I would define "game breaking" as anything that violates common understanding of the game, or basic principals or obviously dumb mistakes;

Bragg's Infinite grenades
240 Point models
-1 damage as RAW making D1 Weapons pointless
Vehicles with Fly are unable to be charged on top of buildings
Tank Hammers getting Multiple MWs on a single hit
Usual mistakes with keywords
Mistakes with Battlefield roles
Helbrutes getting more than +1A for dual fists
What counts for Psyker powers

Etc.

We all know GW routinely messes up their writing in new releases. In the spirit of BCB, who wants to hazard a guess on how many mistakes will be found in both the codexes combined, that in some way break the game?

As ever, I'm sure they'll be totally fine as long as you don't play games with the sort of melts who are determined to wilfully misinterpret things and look for loopholes in a way that allows them to cheese the game to their advantage.

It's missing the correct number, 9

Well the books are shorter with fewer data sheets, so the number of errors should be lower then with bigger content books. Of course a lot depends on the how updated and changed the new stuff is. The GK book looks rather clean of erros, but it is in english, so what do I know.

The lack of new models also goes in favour of the books, as the chance of copy paste errors durning creation of the print version of the books are smaller. Maybe those are going to be the cleanest of books GW made since 8th ed.

Honestly, very few, if not none of those examples can't be resolved with a bit of common sense, or failing that, a roll-off. Wouldn't call any of them "game-breaking".

Not expecting much from either book, probably just updated stats and a new character model. Probably one or two errors that undoubtedly this site will argue and moan over as if they're going over a legal contract.

If something seem broken in a GW product its your perception which is broken.

The rules like the lore are selfsustaning and by definition are always correct no matter how much they should be faqed or retconned.

Dont be a party popeer and enjoy GW premium products... They have never been so good.

 Nazrak wrote:
As ever, I'm sure they'll be totally fine as long as you don't play games with the sort of melts who are determined to wilfully misinterpret things and look for loopholes in a way that allows them to cheese the game to their advantage.

Impossible to exalt this enough.

If that was a thing then all we would ever get is just FAQ and never errata. Errata means that something very much did work the way it was put down in writing. Liquifires worked exactly the way people used them etc.

I feel like the average will be fairly low since these are marine releases and mostly what gw has to do is copy/paste a few statline changes, slap it on the butt and shove it out the door.

"heres your extra wound, heres your extra attack, here's the extremely obvious updates to slightly variated versions of weapons we've already updated in other codexes, that'll be fifty dollars please and thank you because we've successfully kept your community dumb and needlessly competitive enough that you couldn't figure out how to just give your opponent's this stuff back when we first showed you the new marine datasheets several months ago."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Valkyrie wrote:
Honestly, very few, if not none of those examples can't be resolved with a bit of common sense, or failing that, a roll-off. Wouldn't call any of them "game-breaking".

Not expecting much from either book, probably just updated stats and a new character model. Probably one or two errors that undoubtedly this site will argue and moan over as if they're going over a legal contract.

Any time I play a historical game with my friends, I always end up wondering about how the poor delicate 40k players ever survived wargame rules before the 'whinge about it online and shamelessly interpret every single thing to be to your maximum advantage' era.

"oh, this game has every unit act as a single squad, but there's a unit right here that's one squad that technically embarks on two motorcycles, what do?"

"Well, obviously the designers probably didnt intend for the squad to be able to split in half, so we'll treat those two motorcycles as a single unit that has to stay in coherency, and any order or action they take, they take together."

"Weird, this gun has a strength value of 8 at long range, 10 at medium range, and...2 at short range?"

"there's obviously a 1 missing there, it's supposed to be 12."

done, easy, five seconds, basically every time.

 the_scotsman wrote:
I feel like the average will be fairly low since these are marine releases and mostly what gw has to do is copy/paste a few statline changes, slap it on the butt and shove it out the door..

They might not have to do more...but they can't help themselves and keep adding bloat for the bloat god.

To be fair that sort of attitude happens also in historical wargames... but 40K players put in on the 11, perhaps some of them believe they are Primarisue Marines and being so tall the air they breath is a bit thin and that makes them sort of dizzy.

"Play by the Errata" is one the most childish attitude one can find in the gamming community.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:
I feel like the average will be fairly low since these are marine releases and mostly what gw has to do is copy/paste a few statline changes, slap it on the butt and shove it out the door..

They might not have to do more...but they can't help themselves and keep adding bloat for the bloat god.

The fith and most powerfull of the Chaos Goods.

 the_scotsman wrote:
I feel like the average will be fairly low since these are marine releases and mostly what gw has to do is copy/paste a few statline changes, slap it on the butt and shove it out the door.

"heres your extra wound, heres your extra attack, here's the extremely obvious updates to slightly variated versions of weapons we've already updated in other codexes, that'll be fifty dollars please and thank you because we've successfully kept your community dumb and needlessly competitive enough that you couldn't figure out how to just give your opponent's this stuff back when we first showed you the new marine datasheets several months ago."

GW just showed some GK rules, and you're right, just cut and paste strats with different names. Fury of the First has been reworded, and Purgators can now pay 2CP to shoot as if they've stood still...which is ok I guess.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Valkyrie wrote:
Honestly, very few, if not none of those examples can't be resolved with a bit of common sense, or failing that, a roll-off. Wouldn't call any of them "game-breaking".

Not expecting much from either book, probably just updated stats and a new character model. Probably one or two errors that undoubtedly this site will argue and moan over as if they're going over a legal contract.

Any time I play a historical game with my friends, I always end up wondering about how the poor delicate 40k players ever survived wargame rules before the 'whinge about it online and shamelessly interpret every single thing to be to your maximum advantage' era.

"oh, this game has every unit act as a single squad, but there's a unit right here that's one squad that technically embarks on two motorcycles, what do?"

"Well, obviously the designers probably didnt intend for the squad to be able to split in half, so we'll treat those two motorcycles as a single unit that has to stay in coherency, and any order or action they take, they take together."

"Weird, this gun has a strength value of 8 at long range, 10 at medium range, and...2 at short range?"

"there's obviously a 1 missing there, it's supposed to be 12."

done, easy, five seconds, basically every time.

Exactly. We've had a 5-page thread on if a Helbrute gets an extra attack. If someone was being that anal about it to me I'd just go "sod it, have your extra attack if it means we can actually play the game".

It certainly doesn't help that anyone who doesn't agree with your interpretation is immediately condemned as TFG cheaty rules lawyer.

So correct me if I'm wrong, but these are 9th edition screw ups. I added one - there are more minor ones that happened.

Bragg's Infinite grenades
240 Point models
-1 damage as RAW making D1 Weapons pointless
Super friends LOS

And these are prior.

Vehicles with Fly are unable to be charged on top of buildings
Tank Hammers getting Multiple MWs on a single hit
Usual mistakes with keywords
Mistakes with Battlefield roles
Helbrutes getting more than +1A for dual fists
What counts for Psyker powers

There were, of course, way more issues prior. Now absolutely all of the current ones have been addressed, right? And I think it's easy enough to see that the quantity of screw ups has reduced significantly. We've had what...16 books?

So I'll ask what's the purpose of this thread?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

So I'll ask what's the purpose of this thread?

Clogging up the forum with pissing and moaning, as usual.

It's just Frezzik trying to be funny again, Daed.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
So correct me if I'm wrong, but these are 9th edition screw ups. I added one - there are more minor ones that happened.

Bragg's Infinite grenades
240 Point models
-1 damage as RAW making D1 Weapons pointless
Super friends LOS

And these are prior.

Vehicles with Fly are unable to be charged on top of buildings
Tank Hammers getting Multiple MWs on a single hit
Usual mistakes with keywords
Mistakes with Battlefield roles
Helbrutes getting more than +1A for dual fists
What counts for Psyker powers

There were, of course, way more issues prior. Now absolutely all of the current ones have been addressed, right? And I think it's easy enough to see that the quantity of screw ups has reduced significantly. We've had what...16 books?

So I'll ask what's the purpose of this thread?

Wouldn't "Usual mistakes with Keywords" include things like Trukk boys unable to embark on Trukks, or AdMech transports able to carry a dozen Assault Centurions? and "mistakes with Battlefield Roles" would include changing Kataphrons to bikers then giving them a special rule to ignore the penalty for shooting heavy weapons as infantry. These are clearly 9th edition examples. I'm not so sure its as obvious as you claim that the quantity of screw ups has reduced significantly.

That being said, I expect few errors in these codexes, as it looks like a lot more copy/pasting from PA books than new content.

Fair enough. All but one of those is presently fixed and the last will be in a month's time.

I can absolutely claim the quantity is reduced. All I'd have to do is pull up an old BCB thread.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
All I'd have to do is pull up an old BCB thread.

Oh please no.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I would define "game breaking" as anything that violates common understanding of the game, or basic principals or obviously dumb mistakes;

Weren't you literally just decrying a bunch of people in YMDC for not agreeing with your own interpretation of a contentious rule, saying we should all use common sense to figure it out? Your entire tone in that thread was derogatory to anyone trying to actually work through GW's dodgy writing. Yet now here we are with you starting a thread to highlight exactly that?

