77922
Post by: Overread
Neurothropes already done that 
Heck technically Tyranids have been doing that for ages, Andrenal Glands, Toxin Sacs and all guns are living parts that graft on.
Tsagualsa wrote:
Centerpiece dude on scenic base surrounded by hanger-ons and abbeyants.
Tervigon
Also technically Tyranids have been doing that for ages, if you ever run out of the need for more Ripper bases you can just put rippers on random Tyranid bases
Tsagualsa wrote:
Creature with way too wide shoulders and torso on skimpy lower body and legs.
Hive tyrant (esp original metal one and the 3rd edition one); Zoanthrope original - massive head!; Screamer Killer - granted its not quite there with the shoulder pads but makes up for it with two upper arm sets of bit scythes.
Tsagualsa wrote:
Centerpiece character on a howdah/throne/catafalque paraded around by normal dudes/monsters.
Ok granted my first thought was "ooh sounds like a Patriarch for the Cult";
30489
Post by: Trickstick
 Overread wrote:Tsagualsa wrote:
Centerpiece character on a howdah/throne/catafalque paraded around by normal dudes/monsters.
Ok granted my first thought was "ooh sounds like a Patriarch for the Cult";
My first thought was this:
108384
Post by: kurhanik
https://www.warhammer-community.com/downloads/#warhammer-40000
The Dark Angels, Blood Angels,and Black Templars ones are new yes?
53939
Post by: vipoid
 lord_blackfang wrote:
Finally, Nids are the last faction to get capes for its characters. I hope there's one with a trenchcoat too.
Honestly, though, I'll confess that I quite like the bio-cape.
129530
Post by: ProfSrlojohn
 kurhanik wrote:https://www.warhammer-community.com/downloads/#warhammer-40000
The Dark Angels, Blood Angels,and Black Templars ones are new yes?
Yeah, and they forgot deathwatch. 
125912
Post by: tondier
 ProfSrlojohn wrote: kurhanik wrote:https://www.warhammer-community.com/downloads/#warhammer-40000
The Dark Angels, Blood Angels,and Black Templars ones are new yes?
Yeah, and they forgot deathwatch.
Don't worry, I'm sure there'll be a white dwarf in a couple of months with our index.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
 cole1114 wrote:It got mentioned during one of the show matches that there's a designer commentary coming that'll clarify you can only take two characters per squad, even with all extra rules added on.
That's why the rules are stuff like "Apothecary can join a unit with a captain or chapter master or lieutenant" rather than and/or.
Oh, right. I assumed as much and read the original post incorrectly. Sorry!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Other marines are up.
112701
Post by: Kothra
Give me my Company Veterans back.
124786
Post by: tauist
What a derpy looking Deathleaper
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Dark Angels appear to be the 'anti-battleshock' army.
97198
Post by: Nazrak
They're still there, they've just (somewhat inexplicably) been rolled into the Command Squad.
129530
Post by: ProfSrlojohn
tondier wrote: ProfSrlojohn wrote: kurhanik wrote:https://www.warhammer-community.com/downloads/#warhammer-40000
The Dark Angels, Blood Angels,and Black Templars ones are new yes?
Yeah, and they forgot deathwatch.
Don't worry, I'm sure there'll be a white dwarf in a couple of months with our index.
THe thing got leaked, it's just not been uploaded.
anyway, here's the armory card they told us to wait for:
gag Shotgun, stalker bolter, all the pistols, all the heavy weapons besides the Missile launcher, special weapons, all gone! Can't even build them like they tell you to in the fething kit, since you can't have a bol-pardon "long vigil ranged weapon" and a Powe-Long vigil ranged weapon either.
EDIT: now it is: https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/oNwkFTe6jFmHZ148.pdf
122989
Post by: VladimirHerzog
lmao, i am NOT parsing that gak
Deathwatch belong in killteam, not in full-on 40k.
112701
Post by: Kothra
 Nazrak wrote:
They're still there, they've just (somewhat inexplicably) been rolled into the Command Squad.
You can only take 2 in that squad. I can't even add extra veterans to pad it out.
I'd have to run my squad as Sternguard which means no more Razorback (which I bought just for them).
I had a feelling things would turn out like this after seeing the Marine rules on Friday but it's still disappointing.
129530
Post by: ProfSrlojohn
it's a really complicated way to say they can only have a melee weapon (this includes claws and hammers in one statline) and a bolter; a shield, bolter, and CCW; or a combi-weapon statline (this includes pistols, storm bolter, shotgun, stalker bolter, special weapons combi-weapons and presumably the missing heavy weapons). and a CCW. 2 can have hammers, 2 can heavy one of thew three heavy weapons
85390
Post by: bullyboy
I have a unit of power sword and combat shield DA vets. Now they can be vanguard vets on foot with heirloom weapons and storm shield, and I might just attach Ezekiel to them ?
122989
Post by: VladimirHerzog
ProfSrlojohn wrote:
it's a really complicated way to say they can only have a melee weapon (this includes claws and hammers in one statline) and a bolter; a shield, bolter, and CCW; or a combi-weapon statline (this includes pistols, storm bolter, shotgun, stalker bolter, special weapons combi-weapons and presumably the missing heavy weapons). and a CCW. 2 can have hammers, 2 can heavy one of thew three heavy weapons
even your "less complicated" way of explaining it made my eyes glaze over.
It's a super cool concept for a faction, i just find that its design clashes with the scale of the game
124786
Post by: tauist
BA Index looking bland AF
Let me guess, if I want to field my JP Death Company unit, I must use the Sons Of Sanguinius detachment rules? But I can still use datasheets from Index SM, correct?
129530
Post by: ProfSrlojohn
 VladimirHerzog wrote: ProfSrlojohn wrote:
it's a really complicated way to say they can only have a melee weapon (this includes claws and hammers in one statline) and a bolter; a shield, bolter, and CCW; or a combi-weapon statline (this includes pistols, storm bolter, shotgun, stalker bolter, special weapons combi-weapons and presumably the missing heavy weapons). and a CCW. 2 can have hammers, 2 can heavy one of thew three heavy weapons
even you "less complicated" way of explaining it made my eyes glaze over.
It's a super cool concept for a faction, i just find that its design clashes with the scale of the game
That's because they over complicated the rules. Before it was "all vets got a bolter and power weapon, can swap those for melee and ranged weapons as you like, no doubling shotguns, stalkers, storm bolters and combi weapons" Sarge got a xenophase blade as an extra option, 1 in 5 could take a heavy weapon, and one in five could take the heavy thunder hammer, and that's it.
124875
Post by: KirvesUK
Anyone know when Grey Knights will be available as a full data set?
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
 tauist wrote:BA Index looking bland AF
Let me guess, if I want to field my JP Death Company unit, I must use the Sons Of Sanguinius detachment rules? But I can still use datasheets from Index SM, correct?
It gives the restrictions at the top.
132388
Post by: Tsagualsa
That one Dark Angels stratagem needs a FAQ ASAP (or a general rule that Damage can't be reduced to zero), otherwise it's way too strong for 1 CP.
Unbreakable Lines... Automatically Appended Next Post: KirvesUK wrote:Anyone know when Grey Knights will be available as a full data set?
With the other Imperium stuff on the 14th.
112701
Post by: Kothra
So are Black Templars just able to take 6 of each Primaris tank (3 of each can take multi-meltas)?
106511
Post by: Dreyf
Wings of Sanguinius is nice: turn 1 deep strike for one infantry unit.
Agressors with flamers, terminators or maybe an big foot melee unit.
Perfect to hurt an ennemy unit or take an objectif.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Tsagualsa wrote:That one Dark Angels stratagem needs a FAQ ASAP (or a general rule that Damage can't be reduced to zero), otherwise it's way too strong for 1 CP.
What I want to know is why DG pays 2 for the same strat.
DA termies get the same thing among several other instances of stuff like this that will be in the designer's commentary.
126443
Post by: Matrindur
 Kothra wrote:So are Black Templars just able to take 6 of each Primaris tank (3 of each can take multi-meltas)?
Thats what this is for:
Your army cannot include any Adeptus Astartes Psyker models, and cannot include any of the following models that do not have the Black Templars keyword:
Gladiator Lancer; Gladiator Reaper; Gladiator Valiant; Impulsor; Repulsor; Repulsor Executioner.
196
Post by: cuda1179
So, Space Wolves terminators can mix cyclone launchers with lightning claws, but Dark Angels can not. Damn you GW.
112701
Post by: Kothra
 Matrindur wrote: Kothra wrote:So are Black Templars just able to take 6 of each Primaris tank (3 of each can take multi-meltas)?
Thats what this is for:
Your army cannot include any Adeptus Astartes Psyker models, and cannot include any of the following models that do not have the Black Templars keyword:
Gladiator Lancer; Gladiator Reaper; Gladiator Valiant; Impulsor; Repulsor; Repulsor Executioner.
Oh ok, I kind of skipped through the first few pages.
87618
Post by: kodos
 cuda1179 wrote:So, Space Wolves terminators can mix cyclone launchers with lightning claws, but Dark Angels can not. Damn you GW.
always been that way, at least they are consistent with that over years......
124786
Post by: tauist
Dreyf wrote:Wings of Sanguinius is nice: turn 1 deep strike for one infantry unit.
Agressors with flamers, terminators or maybe an big foot melee unit.
Perfect to hurt an ennemy unit or take an objectif.
I'm not seeing that Strat - do I have a wrong version of the Index pdf?
101864
Post by: Dudeface
Sooo is the death company dread capable of an infinite (assuming you're in engagement range of infinite units) fight phase in theory?
Frenzied Reprisal: Each time an enemy unit targets this model, after that unit has finished making its attacks, this model can either shoot as if it were your Shooting phase or fight as if it were the Fight phase.
So you charge say 3 units, fight first from the charge, unit A hits back, dread fights again, unit B hits back, dread fights again, unit C hits back, dread fights again etc?
122989
Post by: VladimirHerzog
because the DG one isnt phase-restricted.
113031
Post by: Voss
Hmmm.
Like the ability to attach characters if that character can be attached to [standard unit]. That's a decent solution to a potential spiraling mess.
Not a fan of the Unforgiven detachment. You're not as bad or have benefits when battleshocked is a narrow niche.
Confused by the BT versions of Primaris tanks. Is there some overlap between vows and the base versions of those tanks?
A fair amount of overlap is happening with stratagems already. At least there aren't 5 variants of Armor of Contempt, though some of the others are similar but do different things. Overlap is largely good though, as its less random crap to remember.
106511
Post by: Dreyf
tauist wrote:Dreyf wrote:Wings of Sanguinius is nice: turn 1 deep strike for one infantry unit.
Agressors with flamers, terminators or maybe an big foot melee unit.
Perfect to hurt an ennemy unit or take an objectif.
I'm not seeing that Strat - do I have a wrong version of the Index pdf?
No, it's the psychic power of the librarian dreadnought.
Take one infantry unit at 12" of the dreadnought and put it anywhere at more than 9" of an ennemy.
132388
Post by: Tsagualsa
tauist wrote:Dreyf wrote:Wings of Sanguinius is nice: turn 1 deep strike for one infantry unit.
Agressors with flamers, terminators or maybe an big foot melee unit.
Perfect to hurt an ennemy unit or take an objectif.
I'm not seeing that Strat - do I have a wrong version of the Index pdf?
It's not a Stratagem, it's a Psychic power on the Libnaught.
78721
Post by: Santtu
I was hoping they would change the Deathwing standard bearer to allow him to be equipped with close combat weapons like in every edition so far, but no.
24409
Post by: Matt.Kingsley
So instead of just doing what they did in 9th and say "these vehicles can take a multi-melta, you captains are called Marshals and can take X, your Leiutenants are called Castellans and can take Y"... GW made unique datasheets for all of them
Why? Just why... it could have been 1 page instead of several useless ones...
132388
Post by: Tsagualsa
Dudeface wrote:Sooo is the death company dread capable of an infinite (assuming you're in engagement range of infinite units) fight phase in theory?
Frenzied Reprisal: Each time an enemy unit targets this model, after that unit has finished making its attacks, this model can either shoot as if it were your Shooting phase or fight as if it were the Fight phase.
So you charge say 3 units, fight first from the charge, unit A hits back, dread fights again, unit B hits back, dread fights again, unit C hits back, dread fights again etc?
Until it croaks, yes. If you manage to get one into base contact with an enemy one, or e.g. Murderfang (who has the same ability with another name) you can have them fight it out until one of them dies
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
I could have sworn theirs was melee only? Can't find it now. Bleh.
100848
Post by: tneva82
tauist wrote:BA Index looking bland AF
Let me guess, if I want to field my JP Death Company unit, I must use the Sons Of Sanguinius detachment rules? But I can still use datasheets from Index SM, correct?
No. You use any unit you want but can use gladius det. What you can't do is take ba units in say dark angel det.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Voss wrote:Confused by the BT versions of Primaris tanks. Is there some overlap between vows and the base versions of those tanks?
The BT version can replace the stubber with a MM.
87618
Post by: kodos
 Matt.Kingsley wrote:So instead of just doing what they did in 9th and say "these vehicles can take a multi-melta, you captains are called Marshals and can take X, your Leiutenants are called Castellans and can take Y"... GW made unique datasheets for all of them
Why? Just why... it could have been 1 page instead of several useless ones...
to reduce bloat and keep it simple
so you just need the datasheets from your factions and not the datasheets from another faction +1 page of rules
much more simple and less rules bloat
129530
Post by: ProfSrlojohn
After going through my DW, I have 5 invalid models, 4 invalid units, and nothing to show for it but less customization options. Thanks a fething bunch.
124786
Post by: tauist
 Daedalus81 wrote: tauist wrote:BA Index looking bland AF
Let me guess, if I want to field my JP Death Company unit, I must use the Sons Of Sanguinius detachment rules? But I can still use datasheets from Index SM, correct?
It gives the restrictions at the top.
I'm not sure I'm understanding the detachment restrictions correctly tbh. From looking at both Index SM & Index BA, I get the feeling that I can take a Gladius Task Force Detachment, and still get to keep my DC & Co, but cannot mix in units from other Marine Chapters? Whereas if I take the Sons of Sang detachment, I am not allowed to take generic marines??
Anyways, as long as taking a Gladius detachment with DC is a legal build, I'll take it. It suits my headcanoned BA army much better than Sons Of Sang det, all I want from my BA is to be able to include DC due to lore reasons, can just as well be a codex chapter for all other purposes
122989
Post by: VladimirHerzog
Matt.Kingsley wrote:So instead of just doing what they did in 9th and say "these vehicles can take a multi-melta, you captains are called Marshals and can take X, your Leiutenants are called Castellans and can take Y"... GW made unique datasheets for all of them
Why? Just why... it could have been 1 page instead of several useless ones...
because now they can make BT- flavored Captains/Lieutenants with abilities that fit better with the faction than the generic SM ones (don't know if thats the case, can't be assed to actually read marines rules in detail)
24409
Post by: Matt.Kingsley
VladimirHerzog wrote: Matt.Kingsley wrote:So instead of just doing what they did in 9th and say "these vehicles can take a multi-melta, you captains are called Marshals and can take X, your Leiutenants are called Castellans and can take Y"... GW made unique datasheets for all of them
Why? Just why... it could have been 1 page instead of several useless ones...
because now they can make BT- flavored Captains/Lieutenants with abilities that fit better with the faction than the generic SM ones (don't know if thats the case, can't be assed to actually read marines rules in detail)
They're literally the same as the Primaris Captain and Primaris Lieutenant aside from the differing weapons.
122989
Post by: VladimirHerzog
tauist wrote: Daedalus81 wrote: tauist wrote:BA Index looking bland AF
Let me guess, if I want to field my JP Death Company unit, I must use the Sons Of Sanguinius detachment rules? But I can still use datasheets from Index SM, correct?
