Daba wrote:
If you give the shuriken rifle to a corsairs, they can't fight in melee.

Such rigorous playtesting!

 Scottywan82 wrote:
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.

Except when there aren't sprue-based restrictions...for instance SOB, Devastators, etc...

I like the broad stroke changes of this edition but yeah, the total lack of consistency is driving me insane.

Scourges have no such weapon restrictions despite there only being 1 of each weapon type per sprue. Yet Blightlords and Tankbustas are lumped with that. Chaosistency!

Hamonculi cannot join Grotesques because... reasons.

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

 Daba wrote:
If you give the shuriken rifle to a corsairs, they can't fight in melee.

Was just gonna point that out. How freaking stupid.

No no! Guys you don't understand! It's totally intentional design. Just like the Terminator Captain!

The more comments I read, the more I think that Guard avoided a lot of the nonsense going on...

Yeah, there is bizarre things that you can run into.

Well good thing that whoever wrote rules for GSC is a happy convert.

 Scottywan82 wrote:
Weird. Yvraine and the Visarch can join Corsair units, but the Ynnari rules say they can't have Anhrathe units in the first place.

If you don’t add Drukhari to the army, then all of the regulations are dropped. So you can take Yvraine and all other units in index, just not drukhari

 Sotahullu wrote:
Yeah, there is bizarre things that you can run into.

Well good thing that whoever wrote rules for GSC is a happy convert.

I've started trying to convince friends who don't like the state of guard to play GSC. In many ways you're basically playing spec-ops guard and anything that doesn't easily transport over like tanks you can just run as brood brothers.

 Trickstick wrote:
The more comments I read, the more I think that Guard avoided a lot of the nonsense going on...

The more I read, the more I just want to do my own version of these datasheets to restore the missing pieces (proper Combi-Weapons, Tyranid tail weaponry, Combat Squads, Autarch weapon options, etc.).

I just realized the Autarchs can't have banshee mask and banshee blade OR mandiblasters +scorpion chainsword.

The autarch skyrunner is another model that can end up without melee attacks. fusion gun OR banshee blade replaces laser lance, so if you take the fusion gun, no melee weapon.


Ynnari isn't actually a thing. Just having Yvraine as your warlord lets you take dark elfs (with no benefits) and bans some craftworld units.

 Grimtuff wrote:
Hamonculi cannot join Grotesques because... reasons.

Cutting 50% more wounds with a boosted FNP could be a problem that makes Wracks unpalatable, because all the Haemonculus selections are stuck in Grot units.

Voss wrote:
I just realized the Autarchs can't have banshee mask and banshee blade OR mandiblasters +scorpion chainsword.

The autarch skyrunner is another model that can end up without melee attacks. fusion gun OR banshee blade replaces laser lance, so if you take the fusion gun, no melee weapon.


Ynnari isn't actually a thing. Just having Yvraine as your warlord lets you take dark elfs (with no benefits) and bans some craftworld units.

the Autarch got weirdly limited in that you can't use all the options you can build from the current kit in combination, and to use some of the bits you get in the new kit you must kitbash it with the older winged Autarch kit.

Hands up if you were honestly expecting GW not to make a huge mess of releasing a new edition.

This may be a silly question as I have only followed the news sparely, but are the core rules that they released enough to understand how this datasheets work or are there additional rules in the core book that are relevant and may make something work differently in practice?

Looks like some eldar things got changed at the last minute or without thought.

There are a suspicious number of units (vypers, support weapons, war walkers) that are 1 model, but 'any number' of models can swap their weapons.

Traditional solo vehicles (like tanks) are 'this model' can swap.

 Matthew Flamen wrote:
This may be a silly question as I have only followed the news sparely, but are the core rules that they released enough to understand how this datasheets work or are there additional rules in the core book that are relevant and may make something work differently in practice?

We have the full rules for 10th edition. The only thing we're missing are points and scenarios.

Laughing Man wrote:
The only thing we're missing are points and scenarios.

Wait... scenarios? I thought there were no missions, and that it was just the rulebook mission and everything would be done via card packs now? Or do you mean Combat Patrol stuff?

And I thought we were getting points and Crusade stuff tomorrow?

Oh boy, looks like GW doing what they do best..

Da Butcha wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Oh boy... look at that Tankbusta entry.

They need a new kit.

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.

I mean, it’s not like the basic Ork infantry kit comes with rokkit launchas and tankbusta bombs…oh, wait, yes, yes it does.

Also, why for the love of Mork (or Gork) do the rokkit pistols warrant being their own separate profile, when every other special weapon with multiple variants has been consolidated so hard they’re on the brink of gravitational collapse?!

Loopstah wrote:
Hands up if you were honestly expecting GW not to make a huge mess of releasing a new edition.

Kinda also depend swhat you mean by a huge mess. So far they've done better than with 8th imo.

 Jadenim wrote:

Da Butcha wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Oh boy... look at that Tankbusta entry.

They need a new kit.

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.

I mean, it’s not like the basic Ork infantry kit comes with rokkit launchas and tankbusta bombs…oh, wait, yes, yes it does.

Also, why for the love of Mork (or Gork) do the rokkit pistols warrant being their own separate profile, when every other special weapon with multiple variants has been consolidated so hard they’re on the brink of gravitational collapse?!

They completely trashed this entry, period.
Stupid weapon options are non longer options,
ridiculous number of models...

People who have the models (converted or not) for bands of 10+ models
can feel insulted (I know I do!) What the hell with this datasheet?!!

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 AduroT wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The Necrons are pretty cool.

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.

It's really hard to argue that the new rules for Orikan are worse than the old ones. You were randomly and probably never going to get the Empowered profile before, and even if you did it wasn't that impressive. Now when the opportunity arises to go c'tan mode Orikan will actually feth something up pretty bad at S12. Master Chronomancer also got buffed.

My only real complaint is that the doomstalker still looks terrible. Other than that (and the typo on the psychomancer where you can obviously tell what it's supposed to do I guess) the rules look good.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Laughing Man wrote:
The only thing we're missing are points and scenarios.

Wait... scenarios? I thought there were no missions, and that it was just the rulebook mission and everything would be done via card packs now? Or do you mean Combat Patrol stuff?

And I thought we were getting points and Crusade stuff tomorrow?

It's points and GT pack tomorrow. I assume some sort of mission stuff is in the GT pack.

 Trickstick wrote:
I assume some sort of mission stuff is in the GT pack.

IIRC, the GT pack still uses the cards, but they're predetermined rather than drawn.

I kinda wanna say i told you so... especially after what happened at the time with R&H way back when, and more recently with the utterly moronical and spitefull legending of "HH" units that aren't actually HH units as a chaos marine player because SM had too many entries.... but honestly... no i don't.

That moronicism was the end result was clear there and then and yet, we got this nonsense, somehow managing to outdo itself.

Dudeface wrote:

Loopstah wrote:
Hands up if you were honestly expecting GW not to make a huge mess of releasing a new edition.

Kinda also depend swhat you mean by a huge mess. So far they've done better than with 8th imo.

Better than 2nd and 3rd too, the other reset editions.

The Court of the Archon requires one of each monster, now? But I want my four snake-dudes, damnit!

 Shakalooloo wrote:
The Court of the Archon requires one of each monster, now? But I want my four snake-dudes, damnit!

Same, plus the Beastmaster does the same stupidity.

Has there been any news on when IA data sheets will be released?

Loopstah wrote:
Has there been any news on when IA data sheets will be released?

Soon™

Talos are squads of 1-2 now? Bah! I'm just getting around to painting up converted Pain-Bros 7 through 9!

And Wych weapons aren't even a thing anymore? 'Stealer Acolytes got their mining weapon consolidated into one profile, but Wyches lost gladiator weapons entirely?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
The more comments I read, the more I think that Guard avoided a lot of the nonsense going on...

The more I read, the more I just want to do my own version of these datasheets to restore the missing pieces (proper Combi-Weapons, Tyranid tail weaponry, Combat Squads, Autarch weapon options, etc.).

Definitely. I just keep eyeing the OPR army lists and wondering if that would be easier.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

My only real complaint is that the doomstalker still looks terrible. Other than that (and the typo on the psychomancer where you can obviously tell what it's supposed to do I guess) the rules look good.

I quite like the doomstalker. Its gun isn't as good as the doomsday ark, but I expect points to make the difference there.
In faction, its a quite solid AT/anti-heavy infantry gun. Park it somewhere to benefit from [heavy] and its throwing a decent burst of fire, and defensively a 4++ is nothing to sneeze at.

 Shakalooloo wrote:
The Court of the Archon requires one of each monster, now? But I want my four snake-dudes, damnit!

Just like the IG Attaches.

 Daba wrote:




the Autarch got weirdly limited in that you can't use all the options you can build from the current kit in combination, and to use some of the bits you get in the new kit you must kitbash it with the older winged Autarch kit.

Wouldn't surprise me if they are planning on putting both models in the same box.

 Dawnbringer wrote:

 Daba wrote:




the Autarch got weirdly limited in that you can't use all the options you can build from the current kit in combination, and to use some of the bits you get in the new kit you must kitbash it with the older winged Autarch kit.

Wouldn't surprise me if they are planning on putting both models in the same box.

That would make me wonder why they locked the fusion pistol, mandiblaster, and banshee sword together. That only makes sense if they want to force people to buy the winged model and build it like the picture.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Hamonculi cannot join Grotesques because... reasons.

Cutting 50% more wounds with a boosted FNP could be a problem that makes Wracks unpalatable, because all the Haemonculus selections are stuck in Grot units.

then make the buff worse and let the haemonculi join their creations ffs


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Scottywan82 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
The more comments I read, the more I think that Guard avoided a lot of the nonsense going on...