 Valkyrie wrote:
Exactly. We've had a 5-page thread on if a Helbrute gets an extra attack. If someone was being that anal about it to me I'd just go "sod it, have your extra attack if it means we can actually play the game".

Look thee not upon YMDC. It is a dreadful place full of bad faith arguments and *exactly the same* three to five posters having *exactly the same* argument until time immemorial. It's worthless for its stated purpose, but it at least acts as a wankery containment zone.

Catulle wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:
Exactly. We've had a 5-page thread on if a Helbrute gets an extra attack. If someone was being that anal about it to me I'd just go "sod it, have your extra attack if it means we can actually play the game".

Look thee not upon YMDC. It is a dreadful place full of bad faith arguments and *exactly the same* three to five posters having *exactly the same* argument until time immemorial. It's worthless for its stated purpose, but it at least acts as a wankery containment zone.

Impossible to exalt this enough, too.

Whilst not game breaking I am bothered that the starting box includes a special character. That’s never been done before right? GW couldn’t say “your dudes don’t matter” any louder if they tried.

 Nerak wrote:
Whilst not game breaking I am bothered that the starting box includes a special character. That’s never been done before right? GW couldn’t say “your dudes don’t matter” any louder if they tried.

Boxes with a special character in it:
* The Drukari vs. Sisters box.
* The Start Collecting Thousands Sons box.
* The Death Guard Combat Patrol

The Deathwatch Start Collecting! box used to have Artemis in it too.

The book seems devoided of any big errors. But I ain't no prime english speaker, so the chance of me missing something is huge. But at a glance there are no infinite attacks, infinite shotings, no becoming ++2inv or similar stuff.

 solkan wrote:

 Nerak wrote:
Whilst not game breaking I am bothered that the starting box includes a special character. That’s never been done before right? GW couldn’t say “your dudes don’t matter” any louder if they tried.

Boxes with a special character in it:
* The Drukari vs. Sisters box.
* The Start Collecting Thousands Sons box.
* The Death Guard Combat Patrol

Alright, my bad.

 Nerak wrote:
Whilst not game breaking I am bothered that the starting box includes a special character. That’s never been done before right? GW couldn’t say “your dudes don’t matter” any louder if they tried.

Because it's literally impossible to swap Crowe's sword and banner to generic ones and just use him as champion, eh?

Ditto with Ahriman (sorc on disc), Artemis (DW captain), Lelith (succubus), Typhus (doubly so because Terminator Lord with scythe model was unavailable for a year), converting any of them to generic character with plentiful spare parts all these armies have takes minutes if you're inclined to do so...

There's some weirdness in some of the TSons relics wording:

1. The relic that makes an opposing model only able to allocate half its attacks to the bearer weirdly only applies in Engagement Range, meaning that models that are w/in .5" of a model w/in .5" can allocate all their attacks as long as they aren't w/in Engagement Range themselves. My guess is this is unintended because why would it be the case that the closer model can attack less than the further away one, but who knows?

2. The command trait that lets you make a 6" Normal Move when charged (after being declared, but before the charge roll is made) isn't really clear whether you can do it while you're already engaged by something else - you can't normally make a Normal Move in Engagement Range of course, but then again, you can't normally make a Normal Move in your opponent's combat phase anyway, so if it says you can, does that override the normal restriction on making a Normal Move if in Engagement Range along with overriding the normal restriction on when you can make the Normal Move? My guess is you aren't supposed to be able to make the move if you're already engaged by something, and I think maybe you can even argue this doesn't need a FAQ by saying this only overrides when you can make the move, not whether you can make it if other conditions prevent it, but it seems like at least a grey area that could use a FAQ clearing it up.

Neither of these are really gamebreaking though, they're just weird.

yukishiro1 wrote:
There's some weirdness in some of the TSons relics wording:

1. The relic that makes an opposing model only able to allocate half its attacks to the bearer weirdly only applies in Engagement Range, meaning that models that are w/in .5" of a model w/in .5" can allocate all their attacks as long as they aren't w/in Engagement Range themselves. My guess is this is unintended because why would it be the case that the closer model can attack less than the further away one, but who knows?

The fluff makes it sound like looking at the armor confuses you, so, if you're close enough you have a harder time swinging than the guy behind you.

2. The command trait that lets you make a 6" Normal Move when charged (after being declared, but before the charge roll is made) isn't really clear whether you can do it while you're already engaged by something else - you can't normally make a Normal Move in Engagement Range of course, but then again, you can't normally make a Normal Move in your opponent's combat phase anyway, so if it says you can, does that override the normal restriction on making a Normal Move if in Engagement Range along with overriding the normal restriction on when you can make the Normal Move? My guess is you aren't supposed to be able to make the move if you're already engaged by something, and I think maybe you can even argue this doesn't need a FAQ by saying this only overrides when you can make the move, not whether you can make it if other conditions prevent it, but it seems like at least a grey area that could use a FAQ clearing it up.

Neither of these are really gamebreaking though, they're just weird.

This one I think you have it right - if you let one charge go through you can no longer make a normal move so it will only work against the first and won't let you do things like disengage if another unit charges next turn.

How does the guy behind the other guy swing at you without getting close enough to be confused too? Does he have magic elasto arms that can stretch out an additional 10 feet? That rule is meant to simulate the constantly changing positions of melee combatants, not stretchy arms. If the model's getting in close enough to hit the person with the relic, it should be getting just as confused as anyone else. And it is really bizarre if they actually intended to create a mechanic that encourages you to keep your models out of Engagement Range of the model they want to attack. Anything is possible I guess, but it'd be a really weird choice that doesn't make any sense.

I suspect the armor is working as intended weird though it may be, simply because if it worked on everything attacking you rather than just the closest models then there'd be no reason to say models instead of units.

Well it has to reference models in one way or another, or else a unit could allocate the half of its attacks that were next to the bearer to the bearer, and the other half of its attacks from models that were somewhere else somewhere else, and the relic would have no impact.

But why it doesn't just say something like "each time an enemy model allocates close combat attacks, it can only allocate up to half of its attacks against this model," I don't know.

yukishiro1 wrote:
How does the guy behind the other guy swing at you without getting close enough to be confused too?

With a halabard or another pole weapon?

yukishiro1 wrote:
How does the guy behind the other guy swing at you without getting close enough to be confused too? Does he have magic elasto arms that can stretch out an additional 10 feet? That rule is meant to simulate the constantly changing positions of melee combatants, not stretchy arms. If the model's getting in close enough to hit the person with the relic, it should be getting just as confused as anyone else. And it is really bizarre if they actually intended to create a mechanic that encourages you to keep your models out of Engagement Range of the model they want to attack. Anything is possible I guess, but it'd be a really weird choice that doesn't make any sense.

Well, it just comes down to how you visualize combatants fighting. To me it's like someone shining a flashlight in your face and then your buddy comes out from behind and swings with his bat before the light blinds him.

If there are fewer models in engagement range then there will be fewer models in melee, too. So it is a bit of a win-win. If you have a large base and you can run in and tie up most of the unit then all the better - or go the opposite direction and make them walk to you as much as possible.

 Irbis wrote:

 Nerak wrote:
Whilst not game breaking I am bothered that the starting box includes a special character. That’s never been done before right? GW couldn’t say “your dudes don’t matter” any louder if they tried.

Because it's literally impossible to swap Crowe's sword and banner to generic ones and just use him as champion, eh?

Ditto with Ahriman (sorc on disc), Artemis (DW captain), Lelith (succubus), Typhus (doubly so because Terminator Lord with scythe model was unavailable for a year), converting any of them to generic character with plentiful spare parts all these armies have takes minutes if you're inclined to do so...

In fact I did exactly that. There is no grey knight champion model. You have to either convert Crowe or kitbash a regular non terminator GK. Surely you must see the issue in literally having to buy a special character to use a generic commander. I’d like an apology for this one. It was a bad statement on your part.

Not even having an official model and instead "forcing" you to kitbash or convert one of your own couldn't say "your dudes matter" any louder if GW tried, don't you think?

At least it is cheaper. Imagine if having to buy a separate GM, brother captin, librarian, apothecary and an Ancient. each one for 35$, or more if you decide to use a Draigo or Voldus, instead of one box of termintors.

Looking thru the Tsons codex, I'd hesitantly say....none? I think?

There's some really off-the-wall nerfs in there, though. GW really really came for the tzaangors despite them not being any good at all in AGES...they also...nerfed the GEQ shotgun that the cultist champion uses?

Like just why? What a bizarre thing to bother changing? They made it Assault 2 18" range S3, with no 'within half range +1s" rule.

