018 and CA2019 side by side, I'd bet good money that the person who wrote CA2019 didn't even know about the change to Ogryns in CA2018.
Asmodai wrote: Iron Hands are fine. Apparently it's Ogryns and Aquilon Terminators that needed nerfs.
I'm convinced that the Ogryn price is a victim of a copypasta from the Guard Codex.
In fact, looking at the Guard Codex, CA2018 and CA2019 side by side, I'd bet good money that the person who wrote CA2019 didn't even know about the change to Ogryns in CA2018.
Yup preetty much, i'd even go sofar as to state he probably didn't even use ca 18 as a baseline.
Wayniac wrote: The bigger question is what did they forget/mess up in the errata of the errata
Bonesinger for one. Costs 70pts and is a HQ in legends but in CA19 its 50ts and it used to be an elites choice.
Many eldar players that like the unit and like fluffy wraith lists are peeved. I've been running him as elite at 50 pts..
I also suspect the Genestealer Cult Lascannon price is wrong. They've updated all AM hardware in the GSC codex to the actual AM costs, but the lascannon remained unchanged at the previous value (5 points more).
It's not the first CA where the shared gear on the AM side has cost reductions and GSC has to wait 12 months before it's synced again.
Spoletta wrote: Ok, i have to admit that i was expecting... well, more.
Two months.
My add hoc list literally done in1 hour had more accuracy in it comparatively to a multimillion Dollar company.
......
Someone please go and slap some sense into them...
Seriously what the feth took so long? They only changed the obvious typos everyone saw immediately. How does that take so long?
My guess is they just forgot they didn't put it out and rushed to do as quick a job as possible.
So in other words, business as usual for GW; do the bare minimum and act like you're doing a great service. And oh be sure to check out the newest models and buy them. Maybe the rules will be good.
Lord Damocles wrote: At least the tyranical reign of Ogryns dominating the competetive meta has finally been brought to an end.
Ogryns needed a further drop in points, not an increase. GW screwed the pooch. I hope they read this thread and feel ashamed. Ogryn have been bordering on useless for 15 years.
The only saving grace is that Aquilon Terminators have a chance, slim as it might be, to be corrected when GW redoes all the FW points and rules later this year.
cuda1179 wrote: The only saving grace is that Aquilon Terminators have a chance, slim as it might be, to be corrected when GW redoes all the FW points and rules later this year.
I admire your optimism. As a Guard player that likes a few FW things, I can't really remember the last time that I was pleased with a new set of rules. It's just been a combination of points and rules not keeping up with the Codex, crazy updates that don't work, or very obvious proofing/editing mistakes.
Wayniac wrote: The bigger question is what did they forget/mess up in the errata of the errata
Bonesinger for one. Costs 70pts and is a HQ in legends but in CA19 its 50ts and it used to be an elites choice.
Many eldar players that like the unit and like fluffy wraith lists are peeved. I've been running him as elite at 50 pts..
Hmm. Seems like one of those glass 1/2 full or 1/2 empty perspectives
You see a problem.
Me? I see flexibility.... If I've got the elite slot to spare, or only 50pts? Then the singer is an elites choice. If I'm out of elite slots? Good news! I can still take the model. I'll just have to pay a premium to upgrade him to HQ status.
cuda1179 wrote: The only saving grace is that Aquilon Terminators have a chance, slim as it might be, to be corrected when GW redoes all the FW points and rules later this year.
I admire your optimism. As a Guard player that likes a few FW things, I can't really remember the last time that I was pleased with a new set of rules. It's just been a combination of points and rules not keeping up with the Codex, crazy updates that don't work, or very obvious proofing/editing mistakes.
Considering they basically ignored fw in ca and have been doing so for years, they'd better do something pretty fething impressive with those new books.
Asmodai wrote: Iron Hands are fine. Apparently it's Ogryns and Aquilon Terminators that needed nerfs.
I'm convinced that the Ogryn price is a victim of a copypasta from the Guard Codex.
In fact, looking at the Guard Codex, CA2018 and CA2019 side by side, I'd bet good money that the person who wrote CA2019 didn't even know about the change to Ogryns in CA2018.
it's eaither that or someone at GW is concerned about that Ogryn strat in PA5 making Ogryn's a little too good.
GW have consistently proven to write rules for armies (and sometimes units) in a vacuum. Do you think that they considered a strat in a different book when failing to keep the changes in one book in a newly published book?
That's three different books to keep track of on top of the Codex. Far too complex for a company that writes rules professionally.