It gives the restrictions at the top.
I'm not sure I'm understanding the detachment restrictions correctly tbh. From looking at both Index SM & Index BA, I get the feeling that I can take a Gladius Task Force Detachment, and still get to keep my DC & Co, but cannot mix in units from other Marine Chapters? Whereas if I take the Sons of Sang detachment, I am not allowed to take generic marines??
Anyways, as long as taking a Gladius detachment with DC is a legal build, I'll take it. It suits my headcanoned BA army much better than Sons Of Sang det, all I want from my BA is to be able to include DC due to lore reasons, can just as well be a codex chapter for all other purposes
Any SM list can be a Gladius detachment
A sons of sang detachment cannot include units from other chapters but are free to bring "vanilla" marine units
So a sons of sang detachment can include tacticals/devastators/intercessors but not Agrax agatone or thunderwolf cavalry for example
113031
Post by: Voss
tauist wrote: Daedalus81 wrote: tauist wrote:BA Index looking bland AF
Let me guess, if I want to field my JP Death Company unit, I must use the Sons Of Sanguinius detachment rules? But I can still use datasheets from Index SM, correct?
It gives the restrictions at the top.
I'm not sure I'm understanding the detachment restrictions correctly tbh. From looking at both Index SM & Index BA, I get the feeling that I can take a Gladius Task Force Detachment, and still get to keep my DC & Co, but cannot mix in units from other Marine Chapters? Whereas if I take the Sons of Sang detachment, I am not allowed to take generic marines??
You can always take generic marines. If you take one of the specialist detachments you just can't take other chapter keywords. In this case, non- BA.
Chapter keywords are 'only one, ever,' whether its coming from the detachment or a single unit. Though having none at all is also an option.
You can have an entirely painted SW force, but if you only use generic units, you can use the Sons of Sang detachment.
Anyways, as long as taking a Gladius detachment with DC is a legal build, I'll take it. It suits my headcanoned BA army much better than Sons Of Sang det, all I want from my BA is to be able to include DC due to lore reasons, can just as well be a codex chapter for all other purposes
Sons of Sanguinus also represents a 'codex chapter.' They all do, technically. Though you have to stretch a bit for why they care about the relevant detachment rule in a few cases.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Matt.Kingsley wrote: VladimirHerzog wrote: Matt.Kingsley wrote:So instead of just doing what they did in 9th and say "these vehicles can take a multi-melta, you captains are called Marshals and can take X, your Leiutenants are called Castellans and can take Y"... GW made unique datasheets for all of them
Why? Just why... it could have been 1 page instead of several useless ones...
because now they can make BT- flavored Captains/Lieutenants with abilities that fit better with the faction than the generic SM ones (don't know if thats the case, can't be assed to actually read marines rules in detail)
They're literally the same as the Primaris Captain and Primaris Lieutenant aside from the differing weapons.
The differing weapons is, in fact, the point.
122989
Post by: VladimirHerzog
Matt.Kingsley wrote:
They're literally the same as the Primaris Captain and Primaris Lieutenant aside from the differing weapons.
well there you have it, they have different loadouts, so instead of adding a block of text to the generic version that say "if your army is a black templar army, you may instead take bla bla bla"
And lets not forget that a "black templar army" isnt a thing anymore too ....
105
Post by: Sarigar
DW Knights have -1 damage. Unless GW hasn't shown us something, they are immune to 1 damage weapons as there is no clause indicating damage reduced to minimum of 1.
100848
Post by: tneva82
tauist wrote: Daedalus81 wrote: tauist wrote:BA Index looking bland AF
Let me guess, if I want to field my JP Death Company unit, I must use the Sons Of Sanguinius detachment rules? But I can still use datasheets from Index SM, correct?
It gives the restrictions at the top.
I'm not sure I'm understanding the detachment restrictions correctly tbh. From looking at both Index SM & Index BA, I get the feeling that I can take a Gladius Task Force Detachment, and still get to keep my DC & Co, but cannot mix in units from other Marine Chapters? Whereas if I take the Sons of Sang detachment, I am not allowed to take generic marines??
Anyways, as long as taking a Gladius detachment with DC is a legal build, I'll take it. It suits my headcanoned BA army much better than Sons Of Sang det, all I want from my BA is to be able to include DC due to lore reasons, can just as well be a codex chapter for all other purposes
Generic marines you can take freely. And you can take ba in gladius. You just can't take multiple chapters in army(see marine index)
I'll be playing ba with gladius myself probably.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
I really hope Baal Predators make an appearance. The rules seem decent this time around.
100848
Post by: tneva82
 Sarigar wrote:DW Knights have -1 damage. Unless GW hasn't shown us something, they are immune to 1 damage weapons as there is no clause indicating damage reduced to minimum of 1.
Yes this been note for about a week or two now.
743
Post by: Justyn
It's not a Stratagem, it's a Psychic power on the Libnaught.
That is way better than the gakky lightning Njal got.
Both Wulfen and Thunderwolves got the Vanguard Vet treatment. So they are pretty garbage now. No loss where Wulfen are concerned. I don't like them.
In general I think SW are not going to see much play until the new 'dex in 2025.
I missed that they nerfed how fast Boxnaughts move.
64047
Post by: Agusto
Is there a misprint or anything regarding SM Command Squads? They can take almost any gun, except plasma guns. Plasma pistols, yes. Plasma cannons, yes. Plasma guns... eh... nope.
79006
Post by: Nightlord1987
Woof Scouts have 1 wound, Codex marines get 2. Hahaha.
551
Post by: Hellebore
For some reason space wolf scouts are w1...
101864
Post by: Dudeface
Tsagualsa wrote:Dudeface wrote:Sooo is the death company dread capable of an infinite (assuming you're in engagement range of infinite units) fight phase in theory?
Frenzied Reprisal: Each time an enemy unit targets this model, after that unit has finished making its attacks, this model can either shoot as if it were your Shooting phase or fight as if it were the Fight phase.
So you charge say 3 units, fight first from the charge, unit A hits back, dread fights again, unit B hits back, dread fights again, unit C hits back, dread fights again etc?
Until it croaks, yes. If you manage to get one into base contact with an enemy one, or e.g. Murderfang (who has the same ability with another name) you can have them fight it out until one of them dies
Daayyyuummmm that's one of the few things so far to strike me as a bit too much whilst being totally accidental. Maybe needs limiting to once per phase or something? Otherwise it's the absolute msu blender bar none.
74088
Post by: Irbis
I like how brother Fattussquattus (aka Castellan, aka snowflake LT) has primaris only loadout, can join only primaris units, but the model is clearly in spine/pelvis deficient custom Mk VI with liposuction apparatus bolted on. To make it even funnier, the only pistol option it has is heavy bolt pistol, something that I noted before is missing from regular primaris LT sheet. And he can take chainsword (something no other primaris LT in the game can) despite having no bit on sprue. This has to be some record in inconsistent writing bingo 
And the best part is, I struggle to understand why he is even an option because regular LT does everything better unless this dude has huge point discount or you really need either of two niche wargear options. Which you really don't because thanks to imbecile treatment of primaris melee, this dude won't be taking chainsword thanks to BT being melee army and characters being very rare source of not-wet-noodle attacks... 
Daedalus81 wrote:Voss wrote:Confused by the BT versions of Primaris tanks. Is there some overlap between vows and the base versions of those tanks?
The BT version can replace the stubber with a MM.
Which is idiotic, dozens of snowflake options were rolled into base SM gear in the index so this one really should have been added too. Especially seeing this plugs a big hole in primaris vehicle range (and would sell a ton of BT upgrade sprues). Though said options were mostly for squats, and clown writer sabotaging primaris rules really doesn't miss any opportunity...
132388
Post by: Tsagualsa
How many repetitions of ' GW forgets that SW scouts are grizzled Veterans, contrary to all the other chapters' is that now? It's definitely not the first, and i'm pretty sure it's not the second or third time either.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Wolves aren't the only ones with veteran Scouts.
24409
Post by: Matt.Kingsley
Actually there is another issue with the Marshal and Cestellan being their own unique units beyond being a waste of space - they lack the Captain and Lieutenant keywords (as does Helbretch with Chapter Master) so they can't be paired up with all of the sub-leaders in the main Marine cards
Likewise, a Templar army using the Gladius Detachment can field 4+ units of the tanks that got a special Templar version - GW only restricted non-Templar special tanks in their Crusader detachment and not the other way around.
132388
Post by: Tsagualsa
There are the one example regularly featuring them in Codexes, quit splitting hairs
551
Post by: Hellebore
People were wondering about venerable dreadnoughts - they've gone back to being just a space wolf thing apparently...
101864
Post by: Dudeface
 Hellebore wrote:People were wondering about venerable dreadnoughts - they've gone back to being just a space wolf thing apparently...
Bespoke kit and options (helfrost and axe/shield)
85390
Post by: bullyboy
God, my Deathwatch are a mess. Stormbolter a as regular bolters, check. Anybody with a thunderhammer and storm shield or bolter….oops. All my jump pack dudes are now just vanvets I guess. Jump pack with heavy thunder hammer? Nope. Shotguns are cool combi weapons I guess. Heavy bolter has a hidden heavy flamer attachment.
Jesus, what a mess.
At least a suppressor can be added to spectrus kill team now.
102719
Post by: Gert
Special Issue Ammo reduced to stratagems and a massively disappointing Index for Deathwatch. Oh well, it's been a long time coming but I guess it's time to hang up the 40k hat.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Idly looking at the unit sprues, and I’m not seeing anything being shared. As in unlike Indomitus and the AoS one, each unit should be packageable as a separate SKU.
So….hopefully, we won’t see any given unit locked away in bigger boxed sets, when perhaps we only want one of the units.
26519
Post by: xttz
 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Idly looking at the unit sprues, and I’m not seeing anything being shared. As in unlike Indomitus and the AoS one, each unit should be packageable as a separate SKU.
So…. hopefully, we won’t see any given unit locked away in bigger boxed sets, when perhaps we only want one of the units.
The space marine captain and Tyranid Prime come attached together, but are easy to split. Fully expecting those to be in a starter set.
Neurogaunts & barbgaunts are similar, they come on sprues attached together but easily split. Strangely only barbgaunts were revealed as being in the Tyranid combat patrol though.
Neurotyrant and SK share the same sprue and will need to be sold together.
124786
Post by: tauist
Daedalus81 wrote:I really hope Baal Predators make an appearance. The rules seem decent this time around.
I've been thinking I might want to make a Baal from a Deimos Pred with HB sponsons and a flame cannon. Now with the plastic kit and these rules, I'm positive I'll do it
105
Post by: Sarigar
Does Sustained Hits1 stack if coming from two sources? Azreal + Lieutenant with Bolter Discipline?
100848
Post by: tneva82
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Idly looking at the unit sprues, and I’m not seeing anything being shared. As in unlike Indomitus and the AoS one, each unit should be packageable as a separate SKU.
So…. hopefully, we won’t see any given unit locked away in bigger boxed sets, when perhaps we only want one of the units.
Well every sprue was on sale before.
1 sprue containing couple together for high price though
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Am I the only one who doesn't see the DW sheets?
121578
Post by: EonChao
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Idly looking at the unit sprues, and I’m not seeing anything being shared. As in unlike Indomitus and the AoS one, each unit should be packageable as a separate SKU.
So…. hopefully, we won’t see any given unit locked away in bigger boxed sets, when perhaps we only want one of the units.
The Sternguard vets are on the same sprue as the Apothecary and Lieutenant, and the Screamer Killer and Neurotyrant share a sprue too.
132388
Post by: Tsagualsa
There is a working link in the community article.
https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/oNwkFTe6jFmHZ148.pdf
For some reason, they do not show up in the Download section of the website.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Fair points on the shared sprues.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Awesome - thanks for the link, guys.
42373
Post by: Shadow Walker
 xttz wrote:
Neurotyrant and SK share the same sprue and will need to be sold together.
They both could be part of new multipart kits. SC as part of ordinary Carnifex/ OOE kit, and Neurotyrant with some yet unknown creature.
130394
Post by: EviscerationPlague
That's what happens when GW decides to separate Marines from other Marines: you lose consistency!
71077
Post by: Eldarsif
Sarigar wrote:DW Knights have -1 damage. Unless GW hasn't shown us something, they are immune to 1 damage weapons as there is no clause indicating damage reduced to minimum of 1.
Yep.
Imagine three squads of these shrugging off all infantry fire except for heavy weaponry. So basically immune to over 80% of all weaponry?
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
 Eldarsif wrote: Sarigar wrote:DW Knights have -1 damage. Unless GW hasn't shown us something, they are immune to 1 damage weapons as there is no clause indicating damage reduced to minimum of 1.
Yep.
Imagine three squads of these shrugging off all infantry fire except for heavy weaponry. So basically immune to over 80% of all weaponry?
-1D on basic infantry makes me think it will be minimum 1. On vehicles or W3+ models I wasn't as concerned. If it stands I'll accept the challenge, but I can only imagine those particular units would be very common.
4720
Post by: The Phazer
 bullyboy wrote:God, my Deathwatch are a mess. Stormbolter a as regular bolters, check. Anybody with a thunderhammer and storm shield or bolter….oops. All my jump pack dudes are now just vanvets I guess. Jump pack with heavy thunder hammer? Nope. Shotguns are cool combi weapons I guess. Heavy bolter has a hidden heavy flamer attachment.
Jesus, what a mess.
At least a suppressor can be added to spectrus kill team now.
As I said in the Nid thread, I really think the index cards have just completely fluffed the design goal of making the game simpler.
Now I have to remember if a model with a stormbolter is a real stormbolter or just counts as a regular bolter, with several models in the same army having different rules for the same gun. Oh but it's fine, because my opponent might have a bit of card I can't read upside down on his bit of the table.
118410
Post by: ikeulhu
Wow, so Death Company with jump packs must have raided all the power fists and thunder hammers from Vanguard Veterans and Wolf Guard...
106511
Post by: Dreyf
Eldarsif wrote: Sarigar wrote:DW Knights have -1 damage. Unless GW hasn't shown us something, they are immune to 1 damage weapons as there is no clause indicating damage reduced to minimum of 1.
Yep.
Imagine three squads of these shrugging off all infantry fire except for heavy weaponry. So basically immune to over 80% of all weaponry?
Idem for redemptor dreadnought or jump pack death company with Lemartes.
101864
Post by: Dudeface
It's maybe related to the upcoming new scouts, if wolf scouts end up using the old kit + upgrade sprue for a little while longer, it might explain a wound gap. Or someone copy/pasted the wrong number. Automatically Appended Next Post:  The Phazer wrote: bullyboy wrote:God, my Deathwatch are a mess. Stormbolter a as regular bolters, check. Anybody with a thunderhammer and storm shield or bolter….oops. All my jump pack dudes are now just vanvets I guess. Jump pack with heavy thunder hammer? Nope. Shotguns are cool combi weapons I guess. Heavy bolter has a hidden heavy flamer attachment.
Jesus, what a mess.
At least a suppressor can be added to spectrus kill team now.
As I said in the Nid thread, I really think the index cards have just completely fluffed the design goal of making the game simpler.
Now I have to remember if a model with a stormbolter is a real stormbolter or just counts as a regular bolter, with several models in the same army having different rules for the same gun. Oh but it's fine, because my opponent might have a bit of card I can't read upside down on his bit of the table.
It'd be a real shame if you couldn't read them for free online or simply ask to read them right?
73007
Post by: Grimskul
You can tell the amount of datasheets is getting to the GW rules writers, because the Wulfen have the same stats for their generic weapons as they do for their hammer, even though the hammer only as 4 attacks compared to the 6 for their claws and other melee weapons.