It's funny, I was expecting the most errors to come from the psyker heavy books, but yeah, a lot of weird nerfs on both sides. I hate to sound conspiracyish here, but is GW trying to move their old NDK models or something? They might be the best model in the GK arsenal now for the cost. With the buffs to attacks, the sword variant is swinging some ugly pain there if properly buffed by hammerhand and such.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
It's funny, I was expecting the most errors to come from the psyker heavy books, but yeah, a lot of weird nerfs on both sides. I hate to sound conspiracyish here, but is GW trying to move their old NDK models or something? They might be the best model in the GK arsenal now for the cost. With the buffs to attacks, the sword variant is swinging some ugly pain there if properly buffed by hammerhand and such.

OH MAN do I get to tack another pin into the grand GWspiracy? Is a model being good in a previous edition of a codex, and then still being the best thing in the new edition of a codex now also equal evidence of the grand GWspiracy as a model being good in a previous edition and bad in the new edition???

Gw's playing both sides so they always come out on top.

 the_scotsman wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
It's funny, I was expecting the most errors to come from the psyker heavy books, but yeah, a lot of weird nerfs on both sides. I hate to sound conspiracyish here, but is GW trying to move their old NDK models or something? They might be the best model in the GK arsenal now for the cost. With the buffs to attacks, the sword variant is swinging some ugly pain there if properly buffed by hammerhand and such.

OH MAN do I get to tack another pin into the grand GWspiracy? Is a model being good in a previous edition of a codex, and then still being the best thing in the new edition of a codex now also equal evidence of the grand GWspiracy as a model being good in a previous edition and bad in the new edition???

Gw's playing both sides so they always come out on top.

To be fair, I did preface it in fear!

That being said, it was "GOOD" before the drop, now at it's new cost which I believe is 20 points down? It's possibly the best unit in their dex. It's basically to GK what the Telemon is to Custodes. Which is saying something as agian, it's under 200 for a sword, a gatling, and a cannon. Oh and didn't the invuln go down to 4++? That is a lot for a under 200pt unit.

Old unit strong in new dex: "GW is trying to push the old models to empty shelfspace"
New unit strong in new dex: "GW always overpowers new units to sell new models"
And always: GW will overpower them so yall buy it and then nerf them to death. And all with malice.

Well it is hard to over power new models, when they are one character only scalpers or whales manged to get their hands on.

But the NDK was good, and now it got better. It is a bit like 8th, with GK strike and NDKs being better options then other stuff, the mid edition CA comes out, hailed by GW as fix to everything, which will make GK players use paladins and purifires, and all it ended up to be was make NDKs even better. Still better a codex with a buff here and there, then a codex with no buffs at all. The book would be awesome if it came out in 8th ed .

 the_scotsman wrote:
Looking thru the Tsons codex, I'd hesitantly say....none? I think?

There's some really off-the-wall nerfs in there, though. GW really really came for the tzaangors despite them not being any good at all in AGES...they also...nerfed the GEQ shotgun that the cultist champion uses?

Like just why? What a bizarre thing to bother changing? They made it Assault 2 18" range S3, with no 'within half range +1s" rule.

Meh on the shotgun. I don't think I'd ever remember that and it fits in with the autoguns better now.

Mostly agree on Tzaangors. Though comparing to Boyz - one less attack, one less toughness, but 5++. +1 to charge vs reroll charge. No Waagh, but Shaman for a +1 to hit. Maybe +1S if you wanted to bother ( not likely ).

They're "OK". Good objective units in any case.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
Well it is hard to over power new models, when they are one character only scalpers or whales manged to get their hands on.

But the NDK was good, and now it got better. It is a bit like 8th, with GK strike and NDKs being better options then other stuff, the mid edition CA comes out, hailed by GW as fix to everything, which will make GK players use paladins and purifires, and all it ended up to be was make NDKs even better. Still better a codex with a buff here and there, then a codex with no buffs at all. The book would be awesome if it came out in 8th ed .

Not sure why it would be hard to over power a model regardless of who gets their hands on it.

It's a damn good book.

Re-teleporting NDKs.
Good anti-alpha protection with Shadows.
Draigo is a monster and Voldus isn't far off.
Brother-Captain gives reroll 1s to wound and can give a +1 to cast bubble.
Move-shoot-move Interceptors.
Bananas amount of force weapon attacks.

Not sure why it would be hard to over power a model regardless of who gets their hands on it.

It all depends how many units of the hex box they made right? If 1ksons and GK become the best armies out there. And both the new sorc and the Crow, become an auto take like Drazh was for DE, then there could be problems if GW made 3k boxs and shiped most to US and left the rest for UK. This is hardly a new or special thing. And unlike with some limited runs, like the indomitus one, there wouldn't just be a regional problem. If all there is , pre recasters, is 3k Crows and the new 1ksons not chaplains, then it would not be enough for all.

It's a damn good book.

It nerfed termintors and paladins, and forced people to run NDKs instead of regular infantry characters. Maybe people that like strikes like the book, great for them. I don't like 42pts termintors, when strikes give 1 extra wound and double the shoting, wounds and melee attacks at 2/3 the point costs.

Keep in mind the Tzaangor 5++ is their chapter tactic (a good one). So remember to add a good chapter tactic to an Ork Boy or DE Witch when comparing.

Basic foot Tzaangor are also WS4.

All the Tzaangor do look slightly overpriced and I think it is that they are paying points for their chapter tactic which is normally free in most armies.

An Iron Hands Vindicator and a TSons Vindicator are the same points, and now they actually both have a chapter tactic it feels a reasonable comparison between the two.

Both models can be easily kitbashed or proxied by a Strike and Rubric / Sorcerer Marine respectively. The old Crowe is even still available to order from GW.

It is a made up problem in a made up situation.

Yeah, Tzaangors got done dirty for no apparent reason. Hard to understand why in an edition where in general they've been buffing all the cheap stock infantry they decided that Tzaangors should instead get a big fat nerf to the face.

EightFoldPath wrote:
Keep in mind the Tzaangor 5++ is their chapter tactic (a good one). So remember to add a good chapter tactic to an Ork Boy or DE Witch when comparing.

Basic foot Tzaangor are also WS4.

All the Tzaangor do look slightly overpriced and I think it is that they are paying points for their chapter tactic which is normally free in most armies.

An Iron Hands Vindicator and a TSons Vindicator are the same points, and now they actually both have a chapter tactic it feels a reasonable comparison between the two.

Right, but the thing is that Tzaangors always had 5++ and were WS3 and a shaman could get them to hit on 2s. They did go down from 9 to 7 points, but also lost a fight twice strat. Overall I don't particularly care - they're a fine unit. They just won't be crazy bombs like in early 8th.

a_typical_hero wrote:
Both models can be easily kitbashed or proxied by a Strike and Rubric / Sorcerer Marine respectively. The old Crowe is even still available to order from GW.

It is a made up problem in a made up situation.

It is also a no problem, because, at least on the GK side, neither Crow, nor the Champion isn't auto include. So missing him ain't a big problem. No idea about the 1ksons champlain, plus unlike Crow, he technically is going to be in that patrol box 1ksons will get. Although the box is very special with all those bird boys inside. The GK patrol box on the other hand is great. Termintors make all the HQs you will ever need plus support pices, NDK is great, and strikes are the best troop options.

Did I hear right that GK can only cast certain powers on themselves? Like AA and HH? Isn't that a nerf in and of itself? What is the point of taking Voldus now if he can only cast things on himself?

Sanctic powers now only work on the caster. Hammerhands, Astral Aim, and Armoured Resilience fall into this category. Each unit typically has a fixed loadout of these - e.g. Strikes can only take Hammerhand. Paladins get two of their choice, making that their gimmick.

Dominus powers can target anyone. So you can still Gate and Sanctuary other units. Characters can *only* take Dominus, they can't take Sanctic (aside from Crowe who knows one Dominus + Purifying Flame from Sanctic).

It's really weird that they were so restrictive with GK, especially since TSons got two trees of 9 that every psyker can just pick freely from.

So I guess again, what is the point of Voldus? If he can't be a buff bot, then he's basically an overcosted smiter/teleporter?

Well there's not much point to Voldus in the new book period, he went down to only 2 casts so he's just a crappy, budget version of Draigo that's worse literally in every way, for 30 points cheaper. He's also locked to a specific Brotherhood.

But Dominus has Gate and Sanctuary, so you can both teleport stuff and give them a 4+ invuln, plus a couple offensive powers as well. And Warp Shaping, though I'm not sure how much you're actually going to be wanting to change Tides now.

yukishiro1 wrote:
It's really weird that they were so restrictive with GK, especially since TSons got two trees of 9 that every psyker can just pick freely from.

My thoughts on that :

- Every model is a caster
- Their melee in general is significantly stronger
- They can multi-cast brotherhood spells ( not sure how much this will happen )
- To force some measure of diversity in a line up with very similar units

Ok, so there are a couple broken things in the GK book after all. The Litany that makes every 6 to wound wound twice says it also does an additional MW if you're in the Tide that makes 6s to wound already do MWs. So for every 6 to wound, you're getting two MWs+2 wounding hits through. I think they forgot that this isn't AOS and you can get multiple benefits from an effect happening on a 6, I can't believe they really intended this, especially with how easy it is to get reroll wounds in the book. A strike squad of 10 can easily generate an average of upwards of 20+ MW with this - up to 35ish average with every single possible buff - in addition to another 50-70ish damage at AP-3. it's just silly.

