Dudeface wrote: They don't want abby getting fall back/advance and charge?
As well as the cost of protecting him when Abby can toss a 4++ onto Chosen and get most of the way to termie durability and teaming up with a MoE to grant full rerolls to hit and (eventually) wound without Abby needing to switch off from his 4++.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
bullyboy wrote: 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.
I'm with you on #1. Finding information is difficult and searching isn't simple with the keyword scattering. A table of contents would help immensely. I'm going to get some printed and laminated locally instead of buying them and replace individuals as needed.
bullyboy wrote: 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.
Laughs in ASOIAF and taps the "first time" meme.
Double so for the comments regarding each unit having it own special rules!
At least you don't have a constantly updating deck of tactics cards.....yet
You could be quite subtle about it, like removing a "wholly" from "wholly within" in a rule, or something. If ever found out, you just play the old "oh they must have changed it at some point".
Obviously harder in tournaments, but some people love cheating to win pickup games. TFG is a thing for a reason.
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?
Yeah that stuck out to me too, esp as Spawn used to be able to be taken in larger squads than Oblits.
bullyboy wrote: 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.
Trickstick wrote: You could be quite subtle about it, like removing a "wholly" from "wholly within" in a rule, or something. If ever found out, you just play the old "oh they must have changed it at some point".
Obviously harder in tournaments, but some people love cheating to win pickup games. TFG is a thing for a reason.
TFGs existing isnt a good reason to do/not do something IMO, they'll always exist anyway
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Trickstick wrote: How about "my screamer killers are actually from a german hive fleet"?
gonna go on a limb and assume that the english version is the official one
VladimirHerzog wrote: TFGs existing isnt a good reason to do/not do something IMO, they'll always exist anyway
and the first thing we are going to see is tournaments not allowing any self printed rules at all
Automatically Appended Next Post:
VladimirHerzog wrote: gonna go on a limb and assume that the english version is the official one
there was a time when the german version was the most recent one and already included FAQ/Errata
not only in 40k but also in X-Wing and therefore preferred over English ones (until some people did not liked the changes and said that englisch ones got priority)
VladimirHerzog wrote: TFGs existing isnt a good reason to do/not do something IMO, they'll always exist anyway
and the first thing we are going to see is tournaments not allowing any self printed rules at all
Who knows, maybe tournaments will also limit the allowed Detachments etc. - i see WD detachments and such being problematic, unless there is some sort of 'Annual' product planned that collects them.
VladimirHerzog wrote: TFGs existing isnt a good reason to do/not do something IMO, they'll always exist anyway
and the first thing we are going to see is tournaments not allowing any self printed rules at all
Who knows, maybe tournaments will also limit the allowed Detachments etc. - i see WD detachments and such being problematic, unless there is some sort of 'Annual' product planned that collects them.
Well we haven't even seen evidence those come rather than having to wait for codex.
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.
I know right? I mean what did you expect? That you would actually be able to use the models you paid money for? HA-HA! That was like over a year ago! Now go buy something new pleeb!
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?
Yeah that extra 3.5" to charge would be super broken vs the Legionaire squad granting rerolling all wounds on his melee weapons. Lemme guess, he can't join Havocs either because you're worried he'll not suffer modifiers on his gun?
OH and I forgot to add you can already give him Advance and Charge via the Slaanesh strat when attaching to a Slaanesh Terminator squad, but yeah I'm sure that's the main reason he can't go with Chosen, absolutely.
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?
Yeah that extra 3.5" to charge would be super broken vs the Legionaire squad granting rerolling all wounds on his melee weapons. Lemme guess, he can't join Havocs either because you're worried he'll not suffer modifiers on his gun?
OH and I forgot to add you can already give him Advance and Charge via the Slaanesh strat when attaching to a Slaanesh Terminator squad, but yeah I'm sure that's the main reason he can't go with Chosen, absolutely.
ListenToMeWarriors wrote: No Firing Deck on the Chaos Rhino either, and it appears they have transposed Vashtorr's sweep and normal attack on the datasheet.
It's not on the WE or 1k Sons version either . Hopefully a typo, but could be intentional, the beleaguered warbands can't maintain the firing decks anymore
All in all i like the datasheets.
Sure, there is a 110% chance for broken stuff in there and there are errors.
But attempts were made!
Thousand Sons feels as lovingly written as were Blood Angels. ( See how they gave Sanguinary Guard and Jumppack Death Company different roles, even though they are both fast melee elite units? LOVE)
Absolutely like the direction they take.
Other factions seem more... Chaotic. Some datasheets a bit bland. Some of my personal fav units got boring. Ah well, Happens all the time...
But just look at that defiler rule: i can finally move it around! Even when there is terrain!
Any sane person should have expected a huge overhaul like this to be riddled with issues.
And it is.
But at least PDFs can be changed. And jit printing just the few sheets you actually play should be easy for most of us ( bit of a warning though: do NOT buy the physical datasheets xD)
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.
I know right? I mean what did you expect? That you would actually be able to use the models you paid money for? HA-HA! That was like over a year ago! Now go buy something new pleeb!
How many spawns came in that box ? i can't tell from the pixelated images i get from google.
How often did you run all of them?
And it wasnt released 1 year ago but 16... some people that play the game are younger than that...
Honestly if I was running a tournament I'd fork out to get the datacards printed and laminated myself, completely eliminates the problem, you know the cards are legit (you can even mark them with the name/logo of the tournament) and if lists are pre-registered then you know in advance exactly what everyone needs anyway
I don't think people will actually go to the trouble of cheating via datacards though. People will absolutely make their own in the styles they like, but verifying the correct stats is so trivially easy I don't think cheating will be anything more than a couple of TFG anecdotes
But just look at that defiler rule: i can finally move it around! Even when there is terrain!
I'm also quite happy my giant crab can scuttle over other units. But I also would have been happy if that was just a core rule for large models, instead of a datasheet rule.
CoALabaer wrote: Thousand Sons feels as lovingly written as were Blood Angels
My big gripe is that they totally missed the opportunity to make Ahriman on disc something interesting like they did with Daemon Princes and the wing split.
But at least PDFs can be changed. And jit printing just the few sheets you actually play should be easy for most of us ( bit of a warning though: do NOT buy the physical datasheets xD)
Yea I just wish they'd go the extra mile on proofreading. At least we don't have to pay for this version.
CoALabaer wrote: Thousand Sons feels as lovingly written as were Blood Angels
My big gripe is that they totally missed the opportunity to make Ahriman on disc something interesting like they did with Daemon Princes and the wing split.
But at least PDFs can be changed. And jit printing just the few sheets you actually play should be easy for most of us ( bit of a warning though: do NOT buy the physical datasheets xD)
Yea I just wish they'd go the extra mile on proofreading. At least we don't have to pay for this version.
Ahriman's the only named Character that can be on foot and mounted, right? Talking about the whole game, not only TS
CoALabaer wrote: Thousand Sons feels as lovingly written as were Blood Angels
My big gripe is that they totally missed the opportunity to make Ahriman on disc something interesting like they did with Daemon Princes and the wing split.
But at least PDFs can be changed. And jit printing just the few sheets you actually play should be easy for most of us ( bit of a warning though: do NOT buy the physical datasheets xD)
Yea I just wish they'd go the extra mile on proofreading. At least we don't have to pay for this version.
The first round of physical cards will almost certainly be this version (or an older one, sadly enough) as they already exist, so some poor fools will pay for it.
CoALabaer wrote: Thousand Sons feels as lovingly written as were Blood Angels
My big gripe is that they totally missed the opportunity to make Ahriman on disc something interesting like they did with Daemon Princes and the wing split.
But at least PDFs can be changed. And jit printing just the few sheets you actually play should be easy for most of us ( bit of a warning though: do NOT buy the physical datasheets xD)
Yea I just wish they'd go the extra mile on proofreading. At least we don't have to pay for this version.
Ahriman's the only named Character that can be on foot and mounted, right? Talking about the whole game, not only TS
ListenToMeWarriors wrote: No Firing Deck on the Chaos Rhino either, and it appears they have transposed Vashtorr's sweep and normal attack on the datasheet.
It's not on the WE or 1k Sons version either . Hopefully a typo, but could be intentional, the beleaguered warbands can't maintain the firing decks anymore
The DG do have firing decks.
But that might just be holes from rusting
Yea his sheets are mostly the same, but the mounted version doubles his wounds and gives extra attacks. Not that I think Ahriman should get that, but just something a little more interesting.
Yea his sheets are mostly the same, but the mounted version doubles his wounds and gives extra attacks. Not that I think Ahriman should get that, but just something a little more interesting.
Well just a movement boost would represent it fine so it should be just a equipment option...like alot of mounts used to be.
Ok, late to the party. Let's look at the CSM Index......
Raptors and Warp Talons look ok (but still no Lightning Claws for the Raptor Champion ). Cool that you can do a full Cultists/Renegade Guard/Beastmen army.
Ok, done with the positives. Don't have time for all of the negatives. I'm going to go figure out what I need to build some Inductii. You guys have fun with "this"........
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.
I know right? I mean what did you expect? That you would actually be able to use the models you paid money for? HA-HA! That was like over a year ago! Now go buy something new pleeb!
How many spawns came in that box ? i can't tell from the pixelated images i get from google.
How often did you run all of them?
And it wasnt released 1 year ago but 16... some people that play the game are younger than that...
GW: Hey, you! Yes, you! Do you like Chaos Spawn? Well then do we have just the set for you! It's called Tide of Spawn and it comes with 10 (count em, 10!) Chaos Spawn! Order now while supplies last!
Also GW: What? You bought 10 Chaos Spawn?? Why would you do such a thing? The box only comes with 2! That was rather foolish of you, now wasn't it? By the way, can I interest you in a Combat Patrol? You can never have too many Tzaangors after all!
Charax wrote: Honestly if I was running a tournament I'd fork out to get the datacards printed and laminated myself, completely eliminates the problem, you know the cards are legit (you can even mark them with the name/logo of the tournament) and if lists are pre-registered then you know in advance exactly what everyone needs anyway
I don't think people will actually go to the trouble of cheating via datacards though. People will absolutely make their own in the styles they like, but verifying the correct stats is so trivially easy I don't think cheating will be anything more than a couple of TFG anecdotes
Risky thing to cheat with edited datacards. As all someone needs to do is compare the online indexes or a GW bought copy from another player. Show that to the TO and boom, forfeit.