The more I read, the more I just want to do my own version of these datasheets to restore the missing pieces (proper Combi-Weapons, Tyranid tail weaponry, Combat Squads, Autarch weapon options, etc.).

Definitely. I just keep eyeing the OPR army lists and wondering if that would be easier.

OPR now has more options than actual 40k lol

 Asmodai wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Loopstah wrote:
Hands up if you were honestly expecting GW not to make a huge mess of releasing a new edition.

Kinda also depend swhat you mean by a huge mess. So far they've done better than with 8th imo.

Better than 2nd and 3rd too, the other reset editions.

Well, 2nd wasn't that much of a reset, as most of the rules were published during 1st (Battle Manual). I played 2nd, but I always disliked this close combat mechanism.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
then make the buff worse and let the haemonculi join their creations ffs

Both of those units sit on a 5+++ already. What rule do you think would be appropriate where joining wracks would be an equivalent choice to joining grots and the cost of the haemonculus is appropriate for either occasion?

I'm sure you could find one, but this is also index hammer and we don't have a codex with a focus for Coven style detachments.

Voss wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

My only real complaint is that the doomstalker still looks terrible. Other than that (and the typo on the psychomancer where you can obviously tell what it's supposed to do I guess) the rules look good.

I quite like the doomstalker. Its gun isn't as good as the doomsday ark, but I expect points to make the difference there.
In faction, its a quite solid AT/anti-heavy infantry gun. Park it somewhere to benefit from [heavy] and its throwing a decent burst of fire, and defensively a 4++ is nothing to sneeze at.

Oh, I'm an idiot. I missed that the blaster was heavy, I thought it just hit on 4's. Yeah that's probably a fine unit.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
then make the buff worse and let the haemonculi join their creations ffs

The havoc of a grotesque mob on a tear is best observed from a distance.

...

I still miss Haemonculi getting to use Hexrifles.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

My only real complaint is that the doomstalker still looks terrible. Other than that (and the typo on the psychomancer where you can obviously tell what it's supposed to do I guess) the rules look good.

I quite like the doomstalker. Its gun isn't as good as the doomsday ark, but I expect points to make the difference there.
In faction, its a quite solid AT/anti-heavy infantry gun. Park it somewhere to benefit from [heavy] and its throwing a decent burst of fire, and defensively a 4++ is nothing to sneeze at.

Oh, I'm an idiot. I missed that the blaster was heavy, I thought it just hit on 4's. Yeah that's probably a fine unit.

\shrug
There's a lot to digest all at once. I certainly wouldn't have guessed that something called a 'blaster' was [heavy]

To be honest, I'm mostly just pleased because I like the walker aesthetic far more than the flying boats (and the evils of flight stands). I checked the stats of that specific unit out early on purpose because I wanted it to be good.

 Platuan4th wrote:

Loopstah wrote:
Has there been any news on when IA data sheets will be released?

Soon™

I have a baseless hunch that they'll spread it over a whole week between the Leviathan release and the start of codex previews, to keep the hype train going. Easily possible by doing SM-Chaos-Imperium-Xenos for four days or Heresy-SM-Chaos-Imperium-Xenos for a full week.

Voss wrote:
To be honest, I'm mostly just pleased because I like the walker aesthetic far more than the flying boats (and the evils of flight stands). I checked the stats of that specific unit out early on purpose because I wanted it to be good.

I'm a huge fan of the walkers too. I'll probably put them in my first list... shame I won't be able to put them with a technomancer to make them hit on 2's because I REALLY want to run three of the lychguard deathstar, lol.

Shieldguard with a lord and a technomancer is a 3+/4++/5+++ -1 to wound unit. Surely that can survive a round of shooting, right?

Any definitive word yet on whether wargear/upgrades cost points or will be free? I'm starting to read some articles that hint that upgrades will be free.

Ex. https://www.goonhammer.com/the-goonhammer-review-the-10th-edition-necrons-index/

"The most important of these are Resurrection Orbs, the Reanimator and the Protocol of the Undying Legions stratagem. The first option (now free on everyone who can take them, so uh, do that)"

 Gnarlly wrote:
Any definitive word yet on whether wargear/upgrades cost points or will be free? I'm starting to read some articles that hint that upgrades will be free.

Ex. https://www.goonhammer.com/the-goonhammer-review-the-10th-edition-necrons-index/

"The most important of these are Resurrection Orbs, the Reanimator and the Protocol of the Undying Legions stratagem. The first option (now free on everyone who can take them, so uh, do that)"

We'll know tomorrow. I'm not looking forward to it though. It's probably going to be madness in here.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

Voss wrote:
To be honest, I'm mostly just pleased because I like the walker aesthetic far more than the flying boats (and the evils of flight stands). I checked the stats of that specific unit out early on purpose because I wanted it to be good.

I'm a huge fan of the walkers too. I'll probably put them in my first list... shame I won't be able to put them with a technomancer to make them hit on 2's because I REALLY want to run three of the lychguard deathstar, lol.

Shieldguard with a lord and a technomancer is a 3+/4++/5+++ -1 to wound unit. Surely that can survive a round of shooting, right?

Depends on if the unit shooting them has anti-infantry 4+ and devastating wounds...

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
then make the buff worse and let the haemonculi join their creations ffs

Both of those units sit on a 5+++ already. What rule do you think would be appropriate where joining wracks would be an equivalent choice to joining grots and the cost of the haemonculus is appropriate for either occasion?

I'm sure you could find one, but this is also index hammer and we don't have a codex with a focus for Coven style detachments.

something else than a FnP ?

+1 Toughness
+1 AP
+1 Move
+1 anything really


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shakalooloo wrote:


I still miss Haemonculi getting to use Hexrifles.

the state of drukhari in 9th made me not play them, heavily considering selling them off at this point sadly, its just such a flavorless army now

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Gnarlly wrote:
Any definitive word yet on whether wargear/upgrades cost points or will be free? I'm starting to read some articles that hint that upgrades will be free.

Ex. https://www.goonhammer.com/the-goonhammer-review-the-10th-edition-necrons-index/

"The most important of these are Resurrection Orbs, the Reanimator and the Protocol of the Undying Legions stratagem. The first option (now free on everyone who can take them, so uh, do that)"

We'll know tomorrow. I'm not looking forward to it though. It's probably going to be madness in here.

Yeah, if every "option" is free, it's just going to be more fuel for this dumpster fire.

 Rihgu wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

Voss wrote:
To be honest, I'm mostly just pleased because I like the walker aesthetic far more than the flying boats (and the evils of flight stands). I checked the stats of that specific unit out early on purpose because I wanted it to be good.

I'm a huge fan of the walkers too. I'll probably put them in my first list... shame I won't be able to put them with a technomancer to make them hit on 2's because I REALLY want to run three of the lychguard deathstar, lol.

Shieldguard with a lord and a technomancer is a 3+/4++/5+++ -1 to wound unit. Surely that can survive a round of shooting, right?

Depends on if the unit shooting them has anti-infantry 4+ and devastating wounds...

They could actually survive the old Hellfire issue that got patched so they're quite durable.

I'm perplexed why a Sybarite, the shooty squad leader, can equip an improved Sybarite weapon for melee, but a Hekatrix and an Acothyst, the melee squad leaders, haven't got any options.

In the rules, since they've got plenty on the sprues. In fact, the Acothyst has six different CCW upgrades, but none of them now appear in the rules

 SarisKhan wrote:
I'm perplexed why a Sybarite, the shooty squad leader, can equip an improved Sybarite weapon for melee, but a Hekatrix and an Acothyst, the melee squad leaders, haven't got any options.

In the rules, since they've got plenty on the sprues. In fact, the Acothyst has six different CCW upgrades, but none of them now appear in the rules

Because they ran out of room on the Wyches' datacard to include rules for all of the Hekatrix and wych weapon options, so they decided to nerf/consolidate all of the wych weapons into one profile?

 Gnarlly wrote:

 SarisKhan wrote:
I'm perplexed why a Sybarite, the shooty squad leader, can equip an improved Sybarite weapon for melee, but a Hekatrix and an Acothyst, the melee squad leaders, haven't got any options.

In the rules, since they've got plenty on the sprues. In fact, the Acothyst has six different CCW upgrades, but none of them now appear in the rules

Because they ran out of room on the Wyches' datacard to include rules for all of the Hekatrix and wych weapon options, so they decided to nerf/consolidate all of the wych weapons into one profile?

You're being sarcastic, right? There's so much blank space on the Wych datasheet it's not funny.

GW has had an on again/off again relationship with wych weapons for multiple editions.

Its not a surprise they'd get rid of them here.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Gnarlly wrote:

 SarisKhan wrote:
I'm perplexed why a Sybarite, the shooty squad leader, can equip an improved Sybarite weapon for melee, but a Hekatrix and an Acothyst, the melee squad leaders, haven't got any options.

In the rules, since they've got plenty on the sprues. In fact, the Acothyst has six different CCW upgrades, but none of them now appear in the rules

Because they ran out of room on the Wyches' datacard to include rules for all of the Hekatrix and wych weapon options, so they decided to nerf/consolidate all of the wych weapons into one profile?

You're being sarcastic, right? There's so much blank space on the Wych datasheet it's not funny.

The Black Adder wrote:

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.

The coronal should then be pretty expensive point wise.

I think the overall problem with the new edition is that it is very inconsistent. Some things very oversimplified and some things given a lot of detail for no reason. Seems like each faction was written by a different person, eg rhino firing hatch rules being varied across several factions.

I'm still excited to play a few games, as the guard and genestealer cult rules seem fun. But I understand some people are disappointed.

Well one thing that surprised me was that Heat Lance got buffed, a lot. Str 14.

