There’s a new concept coming to Warhammer 40,000 in 2022 – seasons. They’re a new way to explore the vast setting of the war-torn 41st Millennium in much greater detail.
Each season will last six months, focusing on a different corner of the galaxy and all the fighting that’s happening there – we’ll be witnessing pivotal flashpoints where the outcome of battles will have major consequences for the grim, dark future. Each season will be supported by the release of new miniatures, rules, and more – it’s an exciting time to be a Warhammer 40,000 fan.
We’ve got Stu Black from the Warhammer 40,000 design studio to explain exactly what seasons are and how they’ll work.
The first season returns us to Vigilus,* where the fighting is far from over. The Imperium has a fragile hold on the planet – and therefore the narrow corridor of space that acts as a safe corridor into Imperium Nihilus – but it’s a single speck amidst a rising tide of Chaos.
Your return to War Zone Nachmund** will play out with a new campaign book. Similar to the War Zone Octarius books, it will feature new army rules, including an Army of Renown and a Codex Supplement, along with legendary missions, Crusade rules for fighting on Vigilus, and ways to link your games together in a campaign so you really feel like you’re fighting for control of the gateway to the other half of the galaxy.
Along with the campaign book, there will be a new Crusade mission pack, featuring 24 new missions, extra Requisitions, Agendas and Battle Traits, and a War of Faith campaign system that sees your army casting down false idols and their worshippers for greater rewards from your own deities.
The first season introduces a new Grand Tournament Mission pack, which provides the framework for the next six months of competitive play. There will be new missions, new secondary objectives, and updated points costs for the armies in Warhammer 40,000.
It’s not just the Imperium and Chaos fighting, though – the Aeldari are coming to the party. We revealed the new Eldritch Omens boxed set on Christmas Day, which is also set in the Nachmund Gauntlet.
Behind the scenes, the Nachmund sector is full of special operatives undertaking deadly missions behind enemy lines. Yes, the next Kill Team boxed set will also be set in the Nachmund Gauntlet, and includes two splendid new kill teams.
While I see how this can thematically tie releases together as well as provide more churn for different War Zone releases, I wish there were also some sort of global campaign to tie things together. They just need to make it so that the stakes for the campaign, regardless of any outcome, don't ruin whatever plans they have down the line. Otherwise for example for Vigilus I just personally just feel another sense of "ho hum, I can see the scripted story template already. Chaos attacks. Things look dark. Craftworld Eldar intervene and dispense fortune cookie words of wisdom. Designated Imperial hero of the story rides in with the reinforcements and yet again wins "against the odds" in a altogether expected miracle of the Emperor, and Chaos retreats, shaking their fist and vowing next time."
Things like the old Eye of Terror campaign brought surprises because despite event cards laying out a similar template, player action caused significant divergence from that. Things like the Orks taking over a forge world were not planned for and came about as a result of emergent behavior from the global Ork players.
Cynical me thinks this is just an excuse to churn out rule supplements that are then only accepted by the general player base for 1 season, outside of one's immediate circle of gaming friends.
Not to judge a book by its cover or spoil the story for anyone, but I think Abby settles down as a toll collector overseeing the Nachmund Gauntlet. He gets rich and fat and lives happily ever after, his dream of toppling the Emperor a long distant memory.
"GW is a book company, not a model company," a spokesperson confirmed after we reached out for a statement from Games Workshop. "We know our customers and we know what they want. Market research is otiose in such a niche."
Geifer wrote: Not to judge a book by its cover or spoil the story for anyone, but I think Abby settles down as a toll collector overseeing the Nachmund Gauntlet. He gets rich and fat and lives happily ever after, his dream of toppling the Emperor a long distant memory.
Consistent income in this economy is hard to come by, good on him for finding a good job.
They're as likely as taxes and death sadly. It's an odd one, the vocal competitive chunk of the community wanted objectives and missions reviewing more frequently so this is the natural outcome, but for anyone else I think this is a questionable situation.
Hold up a second, we know Calgar is half dead, there's rumours of a new ultras supplement and a chunky primaris dreadnought. Reckon they'll bump him off into a tumble dryer?
Interesting concept. I guess this is the release avenue for models outside of the Codex release cycle? Unless GW decide to crowbar Tau into Vigilus(to be fair I think they were the only faction that doesn't have forces present or existing plot hooks) But the rules turnover is pretty rapid these days, so my main interest for this is in the background. While I did enjoy that side of the original Vigilus books, the current Warzone supplements(the few I have read) have personally been a bit disappointing on the fluff front.
7th edition: "The game is too bloated!"
8th edition: "OMG GW are listening, I love Nu-GW and 8th is back to basics!"
9th edition: "The game is too bloated!"
10th edition: "OMG GW are listening, I love Nu-GW and 10th is back to basics!"
Dudeface wrote: Hold up a second, we know Calgar is half dead, there's rumours of a new ultras supplement and a chunky primaris dreadnought. Reckon they'll bump him off into a tumble dryer?
Complete with Dreadnought power fists with integrated gatling Demolisher cannons
FFS… moar! Moar money! More books to be sold! More rules to be bloated by in multiple places! More expensive exclusive models! MOAR!
I’m really considering moving on from Warhammer at this point. The churn is getting pretty exhausting to keep up with.
The concept of focusing releases on a zone is pretty cool. Can theme terrain packs, army and kill team releases. However, every 6 months is a lot if it actually impacts tournament rules in a big way.
Privateer press did something similar, and it was terrible, with new theme armies every 6 months, which is not enough time to actually build and play it before it is outdated again.
Platuan4th wrote: GW seeing what works for other more tournament focused game systems/companies and once again completely failing to understand WHY it works for those.
What? Is there more games with this silly amount of rulebooks, supplements. dex etc?
Platuan4th wrote: GW seeing what works for other more tournament focused game systems/companies and once again completely failing to understand WHY it works for those.
What? Is there more games with this silly amount of rulebooks, supplements. dex etc?
This doesn't sound any different from what they've already been doing. It's just different branding. I don't like it, but it's just more of the same of what they've been doing for 9th edition, just with different packaging.
But please don't tell me they're going to release this before the new CSM codex. And are they really recycling the cover from that codex? *spits*
"We really like the updates you make to the game, although paying for a points patch is bad."
"So you like the updates? Ok we'll do a new points patch twice a year rather than once a year!"
"That's... that's not what we meant!"
So season passes now, hey?
"bUt Gw HaVe ChAnGeD! tHeY hAvE a FaCeBoOk PaGe AnD eVeRyThInG!"
i think a healthy plan is to discuss in your group which one of these sectors you want to play out and then get the materials (maybe even between the group). Ignore the next one and just play this one for the rest of the year. I'll probably hop on this simply because I already have the 2 other Vigilus books, have the Risk game with Vigilus map and an interest in Eldar and chaos. Will probably skip the second half book (except match play booklet as we'll probably continue to use that).
Goal is to sell off some of my backlog that I just know I won't get to.
The worst part is the continued bifurcation of rules with the separate Campaign and Crusade book.
The Crusade books are mostly reprints of the 40k rules. There's no justification for their existence as separate products beyond GW wanting to sell yet another bit of DLC.
Every new rule (Crusade, missions, etc.) should be put into the main Campaign book.
p5freak wrote: Did they say anything about a new CSM codex ? No, they didnt. So you will play a campaign with an old codex against eldar with a new codex.
GW has said nothing about a new Craftworlds Codex either but using the magic of my brain, I've deduced that since there's a Battlebox coming both armies will get new Codexes at the same time just like Grey Knights and Tsons, SoB and Drukhari, and Marines and Necrons.
H.B.M.C. wrote: "We really like the updates you make to the game, although paying for a points patch is bad."
"So you like the updates? Ok we'll do a new points patch twice a year rather than once a year!"
"That's... that's not what we meant!"
So season passes now, hey?
"bUt Gw HaVe ChAnGeD! tHeY hAvE a FaCeBoOk PaGe AnD eVeRyThInG!"
Wargaming Tournament Seasons isn't anything new, GW just fails to understand what makes things like Infinity's ITS Seasons work(one of those reasons being free access to season rules and fluff).
Gadzilla666 wrote: This doesn't sound any different from what they've already been doing. It's just different branding. I don't like it, but it's just more of the same of what they've been doing for 9th edition, just with different packaging.
Exactly this. Whatever is new and different here seems exactly the same to me.
I guess the honesty in admitting up front that this pile of random books is only good for six months is new, but... warzone book, crusade book, GT book and points book... yeah. Seen that release pattern multiple times now.
Explicitly twice a year doesn't make that better, or make me want to pay for the pile of bloated garbage.
If each campaign book were to have stuff for all, or close to all, armies in a regiment of renown list or something similar I wouldn't mind. But for a reprint of the usual plus one or two different secondaries, and a new stratagem it's a waste of money.
bullyboy wrote: i think a healthy plan is to discuss in your group which one of these sectors you want to play out and then get the materials (maybe even between the group). Ignore the next one and just play this one for the rest of the year.
Committing to being burned only once a year doesn't seem healthy. An actual healthy plan is to ignore it and just play the game they already sold you. If your group wants to play on vigilius or Nacht-so-gut, Nachoworld or wherever, a kill team box or a half dozen books aren't needed for that.
I have done well so far with 9th in not buying campaign books, not a single Octarius book. Just don't need them really. I have a copy of the new Deathwatch regiment of renown if I choose to use it. I wouldn't mind occasional campign book purchases if the price were reasonable, but these are not.
"Hey kids!"
"I'm not a chi-"
"Do you like our yearly points updates?"
"They're good, but they should be fr-"
"Well now we're doing to do them twice a year!"
"Are they fr-"
"Two Chapter-Approved rules updates per year!"
"So not free..."
"And 6-month seasons!"
"Ok, so more DLC books. Will any of this fix the underlying problems with 9th Edi-"
"A set of 3 books every 6 months, one of which invalidates the previous one!"
"Why are you acting like this is a good thi-"
"It's an exciting time to be a 40K player!"
"No it's a tedious time to be a 40k player."
"Here's a slightly updated Primaris Marine too!"
"That survey you did this year? You didn't learn a fething thing, did you?"
"He can have a power sword now!"
"Yeah ok... I'm done..."
Gadzilla666 wrote: This doesn't sound any different from what they've already been doing. It's just different branding. I don't like it, but it's just more of the same of what they've been doing for 9th edition, just with different packaging.
But please don't tell me they're going to release this before the new CSM codex. And are they really recycling the cover from that codex? *spits*
To be honest in the old days we got minis from other companies t play GW games these days its the other way around for me. Get GW minis to play other games since both main systems just got ridiculously broken with the amount and price of rules. Pass on all of it.
Gadzilla666 wrote: This doesn't sound any different from what they've already been doing. It's just different branding. I don't like it, but it's just more of the same of what they've been doing for 9th edition, just with different packaging.
But please don't tell me they're going to release this before the new CSM codex. And are they really recycling the cover from that codex? *spits*
A codex road map would have been nice.
It would have, but.. honestly I wouldn't share one now either. It isn't clear how far into 2022 the 2021 codexes are pushed, but they've vaguely suggested Tau, GSC and Custodes will keep things 'exciting' for 3-4 months (despite being just 3 books and single special character). Until they sort their book issues out, they don't need to be making new promises.
I guess to play devil's advocate, there are benefits to this warzone/seasons model:
1) Armies without a 9th edition codex (e.g. Tyranids and Guard) or armies with one who are struggling (e.g. necrons) can get rules to give them a boost if needed without having to wait until the next edition.
2) Similarly, armies can get new models without having to wait for a new codex to come round.
3) Points refreshes every 6 months should help to ensure imbalances are addressed more quickly.
Yes, people will say there are more books/rules but GW's counter to that would be 'You don't need the books when playing because you can put the code in the app and the rules will be available on your phone/smart device'.
This model basically seems to fix the main complaints that:
1) Armies have to wait ages for their new rules because it takes a long time to get all the codexes out.
2) Armies have to wait ages for new models because they are typically tied to codex releases.
The only thing you couldn't do digitally is release new models. Unless they wanted to sell some STLs. If you play an army that has not had an updated codex you should feel annoyed. CSM not being updated digitally is so that they can make money later. There is no other explanation.
BrotherGecko wrote: *proceeds to spend $700 on their new custom primaris chapter that is never painted, played or even assembled.*
You appear to be taking this the wrong way...
If you were referring to yourself, "Yeah ok... I'm done..." has been your stance for like 15 years now. But your still here. There are two things you can count on, the sun will rise every morning and HBMC will declare every GW release as the last straw.
I would have preferred the GT mission pack to be once a year, but in the grand scheme of things this isn't a huge deal. Wish t hey would go back to the spiral back though.
Necronmaniac05 wrote: I guess to play devil's advocate, there are benefits to this warzone/seasons model:
1) Armies without a 9th edition codex (e.g. Tyranids and Guard) or armies with one who are struggling (e.g. necrons) can get rules to give them a boost if needed without having to wait until the next edition.
That would require those armies to be the ones included in the warzones. So far, its mostly been armies that just got their codex.
Or really bizarre rules for extremely specific subfactions only.
2) Similarly, armies can get new models without having to wait for a new codex to come round.
Or... they can just release new models. Don't need a new book to be happy with new plastic lictor or Berserkers or whatever.
3) Points refreshes every 6 months should help to ensure imbalances are addressed more quickly.
They've made promises about more quickly addressing imbalances before. Codex FAQs within weeks. And then DE and Ad Mech happened, and they just... didn't address the actual problems.
Stop buying GW products if they make you so unhappy. This isn't a complex equation.
And do the rest of us browsing these threads a huge favor and stop posting in them.
Ah yes, defending poor business practices as usual. I remember you really being a big stan for EA and their terrible releases like Anthem too for whatever reason, so I'm not surprised you're trying to pull the same schtick here. I don't see how constructive criticism of a bad way of releasing rules for warhammer isn't relevant to the topic. Plus you're not the OP or a mod either, so I don't see where you come off trying to tell others what to do.
Its not a poor business practice. It seems to be pretty successful. The average non-legacy complainer on dakka 40k fan seems to love this stuff.
So it is at this point an individual decision to leave the hobby or just don't participate in the things you don't like because GW keeps doing things and people keep buying it.
I don't buy half this crap but complaining to the void isn't changing anything.
Why does GW change direction every year. Like, don't they have a 5-year plan or something? Is not like I'm agaisnt this ideas but it looks like each 1-2 years they are completely changing how they make things. How many FAQs they do, how they do balance patches, the format of chapter approved, etc...
Stop buying GW products if they make you so unhappy. This isn't a complex equation.
And do the rest of us browsing these threads a huge favor and stop posting in them.
Ah yes, defending poor business practices as usual. I remember you really being a big stan for EA and their terrible releases like Anthem too for whatever reason, so I'm not surprised you're trying to pull the same schtick here. I don't see how constructive criticism of a bad way of releasing rules for warhammer isn't relevant to the topic. Plus you're not the OP or a mod either, so I don't see where you come off trying to tell others what to do.
TIL that asking people not to buy products they're not happy with means you are "defending poor business practices". Genuinely impressive mental gymnastics there.
As the OP:
Stop buying GW products if they make you so unhappy. This isn't a complex equation.
BrotherGecko wrote: Its not a poor business practice. It seems to be pretty successful. The average non-legacy complainer on dakka 40k fan seems to love this stuff.
So it is at this point an individual decision to leave the hobby or just don't participate in the things you don't like because GW keeps doing things and people keep buying it.
I don't buy half this crap but complaining to the void isn't changing anything.
Amen. I don't buy many rulebooks like Warzone supplements because I don't play 40k often enough these days to get my money's worth. However clearly some people do get use out of these books or there wouldn't be a market for them. And the profit for those items ends up supporting other more niche products that I might enjoy, like specialist games.
Galas wrote: Why does GW change direction every year. Like, don't they have a 5-year plan or something? Is not like I'm agaisnt this ideas but it looks like each 1-2 years they are completely changing how they make things. How many FAQs they do, how they do balance patches, the format of chapter approved, etc...
They're in uncharted territory in a lot of ways atm so whilst I'm sure they do have a plan, they need to be somewhat agile in approach to keep up with world and market changes.
Stop buying GW products if they make you so unhappy. This isn't a complex equation.