743
Post by: Justyn
Wow, so Death Company with jump packs must have raided all the power fists and thunder hammers from Vanguard Veterans and Wolf Guard...
Yeah I will just run Grey BA. F@#K GW.
122989
Post by: VladimirHerzog
 Grimskul wrote:You can tell the amount of datasheets is getting to the GW rules writers, because the Wulfen have the same stats for their generic weapons as they do for their hammer, even though the hammer only as 4 attacks compared to the 6 for their claws and other melee weapons.
yeah, because theyre trading attacks for a defensive buff (4++ from shield)
13740
Post by: Valkyrie
Noted Bjorn halves any incoming damage, but no rounding clarification is mentioned. Would expect this to be FAQ'ed along with the -1D question. Doubt even p5 would try to pull the whole "you've taken 0.5 wounds" argument.
130394
Post by: EviscerationPlague
Justyn wrote:Wow, so Death Company with jump packs must have raided all the power fists and thunder hammers from Vanguard Veterans and Wolf Guard...
Yeah I will just run Grey BA. F@#K GW.
A bigger FU to GW would be telling them you're not going to purchase anything until they fix these issues. None y'all will do that though because plastic crack.
30489
Post by: Trickstick
 Valkyrie wrote:Noted Bjorn halves any incoming damage, but no rounding clarification is mentioned. Would expect this to be FAQ'ed along with the -1D question. Doubt even p5 would try to pull the whole "you've taken 0.5 wounds" argument.
I would default to standard mathematical rounding rules, so 0.5 is rounded up.
132388
Post by: Tsagualsa
 Trickstick wrote: Valkyrie wrote:Noted Bjorn halves any incoming damage, but no rounding clarification is mentioned. Would expect this to be FAQ'ed along with the -1D question. Doubt even p5 would try to pull the whole "you've taken 0.5 wounds" argument.
I would default to standard mathematical rounding rules, so 0.5 is rounded up.
And on top of that 'to a minimum of one' has a lot of precedent in Warhammer.
743
Post by: Justyn
A bigger FU to GW would be telling them you're not going to purchase anything until they fix these issues. None y'all will do that though because plastic crack.
Eh, I cannot currently purchase less than zero.
I assume there is no interaction between Lethal Hits and Devastating wounds? That is Lethal hits are normal wounds not critical wounds?
4720
Post by: The Phazer
Dudeface wrote:It'd be a real shame if you couldn't read them for free online or simply ask to read them right?
The point being that the game is not simpler if I have to remember several hundred opposing datasheets or scroll through a several hundred page PDF for every model constantly.
If anything the attempts to simplify it have increased the cognitive load, not decreased it.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Grimskul wrote:You can tell the amount of datasheets is getting to the GW rules writers, because the Wulfen have the same stats for their generic weapons as they do for their hammer, even though the hammer only as 4 attacks compared to the 6 for their claws and other melee weapons.
Nah that one makes sense.
I just don't see the point of taking Fenrisian Wolves unless they're dirt cheap. Also it would be nice if units with Extra Attacks that have the same profile as the unit's normal weapon would have the same WS. Like why make TWC roll two different blocks of dice? It seems like a relatively small buff that would be a big quality of life change.
122989
Post by: VladimirHerzog
The Phazer wrote:Dudeface wrote:It'd be a real shame if you couldn't read them for free online or simply ask to read them right?
The point being that the game is not simpler if I have to remember several hundred opposing datasheets or scroll through a several hundred page PDF for every model constantly.
If anything the attempts to simplify it have increased the cognitive load, not decreased it.
thats just false.
having the same amount of total rules in a book but having them on the datasheet instead of scattered between multiple pages of unorganized stratagems/relics/traits/spells is a much lighter cognitive load.
30489
Post by: Trickstick
VladimirHerzog wrote:having the same amount of total rules in a book but having them on the datasheet instead of scattered between multiple pages of unorganized stratagems/relics/traits/spells is a much lighter cognitive load.
I think the main advantage is you just need the cards you need, not the whole thing. So you could just be carrying the dozen cards for your particular army. I guess this hurts your ability to look up random things when out, but you could use the digital version as a backup I guess.
76888
Post by: Tyran
There are thousands of units in the game.
There is no way to make that something you can remember. At best it can be made something that is easier to reference.
101864
Post by: Dudeface
VladimirHerzog wrote: The Phazer wrote:Dudeface wrote:It'd be a real shame if you couldn't read them for free online or simply ask to read them right?
The point being that the game is not simpler if I have to remember several hundred opposing datasheets or scroll through a several hundred page PDF for every model constantly.
If anything the attempts to simplify it have increased the cognitive load, not decreased it.
thats just false.
having the same amount of total rules in a book but having them on the datasheet instead of scattered between multiple pages of unorganized stratagems/relics/traits/spells is a much lighter cognitive load.
It's a subconscious bias I think, if you've played for many editions and had the humble bolter simply be a cumulative profile/set of changes over the year and you easily apply that to other stuff then yes the new rules probably take a bit more learning. If you are able to park that or are new and can simple read and absorb things at face value, then this is significantly better. Sternguard having different guns with different rules to a tac marine > same bolter as 50% of the game but with 6/7 different rules or bits of unique wargear to get to the same place.
132388
Post by: Tsagualsa
 Tyran wrote:There are thousands of units in the game.
There is no way to make that something you can remember. At best it can be made something that is easier to reference.
Having standardized and visually distinct gear do wildly different things depending on which datasheet you use for models is just bad game design though. As it stands, what a given set of e.g. lightning claws does is anyone's guess if you do not know the specific datasheet.
101864
Post by: Dudeface
Tsagualsa wrote: Tyran wrote:There are thousands of units in the game.
There is no way to make that something you can remember. At best it can be made something that is easier to reference.
Having standardized and visually distinct gear do wildly different things depending on which datasheet you use for models is just bad game design though. As it stands, what a given set of e.g. lightning claws does is anyone's guess if you do not know the specific datasheet.
That isn't an issue for a large part of the game, you need to know what a unit does, even if you standardised the basic weaponry against 4-5 units you still need to learn what the unit actually has for profile, rules, additional abilities or loadouts and potential uses/roles. Checking the weapon profile isn't a big leap extra whilst you're there and doesn't take much to submit to memory extra.
"What profile and rules do those have, what are they armed with" - done
76888
Post by: Tyran
Tsagualsa wrote: Tyran wrote:There are thousands of units in the game. There is no way to make that something you can remember. At best it can be made something that is easier to reference.
Having standardized and visually distinct gear do wildly different things depending on which datasheet you use for models is just bad game design though. As it stands, what a given set of e.g. lightning claws does is anyone's guess if you do not know the specific datasheet.
They seem to be a melee twin-linked ap-2 D1 weapon, that part is consistent across all iterations I could find in the Marine index. The actual number of attacks, WS+ and strength will vary from datasheet to datasheet, but that always has been true as WS+, A and S have always been datasheet dependent.
1918
Post by: Scottywan82
Tsagualsa wrote: Tyran wrote:There are thousands of units in the game.
There is no way to make that something you can remember. At best it can be made something that is easier to reference.
Having standardized and visually distinct gear do wildly different things depending on which datasheet you use for models is just bad game design though. As it stands, what a given set of e.g. lightning claws does is anyone's guess if you do not know the specific datasheet.
That's the part that really burns me on these changes. They make things so much harder. Harder to finagle existing units, harder to remember what those units do or their weapon stats. It feels so needlessly arbitrary. Like the worst possible midpoint between how 40K was and something like OPR.
105694
Post by: Lord Damocles
So anybody want to explain to me why the Close Combat Weapon in Kill Team Cassius has AP-2, but the Long Vigil Melee Weapon only has AP-1 ???
743
Post by: Justyn
That's the part that really burns me on these changes. They make things so much harder. Harder to finagle existing units, harder to remember what those units do or their weapon stats. It feels so needlessly arbitrary. Like the worst possible midpoint between how 40K was and something like OPR.
I think the worst part is that every single unit needs its own damn unique special rule. Every single unit. Why? What the gak is the point of that. Isn't the difference between stats and weapons enough for some units. Why do all the SM captains need different special rules.... Now I need to memorize 6000 new special rules. Sure they are all on the datacards, but really... who is going to have every single card spread out over the table every time they play.
Then there is the nonsense like VV, TWC etc losing all access to special weapons, but Sanguinary Guard and Death Company get to keep access to real CC weapons. Is there a huge disconnect between writers at GW? Or does someone in the studio just like BA more?
53988
Post by: Insularum
Dudeface wrote:Tsagualsa wrote: Tyran wrote:There are thousands of units in the game.
There is no way to make that something you can remember. At best it can be made something that is easier to reference.
Having standardized and visually distinct gear do wildly different things depending on which datasheet you use for models is just bad game design though. As it stands, what a given set of e.g. lightning claws does is anyone's guess if you do not know the specific datasheet.
That isn't an issue for a large part of the game, you need to know what a unit does, even if you standardised the basic weaponry against 4-5 units you still need to learn what the unit actually has for profile, rules, additional abilities or loadouts and potential uses/roles. Checking the weapon profile isn't a big leap extra whilst you're there and doesn't take much to submit to memory extra.
"What profile and rules do those have, what are they armed with" - done
I mostly agree with you (especially on generic units), but it's not quite that easy. Under new index rules, Deathwatch Proteus Killteam can have the same physical component have different rules dependant on who the piece is glued to:
DW Vet with big hammer - that's a heavy thunder hammer
DW Van Vet with same big hammer in same unit - that's a long vigil melee weapon
WYSIWYG was a rule for quite a while, it's a big change to swap that out for "it isn't what you see, it's what the card says"
118022
Post by: Gaen
Im usually not one to complain at GW but looking at the DW index... Nerfs to all kill teams and that is even if you can till use youre previous unit builds at all. And the errors. Never thought Id use the phrase but they will have to sit out the edition on the shelf.
94675
Post by: General Kroll
The whole heirloom weapons thing is making me think VVs will get a new kit like the SVs have.
1321
Post by: Asmodai
 General Kroll wrote:The whole heirloom weapons thing is making me think VVs will get a new kit like the SVs have.
Probably. We've had rumours of a Primaris Jump Pack assault unit for a long time now. (Though I'm expecting the Codex-wave to be Terminator-focused, so the new VV's might not be till the BA book comes out.)
On today's Indexes, DW seem to be the clear winners. With the ability to build them to pump out 70-90MW per shooting phase, I wonder if Eldar D-Cannons will still be the big bad, or if the community will move on to the new craziness.
72386
Post by: EldarExarch
Sanguinary Priest with JP cant go with Sanguinary Guard...I think I might cry
At least Mephiston is finally a true beast as he always should have been. But even still he can only really go with Assault Intercessors as a good melee unit.
Edit: Sanguinor is also a lot of fun.
Is there a rule restriction where a unit can only allocate attacks to a model they have charged like last edition? If so what a dick move by this guy, love it.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
It would be criminal to finally add jump packs and cage them until BA, given how hard they have flanderized Raven Guard into "jump packs!".
30766
Post by: Da Butcha
 Insularum wrote:
I mostly agree with you (especially on generic units), but it's not quite that easy. Under new index rules, Deathwatch Proteus Killteam can have the same physical component have different rules dependant on who the piece is glued to:
DW Vet with big hammer - that's a heavy thunder hammer
DW Van Vet with same big hammer in same unit - that's a long vigil melee weapon
WYSIWYG was a rule for quite a while, it's a big change to swap that out for "it isn't what you see, it's what the card says"
Agreed. It seems odd for a design team to think that universal special rules help reduce confusion when the same rule appears in multiple datacard, but uniform weapon profiles do NOT reduce confusion, when the exact same model bit has a different profile when it is on a different datacard.
It's still allegedly a miniatures wargame, but the designers are telling us that specific design elements of the model line, have different rules profiles when they appear on different models---AND that other, differing design elements have the SAME rules profile, when they appear on some models, and different rules profiles when they appear on other models.
Obviously, it's not an insurmountable cognitive load, but it's really odd that the design team decides to simplify and rationalize certain rules, then goes out of their way to make sure that same weapon ≠ same rules sometimes and different weapon ≠ different rules sometimes.
If it was just 'we can only fit this much on a datacard', I would be disappointed, but it would be logically consistent. However, they then throw additional weapons on a 'wargear' card anyway. If you're going to do that, why bundle various weapons together?
Also, if simplification is the goal, why refer to power weapons in some places as power weapons, and in other places, as something else? Isn't creating multiple terms for the same thing precisely not simplifying it?
129530
Post by: ProfSrlojohn
Da Butcha wrote: Insularum wrote:
I mostly agree with you (especially on generic units), but it's not quite that easy. Under new index rules, Deathwatch Proteus Killteam can have the same physical component have different rules dependant on who the piece is glued to:
DW Vet with big hammer - that's a heavy thunder hammer
DW Van Vet with same big hammer in same unit - that's a long vigil melee weapon
WYSIWYG was a rule for quite a while, it's a big change to swap that out for "it isn't what you see, it's what the card says"
Agreed. It seems odd for a design team to think that universal special rules help reduce confusion when the same rule appears in multiple datacard, but uniform weapon profiles do NOT reduce confusion, when the exact same model bit has a different profile when it is on a different datacard.
It's still allegedly a miniatures wargame, but the designers are telling us that specific design elements of the model line, have different rules profiles when they appear on different models---AND that other, differing design elements have the SAME rules profile, when they appear on some models, and different rules profiles when they appear on other models.
Obviously, it's not an insurmountable cognitive load, but it's really odd that the design team decides to simplify and rationalize certain rules, then goes out of their way to make sure that same weapon ≠ same rules sometimes and different weapon ≠ different rules sometimes.
If it was just 'we can only fit this much on a datacard', I would be disappointed, but it would be logically consistent. However, they then throw additional weapons on a 'wargear' card anyway. If you're going to do that, why bundle various weapons together?
Also, if simplification is the goal, why refer to power weapons in some places as power weapons, and in other places, as something else? Isn't creating multiple terms for the same thing precisely not simplifying it?
This plays into my theory that i don't think the design team knows the philosophy behind why the community wanted certain changes made, instead making changes sorta kinda like the ones that the playerbase asked for and hoping it does the trick. They, as usual, hit things erratically with a hammer, rather than finding where the screw is and turning it into place.
I don't think anyone was asking for combi-weapons to be a single statline, however they were complaining about intercessor boltguns. People complained about certain options being worthless, and as a solution the design team just made them one statline. *cough* Deathwatch, warriors and Vanguard *cough*
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Justyn wrote:That's the part that really burns me on these changes. They make things so much harder. Harder to finagle existing units, harder to remember what those units do or their weapon stats. It feels so needlessly arbitrary. Like the worst possible midpoint between how 40K was and something like OPR.
I think the worst part is that every single unit needs its own damn unique special rule. Every single unit. Why? What the gak is the point of that. Isn't the difference between stats and weapons enough for some units. Why do all the SM captains need different special rules.... Now I need to memorize 6000 new special rules. Sure they are all on the datacards, but really... who is going to have every single card spread out over the table every time they play.
Then there is the nonsense like VV, TWC etc losing all access to special weapons, but Sanguinary Guard and Death Company get to keep access to real CC weapons. Is there a huge disconnect between writers at GW? Or does someone in the studio just like BA more?
It solidifies BA as the melee specialist army and Space Wolves as tough brawlers. T6 3+/4++ W4 is no joke. Death Company also need that Chaplain around to do mission work.
As for the proliferation of special rules - it provides a level of interesting tactical options. If all the Captains had the ability that gives the Captain DW and extra attacks once per game then you really wouldn't want to use a Captain on a non-melee focused unit, right?