GW gave us the free indexes for a reason, may as well make good use of them. Maaaaybe I'll pick up a copy when the codexes come out, especially since as an ork player a set will get released with 10th and invalidated/replaced half a year later with the codex release.
cole1114 wrote: I will say, while I like the identity of CSM I'm having a lot more trouble theorycrafting lists for them than space marines.
i'm not even bothering with it until we get points
It doesn't hurt to at least see what units synergize with others though. Thar way once the points drop, you know what units to "price" first.
Also Marks and Enhancements are probably free, so it's good to see what units might benefit most from certain ones
'Tomorrow brings the rest of the Imperium, with the Xenos factions and the first Munitorum Field Manual (which contains all the points) of the new edition arriving later in the week.'
So today we should get Imperial Knights, Astra Militarum, Mechanicus, Custodes, Sororitas, Inquisition/Agents.
By the end of the week we get points too. Not long to go now. Can't wait for points really as that's what is needed to make lists and figure things out.
When they say 'first munitorum field manual' does that imply there will be more than one?
ListenToMeWarriors wrote: No Firing Deck on the Chaos Rhino either, and it appears they have transposed Vashtorr's sweep and normal attack on the datasheet.
It's not on the WE or 1k Sons version either . Hopefully a typo, but could be intentional, the beleaguered warbands can't maintain the firing decks anymore
The DG do have firing decks.
But that might just be holes from rusting
At least DG have something going for them
Laughing Man wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote: I'll be using Traitor Guardmen for special weapons I guess. Can they ride a Rhino LOL
They're going to be great backline objective holders. Give 'em three sniper rifles and ruin all the Leaders' days.
I had the same thought, unfortunately the Blooded KT box doesn't have 3x Sniper bits iirc
cole1114 wrote:I will say, while I like the identity of CSM I'm having a lot more trouble theorycrafting lists for them than space marines.
Yeah there's a ton of options, and the flexibility to bring in Daemon's or Chaos Knights lets you shore up weaknesses. Knights seem like a good ally for 1k Sons looking for AT and I'm looking forward to running Daemons with my WE. Although I'm considering going Khornate Warband as well.
lost_lilliputian wrote:
When they say 'first munitorum field manual' does that imply there will be more than one?
Yeah most likely. Hopefully these field manuals with points changes remain free...
cole1114 wrote: I will say, while I like the identity of CSM I'm having a lot more trouble theorycrafting lists for them than space marines.
i'm not even bothering with it until we get points
It doesn't hurt to at least see what units synergize with others though. Thar way once the points drop, you know what units to "price" first.
Also Marks and Enhancements are probably free, so it's good to see what units might benefit most from certain ones
-
ITC guys that streamed games with full points known etc said they cost points.
Overall looks like points won't have big overhaul. Obviously some changes here and there but the 2000 pts armies of 10e we have seen have tended to be around 1900+-20 and then the enchantments.
ITC guys that streamed games with full points known etc said they cost points.
Overall looks like points won't have big overhaul. Obviously some changes here and there but the 2000 pts armies of 10e we have seen have tended to be around 1900+-20 and then the enchantments.
Termagaunts got revealed to be 6/model.
I can't imagine they are changing the scale of the game. So most units should be similar points to what they are now. That said if units that got hit hard with the nerf bat such as VV and Wulfen don't cost significantly less then no one will use them. Of course that may have been the plan.
But just look at that defiler rule: i can finally move it around! Even when there is terrain!
I'm also quite happy my giant crab can scuttle over other units. But I also would have been happy if that was just a core rule for large models, instead of a datasheet rule.
It sort of is a core rule, though? Vehicles and monsters can move over your own non-vehicle and non-monster units already. The Defiler can also move over bigger units, but as someone already pointed out elsewhere, the Defiler's footprint makes it difficult for it to actually walk all the way across a Rhino unless you're advancing. Hmm. Slaaneshi Defilers can use the strat to still fire and charge even after advancing. Now, that is juicy...
cole1114 wrote: I will say, while I like the identity of CSM I'm having a lot more trouble theorycrafting lists for them than space marines.
i'm not even bothering with it until we get points
It doesn't hurt to at least see what units synergize with others though. Thar way once the points drop, you know what units to "price" first.
Also Marks and Enhancements are probably free, so it's good to see what units might benefit most from certain ones
-
Not that I would use any other mark, but the Mark of Tzeentch on Cultist Mobs is gonna be hilarious.
Some rumours from 4chan, take with the appropriate barge-load of salt:
- Tyranid wave will incoroporate ''several waves that had been delayed in previous editions''
- Around 8-12 new kits for normal units
- On top of that, what was at one point aimed to be a ''Codex Biotitans'' with 3-4 knight-sized monsters
- ''Another huge wave'' on top of that for 10th edition proper
- And further additional releases for Killteam, Genestealer Cults and ''another Nid character with a Campaign later on''
Lord Damocles wrote: Well aren't I a fraggin eegit for having a unit of FIVE spawn.
Should'a seen that one coming, eh!
There has always been need for extra spawn in chaos armies because spells and weapons turn enemy characters in to spawn, and ofcourse everyone has fond memmories of how their evil overlords got "rewarded" by the dark gods by turning in to a spawn Good times, so, I expect this will be true also for this edition.
The Deathwatch mortal wound trick has been nerfed within 48 hours.
"Note: There’s also a very slight update to the Deathwatch datasheets posted earlier this week. After field tests, our resident tech-magos deemed Hellfire Rounds to be a little too dangerous on certain units, so that Stratagem has been tweaked. It now does not affect weapons with the Devastating Wounds rule. You can download the updated Index here."
Guard - a couple of tanks have it. No way to grant it to large blocks.
GK - A strat for melee weapons
Sisters - Combi-weapons only, but otherwise not much. Need to explore on the combis. EDIT: missed character giving it to melee.
Custodes - pretty much only on SoS and no way to grant. Need to review SoS.
Admech - Electropriests, Raiders, Sulphurhounds, Ruststalkers, and a smattering of other irrelevant selections
Knights - Warden full up, Desecrator vs M/V, a handful of weapons and a strat for melee
Agents - mostly just webbers
Voss wrote: So basic guard infantry squads didn't get hit with the 'no duplicate weapons' trend. That's something
Because it's just two squads glommed together if you go to the 20 option. Cadians and Krieg were the ones affected by it before, still are unfortunately.
Aestred and Agathae have had the glow up of the century - gone from being useless to possibly scary? Aestred grant Devasting Wounds to melee attacks and Agathae modifies Miracle Dice used on the unit by 1 (max of 6).
The only melee unit they can attach to are Sacrosancts though, who want a Canoness, Palatine or Judith instead so they can activate their -1 To Wound ability.
Also Immolators let Sisters combat squad. Poor Razorbacks.
I am pleasantly surprised GW fixed Deathwatch so quickly. Perhaps there is hope for this edition yet..
Also, liking what I see regarding Imperial Agents. Yesterday, I got a Chaos army from my existing minis, and today I got extra mileage from my Imperial KT21 models. Heck, I might even be able to squeeze in some more models from BSF, not too bad!
Valkyrie wrote: It's 2x Twin-Linked Autocannons as it was in other iterations before 9th. What's the problem?
If Twin-Linked was a re-roll to hit like it once was, then it would be fine, but it's not that, and Twin-Linking actually hurts quite a few units that have suddenly gone from lots of shots to very few. Probably a unit that could have benefited from one of the new rules, like Sustained Hits.
tauist wrote: I am pleasantly surprised GW fixed Deathwatch so quickly. Perhaps there is hope for this edition yet..
Also, liking what I see regarding Imperial Agents. Yesterday, I got a Chaos army from my existing minis, and today I got extra mileage from my Imperial KT21 models. Heck, I might even be able to squeeze in some more models from BSF, not too bad!
Indeed, the BSF loadout still exists for the Zealot in the SoB sheets as well and you can easily use Janus Draik as well. I haven't seen anything for the Navigator yet though.
Related to Imperial Agents, looks like Ephrael Stern is no longer an Imperial Agent and is only in the SoB index. Kyganil also appears quite a bit weaker, so that not bode well for Harlequins tomorrow.
Real AT is a problem for a lot of factions. Guard and AdMech are the only ones that can really get around it out of this (today's) batch. (AdMech have few big guns, but have lascannons or equivalents and anti-vehicle scattered around the list to support them)
Even knights struggle a bit with their model and weapon limitations.
I worry about orks, because its been a recurring problem for them. Craftworld eldar and necrons should be fine.
Hehe anyone else notice how the other day GW said the Imperial Knights and Chaos Knights would have separate PDFs? Well the Imperial Knights one has the Chaos Knights tacked on the end. It's not a problem just thought it was funny, a 54 page doc just on Knights, all knights all the time.
Voss wrote: Real AT is a problem for a lot of factions. Guard and AdMech are the only ones that can really get around it out of this (today's) batch. (AdMech have few big guns, but have lascannons or equivalents and anti-vehicle scattered around the list to support them)
Even knights struggle a bit with their model and weapon limitations.
I worry about orks, because its been a recurring problem for them. Craftworld eldar and necrons should be fine.
That's a long term struggle for 40k. Make AT too good or too common and vehicles are mostly pointless. Make vehicles too tough, or AT too weak and we wind up with parking lots which are no fun.
I'm hoping they walk the tightrope a little better this edition since I've never enjoyed Rhino's and Landraiders lasting 1 or 2 rounds before blowing up or being rendered into a near useless profile.
Sure was hoping that with each Russ variant getting its own sheet that we could see some of the differences in stats - such as a slower, more heavily armoured Demolisher (M8"/T12 vs the M10"/T11 of a regular Russ). Shame they didn't do that...
VladimirHerzog wrote: nah, theyre basically weird gravguns. They used to be lascannon equivalents stats-wise tho
And grav-guns are anti-tank, and they were like Lascannons.
So they were anti-tank weapons... and now they're inexplicably anti-infantry weapons.
Voss wrote: Real AT is a problem for a lot of factions. Guard and AdMech are the only ones that can really get around it out of this (today's) batch. (AdMech have few big guns, but have lascannons or equivalents and anti-vehicle scattered around the list to support them)
Even knights struggle a bit with their model and weapon limitations.