Another broken Litany is the one that dispels any negative psychic powers and makes the unit immune to enemy psychic powers until your next command phase - for some reason, this one isn't restricted to GK only, you can cast it on literally anything. I really doubt it's intended, but this allows, e.x., a Telemon that is immune to psychic powers, which is pretty funny.

Also, and this may be broken or may just be weird, Librarians can take from both Dominus and Sanctic, which nothing else in the book can do, not even Voldus. This allows some weird psychic assassin nonsense where you can come down from DS then deal an average 9MW to the closest unit, or an average of 11MW if you spend another CP, and the potential for a lot more.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

My thoughts on that :

- Every model is a caster
- Their melee in general is significantly stronger
- They can multi-cast brotherhood spells ( not sure how much this will happen )
- To force some measure of diversity in a line up with very similar units

Only they were writen in a such a way that part of their rules never work. +1 to cast 1ksons have, for a magic army, is a rule that is always working. A 1ksons army will always cast spells. +1 to stoping someone from casting requires the opponent to field psykers. And why would they do that? Running no psykers means they get access to Abhore the Witch as secondary , get to ignore a large chunk of GK rule set and that is assuming they don't play something like ad mecha, SoB or tau who just don't have psykers. And this isn't even a lore thing. Because prior to this book GK, which is my blowing to write, the rules were better. GK had the +1 to cast powers just like 1ksons do now. And lore wise GK are not dispel bots, they are powerful psykers and magic casters in their own right. And I really don't see how GK rules are equal to any of the rules sets of the best books right now.

But maybe that was the plan we are a codex 5-6 months pushed back, maybe if we came out in december of january, they would feel like a better codex. Right now the GK book has a strong necron vibe to it. And that is assuming someone goes and rebrands to strikes. If someone wants to play a termintor army , then the new codex is a nerf. Which I thought was not possible to do.

I am also not sure how the rule set spawns diversity. It litterally made termintor stuff bad, and turned NDKS and strikes in to auto includes. Every GK army is going to be running those and a brother Cpt, just to get access to one stratagem. I get complicated armies with a ton of stacking rules. Not something for everyone, and they are not very fun to play against, specially the first few times. But if you are a not easy to use army, then you better have a one heck of a end result rulse wise for it. Because being a harder to play army, while not being more powerful then other armies is just bad design.

Worse any problems with the codex will go along side the same arguments thrown around in 8t. Wait for CA, wait for FAQ. Then followed by GW not fixing point costs outside of codex, meaning the army is stuck like this till 10th ed. I am going to laugh so hard, if the following books are in the DE,SoB or Ad Mecha style , instead of how the 1ksons/GK books look like.

I don't see this causing a rush to buy new lists, for either faction. Neither of these look to be approaching DE or Ad Mech levels of cheese. Meta Chasers will not be shifted by either of these.

I'm a little grumpy about the Infernal Fusilades nerf - going from double shoot to +1 shot seemed a little excessive.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Yeah, Tzaangors got done dirty for no apparent reason. Hard to understand why in an edition where in general they've been buffing all the cheap stock infantry they decided that Tzaangors should instead get a big fat nerf to the face.

We've complained for years about the chaff units being better troops than Chaos Marines. GW has decided to take those criticisms seriously, it seems...

sanguine40k wrote:
I'm a little grumpy about the Infernal Fusilades nerf - going from double shoot to +1 shot seemed a little excessive.

Extremely necessary. With +1S plus +1 to wound plus remove cover plus remove modifiers it would be an over the top combo. Then add in that you would only ever use it on Scarabs and it makes a whole lot more sense.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Yeah, Tzaangors got done dirty for no apparent reason. Hard to understand why in an edition where in general they've been buffing all the cheap stock infantry they decided that Tzaangors should instead get a big fat nerf to the face.

We've complained for years about the chaff units being better troops than Chaos Marines. GW has decided to take those criticisms seriously, it seems...

Its consistent with chaos cultists and the nurgle nerfherds (and gretchin, though I haven't had a look at the new ork codex). GW seems to hate the idea that people will build armies in different ways, so the cheaper alternatives to boys or chaos marines have to be made worse so the units you 'should be' fielding look better in comparison. That's true of kroot, too, now that I think about it.

Though the soft unit caps to directly force marines onto the table seems to only affect chaos.
Nevermind that the cultist masses backed up/controlled by a handful of elite chaos marines is the absolutely fluffiest version of the army.

Voss wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Yeah, Tzaangors got done dirty for no apparent reason. Hard to understand why in an edition where in general they've been buffing all the cheap stock infantry they decided that Tzaangors should instead get a big fat nerf to the face.

We've complained for years about the chaff units being better troops than Chaos Marines. GW has decided to take those criticisms seriously, it seems...

Its consistent with chaos cultists and the nurgle nerfherds (and gretchin, though I haven't had a look at the new ork codex). GW seems to hate the idea that people will build armies in different ways, so the cheaper alternatives to boys or chaos marines have to be made worse so the units you 'should be' fielding look better in comparison. That's true of kroot, too, now that I think about it.

Though the soft unit caps to directly force marines onto the table seems to only affect chaos.
Nevermind that the cultist masses backed up/controlled by a handful of elite chaos marines is the absolutely fluffiest version of the army.

But they already did that with the limitation of one Tzaangor unit per Rubric/Scarab. They didn't need to also make them crap at the same time. And if they were concerned about people taking cheaper alternatives...why did they make Tzaangor much cheaper, and then nerf their stats? Seems like it'd have been better to keep them at 9 points and with the better WS3+ stat line, and maybe an extra attack on the charge, to make them worth those 9 points. If anything, the points and WS reductions that reduce them to essentially just a T4 5++ meat shield make them more attractive to take in that "stand around and do nothing" role, not less.

Voss wrote:
Its consistent with chaos cultists and the nurgle nerfherds (and gretchin, though I haven't had a look at the new ork codex). GW seems to hate the idea that people will build armies in different ways, so the cheaper alternatives to boys or chaos marines have to be made worse so the units you 'should be' fielding look better in comparison. That's true of kroot, too, now that I think about it.

Though the soft unit caps to directly force marines onto the table seems to only affect chaos.
Nevermind that the cultist masses backed up/controlled by a handful of elite chaos marines is the absolutely fluffiest version of the army.

I've mentioned it before, but there's a basic value for holding stuff and doing actions.

Backfield objective holders are in peril less often since few people are taking OOLOS weapons and even if they do the current morale system prevents from them being easily removed. That also makes small deepstrike units valuable to pull them out if your opponent doesn't have redundancy.

I can almost guarantee that you're going to see a CSM army interact more directly with cultists in a powerful way - particularly Word Bearers. Open mouth - insert foot on anything CSM with GW, but they did a damn good job with TS on first impressions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Seems like it'd have been better to keep them at 9 points and with the better WS3+ stat line, and maybe an extra attack on the charge, to make them worth those 9 points. If anything, the points and WS reductions that reduce them to essentially just a T4 5++ meat shield make them more attractive to take in that "stand around and do nothing" role, not less.

There's enough there for people to make 20 man blobs work if they wanted to. It just isn't as sexy as pew pew and sorcerers.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Yeah, Tzaangors got done dirty for no apparent reason. Hard to understand why in an edition where in general they've been buffing all the cheap stock infantry they decided that Tzaangors should instead get a big fat nerf to the face.

Because they need to make the underpowered units overpowered to sell them!

Wait...

The problem with that theory is it ascribes too much thought and care to GW's balancing decisions. It's more like a blindfolded drunk guy playing pin the tail on the donkey than a calculated conspiracy to sell certain models.

Well, with the release of AOS3.0, they are releasing a new Tzeentch army, or update, I thought. Wouldn't it make sense to release a 40k faction update that relies HEAVILY on a AOS model line, ala daemons, horrors, and Tzangors? I don't think that was a random guess. I think it was a smart business decision.

As for the GMDK, I have no clue. It was a shelf sitting box for the past two entire editions, and aside from a single top 3 tourny placing before covid or DE 2.0, I can't think of a major list that ran them competitively.

I think the GMDK is far more, "hey, we gotta give them SOMETHING or else their entire faction will still be crap." "Lets buff the model that is the basic staple of 95% of the lists out there."

GW likely didn't buff GK to sell models, because they had to know that almost no one plays them. But demons of TZeench I totally could believe was market driven....

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Well, with the release of AOS3.0, they are releasing a new Tzeentch army, or update, I thought. Wouldn't it make sense to release a 40k faction update that relies HEAVILY on a AOS model line, ala daemons, horrors, and Tzangors? I don't think that was a random guess. I think it was a smart business decision.

I've heard of no such update for AOS Tzeentch. Certainly nothing has shown up on WHC. Moreover Thousand Sons no longer have a summoning ability so daemons are non-existent and any soup would be punished. And to pile onto that Tzaangors are heavily muted in the codex ( and have been for some time ).