Laughing Man wrote:

 Matthew Flamen wrote:
This may be a silly question as I have only followed the news sparely, but are the core rules that they released enough to understand how this datasheets work or are there additional rules in the core book that are relevant and may make something work differently in practice?

We have the full rules for 10th edition. The only thing we're missing are points and scenarios.

And glossary which clarifies some things.

GW has been very stingy with what gets to be "battleline" across the board, way less than I would have thought, many choices that used to be Troops options just don't have them anymore.

Other wierdness:

-Autarchs, which fluff-wise are super-aspect warriors that have done the rounds in multiple aspect disciplines, can't join aspect warrior squads - only Guardian squads. Likewise Archons can't join Incubi, despite the histrical fluff being that Incubi are hired by Archons as bodyguards.

-Tempestus Scions and Harlequin troops are both conditional battleline options with the inclusion of specific character units as warlords - but if you take them as battleline they are still only OC1. Neither unit comes in particularly large quantities, so if you're playing a pure Tempestus/Harlequin list you're playing on hard mode in terms of your ability to cap objectives. This is despite these guys being "elite" units who should theoretically be just as capable of holding objectives as their less elite brethren with native battleline.

-Because of the way attachments in the Guard list work, you can take a small unit of something like 5 Scions, attach a 5 model command squad, a commissar, 3 regimental advisors, and a ogryn bodyguard to make a 15 model unit, of which 2/3rds of the models in the unit are not from the actual "base" unit. Interestingly, this also allows certain models to bypass restrictions about what units things can and can't attach to - commissars can't attach to command squads, but they can attach to an infantry squad that a command squad is also attached to.

-Deff Dreds, Sagitaurs, Voidweavers, War Walkers, Vypers, Ork Buggies, etc. are all unit size of 1 model now, Achilles Ridgerunners, Cronos and Talos are 1-2 models, Penitent Engines and Mortifiers are units of 2 models (RIP anyone that had purchased max allowance of either), a number of other units have also seen unit sizes cut (Boyz and Grots top out at 20 models instead of 30, Skitarii in units of 10 rather than 20), while other units seemingly arbitrarily stayed the same (Sentinels of both varieties for example can be fielded in units of 1-3 models, Killa Kans in units of up to 6) or increased (Guard squads can be fielded in counts of up to 20 models).

-GW can't keep its formatting consistent, compare the Plague Marine options to the Blight Lord options. Plague Marines have like 6+ separate clauses about who can swap something out for what. Blightlord terminators basically have one clause with like 6 bullet points under it as to who can swap something out for what. Blightlords good, Plague Marines bad.

-Some units have had their weapon profiles consolidated for simplicity (Intercessors going from multiple different types of bolter down to just 1, for example), others retained the variety (Necron warriors still have their choice of 2 different gauss weapons). The criteria around which things were consolidated or left distinct seems random and arbitrary. Some are restricted to contents of the kit, others are not.

-Despite the various limitationson unit sizes and how many copies of a datasheet you can bring, I see no cap on flyers anymore. With the total removal of any sort of force org or minimum unit taxes, etc. You can conceivably field a 100% flyer only army now.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 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.

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet". GW wanted power level, the community wanted points. So GW made points into power level (or power level into points, depending on your point of view). Some big brain folks will realize the bait and switch, many won't.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

I still miss Haemonculi getting to use Hexrifles.

Same.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


the state of drukhari in 9th made me not play them, heavily considering selling them off at this point sadly, its just such a flavorless army now

Yeah, for all that I've complained about DE over the years, I've still played them and tried to make the best of their lack of options, perpetually flavourless rules, dull HQs, and lack of any support.

However, this has crossed the line into just being plain not fun. There's nothing left for me to work with. I can't look to Ynnari or Harlequins for alternative rules because both have been completely gutted.



On the plus side, Necrons look like they have at at least been allowed to keep a few of their intestines.- including a few items of actual wargear. Remember that? When models could take items that weren't just different weapons?

Of course, there's still some plenty of arse to be found. Destroyer Lords are melee units that are only permitted to join ranged units. Because I guess a Destroyer unit joining any of the melee Destroyer units is just unthinkable?

Also, the character rules seem increasingly weird. Why does a character's Resurrection Orb completely cease to function when he's not leading a unit?

It really is bizarre.

Wyches lost C&A and their special weapons.

Banshees keep C&A (and can fall back and charge!), ASF plus S4 AP-3 swords. Their squad leader has three different melee options.

Even Harlequins seem to have lost across the board C&A…but marines with the right army or detachment rule* can let their whole army of heavy infantry, tanks and dreads do it? ?

No, I still don’t know which is which.

 vipoid wrote:


Of course, there's still some plenty of arse to be found. Destroyer Lords are melee units that are only permitted to join ranged units. Because I guess a Destroyer unit joining any of the melee Destroyer units is just unthinkable?

You don't understand how the big brains at GW think. There might be an unintended consequence of letting Locust Lords be seen with range Destroyers or Wraith body Destroyers!

The lokhust lord doesn't go with the melee destroyers because the skorpekh lord goes with them. Calling it a "melee unit" is a stretch too given that it has a staff of light and it's ability only buffs ranged attacks.

It amazes me how GW took one of their greatest updates to a line, the 5th edition revamp of the Dark Eldar, and has progressively stamped on it with each subsequent edition.

It's like they are mad that people actually liked the new Dark Eldar and are determined to punish people for it.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
The lokhust lord doesn't go with the melee destroyers because the skorpekh lord goes with them. Calling it a "melee unit" is a stretch too given that it has a staff of light and it's ability only buffs ranged attacks.

You'd have a point if it wasn't for the fact it can take a Warscythe and has been used for melee for YEARS.

It was used for melee because the skorpekh models didn't exist yet. I really do not think separating the two out is a problem. I'm sorry that the necron index is so good you have to stretch this far to find things to complain about.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
The lokhust lord doesn't go with the melee destroyers because the skorpekh lord goes with them.

If this is the level of nonsense we're dealing with then a SM Lieutenant shouldn't be able to join any unit that a Captain can join.

And to add insult to the injury for ork players
tank bustas bombs are also a thing of the past!


They trashed the entry for the actual tank bustas,
and also removed the wargear after stupidly
made it a stratagem in V9.

Kommandos models have them,
Tank bustas modelshave them,
Ork boyz (the real kit) models have them...

But they still find a way to trash it.
I just find this annoying.

mortar_crew wrote:
And to add insult to the injury for ork players
tank bustas bombs are also a thing of the past!


They trashed the entry for the actual tank bustas,
and also removed the wargear after stupidly
made it a stratagem in V9.

Kommandos models have them,
Tank bustas modelshave them,
Ork boyz (the real kit) models have them...

But they still find a way to trash it.
I just find this annoying.

And, given that we have multiple armies with Armory Cards, it would be really, really easy to add rules for Frag Grenades, Krak Grenades, Stikkbombs, Tankbusta Bombs, etc. Heck, it would make more sense to have a core stratagem for meltabombs/tankbusta bombs than for 'every grenade under the sun'.

Grenades haven't been this dumb since 3rd, when they forced an opponent in cover to not fight first (keep your head down) but otherwise did nothing.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
It was used for melee because the skorpekh models didn't exist yet.

It was used in melee because it did a good job, not because the other Destroyer Lord didn't exist. What timeline do you live in?

 Sotahullu wrote:
Well one thing that surprised me was that Heat Lance got buffed, a lot. Str 14.

Yeah, I was wondering about that.
I assume whoever wrote the dark elf cards missed the meeting about melta weapons having S9.

 vipoid wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
The lokhust lord doesn't go with the melee destroyers because the skorpekh lord goes with them.

If this is the level of nonsense we're dealing with then a SM Lieutenant shouldn't be able to join any unit that a Captain can join.

Huh?

I'm still forming my opinion about the new Drukhari rules, but I admit that the Heat Lance stats are a pleasant surprise. I like the guns, it's great they seem to be a very effective AT option.

Well, points tomorrow, that's another fundamental factor.

Btw, what do you guys think about the Troupe Master melee weapons? Is that seriously intended, or one of the many minor errors they'll hopefully fix soon-ish?

 SarisKhan wrote:
Btw, what do you guys think about the Troupe Master melee weapons? Is that seriously intended, or one of the many minor errors they'll hopefully fix soon-ish?

Makes no sense at all. Timeline on a fix for stuff like this is probably a number of weeks at least.

They "simplified" things this edition and "reduced the lethality" but they did it so badly, inconsistently, and with so many new issues that it seems on first pass to be a sidegrade at best. Some of the changes, well outlined by other posters, are just baffling. And I can easily see the dev team looking at the complaints and saying "looks like the consumers just aren't happy nomatter what we do" without a shred of understanding as to what's going on.

I usually don't criticize this company, but their decision to needlessly simplify some units (tyranid warriors spring to mind) despite the absolute glut of special rules (every guard tank needs a special rule for us to remember on it's datasheet? really?) is maddening. Combining a ton of universally known and intuitive versions of combiweapons into one nonsensical profile and then handing out different rules for different versions of the same weapon based on who is holding it... they're working at cross purposes with themselves.

I just can't with these people

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 SarisKhan wrote:
Btw, what do you guys think about the Troupe Master melee weapons? Is that seriously intended, or one of the many minor errors they'll hopefully fix soon-ish?

Makes no sense at all. Timeline on a fix for stuff like this is probably a number of weeks at least.

I guess people could increase the chances of quick fixes happening vastly by collecting all the issues in one place, organizing them in categories like clear typos/omissions/errors, ambiguities and power issues, and then sending that collated list to GW. Complaining on forums makes more people aware, but does not really do anything beyond that.