Wayniac wrote: The bigger question is what did they forget/mess up in the errata of the errata
Bonesinger for one. Costs 70pts and is a HQ in legends but in CA19 its 50ts and it used to be an elites choice.
Many eldar players that like the unit and like fluffy wraith lists are peeved. I've been running him as elite at 50 pts..
Hmm. Seems like one of those glass 1/2 full or 1/2 empty perspectives
You see a problem.
Me? I see flexibility.... If I've got the elite slot to spare, or only 50pts? Then the singer is an elites choice. If I'm out of elite slots? Good news! I can still take the model. I'll just have to pay a premium to upgrade him to HQ status.
Wayniac wrote: The bigger question is what did they forget/mess up in the errata of the errata
Las Fusil cost for Blood Angels is still missing (and possibly for DA too). It's all the more perplexing because they noticed they forgot the sergeant's weapon from the weapon list but apparently didn't notice the lack of the Las Fusil at the same time. It's sloppy as hell but not a major problem if you have the field manual as it's easy enough to look up the cost in the Space Marine weapon list. Slightly more problematic if you're just using Blood of Baal for the points costs though since that hasn't been errata'd.
Overall I'm confused about why this took so long. There are a decent number of changes but nothing that wouldn't have taken more than a day or two to sort out, so well within the normal FAQ period. The fact they then still didn't get it right is pretty much peak GW.
Wayniac wrote: The bigger question is what did they forget/mess up in the errata of the errata
Las Fusil cost for Blood Angels is still missing (and possibly for DA too). It's all the more perplexing because they noticed they forgot the sergeant's weapon from the weapon list but apparently didn't notice the lack of the Las Fusil at the same time. It's sloppy as hell but not a major problem if you have the field manual as it's easy enough to look up the cost in the Space Marine weapon list. Slightly more problematic if you're just using Blood of Baal for the points costs though since that hasn't been errata'd.
Overall I'm confused about why this took so long. There are a decent number of changes but nothing that wouldn't have taken more than a day or two to sort out, so well within the normal FAQ period. The fact they then still didn't get it right is pretty much peak GW.
Maybe they actually considered addressing all the units they ignored, then decided not to so as to save face.
Basically "Ok all over now folks. Nothing more to see here. Move along!"
Wayniac wrote: The bigger question is what did they forget/mess up in the errata of the errata
Las Fusil cost for Blood Angels is still missing (and possibly for DA too). It's all the more perplexing because they noticed they forgot the sergeant's weapon from the weapon list but apparently didn't notice the lack of the Las Fusil at the same time. It's sloppy as hell but not a major problem if you have the field manual as it's easy enough to look up the cost in the Space Marine weapon list. Slightly more problematic if you're just using Blood of Baal for the points costs though since that hasn't been errata'd.
Overall I'm confused about why this took so long. There are a decent number of changes but nothing that wouldn't have taken more than a day or two to sort out, so well within the normal FAQ period. The fact they then still didn't get it right is pretty much peak GW.
Maybe they actually considered addressing all the units they ignored, then decided not to so as to save face.
Basically "Ok all over now folks. Nothing more to see here. Move along!"
Considering their "competence" that isn't even an unlikely scenario
Lord Damocles wrote: At least the tyranical reign of Ogryns dominating the competetive meta has finally been brought to an end.
Yes, thank god they put me in my place. I was living too high on the hog of my Ogryns point drops. Well, guess its back to shooting for days and more effective Bullgryns. Thanks GW, choices bad mmkay.
Lord Damocles wrote: At least the tyranical reign of Ogryns dominating the competetive meta has finally been brought to an end.
Yes, thank god they put me in my place. I was living too high on the hog of my Ogryns point drops. Well, guess its back to shooting for days and more effective Bullgryns. Thanks GW, choices bad mmkay.
I am waiting for the ratling nerf, as well as the stompa nerf.
Because at this point this is more likely then an actual common sense handling.
Asmodai wrote: Iron Hands are fine. Apparently it's Ogryns and Aquilon Terminators that needed nerfs.
I'm convinced that the Ogryn price is a victim of a copypasta from the Guard Codex.
In fact, looking at the Guard Codex, CA2018 and CA2019 side by side, I'd bet good money that the person who wrote CA2019 didn't even know about the change to Ogryns in CA2018.
it's eaither that or someone at GW is concerned about that Ogryn strat in PA5 making Ogryn's a little too good.