GW likely didn't buff GK to sell models, because they had to know that almost no one plays them. But demons of TZeench I totally could believe was market driven....

Does GW make strong rules to sell models or not? It can't be whatever you decide, when you decide it. If GK don't get played wouldn't it make sense to make them even stronger, if that were the case?

You're literally conjuring reasons to believe what you believe. You should take some time to reassess your position.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Voss wrote:
Its consistent with chaos cultists and the nurgle nerfherds (and gretchin, though I haven't had a look at the new ork codex). GW seems to hate the idea that people will build armies in different ways, so the cheaper alternatives to boys or chaos marines have to be made worse so the units you 'should be' fielding look better in comparison. That's true of kroot, too, now that I think about it.

Though the soft unit caps to directly force marines onto the table seems to only affect chaos.
Nevermind that the cultist masses backed up/controlled by a handful of elite chaos marines is the absolutely fluffiest version of the army.

I've mentioned it before, but there's a basic value for holding stuff and doing actions.

Backfield objective holders are in peril less often since few people are taking OOLOS weapons and even if they do the current morale system prevents from them being easily removed. That also makes small deepstrike units valuable to pull them out if your opponent doesn't have redundancy.

I can almost guarantee that you're going to see a CSM army interact more directly with cultists in a powerful way - particularly Word Bearers. Open mouth - insert foot on anything CSM with GW, but they did a damn good job with TS on first impressions.

How would Word Bearers use them differently? As sacrifices for summoning purposes? Iron Warriors and Black Legion would use them as chaff, same as now. Alpha Legion would use them as Agents, give them special abilities like they could in 3.5. Night Lords would use them as......"Special Leather"?

And no, "Cultist masses backed up/controlled by a handful of elite Chaos Marines" isn't the "fluffiest version" of every Legion.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
How would Word Bearers use them differently? As sacrifices for summoning purposes?

Sacrificing would be super cool. The biggest way it could fail is if there isn't enough space in the CSM book to accommodate all the extra rules. The book would either be massive or they'd have to split it up.

Night Lords would use them as......"Special Leather"?

 Daedalus81 wrote:


Does GW make strong rules to sell models or not? It can't be whatever you decide, when you decide it. If GK don't get played wouldn't it make sense to make them even stronger, if that were the case?

You're literally conjuring reasons to believe what you believe. You should take some time to reassess your position.

That depends on what the project managers think and what is considered to be strong by them. Anyone is interested in playing the game at the studio, also has a huge impact. Just compare what was done with DE or Admecha and GK. Each one book got a new set of rules. There were buffs, side grades and down grades. But it is impossible to say that the person writing the first two, and then the person who okeys the books to print put the same amount of care in to GK. And this was suppose to be a last year early this year book. So we can't even claim that GW after making OP books for some armies decide to stream line the rules and make them more balanced. GW writers can give any army any rules they want, as long as the sells and higher up green light it. And from what we have seen, they can green light some crazy stuff, and no wonder, those people don't have to know a thing about the game.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Moreover Thousand Sons no longer have a summoning ability so daemons are non-existent

I keep seeing this and I'm not sure where it's from? Daemons are no longer included in the codex for reference but Daemonic Ritual still exists in the Daemons codex and still allows any CHAOS CHARACTER to summon. Sure, it's still an utterly terrible strategy but you can do it.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
How would Word Bearers use them differently? As sacrifices for summoning purposes?

Sacrificing would be super cool. The biggest way it could fail is if there isn't enough space in the CSM book to accommodate all the extra rules. The book would either be massive or they'd have to split it up.

Not necessarily. The best codex CSM ever had, and the one that best represented all of the Legions, was 80 pages. The current 8th edition CSM codex is 186 pages. Considering how much 9th edition codexes have been cutting down on lore sections, I don't think a 9th edition CSM codex that accurately covers each Legion would have to massive. Especially if it only has to cover 5 instead of the 9 that 3.5 had to cover. If Emperor's Children and World Eaters get their own codexes there should be plenty of room for the remaining 5 Legions.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Moreover Thousand Sons no longer have a summoning ability so daemons are non-existent

I keep seeing this and I'm not sure where it's from? Daemons are no longer included in the codex for reference but Daemonic Ritual still exists in the Daemons codex and still allows any CHAOS CHARACTER to summon. Sure, it's still an utterly terrible strategy but you can do it.

Yes, you can still do it because it's in the Daemons codex...but they took it out of the DG and TSons codexes in 9th. In 8th, it appeared there too. They also axed the TSons strat that used to boost their summoning ability. There does appear to be a concerted push to remove summoning as a part of those books. Any remnants seem to be just that, remnants that will presumably go away once Daemons get a new book too.

Let's put it this way, I certainly wouldn't be buying any daemons to summon into your CSM armies right now.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Yeah, Tzaangors got done dirty for no apparent reason. Hard to understand why in an edition where in general they've been buffing all the cheap stock infantry they decided that Tzaangors should instead get a big fat nerf to the face.

GW didn't like that in eighth apparently most mono-TS lists made use of Tzaangors as their troop choice for most of the edition and can't stand that people were relying more on gak like that rather than Rubric Marines. So they made them just a little bit less exciting and nice by gutting their lethality. GW doesn't want you leaning on Tzaangors so made them inefficient for anything but being a fairly durable cheap objective holder. And to be fair, if you can spare the twenty points they are much better at that job than an equally large cultist squad. Sucks that they have pretty much no support as a bomb unit though. I definitely don't agree with what they did but this is I believe the reasoning.

Karol wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


Does GW make strong rules to sell models or not? It can't be whatever you decide, when you decide it. If GK don't get played wouldn't it make sense to make them even stronger, if that were the case?

You're literally conjuring reasons to believe what you believe. You should take some time to reassess your position.

That depends on what the project managers think and what is considered to be strong by them. Anyone is interested in playing the game at the studio, also has a huge impact. Just compare what was done with DE or Admecha and GK. Each one book got a new set of rules. There were buffs, side grades and down grades. But it is impossible to say that the person writing the first two, and then the person who okeys the books to print put the same amount of care in to GK. And this was suppose to be a last year early this year book. So we can't even claim that GW after making OP books for some armies decide to stream line the rules and make them more balanced. GW writers can give any army any rules they want, as long as the sells and higher up green light it. And from what we have seen, they can green light some crazy stuff, and no wonder, those people don't have to know a thing about the game.

I know it's fun to just parrot stuff with no rhyme or reason, but I hope you circle back on this some day in a way that let's you reflect on why it is such terrible logic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Moreover Thousand Sons no longer have a summoning ability so daemons are non-existent

I keep seeing this and I'm not sure where it's from? Daemons are no longer included in the codex for reference but Daemonic Ritual still exists in the Daemons codex and still allows any CHAOS CHARACTER to summon. Sure, it's still an utterly terrible strategy but you can do it.

Summoning was tenous WITH the bespoke stratagem. It's fairly useless now.

Why not just make Rubrics actually good enough to be worth using, though - which they may have actually managed this time around, at least in MSU sizes? It's like an admission on GW's part that incapable of making multiple equally attractive choices, that the only way it can find to make people take CSM in CSM armies is to just nerf the competition and/or limit your ability to take them at all with detachment rules.

And they still haven't got it working, either. Most competitive DG armies ignore PM entirely, or at least as much as possible. So even after all that work, GW still can't find a way to force people into taking them.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
How would Word Bearers use them differently? As sacrifices for summoning purposes?

Sacrificing would be super cool. The biggest way it could fail is if there isn't enough space in the CSM book to accommodate all the extra rules. The book would either be massive or they'd have to split it up.

Not necessarily. The best codex CSM ever had, and the one that best represented all of the Legions, was 80 pages. The current 8th edition CSM codex is 186 pages. Considering how much 9th edition codexes have been cutting down on lore sections, I don't think a 9th edition CSM codex that accurately covers each Legion would have to massive. Especially if it only has to cover 5 instead of the 9 that 3.5 had to cover. If Emperor's Children and World Eaters get their own codexes there should be plenty of room for the remaining 5 Legions.

Don't forget the 6 renegade chapters and Fallen, that for some reason had to be crammed in there, too, instead of being in the Dark Angels supplement where they belong .

 Void__Dragon wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Yeah, Tzaangors got done dirty for no apparent reason. Hard to understand why in an edition where in general they've been buffing all the cheap stock infantry they decided that Tzaangors should instead get a big fat nerf to the face.

GW didn't like that in eighth apparently most mono-TS lists made use of Tzaangors as their troop choice for most of the edition and can't stand that people were relying more on gak like that rather than Rubric Marines. So they made them just a little bit less exciting and nice by gutting their lethality. GW doesn't want you leaning on Tzaangors so made them inefficient for anything but being a fairly durable cheap objective holder. And to be fair, if you can spare the twenty points they are much better at that job than an equally large cultist squad. Sucks that they have pretty much no support as a bomb unit though. I definitely don't agree with what they did but this is I believe the reasoning.

There were several indirect nerfs during 8th that took tzaangors way down. They were limping long before 9th.