Zachectomy wrote:

I usually don't criticize this company, but their decision to needlessly simplify some units (tyranid warriors spring to mind) despite the absolute glut of special rules (every guard tank needs a special rule for us to remember on it's datasheet? really?) is maddening.

Yeah, I don't think every unit needed a special rule either. Most of what makes a unit effective/ ineffective in a role should be determined by it's characteristics and weaponry. Only special units need special rules. I'm hoping that the majority of rules will stick in my head after a few games or battle reports.

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 SarisKhan wrote:
Btw, what do you guys think about the Troupe Master melee weapons? Is that seriously intended, or one of the many minor errors they'll hopefully fix soon-ish?

Makes no sense at all. Timeline on a fix for stuff like this is probably a number of weeks at least.

I guess people could increase the chances of quick fixes happening vastly by collecting all the issues in one place, organizing them in categories like clear typos/omissions/errors, ambiguities and power issues, and then sending that collated list to GW. Complaining on forums makes more people aware, but does not really do anything beyond that.

Good call. I'll make a post.

Do people really not know why a melee character would go into a ranged unit? Like I get it's not obvious, but melee counterpunch protecting a ranged unit seems like one of those things experienced players should understand...

 cole1114 wrote:
Do people really not know why a melee character would go into a ranged unit? Like I get it's not obvious, but melee counterpunch protecting a ranged unit seems like one of those things experienced players should understand...

While I like the TAC nature of that, for most of 40k history, the best path to victory was not a well balanced list, but taking highly efficient hyper specialist units, get them to do what they do best, and ride that to the win.

 Nevelon wrote:

 cole1114 wrote:
Do people really not know why a melee character would go into a ranged unit? Like I get it's not obvious, but melee counterpunch protecting a ranged unit seems like one of those things experienced players should understand...

While I like the TAC nature of that, for most of 40k history, the best path to victory was not a well balanced list, but taking highly efficient hyper specialist units, get them to do what they do best, and ride that to the win.

Okay, but Locust Lords have been a melee unit THE WHOLE GODDAMN TIME. Now it can't even attach to the wraith looking Destroyers.

chaos0xomega wrote:
-Deff Dreds, Sagitaurs, Voidweavers, War Walkers, Vypers, Ork Buggies, etc. are all unit size of 1 model now, Achilles Ridgerunners, Cronos and Talos are 1-2 models, Penitent Engines and Mortifiers are units of 2 models (RIP anyone that had purchased max allowance of either), a number of other units have also seen unit sizes cut (Boyz and Grots top out at 20 models instead of 30, Skitarii in units of 10 rather than 20), while other units seemingly arbitrarily stayed the same (Sentinels of both varieties for example can be fielded in units of 1-3 models, Killa Kans in units of up to 6) or increased (Guard squads can be fielded in counts of up to 20 models).

Box-based unit restrictions are to 10th what sprue-based weapon restrictions were to 9th.

It's not consistent (nothing GW does is consistent), but it's a much bigger thing than it was. Look at Tankbustas, Vespid, Carnifexes, Spawn, and so on.

Well, my Squat horde army is dead. I was excited when they're stats dropped, as that means lower points and more bodies.

However, unit size went from 5-20 to a fixed unit of 10. So, max of 60 Hearthkyn at lower points.

Have we been given confirmation on how to actually build our list yet?

Could I go BA and just run a bunch of different dreads(3max of each different type)? Lib dread to cover the HQ need?

Or nids with like Old One Eye, 3x2 Carnifex and 3 Screamer Killers?

 Rogzor87 wrote:
Have we been given confirmation on how to actually build our list yet?

Could I go BA and just run a bunch of different dreads(3max of each different type)? Lib dread to cover the HQ need?

Or nids with like Old One Eye, 3x2 Carnifex and 3 Screamer Killers?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/03/30/how-army-building-works-in-the-new-edition-of-warhammer-40000/

It was one of the first things they showed off. There's no such thing as an HQ, but you do need a Character.

 Rogzor87 wrote:
Have we been given confirmation on how to actually build our list yet?

Could I go BA and just run a bunch of different dreads(3max of each different type)? Lib dread to cover the HQ need?

Or nids with like Old One Eye, 3x2 Carnifex and 3 Screamer Killers?

Unfortunately, Librarian Dreadnoughts don't have the Character keyword for the mandatory Character slot. Anyone hoping for a pure Dreadnought list will either have to rely on Legends (and hope that's got us covered with Chaplain Dreadnoughts) or use Space Wolves for Bjorn.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Well, my Squat horde army is dead. I was excited when they're stats dropped, as that means lower points and more bodies.

However, unit size went from 5-20 to a fixed unit of 10. So, max of 60 Hearthkyn at lower points.

That is hardly the worst thing to happen to the Leagues in 10th. They got done dirty, like real bad. Of course, if most of their stuff got cheaper it could still be okay, we'll know tomorrow. I would think GW would want Votann to be good, given that they are a brand new range and all, but sadly they capitulated to the whiny manbabies and nerfed them into the ground over and over and over again. The first nerf was admittedly deserved; everyone with any experience in 40k could tell that book was busted as hell, but then GW decided to keep hitting them, punishing them for the sins they never got to commit.

 Platuan4th wrote:


https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/03/30/how-army-building-works-in-the-new-edition-of-warhammer-40000/

It was one of the first things they showed off. There's no such thing as an HQ, but you do need a Character.

Yeah I just wasn't sure if they were going to add more stipulations in to prevent people from just fielding all vehicles, walkers, monsters. Like somehow combining the X amount of Dreadnought data sheets so you couldn't do 3 venerable, 3 ironclad, 3 primaris, 3 contemptor, 3 furioso and so on with the rest.

Those will drop in 6 months because "no one could have foreseen this."

No One Important wrote:
Those will drop in 6 months because "no one could have foreseen this."

"We thought people would play the way do in the studio - haphazardly, using whatever models we have on hand, with quirky rules we make up on the fly - but it turns out we were wrong. People are actually playing using the rules we wrote, rather than the rules we play! So now you can only ever bring 2 Aircraft of any type!"

A niche issue I'm sure, and I'm fairly certain I already know the answer (no), but per the agents of the imperium index, there is no way to put inquisitorial henchmen into a transport, as that index does not have listed transports? In addition, the same applies to Arbites and Navy breachers (and everything else in the index) other than inquisitors when they attach to imperium battleline units who can use transports?
.
It might have been 8th edition when agents of the imperium had their own transports still, or even 7th maybe so it was a far-flung hope.

Anyway, GW if you are reading this, an updated repressor kit for the arbites would sell like hot cakes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ZergSmasher wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Well, my Squat horde army is dead. I was excited when they're stats dropped, as that means lower points and more bodies.

However, unit size went from 5-20 to a fixed unit of 10. So, max of 60 Hearthkyn at lower points.

That is hardly the worst thing to happen to the Leagues in 10th. They got done dirty, like real bad. Of course, if most of their stuff got cheaper it could still be okay, we'll know tomorrow. I would think GW would want Votann to be good, given that they are a brand new range and all, but sadly they capitulated to the whiny manbabies and nerfed them into the ground over and over and over again. The first nerf was admittedly deserved; everyone with any experience in 40k could tell that book was busted as hell, but then GW decided to keep hitting them, punishing them for the sins they never got to commit.

GSC has proved that theory wrong before, they have had major teething issues since release. They've had brief periods of being competitive, but have been mostly underpowered, as well as being a very technical and highly difficult army to play.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

No One Important wrote:
Those will drop in 6 months because "no one could have foreseen this."

"We thought people would play the way do in the studio - haphazardly, using whatever models we have on hand, with quirky rules we make up on the fly - but it turns out we were wrong. People are actually playing using the rules we wrote, rather than the rules we play! So now you can only ever bring 2 Aircraft of any type!"

Hehe. Yeah, 100%

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

No One Important wrote:
Those will drop in 6 months because "no one could have foreseen this."

"We thought people would play the way do in the studio - haphazardly, using whatever models we have on hand, with quirky rules we make up on the fly - but it turns out we were wrong. People are actually playing using the rules we wrote, rather than the rules we play! So now you can only ever bring 2 Aircraft of any type!"

"Oh noes! They ruined my Belisarius Cawl with 3 of each thopter and 2 Dunecrawlers list!"

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:

 cole1114 wrote:
Do people really not know why a melee character would go into a ranged unit? Like I get it's not obvious, but melee counterpunch protecting a ranged unit seems like one of those things experienced players should understand...

While I like the TAC nature of that, for most of 40k history, the best path to victory was not a well balanced list, but taking highly efficient hyper specialist units, get them to do what they do best, and ride that to the win.

Okay, but Locust Lords have been a melee unit THE WHOLE GODDAMN TIME. Now it can't even attach to the wraith looking Destroyers.

I might have missed something, but when have Lokhurst Destroyer Lords ever been able to attach to Ophydian Destroyers?

 Dysartes wrote:
I might have missed something, but when have Lokhurst Destroyer Lords ever been able to attach to Ophydian Destroyers?

That's a trick question. Ophydians have only existed for one edition, and HQs couldn't join units during that edition. If this query was an oversight on your part, then fair enough, but if it is an attempt at a "Gotcha!" then it is a poor one.

The point being made is that Destroyer Lords - the classic Destroyer Lord that first showed up in 3rd Edition and is now called a Lokhurst Lord - is decidedly a HTH style unit, and yet cannot join units of Destroyers that are equally geared for close combat. This is clearly ruffled some feathers with Purge and cole, as they fail to see the (cold Necron) logic behind this restriction.

In fairness, few Necrons that aren't also insane understand the logic of Destroyers

*shrugs*

It's just free datasheets to play the new edition while waiting for the updated codexes. There are always people who think they're smarter than GW rule designers, it's not really important. Let them make new rules if they want and play the game like they wish it so.