I worry about orks, because its been a recurring problem for them. Craftworld eldar and necrons should be fine.
That's a long term struggle for 40k. Make AT too good or too common and vehicles are mostly pointless. Make vehicles too tough, or AT too weak and we wind up with parking lots which are no fun.
I'm hoping they walk the tightrope a little better this edition since I've never enjoyed Rhino's and Landraiders lasting 1 or 2 rounds before blowing up or being rendered into a near useless profile.
Just going by what's released, I'm not sure that they've walked it well.
If you're Marines, Guard or AdMech, you've definitely got the tools to handle tanks, though AdMech seems slightly easier to screw up. If you're vanilla Chaos marines or either flavor Knights, you can probably build for it, but can easily end up without enough.
Everybody else has a struggle on their hands (Xenos pending)
H.B.M.C. wrote: Sure was hoping that with each Russ variant getting its own sheet that we could see some of the differences in stats - such as a slower, more heavily armoured Demolisher (M8"/T12 vs the M10"/T11 of a regular Russ). Shame they didn't do that...
VladimirHerzog wrote: nah, theyre basically weird gravguns. They used to be lascannon equivalents stats-wise tho
And grav-guns are anti-tank, and they were like Lascannons.
So they were anti-tank weapons... and now they're inexplicably anti-infantry weapons.
They work by "grabbing" stuff in gravitational fields then rotating these field opposite of each other. Easier to grab small infantry than to grab a tank i guess
H.B.M.C. wrote: Sure was hoping that with each Russ variant getting its own sheet that we could see some of the differences in stats - such as a slower, more heavily armoured Demolisher (M8"/T12 vs the M10"/T11 of a regular Russ). Shame they didn't do that...
VladimirHerzog wrote: nah, theyre basically weird gravguns. They used to be lascannon equivalents stats-wise tho
And grav-guns are anti-tank, and they were like Lascannons.
So they were anti-tank weapons... and now they're inexplicably anti-infantry weapons.
To be fair, their anti-tank stats were a weird disconnect from their description in the fluff.
Voss wrote: Real AT is a problem for a lot of factions. Guard and AdMech are the only ones that can really get around it out of this (today's) batch. (AdMech have few big guns, but have lascannons or equivalents and anti-vehicle scattered around the list to support them)
Even knights struggle a bit with their model and weapon limitations.
I worry about orks, because its been a recurring problem for them. Craftworld eldar and necrons should be fine.
That's a long term struggle for 40k. Make AT too good or too common and vehicles are mostly pointless. Make vehicles too tough, or AT too weak and we wind up with parking lots which are no fun.
I'm hoping they walk the tightrope a little better this edition since I've never enjoyed Rhino's and Landraiders lasting 1 or 2 rounds before blowing up or being rendered into a near useless profile.
Just going by what's released, I'm not sure that they've walked it well.
If you're Marines, Guard or AdMech, you've definitely got the tools to handle tanks, though AdMech seems slightly easier to screw up. If you're vanilla Chaos marines or either flavor Knights, you can probably build for it, but can easily end up without enough.
Everybody else has a struggle on their hands (Xenos pending)
Overall I agree, Marines have tools to handle everything (benefits of getting endless releases), AdMech, Eldar, CSM and Knights are well built for AT; I'd say Guard as well depending on cheap they are pointed out. That said it's hard to say without playing, but this may be the first time in a long while that a Landraider has a spot on the table (points dependent). From their design ethos it looks like they took all the spammable old AT weapons and made them S8 or S9 to pop light vehicles and skimmers, while only the single/double shot weapons (Lascannons & Bright/Dark Lances) are true Anti-Tank. Which is a reasonable place to start but it gets tricky when some factions identity mean using only certain weapons and thus never have a Lascannon / Bright Lance equivalent. They may have tricks up their sleeve like a faction/detachment, or easy access to +1 W stratagems or leaders but its hard to see how well that's going to work out without the points and just playing the game.
Then there's Orks where the missiles hits on a 5+ anyways
The Sisters characters have such strange unit restrictions. Some can join Novitiate units, others can't and it seems so random.
Skitarii all come in 10-man units now. No MSU for AdMech.
A bit bummed you can't run a pure Imperial Agents army either, but not a big surprise.
The weapon consolidation and stupid restrictions continue to needle me.
EDIT: Didn't Commissars have an option for Power Fists previously? I feel like the Tempestor Prime and the Commissar got sprue-locked. Turns out that happened before the last Codex release.
But now Attaches come with all three models. You can't just take one.
A guard Infantry Squad with heavy weapon teams, can't take maximum special weapons or voxes because it would only have 9 or 18-19 models in it. Special/vox are 1 per 10 models. Can't have 2 specials, 2 voxes, and 2 heavies at the same time.
A stupid question on Imperial Guard - a few units can take multiple leaders, and some of the leader units have multiple models. Each of these instances seems to have a rule stating that when the bodyguard unit dies off, the leader units attached separate, at their original starting strength. So if a precision weapon knocks out a few command squad models, do they immediately resurrect when the bodyguard dies?
And is it just me, or is the Exterminator actually not terrible? Seems like a better option than the LRBT if you plan on getting close up.
Insularum wrote: And is it just me, or is the Exterminator actually not terrible? Seems like a better option than the LRBT if you plan on getting close up.
It got the better end of the bargain compared to the Hydra, that's for certain. Lost two shots, but gained Rapid Fire 4 and Twin-Linked.
[EDIT]: Just realised that tanks don't come in squadrons any more. One step forward, two steps back...
Insularum wrote: A stupid question on Imperial Guard - a few units can take multiple leaders, and some of the leader units have multiple models. Each of these instances seems to have a rule stating that when the bodyguard unit dies off, the leader units attached separate, at their original starting strength. So if a precision weapon knocks out a few command squad models, do they immediately resurrect when the bodyguard dies?
And is it just me, or is the Exterminator actually not terrible? Seems like a better option than the LRBT if you plan on getting close up.
Starting strength is just the number of models the unit started the game with.
I don't have Militarum PDF open but using Sororitas as an example.
Astrid Theurga + Aegetha Dolan is a Leader unit with Starting Strength 2.
Imagifier is a Leader with SS 1.
Battle sisters are a unit with SS 10.
Both Astrid's unit and the imagifier join the battle sisters, and become 1 unit with starting strength 13.
Astrid is sniped out. Then all Battle Sisters die.
Aegetha Dolan and Imagifier both split to individual units, with Aegetha returning to Starting Strength 2, and the Imagifier Starting Strength 1.
No units are revived. Starting Strength is effectively a stat/characteristic.
Insularum wrote: A stupid question on Imperial Guard - a few units can take multiple leaders, and some of the leader units have multiple models. Each of these instances seems to have a rule stating that when the bodyguard unit dies off, the leader units attached separate, at their original starting strength. So if a precision weapon knocks out a few command squad models, do they immediately resurrect when the bodyguard dies?
That just means their unit reverts to its original Starting Strength, rather than the combined Starting Strength from being attached. So a Platoon Command Squad (Starting Strength of 5) joins a Jungle Fighters squad (Starting Strength of 10), making a combined Starting Strength of 15.
If Precision attacks kill 3 of the Command Squad, and regular shooting wipes out the Jungle Fighters, the Platoon Command Squad now reverts back to its original Starting Strength of 5, and with 3 models killed, is now Below Half-Strength.
bullyboy wrote: Figured people would be more pissed frat sisters can only be taken in squads of 10 now
It's annoying, for sure, but personally I'm more annoyed that Retributios are fixed at 5. The sixth Sisters Ablatia that each of my squads have will need to find another way to martyr themselves now.
I suppose higher starting unit size for regualr Sisters keeps their bonuses for being under half strength in check?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Why do the Rogue Trader voidsmen, of all units, have a variable unit size?
warmaster21 wrote: Sad that i cant even run an execution force of all 4 assassins, oh well.
It's extra dumb too because it could have been easily allowed simply by giving the assassins a special rule that lets them use up a Retinue or Character agents slot, since then at 2k or more you could field all 4.
Hmm, I have seen couple of errors with datasheets, but not much, which makes me glad. The Astra militarum leman russ exterminator has different weapon profile in the actual datasheet and the armory card in the end of the pdf.
The other must be a typo, taurox prime frag missile has s8.
ph34r wrote: I thought Marine servitors had good BS now so with all the buffs they hit on 3+ or 2+ or something. Does guard have worse servitors?
In general lorewise quite probably, depending on the regiment and Ad Mech support, but it does appear to be usual Marine bias
One of the things GW seems to be trying hard to do is make options viable. For instance the grenade launcher suddenly becoming decent, so it can complete with a plasma gun etc. So I assume that applies to units as a whole. Servitors in a Marine army have to compete with Marine options, where in a guard or admech army they have to compete with guard / admech options.
Huh, am I reading this wrong or can Stormtroopers finally mount up in Chimera again after almost a decade of forgetting how?
Chimera: 12 Astra Militarum Infantry models
Taurox: 12 Astra Militarum Infantry models
Taurox Prime: 12 Militarum Tempestus Infantry or Astra Militarum Infantry Character models
Note the Taurox Prime specifically calls out Astra MIlitarum Infantry Characters, probably so you can throw in a Commissar or the like.
Tempestus Scions have: Astra Militarum Faction Keyword, Infantry, and Militarum Tempestus keywords. The other infantry I do not see any "Astra Militarum" keyword in their main blurb, just Faction Keyword.
If so, even though its probably suboptimal what with Deep Strike, it is neat to finally let them ride again.
Also, did Taurox always have 12 transport capacity? Could have sworn it was 10, though I skipped the 9th dex what with it dropping 6 months before the new edition.
Also, did Taurox always have 12 transport capacity? Could have sworn it was 10, though I skipped the 9th dex what with it dropping 6 months before the new edition.
Many transports have had their capacity increased in order to include an attached character or two.
kurhanik wrote: Huh, am I reading this wrong or can Stormtroopers finally mount up in Chimera again after almost a decade of forgetting how?