And do the rest of us browsing these threads a huge favor and stop posting in them.
Ah yes, defending poor business practices as usual. I remember you really being a big stan for EA and their terrible releases like Anthem too for whatever reason, so I'm not surprised you're trying to pull the same schtick here. I don't see how constructive criticism of a bad way of releasing rules for warhammer isn't relevant to the topic. Plus you're not the OP or a mod either, so I don't see where you come off trying to tell others what to do.
Whether you like the idea or not, there's merit to both sides of the argument. There's also a lot of very valid criticism to be had of GW and their business practices.
But calling any criticism DAKKA puts out 'constructive' is ridiculous. Arbitrator and HBMC spent almost a whole page of this thread making 'they're going to buy it anyway' jokes and then another half page explaining the jokes because they weren't very well constructed.
If that's 'constructive' criticism, I'd hate to hear what 'inane nonsense' sounds like.
I think GW is losing itself in this frantic pacing. I mean if you are a game designer playing various times a week or attending every tournament ever you might want to try out new rules every 6 months, however for normal people having an army ready to play takes at least 6 months, and squeezing in more than a few games a year can be complicated, specially during a pandemic.
Honestly I have given up trying to have a playable army since late 8th, now I just buy the models I like, give them whatever options I like, not following detachment limits (but keeping in mind old-school force org. charts) etc, and it's the most fun I've had since re-starting the hobby. I'm having quite some fun returning to homebrewed versions of 5th and 8th ed too! I was kinda hoping GW slowed their pacing down (at least rule-wise), not sped it up.
An annual balance patch that you pay for is bad enough, 2 a year is exploitation. And the constantly shifting target that is 40k rules just makes it a nightmare to play unless it's the *only* game you play - which I guess is the intention but that doesn't make me like it
fox-light713 wrote: I'm confused is this an announcement from Games Workshop or Electronic Arts.
This is the standard GW "startin the end of Edition" cycle, making people that still play paying as much as possible before they drop out with 10th anyway and start again with fresh costumers not used to old prices, rules or know what GW is going to do with 11th and 12th
and of course this works and make money, simply because changing your costumers every 2 Editions is an important part to get high sales, as those that stay for 3 won't buy as much as someone who starts fresh (and making all those leave who know what was there in the past helps to keep the new people exited and pay happily the new prices)
Stop buying GW products if they make you so unhappy. This isn't a complex equation.
And do the rest of us browsing these threads a huge favor and stop posting in them.
Ah yes, defending poor business practices as usual. I remember you really being a big stan for EA and their terrible releases like Anthem too for whatever reason, so I'm not surprised you're trying to pull the same schtick here. I don't see how constructive criticism of a bad way of releasing rules for warhammer isn't relevant to the topic. Plus you're not the OP or a mod either, so I don't see where you come off trying to tell others what to do.
Whether you like the idea or not, there's merit to both sides of the argument. There's also a lot of very valid criticism to be had of GW and their business practices.
But calling any criticism DAKKA puts out 'constructive' is ridiculous. Arbitrator and HBMC spent almost a whole page of this thread making 'they're going to buy it anyway' jokes and then another half page explaining the jokes because they weren't very well constructed.
If that's 'constructive' criticism, I'd hate to hear what 'inane nonsense' sounds like.
If those 2 had some influence in gw the CSM units that need to be updated to 2 wounds probably would have been done months ago through an errata or maybe even it would have already been done in the last codex release. All they have to do is list off the unit listing and be like for the folowing units replace 1 wound with 2 wounds. Or ya know a digital codex is so hard to edit, all you got to do is go to the file and change the 1 to a 2 and then upload it to the app files and probably be done in an afternoon worth of work.
Well, I guess I'll just continue to build my lists with battlescribe and let it surprise me how many points or PL they are in the end. Their seasons are definitely too fast for how I'm gaming nowadays (since 40K is only 1 game of about 5 I play). In their survey I did vote for quarterly points updates though, I guess it's a case of "be careful what you wish for" - as usual with GW
It would be nice if GW went to fundamentally free online points and rules. I suspect however they make a fair chunk of change from books like this - and will be exploring how deep that market is.
Personally I think the medium of books is dumb as against a season pass (for all the mockery of the concept it clearly works). These rules should be available in their subscription app.
Which then locks out people who don't like using apps from playing the game.
I don't have a horse in the race of balance patches or whatever else but GW switching to a digital-only ruleset would be a serious misstep.
Gert wrote: Which then locks out people who don't like using apps from playing the game.
I don't have a horse in the race of balance patches or whatever else but GW switching to a digital-only ruleset would be a serious misstep.
Well they could sell paper copies as well - but paper will always cost money.
Gert wrote: Which then locks out people who don't like using apps from playing the game.
I don't have a horse in the race of balance patches or whatever else but GW switching to a digital-only ruleset would be a serious misstep.
Well they could sell paper copies as well - but paper will always cost money.
Serious question:
Do you think the infrastructure setup to do a digital-only rules set is free?
Do you think the infrastructure setup to do a digital-only rules set is free?
I wouldn't say free - but the cost of putting some PDFs on your website that people can download is very low. Far lower than printing and then shipping books for shops all over the globe.
Catulle wrote: I'm unsure where the message that they're going to stop putting points changes into the Codex errata is, though I've only really skimmed. Any help?
The first season introduces a new Grand Tournament Mission pack, which provides the framework for the next six months of competitive play. There will be new missions, new secondary objectives, and updated points costs for the armies in Warhammer 40,000.
They've got the Munitorium points values book hiding behind the GT missions pack as well.
Catulle wrote: I'm unsure where the message that they're going to stop putting points changes into the Codex errata is, though I've only really skimmed. Any help?
The first season introduces a new Grand Tournament Mission pack, which provides the framework for the next six months of competitive play. There will be new missions, new secondary objectives, and updated points costs for the armies in Warhammer 40,000.
They've got the Munitorium points values book hiding behind the GT missions pack as well.
That hasn't stopped the errata remaining updated before, has it? (Genuine question, my history is chiefly BattleScribe and a print of the current errata inside my hardcopy)
Galas wrote: Why does GW change direction every year. Like, don't they have a 5-year plan or something? Is not like I'm agaisnt this ideas but it looks like each 1-2 years they are completely changing how they make things. How many FAQs they do, how they do balance patches, the format of chapter approved, etc...
They're just getting more open and consistent. They've been doing similar things, but with less structure to it. Now we sort of know what to expect.
Catulle wrote: I'm unsure where the message that they're going to stop putting points changes into the Codex errata is, though I've only really skimmed. Any help?
The first season introduces a new Grand Tournament Mission pack, which provides the framework for the next six months of competitive play. There will be new missions, new secondary objectives, and updated points costs for the armies in Warhammer 40,000.
They've got the Munitorium points values book hiding behind the GT missions pack as well.
That hasn't stopped the errata remaining updated before, has it? (Genuine question, my history is chiefly BattleScribe and a print of the current errata inside my hardcopy)
Catulle wrote: I'm unsure where the message that they're going to stop putting points changes into the Codex errata is, though I've only really skimmed. Any help?
The first season introduces a new Grand Tournament Mission pack, which provides the framework for the next six months of competitive play. There will be new missions, new secondary objectives, and updated points costs for the armies in Warhammer 40,000.
They've got the Munitorium points values book hiding behind the GT missions pack as well.
That hasn't stopped the errata remaining updated before, has it? (Genuine question, my history is chiefly BattleScribe and a print of the current errata inside my hardcopy)
Errata has nothing to do with point changes.
...the section header is "Updates and Errata" and contains points changes?
Sometimes they stick random point changes in, yes.
But since 8th, the comprehensive point changes for everyone (except the most recent books) have largely been these little books (lately bundled behind the mission packs)
Though they once did an entire online pdf of point changes screwed up several factions and redid it a month latter. For whatever reason, people remember that one.
Interesting how this is a cool change for crusade gamers and a total extortion racket for matched play gamers.
If you are playing crusade, you read the reviews of the new books and if their content is cool, you buy them, otherwise you don't.
If you are playing matched play, buy the book or go play another game.
Makes me glad that my group moved to the "right" game mode.
I'm just wondering how long they are going to keep up with the narrative books before they run out of steam. Eventually you just don't need more missions, game modes or more fancy rules to staple onto your campaign.
Do you think the infrastructure setup to do a digital-only rules set is free?
I wouldn't say free - but the cost of putting some PDFs on your website that people can download is very low. Far lower than printing and then shipping books for shops all over the globe.
Which they would still have to do so a) gw saves nothing b) you don't get digital books any faster as they would come same time. Gw wonjt dilute first week sales by splitting times. Costs money.
spaceelf wrote: Well, when a company produces a defective product, yes they are required to provide the fix at no cost to consumers.
So if armies, and units are so imbalanced that they need to change the points and or rules, then yes it should be free.
Gw should be happy the fix is cheap.
Define defective. They come with points and are usable without changes indefinitely in most cases. You're asking for a refinement of the functional product, which there is no obligation to provide for free, even if doing so is easy and makes sense.
Interestingly the points changes are free in the app, even for non-subscribers, as long as the codex is registered.
I stopped playing 40k during 7th because of how much of a convoluted mess their rules (diffusion) became... The start of 8th was a momentarily breath of fresh air with a tight ruleset...
And now, only a few years later, things seem to be as bad, if not worse than it ever was during 7th.
I don't go around spamming these forums with negative things to say about 40k or GW generally though. I just stopped buying (or hell, even playing) their stuff for the last half a year...
And the way they are continuing to push ever more expensive books on top of digital subscriptions (for half their rules btw), gives me absolutely zero incentive to change my purchasing habbits.
Platuan4th wrote: GW seeing what works for other more tournament focused game systems/companies and once again completely failing to understand WHY it works for those.
But people love $10 videogame battlepasses? Why wouldn't they love spending $100 on books and building models a certain way for a certain campaign...that will all be totally invalidated in 6 months? Only a crazy person wouldn't be lined up outside Warhammer to preorder that!
So they want to do a twice yearly update... yet they struggle to maintain any rules/errata schedule they have made for darn near any system they produce? What can go wrong.
Platuan4th wrote: GW seeing what works for other more tournament focused game systems/companies and once again completely failing to understand WHY it works for those.
But people love $10 videogame battlepasses? Why wouldn't they love spending $100 on books and building models a certain way for a certain campaign...that will all be totally invalidated in 6 months? Only a crazy person wouldn't be lined up outside Warhammer to preorder that!
Yeah, a video game costs ~$30-60. Companies put out those $10 battlepasses, people moan and pay anyways. M:tG costs... $X to get into, it really depends. But on the low end, you could buy a commander deck for $30. Yeah, if you do standard, then you have the "battlepass"-like effect of rotating cards, but that's optional. On the top end, MtG can be as expensive as 40k but I would say if you compare the median 40k player with the median Magic player, the median Magic player is spending more.
...then, 40k. Barrier of entry is an order of magnitude higher for 40k than it is for Magic (you could argue KT is cheap enough, but a) you need to get all the rules, and b) it's a totally different game from 40k proper in a way that EDH/draft/Pauper are not versus "regular magic"). You get rules that haven't been playtested, and now GW is just formalizing the fact that you have to pay extra to get them fixed!
I try not to whinge so much about GW on Dakka, I know there's enough of it. But this really is so stupid and tone deaf. It is incredible how successful GW is in spite of itself. That melange of IP really is worth way more than its weight in gold...
spaceelf wrote: Well, when a company produces a defective product, yes they are required to provide the fix at no cost to consumers.
So if armies, and units are so imbalanced that they need to change the points and or rules, then yes it should be free.
Gw should be happy the fix is cheap.
A great example of twisting something to fit your point of view. An imbalanced unit/army is not defective in fact some might argue it is the opposite it is effective (very effective!) and balance is subjective in most cases. I wonder what people WOULD pay for?I mean all i hear is people demanding stuff should be free!
They can churn out books like crazy........except for the codexes armies desperately need. I literally don't understand the point of things like the cadian rules update in one of the recent warzone books when imperial guard don't have their own book. What about the other thousands of guard players that don't play cadian? Tough luck bud, play another army?
Practically everyone I know plays something else or just does the painting because man whoever is in charge of 40k just does not know how to make games. Gotta give props to Phil Kelly for not having this nonsense in Age of Sigmar.
H.B.M.C. wrote: The worst part is the continued bifurcation of rules with the separate Campaign and Crusade book.
The Crusade books are mostly reprints of the 40k rules. There's no justification for their existence as separate products beyond GW wanting to sell yet another bit of DLC.
Every new rule (Crusade, missions, etc.) should be put into the main Campaign book.
I have no idea why this content justifies two separate books other than "GW likes money"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fergie0044 wrote: Please don't turn out to be some video game style battle pass...
No, this is much, much worse. Video game battlepasses are $10-20 and your skins are still useful after the fact. I still use Dota cosmetics from the 2017 battlepass. These books will run you $100+. You think you'll be able to get a group together to play this campaign 5 years from now? You'll be lucky if it's even remotely compatible with the basic rules of the game by then.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galas wrote: Why does GW change direction every year. Like, don't they have a 5-year plan or something? Is not like I'm agaisnt this ideas but it looks like each 1-2 years they are completely changing how they make things. How many FAQs they do, how they do balance patches, the format of chapter approved, etc...
GW board is like the imaginary commander giving you maelstrom missions on the radio.
Practically everyone I know plays something else or just does the painting because man whoever is in charge of 40k just does not know how to make games. Gotta give props to Phil Kelly for not having this nonsense in Age of Sigmar.
Are you sure??? Remember this year AoS players lost free digital warscrolls. So I wouldnt be so confident that this wont be crawling into AoS aswell.
Gert wrote: Which then locks out people who don't like using apps from playing the game.
I don't have a horse in the race of balance patches or whatever else but GW switching to a digital-only ruleset would be a serious misstep.
I have literally never heard a single person say that they should go only digital and never print another book. We just want them to upload the same file they send to the printer anyway to their webstore so we have it as an OPTION, and then pay an intern with a basic knowledge of computers to update it when the FAQ comes out.
Gert wrote: Which then locks out people who don't like using apps from playing the game.
I don't have a horse in the race of balance patches or whatever else but GW switching to a digital-only ruleset would be a serious misstep.
Well they could sell paper copies as well - but paper will always cost money.
Serious question:
Do you think the infrastructure setup to do a digital-only rules set is free?
They already have the infrastructure. How do you think you get digital access to the rules by inputting a code from your codex?
Gert wrote: Which then locks out people who don't like using apps from playing the game. I don't have a horse in the race of balance patches or whatever else but GW switching to a digital-only ruleset would be a serious misstep.
I have literally never heard a single person say that they should go only digital and never print another book.
They should go only digital and never print another book. No, seriously.
A rapidly changing set of rules has no business being printed on paper.
And for those who desperately want their book? Even today there are service providers where you can upload a PDF and you get a freshly printed book sent to your home for less than what any of GW's books are today.
I have literally never heard a single person say that they should go only digital and never print another book. We just want them to upload the same file they send to the printer anyway to their webstore so we have it as an OPTION, and then pay an intern with a basic knowledge of computers to update it when the FAQ comes out.
And to build on this -- GW should release new rules when the digital rules are ready, not when all the books have made their way to all the locales. Hell, that point is kind of moot anyways because with the supply chain crunch, at least half the time, I can't get the books at my LGS anyways. But in any case, you don't have to box out the physical-only people, but you shouldn't hamstring the game for them either.
Jidmah wrote: Interesting how this is a cool change for crusade gamers and a total extortion racket for matched play gamers.
If you are playing crusade, you read the reviews of the new books and if their content is cool, you buy them, otherwise you don't.
If you are playing matched play, buy the book or go play another game.
Makes me glad that my group moved to the "right" game mode.
I'm just wondering how long they are going to keep up with the narrative books before they run out of steam. Eventually you just don't need more missions, game modes or more fancy rules to staple onto your campaign.
Pictured that way it's a way for GW to extract a fee from all the non-GW tournament players: Do you want your latest point values for Alaskacon? Pay us!!!!!!11111 (twirls mustache)
zend wrote: Color me spoiled, I now get free books from GW more often than ever.
Thanks GW!