Are you kidding me ? That one where you can get a whole massive mortal wound per unit to any units they contact in a charge on a 4+ ? Yes, truly that was about to set the world on fire.
Lord Damocles wrote: At least the tyranical reign of Ogryns dominating the competetive meta has finally been brought to an end.
Yes, thank god they put me in my place. I was living too high on the hog of my Ogryns point drops. Well, guess its back to shooting for days and more effective Bullgryns. Thanks GW, choices bad mmkay.
I am waiting for the ratling nerf, as well as the stompa nerf.
Because at this point this is more likely then an actual common sense handling.
I mean i would hate to have any reason at all to ever field a Ratling. Best nerf them now, they might accidentally kill a model or survive even one round of middling shooting.
I mean i would hate to have any reason at all to ever field a Ratling. Best nerf them now, they might accidentally kill a model or survive even one round of middling shooting.
Funnily enough sisters of battle codex got price drop for unit before even codex became commonly sale...
Limited edition comes. Geminia are 16 + 4 pts for power sword.
CA19 comes, they are now 16 pts wargear included(says so above them)
Errata didn't comment this.
So either GW needs to release errata for errata or geminia dropped in points. But then comes question. Does the codex released in january supercede CA19? Whatabout players who got the codex in november?
tneva82 wrote: Funnily enough sisters of battle codex got price drop for unit before even codex became commonly sale...
Limited edition comes. Geminia are 16 + 4 pts for power sword.
CA19 comes, they are now 16 pts wargear included(says so above them)
Errata didn't comment this.
So either GW needs to release errata for errata or geminia dropped in points. But then comes question. Does the codex released in january supercede CA19? Whatabout players who got the codex in november?
Lol at the situation.
Honestly, i feel like they don't even have all the doccuments anymore for all their rulesorces.
Further, i don't like to agree with BCB but at this stage GW seriously needs to sort out the rules department.
For me I don't mind the CA and FAQ stuff. They do try and are much better than they used to be.
For me the kicker is new hobbiests or returning hobbiests.
We've had 3 years to soak the information, have it drip fed etc etc.
But new people or returning people feel as though they have a crap tonne of homework after buying their codex.
This is where i feel workshop fall down, is their control of the FAQ's. They need a system that makes it easy for everyone, new, returning and current to get the latest FAQ's and rules.
It's been suggested before, but they need a sub based service, where you choose your army, you get all the PDF's and sheets, updated rules and sheets as faq's come out and all relevant FAQ questions at the back.
And you would need to be able to TRUST their faq's and errata's at least. And have some sort of sense on what's actually the most up to date official cost. The gemini is pretty ridiculous situation.
November. They are 16 + wargear aka 20 pts in boxed set codex.
CA comes. Now they are 16 pts wargear included. Mistake? Intentional?
January comes. Codex gets released and it's back to 16+4. CA19 mistake?
CA19 errata comes. Not mentioned at all. So CA19 seems to be correct. But codex came later...Except codex first sister players got...Is january codex supposed to be official and those who got on november are supposed to buy january codex as well for up to date information?
If CA19 is supposed to be up to date ignoring january codex does that mean no new point costs in any codex release in 2020 applies until CA2020 comes out? IF not why sisters are exception?
H.B.M.C. wrote: Far too complex for a company that writes rules professionally.
I think by this point we have more than enough evidence that, despite being a company that is in the profession of writing rules, GW writes those rules unprofessionally.
Also, no correction to the obviously incorrect Stompa price reduction. Stompa is way too overpowered at that price point.
I mean i would hate to have any reason at all to ever field a Ratling. Best nerf them now, they might accidentally kill a model or survive even one round of middling shooting.
Can't have that right
You get the quote for the song, and GW rules, they never change and stay inconsistent. As that song makes me think of fallout, I could see GW as the vault tec of game companies. Some stuff works too well, some stuff doesn't work at all, some stuff is straight up a joke but they'll claim they are leading to a bright future for us all.
Trickstick wrote: 60pt twin punisher. The vulture was already a bit outclassed by the punisher russ. Now we have both PA buffs for russes and a 20pt price hike on the vulture. I'm beginning to think GW doesn't actually want people using FW units anymore, they keep getting either neglected, badly rewritten, or nerfed.
I guess it is just removing an overlooked discount but it still annoys me. The russ gets to shoot twice so having the same cost seems weird.
necrontyrOG wrote: OOF, a 20 point increase to the Twin Punisher Vulture.