Chimera: 12 Astra Militarum Infantry models
Taurox: 12 Astra Militarum Infantry models
Taurox Prime: 12 Militarum Tempestus Infantry or Astra Militarum Infantry Character models
Note the Taurox Prime specifically calls out Astra MIlitarum Infantry Characters, probably so you can throw in a Commissar or the like.
Tempestus Scions have: Astra Militarum Faction Keyword, Infantry, and Militarum Tempestus keywords. The other infantry I do not see any "Astra Militarum" keyword in their main blurb, just Faction Keyword.
If so, even though its probably suboptimal what with Deep Strike, it is neat to finally let them ride again.
Also, did Taurox always have 12 transport capacity? Could have sworn it was 10, though I skipped the 9th dex what with it dropping 6 months before the new edition.
your right on both counts. stormtroopers can now use chimeras, and the taurox (like many transports across all factions) has had its transport capacity increased so that you can stick a squad+ attached characters into it.
lord_blackfang wrote: I heard from a reliable source on 4chan that 11th will be playtested.
I think the chance of any 40k edition ever being playtested is zero
Only if you ignore the playtesters who played it, but sure.
From all that we've generally heard GW doesn't use external playtesters in the best way. Often providing them only select stats and pre-made armies for them to use. I think they also test too late in the process which provides very little time for GW to address and review and adjust based on feedback because we've heard how major faults or issues that had to be fixed with an errata, were often spotted by some testers.
GW works with a lot of compartmentalised secrecy and whilst that has its benefits there are also downsides to that system too. One of them being that external independent testing isn't as reliable nor indepth as it could be.
lord_blackfang wrote: I heard from a reliable source on 4chan that 11th will be playtested.
I think the chance of any 40k edition ever being playtested is zero
Only if you ignore the playtesters who played it, but sure.
It was playtested, but there's no way they covered everything. Like they created a conceptual framework of how they're going to design the game, tried it with a few factions, and started writing. No one sat there and said 'ok now let's play Deathwatch against all 20+ other factions, but this time I'll use these enhancements on different characters and these strats'.
There's an impossible number of permutations and no one played games to make sure all the enhancements and strats were ok. It just isn't feasible and people seem to think that's the only way to do it.
lord_blackfang wrote: I heard from a reliable source on 4chan that 11th will be playtested.
I think the chance of any 40k edition ever being playtested is zero
Only if you ignore the playtesters who played it, but sure.
From all that we've generally heard GW doesn't use external playtesters in the best way. Often providing them only select stats and pre-made armies for them to use. I think they also test too late in the process which provides very little time for GW to address and review and adjust based on feedback because we've heard how major faults or issues that had to be fixed with an errata, were often spotted by some testers.
GW works with a lot of compartmentalised secrecy and whilst that has its benefits there are also downsides to that system too. One of them being that external independent testing isn't as reliable nor indepth as it could be.
I don't need mansplaining of how playtesting works just because I'm tired of the 'No playtesting, LOL!' memes.
There's an impossible number of permutations and no one played games to make sure all the enhancements and strats were ok. It just isn't feasible and people seem to think that's the only way to do it.
As long as GW never sunsets units it's going to be near impossible to test all the units and combinations.
There's an impossible number of permutations and no one played games to make sure all the enhancements and strats were ok. It just isn't feasible and people seem to think that's the only way to do it.
As long as GW never sunsets units it's going to be near impossible to test all the units and combinations.
Given the complaints when GW does sunset stuff*, it's never likely to do it to the degree required to bring unit count down to a "manageable " number
lord_blackfang wrote: I heard from a reliable source on 4chan that 11th will be playtested.
I think the chance of any 40k edition ever being playtested is zero
Only if you ignore the playtesters who played it, but sure.
I think they can be safely ignored, yes. When casual readers find a 75damage combo within 60 seconds of opening a pdf "playtesters" might as well not exist and the "impossible number of permutations" excuse is laughable.
lord_blackfang wrote: I heard from a reliable source on 4chan that 11th will be playtested.
I think the chance of any 40k edition ever being playtested is zero
Only if you ignore the playtesters who played it, but sure.
I think they can be safely ignored, yes. When casual readers find a 75damage combo within 60 seconds of opening a pdf "playtesters" might as well not exist and the "impossible number of permutations" excuse is laughable.
I feel this is similar to situations we run into with MTG where broken combos sneak by. I remember a member of the design staff saying that basically it was inevitable, regardless of how much playtesting, and that cards realistically get tested hundreds of times more in the first few hours of the larger community being aware of them, than they were tested internally.
lord_blackfang wrote: I heard from a reliable source on 4chan that 11th will be playtested.
I think the chance of any 40k edition ever being playtested is zero
Only if you ignore the playtesters who played it, but sure.
I think they can be safely ignored, yes. When casual readers find a 75damage combo within 60 seconds of opening a pdf "playtesters" might as well not exist and the "impossible number of permutations" excuse is laughable.
I feel this is similar to situations we run into with MTG where broken combos sneak by. I remember a member of the design staff saying that basically it was inevitable, regardless of how much playtesting, and that cards realistically get tested hundreds of times more in the first few hours of the larger community being aware of them, than they were tested internally.
I think the reason MTG gets away with it more than GW is because MTG is basically still running on the same rules. They tweak and adjust but broadly speaking its the same system and many of the stupidly broken combos appear in their open format where you've thousands of card combos.
GW on the other hand often has broken stuff that's really "in your face" broken. Not to mention every few years they rebuild the entire game ground up. So any progress is undone very quickly. It results in a constantly changing system that keeps having the same probelms that don't get resolved because each time you get near to resolving them the whole thing gets messed up for a new edition.
So for MTG the balance issues are more "this combo is broken" rather than "this entire mechanic is broken or works in a broken way"
Not to mention every few years they rebuild the entire game ground up.
Ah, if only that were true….40K still stubbornly clings to concepts that were outdated when Rogue Trader released - IGO-UGO turns, worshipping at the altar of the holy D6 still when that humble dice barely allows any differentiation between the vast number of units that pollute the game nowadays. There are a lot of better sci-fi skirmish games out there in 2023 that are better games than 40K. But they don’t have 30+ years of lore and momentum behind them. It’s an ouroboros at this point - everyone plays 40K… because everyone plays 40K. It hardly even matters if the game is good or not.
Current scuttlebutt says that all those variable unit sizes we keep seeing aren't accurate, and that points are for blocks of models. So, for example, where it says a unit of 5-10 Terminators in the Index is actually 5 or 10 Terminators.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Current scuttlebutt says that all those variable unit sizes we keep seeing aren't accurate, and that points are for blocks of models. So, for example, where it says a unit of 5-10 Terminators in the Index is actually 5 or 10 Terminators.
I'll bet that the variable sizes are accurate, but they're taking the Power Level model of forcing you to round up to the higher cost.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Current scuttlebutt says that all those variable unit sizes we keep seeing aren't accurate, and that points are for blocks of models. So, for example, where it says a unit of 5-10 Terminators in the Index is actually 5 or 10 Terminators.
Can’t say I enjoy that, but at least they upped the transport capacities to make room for characters.
catbarf wrote: I'll bet that the variable sizes are accurate, but they're taking the Power Level model of forcing you to round up to the higher cost.
Which would mean that all their talk of "Power Level is dead, points is the future!" was a load of nonsense.
After what they did with most wargear towards the end of 9th, it seemed quite likely that GW's plan for the future of points was just to essentially change it into Power Level in all but name, so they could claim "here is the points everyone demanded" while actually keeping to the lazily less granular Power Level design still.
catbarf wrote: I'll bet that the variable sizes are accurate, but they're taking the Power Level model of forcing you to round up to the higher cost.
Which would mean that all their talk of "Power Level is dead, points is the future!" was a load of nonsense.
After what they did with most wargear towards the end of 9th, it seemed quite likely that GW's plan for the future of points was just to essentially change it into Power Level in all but name, so they could claim "here is the points everyone demanded" while actually keeping to the lazily less granular Power Level design still.
It’s how they have done age of sigmar points for ages, and according to a bunch of folk who disliked power levels intensely in another thread, points done like this is still way better than power levels.
To me, this way is the best of both worlds and the worst of both. Being higher numbers, typically 3 figures means they are more granular and can be tweak much more finely than old power levels, but for some people the unit costing the same regardless of wargear is a big turn off. For me, it’s fine. I liked power levels and this is much the same, just wish the points were on the data card but get why they aren’t.
To use the most obvious example: What's the point of being able to transport 8 Terminators in a Land Raider Crusade if they only come in squads of 5 or 10. At most you can attach two characters (Terminator Captain + Terminator Ancient), netting you 7 Terminators, and leaving a slot free.
catbarf wrote: I'll bet that the variable sizes are accurate, but they're taking the Power Level model of forcing you to round up to the higher cost.
Which would mean that all their talk of "Power Level is dead, points is the future!" was a load of nonsense.
After what they did with most wargear towards the end of 9th, it seemed quite likely that GW's plan for the future of points was just to essentially change it into Power Level in all but name, so they could claim "here is the points everyone demanded" while actually keeping to the lazily less granular Power Level design still.
It’s how they have done age of sigmar points for ages, and according to a bunch of folk who disliked power levels intensely in another thread, points done like this is still way better than power levels.
To me, this way is the best of both worlds and the worst of both. Being higher numbers, typically 3 figures means they are more granular and can be tweak much more finely than old power levels, but for some people the unit costing the same regardless of wargear is a big turn off. For me, it’s fine. I liked power levels and this is much the same, just wish the points were on the data card but get why they aren’t.
The first version of the Goonhammer Imperial Knights article included the line "As with everything in 10th, all your upgrades are now free." and the leaked Tyranid points only showed a single extra points upgrade (on the Tyrannofex).
I may need to start painting up some Hunter-Killer Missiles.
So, I have been out of the game for a LONG time (focusing more on Necromunda/Kill Team and modeling/painting), but Commissars can't join a Command Squad?
How long has that been a thing?
I mean, I know that the Command Squad and a Commissar can both join an infantry squad (which then, of course, can't fit in a Chimera), but...wasn't the POINT of a commissar to keep an eye on the officers to watch for disloyalty?
H.B.M.C. wrote: Current scuttlebutt says that all those variable unit sizes we keep seeing aren't accurate, and that points are for blocks of models. So, for example, where it says a unit of 5-10 Terminators in the Index is actually 5 or 10 Terminators.