Yar matey, them freebooter orks do the emperors blessed subjects a good service. Some of the odd books I've wanted ( mostly oop ) are nice to have in simple pdf on my pc.
Gert wrote: Which then locks out people who don't like using apps from playing the game.
I don't have a horse in the race of balance patches or whatever else but GW switching to a digital-only ruleset would be a serious misstep.
I have literally never heard a single person say that they should go only digital and never print another book. We just want them to upload the same file they send to the printer anyway to their webstore so we have it as an OPTION, and then pay an intern with a basic knowledge of computers to update it when the FAQ comes out.
Gert wrote: Which then locks out people who don't like using apps from playing the game.
I don't have a horse in the race of balance patches or whatever else but GW switching to a digital-only ruleset would be a serious misstep.
Well they could sell paper copies as well - but paper will always cost money.
Serious question:
Do you think the infrastructure setup to do a digital-only rules set is free?
They already have the infrastructure. How do you think you get digital access to the rules by inputting a code from your codex?
Oh, look, 84 digital rulebooks still published and sold by GW. This is a thing they could easily do, they've just specifically, deliberately chosen not to.
Any setup costs are long done and paid for, over a decade ago, if not more.
Paying $50 CAD every six months for a rules update and mission refresh is OK as long as they ****ing ring-bound the book like the first GT2020 Mission Pack. That book made sense. Additionally, incorporate the FAQs etc into the rules included and I will send a tip.
When I first starting reading the thread I thought I would have to buy Crusade rules as part of the whole package. Phew! The GT 2020 and GT 2021 books sold out here, while you could make a fort out of the unsold Crusade books (and Campaign books) at my FLGS.
To be honest, spending $100 CAD annually to have things refreshed is fine as long as we don't have another Psychic Awakening...
At this point I don't understand how people getting into this game can even come close to digesting the rules, the lore, and the current meta in order to build paint and field an army.
This is potentially a good idea, if it was a once a year thing that lasted for four months. As of now, it just blatently appears to me to be a short sighted way to get more money out of your players while rapidly burning them out.
Gert wrote: Which then locks out people who don't like using apps from playing the game.
I don't have a horse in the race of balance patches or whatever else but GW switching to a digital-only ruleset would be a serious misstep.
I have literally never heard a single person say that they should go only digital and never print another book.
They should go only digital and never print another book. No, seriously.
A rapidly changing set of rules has no business being printed on paper.
And for those who desperately want their book? Even today there are service providers where you can upload a PDF and you get a freshly printed book sent to your home for less than what any of GW's books are today.
As someone who prefers printed products, at this point these books aren't even worth the paper they're printed on. Just create a living ruleset on phones and tablets...
CMLR wrote: GW really want their playerbase to start playing AoS, until they start doing the same to them.
Wish to be a LotR player right now.
The $ per page of standard rules for LotR is pretty high, each book only gives you a handful of pages you can use in regular/pick-up/tournament games (or probably more accurately, it's been declining over the course of time.
7th edition: "The game is too bloated!"
8th edition: "OMG GW are listening, I love Nu-GW and 8th is back to basics!"
9th edition: "The game is too bloated!"
10th edition: "OMG GW are listening, I love Nu-GW and 10th is back to basics!"
You forgot the transition from 3rd to 4th (or was it 4th to 5th?), where we got rid of all the White Dwarfs we were carrying around for the extra rules in them (Minor Psychic Powers, anyone?) and streamlined down to fairly simple codexes before starting to build up again.
Practically everyone I know plays something else or just does the painting because man whoever is in charge of 40k just does not know how to make games. Gotta give props to Phil Kelly for not having this nonsense in Age of Sigmar.
Are you sure??? Remember this year AoS players lost free digital warscrolls. So I wouldnt be so confident that this wont be crawling into AoS aswell.
Oh, wow. I didn't realize they'd pull the AoS warscrolls off the mini's pages. Glad I got copies before they went all humbug on giving out free stuff. That's just lousy of them to pull those.
CMLR wrote: GW really want their playerbase to start playing AoS, until they start doing the same to them.
Wish to be a LotR player right now.
The $ per page of standard rules for LotR is pretty high, each book only gives you a handful of pages you can use in regular/pick-up/tournament games (or probably more accurately, it's been declining over the course of time.
Although it's true that the supplements only add a few new profiles/army lists each, for the time being the vast majority of armies will require only the core rulebook and a single book for your army's profiles (the latter of which also covers a dozen other armies, thus requiring few additional purchases if expanding your collection), and that's it. And those books have retained their full value (the supplements expand, instead of replace) for about 3.5 years now, with a good few years of life left in them too (something that really shouldn't be as unusual as it is...). Plus, it even appears to be written with the idea of making a good, stable game, rather than something that'll be thrown out after a year of use anyway...
Practically everyone I know plays something else or just does the painting because man whoever is in charge of 40k just does not know how to make games. Gotta give props to Phil Kelly for not having this nonsense in Age of Sigmar.
Are you sure??? Remember this year AoS players lost free digital warscrolls. So I wouldnt be so confident that this wont be crawling into AoS aswell.
Oh, wow. I didn't realize they'd pull the AoS warscrolls off the mini's pages. Glad I got copies before they went all humbug on giving out free stuff. That's just lousy of them to pull those.
They pulled them off the pages because they're available for free through the App and they want people to use that instead.
CMLR wrote: GW really want their playerbase to start playing AoS, until they start doing the same to them.
Wish to be a LotR player right now.
The $ per page of standard rules for LotR is pretty high, each book only gives you a handful of pages you can use in regular/pick-up/tournament games (or probably more accurately, it's been declining over the course of time.
The MESBG supplements tend to cover very specific periods/armies which probably won't be seeing another splat book for a long time, if ever. At least if you buy an MESBG supplement you can be pretty confident you'll be getting a long use out of it. They're more comparable to setting books from something like Bolt Action (there's only so many Omaha books you can get away with).
7th edition: "The game is too bloated!"
8th edition: "OMG GW are listening, I love Nu-GW and 8th is back to basics!"
9th edition: "The game is too bloated!"
10th edition: "OMG GW are listening, I love Nu-GW and 10th is back to basics!"
You forgot the transition from 3rd to 4th (or was it 4th to 5th?), where we got rid of all the White Dwarfs we were carrying around for the extra rules in them (Minor Psychic Powers, anyone?) and streamlined down to fairly simple codexes before starting to build up again.
first halve of 3rd edition: core armies are too weak compared to those with a Codex pls update them
2nd halve of 3rd edition: powercreep is real!
4th Edition: GW is listening and get the stuff back in line, and they are releasing the mini-supplements for fluff armies
2nd halve of 4th: GW needs to do Erratas to update similar units, it cannot be that a Marine Rocket Launcher has different rules for different chapters
5th: GW is listening and finally get their stuff together
2nd halve of 5th: WTF are you doing?
6th: WTF are you doing?
7th: this could have been an Errata for 6th, but finally GW is listening
2nd halve of 7th: see quote above
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Huh. I thought biannual meant every 2 years like bimonthly.
But in fact it means twice a year.
Biennial means every 2 years.
English sucks sometimes.
English Words may suck sometimes, but it's a way better game than 40k. Because when the Word People occasionally release a new edition of their Book of Words, unlike GW's new editions the new Book of Words doesn't throw out half of the old words and replace them with a random combination of new, antiquated and foreign words just to sell new books. It's wild how a Book of Words released this year is like 99% in line with a Book of Words released twenty years ago, or forty years ago. It's a very inexpensive game to maintain compared to new, partially incompatible editions of 40k released every three years.
The Word People also don't release Book of Words supplements every half year to make you learn about all those new words people use that seem like English Words, but really aren't. Probably because Book of Words: English Words But Not! supplements would just be compilations of house rules, and we all know how deeply distrustful parts of the English Words player base are of house rules and how they insist that everyone only uses words straight out of the Book of Words. House rules like that are only ever made official in a new edition of the Book of Words after years of thorough playtesting. We could only wish for that kind of prudence from GW.
Although English is far more long lived than 40k, and generally a safe game to get into, it's not perfect. The Word People cannot dismiss practical considerations any more than GW's designers. Even in English, a number of words are eventually rotated out of the game and put in a legacy category, like Legends for 40k, that effectively sees them removed from the game. English is similar to 40k in that you are well advised to invest in a collection rather than a build, so as not to get too attached to any single game piece and sound like a grognard when you tell the youngsters that English used to be real gay back in your day, but these days it has lost much of its excitement.
Sorry to come into a 40k thread and talk about the virtues of a different game. If you like 40k despite its flaws, I can totally respect that. Have fun in whichever way you like. I just want to highlight that there are alternative games out there that are fun, inexpensive and don't leave you disenfranchised after coming back from a break of a couple of years. Doesn't have to be English Words either. There's a fair few fun games out there to choose from.
CMLR wrote: GW really want their playerbase to start playing AoS, until they start doing the same to them.
Wish to be a LotR player right now.
The $ per page of standard rules for LotR is pretty high, each book only gives you a handful of pages you can use in regular/pick-up/tournament games (or probably more accurately, it's been declining over the course of time.
Then again need to have anything but core book and army book is pretty darn low.
I get irrationally irritated every time someone refers to a 40K book as “DLC”. It reminds me how annoyed I was when they stopped doing digital releases for their main systems. These book are literally not downloadable!
7th edition: "The game is too bloated!"
8th edition: "OMG GW are listening, I love Nu-GW and 8th is back to basics!"
9th edition: "The game is too bloated!"
10th edition: "OMG GW are listening, I love Nu-GW and 10th is back to basics!"
You forgot the transition from 3rd to 4th (or was it 4th to 5th?), where we got rid of all the White Dwarfs we were carrying around for the extra rules in them (Minor Psychic Powers, anyone?) and streamlined down to fairly simple codexes before starting to build up again.
Nothing beats the start of 3rd though... all your codex rules for every faction (except Squats of course!) in the back of the rulebook. That was slimmed down! For a month or two.
Sledgehammer wrote: As someone who prefers printed products, at this point these books aren't even worth the paper they're printed on. Just create a living ruleset on phones and tablets...
Good news, the app updates points and rules automatically!
Sledgehammer wrote: As someone who prefers printed products, at this point these books aren't even worth the paper they're printed on. Just create a living ruleset on phones and tablets...
Good news, the app updates points and rules automatically!
This is very much my thought when people complain about all these books. Like, i just stick the code in the app and then the book goes on the shelf.
spaceelf wrote: Well, when a company produces a defective product, yes they are required to provide the fix at no cost to consumers.
So if armies, and units are so imbalanced that they need to change the points and or rules, then yes it should be free.
Gw should be happy the fix is cheap.
Define defective. They come with points and are usable without changes indefinitely in most cases. You're asking for a refinement of the functional product, which there is no obligation to provide for free, even if doing so is easy and makes sense.
Interestingly the points changes are free in the app, even for non-subscribers, as long as the codex is registered.
GW regularly produces defective products. An example are rules that are ambiguous.
I would argue that a game is defective if it is sufficiently imbalanced. In some cases a "player" does not even get to play, as their opponent wins on turn 1.
Changes that GW makes to the game, such as releasing new armies, etc. have an effect on the functioning of the game. If they break the game then I believe that they have an obligation to fix it for free.
spaceelf wrote: Well, when a company produces a defective product, yes they are required to provide the fix at no cost to consumers.
So if armies, and units are so imbalanced that they need to change the points and or rules, then yes it should be free.
Gw should be happy the fix is cheap.
Define defective. They come with points and are usable without changes indefinitely in most cases. You're asking for a refinement of the functional product, which there is no obligation to provide for free, even if doing so is easy and makes sense.
Interestingly the points changes are free in the app, even for non-subscribers, as long as the codex is registered.
GW regularly produces defective products. An example are rules that are ambiguous.
I would argue that a game is defective if it is sufficiently imbalanced. In some cases a "player" does not even get to play, as their opponent wins on turn 1.
Changes that GW makes to the game, such as releasing new armies, etc. have an effect on the functioning of the game. If they break the game then I believe that they have an obligation to fix it for free.
Define "breaking the game", because there isn't a yardstick for what that is, when it kicks in or who it impacts.
In the event of your example of turn 1 winning armies, they have actually stopped those, for free.
The only fix you're charged for in reality is new missions. But if they're new, I'd argue it's not a fix again.
Sledgehammer wrote: As someone who prefers printed products, at this point these books aren't even worth the paper they're printed on. Just create a living ruleset on phones and tablets...
Good news, the app updates points and rules automatically!
Yeah, pity you still have to order a phisycal book to access them though.
Sledgehammer wrote: As someone who prefers printed products, at this point these books aren't even worth the paper they're printed on. Just create a living ruleset on phones and tablets...
Good news, the app updates points and rules automatically!
Yeah, pity you still have to order a phisycal book to access them though.
Just your codex. Once you have that, the rest is free.
Also Forces mentioned are: Imperial Guard, SoB, Mechanicus, SM, Imperial agents of light and dark, a living saint and shadowy inquisitor, GSC, Orks, as well as CSM, Chaos cultist and daemons.
This is awesome news. Campaign and scenario play is by faaarrrr the best way to play 40k, so regularly scheduled piles of new missions and fun stuff is everything I've always wanted.
Also Forces mentioned are: Imperial Guard, SoB, Mechanicus, SM, Imperial agents of light and dark, a living saint and shadowy inquisitor, GSC, Orks, as well as CSM, Chaos cultist and daemons.
Interesting that Chaos Cultists are mentioned separately from Heretic Astartes. Hmmm......
Also Forces mentioned are: Imperial Guard, SoB, Mechanicus, SM, Imperial agents of light and dark, a living saint and shadowy inquisitor, GSC, Orks, as well as CSM, Chaos cultist and daemons.
I can't quite identify the chaos chap between the fiend and the front most intercessor either, maybe a radical?
Edit: think it's the sorcerer but at a junky angle that makes the glowy bit fit the shoulder.
7th edition: "The game is too bloated!"
8th edition: "OMG GW are listening, I love Nu-GW and 8th is back to basics!"
9th edition: "The game is too bloated!"
10th edition: "OMG GW are listening, I love Nu-GW and 10th is back to basics!"
You forgot the transition from 3rd to 4th (or was it 4th to 5th?), where we got rid of all the White Dwarfs we were carrying around for the extra rules in them (Minor Psychic Powers, anyone?) and streamlined down to fairly simple codexes before starting to build up again.
Nothing beats the start of 3rd though... all your codex rules for every faction (except Squats of course!) in the back of the rulebook. That was slimmed down! For a month or two.
They came close with indexes for 8th. But then everyone pissed on about how bland things were (hint: insane variability in unit/combos makes balance effectively impossible) like they did with 3rd back of the book forces.
So what exactly is this campaign about? I haven't been keeping up on the advancing plotline. If Abaddon takes this Vigilus planet he'll control the only stable corridor through the warp storm and the Imperium will be even more doomed than the last time that happened? I'm glad they advanced the plot so we can get these new and compelling narratives.
Abadabadoobaddon wrote: So what exactly is this campaign about? I haven't been keeping up on the advancing plotline. If Abaddon takes this Vigilus planet he'll control the only stable corridor through the warp storm and the Imperium will be even more doomed than the last time that happened? I'm glad they advanced the plot so we can get these new and compelling narratives.
Yep. Its another 'return to sender' piece of post warp rift history. Remember Dark Imperium (8th), launched at the end of the Indomitus Crusade, 100 years after everything went kersplat. GW for no apparent decided they really needed to actually tell that story and restarted the narrative back at the beginning of Indomitus.
Now maybe the Imps won the first battle of Vigilus and this is round 2 to wrest it away (or possibly, with the retcon, that was round 2 and this is actually round 1), but mostly it doesn't matter. <Planet> is attacked by <various factions>, and <factions> have to be in control or <things> happen. Stay tuned for Warzone Hupperdook, where <factions> on <planet> fight for <other things>, and Vigilus will once again be a vague memory of nothing at all.
Necronmaniac05 wrote: Well, there is an inference that the outcome of each season will have implications for the story going forward. So, we will see where that goes.
What if we all just agree to have the Space Marine players lose everytime?
Necronmaniac05 wrote: Well, there is an inference that the outcome of each season will have implications for the story going forward. So, we will see where that goes.