Yep - 145 for the same firepower (and shorter move) from a Punisher Leman Russ compared to 205 points for a Vulture. I mean I will still take one of the Vultures for cool value but still it makes me sad :(
tneva82 wrote: And you would need to be able to TRUST their faq's and errata's at least. And have some sort of sense on what's actually the most up to date official cost. The gemini is pretty ridiculous situation.
November. They are 16 + wargear aka 20 pts in boxed set codex.
CA comes. Now they are 16 pts wargear included. Mistake? Intentional?
January comes. Codex gets released and it's back to 16+4. CA19 mistake?
CA19 errata comes. Not mentioned at all. So CA19 seems to be correct. But codex came later...Except codex first sister players got...Is january codex supposed to be official and those who got on november are supposed to buy january codex as well for up to date information?
If CA19 is supposed to be up to date ignoring january codex does that mean no new point costs in any codex release in 2020 applies until CA2020 comes out? IF not why sisters are exception?
Is the Codex that came in the Nov Box the same as the one released to the shelf in Jan?
tneva82 wrote: And you would need to be able to TRUST their faq's and errata's at least. And have some sort of sense on what's actually the most up to date official cost. The gemini is pretty ridiculous situation.
November. They are 16 + wargear aka 20 pts in boxed set codex.
CA comes. Now they are 16 pts wargear included. Mistake? Intentional?
January comes. Codex gets released and it's back to 16+4. CA19 mistake?
CA19 errata comes. Not mentioned at all. So CA19 seems to be correct. But codex came later...Except codex first sister players got...Is january codex supposed to be official and those who got on november are supposed to buy january codex as well for up to date information?
If CA19 is supposed to be up to date ignoring january codex does that mean no new point costs in any codex release in 2020 applies until CA2020 comes out? IF not why sisters are exception?
Is the Codex that came in the Nov Box the same as the one released to the shelf in Jan?
Word for word the same inside the covers. (Maybe some of the publication info is different - I haven't that checked to compare.)
Trickstick wrote: 60pt twin punisher. The vulture was already a bit outclassed by the punisher russ. Now we have both PA buffs for russes and a 20pt price hike on the vulture. I'm beginning to think GW doesn't actually want people using FW units anymore, they keep getting either neglected, badly rewritten, or nerfed.
I guess it is just removing an overlooked discount but it still annoys me. The russ gets to shoot twice so having the same cost seems weird.
necrontyrOG wrote: OOF, a 20 point increase to the Twin Punisher Vulture.
Yep - 145 for the same firepower (and shorter move) from a Punisher Leman Russ compared to 205 points for a Vulture. I mean I will still take one of the Vultures for cool value but still it makes me sad :(
Well, there are a couple of upsides- the Vulture can fire at nearly full effectiveness while moving basically wherever it wants, while the Russ is limited to 5" to still double-fire. And the Russ can't get that sweet, sweet -1 to hit. Probably not worth the 40% higher price, but it's something.
In any case, the new Forge World books should have updated Vulture rules, so fingers crossed it'll get a balance pass then.
If I had to guess, I think they'll do two books at a time.
Marines/Chaos
Imperial Guard/ Xenos.
And for the love of God I hope they get the abilities and points right for the Destroyer Tank Hunter. That thing have been beaten back and forth for 15 years on what it does and how much it costs.
Trickstick wrote: Historically, FW books have always been Guard first, then Marines, then Xenos.
In this case though, guard is misleading due to FW throwing R&H in with guard, which makes, limited sense i guess.
So it's mortal fodder for Chaos or IoM first and then the fancy pants afterwards.
I'll still be very happy if my Hierodules could go down 150 points and gain a few more wounds/attacks so that they become actually worth bothering with.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I'll still be very happy if my Hierodules could go down 150 points and gain a few more wounds/attacks so that they become actually worth bothering with.
compared to knights most superheavies can't perfomr in regards to effectiveness.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I'll still be very happy if my Hierodules could go down 150 points and gain a few more wounds/attacks so that they become actually worth bothering with.
compared to knights most superheavies can't perfomr in regards to effectiveness.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I'll still be very happy if my Hierodules could go down 150 points and gain a few more wounds/attacks so that they become actually worth bothering with.
compared to knights most superheavies can't perfomr in regards to effectiveness.
Survivability or firepower?
Both, mostly because knights are designed to work as a mono faction.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Do we know anything about the FW books so far outside that they're eventually happening?