I'll bet that the variable sizes are accurate, but they're taking the Power Level model of forcing you to round up to the higher cost.
5 dudes for 150pts, or 6-10 for 300pts.
I had been wondering how they would do crusade rules with Points instead of Power, and yeah 5 or 10 man blobs seems like the simplest solution to them.
Da Butcha wrote: So, I have been out of the game for a LONG time (focusing more on Necromunda/Kill Team and modeling/painting), but Commissars can't join a Command Squad?
How long has that been a thing?
I mean, I know that the Command Squad and a Commissar can both join an infantry squad (which then, of course, can't fit in a Chimera), but...wasn't the POINT of a commissar to keep an eye on the officers to watch for disloyalty?
Considering you will join both to a unit 9/10 due to "or they can easily be shot at" i'd rather take the simplyfied rule that prevents potential layered joining BS than the slightly more fluffy sounding one.
Da Butcha wrote: So, I have been out of the game for a LONG time (focusing more on Necromunda/Kill Team and modeling/painting), but Commissars can't join a Command Squad?
How long has that been a thing?
I mean, I know that the Command Squad and a Commissar can both join an infantry squad (which then, of course, can't fit in a Chimera), but...wasn't the POINT of a commissar to keep an eye on the officers to watch for disloyalty?
Considering you will join both to a unit 9/10 due to "or they can easily be shot at" i'd rather take the simplyfied rule that prevents potential layered joining BS than the slightly more fluffy sounding one.
I suspect you’re right. As only two characters can join a given unit, this neatly prevents “I am put two Commisars in Command Squad, two in another, then they am all joins a 20 man squad, because it’s technically not breaking the rules.
Gordy2000 wrote: Wait, am I missing something here, or have tech-priest dominus and Cawl lost Master of Machines (and therefore the ability to repair vehicles)?
Gordy2000 wrote: Wait, am I missing something here, or have tech-priest dominus and Cawl lost Master of Machines (and therefore the ability to repair vehicles)?
Tech priests that can’t repair stuff? Good grief.
To be honest i like it.
This serves to distinguish the different kinds of tech priest models ( battlefield role) and enforce a fluff hierarchy - Cawl might have the knowledge and means to do battlefield repairs, but he has better things to do.
Same as SM Firstborn, who "forget" how to infiltrate when becoming full brothers or SM Captains who do not use Meltas/Lascannons, even though there is no real reason why they could not.
Da Butcha wrote: So, I have been out of the game for a LONG time (focusing more on Necromunda/Kill Team and modeling/painting), but Commissars can't join a Command Squad?
How long has that been a thing?
I mean, I know that the Command Squad and a Commissar can both join an infantry squad (which then, of course, can't fit in a Chimera), but...wasn't the POINT of a commissar to keep an eye on the officers to watch for disloyalty?
Considering you will join both to a unit 9/10 due to "or they can easily be shot at" i'd rather take the simplyfied rule that prevents potential layered joining BS than the slightly more fluffy sounding one.
I suspect you’re right. As only two characters can join a given unit, this neatly prevents “I am put two Commisars in Command Squad, two in another, then they am all joins a 20 man squad, because it’s technically not breaking the rules.
That still seems like an intended interaction - Regimental Attachees and Ogry Bodyguards/Nork Deddog can join Command Squads as well (and then join other squads together) but only the Ogry/Nork rules specify a limit of one model with 'Loyal Bodyguard' for joining things.
Losing a lot of upgrades does sound like 40K losing something its had for a long time, at the same time GW has bafflingly, been unable to write a good codex format since around 3-4th edition. Their formatting for the last few editions has been so page flippingly confusing that I bet they got a LOT of complaints about how its hard to build just 1 model when stats are on one page; costs on another; upgrades on another; weapons on another - all making it way way harder to actually just build 1 unit let alone an army.
WYSIWYG is also something GW is pushing harder, which is overall a good thing, but upgrades were never really part of that. You could do it (and do a lot of converting); but often it was just not sensible because one game you might drop a 1 point upgrade on a unit for a few more points to add another model into another unit and so-forth. So modelling and requiring them was just beyond most peoples sane approach to modelling.
IT seems that GW is adopting a lot of the AoS systems into 40K. Just cross your fingers the double-turn person doesn't get their fingers on the 40K rules and brings that over. Though honestly considering shooting is way more deadly in 40K, I don't think it would work one bit.
There's an impossible number of permutations and no one played games to make sure all the enhancements and strats were ok. It just isn't feasible and people seem to think that's the only way to do it.
As long as GW never sunsets units it's going to be near impossible to test all the units and combinations.
Given the complaints when GW does sunset stuff*, it's never likely to do it to the degree required to bring unit count down to a "manageable " number
* jump pack chaos lord, box naught, etc etc
That much is true.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Overread wrote: Losing a lot of upgrades does sound like 40K losing something its had for a long time, at the same time GW has bafflingly, been unable to write a good codex format since around 3-4th edition. Their formatting for the last few editions has been so page flippingly confusing that I bet they got a LOT of complaints about how its hard to build just 1 model when stats are on one page; costs on another; upgrades on another; weapons on another - all making it way way harder to actually just build 1 unit let alone an army.
To be fair a lot of the upgrades being lost or simplified is just Space Marines, which is why you mostly see Space Marine players complain about it. For xenos players upgrades have been so random over the editions that removing upgrades entirely would be a relief.
catbarf wrote: I'll bet that the variable sizes are accurate, but they're taking the Power Level model of forcing you to round up to the higher cost.
Which would mean that all their talk of "Power Level is dead, points is the future!" was a load of nonsense.
yup, they have filed off the name "power level" and grabbed a marker pen and written "points" instead
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Overread wrote: Losing a lot of upgrades does sound like 40K losing something its had for a long time, at the same time GW has bafflingly, been unable to write a good codex format since around 3-4th edition. Their formatting for the last few editions has been so page flippingly confusing that I bet they got a LOT of complaints about how its hard to build just 1 model when stats are on one page; costs on another; upgrades on another; weapons on another - all making it way way harder to actually just build 1 unit let alone an army.
WYSIWYG is also something GW is pushing harder, which is overall a good thing, but upgrades were never really part of that. You could do it (and do a lot of converting); but often it was just not sensible because one game you might drop a 1 point upgrade on a unit for a few more points to add another model into another unit and so-forth. So modelling and requiring them was just beyond most peoples sane approach to modelling.
IT seems that GW is adopting a lot of the AoS systems into 40K. Just cross your fingers the double-turn person doesn't get their fingers on the 40K rules and brings that over. Though honestly considering shooting is way more deadly in 40K, I don't think it would work one bit.
double turn could work, but only if they also bring over the split turn from LotR so you will always get to move before an enemy fires
Guard being an entire army of 2+ to hit, with rerolls, looks like a lot of fun.
Also, what are people's opininon on using the old aegis defence line as the new sheet? Plenty of old models are allowed to be used instead of new, like old sentinel base sizes and stuff. Aegis seems like a really odd situation though.
What length is the new kit? Maybe if you try to match the length it would be more fair.
a) don't understand what playtesting actually is, and confuse it with game development
b) omit the possibility of having more than 10 playtesters
c) openly ignore other possibilities (and in many cases industry standards that have existed for decades) like doing beta tests or even open alphas, having loyalty/'bug bounty' programs and so on.
Basically this meme:
Only with asinine corporate decisions and arbitrary, self-inflicted restrictions they have to adhere to.
It's only not wrong if you accept that 10 playtesters is the absolute limit that is god-given and can't be changed for whatever reason, which is obviously stupid and an arbitrary decision made by GW in the first place.
On top of that, in-house playtesting is generally ineffective because these people have a fundamental problem: in most cases, they are game designers themselves, and in intimate contact with the people that write the rules, so they know, in many cases, what any given rule was meant to do, which need not be what the written rules actually state. That is a form of 'reality blindness' that is very hard to ditch, and as a consequence they overlook a lot of ambiguities, unclear or nonsensical formulations and wordings because it is all very clear in their mind, because they have additional information that the average player hasn't. If you want to do effective playtesting, you need to take steps to counteract this, and - at a minimum - bounce your written rules off of people that do not have that background information.
It's only not wrong if you accept that 10 playtesters is the absolute limit that is god-given and can't be changed for whatever reason, which is obviously stupid and an arbitrary decision made by GW in the first place.
On top of that, in-house playtesting is generally ineffective because these people have a fundamental problem: in most cases, they are game designers themselves, and in intimate contact with the people that write the rules, so they know, in many cases, what any given rule was meant to do, which need not be what the written rules actually state. That is a form of 'reality blindness' that is very hard to ditch, and as a consequence they overlook a lot of ambiguities, unclear or nonsensical formulations and wordings because it is all very clear in their mind, because they have additional information that the average player hasn't. If you want to do effective playtesting, you need to take steps to counteract this, and - at a minimum - bounce your written rules off of people that do not have that background information.
It can still be correct within the confines of the limitations placed. Not saying its right, not saying that they can't do better because they can and it certainly won't be the fault of whoever is doing the playtesting in-house. But it's also not their choice to only have 10 staff etc. That's corpo dong heads.
It's only not wrong if you accept that 10 playtesters is the absolute limit that is god-given and can't be changed for whatever reason, which is obviously stupid and an arbitrary decision made by GW in the first place.
On top of that, in-house playtesting is generally ineffective because these people have a fundamental problem: in most cases, they are game designers themselves, and in intimate contact with the people that write the rules, so they know, in many cases, what any given rule was meant to do, which need not be what the written rules actually state. That is a form of 'reality blindness' that is very hard to ditch, and as a consequence they overlook a lot of ambiguities, unclear or nonsensical formulations and wordings because it is all very clear in their mind, because they have additional information that the average player hasn't. If you want to do effective playtesting, you need to take steps to counteract this, and - at a minimum - bounce your written rules off of people that do not have that background information.
It can still be correct within the confines of the limitations placed. Not saying its right, not saying that they can't do better because they can and it certainly won't be the fault of whoever is doing the playtesting in-house. But it's also not their choice to only have 10 staff etc. That's corpo dong heads.