101681
Post by: nordsturmking
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
ProfSrlojohn wrote:This plays into my theory that i don't think the design team knows the philosophy behind why the community wanted certain changes made, instead making changes sorta kinda like the ones that the playerbase asked for and hoping it does the trick. They, as usual, hit things erratically with a hammer, rather than finding where the screw is and turning it into place.
I don't think anyone was asking for combi-weapons to be a single statline, however they were complaining about intercessor boltguns. People complained about certain options being worthless, and as a solution the design team just made them one statline. *cough* Deathwatch, warriors and Vanguard *cough*
Combis probably died, because they wanted to do things like the special rule for Sternguard. Sternguard were primarily bolter specialists and it drifted to the special-weapon ranged-specialist we've had for a while. Now it seems like GW wants to make it so you can't build units that take on anything -- at least not without applying some leader buff ( DW strat notwistanding )
Was it the right thing to do? Certainly it's causing a bit of a mess and the transition period will be tough. The game might wind up better off for it...model collections not so much.
107281
Post by: LunarSol
Honestly, pretty happy with how DW turned out. Weirdly enough I consider this the least disruptive change we've ever gotten so I'll take that as a win.
The Proteus datasheet in general is a bit of a mess though. Most of it is okay, but the lack of Jump Pack customization feels like a notable oversight. Depends a bit I guess on how the points wind up though.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Very interesting to see the bikes not be noticably tougher than the mainline troops.
100848
Post by: tneva82
 Shadow Walker wrote: xttz wrote:
Neurotyrant and SK share the same sprue and will need to be sold together.
They both could be part of new multipart kits. SC as part of ordinary Carnifex/ OOE kit, and Neurotyrant with some yet unknown creature.
They could but far more likely to follow 8&9 ed style and those 2 are the expensive sprues you get from webstore. Automatically Appended Next Post: Valkyrie wrote:Noted Bjorn halves any incoming damage, but no rounding clarification is mentioned. Would expect this to be FAQ'ed along with the -1D question. Doubt even p5 would try to pull the whole "you've taken 0.5 wounds" argument.
Are you REALLY sure?-)
743
Post by: Justyn
It solidifies BA as the melee specialist army and Space Wolves as tough brawlers. T6 3+/4++ W4 is no joke. Death Company also need that Chaplain around to do mission work.
As for the proliferation of special rules - it provides a level of interesting tactical options. If all the Captains had the ability that gives the Captain DW and extra attacks once per game then you really wouldn't want to use a Captain on a non-melee focused unit, right?
Sure T6 4+++ 4w is sorta Tough. But they will lose to those JP units with real CC weapons who can charge them negating their one special rule. So pretty much anything BA. Those same BA units can be -1 to be hit, -1 to be wounded, -1 to damage them and have Lethal hits (partially negating T6). Also BA units will have +1 attack and +1 STR on the charge. SW might have a detachment special rule by turn two. They certainly won't be able to match BA one until at least turn 3. Yes the points are not out yet, but lets face it, they won't reflect the ridiculous difference in effectiveness between those two lists.
Also why do Blood Claws, and Sky Claws have one less attack than Assault Squads and Assault Squads with Jump packs? They also have worse special rules. Traditionally Blood Claws have been better than either of the above.
196
Post by: cuda1179
 kodos wrote: cuda1179 wrote:So, Space Wolves terminators can mix cyclone launchers with lightning claws, but Dark Angels can not. Damn you GW.
always been that way, at least they are consistent with that over years......
Um, no? I've been playing since early 2000. In that time DA have mostly been able to mix cyclones and ccws.
111101
Post by: No One Important
Fortis Kill-team has me a little confused. I expected to see the new flamer marines included, but instead they've got a 1-in-5 Long Vigil Ranged Weapon option.
Edit: I should probably expand on that - I wonder if that option is meant to represent the flamers, or if it's meant to represent how Fortis Kill-teams could mix different types of bolt rifles when no one else could, or if there is an upgrade sprue (potentially for Kill Team) with a combi-weapon (or similar) on the way.
100848
Post by: tneva82
Justyn wrote: Traditionally Blood Claws have been better than either of the above.
Which alwavs was bit odd why are new guys better than more experienced ones though
743
Post by: Justyn
Which alwavs was bit odd why are new guys better than more experienced ones though
Well if you go back to when it made the most sense, they got more attacks but were easier to hit because they were berserkers. Mostly they are garbage now.
127665
Post by: xerxeskingofking
No One Important wrote:Fortis Kill-team has me a little confused. I expected to see the new flamer marines included, but instead they've got a 1-in-5 Long Vigil Ranged Weapon option.
the 1 in 5 LVRW is for the intercessor's grenade launcher, i think.
and, honestly? i wouldn't be surprised if the people who wrote this index were "not in" on the infurnus squad being a thing, so they couldn't include it.
who knows? maybe it will be added in a future dataslate.
30490
Post by: Mr Morden
Justyn wrote:It solidifies BA as the melee specialist army and Space Wolves as tough brawlers. T6 3+/4++ W4 is no joke. Death Company also need that Chaplain around to do mission work.
As for the proliferation of special rules - it provides a level of interesting tactical options. If all the Captains had the ability that gives the Captain DW and extra attacks once per game then you really wouldn't want to use a Captain on a non-melee focused unit, right?
Sure T6 4+++ 4w is sorta Tough. But they will lose to those JP units with real CC weapons who can charge them negating their one special rule. So pretty much anything BA. Those same BA units can be -1 to be hit, -1 to be wounded, -1 to damage them and have Lethal hits (partially negating T6). Also BA units will have +1 attack and +1 STR on the charge. SW might have a detachment special rule by turn two. They certainly won't be able to match BA one until at least turn 3. Yes the points are not out yet, but lets face it, they won't reflect the ridiculous difference in effectiveness between those two lists.
Also why do Blood Claws, and Sky Claws have one less attack than Assault Squads and Assault Squads with Jump packs? They also have worse special rules. Traditionally Blood Claws have been better than either of the above.
They should be worse - they used to be younger more impteous Wolves and so less effective that more veteran Assault squads in other Chapters....eg they were WS3 rather than WS 4 IIRC
743
Post by: Justyn
They should be worse - they used to be younger more impteous Wolves and so less effective that more veteran Assault squads in other Chapters....eg they were WS3 rather than WS 4 IIRC
Yes and got +2 attacks on the charge. Because Berserkers. They were pretty fluffy then. Just being flat worse. Whatever why bother having them at all. There are some really BS discrepancies between these Indexes that some will be stuck using for 2 years.
30490
Post by: Mr Morden
Justyn wrote:They should be worse - they used to be younger more impteous Wolves and so less effective that more veteran Assault squads in other Chapters....eg they were WS3 rather than WS 4 IIRC
Yes and got +2 attacks on the charge. Because Berserkers. They were pretty fluffy then. Just being flat worse. Whatever why bother having them at all. There are some really BS discrepancies between these Indexes that some will be stuck using for 2 years.
Its better than having Every "Wulf unit" be Marine Unit +1 - Come On we all know that Wolves will get a Op Codex full of stupid new flanderisation before most entire races get anything.
I would agree that Wolf Scouts absolutely should not be 1W
82928
Post by: Albertorius
 Jidmah wrote: Albertorius wrote:Necronmaniac05 wrote:I personally thought this launch went well. If you accept that GW will never have been able to make enough for everyone in the world who wanted one, the fact it was still available in the UK at 8am this morning (its OOS now) and after I had waited in the online queue for over an hour yesterday means they probably got the stock levels about right.
Going OOS for a product when you're the manufacturer and can simply make more (as they already have other times) is not something that would really happen unless the company wants to.
Third party retailers is another story (and even then they could also do it, if they wanted to), but I guess training buyers to go to their own webstore works for them.
What gives you the impression they won't be producing more of these models?
They just won't be selling them as a heavily discounted box.
"Product" as in "set", or "this box right here" if you want. I think it was implied, but it seems it was not implied enough.
4588
Post by: Destrado
Oh boy, those Fortis KT's.
Someone on reddit already did the math, for 3 Fortis KT's with termies, assault cannons, anti-infantry 2+ from the Hellfire Rounds stratagem, 2 characters, Old Vigil bolters, it's something like 90 mws.
Amazing how these things stack.
111101
Post by: No One Important
xerxeskingofking wrote:No One Important wrote:Fortis Kill-team has me a little confused. I expected to see the new flamer marines included, but instead they've got a 1-in-5 Long Vigil Ranged Weapon option.
the 1 in 5 LVRW is for the intercessor's grenade launcher, i think.
and, honestly? i wouldn't be surprised if the people who wrote this index were "not in" on the infurnus squad being a thing, so they couldn't include it.
who knows? maybe it will be added in a future dataslate.
Oh. Right. Grenade Launcher. That's definitely it. I forgot about those.
100848
Post by: tneva82
 Destrado wrote:Oh boy, those Fortis KT's.
Someone on reddit already did the math, for 3 Fortis KT's with termies, assault cannons, anti-infantry 2+ from the Hellfire Rounds stratagem, 2 characters, Old Vigil bolters, it's something like 90 mws.
Amazing how these things stack.
Did they remember rite is once per unit? Regardless of how many captain(of any type) you have?
2 units is max that benefits from stratagem. Automatically Appended Next Post: Albertorius wrote: Jidmah wrote: Albertorius wrote:Necronmaniac05 wrote:I personally thought this launch went well. If you accept that GW will never have been able to make enough for everyone in the world who wanted one, the fact it was still available in the UK at 8am this morning (its OOS now) and after I had waited in the online queue for over an hour yesterday means they probably got the stock levels about right.
Going OOS for a product when you're the manufacturer and can simply make more (as they already have other times) is not something that would really happen unless the company wants to.
Third party retailers is another story (and even then they could also do it, if they wanted to), but I guess training buyers to go to their own webstore works for them.
What gives you the impression they won't be producing more of these models?
They just won't be selling them as a heavily discounted box.
"Product" as in "set", or "this box right here" if you want. I think it was implied, but it seems it was not implied enough.
Well large discount box was always intended to not be unlimited. That's what starter sets are for.
132388
Post by: Tsagualsa
tneva82 wrote: Destrado wrote:Oh boy, those Fortis KT's.
Someone on reddit already did the math, for 3 Fortis KT's with termies, assault cannons, anti-infantry 2+ from the Hellfire Rounds stratagem, 2 characters, Old Vigil bolters, it's something like 90 mws.
Amazing how these things stack.
Did they remember rite is once per unit? Regardless of how many captain(of any type) you have?
2 units is max that benefits from stratagem.
Hellfire Rounds allows you to pick either two units with the KILL TEAM keyword or one ADEPTUS ASTARTES unit per use natively.
4588
Post by: Destrado
You can use the stratagem again thanks to Captain Artemis leading a unit.
"Tactical Instinct: While this model is leading a unit, you can target that unit with a Stratagem even if that Stratagem has already been used on another unit from your army this phase.
In addition, that unit can be targeted with a Stratagem even while it is Battle-shocked"
129833
Post by: The Red Hobbit
Glad they finally gave the Auric armor on the blade champion a 2+.
132388
Post by: Tsagualsa
Destrado wrote:You can use the stratagem again thanks to Captain Artemis leading a unit.
"Tactical Instinct: While this model is leading a unit, you can target that unit with a Stratagem even if that Stratagem has already been used on another unit from your army this phase.
In addition, that unit can be targeted with a Stratagem even while it is Battle-shocked"
Even with bog-standard Captains you can target three units: Two by using the Stratagem normally, because it allows targeting two Killteams, and once for 0 CP by targeting the unit led by the Captain via Rites of Battle. Artemis could potentially give you a fourth target, as his is a different ability.
85390
Post by: bullyboy
And here I was thinking GW was getting away from all the gimmicky wombo combos in the game. All I’ve seen so far is people stacking abilities and combos to maximize ridiculous damage.
This is what happens when every unit in the game has an inbuilt strategem active at all times.
Sorry, but this isn’t simpler, it’s same ole same ole, give me your money for a new way to play. Yawn.
124786
Post by: tauist
And here they were claiming death to wombo-combos..
129833
Post by: The Red Hobbit
Yeah pretty disappointed, the combos are outrageous and made it through playtesting.
105694
Post by: Lord Damocles
Oh you sweet summer child...
320
Post by: Platuan4th
Guess events gotta ban Deathwatch.
132388
Post by: Tsagualsa
 The Red Hobbit wrote:Yeah pretty disappointed, the combos are outrageous and made it through playtesting.
I'd not cry uncle before points drop, and before that stuff sees actual play... with several characters, enhancements and gear you're putting a lot of points in these units, that get T4 (majority rule in the Killteam rule) and rely on a lot of once-per-game stuff for these mythical 'average 90 Mortal Wounds'; it will be hell of an Alpha Strike if you pull it off, but if that fails as little as a single Vindicator etc. can take out one third of your army with a single shot, and stuff that deals out moderate amounts of Mortal Wounds will make these units feel the pain fast. Automatically Appended Next Post:
Banning the Hellfire Rounds Stratagem is probably enough.
18249
Post by: Charax
Oh lordy we haven't even made it past the marines and it's already a tyre fire. 10e is gonna knock 6e's crown as shortest lived edition off, isn't it?
4588
Post by: Destrado
bullyboy wrote:And here I was thinking GW was getting away from all the gimmicky gotchas in the game. All I’ve e seen so far is people stacking abilities and combos to maximize ridiculous damage.
This is what happens when every unit in the game has an inbuilt strategem active at all times.
Sorry, but this isn’t simpler, it’s same ole same ole, give me your money for a new way to play. Yawn.
The same way there is a cap to hit/wound, there should be a cap on how these effects stack.
I don't think they should ever have [ANTI] (especially 2+!) and [Devastating Wounds] on a squad. You're bypassing the "to wound" and "save roll" parts, hitting on 2+.
Especially worse, since you can use the stratagem on 2 units (or 3 with the right conditions).
They could limit the stratagem to 1 kill team and/or maybe couldn't be used on the same type of KT. Or Long Vigil weapons only.
I think the game is a lot simpler, yes. I think the Datasheet and less stratagems makes it easier to balance out some units. The reduction in the AP system will also help survivability but I'm not sure about Weapon Abilities.
320
Post by: Platuan4th
Destrado wrote: I don't think they should ever have [ANTI] (especially 2+!) and [Devastating Wounds] on a squad. You're bypassing the "to wound" and "save roll" parts, hitting on 2+.
Anti- triggers on To Wound roll, not To-Hit
129833
Post by: The Red Hobbit
Tsagualsa wrote: The Red Hobbit wrote:Yeah pretty disappointed, the combos are outrageous and made it through playtesting.
I'd not cry uncle before points drop, and before that stuff sees actual play... with several characters, enhancements and gear you're putting a lot of points in these units, that get T4 (majority rule in the Killteam rule) and rely on a lot of once-per-game stuff for these mythical 'average 90 Mortal Wounds'; it will be hell of an Alpha Strike if you pull it off, but if that fails as little as a single Vindicator etc. can take out one third of your army with a single shot, and stuff that deals out moderate amounts of Mortal Wounds will make these units feel the pain fast.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Banning the Hellfire Rounds Stratagem is probably enough.
Even if they're 50ppm it's still a stupid combo that sucks the fun out of the game. It never should have made it past even the smallest amount of scrutiny.
132388
Post by: Tsagualsa
The Red Hobbit wrote:Tsagualsa wrote: The Red Hobbit wrote:Yeah pretty disappointed, the combos are outrageous and made it through playtesting.
I'd not cry uncle before points drop, and before that stuff sees actual play... with several characters, enhancements and gear you're putting a lot of points in these units, that get T4 (majority rule in the Killteam rule) and rely on a lot of once-per-game stuff for these mythical 'average 90 Mortal Wounds'; it will be hell of an Alpha Strike if you pull it off, but if that fails as little as a single Vindicator etc. can take out one third of your army with a single shot, and stuff that deals out moderate amounts of Mortal Wounds will make these units feel the pain fast.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Banning the Hellfire Rounds Stratagem is probably enough.