The majority will enjoy the rules they're given and play the game without trouble, anyway.

Not that some extra detachments going to alter dramatically

 endlesswaltz123 wrote:
A niche issue I'm sure, and I'm fairly certain I already know the answer (no), but per the agents of the imperium index, there is no way to put inquisitorial henchmen into a transport, as that index does not have listed transports? In addition, the same applies to Arbites and Navy breachers (and everything else in the index) other than inquisitors when they attach to imperium battleline units who can use transports?
.
It might have been 8th edition when agents of the imperium had their own transports still, or even 7th maybe so it was a far-flung hope.

Anyway, GW if you are reading this, an updated repressor kit for the arbites would sell like hot cakes.

In 8th and 9th Legends they could take one of the FW land raiders, the land raider prometheus, the one that mounts nothing but bolters.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
I might have missed something, but when have Lokhurst Destroyer Lords ever been able to attach to Ophydian Destroyers?

That's a trick question. Ophydians have only existed for one edition, and HQs couldn't join units during that edition. If this query was an oversight on your part, then fair enough, but if it is an attempt at a "Gotcha!" then it is a poor one.

The point being made is that Destroyer Lords - the classic Destroyer Lord that first showed up in 3rd Edition and is now called a Lokhurst Lord - is decidedly a HTH style unit, and yet cannot join units of Destroyers that are equally geared for close combat. This is clearly ruffled some feathers with Purge and cole, as they fail to see the (cold Necron) logic behind this restriction.

stupid question as i do not know anything bout necrons.... but if that blurp lord was there for 3rd edition... then he was definatly able to join units because attaching chars was a thing back in 3rd

RedNoak wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
I might have missed something, but when have Lokhurst Destroyer Lords ever been able to attach to Ophydian Destroyers?

That's a trick question. Ophydians have only existed for one edition, and HQs couldn't join units during that edition. If this query was an oversight on your part, then fair enough, but if it is an attempt at a "Gotcha!" then it is a poor one.

The point being made is that Destroyer Lords - the classic Destroyer Lord that first showed up in 3rd Edition and is now called a Lokhurst Lord - is decidedly a HTH style unit, and yet cannot join units of Destroyers that are equally geared for close combat. This is clearly ruffled some feathers with Purge and cole, as they fail to see the (cold Necron) logic behind this restriction.

stupid question as i do not know anything bout necrons.... but if that blurp lord was there for 3rd edition... then he was definatly able to join units because attaching chars was a thing back in 3rd

Ophidians came out in 9th thougg. Can't join lord to them in 3rd. Lord was yes, unit not.

Downloads section has now 40k as a separate category.

when are the points meant to be dropping again? that late part of next week?

leopard wrote:
when are the points meant to be dropping again? that late part of next week?

Somewhere in the next hour or so, based on the previous week.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

leopard wrote:
when are the points meant to be dropping again? that late part of next week?

Somewhere in the next hour or so, based on the previous week.

eck!

 Shadow Walker wrote:
Downloads section has now 40k as a separate category.

And, at the moment, EVERYTHING is empty. Even the Age of Sigmar stuff is currently MIA.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 Shadow Walker wrote:
Downloads section has now 40k as a separate category.

And, at the moment, EVERYTHING is empty. Even the Age of Sigmar stuff is currently MIA.

Um i see them just fine.

Checking 40k downloads periodically.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 Shadow Walker wrote:
Downloads section has now 40k as a separate category.

And, at the moment, EVERYTHING is empty. Even the Age of Sigmar stuff is currently MIA.

Hit the GB flag

tneva82 wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 Shadow Walker wrote:
Downloads section has now 40k as a separate category.

And, at the moment, EVERYTHING is empty. Even the Age of Sigmar stuff is currently MIA.

Um i see them just fine.

Checking 40k downloads periodically.

They're doing wonky stuff with the download section, you may be seeing a cached version on your end.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 Shadow Walker wrote:
Downloads section has now 40k as a separate category.

And, at the moment, EVERYTHING is empty. Even the Age of Sigmar stuff is currently MIA.

Switch from the US flag to British in the center of the page. Not sure why they even have the category, but that's why its empty.

Though they've also got the 40k stuff on a new page, but it provides a link under the flag.

Or you are having issues? Since they moved stuff to 40k yesterday no hickup.

I am fully prepared to be whelmed by points costs that will likely, I suspect, end up looking not too drastically dissimilar to 9ths points. I was hoping for a slightly smaller headcount game, so fingers crossed.

40K downloads disappeared from me as well (every other game system is there however)

I don't use caches on my browser, iOS Safari

EDIT: D'oh! found em, nvm

The 40k downloads tab has just disappeared so incoming shortly.

Edit: that'll teach me not to read.

I really hope the article gives some context to the points. If its just a 'happy hunting for changes' article, its going to suck.

Voss wrote:
I really hope the article gives some context to the points. If its just a 'happy hunting for changes' article, its going to suck.

Well they're all 100% new, there's no changes to hunt.

Dudeface wrote:

Voss wrote:
I really hope the article gives some context to the points. If its just a 'happy hunting for changes' article, its going to suck.

Well they're all 100% new, there's no changes to hunt.

Provide a baseline, then.

And I see the 2pm BST article was an AoS piece. Sneaky!

Dudeface wrote:
I am fully prepared to be whelmed by points costs that will likely, I suspect, end up looking not too drastically dissimilar to 9ths points. I was hoping for a slightly smaller headcount game, so fingers crossed.

20 point Warriors and 30 point Zoanthropes or bust!

Voss wrote:
I really hope the article gives some context to the points. If its just a 'happy hunting for changes' article, its going to suck.

So first point of edition has already changes?

Is it just me or is there NO POSSIBLE WAY gw could make their stuff less printer friendly? I promised I'd play the game at least once if I didn't have to pay to do so, but I much prefer hard copy. On the other hand, "here's a page that costs about $.50 in ink to print with three lines of useful text on it." I suppose we can just wait for Wahapedia.

 kestral wrote:
Is it just me or is there NO POSSIBLE WAY gw could make their stuff less printer friendly? I promised I'd play the game at least once if I didn't have to pay to do so, but I much prefer hard copy. On the other hand, "here's a page that costs about $.50 in ink to print with three lines of useful text on it." I suppose we can just wait for Wahapedia.

guess old habits die hard, too much colour for an inkjet and suspect they will look horrible from a monochrome laser.

also to be honest a lot of wasted space, some sort of summary, in easy to read black and white will be good

Voss wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Voss wrote:
I really hope the article gives some context to the points. If its just a 'happy hunting for changes' article, its going to suck.

Well they're all 100% new, there's no changes to hunt.

Provide a baseline, then.

Latest tomorrow morning you will have full color-coded spreadsheets including an statistical analysis on reddit.

 kestral wrote:
Is it just me or is there NO POSSIBLE WAY gw could make their stuff less printer friendly?

That sounds like a challenge!

All future rules will be in STL format. You'll need to 3D print them.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 kestral wrote:
Is it just me or is there NO POSSIBLE WAY gw could make their stuff less printer friendly?

That sounds like a challenge!

All future rules will be in STL format. You'll need to 3D print them.

some tea has just left via my nostrils

If you print them out yourself how are they meant to sell you datacard packs?

 kestral wrote:
Is it just me or is there NO POSSIBLE WAY gw could make their stuff less printer friendly? I promised I'd play the game at least once if I didn't have to pay to do so, but I much prefer hard copy. On the other hand, "here's a page that costs about $.50 in ink to print with three lines of useful text on it." I suppose we can just wait for Wahapedia.

Wait, what? Are you complaining about not being given a physical copy for free?

In addition, please don't create unnecessary waste. It's a fairly safe bet that many of those rules will be changed within the next few weeks, forcing you to reprint them.

If you absolutely have to print those rules, just print the ones you need for your upcoming game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 kestral wrote:
Is it just me or is there NO POSSIBLE WAY gw could make their stuff less printer friendly?

That sounds like a challenge!

All future rules will be in STL format. You'll need to 3D print them.

"We listened to our community complaining about 10th being too simple, so for 11th you have to 3D print a rubrics cube for every unit."

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
If you print them out yourself how are they meant to sell you datacard packs?

Well not everybody has printer. And odds are gw ones are better quality than what i could get with cheap printer.

Mainly waiting for app though. Until then screenshot on phone. Then decide long term solution.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 kestral wrote:
Is it just me or is there NO POSSIBLE WAY gw could make their stuff less printer friendly?

That sounds like a challenge!

All future rules will be in STL format. You'll need to 3D print them.

Considering the price of ink these days, it would probably be cheaper.

tneva82 wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
If you print them out yourself how are they meant to sell you datacard packs?

Well not everybody has printer. And odds are gw ones are better quality than what i could get with cheap printer.

Mainly waiting for app though. Until then screenshot on phone. Then decide long term solution.

Select the pages you need and print them to a PDF printer. Put PDF on phone.

You're welcome

It’s a bit of a faff but relatively easy to strip out all the extraneous visual embellishments from the cards if you’ve access to a PDF editor like Acrobat Pro.

I'm just going to transcribe everything to Excel format anyway, so... *shrugs*

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
If you print them out yourself how are they meant to sell you datacard packs?

The file format only functions on the Citadel™ Wraithshaper™, the GW-branded exclusive 3D printer.

If a unit has Lethal Hits and Sustained hits, does the extra hit auto wound also?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I'm just going to transcribe everything to Excel format anyway, so... *shrugs*

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
If you print them out yourself how are they meant to sell you datacard packs?

The file format only functions on the Citadel™ Wraithshaper™, the GW-branded exclusive 3D printer.

The real question, does he print in fw/gw resin quality only?

Not Online!!! wrote:
The real question, does he print in fw/gw resin quality only?