Of course, i'm not saying it's the fault of the playtesters, they can only do so much. Ultimately, it's a question of quality control, and if GW (be it the design team, corporate or whichever level does the decisionmaking in that particular case) finds that level of effort and the resulting quality problems acceptable then that's a decision we have to live with for now. In my opinion they could do better with trivial additional effort, but they'd have to want to in the first place.
Trickstick wrote: Unless you can confirm the post is even true, it seems futile to treat it as such. That's how you get pages of discussion based on a false premise.
It is an old post, I think it made itself a name some 2 or 3 years ago? Even then it was endlessly ridiculed because 4 games per week from full-job playtesters was pretty disheartening but also pretty funny (not even GW employees can play their game more than ~12 hours a week and such).
It's only not wrong if you accept that 10 playtesters is the absolute limit that is god-given and can't be changed for whatever reason, which is obviously stupid and an arbitrary decision made by GW in the first place.
On top of that, in-house playtesting is generally ineffective because these people have a fundamental problem: in most cases, they are game designers themselves, and in intimate contact with the people that write the rules, so they know, in many cases, what any given rule was meant to do, which need not be what the written rules actually state. That is a form of 'reality blindness' that is very hard to ditch, and as a consequence they overlook a lot of ambiguities, unclear or nonsensical formulations and wordings because it is all very clear in their mind, because they have additional information that the average player hasn't. If you want to do effective playtesting, you need to take steps to counteract this, and - at a minimum - bounce your written rules off of people that do not have that background information.
It also assumes that the ONLY way to catch mistakes is to actually play games (the question wasn't "Why don't you playtest?"). I doubt anyone in this thread needed to play a single game of 10e to spot the DW interaction, you just need a basic level of reading comprehension.
It was exactly the same with the Votann codex, you don't have to PLAY a game to see that "Rule that states something counts as an unmodified wound roll of 6" might possibly trigger the rule two paragraphs later that activated on "an unmodified wound roll of 6". That doesn't take 50,000 hours of playtesting, it doesn't take a team of a hundred playtesters from across the world air-gapped from the design team, it takes one person who graduated high school and has a level of object permeance greater than a goldfish, something GW are consistently proving they do not have access to.
Your point on in-house playtesting is valid, and why I generally pour scorn on RAI arguments, a Game Designer's job is to translate their intent for how something should work into a set of mechanical effects that, when reproduced, replicate that outcome. If you need to try and divine the intent of a rule for it to generate the desired effect, then the designers are not doing their jobs. If you follow a recipe for chocolate cake and it ends up making flaming hot chilli, that's because the person writing the recipe didn't do their damn job and nobody else that recipe passed through caught the glaringly obvious mistake either.
These are not emergent effects that only become apparent when you have tens of thousands of eyes on the rules, they aren't wacky unintended consequences of two obscure rules interactions, these are not failures of playtesting, they're failures of basic reading, and regardless of whether the post itself is genuine or not, these are failures that keep happening regardless of the amount of playtesting that is allegedly done beforehand
Trickstick wrote: Unless you can confirm the post is even true, it seems futile to treat it as such. That's how you get pages of discussion based on a false premise.
It is an old post, I think it made itself a name some 2 or 3 years ago? Even then it was endlessly ridiculed because 4 games per week from full-job playtesters was pretty disheartening but also pretty funny (not even GW employees can play their game more than ~12 hours a week and such).
More than 12 hours a week with that book* you assume they only work on 1 set at a time, which they likely do cover multiple and this largely will incur further risk and quality sacrifices.
On top of that, there's also the issue of poor proofreading and copy-editing (i.e. units missing the option to actually take equipment listed on their card, different-language units having different profiles, wrong/flipped weapon and other profiles, missing keywords and so on) - these are somewhat more understandable given the sheer amount of cards, but sill a lot of them could be prevented by using modern-day productivity/versioning systems and professional proofreaders and editors.
We already have a decent primary source in what GW do in terms of playtesting at least up until pretty recently - this video where Peachy interviews James Hewitt about it.
The Phazer wrote: We already have a decent primary source in what GW do in terms of playtesting at least up until pretty recently - this video where Peachy interviews James Hewitt about it.
I thought it was interesting that some of GW's games that are generally considered to be pretty balanced were not playtested that widely.
It's probably a question of where you're starting from - games like BFG or Warmaster were pretty much written in one go, for all factions, and were thus pretty balanced on the outset (let's just not mention Eldar and Necrons for BFG, thank you), while other games like e.g. Bloodbowl have a rather restricted set of things 'units' can do and are thus inherently easier to balance.
The main culprits that have consistent balancing problems are the mainline games that have accumulated cruft over half-a-dozen editions and more, and that want to cover a lot of things at the same time (Warhammer covering everything from quasi-medieval human armies to all-monsters armies, magic-heavy summoning forces or hyper-elite daemon legions, while 40k spans the range from an individual sniper rifle's ammunition choice being important up to Titans, Airplanes and Orbital Bombardments) and have a lot of historical baggage about how they should 'feel' and play and how individual units should behave.
catbarf wrote: I'll bet that the variable sizes are accurate, but they're taking the Power Level model of forcing you to round up to the higher cost.
Which would mean that all their talk of "Power Level is dead, points is the future!" was a load of nonsense.
yup, they have filed off the name "power level" and grabbed a marker pen and written "points" instead
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Overread wrote: Losing a lot of upgrades does sound like 40K losing something its had for a long time, at the same time GW has bafflingly, been unable to write a good codex format since around 3-4th edition. Their formatting for the last few editions has been so page flippingly confusing that I bet they got a LOT of complaints about how its hard to build just 1 model when stats are on one page; costs on another; upgrades on another; weapons on another - all making it way way harder to actually just build 1 unit let alone an army.
WYSIWYG is also something GW is pushing harder, which is overall a good thing, but upgrades were never really part of that. You could do it (and do a lot of converting); but often it was just not sensible because one game you might drop a 1 point upgrade on a unit for a few more points to add another model into another unit and so-forth. So modelling and requiring them was just beyond most peoples sane approach to modelling.
IT seems that GW is adopting a lot of the AoS systems into 40K. Just cross your fingers the double-turn person doesn't get their fingers on the 40K rules and brings that over. Though honestly considering shooting is way more deadly in 40K, I don't think it would work one bit.
double turn could work, but only if they also bring over the split turn from LotR so you will always get to move before an enemy fires
It doesn't work in AoS An alternate army activation game giving 2 turns to one side is always going to utterly break any semblance of game balance
well, it would confirm that there is no playtesting done
as testing is done during development of the codex but not of the final product
if this is true GW proudly announces that they are only doing Alpha Tests during a 6 week period but no Beta Tests or pre-release tests of the final product
not understanding that playtesting is done after the development of the codex with point costs
would be funny if a game dev stands on steam that they have done a 10 people alpha test for their FPS shooter and it is impossible to spot all bugs on the final product as the extensive alpha testing still cannot find what 25k users find on release day
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Phazer wrote: I thought it was interesting that some of GW's games that are generally considered to be pretty balanced were not playtested that widely.
James also confirmed that the did the testing private in home as he did not want a game to be released before he at least played it once
so if the better balanced games are played by the designer at home tells us a lot what could be done of they would just play a single game with the final version of a Codex
well, it would confirm that there is no playtesting done
as testing is done during development of the codex but not of the final product
if this is true GW proudly announces that they are only doing Alpha Tests during a 6 week period but no Beta Tests or pre-release tests of the final product
not understanding that playtesting is done after the development of the codex with point costs
would be funny if a game dev stands on steam that they have done a 10 people alpha test for their FPS shooter and it is impossible to spot all bugs on the final product as the extensive alpha testing still cannot find what 25k users find on release day
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Phazer wrote: I thought it was interesting that some of GW's games that are generally considered to be pretty balanced were not playtested that widely.
James also confirmed that the did the testing private in home as he did not want a game to be released before he at least played it once
so if the better balanced games are played by the designer at home tells us a lot what could be done of they would just play a single game with the final version of a Codex
Then it wouldn't be the final version, as you're suggesting they should be... play testing them before release with a view to develop and change them. If you want to treat it like software you also have to acknowledge a continuous development cycle. Likewise you do draw a line in the sand and have to regression test to ensure there's no extra problems before release, but even then you have the option to release or return to develop more. Beta testing isn't mandatory for any product or even viable in some fields, you might have some UAT or SAT testing, which the equivalent here would be a closed doors tournament by some bigwig names. But that's still before the trigger is pulled on it being final and printed.
for printed products, of course final testing is not done before release but before it goes to the printer
but if software is not comparable, lets take a printed book
saying that proof reading was done during the 6 week writing process and it was impossible to spot that chapter 11-19 was put in between chapter 1 and 2 as this can only be found when thousands of people read it on release day
Mainly the fact that people believe ragebait from 4chan
I find 6 weeks of 'design' not unbelievable - it's not software that needs to be written in millions of lines of code and interacting modules, much of the rules side is already given by the model design side of things, and they don't really do testing. Obviously there are other steps of the design process that don't fall under these six weeks, but for making up some rules and fluff it sounds about right.
It’s how they have done age of sigmar points for ages, and according to a bunch of folk who disliked power levels intensely in another thread, points done like this is still way better than power levels.
the thing is AoS' squad options are actually tradeoffs unlike 40k.
lets say my squad can take swords or spears
Swords get 1" range, 2 attacks that hit on 3's
Spears get 2" range, 2 attacks that hit on 4's
In 40k, it's a no brainer to upgrade from a boltgun to a lascannon in a tactical squad for example
thing is though you could easily limit how many upgrades you have in a unit, one way that springs to mind is assigning a value to the upgrades and then say requiring you to not have more than a total value of them over your force, some sort of points based system, with values assigned maybe?
and sarcasm aside you could note a maximum percentage of your force for "upgrades"
expect thats not how GW will go, they will say "all upgrades are free!" which saying they have in theory costed either the most expensive or some "average" amount rolled in
Ok, so, the Xenos data sheets are out. Let's see how I did with a prediction:
H.B.M.C. wrote: Wait 'til we see the Autarch sheet, or sheets. I fully expect them to reverse the current Autarch entry and give us two different types: Autarch, and Autarch with Swooping Hawk Wings. The former will have a Wargear option for a Warp Jump Pack, giving it Flicker Jump, and wargear options that match the newer kit. The Wings Autarch will just have the weapons that specific kit comes with.