We also know the main 40K Team will be writing the new FW books, not the Forge World Team. We all would have been pretty confident that was a good thing before Space Marines 2.0.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Do we know anything about the FW books so far outside that they're eventually happening?
We also know the main 40K Team will be writing the new FW books, not the Forge World Team. We all would have been pretty confident that was a good thing before Space Marines 2.0.
considering the utter disregard brought to FW units in the previous CA's written by the GW team it was never out of question that it' would turn into a gakfest, except now we can toss a coin and the result will either be utter SM brokenness or useless as before.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Do we know anything about the FW books so far outside that they're eventually happening?
We also know the main 40K Team will be writing the new FW books, not the Forge World Team. We all would have been pretty confident that was a good thing before Space Marines 2.0.
Yea I only hope the slow down on codexes helps them, because there is no way they're testing these PA books on this release schedule.
Like, Ritual of the Damned - the points match CA and it is the only PA book to have them so far. It is one of two scenarios:
A) The book was done after CA, which means there was maybe a month or two to test 3 factions - nowhere near enough time.
B) They knew these points before CA, which means they didn't test in the current meta (but that would be misleading if they intend to tone down marines, anyway). Which further kills the idea of play testing, because test results are totally futile if you smash them up against marines.
cuda1179 wrote: And for the love of God I hope they get the abilities and points right for the Destroyer Tank Hunter. That thing have been beaten back and forth for 15 years on what it does and how much it costs.
What would you define as being around the ballpark of "right" for the Destroyer, cuda?
H.B.M.C. wrote: I'll still be very happy if my Hierodules could go down 150 points and gain a few more wounds/attacks so that they become actually worth bothering with.
compared to knights most superheavies can't perfomr in regards to effectiveness.
Drop my fellblade's points down to about 550 with full load out and I'll make some knights BURN.
Where are you getting that from? Any info on what will be first? (Heretic astartes please please please. )
Just by how I read this sentence.
Keep an eye out for the first in the new range of books from the Warhammer 40,000 Studio later in 2020.
No idea what it will be. For everyone's health i'll vote Astartes.
I could hold out hope 1ksons get an actually good book with decent rules but GW has proven they don't know what the feth they want to do with the faction. I never thought I would see the day where I wished 1ksons didn't get their own book book but damn the last 2 have just been such a huge disappointment.
cuda1179 wrote: And for the love of God I hope they get the abilities and points right for the Destroyer Tank Hunter. That thing have been beaten back and forth for 15 years on what it does and how much it costs.
What would you define as being around the ballpark of "right" for the Destroyer, cuda?
Leman Russ basic stats for starters (obviously). I also think that it should have the fire-twice ability for its hull gun. As that one gun is basically all it has, it better be good too. I'd want it to be a mini Shadowsword. S10, Ap-3, D3 shots, 2D6 damage, 96 inch range. Perhaps minimal rolls on the damage too.
Obviously a waste against infantry, but totally brutal against tanks. I know it slightly overlaps with the Demolisher cannon, but I'd be willing to pay extra for the cannon.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Hey am I the only one who noticed that the traitor guardsmen from Blackstone Fortress are 35 ppm? Wasn't changed in the faq either.
Good job gw.
That section could be clearer - all the models you'd expect to be units (Black Legionnaires, Beastmen, Cultists of the Abyss, Negavolt Cultists, Rein/Raus, Spindle Drones and Traitor Guardsmen) have per model costs that appear to be per unit costs instead.
That table really needs to be split down to units and characters, with the fixed-size-units having the column titled points per unit instead, given they're units with a fixed size.
Have you emailed the FAQ email address about the matter, btw, or just complained on here?
Gadzilla666 wrote: Hey am I the only one who noticed that the traitor guardsmen from Blackstone Fortress are 35 ppm? Wasn't changed in the faq either.
Good job gw.
That section could be clearer - all the models you'd expect to be units (Black Legionnaires, Beastmen, Cultists of the Abyss, Negavolt Cultists, Rein/Raus, Spindle Drones and Traitor Guardsmen) have per model costs that appear to be per unit costs instead.
That table really needs to be split down to units and characters, with the fixed-size-units having the column titled points per unit instead, given they're units with a fixed size.
Have you emailed the FAQ email address about the matter, btw, or just complained on here?
Yup. Auto answer. I see what bcb was talking about in the errata. They only listed the one unit. None of the rest. For feths sake.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Hey am I the only one who noticed that the traitor guardsmen from Blackstone Fortress are 35 ppm? Wasn't changed in the faq either.