Well, the brand of resin it uses comes on a spool size that only works with GW's printer, you won't have much of a choice.

seems like everyone was expecting points to be dropped by now considering how much activity there is on here lmao

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
The real question, does he print in fw/gw resin quality only?

Well, the brand of resin it uses comes on a spool size that only works with GW's printer, you won't have much of a choice.

How is that different from any ink jet printer?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I'm just going to transcribe everything to Excel format anyway, so... *shrugs*

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
If you print them out yourself how are they meant to sell you datacard packs?

The file format only functions on the Citadel™ Wraithshaper™, the GW-branded exclusive 3D printer.

I'm not a filthy xenos player, I much prefer the Citadel™ STC Assembly Machine™

Justyn wrote:
If a unit has Lethal Hits and Sustained hits, does the extra hit auto wound also?

No. You roll one die. It is a critical hit. Lethal says that hit auto wounds. Sustained says that hit creates a new hit. That new hit isn't classified as a critical hit. Otherwise you could create a logic loop for infinite hits.

 Nazrak wrote:
It’s a bit of a faff but relatively easy to strip out all the extraneous visual embellishments from the cards if you’ve access to a PDF editor like Acrobat Pro.

or the even cheaper version, open the pdf, hit ALT+print screen (on windows, others may vary), paste into painbrush, crop as desired, hit print

Saving the Xenos data sheets I instinctively named them Eldar, Dark Eldar, Imperial Guard etc.

Though I did save the Neo Squats as Legions of Voltron or whatever they're called.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
The real question, does he print in fw/gw resin quality only?

Well, the brand of resin it uses comes on a spool size that only works with GW's printer, you won't have much of a choice.

How is that different from any ink jet printer?

this will be specially formulated to warp and include holes

GO GO GO!

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/oF1iWIkNsvlUHByM.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1SunJbj00GheE457GnQFNGRboDoHsZGItcJLqI0DyFO10c0VBoCjgOFeI

OMG....OH BOY....ZERO UPGRADE COSTS....

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Saving the Xenos data sheets I instinctively named them Eldar, Dark Eldar, Imperial Guard etc.

Though I did save the Neo Squats as Legions of Voltron or whatever they're called.

I went with Craftworlds, Dark elfs, Guard, and Squats (plus also simply 'Tau'), but yeah. The attempted rebrandings still have no weight.

And 'Chapter XX' for the snowflakes just for organizational purposes.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
GO GO GO!

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/oF1iWIkNsvlUHByM.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1SunJbj00GheE457GnQFNGRboDoHsZGItcJLqI0DyFO10c0VBoCjgOFeI

OMG....OH BOY....ZERO UPGRADE COSTS....

bangs table Welp, that's it boys, I'm out for good.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
GO GO GO!

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/oF1iWIkNsvlUHByM.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1SunJbj00GheE457GnQFNGRboDoHsZGItcJLqI0DyFO10c0VBoCjgOFeI

OMG....OH BOY....ZERO UPGRADE COSTS....

Oh. Many of these are a single page.
This is going to be rage filled day, isn't it?

At least enhancements have point costs.


Yikes, they really did the 'this is what it costs for 10 models, even you only bring 7'

 Daedalus81 wrote:
GO GO GO!

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/oF1iWIkNsvlUHByM.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1SunJbj00GheE457GnQFNGRboDoHsZGItcJLqI0DyFO10c0VBoCjgOFeI

OMG....OH BOY....ZERO UPGRADE COSTS....

at least we can be certain that not paying for upgrades will be totally balanced and will not cause any issues whatsoever

oh god what has GW done

Set unit sizes. Set upgrade unit sizes. Every weapon option is free.

This is hell.

my units of seven plague marines and unit of seven blightlord terminators may be crying slightly wondering why two of them must die

Love all of this.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Set unit sizes. Set upgrade unit sizes. Every weapon option is free.

This is hell.

its also simple, which is probably the point, and then anyone left when the codexes come out will rave how they are "better"

until they realise that AgeOfEmperor stays this way

Hooo Boy!

Troupe
5 models............................................................ 75 pts
6 models............................................................ 90 pts
11 models .......................................................165 pts
12 models .......................................................180 pt

They're 15 points per model, GW. Really. This is how math works.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Set unit sizes. Set upgrade unit sizes. Every weapon option is free.

This is hell.

I'm out.

I for one, welcome our new Grimdark Future overlords.

I don’t understand why they have insisted on calling it points. Everything is a multiple of 5, unit sizes are in fixed increments and wargear options are baked into the unit costs.

Just divide everything by 5, call it Power Level and be done with it.

 Eldarsif wrote:
Love all of this.

I am uncertain. I really need to go through these and some of the datasheets that I thought had some big difference in gear and think on it.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Set unit sizes. Set upgrade unit sizes. Every weapon option is free.

This is hell.

This!

Is!

Simplehammer!

leopard wrote:my units of seven plague marines and unit of seven blightlord terminators may be crying slightly wondering why two of them must die

well that's what you get for taking lore-accurate fluffy units. You should know by now GW aren't into that!

(hell, I miss 14-man plaguemarine mobs, I've made my peace with never being happy with Death Guard again. Just hoping we get plague marines in a HH Siege of Terra book, at least)

Voss wrote:

Troupe
5 models............................................................ 75 pts
6 models............................................................ 90 pts
11 models .......................................................165 pts
12 models .......................................................180 pt

They're 15 points per model, GW. Really. This is how math works.

Man that's weird. Is this for transports or something?

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
GO GO GO!

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/oF1iWIkNsvlUHByM.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1SunJbj00GheE457GnQFNGRboDoHsZGItcJLqI0DyFO10c0VBoCjgOFeI

OMG....OH BOY....ZERO UPGRADE COSTS....

bangs table Welp, that's it boys, I'm out for good.

Im using a bad word now: these point lists are positively slowed. Especially the Custodes, wo have points for 4,5 and 9,10 but nothing in between, or even more 2,3,5,6, but not four, because they're apparently chinese traditionalists and superstituous around that number. Everything else is blocks of 5 or 10, with odd, box-related steps for a few exceptions and the odd bike squad. I defend a lot of what GW does because i can see at least what they were aiming for, even though the execution is bad, but this is just playing pretend. Utterly nonsensical, and they add insult to injury by giving prices to arse-gobbling enhancements as if 20 points up or down would matter in the slighest when army-wide Assault Cannons or your equivalent are free. This document is a testament to idiocy that will live through the ages, marking the point where they stopped trying, and stopped even pretending to care.

Well, that power level with a new hat.

Holy feth! The Rules Commentary is longer than the fething Core Rules. What the literal feth?!?!?!

 Grimtuff wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Set unit sizes. Set upgrade unit sizes. Every weapon option is free.

This is hell.

I'm out.

I for one, welcome our new Grimdark Future overlords.

Yep, I'm out as well. OPR or older editions it is for me.

Ok, so a few comparisons on some marine units shows they are generally more expensive than their current iterations, by about 10-20 pts/unit.

a few characters seemed to have dropped though, so it might even out

Tsagualsa wrote:

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
GO GO GO!

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/oF1iWIkNsvlUHByM.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1SunJbj00GheE457GnQFNGRboDoHsZGItcJLqI0DyFO10c0VBoCjgOFeI

OMG....OH BOY....ZERO UPGRADE COSTS....

bangs table Welp, that's it boys, I'm out for good.

Im using a bad word now: these point lists are positively slowed. Especially the Custodes, wo have points for 4,5 and 9,10 but nothing in between, or even more 2,3,5,6, but not four, because they're apparently chinese traditionalists and superstituous around that number. Everything else is blocks of 5 or 10, with odd, box-related steps for a few exceptions and the odd bike squad. I defend a lot of what GW does because i can see at least what they were aiming for, even though the execution is bad, but this is just playing pretend. Utterly nonsensical, and they add insult to injury by giving prices to arse-gobbling enhancements as if 20 points up or down would matter in the slighest when army-wide Assault Cannons or your equivalent are free. This document is a testament to idiocy that will live through the ages, marking the point where they stopped trying, and stopped even pretending to care.

This whole edition feels like i was thrown together in a weekend with parts stolen from the other systems (Like, this points system is basically what AoS does, but it works in AoS because they have barely any wargear). I know it wasn't, but that's what it feels like.

 Nevelon wrote:
Well, that power level with a new hat.

if the hat doesn't fit, it may be from GW

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
Love all of this.

I am uncertain. I really need to go through these and some of the datasheets that I thought had some big difference in gear and think on it.

I love this mainly because I play AoS and this is basically bringing what I love from AoS into 40k

I think the weirdest things are stuff like Custodes which come in really weird unit sizes, but that's mostly because GW tried to do weird things with Custodes(making shield captain out of normal Custodes).

Overall I am happy about this and exited to try it out. There are some point costs that make me go "WTF?" like Storm Guardians costing 115 while Battle Sisters cost 110, but overall I am liking what I see.

Personally I think this is going to be an interesting edition.

leopard wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
Well, that power level with a new hat.

if the hat doesn't fit, it may be from GW

The hat is limited edition and sold out before you even heard about it.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Voss wrote:

Troupe
5 models............................................................ 75 pts
6 models............................................................ 90 pts
11 models .......................................................165 pts
12 models .......................................................180 pt

They're 15 points per model, GW. Really. This is how math works.

Man that's weird. Is this for transports or something?

I don't know. Necron Lokhust destroyers are similar, and its definitely not for transports

Lokhust Destroyers
1 model .............................................................. 30 pts
2 models............................................................ 60 pts
3 models............................................................ 90 pts
6 models..........................................................180 pts
Lokhust Heavy Destroyers
1 model .............................................................. 45 pts
2 models............................................................ 90 pts
3 models..........................................................135 pts

Just... why?

 oni wrote:
Holy feth! The Rules Commentary is longer than the fething Core Rules. What the literal feth?!?!?!