Let's not forget rubrics can no longer come in blocks of 20 and all is dust no longer affects their invuln among other changes.

Tzaangors are T4 daemons. If you want to support them they'll still do work, but asking a 7 point model to murder the table just won't be a thing.

They aren't daemons any more, either. They weren't even daemons in 8th, for that matter - only the ones on discs were.

And they do virtually nothing now, even at max size. A max sized squad of 20 all getting to attack kills...wait for it...all of two and a half MEQ. Lol. You put all the buffs you can on them and they might kill a 100 point MSU squad of intercessors. Maybe.

They're cheap ob-sec wounds at this point, they do virtually nothing else but exist on a place and die in fairly points-efficient way.

yukishiro1 wrote:


And they still haven't got it working, either. Most competitive DG armies ignore PM entirely, or at least as much as possible. So even after all that work, GW still can't find a way to force people into taking them.

It isnt that PMs aren't good. It's that taking a melta to the face mitigates a lot of their advantages. Deathshrouds at least take out half the shots and make half the damage rolls unable to kill.

Couple that with limited ways for DG to counter those threats and you get current lists.

With meltas falling quickly out of sisters lists and marines leaning on contemptors they may have more space to work.

I'm surprised that Tzaangors in 40k get nothing for those shields.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Why not just make Rubrics actually good enough to be worth using, though...

'Cause that's hard!

yukishiro1 wrote:
They aren't daemons any more, either. They weren't even daemons in 8th, for that matter - only the ones on discs were.

And they do virtually nothing now, even at max size. A max sized squad of 20 all getting to attack kills...wait for it...all of two and a half MEQ. Lol. You put all the buffs you can on them and they might kill a 100 point MSU squad of intercessors. Maybe.

They're cheap ob-sec wounds at this point, they do virtually nothing else but exist on a place and die in fairly points-efficient way.

Daemons in the sense of low cost with invulnerable.

140 points maybe killing 100. That doesn't sound all that terrible. I bet you those marines never survive subsequentrounds of combat.

Rubrics are expensive for damage efficiency, but not for utility and durability. The value of a unit isn't just the kill count.

140 points plus the exalted for the reroll 1s, plus prescience, plus whatever other buffs you can come up with to boost their pathetic damage. On base, 140 points of Tzaangor kill ~50 points of MEQ. That's terrible offensive output for a melee unit.

You said they "do work." They really don't. They sit there and die in a relatively efficient manner while having ob-sec. There is value in that, but they do virtually nothing offensively.

yukishiro1 wrote:
The problem with that theory is it ascribes too much thought and care to GW's balancing decisions. It's more like a blindfolded drunk guy playing pin the tail on the donkey than a calculated conspiracy to sell certain models.

I really think they are conflicting interest involve in the process... some in the design team might actually want a playable and balance game, others only enforce the marketing decisions, and others act like punks looking for fun and rule of cool... the result is mostly a mess.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Voss wrote:
Its consistent with chaos cultists and the nurgle nerfherds (and gretchin, though I haven't had a look at the new ork codex). GW seems to hate the idea that people will build armies in different ways, so the cheaper alternatives to boys or chaos marines have to be made worse so the units you 'should be' fielding look better in comparison. That's true of kroot, too, now that I think about it.

Though the soft unit caps to directly force marines onto the table seems to only affect chaos.
Nevermind that the cultist masses backed up/controlled by a handful of elite chaos marines is the absolutely fluffiest version of the army.

I've mentioned it before, but there's a basic value for holding stuff and doing actions.

Backfield objective holders are in peril less often since few people are taking OOLOS weapons and even if they do the current morale system prevents from them being easily removed. That also makes small deepstrike units valuable to pull them out if your opponent doesn't have redundancy.

I can almost guarantee that you're going to see a CSM army interact more directly with cultists in a powerful way - particularly Word Bearers. Open mouth - insert foot on anything CSM with GW, but they did a damn good job with TS on first impressions.

Arguably you picked the wrong legion for strong interaction with "cultists"
IW have guard style equipped and trained supplementary forces and Alpha legion baseline seems to run on operatives.
Why in hell should cultists then be a thing WB do good? They are there for sacrifice and summoning purposes.


Also, its a bloody shame that culitsts are once again just reduced to the "mooks" for the spikey marines, when infact it is these armies that are the rank and file for chaos and the actual problem due to their effect on morale, quantity and capability through numbers and infiltration.

alas... spikey marines and their mooks it is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I'm surprised that Tzaangors in 40k get nothing for those shields.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Why not just make Rubrics actually good enough to be worth using, though...

'Cause that's hard!

There's sadly but one exalt per comment.

The more free Ap enters the game the less interesting SV3 + becomes.
The less interesting it becomes the worse become wearers of it.
By extension it is still a stat that is priced quite heavily aswell.
Cultmarines then suffer from the above but due to "unnecessary " stat increases pay even more. Hence why cultmarines are worse of than CSM in regards to playability, which are worse off than the nerfed to death cultists. Which however also has to do with the overly expensive charachter of these armies requiring HQ / HS/ Elite choices for the heavy lifting which baseline make the elite troop archetype a pts waste.


In essence its the economic game of opportunity cost. And Neither CSM nor Cultmarines play it well.

That's all very well but it seems like rubrics and scarab occult are good? So I'm not sure what you are going on about.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Arguably you picked the wrong legion for strong interaction with "cultists"
IW have guard style equipped and trained supplementary forces and Alpha legion baseline seems to run on operatives.
Why in hell should cultists then be a thing WB do good? They are there for sacrifice and summoning purposes.

I defer to others as I'm no cultist expert for sure. Looks like we have to wait until 2022 to shed light on the subject though.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:
140 points plus the exalted for the reroll 1s, plus prescience, plus whatever other buffs you can come up with to boost their pathetic damage. On base, 140 points of Tzaangor kill ~50 points of MEQ. That's terrible offensive output for a melee unit.

You said they "do work." They really don't. They sit there and die in a relatively efficient manner while having ob-sec. There is value in that, but they do virtually nothing offensively.

Don't need rr1s, really. Shaman will do fine. That makes it 41 * .666 * .5 * .5 = 6.8 / 2 * 20 = 68 points and it isn't like the Shaman doesn't cast.

Is there something inherently wrong about a durable unit? People constantly complain about the lethality of the game.

Wouldn't you say the sorcerers who don't like combat would like something in front that doesn't die to a stiff breeze?

yukishiro1 wrote:Sanctic powers now only work on the caster. Hammerhands, Astral Aim, and Armoured Resilience fall into this category. Each unit typically has a fixed loadout of these - e.g. Strikes can only take Hammerhand. Paladins get two of their choice, making that their gimmick.

Dominus powers can target anyone. So you can still Gate and Sanctuary other units. Characters can *only* take Dominus, they can't take Sanctic (aside from Crowe who knows one Dominus + Purifying Flame from Sanctic).

It's really weird that they were so restrictive with GK, especially since TSons got two trees of 9 that every psyker can just pick freely from.

Depends on how you look at it, but Sanctic seems like a bonus on top of psychic offense.

Each unit gets full Smite and a Brotherhood Power. Seems like Sanctic gives you a choice whether to Smite your opponent or buff your unit.

Thinking about GK's smite in 8th edition, which was very limiting compared to other armies.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:Did I hear right that GK can only cast certain powers on themselves? Like AA and HH? Isn't that a nerf in and of itself? What is the point of taking Voldus now if he can only cast things on himself?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:So I guess again, what is the point of Voldus? If he can't be a buff bot, then he's basically an overcosted smiter/teleporter?

yukishiro1 wrote:Well there's not much point to Voldus in the new book period, he went down to only 2 casts so he's just a crappy, budget version of Draigo that's worse literally in every way, for 30 points cheaper. He's also locked to a specific Brotherhood.

But Dominus has Gate and Sanctuary, so you can both teleport stuff and give them a 4+ invuln, plus a couple offensive powers as well. And Warp Shaping, though I'm not sure how much you're actually going to be wanting to change Tides now.

The point of Voldus is anti-buff.

Voldus is a cc monster and character killer. He's going to use Projection of Purity to debuff something and crush it with his hammer. He's Wardmakers, a good roll means his powers can't be denied.

Under the Escalation tide, the entire army can debuff each of their opponents. With Nemesis Weapons, that would be devastating against a lot of armies.

Technically, if you have 2 squads you can shoot infinitely till you kill everything in range cause there only limitation is that ywhen the sequence with one squad is over you can go to the next one. Nothing preventing you from going back after the 2d squad has finished it's shooting sequence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So, bragg is nothing new here

Usually not as a devastating as just, well, taking a brotherhood that's better at killing to begin with. And definitely not as devastating as just staying in the tide that gives you mortals on a 6 to wound, that plus the litany is where GK's melee potential is this edition; strikes rerolling wounds and getting 2 MW + 2 wounding hits on every 6 to wound is just silly levels of damage. Voldus costs significantly more than a 5-man strike and does like 1/3 as much damage if the strikes are buffed, he's really not a CC monster.