Well... I was mostly right. Really hoping I wouldn't be.
What we have are three Autarch sheets. One of them is the Jetbike Autarch - I was completely wrong about that; I thought that one was a goner, but I guess not - but that leaves us with, as expected, a foot and wing Autarch sheet.
Unfortunately, they've fethed with the weapon options for no apparent reason. You have to take the Furion Pistol, Power Sword and Mandiblasters as a set. All the others can be mixed'n'matched, but these three options can only be taken as a package deal. There's also no Warp Jump Generator, despite the model having one.
This isn't as bad as I thought it'd be, but somehow makes even less sense.
Valkyrie wrote: Xenos rules are up; just skimming through the Tau and looks like we got shafted.
Dark Eldar got it worse. No Harlequins, no Corsairs... Aeldari can take them, but Dark Eldar can't.
Confusingly, yes Dark Eldar can take them, but the rules to do so are included on the Aeldari sheets, not the Drukhari sheets. 2nd page of the detachment rules.
Valkyrie wrote: Xenos rules are up; just skimming through the Tau and looks like we got shafted.
Dark Eldar got it worse. No Harlequins, no Corsairs... Aeldari can take them, but Dark Eldar can't.
Confusingly, yes Dark Eldar can take them, but the rules to do so are included on the Aeldari sheets, not the Drukhari sheets. 2nd page of the detachment rules.
Rules design for games is actually quite comparable to software design.
Including the fact that most people believe they know how to do it.... but dont
( Disclaimer: i took a few courses in both while at university but choose a slightly different career. So not an expert either )
The Phazer wrote: We already have a decent primary source in what GW do in terms of playtesting at least up until pretty recently - this video where Peachy interviews James Hewitt about it.
I thought it was interesting that some of GW's games that are generally considered to be pretty balanced were not playtested that widely.
It's probably a question of where you're starting from - games like BFG or Warmaster were pretty much written in one go, for all factions, and were thus pretty balanced on the outset (let's just not mention Eldar and Necrons for BFG, thank you), while other games like e.g. Bloodbowl have a rather restricted set of things 'units' can do and are thus inherently easier to balance.
The main culprits that have consistent balancing problems are the mainline games that have accumulated cruft over half-a-dozen editions and more, and that want to cover a lot of things at the same time (Warhammer covering everything from quasi-medieval human armies to all-monsters armies, magic-heavy summoning forces or hyper-elite daemon legions, while 40k spans the range from an individual sniper rifle's ammunition choice being important up to Titans, Airplanes and Orbital Bombardments) and have a lot of historical baggage about how they should 'feel' and play and how individual units should behave.
Over the stretch from 2nd ed to now, that I've watched and heard about GW's "playtesting practices" - everything from in-house playtesting to external playtesters, to using "competitive" groups, etc., there have been three fairly consistent outcomes:
1) When the design studio plays a game, for whatever reason, they play the game using whatever models they have on hand. They don't build skew lists, or optimize interactions. Its often "wouldn't this be cool" or "let's try this". They will also play the game using whatever rules they either wrote, know, or remember, which may or may not strictly follow the rules as written in the actual rulebook. This is fairly common with game designers. When they play the games, they play them differently - which can run into a lot of RAI confusion.
2) When using external playtesters, we know that GW sends them specific stuff and specific points while requesting certain points of feedback. (And let's not talk about the great leak hunts of early internet GW), But not usually the "whole game" or the basic mechanics, or whatever. There was a discussion about feedback from external playtesters about Sisters and Acts of Faith way back. The feedback from the playtesters was "You know, you can stack this, this, and this, and its really powerful and can do this." GW's response was "Why would you do that?". To which the playtesters response was "Because the rules say you can." To which GW replied "But why would you do that?" Its a different way of conceptualizing what the game rules mean, and they're unlikely to match. Which ties into 3:
3) GW doesn't always take and use feedback received for whatever reason. Not enough time to make edits, book is already out for printing, they don't see it as enough of an issue, they don't think players would make those choices (rule of three anyone? - why would anyone take 9 of something?, etc.
And these have been going on in one way, shape, or form since 3rd ed. and the growth of the internet and people wanting to see and be part of whats in the magic sauce, or whatever they think GW is brewing up. Its unlikely to change. But maybe the meme needs to change from "GW doesn't playtest" to "GW doesn't playtest well" or "efficiently" or "doesn't listen to playtest feedback." Its also unlikely to change as they continue to make money hand over fist.
As far as 10th edition goes, I stopped after 8th indexes, bought one 8th codex, and then I had no idea what people were talking about on these boards all of a sudden. I've kept peeking in to see how things progress and I find, for myself, its more of the same. Still don't understand the lingo, don't want to be bothered remembering all the interactions and do-dads and strategems, etc., so I'll keep watching. Maybe 11th. But I am also fairly confident that GW will continue to do what it does, how it does it, beacause for all the gnashing of teeth, people will plunk down and buy in, and then complain (again). The more things change, the more they stay the same.
All those fancy new special rules - Lethal Hits, Devastating Wounds, Sustained Hits, Psychic* - and not a one of them hath been bestowed upon Harli melee weaponry. How far the Halequin's Kiss has fallen.
*Ok not Psychic. Psychic doesn't actually do anything.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Ok, so, the Xenos data sheets are out. Let's see how I did with a prediction:
H.B.M.C. wrote: Wait 'til we see the Autarch sheet, or sheets. I fully expect them to reverse the current Autarch entry and give us two different types: Autarch, and Autarch with Swooping Hawk Wings. The former will have a Wargear option for a Warp Jump Pack, giving it Flicker Jump, and wargear options that match the newer kit. The Wings Autarch will just have the weapons that specific kit comes with.
Well... I was mostly right. Really hoping I wouldn't be.
What we have are three Autarch sheets. One of them is the Jetbike Autarch - I was completely wrong about that; I thought that one was a goner, but I guess not - but that leaves us with, as expected, a foot and wing Autarch sheet.
Unfortunately, they've fethed with the weapon options for no apparent reason. You have to take the Furion Pistol, Power Sword and Mandiblasters as a set. All the others can be mixed'n'matched, but these three options can only be taken as a package deal. There's also no Warp Jump Generator, despite the model having one.
This isn't as bad as I thought it'd be, but somehow makes even less sense.
Annoying that they made the datasheet strict again after reversing it in 9th. Won’t affect me as I play in a casual group so will mix weapons as they’re modeled. The warp jump generator is now same as banshee wings.
I have wings, mandiblaster, spinner and sword, and that’s exactly how he will be used.
The Regenerating biomass rule on the Abominant is delightfully old school vague. "on a 2+ return this model to the table "as close as possible" to where it was destroyed and not in engagement range." Not an issue for me, but not really in keeping with Lawyerhammer of the present.
A quick look at the tau datasheets. Broadsides are 8 wounds, and gun drone squads still exist and have OC 0, and crisis and broadside suits have the vehicle and walker keywords.
I think battlesuits being classed as vehicles is new?
ProfSrlojohn wrote: I guess they've solidified on the decision that Avengers shouldn't be troops-equivalent anymore? They're OC 1 now and aren't battleline.
EDIT: also holy feth, the spirit seer can revive a body-guard on the command phase, which means one wraithguard, blade, or lord revived a turn.
You can't resurrect a wraithlord as it's only a unit of one. When the lord is removed, the spiritiseer is no longer leading a unit and can't use Tears.
"Hover Drone: The bearer can Fly and has a Move characteristic of 10"."
So... so why do we need separate sheets for Ahriman and Ahriman on a Disc? This design philosophy is so fething confusing. I swear people working on one book don't talk to people working on others.
kestral wrote: The Regenerating biomass rule on the Abominant is delightfully old school vague. "on a 2+ return this model to the table "as close as possible" to where it was destroyed and not in engagement range." Not an issue for me, but not really in keeping with Lawyerhammer of the present.
It's the same rule as the Relic Contemptor. I can see certain people trying to abuse something like that via unit placing, to make for fabuluously teleporting Contemptors that jump behind enemy lines...
H.B.M.C. wrote: "Hover Drone: The bearer can Fly and has a Move characteristic of 10"."
So... so why do we need separate sheets for Ahriman and Ahriman on a Disc? This design philosophy is so fething confusing. I swear people working on one book don't talk to people working on others.
1 extra wound i guess
(or more realistically, they fethed up a copy paste job and ahriman on disk is actually supposed to have different spells)
While in general I decry mushing weapons together, I don't think it's a great loss that they have done for mining close combat weapons - nobody ever wanted anything but saws for two editions now, so at least you don't have to mess around finding the parts.
Jackals don't seem great unless they're cheap.
Purestrain Genestealers are again quite different to Hive Fleet ones. Not sure which are better to be fair - Purestrains are *very* fast now.
Well atleast GSC are going to be fun to run. Very squishy but can be absolutely menace. Some consolidations in weapon profiles but not that much and you can have lot of Str 12 shooting.
You can still take units of Drones!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111eleven
Firing Deck 22 on the Battlewagon is immense. Love it!
And I see that the Battlewagon has a Grabbin' Klaw and Wrecking Ball, two additional melee weapons with [Extra Attacks]... the exact type of thing that would have been perfect for the various Tyranid tail weapons, but apparently the people writing the Tyranid Index and the Ork Index were on different continents to one another...
Vibro cannon sucks again, but looks so cool.
Harlequins have been GUTTED
Yvraine can be taken with corsairs, Phoenix lords, solitaire, UNLESS you include Drukhari and make her the warlord (must). In which case you can’t take them. Chaosistency (definitely the 10th edition tagline)
Phoenix lords are pretty mixed. Jain Zar is meh but Fuegan is nice.
Don’t like that Autarchs can only attach to guardians, so flying autarch probably best choice.
I do like Yriel (then again, always have)
They're really good. People were math hammering all over the internet on how 9 of them will blow stuff away. Index drops....you can only take 1 per datasheet.
Well, Necrons largely look good. They do lack dedicated anti-tank, barring the few obvious exceptions (even the gauss cannons and heavy gauss cannons are terrible at it- no idea what happened to heavy gauss).
Instead they're very reliant on lethal hits and devastating wounds, and simple weight of fire.
But in general, they got some impressive improvements and fixes. I can even see a reason to take flayed ones and not feel really stupid about it.