Yep. if the Imperium loses control of Vigilus, they lose controlled access to Imperium Nihilus, which implies lots of rocks fall, lots of people die (maybe including Dante, since he is/was/will be in charge over there, after Roboute comes/came/will come to clean up that whole tyranid invasion after the Indomitus Crusade). So... they won't lose so the plot can happen and the game doesn't end in 'rocks fall, everyone dies.' Story!
CMLR wrote: GW really want their playerbase to start playing AoS, until they start doing the same to them.
Wish to be a LotR player right now.
The $ per page of standard rules for LotR is pretty high, each book only gives you a handful of pages you can use in regular/pick-up/tournament games (or probably more accurately, it's been declining over the course of time.
The MESBG supplements tend to cover very specific periods/armies which probably won't be seeing another splat book for a long time, if ever. At least if you buy an MESBG supplement you can be pretty confident you'll be getting a long use out of it. They're more comparable to setting books from something like Bolt Action (there's only so many Omaha books you can get away with).
Necronmaniac05 wrote: Well, there is an inference that the outcome of each season will have implications for the story going forward. So, we will see where that goes.
What if we all just agree to have the Space Marine players lose everytime?
They will find a creative way to get Imperium being rescued somehow. Just like the Eye of terror campaign where Chaos stomped the Imperium yet they only achieved a minor victory.
Necronmaniac05 wrote: Well, there is an inference that the outcome of each season will have implications for the story going forward. So, we will see where that goes.
Yep. if the Imperium loses control of Vigilus, they lose controlled access to Imperium Nihilus, which implies lots of rocks fall, lots of people die (maybe including Dante, since he is/was/will be in charge over there, after Roboute comes/came/will come to clean up that whole tyranid invasion after the Indomitus Crusade). So... they won't lose so the plot can happen and the game doesn't end in 'rocks fall, everyone dies.' Story!
How else are we supposed to get to Age of Guilliman?
Necronmaniac05 wrote: Well, there is an inference that the outcome of each season will have implications for the story going forward. So, we will see where that goes.
What if we all just agree to have the Space Marine players lose everytime?
They will find a creative way to get Imperium being rescued somehow. Just like the Eye of terror campaign where Chaos stomped the Imperium yet they only achieved a minor victory.
I choose to interpret this as meaning BFG will return and play an active part in the season results.
Suddenly I'm okay with these books.
Necronmaniac05 wrote: Well, there is an inference that the outcome of each season will have implications for the story going forward. So, we will see where that goes.
What if we all just agree to have the Space Marine players lose everytime?
They will find a creative way to get Imperium being rescued somehow. Just like the Eye of terror campaign where Chaos stomped the Imperium yet they only achieved a minor victory.
I choose to interpret this as meaning BFG will return and play an active part in the season results.
Suddenly I'm okay with these books.
Honestly the would be cool to make space combat effect the campaigns
Necronmaniac05 wrote: Well, there is an inference that the outcome of each season will have implications for the story going forward. So, we will see where that goes.
Yep. if the Imperium loses control of Vigilus, they lose controlled access to Imperium Nihilus, which implies lots of rocks fall, lots of people die (maybe including Dante, since he is/was/will be in charge over there, after Roboute comes/came/will come to clean up that whole tyranid invasion after the Indomitus Crusade). So... they won't lose so the plot can happen and the game doesn't end in 'rocks fall, everyone dies.' Story!
How else are we supposed to get to Age of Guilliman?
I mean, that's fine as a concept (they could do some interesting things if the Imperium goes factional).
Its just that I hope people realize that when the WarCom article says this:
Each season will last six months, focusing on a different corner of the galaxy and all the fighting that’s happening there – we’ll be witnessing pivotal flashpoints where the outcome of battles will have major consequences for the grim, dark future.
It means that GW's narrative will have (probably light) story consequences that they will write later (or are already), not that players will send in results and GW will change things depending on how various factions do in those results. That isn't happening.
A random new character will be introduced and die, a hither-to unnamed chapter or craftworld will get blown up and Xenos A will be distracted by a widening conflict with Xenos B, so can't eat the sector or whatever. Not... Chaos players won 1000 battles so Fenris gets blown up, Perturabo is unlocked or something like that.
Abadabadoobaddon wrote: So what exactly is this campaign about? I haven't been keeping up on the advancing plotline. If Abaddon takes this Vigilus planet he'll control the only stable corridor through the warp storm and the Imperium will be even more doomed than the last time that happened? I'm glad they advanced the plot so we can get these new and compelling narratives.
Yep. Its another 'return to sender' piece of post warp rift history. Remember Dark Imperium (8th), launched at the end of the Indomitus Crusade, 100 years after everything went kersplat. GW for no apparent decided they really needed to actually tell that story and restarted the narrative back at the beginning of Indomitus.
Now maybe the Imps won the first battle of Vigilus and this is round 2 to wrest it away (or possibly, with the retcon, that was round 2 and this is actually round 1), but mostly it doesn't matter. <Planet> is attacked by <various factions>, and <factions> have to be in control or <things> happen. Stay tuned for Warzone Hupperdook, where <factions> on <planet> fight for <other things>, and Vigilus will once again be a vague memory of nothing at all.
Remember the first time they had a worldwide campaign to determine whether Abaddon would conquer The Only Stable Route Through The Warp Storm? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
Then they retconned the results and rewound the timeline to before Chaos won because otherwise the Imperium would be toast! But then they advanced the timeline and Chaos won and the Imperium wasn't toast! But then there's this other planet that's The Only Stable Route Through The Warp Storm and if Abaddon wins the Imperium will be toast! And they may or may not have already retconned the results of this one, I guess we'll see. Man I haven't been this excited since The Force Awakens.
Necronmaniac05 wrote: Well, there is an inference that the outcome of each season will have implications for the story going forward. So, we will see where that goes.
Yep. if the Imperium loses control of Vigilus, they lose controlled access to Imperium Nihilus, which implies lots of rocks fall, lots of people die (maybe including Dante, since he is/was/will be in charge over there, after Roboute comes/came/will come to clean up that whole tyranid invasion after the Indomitus Crusade). So... they won't lose so the plot can happen and the game doesn't end in 'rocks fall, everyone dies.' Story!
How else are we supposed to get to Age of Guilliman?
I mean, that's fine as a concept (they could do some interesting things if the Imperium goes factional).
Its just that I hope people realize that when the WarCom article says this:
Each season will last six months, focusing on a different corner of the galaxy and all the fighting that’s happening there – we’ll be witnessing pivotal flashpoints where the outcome of battles will have major consequences for the grim, dark future.
It means that GW's narrative will have (probably light) story consequences that they will write later (or are already), not that players will send in results and GW will change things depending on how various factions do in those results. That isn't happening.
A random new character will be introduced and die, a hither-to unnamed chapter or craftworld will get blown up and Xenos A will be distracted by a widening conflict with Xenos B, so can't eat the sector or whatever. Not... Chaos players won 1000 battles so Fenris gets blown up, Perturabo is unlocked or something like that.
I was actually referring to GW taking a 'rocks fall, everybody dies' approach to the story to move to a new setting in which Bobby is now God-Emperor*. I remember keenly how the Storm of Chaos went down in 2004, and how badly it went for Archaon. If they had intended for the results to dictate the story, Archaon would've been turned into a spawn; instead, they hand-waved it away and di a whole do-over with the End Times.
*Of course, one could argue that's already happened...
Manfred von Drakken wrote: I was actually referring to GW taking a 'rocks fall, everybody dies' approach to the story...
I think you'll find it was 'Blackstone Fortress falls, everybody dies, and it was my plan all along for my BSF to be destroyed and then crash into Cadia...' approach.
It’s a shame the 40k universe isn’t like the real universe, infinitely large where anything is possible. Instead it’s entire future depends on fighting in a localised area, with cliche results and it never matters what’s happening now, it’s only what these events lead up to that matters. Only what it leads up to turns out to be just disappointing gak.
What exactly is it GW is rushing towards with their advancing timeline? Do they realise the journey to get there is equally important? Or do they think plot advancement is something they can just fart out to appease the plot advancement crowd without actually understanding what that means? Once you advance you can’t stop advancing, you can’t wind back. All the cool gak you could have done is now wasted opportunity.
7th edition: "The game is too bloated!"
8th edition: "OMG GW are listening, I love Nu-GW and 8th is back to basics!"
9th edition: "The game is too bloated!"
10th edition: "OMG GW are listening, I love Nu-GW and 10th is back to basics!"
You forgot the transition from 3rd to 4th (or was it 4th to 5th?), where we got rid of all the White Dwarfs we were carrying around for the extra rules in them (Minor Psychic Powers, anyone?) and streamlined down to fairly simple codexes before starting to build up again.
Nothing beats the start of 3rd though... all your codex rules for every faction (except Squats of course!) in the back of the rulebook. That was slimmed down! For a month or two.
They came close with indexes for 8th. But then everyone pissed on about how bland things were (hint: insane variability in unit/combos makes balance effectively impossible) like they did with 3rd back of the book forces.
Well complains were irrelevant. Large pile of codexes were done pre-rulebook released.
Geifer wrote: Not to judge a book by its cover or spoil the story for anyone, but I think Abby settles down as a toll collector overseeing the Nachmund Gauntlet. He gets rich and fat and lives happily ever after, his dream of toppling the Emperor a long distant memory.
"GW is a book company, not a model company," a spokesperson confirmed after we reached out for a statement from Games Workshop. "We know our customers and we know what they want. Market research is otiose in such a niche."
Joyboozer wrote: It’s a shame the 40k universe isn’t like the real universe, infinitely large where anything is possible. Instead it’s entire future depends on fighting in a localised area, with cliche results and it never matters what’s happening now, it’s only what these events lead up to that matters. Only what it leads up to turns out to be just disappointing gak.
What exactly is it GW is rushing towards with their advancing timeline? Do they realise the journey to get there is equally important? Or do they think plot advancement is something they can just fart out to appease the plot advancement crowd without actually understanding what that means? Once you advance you can’t stop advancing, you can’t wind back. All the cool gak you could have done is now wasted opportunity.
?? You realize GW did rush (to the end of Indomitus Crusade), then retconned and absolutely did 'wind back,' and are now stepping through the journey very slowly?
I love the idea of the 'plot advancement' crowd being the real villains, though.. Those people who didn't exist because GW didn't do this sort of thing until they sprang it on everyone are definitely a powerful group that need appeasing. Nothing can ever be GW's own fault
Voss wrote: I love the idea of the 'plot advancement' crowd being the real villains, though.. Those people who didn't exist because GW didn't do this sort of thing until they sprang it on everyone are definitely a powerful group that need appeasing. Nothing can ever be GW's own fault
There was a vocal group pushing for plot advancement for quite a while prior to 8th - despite the fact that 40k was a setting, not an ongoing narrative. I'd like to say it was a "vocal minority", but I don't have data to be clear on that either way.
GW seems to have listened to this group, for some bizarre reason, and now we're getting this sort of thing. GW being terrible at the execution wouldn't matter if they hadn't listened to this group in the first place.
There was a vocal group pushing for plot advancement for quite a while prior to 8th - despite the fact that 40k was a setting, not an ongoing narrative.
Except by introducing plot advances you keep changing setting invalidating players usage of setting forcing players to reset their own progress all the time
tneva82 wrote: Except by introducing plot advances you keep changing setting invalidating players usage of setting forcing players to reset their own progress all the time
No, you really don't. If you're using it as a setting, it's easy to keep your stuff in the time period before the advancement. Adjusting or ignoring has always been how players in other settings with advancing plots have done it, I've found this idea of something being both to be anathema to be an almost uniquely 40K player issue. Hell, GW having multiple divergent timelines isn't a new thing either(Space Marine video game, Tamurkhan, the original Enemy Within Campaign for WHFRP).
Voss wrote: I love the idea of the 'plot advancement' crowd being the real villains, though.. Those people who didn't exist because GW didn't do this sort of thing until they sprang it on everyone are definitely a powerful group that need appeasing. Nothing can ever be GW's own fault
There was a vocal group pushing for plot advancement for quite a while prior to 8th - despite the fact that 40k was a setting, not an ongoing narrative. I'd like to say it was a "vocal minority", but I don't have data to be clear on that either way.
GW seems to have listened to this group, for some bizarre reason, and now we're getting this sort of thing. GW being terrible at the execution wouldn't matter if they hadn't listened to this group in the first place.
While you are correct about the existence of that group, there's a decent chance that GW did not listen to a portion of its customers over another but found inspiration in other industries. Marvel had been very successful for almost a decade prior to Gathering Storm with an ongoing narrative connecting its various movies. I'm specifically drawing attention to that because around the time those movies started to appear, GW also made a marked change to the presentation of 40k, slowly developing it away from a pseudo-historical presentation to a super heroic setting focusing on the exploits of special characters with everything else just providing a backdrop. Incidentally I think this change was also the impetus for dropping accurate timelines from newer publications because too often the question was raised how a special character could be in two warzones at the same time.
It's not just Marvel, either. TV shows have become less episodic, revolving more often around (multi)season-spanning narratives than they did 20 years ago. Video games have also dipped into deeper stories more often. Trying an evolving story line may well have been GW's attempt at satisfying a general change in customer perception of what an entertainment product has to offer rather than listening to a specific subset of their customer base. Especially since at the time steadily decreasing profits put economic pressure on them to counter the decline.
JohnnyHell wrote: Indeed. New story doesn’t “invalidate” anything about your army. Plenty of Codexes have currently-dead characters in.
I play BattleTech. That's a game that has been designed as an ongoing story and, unlike 40k, not a setting. In the most recent plot development the main faction I play was annihilated.
Let's have a story where the Imperium finally decides 'Enough is enough!', launches a massive Crusade, and wipes out the Tau. You going to tell Tau players that it's no big deal? That they can just play games set further back in the story?
JohnnyHell wrote: Indeed. New story doesn’t “invalidate” anything about your army. Plenty of Codexes have currently-dead characters in.
I play BattleTech. That's a game that has been designed as an ongoing story and, unlike 40k, not a setting. In the most recent plot development the main faction I play was annihilated.
Let's have a story where the Imperium finally decides 'Enough is enough!', launches a massive Crusade, and wipes out the Tau. You going to tell Tau players that it's no big deal? That they can just play games set further back in the story?
A lot of people would absolute love that, since they keep crying about how unrealistic Tau are and how they don't fit the universe.
The plot has been advancing since at least 2nd edition. Many have come from battle reports in the WD and the personal campaigns of those in the studio.
For much of the 1990's the timeline WAS advancing steadily at the rate of 1 game year to 1 real year. 40K was not static. It was the timeline advancing that allowed for the possibility of character development. That was how Tycho got created (from an unnamed BA captain being "killed" by an Ork Weirdboy's power in a battle report), got maimed, became embittered, and finally died. That was how Yarrick chased Ghaz, got captured, and then released, to fight him again when the 3rd War for Armageddon occurred.
A steadily advancing timeline didn't break the 40K universe then and there is no reason advancing it should suddenly break it now. It is a fallacy to think that advancing timeline or story plots automatically means breaking the setting. Individual characters and plotlines can progress and have closure. Not every character or plotline has to deal with the fate of the entire galaxy.
GW had written themselves into a corner with the end of M41, with numerous and important events packed into literally a few weeks of the last year. There wasn't time for characters to actually do anything like travel to a warzone and fight before they would have to travel elsewhere in order to make their appearance at another event.
Whether a world or even a sector falls, whether a character lives or dies, 40K is supposed to be a universe where they won't be missed on the grand scale. It does not need to turn into superheroes clashing in the conflict of the week, and I don't like GW taking in such a direction with the same named characters showing up. That shrinks the galaxy.
JohnnyHell wrote: Indeed. New story doesn’t “invalidate” anything about your army. Plenty of Codexes have currently-dead characters in.
I play BattleTech. That's a game that has been designed as an ongoing story and, unlike 40k, not a setting. In the most recent plot development the main faction I play was annihilated.
Let's have a story where the Imperium finally decides 'Enough is enough!', launches a massive Crusade, and wipes out the Tau. You going to tell Tau players that it's no big deal? That they can just play games set further back in the story?
A lot of people would absolute love that, since they keep crying about how unrealistic Tau are and how they don't fit the universe.