Even if they're 50ppm it's still a stupid combo that sucks the fun out of the game. It never should have made it past even the smallest amount of scrutiny.
I agree on that. Just a couple of days ago, i said (concerning Grav-weapons) that Anti-something 2+ was dumb on things and just waiting to be broken by some character or whatever putting Devastating Wounds on stuff, and look where we are now. Now it's a Stratagem that's a problem because it gives out Anti-X, but the base problem is the same. I think GW wants such interactions, because they think they're 'flavourful' and 'thematic', and yet again were foiled by their usual triple-whammy of doing either only superficial or no playtesting, don't really playing their own game, and not running basic math sanity checks.
Anyway, that stuff should be simple-ish to errata out, and hopefully they do so soon and with extreme prejudice.
129833
Post by: The Red Hobbit
Agreed. Honestly decoupling Anti and Devastating Wounds would solve a lot of issues from what we've seen of Indexhammer.
4588
Post by: Destrado
 Platuan4th wrote: Destrado wrote:
I don't think they should ever have [ANTI] (especially 2+!) and [Devastating Wounds] on a squad. You're bypassing the "to wound" and "save roll" parts, hitting on 2+.
Anti- triggers on To Wound roll, not To-Hit
Yeah, got it mixed, I also had Lethal Hits floating in my head, which only wound, not critically wound.
But still, it's allowing a unit to do mortal wounds on a 2+, with 18 shots just from the terminators. That's probably too much.
130394
Post by: EviscerationPlague
Tsagualsa wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Banning the Hellfire Rounds Stratagem is probably enough.
Deathwatch should be banned entirely for the travesty of their Datasheets alone.
196
Post by: cuda1179
My deathwatch is going to miss power fists and 4 frag cannons per turn.
125822
Post by: Boosykes
This edition isent looking so good out of the gate.
101864
Post by: Dudeface
I think it's horses for courses. There's only a small handful of particularly derpy interactions that raise eyebrows at present, which given the volume of stuff revealed so far isn't shocking. I'd be more worried if they managed to give us what, 250+ units, 6 sets of army rules and not have 1 total clusterfeth of weird interactions. It's down to how quickly they step in and adjust the outliers.
721
Post by: BorderCountess
Destrado wrote: Platuan4th wrote: Destrado wrote:
I don't think they should ever have [ANTI] (especially 2+!) and [Devastating Wounds] on a squad. You're bypassing the "to wound" and "save roll" parts, hitting on 2+.
Anti- triggers on To Wound roll, not To-Hit
Yeah, got it mixed, I also had Lethal Hits floating in my head, which only wound, not critically wound.
But still, it's allowing a unit to do mortal wounds on a 2+, with 18 shots just from the terminators. That's probably too much.
It's powerful, but you're looking at a VERY specific build, and CPs aren't as readily available as they used to be. And it only works against infantry, so it's hardly designed for a 'take all comers' list - if someone rolls up with Knights, you're pretty much screwed.
107507
Post by: Kale
Not happy with deathwatch, but at least they are just 'ravenous hoards' style get you by jobs. Remember how bland that was when WH changed editions?
Hopefully they will get a better set in the codex
100848
Post by: tneva82
Not sure how much new datasheet or two to new models and few extra detachment going to change much.
721
Post by: BorderCountess
tneva82 wrote:Not sure how much new datasheet or two to new models and few extra detachment going to change much.
Put the Blackshields back?
320
Post by: Platuan4th
tneva82 wrote:Not sure how much new datasheet or two to new models and few extra detachment going to change much.
Probably not much if the "One in, One out" thing is even partly true. Anyone thinking this is like Ravening Hordes is on hard Copium. Hell, basically nothing in Ravening Hordes had any sort of special rules.
85390
Post by: bullyboy
Trying to figure out what my DW vets with jump packs and Heavy Thunder Hammers are going to represent? Probably just a vet with inoperative jump pack in a proteus kill team. WYSIWYG be damned, that’s all on GW.
112807
Post by: No wolves on Fenris
Don’t suppose anyone has been on the GW face book page and asked me by Helbrecht is the only chapter master without the chapter master keyword and also why he’s the only primaris chapter master on 5 wounds and not 6 (or more)?
132388
Post by: Tsagualsa
bullyboy wrote:Trying to figure out what my DW vets with jump packs and Heavy Thunder Hammers are going to represent? Probably just a vet with inoperative jump pack in a proteus kill team. WYSIWYG be damned, that’s all on GW.
At the moment, they just represent bad decisions. DW is essentially unplayable with these rules - depending on the player's choices, either unbearably dull or extremely broken.
No wolves on Fenris wrote:Don’t suppose anyone has been on the GW face book page and asked me by Helbrecht is the only chapter master without the chapter master keyword and also why he’s the only primaris chapter master on 5 wounds and not 6 (or more)?
It's probably more typos, more than enough of them have popped up once they showed substantial amounts of datasheets. Missing keywords seem to be the most common errors, some marine characters lack the correct armour type, some units lack 'Psyker', and so on.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
It's a single strat. So far people have freaked out about Prisms, D-Cannons, Desolators and this, but the general attitude is so pervasive that it feels like the whole thing is bad, right?
Prisms, Desolators and D-Cannons are a possibly issue to deal with via points ( less so on Desolators ) so they're not worth freaking out about right now. That's a small handful of "big" issues on 266 datasheets.
GW was never going to nail it. What matters is that they do some quick fixes on these digital rules. If they don't... then we riot, but it's also important to keep a cool head, because many of these issues may be very different on the table.
10953
Post by: JohnnyHell
No wolves on Fenris wrote:Don’t suppose anyone has been on the GW face book page and asked me by Helbrecht is the only chapter master without the chapter master keyword and also why he’s the only primaris chapter master on 5 wounds and not 6 (or more)?
Better emailing the FAQ hotline politely than noisily annoying the FB team.
127665
Post by: xerxeskingofking
bullyboy wrote:Trying to figure out what my DW vets with jump packs and Heavy Thunder Hammers are going to represent? Probably just a vet with inoperative jump pack in a proteus kill team. WYSIWYG be damned, that’s all on GW.
Either a foot vet with hammer, or just shove him in a standard type van vets squad where he's just got an unusual heirloom weapon
10953
Post by: JohnnyHell
Dudeface wrote:
I think it's horses for courses. There's only a small handful of particularly derpy interactions that raise eyebrows at present, which given the volume of stuff revealed so far isn't shocking. I'd be more worried if they managed to give us what, 250+ units, 6 sets of army rules and not have 1 total clusterfeth of weird interactions. It's down to how quickly they step in and adjust the outliers.
…and everyone not throwing a gakfit in the meantime. Ain’t no way patches will land pre-release and we’re two weeks out, so Day 1 FAQs notwithstanding we’re a month away from any hit fixes. Everyone will be calm and patient til the… oh.
76888
Post by: Tyran
It wouldn't be the first time GW throws a panicked day 1 patch. Specially as tournaments are far more confident in outright banning entire factions.
196
Post by: cuda1179
There are at least a dozen typos that need fixing do far. I'm hoping they fix this before the codex's come out.
113031
Post by: Voss
cuda1179 wrote:There are at least a dozen typos that need fixing do far. I'm hoping they fix this before the codex's come out.
Hopefully they manage that low bar. The first thing that comes out from the pdfs released today are Dark Angels _next spring_. If they're particularly late in the spring, they've got a full year.
I'd hope they mange the errors by August at the latest (and I mean genuine errors, not simply people not liking things).
196
Post by: cuda1179
Voss wrote: cuda1179 wrote:There are at least a dozen typos that need fixing do far. I'm hoping they fix this before the codex's come out.
Hopefully they manage that low bar. The first thing that comes out from the pdfs released today are Dark Angels _next spring_. If they're particularly late in the spring, they've got a full year.
I'd hope they mange the errors by August at the latest (and I mean genuine errors, not simply people not liking things).
Yeah, like equipment with the wrong stats, TWC with no thunderhammers, and Wolf Scouts with 1 wound.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Assuming some of those are mistakes...
196
Post by: cuda1179
Lol, while I know you are only kidding part of me feels it's likely either true, of GW has reached a level of apathy that they just don't care.
130394
Post by: EviscerationPlague
cuda1179 wrote:
Lol, while I know you are only kidding part of me feels it's likely either true, of GW has reached a level of apathy that they just don't care.
There's a solution to it, which I've said multiple times, but until tournaments actively ban whole armies more often or y'all stop buying the plastic crack, they're gon a continue their apathy.
105713
Post by: Insectum7
^Tbf 10th may be the first edition where GW doesn't get any of my money. I already slowed considerably for 9th. I've got enough plastic crack that requires paint anyways.
132665
Post by: Teatonev
Is there any way that by the time the datacards are available for purchase that they won't already be out of date?
127665
Post by: xerxeskingofking
Teatonev wrote:Is there any way that by the time the datacards are available for purchase that they won't already be out of date?
eh, that was always going to be the case. its the inherit problem with physical cardstock, especially given the quarterly balance dataslates and the lead time for getting cards printed and shipped.
Also, i imgaine the teams that made these cards were both very small (in order to keep data form 10th leaking) and under significant time pressure (because capitalism). Its kinda inevitable that gak slip through.
82928
Post by: Albertorius
Kale wrote:Not happy with deathwatch, but at least they are just 'ravenous hoards' style get you by jobs. Remember how bland that was when WH changed editions?
Hopefully they will get a better set in the codex
Funny you should say that, as it's still remembered as the one time that Warhammer was most well balanced ^^. This does not seem to be the case now.
87618
Post by: kodos
impossible to tell which ones are typos or intended changes, yet a problem is that if GW overreacts (like usual) and puts out a day 1 Errata to change things based on community wishes that were not typos in the first place, there is a good chance that the point costs won't match either
like if a unit is priced on the ability to ignore D1 weapons, it will be way too expansive if that is changed, while adding more attacks or damage to weapons will make those unit too cheap
Teatonev wrote:Is there any way that by the time the datacards are available for purchase that they won't already be out of date?
looking at the pdf and those looking like a digital version of the original cards, which must have been printed months ago to be ready on release, they will be outdated before you can purchase them if those things are typos and we say a day 1 Errata
130394
Post by: EviscerationPlague
Albertorius wrote:Kale wrote:Not happy with deathwatch, but at least they are just 'ravenous hoards' style get you by jobs. Remember how bland that was when WH changed editions?
Hopefully they will get a better set in the codex
Funny you should say that, as it's still remembered as the one time that Warhammer was most well balanced ^^. This does not seem to be the case now.
8th Indexhammer was NEVER balanced, why do people keep saying that?
87618
Post by: kodos
non of those posts is about 8th Edi 40k Index
106711
Post by: Necronmaniac05
I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees issues pairing the [anti] keyword with [devastating wounds]. I'm sure some folks think it's cool but I think it will make for pretty dull none-interactions where you just sit and watch your opponent roll to hit and wound then just take models off. No save, no inv. MAYBE a FNP if you're lucky. I think individually they're both cool but paired together not so much.
129833
Post by: The Red Hobbit
EviscerationPlague wrote: Albertorius wrote:Kale wrote:Not happy with deathwatch, but at least they are just 'ravenous hoards' style get you by jobs. Remember how bland that was when WH changed editions?
Hopefully they will get a better set in the codex
Funny you should say that, as it's still remembered as the one time that Warhammer was most well balanced ^^. This does not seem to be the case now.
8th Indexhammer was NEVER balanced, why do people keep saying that?
While there were some unbalanced elements it felt balanced for a lot of people. 8th changed a lot of paradigms, people were learning and in my experience had a lot of fun smashing blobs of infantry together, enjoying the new split fire rules then trying to figure out which of their non troop options were worth taking from game to game. It wasn't perfect, but it was considerably lower power than 8.5, 9th and soon to be 10th. It was fun, and it felt balanced even if it wasn't.
87284
Post by: RedNoak
Da Butcha wrote:
Agreed. It seems odd for a design team to think that universal special rules help reduce confusion when the same rule appears in multiple datacard, but uniform weapon profiles do NOT reduce confusion, when the exact same model bit has a different profile when it is on a different datacard.
It's still allegedly a miniatures wargame, but the designers are telling us that specific design elements of the model line, have different rules profiles when they appear on different models---AND that other, differing design elements have the SAME rules profile, when they appear o
Obviously, it's not an insurmountable cognitive load, but it's really odd that the design team decides to simplify and rationalize certain rules, then goes out of their way to make sure that same weapon ≠ same rules sometimes and different weapon ≠ different rules sometimes.
If it was just 'we can only fit this much on a datacard', I would be disappointed, but it would be logically consistent. However, they then throw additional weapons on a 'wargear' card anyway. If you're going to do that, why bundle various weapons together?
Also, if simplification is the goal, why refer to power weapons in some places as power weapons, and in other places, as something else? Isn't creating multiple terms for the same thing precisely not simplifying it?
I don't think it's about simplification or hatred of USP's..... USP's are HARD to balance. When you change a USP, because one unit is OP. U Change the game for every single unit using that usp.
Advance and charge with + 2 to the charge roll and +1 attack; might be ok on intercessors but totally broken on other units.
Now instead of finegaling with USPS and taking 100+ units under consideration... U simply fix one Datacard. Eradicators are broken? Fix their special rule. Intercessors lacking? Fix their rule...
92245
Post by: Darnok
RedNoak wrote:Now instead of finegaling with USPS and taking 100+ units under consideration... U simply fix one Datacard. Eradicators are broken? Fix their special rule. Intercessors lacking? Fix their rule...
It is for this reason I have some hope in the midterm success of the 10th edition rules paradigm. It might take a few attempts, but with GWs recent efforts on constantly finetuning balance and actually adressing existing problems... yeah this could work out.
87618
Post by: kodos
and having USR "advance + charge"
USR "+x to charge roll"
and USR "+X attack on charge" was too complicated?
you create the amount of USR that you need to design all units in advance and instead of changing the special rules you change which units get them and in what form
for the very same reason "anti Keyword X" should not be a USR as it might be good on one unit but too strong on another
105713
Post by: Insectum7
 Darnok wrote:RedNoak wrote:Now instead of finegaling with USPS and taking 100+ units under consideration... U simply fix one Datacard. Eradicators are broken? Fix their special rule. Intercessors lacking? Fix their rule...
It is for this reason I have some hope in the midterm success of the 10th edition rules paradigm. It might take a few attempts, but with GWs recent efforts on constantly finetuning balance and actually adressing existing problems... yeah this could work out.
The problem is that "midterm success" these days is about one year out of three in an editions cycle. There's the early days when only a few codexes are out. (The "JuSt WaIt AnD SeEeEeE!" phase) There's maybe some middle section with a semi reasonable state of balance. And these days it seems that there's a "late edition" phase where GW is fething it up specifically so that the next edition can be ThE MoSt BaLaNcEd EvAr. SM 2.5 in 8th. Removing points for huge numbers of options in 9th. Even in mid 9th they were slapping on rules like AoC, which they later took out again.
What a mess. Churn for the churn god.
118022
Post by: Gaen
Some more concrete points on why i dont like the DW index.
Unit construction, I cant use my current units as they are so need to remove models and make new once.
Combat squading, usually only have five squads with two bolters each plus special weapons and now i must have atleast four bolters and everything in a big group.
Character leaders, my characters cant join the KT units for example my chaplin on a bike.
Unit abilities, this is mostly the spectrus unit but it was kinda fun to have al the phobos unit abilities in one swiss knife KT and now they only get a movement ability.
New models, no KT to put the new flamer and missile models in.
Weapon options, weapons that are an option on the standard SM units cannot be taken in a KT.