Rez orbs are scary. They give you RP in the enemy control phase in addition to your own. Reanimators project a 12" aura of +d3 wounds to every RP roll. So any units with rez orbs heal 4d3 wounds by the time the enemy is fighting or shooting you again.
And you can have a lot of rez orbs, and the command barge orb can be targeted at a unit in 6", so it even affects infantry or mounted units that can't have a lord or overlord.
They're really good. People were math hammering all over the internet on how 9 of them will blow stuff away. Index drops....you can only take 1 per datasheet.
Classic "known unknown". Until you see it written down, it is not 100% safe to assume anything with a rules change.
Orks look fun. Will probably require a well thought out list as they'll rely on effects more than raw stats, but the effects are plentiful and easy to activate. Casually spam -1 to hit, -1 to wound, force battleshock, invulns, FNP...
They're really good. People were math hammering all over the internet on how 9 of them will blow stuff away. Index drops....you can only take 1 per datasheet.
Double heavy wraithcannon wraithknight will achieve the same thing.
They're really good. People were math hammering all over the internet on how 9 of them will blow stuff away. Index drops....you can only take 1 per datasheet.
Double heavy wraithcannon wraithknight will achieve the same thing.
yeah but at least its always targetable, and it sure to cost a fuckton of points
Oh, and would it really be the end of the world if it was good for once?
Not sure Aeldari needed 3 of 4 enhancements manipulating dice even more.
Ah. Corsairs have no faction rules at all. I thought for a moment that dark eldar got really screwed over, but they're only slightly more screwed over.
I feel like there's some kind of error on the harlequin special weapon rules because the troupe leader has to choose to give up their power sword for it and it is flat out worse...
A6 s4 ap-2 vs at s4 ap-1....
also they made the solitaire pretty fragile with only 3 wounds....
I know I know, no reason to believe random old me, but I absolutely remember seeing that FB post at the time (surely it was 8th edition). That social comms person was so proud to write that joke of a response
Voss wrote: Well, Necrons largely look good. They do lack dedicated anti-tank, barring the few obvious exceptions (even the gauss cannons and heavy gauss cannons are terrible at it- no idea what happened to heavy gauss).
Instead they're very reliant on lethal hits and devastating wounds, and simple weight of fire.
But in general, they got some impressive improvements and fixes. I can even see a reason to take flayed ones and not feel really stupid about it.
Rez orbs are scary. They give you RP in the enemy control phase in addition to your own. Reanimators project a 12" aura of +d3 wounds to every RP roll. So any units with rez orbs heal 4d3 wounds by the time the enemy is fighting or shooting you again.
And you can have a lot of rez orbs, and the command barge orb can be targeted at a unit in 6", so it even affects infantry or mounted units that can't have a lord or overlord.
Stick warriors next to a ghost ark and they become even more bonkers, getting another activation.
Sovereign coronal is the obvious pick for your first enhancement in any list you don't intend to go really character heavy. It buffs strats and gives +1 to hit in a 6" radius. I like the item but it's a shame it feels like an obvious pick.
Points depending, I think almost everything is playable. It's a shame the nightbringer doesn't cause any battleshock manipulation though.
Sotahullu wrote: Well atleast GSC are going to be fun to run. Very squishy but can be absolutely menace. Some consolidations in weapon profiles but not that much and you can have lot of Str 12 shooting.
I was pretty concerned after seeing the loss of Conceal and Crossfire, but the unit and character leader abilities have made up for a lot.
ProfSrlojohn wrote: I guess they've solidified on the decision that Avengers shouldn't be troops-equivalent anymore? They're OC 1 now and aren't battleline.
EDIT: also holy feth, the spirit seer can revive a body-guard on the command phase, which means one wraithguard, blade, or lord revived a turn.
Just wanted to point out that the spirit seer won't be bringing back wraithlords. You can only revive in the command phase, and wraithlords are units of 1. Once the lord is killed, the seer is now his own unit, so there will be nothing to revive come the command phase. guard and blades? yes please.
Sotahullu wrote: Well atleast GSC are going to be fun to run. Very squishy but can be absolutely menace. Some consolidations in weapon profiles but not that much and you can have lot of Str 12 shooting.
Let's see how the points drop tomorrow will shake up things.. If there are no big surprises there, I have a feeling the Indexes will be received somewhat favourably?
Personally, I'm happy that there is now so many cool builds one can do with most armies, at least aesthetics-wise.
100% correct. This is probably the most egregious thing I saw in the Ork list. I know that is how the box is packed, but holy cow, no one could have bought two or converted some models? Who takes five?
My only hope on this is that it might change with a new plastic kit in 2.7 years.
Ok, so, the Xenos data sheets are out. Let's see how I did with a prediction:
H.B.M.C. wrote: Wait 'til we see the Autarch sheet, or sheets. I fully expect them to reverse the current Autarch entry and give us two different types: Autarch, and Autarch with Swooping Hawk Wings. The former will have a Wargear option for a Warp Jump Pack, giving it Flicker Jump, and wargear options that match the newer kit. The Wings Autarch will just have the weapons that specific kit comes with.
Well... I was mostly right. Really hoping I wouldn't be.
What we have are three Autarch sheets. One of them is the Jetbike Autarch - I was completely wrong about that; I thought that one was a goner, but I guess not - but that leaves us with, as expected, a foot and wing Autarch sheet.
Unfortunately, they've fethed with the weapon options for no apparent reason. You have to take the Furion Pistol, Power Sword and Mandiblasters as a set. All the others can be mixed'n'matched, but these three options can only be taken as a package deal. There's also no Warp Jump Generator, despite the model having one.
This isn't as bad as I thought it'd be, but somehow makes even less sense.
The Winged Autarch counts as both the winged and the warp spider version.
There's very little else that I am deeply upset about with orks, but a lot of stuff that just doesn't make any sense to me--even from GW:
Meganobs are limited to 2-6. Why? A battlewagon can hold more than that. Terminators come in 5-10. What's the big fear of letting a unit of 9 Meganobs walk around (and while we're at it, let's revive the medi-squig in their suits and give them a Feel No Pain roll). Why would GW be bothered if you bought 3 boxes of Meganobs (say, like a particular someone)?
Grots are limited to 20? If there's a single unit that screams out 'pathetic nitwits that only have strength in numbers', it's grots. It would be awesome for them to break the 'unit limit' of 20 that seems to be in place. Throw the blighters a bone!
Stormboys in units of 10? Again, why? I can see that as a minimum, but why does GW care if we take 15 or 20? Losing the hidden powerklaw for more bodies seems like a reasonable tradeoff, and again, why worry about it--what benefit does it produce to reduce the unit maximum so much?
Spanners. Those freaking spanners. I know the box comes with 1 per 5; I know that. But GW unclenched their buttcheeks and let Deffkoptas choose whether to change rokkits to a Kustom Mega Blasta even though the kit comes with one per three and no parts to build the third without it. But not Lootas or Burnas? Again, why not set it as a maximum (no more than 1 Spanner per...) instead of a set number? What do they care if someone buys more Lootas than they need?
Good god, they really destroyed this new edition. All the weapons that get lumped together, nothing consistent from one datasheet to the next, and sprue-based restrictions everywhere. What a clusterfeth.
They're really good. People were math hammering all over the internet on how 9 of them will blow stuff away. Index drops....you can only take 1 per datasheet.
Classic "known unknown". Until you see it written down, it is not 100% safe to assume anything with a rules change.
The best part was a GT had already banned Eldar because of the mathhammer + Playtester points.
Not a single complaint? From you?! Man, the Necrons stuff must truly be Amazing!
Nah, he just didn't do a deep dive. Pschomancer improves morale for enemy units, Stormlord does nothing in regards to buffing your army like other models of his stature besides 1CP per turn, Orikan is now once per battle with his ability, RP is still useless as hell, etc.
It being better written than some other indices doesn't make it good.
100% correct. This is probably the most egregious thing I saw in the Ork list. I know that is how the box is packed, but holy cow, no one could have bought two or converted some models? Who takes five?
My only hope on this is that it might change with a new plastic kit in 2.7 years.
Orks are up on the roadmap for next spring. Fingers crossed for some replacement kits.
VictorVonTzeentch wrote: I like that the Dark Eldar Archon cant join the Incubi, you know the unit that exists to be the mercenary bodyguards of Archons in the lore.
Yeah, there is lot of things that just make me gnash my teeth.
VictorVonTzeentch wrote: I like that the Dark Eldar Archon cant join the Incubi, you know the unit that exists to be the mercenary bodyguards of Archons in the lore.
Yeah, there is lot of things that just make me gnash my teeth.
Wyches even lost their special weapons.
Yeah. I mean, I had low expectations for this edition. But clearly I didnt set the bar low enough.
VictorVonTzeentch wrote: I like that the Dark Eldar Archon cant join the Incubi, you know the unit that exists to be the mercenary bodyguards of Archons in the lore.
Makes complete sense to me. Commissars can't join Command Squads, the unit they were REQUIRED to join as a priority previously--because, of course, you oversee your officers by being in squads with no officer in them.
Maybe there's an Incubi Union doing a work stoppage for more pain tokens?
VictorVonTzeentch wrote: I like that the Dark Eldar Archon cant join the Incubi, you know the unit that exists to be the mercenary bodyguards of Archons in the lore.
Yeah, I saw that as well and scratched my head wondering "WTF." Going back to the original Dark Eldar codex, Archons could always lead squads of Incubi as they represented his personal bodyguards. Change for the sake of change (or "churn" and more money for GW's continuously increasing record-breaking profits). . .
Da Butcha wrote: Gorkanaut and Morkanaut have finally displaced the Rhino from the top spot on the "There's No Way That Many Can Fit in There" chart.
Twelve orks can bundle into one of these sweet little numbers. Six Meganobs, even!
I am tempted to take spare arms, heads, and green stuff and model a scrum of orks packed into the hold.
To be fair, you're talking about a faction that once had the Transport capacity of "literally what models you could get to fit and balance". Orks shoving more bodies than should be able to fit in a space is par for the course.
. Hopefully a typo, but could be intentional, the beleaguered warbands can't maintain the firing decks anymore 
). Cool that you can do a full Cultists/Renegade Guard/Beastmen army.