And if it did happen, there'd still be people calling them Mary Sues because they took a couple of unnamed or previously unheard of Chapter Masters down with them.
JohnnyHell wrote: Indeed. New story doesn’t “invalidate” anything about your army. Plenty of Codexes have currently-dead characters in.
I play BattleTech. That's a game that has been designed as an ongoing story and, unlike 40k, not a setting. In the most recent plot development the main faction I play was annihilated.
Let's have a story where the Imperium finally decides 'Enough is enough!', launches a massive Crusade, and wipes out the Tau. You going to tell Tau players that it's no big deal? That they can just play games set further back in the story?
Ahhhh whataboutism. Always productive… not. And you know GW won’t do similar anyway. They’ve had plenty of opportunities but seem to prefer making money.
I'm with Johnny here - we already have characters fighting together or against each other that would never meet in-universe because the lived hundred of years or multiple sectors apart. Many other game systems also keep characters around after they have found their glorious or not-so-glorious death.
In narrative gaming, GW actively encourages you to not run named characters anyways, and for any other game mode - who cares?
JohnnyHell wrote: Ahhhh whataboutism. Always productive… not. And you know GW won’t do similar anyway. They’ve had plenty of opportunities but seem to prefer making money.
You used a lot of words there to dodge the question. Good job!
JohnnyHell wrote: Ahhhh whataboutism. Always productive… not. And you know GW won’t do similar anyway. They’ve had plenty of opportunities but seem to prefer making money.
You used a lot of words there to dodge the question. Good job!
I dodged no legitimate questions, only an attempt to sidetrack. There was no question. The thread isn’t about BattleTech. I’m sorry BattleTech hurt your feelings but that’s irrelevant here.
JohnnyHell wrote: Indeed. New story doesn’t “invalidate” anything about your army. Plenty of Codexes have currently-dead characters in.
I play BattleTech. That's a game that has been designed as an ongoing story and, unlike 40k, not a setting. In the most recent plot development the main faction I play was annihilated.
Let's have a story where the Imperium finally decides 'Enough is enough!', launches a massive Crusade, and wipes out the Tau. You going to tell Tau players that it's no big deal? That they can just play games set further back in the story?
Ahhhh whataboutism. Always productive… not. And you know GW won’t do similar anyway. They’ve had plenty of opportunities but seem to prefer making money.
Ahh, the term 'whataboutism'. What better way to avoid the responsibility of responding to critique.
JohnnyHell wrote: Indeed. New story doesn’t “invalidate” anything about your army. Plenty of Codexes have currently-dead characters in.
I play BattleTech. That's a game that has been designed as an ongoing story and, unlike 40k, not a setting. In the most recent plot development the main faction I play was annihilated.
Let's have a story where the Imperium finally decides 'Enough is enough!', launches a massive Crusade, and wipes out the Tau. You going to tell Tau players that it's no big deal? That they can just play games set further back in the story?
Battletech probably isn't the best example since its players are basically the trope namer for ignoring advancing plot with the huge chunk of the player base that refuses to play Clan Invasion Era and beyond.
JohnnyHell wrote: Indeed. New story doesn’t “invalidate” anything about your army. Plenty of Codexes have currently-dead characters in.
I play BattleTech. That's a game that has been designed as an ongoing story and, unlike 40k, not a setting. In the most recent plot development the main faction I play was annihilated.
Let's have a story where the Imperium finally decides 'Enough is enough!', launches a massive Crusade, and wipes out the Tau. You going to tell Tau players that it's no big deal? That they can just play games set further back in the story?
Ahhhh whataboutism. Always productive… not. And you know GW won’t do similar anyway. They’ve had plenty of opportunities but seem to prefer making money.
Ahh, the term 'whataboutism'. What better way to avoid the responsibility of responding to critique.
There’s no “responsibility” what a risible post. It was an attempted diversion that didn’t warrant discussion. As is your post.
Geifer wrote: Trying an evolving story line may well have been GW's attempt at satisfying a general change in customer perception of what an entertainment product has to offer rather than listening to a specific subset of their customer base. Especially since at the time steadily decreasing profits put economic pressure on them to counter the decline.
Italicized for emphasis.
GW sure is trying to make an attempt, it's just that they're failing to make it coherent within the setting.
It feels like they have zero long-term plan as to who's in what sector at which time. Add on to that the shallowness of the stuff they do put out and it is a very wide pond but kiddie pool depth.
I think that once they start down this road of ever changing everything, they will have gone full-dumbass.
JohnnyHell wrote: Indeed. New story doesn’t “invalidate” anything about your army. Plenty of Codexes have currently-dead characters in.
I play BattleTech. That's a game that has been designed as an ongoing story and, unlike 40k, not a setting. In the most recent plot development the main faction I play was annihilated.
Let's have a story where the Imperium finally decides 'Enough is enough!', launches a massive Crusade, and wipes out the Tau. You going to tell Tau players that it's no big deal? That they can just play games set further back in the story?
My guess is they could still have a regular codex. Some fragments of Tau civilisation will survive somewhere. Their lore would just shift from "we got our corner in the galaxy and are expanding" (that's still their thing, isn't it?) into "the Imperium is trying to genocide us, we're now a guerilla army/nomadic civilisation". The army could still work the same in the game. Kinda how the Crimson Fists as an normal army exist even if they just use regular SM rules and don't have a super special codex that's hyper-focused on their situation, all while being rather decimated in the lore.
Of course, in such a campaign GW could technically squat the Tau or any faction that's not selling well enough if they really, really wanted to do that but for the most part even such drastic (lore) measures would stay lore only and they can always include some "escape hatch" lore to keep the army alive and viable instead of shredding all their codex books. The campaign itself could allow for odd armies (in whatever critical predicament they would be at certain points of that crusade against them) and maybe develop a few new units for GW, (campaign specific) special characters, and missions, wargear, rules to sell/give away that then can be included in the regular army list in the next Tau codex or an update to the existing codex. Use such campaigns to generate and funnel attention to underrepresented factions by including them in campaigns with popular factions.
I generally like the idea of multi faction narrative (or competitive) campaigns in different corners of the galaxy but instead of having a big one that occupies six months exclusively with only three factions or so I'd have many of them overlapping all year with accompanying releases of all type (rules, units, anything) for all corresponding factions and just use that as the format to deliver all new releases instead of the "one codex and all its models" model. That way every faction could get a few boxes each year (something for everybody!) and it would feel natural. And if they want to keep their habit of a lot of Marine released then they'd just need to make Marines part of all/most of these campaigns without sacrificing every other faction for their Marine release schedule.
Naturally that would benefit from all the rules being free online so that people can dip into these campaigns and find stuff they like and want to buy instead of gating everything behind a paywall and/or new paper book. People could be lured to grow their armies from odd or specialised small campaign setups into full conventional armies that can be used in everyday battles. A bit like a formalised "a tale of four gamers" system mixed with a Necromunda campaign to bait people with lore, campaigns, new models, and rules into starting a new army. And if somebody already has that army they might only need a few new units to be campaign compatible so it might be a nice way to expand one's army.
That's kinda how I'd find this idea worthwhile. We'll see how GW will implement their campaigns.
If GW is gonna squat anyone it's the Nids, they haven't gotten a single release for 8 years straight, and there doesn't seem to be any mention of new Nids in either the Rumour Engine or the Leaks
Bi annually chapter approved and a constant release of new codexes. I can't keep up with the material anymore. I still have unopened codex's I never used that are outdated.
My genestealer cult soon to be outdated, and my Adeptus Mechanicus, both still in wrap.
I think it is time to downsize my collection and only get the models I want to collect. The game play aspect is getting silly rediculous with books needed.
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: If GW is gonna squat anyone it's the Nids, they haven't gotten a single release for 8 years straight, and there doesn't seem to be any mention of new Nids in either the Rumour Engine or the Leaks
There are several unsolved Nid bits in the rumor engine
JohnnyHell wrote: Indeed. New story doesn’t “invalidate” anything about your army. Plenty of Codexes have currently-dead characters in.
I play BattleTech. That's a game that has been designed as an ongoing story and, unlike 40k, not a setting. In the most recent plot development the main faction I play was annihilated.
Let's have a story where the Imperium finally decides 'Enough is enough!', launches a massive Crusade, and wipes out the Tau. You going to tell Tau players that it's no big deal? That they can just play games set further back in the story?
The problem with this approach is that the way BT and 40K games are arranged are fundamentally different to allow for playing Your Dudes at whatever point in the story suits the game. 40K has become a grind of needing to maintain your army according to the most recent publication and having things become invalidated or errata'd or replaced. In BT you and your opponent agree on a point in the timeline and tech level to play a match that fits the armies you want to run, regardless of what the most current iteration of those factions are in the story. I would LOVE for 40K to break the grind cycle and get players into a mindset of being able to use whatever subset of the rules make sense to play the game against the armies the players want to run that day, but that's not the game they've built.
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: If GW is gonna squat anyone it's the Nids, they haven't gotten a single release for 8 years straight, and there doesn't seem to be any mention of new Nids in either the Rumour Engine or the Leaks
There are several unsolved Nid bits in the rumor engine
JohnnyHell wrote: Indeed. New story doesn’t “invalidate” anything about your army. Plenty of Codexes have currently-dead characters in.
I play BattleTech. That's a game that has been designed as an ongoing story and, unlike 40k, not a setting. In the most recent plot development the main faction I play was annihilated.
Let's have a story where the Imperium finally decides 'Enough is enough!', launches a massive Crusade, and wipes out the Tau. You going to tell Tau players that it's no big deal? That they can just play games set further back in the story?
Ahhhh whataboutism. Always productive… not. And you know GW won’t do similar anyway. They’ve had plenty of opportunities but seem to prefer making money.
Ahh, the term 'whataboutism'. What better way to avoid the responsibility of responding to critique.
There’s no “responsibility” what a risible post. It was an attempted diversion that didn’t warrant discussion. As is your post.
No responsibility for any argument you make? Ok, you can roll with that I guess.
"New story doesn’t “invalidate” anything about your army."
"What about cases where it does?"
"Whataboutism screeeeeeee!!"
Non-Primaris Calgar or Tigurius aren't options anymore.
I can't take Necron Pariahs or HQ god-C'tan.
I think excitement for Tau would die down if we learned they were exterminated off, too.
Non-Primaris Calgar or Tigurius aren't options anymore.
I can't take Necron Pariahs or HQ god-C'tan.
I think excitement for Tau would die down if we learned they were exterminated off, too.
Calgar and Tigirius both have Legends rules so if you really want to use them you still can.
Pariahs haven't been in the game since 5th but you could very easily still use the models to represent a unit like Lychgard or Triarch Praetorians. C'tan being out of the HQ slot is very probably due to the fact that they aren't supposed to lead Necron armies, because of the whole post-War in Heaven rebellion thing, it wouldn't exactly make sense for Necrons to have their former masters, now slaves back in control.
Of course, both of these things are completely and utterly different from just removing an entire army from the game, something that hasn't been done since what? The 90's?
But you know that, you just think you're being funny/smart.
Of course, both of these things are completely and utterly different from just removing an entire army from the game, something that hasn't been done since what? The 90's?
Yeah, well... Corsair and R&H players might argue about that.
But also, differences of degree are not 'completely and utterly' different. Just a matter of severity.
Voss wrote: Yeah, well... Corsair and R&H players might argue about that.
Man if only I'd played R&H for like 3 editions and they weren't 90% compatible with both GSC and Guard so you can very easily still use the army you bought.
But also, differences of degree are not 'completely and utterly' different. Just a matter of severity.
So you would agree that something being "completely" different is a high degree of severity yes? Or are you just looking for grammar issues because you can't actually refute my point?
Killing of an army has anything to do with story progression. Even the small tau empire has so many planets they could write dozens of books of tau losing planets and systems before they would even get close to where Crimson Fists were before their primaris reinforcements.
It's fairly realistic to assume that GW will not use story to kill off anything larger than a named character or an unnamed space marine chapter.
Prometheum5 wrote: 40K has become a grind of needing to maintain your army according to the most recent publication and having things become invalidated or errata'd or replaced.
This statement has nothing to do with settings or narratives. We're not talking rules changes.
Non-Primaris Calgar or Tigurius aren't options anymore.
I can't take Necron Pariahs or HQ god-C'tan.
I think excitement for Tau would die down if we learned they were exterminated off, too.
Calgar and Tigirius both have Legends rules so if you really want to use them you still can.
Pariahs haven't been in the game since 5th but you could very easily still use the models to represent a unit like Lychgard or Triarch Praetorians. C'tan being out of the HQ slot is very probably due to the fact that they aren't supposed to lead Necron armies, because of the whole post-War in Heaven rebellion thing, it wouldn't exactly make sense for Necrons to have their former masters, now slaves back in control.
Of course, both of these things are completely and utterly different from just removing an entire army from the game, something that hasn't been done since what? The 90's?
But you know that, you just think you're being funny/smart.
You're missing the point Gert. Changes in the lore changed faction character and identity, and removed units, meaning I can no longer play Oldcrons with Pariahs and C'tan HQs. It's at the very heart of the discussion. (Also they've heavily downgraded many staple units).
Units in legends are no longer used for matched play. Lore changed Calgar and Tigurius, and the versions I have/want are no longer available for the format I play most. This is literally a case of progressing story changing unit availability.
Squats might have been the 90s buuuttt. . see a little-known game called Warhammer Fantasy. The story progressed and . .
Additionally, many people still see Primaris as the eventual replacement for the TrueMarine line. That's basically ground zero for what we're talking about. I HOPE it isn't the case, but it COULD be.
Ynnari appeared to be threatening something similar.
You're missing the point Gert. Changes in the lore changed faction character and identity, and removed units, meaning I can no longer play Oldcrons with Pariahs and C'tan HQs. It's at the very heart of the discussion.
There is a difference between changing some units in an army or changing some of the background and literally removing that faction from the game.
Units in legends are no longer used for matched play. Lore changed Calgar and Tigurius, and the versions I have/want are no longer available for the format I play most. This is literally a case of progressing story changing unit availability.
They have points values therefore they objectively can be used in Matched Play. Have you actually read the Legends PDFs? Here is the actual quote from the actual PDF:
Spoiler:
The rules here can be used in any type of play – open, narrative or matched, and full points are provided to help you balance your forces.
Warhammer Legends will not form part of our ongoing balance review for the wider Warhammer 40,000 game – and we don’t recommend Legends units for competitive tournaments.
There is literally nothing stopping you at all.
Squats might have been the 90s buuuttt. . see a little-known game called Warhammer Fantasy. The story progressed and . .
And all of the units available to WHFB armies also still all have rules for AoS and have done since the game was released, in fact Narrative Play even used events from the Old World as examples in how to use the system. Or you could just keep playing WHFB because as far as I'm aware, GW didn't break down your door and burn your rulebooks.
You're missing the point Gert. Changes in the lore changed faction character and identity, and removed units, meaning I can no longer play Oldcrons with Pariahs and C'tan HQs. It's at the very heart of the discussion.
There is a difference between changing some units in an army or changing some of the background and literally removing that faction from the game.
Units in legends are no longer used for matched play. Lore changed Calgar and Tigurius, and the versions I have/want are no longer available for the format I play most. This is literally a case of progressing story changing unit availability.
They have points values therefore they objectively can be used in Matched Play. Have you actually read the Legends PDFs? Here is the actual quote from the actual PDF:
Spoiler:
The rules here can be used in any type of play – open, narrative or matched, and full points are provided to help you balance your forces.
Warhammer Legends will not form part of our ongoing balance review for the wider Warhammer 40,000 game – and we don’t recommend Legends units for competitive tournaments.
There is literally nothing stopping you at all.
Allow me to explain the situation to you, by way of an analogy, because you appear to not understand what the text you quoted means in practice.
Twenty five years ago, I bought one of the original Keeper of Secrets models, painted it and put it on the supplied monster base. A few editions later, and a somewhat (but not too much) taller Keeper of Secrets model came out, and the 40k Keeper of Secrets was now produced with a round base. That original Keeper of Secrets is still pretty playable, and I can get by putting the square monster base on a round base.