Good job gw.
That section could be clearer - all the models you'd expect to be units (Black Legionnaires, Beastmen, Cultists of the Abyss, Negavolt Cultists, Rein/Raus, Spindle Drones and Traitor Guardsmen) have per model costs that appear to be per unit costs instead.
That table really needs to be split down to units and characters, with the fixed-size-units having the column titled points per unit instead, given they're units with a fixed size.
Have you emailed the FAQ email address about the matter, btw, or just complained on here?
Yup. Auto answer. I see what bcb was talking about in the errata. They only listed the one unit. None of the rest. For feths sake.
*looks at errata document*
...no, I think the changes there sort things. The Borewyrm Infestation is the only entry in the table with a variable unit size, so it is the only one needing the "(points per model)" adding to the cost column once that column is retitled "Points per unit" (which is done as part of the errata).
You pay 35 points for a unit of 7 Traitor Guardsmen (including wargear), or 24 points for a unit of 4 Chaos Beastmen. I don't have the datasheets to hand, but I'm fairly sure they have no wargear options, and as you can't vary the size of the unit the ppm value is irrelevant.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Hey am I the only one who noticed that the traitor guardsmen from Blackstone Fortress are 35 ppm? Wasn't changed in the faq either.
Good job gw.
That section could be clearer - all the models you'd expect to be units (Black Legionnaires, Beastmen, Cultists of the Abyss, Negavolt Cultists, Rein/Raus, Spindle Drones and Traitor Guardsmen) have per model costs that appear to be per unit costs instead.
That table really needs to be split down to units and characters, with the fixed-size-units having the column titled points per unit instead, given they're units with a fixed size.
Have you emailed the FAQ email address about the matter, btw, or just complained on here?
Yup. Auto answer. I see what bcb was talking about in the errata. They only listed the one unit. None of the rest. For feths sake.
*looks at errata document*
...no, I think the changes there sort things. The Borewyrm Infestation is the only entry in the table with a variable unit size, so it is the only one needing the "(points per model)" adding to the cost column once that column is retitled "Points per unit" (which is done as part of the errata).
You pay 35 points for a unit of 7 Traitor Guardsmen (including wargear), or 24 points for a unit of 4 Chaos Beastmen. I don't have the datasheets to hand, but I'm fairly sure they have no wargear options, and as you can't vary the size of the unit the ppm value is irrelevant.
Well they could have been a little clearer. It is a digital document. It wasn't exactly like they were trying to save on page count.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Hey am I the only one who noticed that the traitor guardsmen from Blackstone Fortress are 35 ppm? Wasn't changed in the faq either.
Good job gw.
That section could be clearer - all the models you'd expect to be units (Black Legionnaires, Beastmen, Cultists of the Abyss, Negavolt Cultists, Rein/Raus, Spindle Drones and Traitor Guardsmen) have per model costs that appear to be per unit costs instead.
That table really needs to be split down to units and characters, with the fixed-size-units having the column titled points per unit instead, given they're units with a fixed size.
Have you emailed the FAQ email address about the matter, btw, or just complained on here?
Yup. Auto answer. I see what bcb was talking about in the errata. They only listed the one unit. None of the rest. For feths sake.
*looks at errata document*
...no, I think the changes there sort things. The Borewyrm Infestation is the only entry in the table with a variable unit size, so it is the only one needing the "(points per model)" adding to the cost column once that column is retitled "Points per unit" (which is done as part of the errata).
You pay 35 points for a unit of 7 Traitor Guardsmen (including wargear), or 24 points for a unit of 4 Chaos Beastmen. I don't have the datasheets to hand, but I'm fairly sure they have no wargear options, and as you can't vary the size of the unit the ppm value is irrelevant.
Well they could have been a little clearer. It is a digital document. It wasn't exactly like they were trying to save on page count.
The first element in the Blackstone Fortress line says to change the column header from Points per Model to Points per Unit, and this templating is then repeated when they show the one entry that needs amending to work under that template - sure, they could've reprinted the whole table, but why do that when there is only one row that needs errata?
That section could be clearer - all the models you'd expect to be units (Black Legionnaires, Beastmen, Cultists of the Abyss, Negavolt Cultists, Rein/Raus, Spindle Drones and Traitor Guardsmen) have per model costs that appear to be per unit costs instead.
That table really needs to be split down to units and characters, with the fixed-size-units having the column titled points per unit instead, given they're units with a fixed size.
Well some people can apparently think of better ways it can be handled.