48188
Post by: endlesswaltz123
Unsure on whether mortal wounds are the actual issue, or the interactions causing devastating wounds from critical wounds.
One solution is to sack off mortal wounds, and make devastating wounds +1D and an additional -2 of AP. Meaning invulnerable saves no longer have a counter - this is probably not ideal.
The other is that critical wounds don't cause devastating wounds unless it is an unmodified 6 on the roll still. E.g. anti infantry still cause a critical wound on a 2+ or 4+ or whatever, but won't cause a devastating wound unless it is still a roll of a 6, and never make it modifiable.
I actually think Hellstorm wargamings 'joke' of playtesting for £500 an hour would probably be good thing for GW to invest in at the moment, the new edition is actually already broken.
I also then take on board a perspective someone had recently that I never really considered. Actually, the problem is not 'power gamers' already embedded into the hobby as such as I always thought it was. It's new players coming into the hobby.
They are unlikely to know or maybe even care that a combo is broken, and will deviate towards it ASAP - as that is what happens in video games, and sports, fantasy football etc now. Effectively, most new/young people are power gamers and are already aware of list building and tailoring in capacity anyway, and it is the norm for them. Anecdotally I see it with my nephew, he only cares about the most powerful units, not the ones that look cool (this is in contrast to me when I was joining the hobby around his age of 11).
131644
Post by: CoALabaer
 Insectum7 wrote: Darnok wrote:RedNoak wrote:Now instead of finegaling with USPS and taking 100+ units under consideration... U simply fix one Datacard. Eradicators are broken? Fix their special rule. Intercessors lacking? Fix their rule...
It is for this reason I have some hope in the midterm success of the 10th edition rules paradigm. It might take a few attempts, but with GWs recent efforts on constantly finetuning balance and actually adressing existing problems... yeah this could work out.
The problem is that "midterm success" these days is about one year out of three in an editions cycle. There's the early days when only a few codexes are out. (The "JuSt WaIt AnD SeEeEeE!" phase) There's maybe some middle section with a semi reasonable state of balance. And these days it seems that there's a "late edition" phase where GW is fething it up specifically so that the next edition can be ThE MoSt BaLaNcEd EvAr. SM 2.5 in 8th. Removing points for huge numbers of options in 9th. Even in mid 9th they were slapping on rules like AoC, which they later took out again.
What a mess. Churn for the churn god.
Bold Statement:
10th index times will be more balanced than 8th index times.
And i fondly remember that time as the most fun i ever had with a new Edition.
So yeah, tinfoil hat evil and chaos all you want, i am optimistic.
But, if you do not like it, nothing is preventing you from playing whatever edition was good enough to bring you into the Hobby - or your own rules. Except of course if noone agrees with your analysis....
( Full disclosure: i hugely detested 9th Ed. so our group instead played through all previous ones (exc. 1st Ed) Every edition has gems and issues. 5th and 6th got the most Likes)
99475
Post by: a_typical_hero
 endlesswaltz123 wrote:I also then take on board a perspective someone had recently that I never really considered. Actually, the problem is not 'power gamers' already embedded into the hobby as such as I always thought it was. It's new players coming into the hobby.
They are unlikely to know or maybe even care that a combo is broken, and will deviate towards it ASAP - as that is what happens in video games, and sports, fantasy football etc now. Effectively, most new/young people are power gamers and are already aware of list building and tailoring in capacity anyway, and it is the norm for them. Anecdotally I see it with my nephew, he only cares about the most powerful units, not the ones that look cool (this is in contrast to me when I was joining the hobby around his age of 11).
I think you look at it from the wrong side. A new player will ask for advice or search for information on what they need to start or what to get next.
How many videos talking about the best units of each army are out there? How many of them rate them by their tabletop power compared to how cool the model looks or how compelling the fluff for it is? There is your answer why new people gravitate towards strong units.
87618
Post by: kodos
bold statement given that without points we don't know anything about balance
so how can one know that 10th Index is better than 8th if we don't even have points yet
and than the edition cycle is not new
early edition, everything new first codex designed together, Update for each faction so that all are on the same level
mid edition, that show the design of that edition, good balance between those books
late edition, after the mid edition design shift, throwing everything out and just go in testing what people will accept/like
had that in 4th, 5th, 7th, 8th, 9th, so expect that to happen in 10th as well
difference is that we now have only 3 years so the state of "balance" is just months
106711
Post by: Necronmaniac05
Mortal wounds aren't an issue. Neither is triggering critical wounds on a unmodified roll of less than 6. In isolation either mechanic can be cool and fun. The issue is when you create circumstances where you can layer them all together.
Anti X ignores Toughness basically which is fine, mortal wounds (devastating wounds) ignore saves which again is fine. When you stack those and allow an attack to basically ignore both Toughness AND saves I feel that's too much. This is particularly true if:
The X value in [anti] is too good;
The faction has some way (eg fate dice for Aeldari) that allow you to guarantee the necessary value.
For me there is nothing wrong with [anti] conferring auto wound on X but still only scoring a critical wound on a 6 or at best a 5+.
101864
Post by: Dudeface
Necronmaniac05 wrote:Mortal wounds aren't an issue. Neither is triggering critical wounds on a unmodified roll of less than 6. In isolation either mechanic can be cool and fun. The issue is when you create circumstances where you can layer them all together.
Anti X ignores Toughness basically which is fine, mortal wounds (devastating wounds) ignore saves which again is fine. When you stack those and allow an attack to basically ignore both Toughness AND saves I feel that's too much. This is particularly true if:
The X value in [anti] is too good;
The faction has some way (eg fate dice for Aeldari) that allow you to guarantee the necessary value.
For me there is nothing wrong with [anti] conferring auto wound on X but still only scoring a critical wound on a 6 or at best a 5+.
I'd argue most of the mechanics in tandem aren't a problem, it's only when it affects too much at once, the scale and scope of hellfire rounds wasn't thought out at all. Even if it was a once per game limited to 1 kill team only and cannot be triggered by a captain, that limits it down massively from where it's at now and it's not even the most subtle or best solution. It maybe shouldn't be anti-infantry 2+ either, but 3+.
87284
Post by: RedNoak
kodos wrote:and having USR "advance + charge"
USR "+x to charge roll"
and USR "+X attack on charge" was too complicated?
you create the amount of USR that you need to design all units in advance and instead of changing the special rules you change which units get them and in what form
for the very same reason "anti Keyword X" should not be a USR as it might be good on one unit but too strong on another
Still... USR's are for every unit using it. You can NOT fine tune USR's... That was the whole problem in past editions... On your example... U maybe WANT a unit to have all those benefits. But X is a tad too much, so instead of gimping EVERY unit using that USR by going X-1, you just edit the unbalanced unit in the first place.
I can understand the implicit simplicity of USR's is appealling... There is no denying that datacards are easier to balance by default
87618
Post by: kodos
That was never the problem with USRs that is a problem with people not understanding how USR should work and be used
so GW has learned nothing from their past mistakes with USRs but is just repeating them and people defending it as being the only solution on how those things can work
Just for your example:
Anti Vehicle 3+ is too strong on some units, but because it is a USR you want to balance it by adding another USR that says "anti Vehicle rule on this units has -1"
and because this is not a good solution you suggest that there should be no Anti Vehicle USR but instead every unit gets their own version of an Anti Vehicle rules so that designers can adjust each unit on their own
the very obvious solution would be to have an "anti Keyword x+" USR and each unit can be adjusted on their needs
and if this is possible, than it is possible with any other rules as well
"+2 Attacks on Charge" is too strong on some units and to weak on others so it cannot be a "+x Attacks on Charge" USR but must be a +1A or +3A special rule on the datasheet is the biggest bs I have read regarding 10th in the last days
99475
Post by: a_typical_hero
RedNoak wrote:Still... USR's are for every unit using it. You can NOT fine tune USR's...
You can price USR differently for each unit based on how much impact it has on the unit's performance.
Packing too many effects into a single USR makes it increasingly unwieldy but could be avoided by splitting it up.
30489
Post by: Trickstick
Haven't they literally fine tuned USR by giving them numerical values? What is anti 3+ vs anti 4+, if not fine tuning?
132388
Post by: Tsagualsa
Trickstick wrote:Haven't they literally fine tuned USR by giving them numerical values? What is anti 3+ vs anti 4+, if not fine tuning?
I think it breaks down in the given case of DW because there are just too many combinations of stuff that you can potentially exploit, because you can mix-and-match with standard Astartes characters; the number of possible combinations skyrockets, and so there are degenerate optima.
This concrete problem has several causes:
- Mix-and-match Killteams where you can have three assault cannons and everybody else has Combi-Weapons
- The Hellfire rounds Stratagem being pretty overpowered for its cost and the number of uses it can have
- Mix-and-matching with standard Astartes to get access to an additional use of said Stratagem
- Deathwatch having Oath of the Moomins in addition to their own stuff, leading to re-rolls on stuff, notably on already overpowered Anti-2+, effectively fishing for MWs
- One Enhancement also allowing for an additional target for OoM, further increasing that problem
These things just stack too deep in combination.
100848
Post by: tneva82
kodos wrote:That was never the problem with USRs that is a problem with people not understanding how USR should work and be used
so GW has learned nothing from their past mistakes with USRs but is just repeating them and people defending it as being the only solution on how those things can work
Just for your example:
Anti Vehicle 3+ is too strong on some units, but because it is a USR you want to balance it by adding another USR that says "anti Vehicle rule on this units has -1"
and because this is not a good solution you suggest that there should be no Anti Vehicle USR but instead every unit gets their own version of an Anti Vehicle rules so that designers can adjust each unit on their own
the very obvious solution would be to have an "anti Keyword x+" USR and each unit can be adjusted on their needs
and if this is possible, than it is possible with any other rules as well
"+2 Attacks on Charge" is too strong on some units and to weak on others so it cannot be a "+x Attacks on Charge" USR but must be a +1A or +3A special rule on the datasheet is the biggest bs I have read regarding 10th in the last days
Umm gw has anti keyword x+ though?
113031
Post by: Voss
https://www.warhammer-community.com/downloads/?=#warhammer-40000
(if you're in the States, switch to british to see the files)
Chaos has crept into the downloads section (no Knights. I think the cards are mixed with Imps?)
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
lol Ahriman on Disc doesn't do anything different....WHYYYYYYYYYYYYY
113031
Post by: Voss
Daedalus81 wrote:lol Ahriman on Disc doesn't do anything different....WHYYYYYYYYYYYYY
Because Ahriman is still Ahriman?
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Spawn are tough, but lots rules. I guess that works. Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yea, but putting him on a disc seems to utterly pointless. They could have made him a lone operative or something.
113031
Post by: Voss
So chaos marine detachment rule.
Mark= crit more with a specifc type of dark pact per god in Fight or Shoot phase.
Or reroll 1s always. Glory to Chaos!... I guess..
Ouch. If you want multiple enhancements, you must multi-god. (chaos marines still, though daemons have the same problem)
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Gah! Exalted on disc is different, but Ahriman is not....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
But Magnus is a boss!
102719
Post by: Gert
So unless I've missed something, Cultist restrictions seem to be gone?
101214
Post by: Mr_Rose
If anything needs to be a USR that isn’t yet, it’s “one shot”
Yes it’s more or less self explanatory but every weapon that has it also has the explanation.
129833
Post by: The Red Hobbit
Armor of Contempt is 1CP
Infernal Rites is 2CP
110309
Post by: ListenToMeWarriors
Any opinions on whether Vashtorr has gotten any better than his mediocre introduction into 9th edition?
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Ooh Deathguard Helbrutes are interesting.
85390
Post by: bullyboy
ListenToMeWarriors wrote:Any opinions on whether Vashtorr has gotten any better than his mediocre introduction into 9th edition?
He looks like he still sucks, awesome.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
110309
Post by: ListenToMeWarriors
A shame, such an awesome model.
I am just glad that Traitor Guard and Beastmen have been rolled into the army straight away, just have to check out their various options now.
102719
Post by: Gert
With some minor additions to my HH Militia army, I can play CSM without adding any actual Marines which feels weird but in a good way.
129833
Post by: The Red Hobbit
Yeah changes to Traitor Guard are interesting. I wish I had snagged some more of the BSF models in the past.
124786
Post by: tauist
Wait? So now I can haz a Chaos Army I was planning, where its just cultists, traitor guard and beastmen from BSF & Gallowfall?
Schweet, just got myself a new Army 
102719
Post by: Gert
Small victories but victories nonetheless.
122989
Post by: VladimirHerzog
Thousand sons seem really fun
Guess i'll run Haarken in my nightlords as the only jump pack option -.-
I like how they gave helbrutes special rules to make them more than just dreadnought equivalent
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
They really, really do!
Guess i'll run Haarken in my nightlords as the only jump pack option -.-
He's finally decent at least.
I like how they gave helbrutes special rules to make them more than just dreadnought equivalent
For sure. Obliterators getting Indirect on Pact is pretty great, too.
114276
Post by: Biasn
Wait , are the thousand sons equivalents from the CSM just plain worse? You get to reroll charges and Dark Pacts for the CSM on and for the Tsons one you get free heroic and no Cabal Points? Why would they not put cabal points on vehicles? Its just gimping the army building like in 9th
113031
Post by: Voss
I like the world eaters more than I thought I would.
Still rather one-note but you can pack in a lot of shooting if you want to, and there's lots of little touches like the Master of Executions (who went from zero to useful), and WE terminators get scarier as they die.
Didn't expect the jugger lords to be able to lead berserkers, either.
4588
Post by: Destrado
The Biologus Putrifier's ability is to give Lethal Hits to a unit that already has Lethal Hits on most of it's weapons..
And why can't any characters besides the ones in TDA join the Deathshroud given they are supposed to be bodyguards?
I can understand this with SM where you have dozens of choices but in this case most characters can only lead Plague Marines.
113031
Post by: Voss
Biasn wrote:Wait , are the thousand sons equivalents from the CSM just plain worse? You get to reroll charges and Dark Pacts for the CSM on and for the Tsons one you get free heroic and no Cabal Points? Why would they not put cabal points on vehicles? Its just gimping the army building like in 9th
Unsurprisingly, only sorcerers contribute sorcery points. That seemed very likely when they showed the Rubric sheet and there was a footnote that only the sorcerer contributed cabal points.
71772
Post by: 2x210
I guess every Lord and Sorcerer forgot about jumppacks but Haarkan, go feth yourself GW
The rolling in of beastmen and chaos guard is cool I like that
30489
Post by: Trickstick
If the Commissar is a copy of the enforcer, I could see them being useful. Points permitting of course. Same with the Ogryn bodyguard, a 4+++ would really help those officers.
122989
Post by: VladimirHerzog
Biasn wrote:Wait , are the thousand sons equivalents from the CSM just plain worse? You get to reroll charges and Dark Pacts for the CSM on and for the Tsons one you get free heroic and no Cabal Points? Why would they not put cabal points on vehicles? Its just gimping the army building like in 9th
Yeah, GW seems to really want TS to be mainly sorcerer units. However, i'm gonna print myself a trio of old school dreadnoughts to use now that theyre actually interesting (and our main/only source of cheap anti-tank that synergizes with the faction)
113031
Post by: Voss
2x210 wrote:I guess every Lord and Sorcerer forgot about jumppacks but Haarkan, go feth yourself GW
The only way out of that is new jump pack characters when the codex rolls around next spring.
GW hacked them out in the 9e codex, they weren't going to change their mind for the index version.
53939
Post by: vipoid
So Chaos Daemons get all of 1 enhancement per god.
Guess this is GW's way of telling you not to play mono-faction anymore. 
Also, am I the only one who finds it a bit weird that CSMs have a stratagem to heal units and specifically resurrects Tzeentch units, but the literal followers of Tzeentch don't have the same? 