Another few editions later, and the huge plastic Keeper of Secrets model is released. About the only way of making the previous two models comparable to the new one is to get a hold of a 100mm round base and build a diorama.
At any point along the line, did GW say "No, you can't use your old model"? No. But the difference between the models still became large enough that they're just not comparable any more, and if you're trying to be fair the models should be.
The same thing happens with Legends. "not part of the ongoing balance review" means that their point values won't get updated. And, being Legends, their data sheets won't get updated to reflect codex changes.
For example... Suppose GW decides that some Chaos Lords are overpowered, and increases their point costs by 20 (noting that you'd have to compare point values between Chapter Approved to know which point values changed, in the first place). If you're trying to use the Legends Chaos Lords, which ones should (because you're trying to be a fair player) increase by 20?
And then suppose that the new CSM codex comes out and 'Death to the False Emperor' gets changed to a different ability or removed. If you're not familiar with the old codex and the new codex, how would you know what changed? Or, for that matter, look at the various previews where weapon profile changes get announced, and think about how many Legends PDFs have those weapon profiles in them. Note: I played through one of GW's "if your codex references a rule we removed, just ignore it" edition changes. If you haven't, I'll just tell you that it's a compete garbage situation that leaves you with randomly unusable models.
That's what the text you quoted means--it's GW saying "We won't fix this model when the rules and points changes change around it." And that's why people don't take "You can still play with Legends models, no one is stopping you" as a serious statement.
The same thing happens with Legends. "not part of the ongoing balance review" means that their point values won't get updated. And, being Legends, their data sheets won't get updated to reflect codex changes.
For example... Suppose GW decides that some Chaos Lords are overpowered, and increases their point costs by 20 (noting that you'd have to compare point values between Chapter Approved to know which point values changed, in the first place). If you're trying to use the Legends Chaos Lords, which ones should (because you're trying to be a fair player) increase by 20?
And then suppose that the new CSM codex comes out and 'Death to the False Emperor' gets changed to a different ability or removed. If you're not familiar with the old codex and the new codex, how would you know what changed? Or, for that matter, look at the various previews where weapon profile changes get announced, and think about how many Legends PDFs have those weapon profiles in them. Note: I played through one of GW's "if your codex references a rule we removed, just ignore it" edition changes. If you haven't, I'll just tell you that it's a compete garbage situation that leaves you with randomly unusable models.
That's what the text you quoted means--it's GW saying "We won't fix this model when the rules and points changes change around it." And that's why people don't take "You can still play with Legends models, no one is stopping you" as a serious statement.
Bad analogy aside, let's go through the process of these complaints:
1 - I can't use my old Named Characters because of background progression so let's get rid of a whole army False, those NCs are in the Legends PDFs, and comparing that to the removal of an entire army is silly.
2 - I can't use my old NCs in Matched Play so let's get rid of a whole army because eventually, the enthusiasm would die down False, the Legends PDFs are 100% usable in all 40k types of play.
3 - I can't use my old NCs because it is 100% balanced to every single new releasesigh You keep moving the argument because you know you're wrong but can't admit it otherwise you'd have to not go hard on the "GW BAD" train for one day out of 365. It's pathetic that you'd rather whine and moan about not getting perfection when you were never going to get it, than just using what you have and enjoy yourselves. Go outside and take in some bloody fresh air for christ's sake and stop being so angry all the damn time.
The same thing happens with Legends. "not part of the ongoing balance review" means that their point values won't get updated. And, being Legends, their data sheets won't get updated to reflect codex changes.
For example... Suppose GW decides that some Chaos Lords are overpowered, and increases their point costs by 20 (noting that you'd have to compare point values between Chapter Approved to know which point values changed, in the first place). If you're trying to use the Legends Chaos Lords, which ones should (because you're trying to be a fair player) increase by 20?
And then suppose that the new CSM codex comes out and 'Death to the False Emperor' gets changed to a different ability or removed. If you're not familiar with the old codex and the new codex, how would you know what changed? Or, for that matter, look at the various previews where weapon profile changes get announced, and think about how many Legends PDFs have those weapon profiles in them. Note: I played through one of GW's "if your codex references a rule we removed, just ignore it" edition changes. If you haven't, I'll just tell you that it's a compete garbage situation that leaves you with randomly unusable models.
That's what the text you quoted means--it's GW saying "We won't fix this model when the rules and points changes change around it." And that's why people don't take "You can still play with Legends models, no one is stopping you" as a serious statement.
Bad analogy aside, let's go through the process of these complaints:
1 - I can't use my old Named Characters because of background progression so let's get rid of a whole army False, those NCs are in the Legends PDFs, and comparing that to the removal of an entire army is silly.
2 - I can't use my old NCs in Matched Play so let's get rid of a whole army because eventually, the enthusiasm would die down False, the Legends PDFs are 100% usable in all 40k types of play.
3 - I can't use my old NCs because it is 100% balanced to every single new releasesigh You keep moving the argument because you know you're wrong but can't admit it otherwise you'd have to not go hard on the "GW BAD" train for one day out of 365. It's pathetic that you'd rather whine and moan about not getting perfection when you were never going to get it, than just using what you have and enjoy yourselves. Go outside and take in some bloody fresh air for christ's sake and stop being so angry all the damn time.
The same thing happens with Legends. "not part of the ongoing balance review" means that their point values won't get updated. And, being Legends, their data sheets won't get updated to reflect codex changes.
For example... Suppose GW decides that some Chaos Lords are overpowered, and increases their point costs by 20 (noting that you'd have to compare point values between Chapter Approved to know which point values changed, in the first place). If you're trying to use the Legends Chaos Lords, which ones should (because you're trying to be a fair player) increase by 20?
And then suppose that the new CSM codex comes out and 'Death to the False Emperor' gets changed to a different ability or removed. If you're not familiar with the old codex and the new codex, how would you know what changed? Or, for that matter, look at the various previews where weapon profile changes get announced, and think about how many Legends PDFs have those weapon profiles in them. Note: I played through one of GW's "if your codex references a rule we removed, just ignore it" edition changes. If you haven't, I'll just tell you that it's a compete garbage situation that leaves you with randomly unusable models.
That's what the text you quoted means--it's GW saying "We won't fix this model when the rules and points changes change around it." And that's why people don't take "You can still play with Legends models, no one is stopping you" as a serious statement.
Bad analogy aside, let's go through the process of these complaints:
1 - I can't use my old Named Characters because of background progression so let's get rid of a whole army False, those NCs are in the Legends PDFs, and comparing that to the removal of an entire army is silly.
2 - I can't use my old NCs in Matched Play so let's get rid of a whole army because eventually, the enthusiasm would die down False, the Legends PDFs are 100% usable in all 40k types of play.
3 - I can't use my old NCs because it is 100% balanced to every single new releasesigh You keep moving the argument because you know you're wrong but can't admit it otherwise you'd have to not go hard on the "GW BAD" train for one day out of 365. It's pathetic that you'd rather whine and moan about not getting perfection when you were never going to get it, than just using what you have and enjoy yourselves. Go outside and take in some bloody fresh air for christ's sake and stop being so angry all the damn time.
Stop pretending Legends are usable.
Stop pretending there's only one way to pay the game.
The same thing happens with Legends. "not part of the ongoing balance review" means that their point values won't get updated. And, being Legends, their data sheets won't get updated to reflect codex changes.
For example... Suppose GW decides that some Chaos Lords are overpowered, and increases their point costs by 20 (noting that you'd have to compare point values between Chapter Approved to know which point values changed, in the first place). If you're trying to use the Legends Chaos Lords, which ones should (because you're trying to be a fair player) increase by 20?
And then suppose that the new CSM codex comes out and 'Death to the False Emperor' gets changed to a different ability or removed. If you're not familiar with the old codex and the new codex, how would you know what changed? Or, for that matter, look at the various previews where weapon profile changes get announced, and think about how many Legends PDFs have those weapon profiles in them. Note: I played through one of GW's "if your codex references a rule we removed, just ignore it" edition changes. If you haven't, I'll just tell you that it's a compete garbage situation that leaves you with randomly unusable models.
That's what the text you quoted means--it's GW saying "We won't fix this model when the rules and points changes change around it." And that's why people don't take "You can still play with Legends models, no one is stopping you" as a serious statement.
Bad analogy aside, let's go through the process of these complaints: 1 - I can't use my old Named Characters because of background progression so let's get rid of a whole army False, those NCs are in the Legends PDFs, and comparing that to the removal of an entire army is silly. 2 - I can't use my old NCs in Matched Play so let's get rid of a whole army because eventually, the enthusiasm would die down False, the Legends PDFs are 100% usable in all 40k types of play. 3 - I can't use my old NCs because it is 100% balanced to every single new releasesigh You keep moving the argument because you know you're wrong but can't admit it otherwise you'd have to not go hard on the "GW BAD" train for one day out of 365. It's pathetic that you'd rather whine and moan about not getting perfection when you were never going to get it, than just using what you have and enjoy yourselves. Go outside and take in some bloody fresh air for christ's sake and stop being so angry all the damn time.
He is at least somewhat right though - legends not being updated will eventually break those datasheets as new codices are released, and not every discontinued model does get legends entries. Both things are already happing for orks.
That said, neither has anything to do with progressing the narrative. I'm fairly sure that there are a few dead names characters who continue to appear in every codex.
A player does not need anything from GW to use models/heroes that are not in the updated books
You can still play Index Army lists if you want, they have rules, points, and just need minor adjustments to fit 9th core rules
Yet, just going into a shop, put the army on the table and expect to have a pick up game within minutes won't be possible
So of course there are more ways to play, and if you play at home with friends, you don't care about anything GW releases
But if you only play pick up games in shops/clubs or events (because there is no club/shop around), it is very different
And with the main advantage of 40k, over other games being that it is easy to find someone to play with, the edge cases of "I don't need this because I play with 2 friends in the basement" is irrelevant, is in this case you can still play 5th
"If all that T’au tech fails to tickle you, don’t worry – over the next few months, more new Combat Patrols are coming to Warhammer 40,000, for Grey Knights, Thousand Sons, Genestealer Cults, and Adeptus Custodes."
Edit: if no mods object I'm just going to use this thread as a catch-all for any random 40k releases & updates outside of codexes, such as these combat patrols
Yo! That GSC box is incredible! Ah man… I need to save for the new Eldar but… that is a great box to start GSC too. Oof, 2022 starts off with an expensive bang.
The Tau one is pretty meh imho, an Ethereal AND a Fireblade? Ghostkeels might be nice for somebody that doesnt have one yet but I dont think many people run more than one.
It's weird, because my default assumption with combat patrols and other boxes is that GW really tries to make them a good value, if you buy only one. The tau one definitely hits that sweet spot, as nobody with a current tau army needs more ethereals, but some of the other boxes really avoid that. Custodes is literally just four kits (guard, bikes, 2x Sisters of silence). GSC is four troop kits, a goliath, and a cheap character. very tasty.
For somebody just beginning, the Tau box has a nice assortment, and is visually striking. The GSC is pretty great...I can see my friend picking one of them up soon. Personally I want a coupe of the AC boxes as a) I love the Silent Sisters and b) I need more bikes.
Tiberius501 wrote: Yo! That GSC box is incredible! Ah man… I need to save for the new Eldar but… that is a great box to start GSC too. Oof, 2022 starts off with an expensive bang.
Yeah, what's interesting is that it's one of the few CP boxes you could easily pick up multiples for and still have a good army composition. Plus it shouldn't be hard to convert the spare Magus into a saboteur or some other character.
MoD_Legion wrote: The Tau one is pretty meh imho, an Ethereal AND a Fireblade? Ghostkeels might be nice for somebody that doesnt have one yet but I dont think many people run more than one.
The obvious CP was Commander, Crisis Team, Strike team, but that would basically stop all sales of those three kits otherwise....
The GSC box is really good, and I like the models so much I don't mind duplicates of stuff I don't even need. Thousand Sons is ok, last edition I was looking for ways to get more Tzangoors, not quite so necessary to have as many now though.
The rule was added in 9th where it caused a load of whinging and it's not specifically Rubrics, it's <Infernal Astartes> or something similar.
So if you had an Exalted Sorcerer, a unit of Rubrics, and a unit of Scarab Occult then you could also field 3 units of Tzaangor and 3 units of Cultists.
The Phazer wrote: Seems the Custodes and GC ones being good was an exception rather than the new rule then.
What?
Custodes one is IMObad, over 50% of the box are Sisters (that, thanks to new restrictions aren't needed in such numbers) and GW cheapened out and didn't include even a single HQ. If that box had one (or, ideally, that Custode & Sister HQ pack), or hell, doubled just one custode sprue so you could make generic commander from it without reducing troop model count (watch 10th edition adopt AoS rigid unit numbers to force you to buy more boxes), I'd buy multiples. Now, I wonder if I should even bother, grabbing it will just reward GW Scrooge tendencies.
I can see the box maybe being OK if you have Sisters of Battle army as then you can convert excess SoS to characters or fancy veterans using spare helmets/bits, but otherwise, I wouldn't bother.
I like the Tau box because I have a fancy for the Stealth side of the faction. Wouldn't have been right at all for a patrol, but if it had Commander Shadowsun and some Pathfinders I'd have gone for it.
Forgive me if this has already been answered, but these contents are not "new", correct? They are the sample Combat Patrols shown in the codices for each army? Referencing the Thousand Sons one with the codex shows it is the exact composition of the same Combat Patrol and matches the text in the codex that one can purchase this Combat Patrol.
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: If GW is gonna squat anyone it's the Nids, they haven't gotten a single release for 8 years straight, and there doesn't seem to be any mention of new Nids in either the Rumour Engine or the Leaks
There are several unsolved Nid bits in the rumor engine
There are at least three separate Tyranid bits in the rumor engine photos going back to very early 2021/late 2020. A new Tyranid model was showcased in the New Year, New Models video last week. The most recent rules update they received made them quite playable on the tabletop and they've recently featured in several campaign stories going back to Blood of Baal. I doubt any factions will be leaving 40K anytime soon. In fact, I reckon you'll be seeing older MIA factions returning to the game in the next few years.
The Phazer wrote: Seems the Custodes and GC ones being good was an exception rather than the new rule then.
What?
Custodes one is IMObad, over 50% of the box are Sisters (that, thanks to new restrictions aren't needed in such numbers) and GW cheapened out and didn't include even a single HQ. If that box had one (or, ideally, that Custode & Sister HQ pack), or hell, doubled just one custode sprue so you could make generic commander from it without reducing troop model count (watch 10th edition adopt AoS rigid unit numbers to force you to buy more boxes), I'd buy multiples. Now, I wonder if I should even bother, grabbing it will just reward GW Scrooge tendencies.
I can see the box maybe being OK if you have Sisters of Battle army as then you can convert excess SoS to characters or fancy veterans using spare helmets/bits, but otherwise, I wouldn't bother.
There are two HQ choices in the Custodes box. Custodes HQ are built from their base kits. One of the Bikers can be a shield Captain, and one of the Guardian can as well with two different configurations for the Guardian (Sword/Shield or Spear)
judgedoug wrote: Forgive me if this has already been answered, but these contents are not "new", correct?
Tau one is new, GSC & Custodes leaked a few days ago.
I think he may mean are the models new. Which they're not.
No, I meant we already knew the contents based on the Thousand Sons and Grey Knights codices, and yeah, the images from the GSC and Custodes codex review copies.
The Phazer wrote: Seems the Custodes and GC ones being good was an exception rather than the new rule then.
What?
Custodes one is IMObad, over 50% of the box are Sisters (that, thanks to new restrictions aren't needed in such numbers) and GW cheapened out and didn't include even a single HQ. If that box had one (or, ideally, that Custode & Sister HQ pack), or hell, doubled just one custode sprue so you could make generic commander from it without reducing troop model count (watch 10th edition adopt AoS rigid unit numbers to force you to buy more boxes), I'd buy multiples. Now, I wonder if I should even bother, grabbing it will just reward GW Scrooge tendencies.
I can see the box maybe being OK if you have Sisters of Battle army as then you can convert excess SoS to characters or fancy veterans using spare helmets/bits, but otherwise, I wouldn't bother.