They're actually really thorough and concise.

Wolf Guard Pack Leader
1 model ..............................................................30 pts
Wolf Guard Pack Leader in Terminator Armour
1 model ..............................................................45 pts
Wolf Guard Pack Leader with Jump Pack
1 model ..............................................................40 pts

Lol. For 2 attack models? Frack you GW. The WGTDAPL costs the same as a Deathwing Knight? Really? In what delusional universe.

Gasoline on a dumpster fire.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 oni wrote:
Holy feth! The Rules Commentary is longer than the fething Core Rules. What the literal feth?!?!?!

They're actually really thorough and concise.

Where is this rules commentary?

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Gasoline on a dumpster fire.

Don't worry, all the usual "influencers" will tell us it is the bestest edition EVAR! as they pout in their videos claiming to be huge fans of 40k as they chuck the free gak GW gave them in the bin once GW forgets Leviathan exists when the new hotness appears for them...

Aash wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 oni wrote:
Holy feth! The Rules Commentary is longer than the fething Core Rules. What the literal feth?!?!?!

They're actually really thorough and concise.

Where is this rules commentary?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/KBvH5h3oY5QREpmG.pdf

So what is the point of writing in Rippers entry ''All models in this unit can each be equipped with 1 spinemaws.'' if it is free so I would be dumb not to take it?

 Eldarsif wrote:

Aash wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 oni wrote:
Holy feth! The Rules Commentary is longer than the fething Core Rules. What the literal feth?!?!?!

They're actually really thorough and concise.

Where is this rules commentary?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/KBvH5h3oY5QREpmG.pdf

Thanks. It hadn’t appeared in the website for me yet.

At least that's cleared up:

Strength, Toughness, Attacks and Damage characteristics can never
be modified below 1. The exception to this is where a rule specifies
that you can change the Damage characteristic to 0, where this is
applied before any other modifiers

 Shadow Walker wrote:
So what is the point of writing in Rippers entry ''All models in this unit can each be equipped with 1 spinemaws.'' if it is free so I would be dumb not to take it?

Bingo! You highlighted the stupidity of everything being free. Why would I not take the best upgrades?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 oni wrote:
Holy feth! The Rules Commentary is longer than the fething Core Rules. What the literal feth?!?!?!

They're actually really thorough and concise.

Sometimes the opposite of what I thought, though.

'All models can swap weapons' apparently means all or nothing.


Also, to put the keyword issue to bed:

Some units can contain models that have different keywords. While
this is the case, such a unit is considered to have all of the keywords
of all of its models, and so is affected by any rule that applies to
units with any of those keywords. Remember that attacks are made
against units, not models.

Example: An Attached unit contains a Leader model with the Psyker
keyword. While that Leader is part of that unit, the entire unit is
considered to have the Psyker keyword. If that unit is attacked by
a weapon with the [ANTI-PSYKER 4+] ability, any unmodified Wound
roll of 4+ made against that unit scores a Critical Wound, even if the
attack itself is not allocated to that Leader model

Voss wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Voss wrote:

Troupe
5 models............................................................ 75 pts
6 models............................................................ 90 pts
11 models .......................................................165 pts
12 models .......................................................180 pt

They're 15 points per model, GW. Really. This is how math works.

Man that's weird. Is this for transports or something?

I don't know. Necron Lokhust destroyers are similar, and its definitely not for transports

Lokhust Destroyers
1 model .............................................................. 30 pts
2 models............................................................ 60 pts
3 models............................................................ 90 pts
6 models..........................................................180 pts
Lokhust Heavy Destroyers
1 model .............................................................. 45 pts
2 models............................................................ 90 pts
3 models..........................................................135 pts

Just... why?

It's pointed in multiples of boxes.
Troupe - 1 box of 6 models. Can build 6 clowns, or 5 + Troupe Master. Can build units of 5, 6, 11 or 12 depending on whether you have 1 or 2 boxes and/or you built the Troupe master.
Lokhusts, come in either a set of 1, or a set of 3, and 1 can be used for a Lord (for no penalty building a unit of 2 in the GW approved manner).
Heavies, multiples of 1 per box.

10th is so simple - you don't even have to do maths.

 Shadow Walker wrote:
So what is the point of writing in Rippers entry ''All models in this unit can each be equipped with 1 spinemaws.'' if it is free so I would be dumb not to take it?

You could be huffing Butane by the bottle, like GW writers, and just not take it. Or having old models that are not WYSIWYG, something like that.

Tsagualsa wrote:
At least that's cleared up:

Strength, Toughness, Attacks and Damage characteristics can never
be modified below 1. The exception to this is where a rule specifies
that you can change the Damage characteristic to 0, where this is
applied before any other modifiers

Yeah that was another big one. Not sure why they waited to give out the rest of the core rules, though.

They really have no idea what they're doing, do they

Voss wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:
At least that's cleared up:

Strength, Toughness, Attacks and Damage characteristics can never
be modified below 1. The exception to this is where a rule specifies
that you can change the Damage characteristic to 0, where this is
applied before any other modifiers

Yeah that was another big one. Not sure why they waited to give the rest of these rules, though.

This one is also extremely dumb, and will get people by surprise:

Characteristics of ‘20+"’, ‘-’, ‘*’ and ‘N/A’ can never be modified.

Would a [Titanic] or [Macro] keyword have killed you, GW?

Zachectomy wrote:
They really have no idea what they're doing, do they

That's been abundantly clear since the Armour of Contempt patch in 9th...

We'll have to see how bad the anti-psyker meta is...

■ Some units can contain models that have different keywords. While
this is the case, such a unit is considered to have all of the keywords
of all of its models, and so is affected by any rule that applies to
units with any of those keywords. Remember that attacks are made
against units, not models.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zachectomy wrote:
They really have no idea what they're doing, do they

They have an idea - it just doesn't jive with our current sensibilities. To some degree upgrades costing points doesn't matter much and they just make us feel good, but some things might deserve a bump. At the same time it feels like we're still in beta and we're going to find out what things need those bumps.

Why are plague marines 5 and 10 when their box sells 7?

It should at least be 5,7,10 models

 Daedalus81 wrote:
We'll have to see how bad the anti-psyker meta is...

■ Some units can contain models that have different keywords. While
this is the case, such a unit is considered to have all of the keywords
of all of its models, and so is affected by any rule that applies to
units with any of those keywords. Remember that attacks are made
against units, not models.

so kastellans are now vulnerable to anti-infantry, makes sense i guess

 Grimtuff wrote:

Zachectomy wrote:
They really have no idea what they're doing, do they

That's been abundantly clear since the Armour of Contempt patch in 9th...

but this is not 9th, anything prior is useless as reference

And no they don't know what they are doing as some assumed that there is this rule somewhere while others did not and wrote it into the datacard

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
We'll have to see how bad the anti-psyker meta is...

■ Some units can contain models that have different keywords. While
this is the case, such a unit is considered to have all of the keywords
of all of its models, and so is affected by any rule that applies to
units with any of those keywords. Remember that attacks are made
against units, not models.

so kastellans are now vulnerable to anti-infantry, makes sense i guess

Yes, obviously. There is just no other way to resolve attacks, it absolutely has to be against an unit when your whole attack sequence is written under the explicitly stated assumption that you resolve the attacks one-by-one on a model-per-model basis anyway.

 kodos wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

Zachectomy wrote:
They really have no idea what they're doing, do they

That's been abundantly clear since the Armour of Contempt patch in 9th...

but this is not 9th, anything prior is useless as reference

And no they don't know what they are doing as some assumed that there is this rule somewhere while others did not and wrote it into the datacard

It's presumably the same team writing it, no? Past actions infer what they'll do in the present and they have delivered utter gak here.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

They have an idea - it just doesn't jive with our current sensibilities. To some degree upgrades costing points doesn't matter much and they just make us feel good, but some things might deserve a bump. At the same time it feels like we're still in beta and we're going to find out what things need those bumps.

sorry Daed but i really can't agree with the idea that upgrades costing points doesnt matter. Its the core concept of balance, different weapons that are straight up better are NOT worth the same points.

It works with AoS because AoS has tradeoffs for every options

sword
1" range, 3 attacks, 3+ to hit

spear
2" range, 3 attacks, 4+ to hit

there is no world where a lascannon and a boltgun are worth the same

 bullyboy wrote:
Why are plague marines 5 and 10 when their box sells 7?

It should at least be 5,7,10 models

at a guess whoever wrote the rules has never seen a box of them

OK, even I'm at the point of openly saying they've lost the plot.

I've been largely positive about most of the changes so far, or at least neutral until we have a fuller picture. We have that fuller picture, and it's pretty bad. The comment in the article about how upgrades are free because everything has been carefully crafted to have a specific role is, frankly, bullgak. Better designers may have been able to accomplish that, but it's pretty obviously untrue here. For example (just the first one that popped into my head): Death Company marines should literally never be equipped with chainswords because the power weapon is free and strictly better. It's a similar story with the bolt pistol. It's now just wrong to equip them with the classic loadout of BP/CS instead of at least Plasma Pistol and Power Weapon. Then there's all the rubbish about this making life easier, because apparently adding short columns of small numbers is too much effort nowadays.

The rules commentary is simultaneously a welcome document and frustratingly inconsistent. Moist of it is useful additional clarification. Then you have things that really should be in the core rules, like the definition of "one shot" or "below starting strength" for 1-model units. It feels really stupid to have the rules for those two things plastered all over the datacards only to repeat them here, yet also have the damage reduction rules exclude the commentary info from the datacard. If I was being uncharitable I'd suggest GW completely missed these interactions before sending stuff to the printer and hurriedly added them to the commentary document.