85390
Post by: bullyboy
If you play Deathguard I guess you better like Plague Marines
4720
Post by: The Phazer
If GW has any sense whatsoever they'll rush out a Chaos Lord with a jump pack model and put them back in the Codex. They should have done it here.
Disgustingly Resilient feels very expensive at 2cp per unit.
118410
Post by: ikeulhu
The fact DA can get same effect for 1cp makes it even more absurd.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
 ikeulhu wrote:
The fact DA can get same effect for 1cp makes it even more absurd.
Was pointed out elsewhere the DG one has greater ubiquity, as DA can only use it when charged. So there is a distinct difference in overall utility.
122174
Post by: cole1114
Initial thoughts are that CSM look improved. Some khorne marines next to a helbrute will be really fun to charge onto an objective, raptors fear stacks which is always funny. Undivided marines can effectively get oath of moment if paired with a leader with the liber hereticus.
There are the obvious missteps with the horrible terminator/chosen armory issues, and it is fairly obvious how small the army is compared to loyalists.
But overall I love the faction identity.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Chaos is here... *cracks neck* Let's see what they fethed up... 1. LOL @ T5 Doobie. I know that's not new, but it's still hilarious that he's T5. 2. Haarken can use his spear in melee! YAY! 3. Umm... no re-rolling to wound on Huron's Lightning Claw. Ok then... 4. Why can you give Undivided to Daemon Princes? And given he can't hide from anything anymore, he's basically dead turn 1, right? 5. Chaos Lord that takes paired Accursed Weapons gets no benefit, Terminator Lord that takes paired Accursed Weapons gets Twin-Linked. Chaosistency! 6. No. Fething. Jump. Pack.  7. I guess the Mechadrendrites on the Lord Discordand don't mean anything anymore... 8. Nope. They don't. Warpsmith lost his extra attacks as well. Loyalists kept their Tech-Marine extra weapons though... 9. And he has to have a Plasma Pistol. x2 10. Oh good. The Exalted Champ is back to being that one choice with zero options. x3 11. So Legionaires get to be 4-9, but not Tactical Marines. Sure. 12. "Duplicates are not allowed". Oh buzz off GW. 13. Still with these pants-on-head stupid Terminator weapon restrictions. 3 fists, one Chainfist... make it stop!!! 14. Holy Crap! Chaos Chosen actually get to use the Power Fist that's on the sprue, and taking a second accursed weapon gives you twin-linked... unlike the Chaos Lord. Chaosistency! 15. Venom Crawler got worse at melee, but better at shooting. 16. Still no bloody Lightning Claws on the Raptor Champ... 17. Raptors can take twice as many special weapons as before now. Weirdly, my original Raptor unit with 3 Meltaguns and 1 Plasma Pistol is suddenly legal!  18. Heh. Oblits are 2 to 4 now. Guess they ain't getting a new kit... 19. And suddenly the Ectoplasma Cannons are more dangerous than the Hades Autocannons. Sure... 20. Hey look, Traitor Guardsmen and Beastmen as part of the general rules. That's nice. The detachment rule just doubles down on the really strange faction rule, and... no Daemon Weapons. Just gone. Completely gone.
130394
Post by: EviscerationPlague
Thank God Spawn are capped at 2 models for a unit. Can you imagine the unintended interaction that could've happened otherwise?
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
EviscerationPlague wrote:Thank God Spawn are capped at 2 models for a unit. Can you imagine the unintended interaction that could've happened otherwise?
Well...they went from a 5+ save to 4+ 5++ 5+++ heal D3 ( and +1M, +2A ). Allowing 15 of them would be a bit much, I think.
EDIT: Sorry - only TS have the 5++.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
EviscerationPlague wrote:Thank God Spawn are capped at 2 models for a unit. Can you imagine the unintended interaction that could've happened otherwise?
Wait... what???
*checks datasheets*
Oh FFS GW... first we get NM/NR. Then we get sprue-based weapon restrictions. And now they really are doubling down on it with box-based limitations.
130394
Post by: EviscerationPlague
Oh yeah and Traitor Guardmen don't have the special weapon restriction any Marine does LMAO
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Daedalus81 wrote:Well...they went from a 5+ save to 4+ 5++ 5+++ heal D3 ( and +1M, +2A ). Allowing 15 of them would be a bit much, I think.
But that's not why they're limited to units of exactly 2. They're limited to units of exactly 2 because they are sold 2 to a box. Chaosistency!
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
 H.B.M.C. wrote:And now they really are doubling down on it with box-based limitations.
If it was box based they could have done 2-4. I'm planning to max out on them already unless their points are stupid.
30489
Post by: Trickstick
H.B.M.C. wrote:EviscerationPlague wrote:Thank God Spawn are capped at 2 models for a unit. Can you imagine the unintended interaction that could've happened otherwise?
Wait... what???
*checks datasheets*
Oh FFS GW... first we get NM/NR. Then we get sprue-based weapon restrictions. And now they really are doubling down on it with box-based limitations.
Like how you have to take the Enforcer and Ogryn as a single, 2 model, leader unit.
130394
Post by: EviscerationPlague
Daedalus81 wrote:EviscerationPlague wrote:Thank God Spawn are capped at 2 models for a unit. Can you imagine the unintended interaction that could've happened otherwise?
Well...they went from a 5+ save to 4+ 5++ 5+++ heal D3 ( and +1M, +2A ). Allowing 15 of them would be a bit much, I think.
EDIT: Sorry - only TS have the 5++.
The rule for regen specifically calls out one model per unit being able to do it. So no, a 4+/5+++ isn't that big a deal.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
You're going to sit there with a straight face and tell me that this isn't box-based? Carnifexes used to be 1-3. Now they're 1-2. What are Carnifexes sold in? Here's a hint: Boxes of 2! If you think this squad limitation has anything to do with the rules then you are insane.
100848
Post by: tneva82
 vipoid wrote:So Chaos Daemons get all of 1 enhancement per god.
Guess this is GW's way of telling you not to play mono-faction anymore.
Also, am I the only one who finds it a bit weird that CSMs have a stratagem to heal units and specifically resurrects Tzeentch units, but the literal followers of Tzeentch don't have the same?
Mono will be specific detachments.
There's no way to do one det that gives out big mono faction for all without breaking design parameters and what's odds off design stayng consistent edition if it's broken on day 1...
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
H.B.M.C. wrote:You're going to sit there with a straight face and tell me that this isn't box-based? Carnifexes used to be 1-3. Now they're 1-2. What are Carnifexes sold in? Here's a hint: Boxes of 2!
If you think this squad limitation has anything to do with the rules then you are insane.
The initial size is the box, which is nice. The max size is not. Obliterators can go 2-4. "Box based", but not limited to one box. And fexes as you pointed out can be 1-2 -- not just 2.
130394
Post by: EviscerationPlague
Daedalus81 wrote: H.B.M.C. wrote:You're going to sit there with a straight face and tell me that this isn't box-based? Carnifexes used to be 1-3. Now they're 1-2. What are Carnifexes sold in? Here's a hint: Boxes of 2!
If you think this squad limitation has anything to do with the rules then you are insane.
The initial size is the box, which is nice. The max size is not. Obliterators can go 2-4. "Box based", but not limited to one box. And fexes as you pointed out can be 1-2 -- not just 2.
And the MINIMUM for Oblits has nothing to to with the box either, right?
120478
Post by: ArcaneHorror
There better be an Eightbound equivalent for Death Guard to replace Possessed. 
On positive notes, a WE Daemon Prince with the Berserker Glaive looks like it could be brutal. And it looks like Cult Marines are back in the game for CSM. Also, no points charge for marks.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
You really think that Spawn being sold 2 to a box and their unit size being 2 is a complete coincidence?
You will excuse anything.
77922
Post by: Overread
If you look at AoS one thing GW has been pushing is smaller army sizes and minimum unit formations. AoS right now at 2K points you can only make 2 full units of troops. Every other unit will have to be minimum counts (ergo 1 box content).
I think its part of GW making the game smaller in model count to try and encourage more new people in and discourage the game developing such a huge requirement for models that it causes many to step away.
It's also an interesting move to try and make middleweight and elite style units more viable in gameplay. One issue when you can have big units is people put lots of points into them and you have them dominate.
So you nerf them which means they still dominate because now they are working and only work in big units so you still have the same issue.
Instead if you start breaking units into smaller unit sizes across the board; you can start to have the same number of models; just spread out into more squads.
It's an interesting move and one I understand but also feel that it loses that sense of "and here's my big unit" or "here's my army of 6 formations of powerful infantry and elites" and such.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Overread wrote:If you look at AoS one thing GW has been pushing is smaller army sizes and minimum unit formations. AoS right now at 2K points you can only make 2 full units of troops. Every other unit will have to be minimum counts (ergo 1 box content).
And the day Reinforcement Points make their way into 40k is the day I stop playing 40k. Overread wrote:I think its part of GW making the game smaller in model count to try and encourage more new people in and discourage the game developing such a huge requirement for models that it causes many to step away.
None of which excuses what they've done to Spawn. They're just that way because that's what's in the box. No if's, no but's. It's just that.
122989
Post by: VladimirHerzog
H.B.M.C. wrote:You really think that Spawn being sold 2 to a box and their unit size being 2 is a complete coincidence?
You will excuse anything.
can you chill the feth out? They clearly said that they acknowledged the min size was box-based.
They were saying that GW *couldve* made it 2-4 to allow players to bring more than 6 but chose not to for some reason. Automatically Appended Next Post: H.B.M.C. wrote:None of which excuses what they've done to Spawn. They're just that way because that's what's in the box. No if's, no but's. It's just that.
which is a good thing for new players, you buy a box, you have exactly what you need to run them. (but yes, spawns not being able to be reinforced is a weird one considering what we've seen from similar units)
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
H.B.M.C. wrote:You really think that Spawn being sold 2 to a box and their unit size being 2 is a complete coincidence?
You will excuse anything.
And you'll make up anything. You literally noted Carnifexes are 2 to a box. Why aren't they forced to 2 models like spawn? You won't even deal with your own logical inconsistencies.
Oh goodness me terrible GW making it easier to create units.
71077
Post by: Eldarsif
Are people really mad that Spawns are no longer solo?
Because there is ton of other stuff in the datasheets I find problems with and the spawn thing is not one of them.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
No - mad that you can't take 5.
124786
Post by: tauist
Maybe there will be detachments down the line where Spawns are BATTLELINE? idk
I'm new to CSM (first time I have models to make an army with), and I'm trying to juggle a Tcheentzian build with cultists, mutants/torments, daemons of tzeentch, and Tzaangor looking Beastmen. Some Spawns as well, why not.. I just hope I can make it all fieldable in some form or another.
EDIT: Looks pretty good I think! If I'm reading this right, I can have daemons and CSM, but unsure if I could also squeeze in a Tzaangor Shaman as my leader in there somehow.. can you combine datasheets from all 3 indexes somehow? And if so, which detachment can you take and still have access to all 3?
113031
Post by: Voss
https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/5I1cNt3t71dfd3jh.pdf
Chaos Knights have wandered in late.
You're free to add a Titanic Knight or 3 Wardogs to any chaos army.
Oh, wow. I love the theme of this detachment. There's some hands down amazing stuff here.
Terrorshades and Knights of Shade are really cool.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Just the choice to take them in units that aren't locked to the box number would be nice. 
And I haven't made anything up.
Daedalus81 wrote:You literally noted Carnifexes are 2 to a box. Why aren't they forced to 2 models like spawn? You won't even deal with your own logical inconsistencies.
It's not a logical inconsistency. Do you think the limit of 2 is coincidence? And we had another example brought in, Oblits at 2-4. Weird... why min 2? What possible reason could that be.
The argument is that these are boxed-based limitations. You've done nothing to show that this isn't the case, and we have not one not two but THREE examples of this in rapid succession.
And now you're moving those goalposts. Your first reasoning was it was because their rules would make units higher than 2 too powerful, now it's about "easy to create units". Please...
They are two to a unit because they are two to a box. That is it. That is the end of it.
77922
Post by: Overread
H.B.M.C. wrote: Overread wrote:If you look at AoS one thing GW has been pushing is smaller army sizes and minimum unit formations. AoS right now at 2K points you can only make 2 full units of troops. Every other unit will have to be minimum counts (ergo 1 box content).
And the day Reinforcement Points make their way into 40k is the day I stop playing 40k.
In a sense I don't dislike reinforcement points as a concept.
I do think its an attempt to have some kind of force organisation without having force organisation.
I do feel like its a very heavy hand and that it really needs to be more dynamic. For example armies like Skaven should be able to field more full regiments of clan rats; compared to an army like Stormcast which can far more happily operate with minimum unit compositions.
Even within an army I think there should be more divisoin, but part of this is limited by the fact that GW designed AoS unit organisation in a very simplistic way.
Leaders
Troops
Monsters
Artillery
That's it, not even a breakdown for cavalry nor elites. There's also redundancy as a lot of armies have nothing in artillery and a few have monsters only as leaders. So it means a LOT of every army is just shunted into troops which functionally don't have any limits nor restrictions on them. Which is nice in some ways, but GW could do more. ]
If reinforcement points game to 40K it would break armies like Tyranid swarm armies unless it had variable limitations per army. Then again I think AoS got hit heavier because its still "new" and its no way near as popular as 40K. So its in a growth phase and GW is pushing harder. I also think that its part of a move to make AoS slightly more skirmish in feel so that when old world hits it feels more rank and file with big infantry blocks and such. So that visually, gameplay wise and all the two games are quite distinct in the market.
I think that's something GW is doing without saying it so that both games have a chance to shine in their own way and not compete directly on every single front save for the base shape.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
If you recall where this started :
Thank God Spawn are capped at 2 models for a unit. Can you imagine the unintended interaction that could've happened otherwise?
And I noted that they got a lot better. And you said they're only 2 due to the box size, because you like to complain. They could easily do 2-4 spawn like with Obliterators. Or they could even have done 1-4 in a similar fashion to Carnifexes. But all you care about is complaining that it's a single box. I'm talking outside of that boundary, because it would make for a really durable unit that you can take a lot of and I find 2 models to be fine.
That they're size 2 is helpful, because of the box thing. The box thing ISN'T the only reason that they're limited to 2.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
That comment was a facetious comment.
They're 2 to a unit because they're 2 to a box. There are other box-based restrictions creeping into this edition. This isn't the first. This won't be the last (and we've shown two others... hell even the Jakhals are like this!). Your attempts to make it out as anything else, and that my comments are just "because I like to complain" are pretty hilarious.
But back to the reason we're here, the datasheets:
1. The Juggerlord can join Eightbound and 'Zerkers. That's interesting.
2. I like the Precision on the Fatecaster bows. I know they did something similar in 9th, but it's an interesting niche.
3. I wondered where Fire Frenzy has gone. It's on the WE Helbrute.
4. Whilst I don't know why ever unit needs a special rule ("Simple, not simplistic" really was, as put by someone else earlier in the thread, marketing BS), I do kind of a appreciate that the Legion vehicles/daemon engines have their own little bit of flavour.
5. I really like the Bastion of Corruption rule on the Knight Tyrant.
26238
Post by: Semper
Daedalus81 wrote:Gah! Exalted on disc is different, but Ahriman is not....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
But Magnus is a boss!
Ahriman has extra toughness or wound on a disc I can't remember which one now.
CSM look half decent overall. Nothing broken broken but allot of synergy to play around with. Thousand Sons and World Eaters look respectable, especially the former but this is all from only an initial read.
18249
Post by: Charax
Death Guard have a couple of interesting interactions. Helbrutes bestowing Contagion (and therefore nurgle's gift) upon anything they hit (hit, not wound) makes them a great choice for firing first and weakening some priority targets.