There are two HQ choices in the Custodes box. Custodes HQ are built from their base kits. One of the Bikers can be a shield Captain, and one of the Guardian can as well with two different configurations for the Guardian (Sword/Shield or Spear)
If you include dedicated HQs, people will whine that GW put them in to demotivate multiple buying...cant do it right
The Tau Combat Patrol seems really weird to me being so stealth heavy. I thought for sure it would be the Start Collecting with something extra like a Devilfish.
That GSC box ticks all the boxes for me. Will be getting one this year no doubt! I just hope the upcoming WD KillTeam rules will have as diverse set of datasheets for em as possible
Quasistellar wrote: Custodes box could be great for multiples, even, depending on SoS being good or bad.
I dunno. I think the Custodes box suffers from the same failings as the Death Guard and Thousand Sons boxes in that they contain so many models that aren't Custodes/Death Guard/Thousand Sons.
If it'd been 3 Allarus Termies in place of 5 of the Sisters, but right now over half the box in the Adeptus Custodes box are things that are not Adeptus Custodes models.
Quasistellar wrote: Custodes box could be great for multiples, even, depending on SoS being good or bad.
I dunno. I think the Custodes box suffers from the same failings as the Death Guard and Thousand Sons boxes in that they contain so many models that aren't Custodes/Death Guard/Thousand Sons.
If it'd been 3 Allarus Termies in place of 5 of the Sisters, but right now over half the box in the Adeptus Custodes box are things that are not Adeptus Custodes models.
Yeah replacing one sister kit for something Custodes would be better for the box, specifically multiple buy. Same for the TS one. Replace a box of Tzaangor for a Rubric box and you get a more interesting CP that you can more easily buy 2 or 3 of.
The only thing with the Custodes one is that you can already get like 800pts out of the box as-is, swapping one sister kit for anything else could bring it to a full 1k army It's probably the best value out of any box right now (point-wise), and the 2 sister box was probably to lower the value of the box!
Tau surely looked bizarre to me. It is great, but is weird to have both a Fireblade and Ethereal at the same time for a starter kit. But having both stealth suits? I mean, I expected Crisis and something like a Devilfish, or a Broadside, but then again, that would've been too perfect, I guess, and I have seen individual Crisis teams collecting dust at the back of the shelves on the stores because why would you want to buy Fire Warriors ot Crisis teams on their own with the SC!?
Anyway, at least every single Battleforce they give them every other year have at the very least one Crisis team, so.
The stealth suits are extremely weird and definitively don't fit a theme. I don't really have experience with heavy stealth lists.
The CP is a great purchase as it is, pretty much an insta buy for any new player, maybe even two, but I just don't want more Ethereals, more when I'm playing Enclaves.
The CP is a great purchase as it is, pretty much an insta buy for any new player, maybe even two, but I just don't want more Ethereals, more when I'm playing Enclaves.
Just use the Ethereal torso with some extra Fire Warrior legs/arms/head/backpack and you can make an extra Cadre Fireblade. Also note that the Cadre Fireblade fits the hoverboard quite well!
Quasistellar wrote: Custodes box could be great for multiples, even, depending on SoS being good or bad.
I dunno. I think the Custodes box suffers from the same failings as the Death Guard and Thousand Sons boxes in that they contain so many models that aren't Custodes/Death Guard/Thousand Sons.
If it'd been 3 Allarus Termies in place of 5 of the Sisters, but right now over half the box in the Adeptus Custodes box are things that are not Adeptus Custodes models.
Tzaangors are TS, they are part of their codex. So are all units included in the Death guard box. Aren't SoS part of the new Custodes codex?
Those are the factions names, nothing more. Aren't gretchins orks?
Quasistellar wrote: Custodes box could be great for multiples, even, depending on SoS being good or bad.
I dunno. I think the Custodes box suffers from the same failings as the Death Guard and Thousand Sons boxes in that they contain so many models that aren't Custodes/Death Guard/Thousand Sons.
If it'd been 3 Allarus Termies in place of 5 of the Sisters, but right now over half the box in the Adeptus Custodes box are things that are not Adeptus Custodes models.
Tzaangors are TS, they are part of their codex. So are all units included in the Death guard box. Aren't SoS part of the new Custodes codex?
Those are the factions names, nothing more. Aren't gretchins orks?
however the DG box has issues with the whole 1:1 ratio of bubonic astartes to chaff units.
Blackie wrote: Tzaangors are TS, they are part of their codex. So are all units included in the Death guard box. Aren't SoS part of the new Custodes codex?
Those are the factions names, nothing more. Aren't gretchins orks?
Don't be intentionally facetious (I assume this because I refuse to believe you are being intentionally obtuse). You know exactly what we're talking about.
That Tau box works for me. I like the infantry and I don't have the big stealth suit yet. The only downside for me is the Ethereal. Do I really want an Ethereal zergling rush army? It's the Dominus situation all over again.
Quasistellar wrote: Custodes box could be great for multiples, even, depending on SoS being good or bad.
I dunno. I think the Custodes box suffers from the same failings as the Death Guard and Thousand Sons boxes in that they contain so many models that aren't Custodes/Death Guard/Thousand Sons.
If it'd been 3 Allarus Termies in place of 5 of the Sisters, but right now over half the box in the Adeptus Custodes box are things that are not Adeptus Custodes models.
While I agree that the ratio isn't ideal (and also with the idea of replacing one squad of bird people with a squad of Rubrics), in the case of Talons of the Emperor we're talking about Talons of the Emperor, not the dumb half faction GW made them with the 8th ed codex because they figured girl models have no place in an army of big burly super dudes or whatever.
In my opinion we're better off not basing the claim that there are not enough Custodes models in the Custodes box on one of GW's dumber marketing decisions.
Blackie wrote: Tzaangors are TS, they are part of their codex. So are all units included in the Death guard box. Aren't SoS part of the new Custodes codex?
Those are the factions names, nothing more. Aren't gretchins orks?
Don't be intentionally facetious (I assume this because I refuse to believe you are being intentionally obtuse). You know exactly what we're talking about.
I honestly can't understand why anyone should complain about the content of those boxes. They're all units from the same codex, aren't they?
OK, 10 poxwalkers can't be fielded out of the box, assuming the DG player doesn't have anything else than what's in that kit. And what's the problem? You can play 500 points games without those additional 10 poxwalkers, but you can't play at 750 or 1000 without getting more kits anyway.
Those boxes are supposed to encourage people start collecting or expanding their collections. They're perfect for that. They don't need to be optimized, and I don't think many of those patrols are actually optimized for competitive gaming.
Blackie wrote: Tzaangors are TS, they are part of their codex. So are all units included in the Death guard box. Aren't SoS part of the new Custodes codex?
Those are the factions names, nothing more. Aren't gretchins orks?
Don't be intentionally facetious (I assume this because I refuse to believe you are being intentionally obtuse). You know exactly what we're talking about.
I honestly can't understand why anyone should complain about the content of those boxes. They're all units from the same codex, aren't they?
OK, 10 poxwalkers can't be fielded out of the box, assuming the DG player doesn't have anything else than what's in that kit. And what's the problem? You can play 500 points games without those additional 10 poxwalkers, but you can't play at 750 or 1000 without getting more kits anyway.
Those boxes are supposed to encourage people start collecting or expanding their collections. They're perfect for that. They don't need to be optimized, and I don't think many of those patrols are actually optimized for competitive gaming.
Because people who play Thousand Sons presumably want to play Thousand Sons instead of blobs of useless goats ported over from AoS
And because GW refuses to give TSons a substantial update, like with Death Guard, which they kinda need. They get no unique Daemon Engines, Vehicles, or even the psychic Dreadnoughts they canonically have and invented, and instead of fixing that, GW just pads all their boxes with goats.
Blackie wrote: "Useless" goats are part of the army, and not the only models in common with fantasy Tzeentch armies.
Most elite oriented armies would love having cheap infantries added to their rosters.
It's weird because by a country mile THE iconic unit of the Thousand Sons is the Rubric Marine. The first thing you think of when 'Thousand Sons' comes to mind is going to be Rubric Marines.
Sure, Scarab Occult are technically Rubrics as well, but they're not what people think of when you say the R-word.
I'm probably one of the few people who's happy to see Tzaangors and Cultists and other 'mortal' units included in Chaos Marine books, but I still think it's really weird how they keep trying to cram them into every single box.
For a box that's pitched as a starting place for new Thousand Sons players, not including their iconic core infantry raises an eyebrow. Although I'm sure someone's going to jump in with "UM AKTUALLY ARBITRATOR YOU WHINER, IT DOESN'T SAY -START COLLECTING- ANYMORE."
Because people who play Thousand Sons presumably want to play Thousand Sons instead of blobs of useless goats ported over from AoS
Barring the useless mini-unit from Silver Tower, proper Tzaangor units were in 40K before AoS. The kit was originally released with Wrath of Magnus and the boxes contained the 40K exclusive sprues. They were always intended to be a dual game kit.
Blackie wrote: "Useless" goats are part of the army, and not the only models in common with fantasy Tzeentch armies.
Most elite oriented armies would love having cheap infantries added to their rosters.
Tzangors don't really feel like gretchin do to orks or like poxwalkers feel to DG though. Their look and feel is completely off compared to those clean scarab-egyptian themed marines.
Tzangors feel much more in line with Tzeench Daemons than with TS.
Blackie wrote: I honestly can't understand why anyone should complain about the content of those boxes.
I don't believe you.
Blackie wrote: They're all units from the same codex, aren't they?
You really are missing this one, aren't you?
These boxes have been bulked out with non-standard units. Units that aren't representative of the army they're part of. Yes, Tzaangors are part of the 1KSons Codex, but actual Thousand Sons would perhaps be a better fit than more Beastmen. Yes, Sisters of Silence are part of the Adeptus Custodes book, but why do they outnumber the actual Custodes units in there. Yes, Pox Walkers are part of the Death Guard Codex, but why does the Death Guard box contain more pox walkers than Death Guard units, so much so that you cannot legally field what's in the box by itself (unlike the other Combat Patrols).
It'd be like if the new Tau one had a Ethereal, 3 Stealth Suits and 20 Kroot; wouldn't be very Tau-y. Or if the new GSC one had a Magus, 5 Hybrids, a Ridge Runner and 20 Cadians with 2 Brood Brother sprues. Technically possible within the army, but not a good representation of what the army is meant to be.
Blackie wrote: Those boxes are supposed to encourage people start collecting or expanding their collections. They're perfect for that. They don't need to be optimized, and I don't think many of those patrols are actually optimized for competitive gaming.
It's got nothing to do with being "optimised". Has anyone other than you even said "optimised" in reference to the boxes? When people think of Thousand Sons they don't think of no actual Thousand Son Marines and a gaggle of goatmen. When people think of Adeptus Custodes they generally don't think of a scant few Custodes and a legion of Sisters of Silence.
Most TSons list only use a few MSU Rubrics, and people here are acting like they need them in every TSons box
The Custodes box would be rock solid if any variant of Sisters were a troop choice, but since I don’t own any Custodes or Sisters at all I’m tempted to grab it.
The Custodes box would be rock solid if any variant of Sisters were a troop choice, but since I don’t own any Custodes or Sisters at all I’m tempted to grab it.
H.B.M.C. wrote: You really are missing this one, aren't you?
These boxes have been bulked out with non-standard units. Units that aren't representative of the army they're part of. Yes, Tzaangors are part of the 1KSons Codex, but actual Thousand Sons would perhaps be a better fit than more Beastmen. Yes, Sisters of Silence are part of the Adeptus Custodes book, but why do they outnumber the actual Custodes units in there. Yes, Pox Walkers are part of the Death Guard Codex, but why does the Death Guard box contain more pox walkers than Death Guard units, so much so that you cannot legally field what's in the box by itself (unlike the other Combat Patrols).
The Custodes box is equal if you build the units as basic, 2 Custodes units and 2 Sisters units. That being said, the Custodes squad comes as a unit of 3 models base meaning the other two can be a Shield Captain and Vexilus.
The Codex should always have been called "Talons of the Emperor" like it is in HH but obviously, marketing said that Custodes are a recognized name so they went with that instead.
I'm also 90% sure you are wrong with regards to the DGCP box. IIRC, all of the Marine units (Plague Marines, Typhys, Biophagus) count as 1 <Bubonic Astartes> unit, and therefore the potential 3 units of Poxwalkers are perfectly legal. It's exactly the same as the Tsons.
When people think of Adeptus Custodes they generally don't think of a scant few Custodes and a legion of Sisters of Silence.
I'm really surprised you don't get this.
1 - Custodes are always lesser in number compared to any other Imperial force.
2 - There are 2 Custodes units (technically 4) and 2 Sisters units. There are 8 Custodes models and 10 Sisters models. You are bad at maths.
Gert wrote: The Custodes box is equal if you build the units as basic, 2 Custodes units and 2 Sisters units.
And, again, it's about the inclusion of so much SoS in the first place that is the head scratcher. I agree that the Codex should have just been called 'Talons of the Emperor', and in the process exorcised any of the silly restrictions that exist with the SoS unit choices in the Codex (they're limited, because who knows...), but again, it's an Adeptus Custodes Combat Patrol where the Custodes are out numbered by non-Adeptus Custodes units. Swap it for Tau, and change most of the box to Kroot, and you'd have the same question mark over the whole thing.
Gert wrote: 1 - Custodes are always lesser in number compared to any other Imperial force. 2 - There are 2 Custodes units (technically 4) and 2 Sisters units. There are 8 Custodes models and 10 Sisters models. You are bad at maths.
Irrelevant. It's a Custodes box that has fewer Custodes. Just like the Thousand Sons box contains more goats than Thousand Sons. Or the Death Guard box that contains more zombies than Death Guard.
"Bad at maths". It's like you don't even understand the conversation.
H.B.M.C. wrote: And, again, it's about the inclusion of so much SoS in the first place that is the head scratcher. I agree that the Codex should have just been called 'Talons of the Emperor', and in the process exorcised any of the silly restrictions that exist with the SoS unit choices in the Codex (they're limited, because who knows...), but again, it's an Adeptus Custodes Combat Patrol where the Custodes are out numbered by non-Adeptus Custodes units. Swap it for Tau, and change most of the box to Kroot, and you'd have the same question mark over the whole thing.
Irrelevant. It's a Custodes box that has fewer Custodes. Just like the Thousand Sons box contains more goats than Thousand Sons. Or the Death Guard box that contains more zombies than Death Guard.
If I'm bad at maths, you lack reading comprehension skills.
You seem to be under the impression that a CP box is to be named for the units in the box rather than the Codex it accompanies. SoS are in the Custodes Codex, therefore they are included in the CP box. End of story.
As for outnumbering, I don't think 2 more models qualifies, especially when the Custodes make more units than the SoS do out of the models available in said box. Your assertation that the CP box included a "legion" of SoS is just flat-out wrong and hyperbole.
And for the SoS being restricted in the new Codex, have you got a source for that? I may just be remembering the previews wrong but I never saw anything that suggested that SoS were in any way restricted in a Custodes army.
The original aim for Combat Patrol boxes was to replace the Start Collecting sets with around ~500pts of models for a playable army. However thanks to the big cost-per-point disparity between different factions, it's pretty obvious that some of them will be tricky to balance and not all will be equivalent.
Just using the Custodes models without the Sisters from that box gives more points than most other Combat Patrols, but also a pretty poor discount. Using purely Custodes models with a discount comparable to other factions would be worth far, far more points-wise. It would be less like a Start Collecting set and more like a Finished Collecting set.
It's not really that shocking they put some cheap infantry in box with the games' most elite infantry faction.
Gert wrote: I'm also 90% sure you are wrong with regards to the DGCP box. IIRC, all of the Marine units (Plague Marines, Typhys, Biophagus) count as 1 <Bubonic Astartes> unit, and therefore the potential 3 units of Poxwalkers are perfectly legal.
"You cannot include more POXWALKER units than BUBONIC ASTARTES CORE INFANTRY units in each DEATH GUARD Detachment in your army."
Hilariously, the box is even doubly illegal, as you are only allowed to run two units of troops in a combat patrol game, so you can't ever run both the 30 pox walkers and the plague marines anyways.
It's still a decent starting point for a new DG player, so I guess it does its job.