Voldus isn't terrible if for some reason you're committed to running an army that's 100% his subfaction...but even then, you'd probably be better off just taking Draigo honestly. You can get the debuffing on any unit from the subfaction, and the trait better on a librarian anyway since you can get access to sanctic as well, and relics and whatever they call the upgrades, and can even double up WL traits too on it, opening up some interesting possibilities.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Moreover Thousand Sons no longer have a summoning ability so daemons are non-existent and any soup would be punished.

What? They absolutely can still summon, the Chaos Daemons codex (where Daemonic Ritual is from) hasn't changed or updated and there are still CHAOS CHARACTER models in Thousand Sons...

It used to be in the TS and DG books too, it isn't any more. They can still do it, but it's been removed from their books, which suggests that GW doesn't see it as something that's going to exist going forward. I would be very surprised to see it stay in the Daemons codex in its current form, if they were going to do that, they wouldn't have removed it from the DG and TS books.

yukishiro1 wrote:
It used to be in the TS and DG books too, it isn't any more. They can still do it, but it's been removed from their books, which suggests that GW doesn't see it as something that's going to exist going forward. I would be very surprised to see it stay in the Daemons codex in its current form, if they were going to do that, they wouldn't have removed it from the DG and TS books.

Maybe, but it only ever existed in DG/TS/CSM as "reminder text" anyways and resulted in weird errors at times like DG nurglings being iirc 19ppm while daemons nurglings were 21ppm... even though nurglings from the DG book existed 100% as reminder text that, hey, nurglings exist and can be summoned... and couldn't be taken in any way shape or form in a DG detachment.

So I think they're forgoing all of that confusion and keeping daemons and daemon rules (which Daemonic ritual always was) entirely within the Daemons codex where they belong, and no longer doing the "reminder text" in other books.

If anything I'd expect summoning to get an overhaul like it did in Sigmar. God knows summoning in its current state isn't worth a damn.

Rihgu wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
It used to be in the TS and DG books too, it isn't any more. They can still do it, but it's been removed from their books, which suggests that GW doesn't see it as something that's going to exist going forward. I would be very surprised to see it stay in the Daemons codex in its current form, if they were going to do that, they wouldn't have removed it from the DG and TS books.

Maybe, but it only ever existed in DG/TS/CSM as "reminder text" anyways and resulted in weird errors at times like DG nurglings being iirc 19ppm while daemons nurglings were 21ppm... even though nurglings from the DG book existed 100% as reminder text that, hey, nurglings exist and can be summoned... and couldn't be taken in any way shape or form in a DG detachment.

So I think they're forgoing all of that confusion and keeping daemons and daemon rules (which Daemonic ritual always was) entirely within the Daemons codex where they belong, and no longer doing the "reminder text" in other books.

It wasn't reminder text any more than DttFE was.



And this no longer exists:



You might still be able to do it, but it is at the awful base version and in no way does the book tie into Tzeentch Daemons in a meaningful way.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
If anything I'd expect summoning to get an overhaul like it did in Sigmar. God knows summoning in its current state isn't worth a damn.

Haha, about the only possible way to make it worse would be to give it the AOS treatment.

So yeah, that's probably what's goin to happen.

I'm amused by summoning. They had it balanced pretty correctly in 7th (almost unique for things released in 7th) where you didn't have to pay extra for the new models but it also took a huge investment in psychic dice to actually summon anything so it was more of a flexible niche tool that had a role but couldn't snowball and drown the table in demons (before you give me your horror-stories I played the summon-spam list some in 7th, and if you tell me that you actually snowballed and drowned the board in daemons I'm going to tell you that you were using loaded dice). And then with Sigmar and 8th both they broke it so badly they're unlikely to ever manage to put it back into a useable state ever again.

Nah, it was only "balanced" in 7th because other factions were running around with gratis Transports (Marines) or bodies (Admech), too. Daemons were one of the few strong armies because they could put down a lot of bodies they didn't even pay for. It wasn't gamebreaking because others got loads of special rules through formations they didn't properly pay for, either. It was gamebreaking against the "have-not"-factions, though.
The summoning mechanic in 8th wasn't bad per se, but gratis units doesn't really work when others have to pay points. In narrative you usually had to houserule it to only few units and in matched there were a few players who used it to have a dynamic list.
Personally I hope it's not gone totally, but returns as a tool to teleport your units, or replenish numbers.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
If anything I'd expect summoning to get an overhaul like it did in Sigmar. God knows summoning in its current state isn't worth a damn.

Haha, about the only possible way to make it worse would be to give it the AOS treatment.

So yeah, that's probably what's goin to happen.

I admittedly don't know much about Sigmar summoning (Sigmar in general really) other than seeing some praise for it being more interesting and useful since it was based on a thematic points system where you earned your summons. Is this understanding off-base?

Depends on the army. Each army has its own summoning mechanic, they vary from largely useless because you'd never spend the points on it vs something better (khorne) to flavorful and around the right power level (beasts of chaos) to extremely stupid and powerful (tzeentch) to so ridiculously powerful that the rest of the book got nerfed into the ground to compensate for it (slaanesh).

If you put BoC-style summoning into 40k that would be fine. But overall the mechanic has been a constant source of balancing headaches and problems in AOS.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I'm amused by summoning. They had it balanced pretty correctly in 7th (almost unique for things released in 7th) where you didn't have to pay extra for the new models but it also took a huge investment in psychic dice to actually summon anything so it was more of a flexible niche tool that had a role but couldn't snowball and drown the table in demons (before you give me your horror-stories I played the summon-spam list some in 7th, and if you tell me that you actually snowballed and drowned the board in daemons I'm going to tell you that you were using loaded dice). And then with Sigmar and 8th both they broke it so badly they're unlikely to ever manage to put it back into a useable state ever again.

Speaking as someone who enjoyed 7th a lot... Summoning was not balanced. Maybe for tournaments it wasn't bad, but for casual games? It was atrocious.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Rihgu wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
It used to be in the TS and DG books too, it isn't any more. They can still do it, but it's been removed from their books, which suggests that GW doesn't see it as something that's going to exist going forward. I would be very surprised to see it stay in the Daemons codex in its current form, if they were going to do that, they wouldn't have removed it from the DG and TS books.

Maybe, but it only ever existed in DG/TS/CSM as "reminder text" anyways and resulted in weird errors at times like DG nurglings being iirc 19ppm while daemons nurglings were 21ppm... even though nurglings from the DG book existed 100% as reminder text that, hey, nurglings exist and can be summoned... and couldn't be taken in any way shape or form in a DG detachment.

So I think they're forgoing all of that confusion and keeping daemons and daemon rules (which Daemonic ritual always was) entirely within the Daemons codex where they belong, and no longer doing the "reminder text" in other books.

It wasn't reminder text any more than DttFE was.

Spoiler:

And this no longer exists:

Spoiler:

You might still be able to do it, but it is at the awful base version and in no way does the book tie into Tzeentch Daemons in a meaningful way.

I mean, the ability isn't on any Thousand Sons units, it's only on units in/from the Codex: Chaos Daemons book, whereas Death to the False Emperor is actually found on Thousand Sons units...

You can not/could not make a <THOUSAND SONS> detachment that includes any units with the Daemonic Ritual rule. Therefore, I personally, cannot classify Daemonic Ritual as a Thousand Sons rule or a meaningful addition to the Thousand Sons codex in any way in the previous or current iteration.

Also, as a note, that version is literally "the awful base version" except instead of CHAOS CHARACTERS it is specifically THOUSAND SONS CHARACTERS and instead of MARK OF CHAOS it's TZEENTCH... so yes I guess the Thousand Sons codex did have a bespoke version of the Daemonic Ritual rule for Chaos Daemon factions, for some reason.

The strat let you roll 4 dice instead of 3 and not suffer any mortals. It made summoning big units a lot more reliable. Still rarely worth using, mind you. But better.

The fact that any and all references to daemon summoning have been completely scrubbed from both the DG and TS codexes strongly suggests they are moving away from it. We'll find out sometime in 2022 I guess.

Rihgu wrote:
Also, as a note, that version is literally "the awful base version" except instead of CHAOS CHARACTERS it is specifically THOUSAND SONS CHARACTERS and instead of MARK OF CHAOS it's TZEENTCH... so yes I guess the Thousand Sons codex did have a bespoke version of the Daemonic Ritual rule for Chaos Daemon factions, for some reason.

The deeper reason for this distinction is that it was used as the basis for yet another conspiracy theory.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I'm amused by summoning. They had it balanced pretty correctly in 7th (almost unique for things released in 7th) where you didn't have to pay extra for the new models but it also took a huge investment in psychic dice to actually summon anything so it was more of a flexible niche tool that had a role but couldn't snowball and drown the table in demons (before you give me your horror-stories I played the summon-spam list some in 7th, and if you tell me that you actually snowballed and drowned the board in daemons I'm going to tell you that you were using loaded dice). And then with Sigmar and 8th both they broke it so badly they're unlikely to ever manage to put it back into a useable state ever again.