Having a "Buffing DP" and a "Fighty DP" is interesting, and might incentivise people taking a walking prince to get access to some sweet, sweet FnP (I foresee a Living Plague Buffprince being very popular)
Thank the Grandfather that we have the Biologis Putrifier to bestow Lethal Hits upon...checks notes just Plague Marines, who have that on most of theor weapons anyway. Good job dude. At least triggering on 5s is a plus
DR at 2 CP is crazy expensive, I can only see it being used in desperate situations, especially as it's only effective in the Fight phase.
Oh, and they just straight-up deleted Death Guard Possessed, guess they can stand alongside Havocs in Nurgle's Garden of the dispossessed. Thank god we kept Death Guard Cultists though, the much-praised unit vital to the core of every DG list! All hail the goddamn cultists
Overall another disappointing showing by Death Guard, the army that always fails to deliver ever since they got their own book.
Death Guard: It's not if they'll suck, it's how they'll suck (tm)
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
They're 2 to a unit, because it's a box and also because they may have felt like allowing up to 4 ( as I do ) would be a bit much.
If it was 1-5 you'd be sure to complain that GW makes you buy another box unlike Carnifexes. If it was 1-4 or 2-4 you'd complain that you can't take as many as before. That it's 2 let's you complain that it's restricted to a box AND it's less than before. Win-win!
Complaining about box restrictions is utterly pointless. We've been limited to 10 marines in a lot of places for a very long time. That's ONE BOX. OH NO! So either your complaint goes beyond the box thing or you're just making an issue out of this one, because you want to jump on the wagon and not consider ANY other factor.
365
Post by: Abadabadoobaddon
So if you bought the Tide of Spawn box back in the day you can just go get fethed? Or is there something I'm missing?
129833
Post by: The Red Hobbit
H.B.M.C. wrote:Chaos is here...
*cracks neck*
Let's see what they fethed up...
6. No. Fething. Jump. Pack.
 Yep my Obsidius Mallex with a jump-pack will continue to collect dust. I guess I shouldn't complain, WE aren't allowed to have a Chaos Lord on foot.
10. Oh good. The Exalted Champ is back to being that one choice with zero options. x3
At least he didn't disappear
20. Hey look, Traitor Guardsmen and Beastmen as part of the general rules. That's nice.
This is extremely cool and I'm almost surprsied they did it. Let's hope they survive till the codex.
122989
Post by: VladimirHerzog
hard to tell considering the constant bitching and moaning you've been spewing nonstop since reveals started
76888
Post by: Tyran
VladimirHerzog wrote: hard to tell considering the constant bitching and moaning you've been spewing nonstop since reveals started
To be fair to HBMC, I believe he has been complaining about the game since 3rd edition got released. To some of us, it is just a hobby, to him, complaining about 40k is a way of life.
122989
Post by: VladimirHerzog
yeah but before spoiler season it was bearable, now its giga turbo 2 electric boogaloo levels of complaining
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:So if you bought the Tide of Spawn box back in the day you can just go get fethed? Or is there something I'm missing?
I guess? No more than people who bought X number of Hive Tyrants before the Rule of 3 showed up. Anyway, I concede. This discussion won't get anyone anywhere.
124786
Post by: tauist
VladimirHerzog wrote:
yeah but before spoiler season it was bearable, now its giga turbo 2 electric boogaloo levels of complaining
You could always use Ingore list feature if it really grinds your gears?
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Daedalus81 wrote:So either your complaint goes beyond the box thing or you're just making an issue out of this one, because you want to jump on the wagon and not consider ANY other factor.
There are no other factors. They're 2 in a unit because they're 2 to a box. I don't know why they didn't go 2-4, or 2-6 (both of which would still be box-based restrictions, BTW, but certainly less egregious ones), but that's the reason why they're 2 to a unit. It has nothing to do with their rules. And yes, Marines come 10 to a squad because it's kind of part of the fluff, and has been since as long as either of us have been playing. Sure do spend a whole lotta time discussing me rather than the things we're talking about.
122989
Post by: VladimirHerzog
Daedalus81 wrote: Abadabadoobaddon wrote:So if you bought the Tide of Spawn box back in the day you can just go get fethed? Or is there something I'm missing?
I guess? No more than people who bought X number of Hive Tyrants before the Rule of 3 showed up. Anyway, I concede. This discussion won't get anyone anywhere.
and i don't think fething over people that bought a box 16 years ago is such a big deal honestly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tauist wrote: VladimirHerzog wrote:
yeah but before spoiler season it was bearable, now its giga turbo 2 electric boogaloo levels of complaining
You could always use Ingore list feature if it really grinds your gears?
yeah, i did it before but it doesnt really change anything when people quote him
1918
Post by: Scottywan82
Voss wrote:https://www.warhammer-community.com/downloads/?=#warhammer-40000
(if you're in the States, switch to british to see the files)
Chaos has crept into the downloads section (no Knights. I think the cards are mixed with Imps?)
Good God, what a train wreck those datasheets are. At least people can have all-cultist armies if they want. Silver lining, I suppose.
109034
Post by: Slipspace
Daedalus81 wrote:
Complaining about box restrictions is utterly pointless. We've been limited to 10 marines in a lot of places for a very long time. That's ONE BOX. OH NO! So either your complaint goes beyond the box thing or you're just making an issue out of this one, because you want to jump on the wagon and not consider ANY other factor.
That's what I don't get. Regular troops unit sizes have been based on box restrictions for literal decades. I can see why GW may have wanted to restrict Spawn given that we saw units of 5 showing up in some armies towards the end of 9th and I suspect GW wants to see them take a bit more of a back seat to the actual Marines in a CSM army. Similarly, 1 Spawn was always this really weird inclusion in lots of CSM armies, acting as a dirt cheap objective holder and DS denier which - again - is probably not how GW wants them to be used. Switching the unit size to 2 helps alleviate those problems, though I'm not convinced 2-4 would have really been a problem. Still, I have no idea how anyone can get quite as worked up about it as HBMC. Like, chill the feth out man.
130394
Post by: EviscerationPlague
Daedalus81 wrote:If you recall where this started :
Thank God Spawn are capped at 2 models for a unit. Can you imagine the unintended interaction that could've happened otherwise?
Yeah and I pointed out they're really not that much stronger, so your reasoning isn't correct. Got anything else?
124786
Post by: tauist
Oh yeah, hate it when that happens to me (on other forums)
Only solution is to unparticipate from a "corrupted" thread until moaning dies down.. the weather is great over here right now
130394
Post by: EviscerationPlague
VladimirHerzog wrote:
hard to tell considering the constant bitching and moaning you've been spewing nonstop since reveals started
Aw I'm sorry someone hurt your feelings via pointing out the bad that's being done by the rules writers. You can go to Reddit or the official Facebook if you just want positivity so you feel your purchases are justified.
100848
Post by: tneva82
Charax wrote:
Thank the Grandfather that we have the Biologis Putrifier to bestow Lethal Hits upon... checks notes just Plague Marines, who have that on most of theor weapons anyway. Good job dude. At least triggering on 5s is a plus
Plus? It's pretty good. Votann was bonkers good 9e largely due to easy lethal hit's on 4/5's.
At least i would look at him for doubling efficiency of lethal hits. Melta's etc getting lethal hits would be just side effect.
10906
Post by: VictorVonTzeentch
H.B.M.C. wrote:Chaos is here...
*cracks neck*
Let's see what they fethed up...
1. LOL @ T5 Doobie. I know that's not new, but it's still hilarious that he's T5.
2. Haarken can use his spear in melee! YAY!
3. Umm... no re-rolling to wound on Huron's Lightning Claw. Ok then...
4. Why can you give Undivided to Daemon Princes? And given he can't hide from anything anymore, he's basically dead turn 1, right?
5. Chaos Lord that takes paired Accursed Weapons gets no benefit, Terminator Lord that takes paired Accursed Weapons gets Twin-Linked. Chaosistency!
6. No. Fething. Jump. Pack.
7. I guess the Mechadrendrites on the Lord Discordand don't mean anything anymore...
8. Nope. They don't. Warpsmith lost his extra attacks as well. Loyalists kept their Tech-Marine extra weapons though...
9. And he has to have a Plasma Pistol. x2
10. Oh good. The Exalted Champ is back to being that one choice with zero options. x3
11. So Legionaires get to be 4-9, but not Tactical Marines. Sure.
12. "Duplicates are not allowed". Oh buzz off GW.
13. Still with these pants-on-head stupid Terminator weapon restrictions. 3 fists, one Chainfist... make it stop!!!
14. Holy Crap! Chaos Chosen actually get to use the Power Fist that's on the sprue, and taking a second accursed weapon gives you twin-linked... unlike the Chaos Lord. Chaosistency!
15. Venom Crawler got worse at melee, but better at shooting.
16. Still no bloody Lightning Claws on the Raptor Champ...
17. Raptors can take twice as many special weapons as before now. Weirdly, my original Raptor unit with 3 Meltaguns and 1 Plasma Pistol is suddenly legal!
18. Heh. Oblits are 2 to 4 now. Guess they ain't getting a new kit...
19. And suddenly the Ectoplasma Cannons are more dangerous than the Hades Autocannons. Sure...
20. Hey look, Traitor Guardsmen and Beastmen as part of the general rules. That's nice.
The detachment rule just doubles down on the really strange faction rule, and... no Daemon Weapons. Just gone. Completely gone.
You missed that the Chaos Terminator Lord also has a Power Fist listed in his weapon stats but cant take a Power Fist in his options.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Slipspace wrote:Still, I have no idea how anyone can get quite as worked up about it as HBMC. Like, chill the feth out man.
The only thing I'm worked up about is Daed's insistence that it's not box-related.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
@Vladimir I get the frustration, but that's too far.
130394
Post by: EviscerationPlague
Slipspace wrote: Daedalus81 wrote:
Complaining about box restrictions is utterly pointless. We've been limited to 10 marines in a lot of places for a very long time. That's ONE BOX. OH NO! So either your complaint goes beyond the box thing or you're just making an issue out of this one, because you want to jump on the wagon and not consider ANY other factor.
That's what I don't get. Regular troops unit sizes have been based on box restrictions for literal decades.
Absolutely false. You're forgetting how Platoons worked, how Skitarii were initially brought in, CSM going up to 20, etc.
Quite frankly I'm just waiting for it to happen to Death Guard with a minimum unit of 7.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:You missed that the Chaos Terminator Lord also has a Power Fist listed in his weapon stats but cant take a Power Fist in his options.
Oh really? Hmm... 'cause that's part of the kit, right? *checks* Yeah, it is. Odd mistake.
10906
Post by: VictorVonTzeentch
H.B.M.C. wrote: VictorVonTzeentch wrote:You missed that the Chaos Terminator Lord also has a Power Fist listed in his weapon stats but cant take a Power Fist in his options.
Oh really? Hmm... 'cause that's part of the kit, right?
*checks*
Yeah, it is.
Odd mistake.
GW being GW.
1918
Post by: Scottywan82
So no special weapon restrictions on Traitor Guard, but I don't expect that to last.
Weirdly, the cultists for TSons and DG are both limited to pistols and CCWs like their box, but allowed to take special weapons that aren't in it.
And all the CSM mainstay units continue to have stupid, arbitrary weapon restrictions. What a waste.
109034
Post by: Slipspace
EviscerationPlague wrote:Slipspace wrote: Daedalus81 wrote:
Complaining about box restrictions is utterly pointless. We've been limited to 10 marines in a lot of places for a very long time. That's ONE BOX. OH NO! So either your complaint goes beyond the box thing or you're just making an issue out of this one, because you want to jump on the wagon and not consider ANY other factor.
That's what I don't get. Regular troops unit sizes have been based on box restrictions for literal decades.
Absolutely false. You're forgetting how Platoons worked, how Skitarii were initially brought in, CSM going up to 20, etc.
Quite frankly I'm just waiting for it to happen to Death Guard with a minimum unit of 7.
In all cases the minimum size was based on the models in the box, not necessarily the maximum size. The number of models in a box has been informing unit restrictions in some way for decades.
122989
Post by: VladimirHerzog
yeah, my bad, i'll chill out
10906
Post by: VictorVonTzeentch
H.B.M.C. wrote: VictorVonTzeentch wrote:You missed that the Chaos Terminator Lord also has a Power Fist listed in his weapon stats but cant take a Power Fist in his options.
Oh really? Hmm... 'cause that's part of the kit, right?
*checks*
Yeah, it is.
Odd mistake.
Oh and when Chosen take Combi-Weapons they replace their Bolt Pistols, not their Bolters.
130394
Post by: EviscerationPlague
H.B.M.C. wrote: VictorVonTzeentch wrote:You missed that the Chaos Terminator Lord also has a Power Fist listed in his weapon stats but cant take a Power Fist in his options.
Oh really? Hmm... 'cause that's part of the kit, right?
*checks*
Yeah, it is.
Odd mistake.
It's an Exalted Weapon or whatever of course!
85390
Post by: bullyboy
H.B.M.C. wrote:Slipspace wrote:Still, I have no idea how anyone can get quite as worked up about it as HBMC. Like, chill the feth out man.
The only thing I'm worked up about is Daed's insistence that it's not box-related.
Dude, I think you’re missing the point that it’s not all about a box restriction, it’s about the unit being capped at 2 instead of allowing it to go up to 4 like Oblits that are also limited to just 2 a box. Why are you not seeing that?
105694
Post by: Lord Damocles
Those 24" range autopistols on Death Guard cultists...
Yet vanilla cultists have ACTUAL AUTOPISTOLS
92803
Post by: ZergSmasher
Some of those mistakes are typos and accidental omissions that GW will fix in a day 1 FAQ or Designer's Commentary or something. There were some strange inconsistencies in the Marine stuff too. Let's just wait and see.
119289
Post by: Not Online!!!
 Lord Damocles wrote:Those 24" range autopistols on Death Guard cultists...
Yet vanilla cultists have ACTUAL AUTOPISTOLS
Damn, and i though 30k militia autopistols were good,
GW QA strikes again, and by striking again i mean obviously not existing at all
105694
Post by: Lord Damocles
Sad to see the Cultist Firebrand is still out of work as well, despite being right there in the box...
72279
Post by: Loopstah
Lord Damocles wrote:Sad to see the Cultist Firebrand is still out of work as well, despite being right there in the box...
It's now a flamer.
11
Post by: ph34r
I got as far as Abaddon and the Enhancements.
Enhancements are basically 1 'relic' for each god and an undivided book. Very very boring.
Abaddon is less toughness than a space marine Gravis captain. Abaddon can join terminators and legionnaires, but not Chosen.
Very dumb.
130394
Post by: EviscerationPlague
 ph34r wrote:I got as far as Abaddon and the Enhancements.
Enhancements are basically 1 'relic' for each god and an undivided book. Very very boring.
Abaddon is less toughness than a space marine Gravis captain. Abaddon can join terminators and legionnaires, but not Chosen.
Very dumb.
You don't understand though. There might be an unintended interaction if Abby could join Chosen!
101864
Post by: Dudeface
EviscerationPlague wrote: ph34r wrote:I got as far as Abaddon and the Enhancements.
Enhancements are basically 1 'relic' for each god and an undivided book. Very very boring.
Abaddon is less toughness than a space marine Gravis captain. Abaddon can join terminators and legionnaires, but not Chosen.
Very dumb.
You don't understand though. There might be an unintended interaction if Abby could join Chosen!
They don't want abby getting fall back/advance and charge?
85390
Post by: bullyboy
So game not even released and I’m already at that point….
1. The pdf of data sheets is to cumbersome to really use in game.
2. The cards, while useful, will probably be expensive (because GW) and will already need corrections.
Enthusiasm for edition is like a damn roller coaster ride.
|
|