Gert wrote: I'm also 90% sure you are wrong with regards to the DGCP box. IIRC, all of the Marine units (Plague Marines, Typhys, Biophagus) count as 1 <Bubonic Astartes> unit, and therefore the potential 3 units of Poxwalkers are perfectly legal.
"You cannot include more POXWALKER units than BUBONIC ASTARTES CORE INFANTRY units in each DEATH GUARD Detachment in your army."
Hilariously, the box is even doubly illegal, as you are only allowed to run two units of troops in a combat patrol game, so you can't ever run both the 30 pox walkers and the plague marines anyways.
It's still a decent starting point for a new DG player, so I guess it does its job.
Bloody Rose get the Codex Supplement in the first Nachmund book
yep, it really was necessary to boost BR since they are not seeing much use on the table right now, right?
I'm actually glad that I chose Sacred Rose....no reason to buy a supplement for 1 or 2 pages of rules. Then again, I intend to use the Deathwatch one and just took images of the internet to use. Could do the same with this I suppose.
Gert wrote: As for outnumbering, I don't think 2 more models qualifies, especially when the Custodes make more units than the SoS do out of the models available in said box. Your assertation that the CP box included a "legion" of SoS is just flat-out wrong and hyperbole.
I'm sorry - are you seriously trying to claim that 10 does not outnumber 8?
Never play one of the editions of 40k where outnumbering was a factor in CC resolution, and even having one more model than the opponent was a benefit... you'll not cope.
zend wrote: Most TSons list only use a few MSU Rubrics, and people here are acting like they need them in every TSons box
This is the TSons box though. Wouldn't it make sense to include a set?
Not when the goal is to get you to spend more money. Most players will make do with 20 Rubrics, why include that in the combat patrol when they can get you to spend an additional $90+ on them
I thought prosecutors were still elite, but then I haven’t gotten my free copy of the new codex yet so I’m talking out of my pooper. If they are troop now, that’s a solid Combat Patrol box to people new to the faction.
Gert wrote: As for outnumbering, I don't think 2 more models qualifies, especially when the Custodes make more units than the SoS do out of the models available in said box. Your assertation that the CP box included a "legion" of SoS is just flat-out wrong and hyperbole.
I'm sorry - are you seriously trying to claim that 10 does not outnumber 8?
Never play one of the editions of 40k where outnumbering was a factor in CC resolution, and even having one more model than the opponent was a benefit... you'll not cope.
How many points? Aka which side forms bigger % on currency most people use to play. Most don't play by model counts. Closest was aos1 to begin with by wounds.
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: Death Guard have 21 individual boxed units. Thousand Sons have 8, 3 of those are Tzaangors, and 2 of the remaining ones are named characters.
That's really the crux of the issue, tbh. Thousand Sons only get three actual Thousand Sons-y unit. No vehicles, no daemon engines, no dreadnoughts.
Death Guard have 18 unique units, 4 HQs, 2 troops, 2+5 elites, 2 FA, 1 HS, 1 LoW and 1 fortification
Thousand sons have 9: 3 HQs, 2 troops, 1 elite, 1 FA, 1HS, 1 LoW.
In terms of actual Bubonic Astartes, the between DG and TS is one terminator unit and the five elite characters that would have been a single command squad box in the past. The LoV and the LoC really differ no more than a sorcerer with and without disc.
A psychic dread, an automaton unit like they have in 30k and some elite characters would probably be enough to make them feel more like TS and less like "tzangors and their masters".
The CP is a great purchase as it is, pretty much an insta buy for any new player, maybe even two, but I just don't want more Ethereals, more when I'm playing Enclaves.
Just use the Ethereal torso with some extra Fire Warrior legs/arms/head/backpack and you can make an extra Cadre Fireblade. Also note that the Cadre Fireblade fits the hoverboard quite well!
Ethereal torso is laughably thin still, the rest of the model looks quite bad with such a short torso.
The CP is a great purchase as it is, pretty much an insta buy for any new player, maybe even two, but I just don't want more Ethereals, more when I'm playing Enclaves.
Just use the Ethereal torso with some extra Fire Warrior legs/arms/head/backpack and you can make an extra Cadre Fireblade. Also note that the Cadre Fireblade fits the hoverboard quite well!
Ethereal torso is laughably thin still, the rest of the model looks quite bad with such a short torso.
Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but it looks like you're crapping all over the dude's conversion, which looks perfectly fine to me.
GaroRobe wrote: Is that even the conversion he's talking about? I think its the second part; just the standard cadre fireblade but mounted on the etheral's drone
If I'm wrong, then I apologize, and feel free to disregard.
zend wrote: Most TSons list only use a few MSU Rubrics, and people here are acting like they need them in every TSons box
This is the TSons box though.
TS as a faction. All units included are TS. If those sisters are part of the custodes codex then they are Custodes as well. Just like gretchins are Orks.
It's still a decent starting point for a new DG player, so I guess it does its job.
That's the point of those kits. They are meant to be a good deal for people who want to start or expand those armies. They don't need to be "legal" (except they are in fact at 500 points, including the DG one) or to include the most iconic units for those factions. Their goal is to encourage players starting or expanding those factions by providing a nice discount, that's it.
Geifer wrote:
English Words may suck sometimes, but it's a way better game than 40k. Because when the Word People occasionally release a new edition of their Book of Words, unlike GW's new editions the new Book of Words doesn't throw out half of the old words and replace them with a random combination of new, antiquated and foreign words just to sell new books. It's wild how a Book of Words released this year is like 99% in line with a Book of Words released twenty years ago, or forty years ago. It's a very inexpensive game to maintain compared to new, partially incompatible editions of 40k released every three years.
The Word People also don't release Book of Words supplements every half year to make you learn about all those new words people use that seem like English Words, but really aren't. Probably because Book of Words: English Words But Not! supplements would just be compilations of house rules, and we all know how deeply distrustful parts of the English Words player base are of house rules and how they insist that everyone only uses words straight out of the Book of Words. House rules like that are only ever made official in a new edition of the Book of Words after years of thorough playtesting. We could only wish for that kind of prudence from GW.
Although English is far more long lived than 40k, and generally a safe game to get into, it's not perfect. The Word People cannot dismiss practical considerations any more than GW's designers. Even in English, a number of words are eventually rotated out of the game and put in a legacy category, like Legends for 40k, that effectively sees them removed from the game. English is similar to 40k in that you are well advised to invest in a collection rather than a build, so as not to get too attached to any single game piece and sound like a grognard when you tell the youngsters that English used to be real gay back in your day, but these days it has lost much of its excitement.
Sorry to come into a 40k thread and talk about the virtues of a different game. If you like 40k despite its flaws, I can totally respect that. Have fun in whichever way you like. I just want to highlight that there are alternative games out there that are fun, inexpensive and don't leave you disenfranchised after coming back from a break of a couple of years. Doesn't have to be English Words either. There's a fair few fun games out there to choose from.
I just want to praise this very impressive bit of snark and sarcasm. And yes, English is basically the GW rules (or AD&D first edition) of language. Everything gets bespoke rules you have to memorize, yet the main rules are iron clad and can't be broken, except for the stuff that breaks them
Matt.Kingsley wrote:Also "bimonthly" means both twice a month or once every two months, depending on the context.
Somehow still less confusing than some of the rules GW writes
I'm like 90% sure bimonthly only means every 2 months, the complimentary word being biweekly.
But now I'm afraid to look.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And I checked.
bi·month·ly
/ˌbīˈmənTHlē/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
done, produced, or occurring twice a month or every two months.
"a bimonthly newsletter"
adverb
twice a month or every two months.
"the magazine appears bimonthly"
noun
a periodical produced twice a month or every two months.
FFS.
Is English the only language where the same damn word is also its antonym?
zend wrote: Most TSons list only use a few MSU Rubrics, and people here are acting like they need them in every TSons box
This is the TSons box though.
TS as a faction. All units included are TS. If those sisters are part of the custodes codex then they are Custodes as well. Just like gretchins are Orks.
I guess a Space Marine box without Space Marines or an Imperial Guard box without Imperial Guardsmen would be a-okay by these standards, then. Or a GSC box made entirely out of IG minis?
Blackie wrote: TS as a faction. All units included are TS. If those sisters are part of the custodes codex then they are Custodes as well. Just like gretchins are Orks.
I take it all back. You are being intentionally obtuse. You know damn well what we mean when we say that a Tzaangor isn't a Thousand Sons any more a Sister of Silence isn't an Adeptus Custodes.
tneva82 wrote: Which is irrelevant though as tzaangors have 100% valid reason to be in CP box.
CP contains models for TS. You need to be intentionally obtuse to claim tzaangors don't have place in CP.
*sigh*
If you're going to join in with a conversation halfway through, at least try to pretend you've read it up to that point.
No one is suggesting that Tzaangors don't have a place in a Combat Patrol. What's being suggested is that the amount of these non-standard units is the issue. There are more non-Adeptus Custodes in the Adeptus Custodes Combat Patrol than there are actual Adeptus Custodes. That doesn't mean you remove the Sisters of Silence, or that Sisters of Silence shouldn't be in that box - including them is perfectly fine - just that perhaps don't put more of them than actual frickin' Custodes. There are more zombies in the Death Guard one than Death Guard Marines. The Thousand Sons Combat Patrol has loads of Tzaangors, but no actual Thousand Sons Rubric Space Marines (the SC! box managed to include 10 of each).
If the Ork Combat Patrol had been a Warboss, 5 Nobz, a Deff Dreads and 40 Gretchin, I imagine people would have had a similar reaction to that even though, yes, Blackie, Gretchin are part of the Ork Codex.
Blackie wrote: TS as a faction. All units included are TS. If those sisters are part of the custodes codex then they are Custodes as well. Just like gretchins are Orks.
I take it all back. You are being intentionally obtuse. You know damn well what we mean when we say that a Tzaangor isn't a Thousand Sons any more a Sister of Silence isn't an Adeptus Custodes.
Of course I know, I just think it's BS because I don't see any problem with the composition of those boxes. Just people whining because it's the standard thing to do when it comes to discuss GW stuff. It's the same that claiming that gretchins aren't orks, in fact they don't even get klan bonuses. Except, they are . And no one (I hope) would argue that they don't belong to an ork box.
Units are equally legit in a codex, there's no units A and units B just because A are supposed to be more iconic. Tzeentch related stuff are 100% thousand sons units, in fact they do have the THOUSAND SONS keyword, right?
Blackie wrote: TS as a faction. All units included are TS. If those sisters are part of the custodes codex then they are Custodes as well. Just like gretchins are Orks.
I take it all back. You are being intentionally obtuse. You know damn well what we mean when we say that a Tzaangor isn't a Thousand Sons any more a Sister of Silence isn't an Adeptus Custodes.
Of course I know, I just think it's BS because I don't see any problem with the composition of those boxes. Just people whining because it's the standard thing to do when it comes to discuss GW stuff. It's the same that claiming that gretchins aren't orks, in fact they don't even get klan bonuses. Except, they are . And no one (I hope) would argue that they don't belong to an ork box.
Units are equally legit in a codex, there's no units A and units B just because A are supposed to be more iconic. Tzeentch related stuff are 100% thousand sons units, in fact they do have the THOUSAND SONS keyword, right?
Dude, stop trolling, because it's not funny and you're not contributing anything.
If the Ork Combat Patrol had been a Warboss, 5 Nobz, a Deff Dreads and 40 Gretchin, I imagine people would have had a similar reaction to that even though, yes, Blackie, Gretchin are part of the Ork Codex.
Do you get it?
None of the released boxes has this ratio though. With 20+ Sisters or 40+ tzaangors you may be right, but not because those units don't belong, because they're too spammy. If the ork patrol had a warboss, 5 nobz, a dread and 20 gretchins it would be 100% ok.
10 sisters and 20 tzaangors aren't spam, it's just two kits of those. 40 gretchins (4 kits) could be spam.
Are 20 tzaangors useful for an average TS collection? Does their patrol box allow for a legit 500 points army? If both answers are "Yes" then the box is good.
Are 10 sisters useful for an average Custodes collection? Does their patrol box allow for a legit 500 points army? If both answers are "Yes" then the box is good.
Are 30 pox walkers useful for an average Deathguard collection? Does their patrol box allow for a legit 500 points army? If both answers are "Yes" then the box is good.
Blackie wrote: TS as a faction. All units included are TS. If those sisters are part of the custodes codex then they are Custodes as well. Just like gretchins are Orks.
I take it all back. You are being intentionally obtuse. You know damn well what we mean when we say that a Tzaangor isn't a Thousand Sons any more a Sister of Silence isn't an Adeptus Custodes.
Of course I know, I just think it's BS because I don't see any problem with the composition of those boxes. Just people whining because it's the standard thing to do when it comes to discuss GW stuff. It's the same that claiming that gretchins aren't orks, in fact they don't even get klan bonuses. Except, they are . And no one (I hope) would argue that they don't belong to an ork box.
Units are equally legit in a codex, there's no units A and units B just because A are supposed to be more iconic. Tzeentch related stuff are 100% thousand sons units, in fact they do have the THOUSAND SONS keyword, right?
Dude, stop trolling, because it's not funny and you're not contributing anything.
I can't help but agree. Even if you disagree, there are less obnoxious ways to make it known.
If the Ork Combat Patrol had been a Warboss, 5 Nobz, a Deff Dreads and 40 Gretchin, I imagine people would have had a similar reaction to that even though, yes, Blackie, Gretchin are part of the Ork Codex.
Do you get it?
Issue wouldn't be model count etc. You have more points and money on orks. Only issue would be whether gretchin would be good in game.
But you are just being intentionally obstinate and trolling just for sake of trolling. Out here to cause a flamewar.
tneva82 wrote: Issue wouldn't be model count etc. You have more points and money on orks. Only issue would be whether gretchin would be good in game.
Like I said: If you're going to join halfway through a conversation, you need to understand what the conversation is about. Blackie, despite his disingenuous manner, understands what we're talking about, he's just chosen the most obnoxious way to engage with us (or not engage with us, I suppose one could argue). You on the other hand don't seem to actually grasp the crux of the argument.
That's not be being "obstinate", or "trolling" or trying to cause a "flamewar" - three words which you have woefully misused, so FFS, give that a damned rest already or just leave the thread - it's a simple metric at looking at a number of the Combat Patrols and seeing that some of them contain very little of what people consider the core of the army. The Deathguard box has very little Deathguard in it. The Custodes box has more Sisters of Silence than actual Custodians. If the Tau box had 20 Kroot in there rather than the Firewarriors and the Fireblade, the same would apply.
You must understand the purpose of this discussion by now.
Are 20 tzaangors useful for an average TS collection? Does their patrol box allow for a legit 500 points army? If both answers are "Yes" then the box is good.
Are 10 sisters useful for an average Custodes collection? Does their patrol box allow for a legit 500 points army? If both answers are "Yes" then the box is good.
Are 30 pox walkers useful for an average Deathguard collection? Does their patrol box allow for a legit 500 points army? If both answers are "Yes" then the box is good.
H.B.M.C.'s criteria can be satisfied by removing 5 sisters from the new Custodes box and it would still be close to doubling that PL/points target above. Of course it would be a worse deal for customers
Dude, stop trolling, because it's not funny and you're not contributing anything.
I can't help but agree. Even if you disagree, there are less obnoxious ways to make it known.
The drawback to the ignore list is missing incredible moments like this. Entire civilisations could be powered by the levels of irony generated from Wha-Mu accusing someone else of "not contributing anything" to a thread.
If the Ork Combat Patrol had been a Warboss, 5 Nobz, a Deff Dreads and 40 Gretchin, I imagine people would have had a similar reaction to that even though, yes, Blackie, Gretchin are part of the Ork Codex.
Do you get it?
Issue wouldn't be model count etc. You have more points and money on orks. Only issue would be whether gretchin would be good in game.
But you are just being intentionally obstinate and trolling just for sake of trolling. Out here to cause a flamewar.
Yeah this is a giveaway it's just concern trolling, or at best nit-picking for the sake of it. I can think of at least three editions where things like grots / cultists / poxwalkers outnumbered the 'main' units for their faction in the starter set. Boxed sets with chaff infantry have been a thing for decades but now all of a sudden it's an issue?
BURRRRRRRNNN FOR THE BURN GOD! CHURRRRRRRRN FOR 