I remember taking units of 16 pink horrors to get 3 psychic dice. The nice thing was when they split you would still generate 3 psychic dice. Once you had 20+ dice summoning was easy as cake. Perils were only a minor inconvenience. I went to a "friendly" 1300 point event (150+ players) where I summoned 2k+ worth burning chariots onto the field each game! Nobody could withstand that many lascannon shots!

To say that summoning was balanced in 7th is wrong. It was super broken.

My friends are actually very fond of 7th edition, and I played 30k thousand sons against tzeentch daemons. Summoning was stupid and I don't ever want to fight it again. I think it was far too neutered, though.

JakeSiren wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I'm amused by summoning. They had it balanced pretty correctly in 7th (almost unique for things released in 7th) where you didn't have to pay extra for the new models but it also took a huge investment in psychic dice to actually summon anything so it was more of a flexible niche tool that had a role but couldn't snowball and drown the table in demons (before you give me your horror-stories I played the summon-spam list some in 7th, and if you tell me that you actually snowballed and drowned the board in daemons I'm going to tell you that you were using loaded dice). And then with Sigmar and 8th both they broke it so badly they're unlikely to ever manage to put it back into a useable state ever again.

I remember taking units of 16 pink horrors to get 3 psychic dice. The nice thing was when they split you would still generate 3 psychic dice. Once you had 20+ dice summoning was easy as cake. Perils were only a minor inconvenience. I went to a "friendly" 1300 point event (150+ players) where I summoned 2k+ worth burning chariots onto the field each game! Nobody could withstand that many lascannon shots!

To say that summoning was balanced in 7th is wrong. It was super broken.

...I...guess my experience of my opponents realizing that if they shot the Pink Horrors a lot I couldn't summon much was unusual, then? (Also: Summoning is definitely broken if you hide a bunch of Heralds in a Screamerstar so your opponents can't kill the psychic dice, but that's more of a problem because the rerollable 2++ was broken.)

Summoning is something that should be relegated to something done before the battle as an explanation.

Why do you CSM army has chaos demon? They summoned them

As something to do mid battle will always be unbalanced because the only way to balance summong in a closed game enviroment like 40k is to have specific summoner units that summon specific "summon only" units with a fair point cost for the fist one.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I'm amused by summoning. They had it balanced pretty correctly in 7th (almost unique for things released in 7th) where you didn't have to pay extra for the new models but it also took a huge investment in psychic dice to actually summon anything so it was more of a flexible niche tool that had a role but couldn't snowball and drown the table in demons (before you give me your horror-stories I played the summon-spam list some in 7th, and if you tell me that you actually snowballed and drowned the board in daemons I'm going to tell you that you were using loaded dice). And then with Sigmar and 8th both they broke it so badly they're unlikely to ever manage to put it back into a useable state ever again.

Any psychic list worth its salt succeeded on 2s so you didn't need very many dice to summon huge hordes of daemons.

The problem wasn't that you couldn't bury a table in daemons, the problem was that 3000pts of free bloodletters was nowhere near as powerful as the OTHER things you could do with psychic powers, so daemon summoning was mostly reserved for things like Librarius Conclave+WarCon admech to be used as screens and objective grabbers.

Daemon summoning was broken in 7th too, just not as broken as everything else was.

AoS brought back free-ish summoning (most armies got a secondary currency system they could spend on summons, if it made sense to summon for them lore wise) it immediately broke the game in the opposite direction thanks to Legions of Nagash, Pink Horrors (as is tradition) and Slaanesh all abusing it.

Free summoning is stupid, 40k is better without it.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I'm amused by summoning. They had it balanced pretty correctly in 7th (almost unique for things released in 7th) where you didn't have to pay extra for the new models but it also took a huge investment in psychic dice to actually summon anything so it was more of a flexible niche tool that had a role but couldn't snowball and drown the table in demons (before you give me your horror-stories I played the summon-spam list some in 7th, and if you tell me that you actually snowballed and drowned the board in daemons I'm going to tell you that you were using loaded dice). And then with Sigmar and 8th both they broke it so badly they're unlikely to ever manage to put it back into a useable state ever again.

I remember taking units of 16 pink horrors to get 3 psychic dice. The nice thing was when they split you would still generate 3 psychic dice. Once you had 20+ dice summoning was easy as cake. Perils were only a minor inconvenience. I went to a "friendly" 1300 point event (150+ players) where I summoned 2k+ worth burning chariots onto the field each game! Nobody could withstand that many lascannon shots!

To say that summoning was balanced in 7th is wrong. It was super broken.

...I...guess my experience of my opponents realizing that if they shot the Pink Horrors a lot I couldn't summon much was unusual, then? (Also: Summoning is definitely broken if you hide a bunch of Heralds in a Screamerstar so your opponents can't kill the psychic dice, but that's more of a problem because the rerollable 2++ was broken.)

All I'm getting from your posts is that you never learned how to properly run daemon lists in 7th. It was incredibly trivial to make your army functionally immune to shooting(especially with split making pink horror units nearly impossible to kill) while still having enough dice leftover to reliably summon several hundred points of daemons per turn.

End of 7th edition was basically Daemon Deathstar with some summoning vs Daemon Deathstar with lots of summoning vs Marine Deathstar with some summoning.

 Galas wrote:
Summoning is something that should be relegated to something done before the battle as an explanation.

Why do you CSM army has chaos demon? They summoned them

As something to do mid battle will always be unbalanced because the only way to balance summong in a closed game enviroment like 40k is to have specific summoner units that summon specific "summon only" units with a fair point cost for the fist one.

In the spirit of this opinion. What do people think of the following proposed summoning rule:

Daemon Summoning:
Daemon units included in a detachment that have a mark keyword that matches the mark keyword (Khorne, Slaanesh, Tzeentch, Nurgle) of any characters in that detachment do not remove purity bonuses.

Is this too much? Too little?

Do they still cost points? Because if they are free summoned or based on some mechanic that makes them practically free like the ones for some armies in AoS, them am not sure that it would be balanced. If they cost points, then I guess this is just a mechanic to avoid playing a soup list, and mostly depends on how good the combos are. If taking demons means that suddenly Magnus solos 1000pts of other armies, then it probably would be too powerful. On the other hand if it is just units with no or little synergies, then probably not many people would care. Well asides for people playing the list, of course.

I do wonder whether there should be an option to have 'summoning' points instead of reinforcement points for it and instead of that being the max you can use total it's the most that you can have summoned at any one point.

pothocboots wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Summoning is something that should be relegated to something done before the battle as an explanation.

Why do you CSM army has chaos demon? They summoned them

As something to do mid battle will always be unbalanced because the only way to balance summong in a closed game enviroment like 40k is to have specific summoner units that summon specific "summon only" units with a fair point cost for the fist one.

In the spirit of this opinion. What do people think of the following proposed summoning rule:

Daemon Summoning:
Daemon units included in a detachment that have a mark keyword that matches the mark keyword (Khorne, Slaanesh, Tzeentch, Nurgle) of any characters in that detachment do not remove purity bonuses.

Is this too much? Too little?

that is what i 100% would want yes
Lets me still bring tzeentch demons with my thousand sons.
Removes the janky "do nothing to maybe get to summon what you want" part of the rule



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
Do they still cost points? Because if they are free summoned or based on some mechanic that makes them practically free like the ones for some armies in AoS, them am not sure that it would be balanced. If they cost points, then I guess this is just a mechanic to avoid playing a soup list, and mostly depends on how good the combos are. If taking demons means that suddenly Magnus solos 1000pts of other armies, then it probably would be too powerful. On the other hand if it is just units with no or little synergies, then probably not many people would care. Well asides for people playing the list, of course.

From what i understand of their proposition is that you would include them at listbuilding. So instead of bringing Tzaangors, you'd be able to bring a squad of horrors instead for example, still paying for them

Catulle wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:
Exactly. We've had a 5-page thread on if a Helbrute gets an extra attack. If someone was being that anal about it to me I'd just go "sod it, have your extra attack if it means we can actually play the game".

Look thee not upon YMDC. It is a dreadful place full of bad faith arguments and *exactly the same* three to five posters having *exactly the same* argument until time immemorial. It's worthless for its stated purpose, but it at least acts as a wankery containment zone.

Truer words were never spoken.

pothocboots wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Summoning is something that should be relegated to something done before the battle as an explanation.

Why do you CSM army has chaos demon? They summoned them

As something to do mid battle will always be unbalanced because the only way to balance summong in a closed game enviroment like 40k is to have specific summoner units that summon specific "summon only" units with a fair point cost for the fist one.

In the spirit of this opinion. What do people think of the following proposed summoning rule:

Daemon Summoning:
Daemon units included in a detachment that have a mark keyword that matches the mark keyword (Khorne, Slaanesh, Tzeentch, Nurgle) of any characters in that detachment do not remove purity bonuses.

Is this too much? Too little?

The dream is a Daemonkin Army of Renown that allows you to fully build a CSM/Daemons detachment with the single mark of your choice, but after Belakor I don't think we can trust GW to pull that off well...