Huh. So.

10 Intercessors... 190
10 (man) Tactical Squad.... 175

Chaos Marines
10 Legionnaires... 200.


----
just yesterday I was thinking necron flayed ones look a lot better. With points, I'm confused.

10 Warriors 120
10 Immortals 140
10 Deathmarks 130

10 Flayed Ones 140
Really?

Zachectomy wrote:
They really have no idea what they're doing, do they

Not even a little bit.

Aha, gak does not stack:

Regardless of the source, if a model, unit, weapon or attack
has multiple instances of the same Core ability, those abilities are
not cumulative, and only one instance of that ability can take effect
at any one time. If that ability has a number after it (e.g. [SUSTAINED
HITS 1], Scouts 6"), the controlling player must choose which instance
of that ability to apply each tim

Explicitly, Sustained Hits et al don't:

Example 3: A model makes an attack with a heavy bolter, which has
the [SUSTAINED HITS 1] ability. The attacking model is also affected by
a Stratagem that says ‘Until the end of the phase, ranged weapons
equipped by models in your unit have the [SUSTAINED HITS 2] ability'.
When resolving attacks with that heavy bolter this phase, the
controlling player cannot use both instances of [SUSTAINED HITS];
they must choose which one to use, so choose the more powerful
[SUSTAINED HITS 2]

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

They have an idea - it just doesn't jive with our current sensibilities. To some degree upgrades costing points doesn't matter much and they just make us feel good, but some things might deserve a bump. At the same time it feels like we're still in beta and we're going to find out what things need those bumps.

sorry Daed but i really can't agree with the idea that upgrades costing points doesnt matter. Its the core concept of balance, different weapons that are straight up better are NOT worth the same points.

It works with AoS because AoS has tradeoffs for every options

sword
1" range, 3 attacks, 3+ to hit

spear
2" range, 3 attacks, 4+ to hit

there is no world where a lascannon and a boltgun are worth the same

I'm normally 100% behind you daed but you cannot parse the wild difference of a battle wagon without upgrades vs 1 with 4 big shootas, a lobba, a kannon and deff rolla at the same points.

 bullyboy wrote:
Why are plague marines 5 and 10 when their box sells 7?

It should at least be 5,7,10 models

An interesting point. If we were to go by box sizes they should be 7 only or max 14.

To be honest I think GW fubar'd their boxes up a long time ago.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

They have an idea - it just doesn't jive with our current sensibilities. To some degree upgrades costing points doesn't matter much and they just make us feel good, but some things might deserve a bump. At the same time it feels like we're still in beta and we're going to find out what things need those bumps.

sorry Daed but i really can't agree with the idea that upgrades costing points doesnt matter. Its the core concept of balance, different weapons that are straight up better are NOT worth the same points.

It works with AoS because AoS has tradeoffs for every options

sword
1" range, 3 attacks, 3+ to hit

spear
2" range, 3 attacks, 4+ to hit

there is no world where a lascannon and a boltgun are worth the same

Oh, no. We agree that this creates a scenario where you MUST upgrade for those types of units. There's more nuance to what I had posted.

Hmm, I generally appreciate the simplifications, most options were already either must-takes or useless, so might as well just bake it into the unit cost.

Sure, there are still some crincles to iron out, I bet we'll see quite a few datacards updated in the coming months, but in overall I think it's great.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

They have an idea - it just doesn't jive with our current sensibilities. To some degree upgrades costing points doesn't matter much and they just make us feel good, but some things might deserve a bump. At the same time it feels like we're still in beta and we're going to find out what things need those bumps.

sorry Daed but i really can't agree with the idea that upgrades costing points doesnt matter. Its the core concept of balance, different weapons that are straight up better are NOT worth the same points.

It works with AoS because AoS has tradeoffs for every options

sword
1" range, 3 attacks, 3+ to hit

spear
2" range, 3 attacks, 4+ to hit

there is no world where a lascannon and a boltgun are worth the same

Which is why I imagine that the lascannon(or equivalent) is baked into the total point cost. I mean, we have stronger weapons in AoS which usually amounts to 1 in 10 carrying it. I imagine GW wants something similar here.

Well I'm glad most of my Acolytes had hand flamers or mining weapons already.

Why... why would you possibly take them with autopistols now? Literally they are objectively worse in every way for the same points.

What a stupid, badly executed concept.

Voss wrote:
Huh. So.

10 Intercessors... 190
10 (man) Tactical Squad.... 175

Chaos Marines
10 Legionnaires... 200.


----
just yesterday I was thinking necron flayed ones look a lot better. With points, I'm confused.

10 Warriors 120
10 Immortals 140
10 Deathmarks 130

10 Flayed Ones 140
Really?

It seems they priced the book and all the bits baseline in the legionaires nope. no issue at all with free upgrades...

 Oguhmek wrote:
Hmm, I generally appreciate the simplifications, most options were already either must-takes or useless, so might as well just bake it into the unit cost.

Sure, there are still some crincles to iron out, I bet we'll see quite a few datacards updated in the coming months, but in overall I think it's great.

It's certainly better suited to modern-style boxes like e.g. the Desolator Squad or whatever, where you have pretty much no options and your available options are sidegrades, instead of legacy squads like the humble Tactical Squad with their variety of choices. The extreme consolidation (reduction in options) for Combi-Weapons, Deathwatch etc. is obviously a symptom of their burning need to squish everything into the powerlevel-with-free-upgrades mould.

 oni wrote:
Holy feth! The Rules Commentary is longer than the fething Core Rules. What the literal feth?!?!?!

I would recommend trip to check your evesight if you think 18 pages longer than 61

 The Phazer wrote:
Well I'm glad most of my Acolytes had hand flamers or mining weapons already.

Why... why would you possibly take them with autopistols now? Literally they are objectively worse in every way for the same points.

What a stupid, badly executed concept.

PL concept and PL-ification. I warned people in 9th that this would happen...

I guess i should rename myself to Not Nostradamus.

Voss wrote:
Huh. So.

10 Intercessors... 190
10 (man) Tactical Squad.... 175

Chaos Marines
10 Legionnaires... 200.


----
just yesterday I was thinking necron flayed ones look a lot better. With points, I'm confused.

10 Warriors 120
10 Immortals 140
10 Deathmarks 130

10 Flayed Ones 140
Really?

Legionaries makes some sense since they have access to more upgrades. I haven't looked deeply at Necrons yet so no comment there.

Lol, the most needed definition:

Just After: If a rule is triggered ‘just after’ something has happened,
it is resolved before anything else happens. For example, if a rule
is triggered ‘just after’ a unit selects targets for its attacks, that
rule is resolved before those attacks are resolved. The triggering of
such rules can therefore interrupt normal sequences such as the
attack sequence or the charge sequence.

Not Online!!! wrote:
It seems they prices the book and all the bits baseline in the legionaires nope no issue at all with freue upgrades...

I should clarify my other statement. It makes sense for Legionaries to cost more, but not for people to be essentially forced into those upgrades.

tneva82 wrote:

 oni wrote:
Holy feth! The Rules Commentary is longer than the fething Core Rules. What the literal feth?!?!?!

I would recommend trip to check your evesight if you think 18 pages longer than 61

The points pdf is 30 pages mate.

Also, I reckon the meant the volume of content rather than the literal page count.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
To some degree upgrades costing points doesn't matter much and they just make us feel good, but some things might deserve a bump. At the same time it feels like we're still in beta and we're going to find out what things need those bumps.

Under this system there is no reason for Ripper Swarms to not take spinemaws, or for ranged Tyranid Warriors to not take as many Venom Cannons and Barbed Stranglers as they can, or for command squads to not load up on every upgrade/option available.

I'm actually pretty okay with making most options free sidegrades; giving flamers/grenade launchers/plasma guns the same cost and balancing the statline is fine. But having no cost for even things that are unequivocal straight upgrades is nonsense.

 Grimtuff wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 oni wrote:
Holy feth! The Rules Commentary is longer than the fething Core Rules. What the literal feth?!?!?!

I would recommend trip to check your evesight if you think 18 pages longer than 61

The points pdf is 30 pages mate.

Also, I reckon the meant the volume of content rather than the literal page count.

It's also not a Rules Commentary, it's The Rules, Part 2. Usually a 'commentary' does not contain definitions, binding stipulations and so on.

 Grimtuff wrote:
Don't worry, all the usual "influencers" will tell us it is the bestest edition EVAR! as they pout in their videos claiming to be huge fans of 40k as they chuck the free gak GW gave them in the bin once GW forgets Leviathan exists when the new hotness appears for them...

"In previous editions putting together an army was an absolute chore. It was almost like a second job! Thankfully, with 10th Editions FinePoints™, we've taken the guesswork out of adding numbers together. Now all units have two set sizes... except for the ones that have multiple unusual sizes. All points are divisible by 5, and every upgrade is free! FinePoints™, they're simple, not simplistic!"

Slipspace wrote:
Better designers may have been able to accomplish that

Yea. If the datacards had been on point a case could be made, but again - feels like we're playtesting for them. Gonna be a rough 6 to 12 months.

Legends of the Horus Heresy Datasheets arrive next week. Will there be 3 Contemptor Dreadnought sheets? Shooty, melee and mixed or just the 1 sheet where a Contemptor with 2 Lascannons and a missile pod costs the same as a Contemptor with 2 fists? Ahem.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Voss wrote:
Huh. So.

10 Intercessors... 190
10 (man) Tactical Squad.... 175

Chaos Marines
10 Legionnaires... 200.


----
just yesterday I was thinking necron flayed ones look a lot better. With points, I'm confused.

10 Warriors 120
10 Immortals 140
10 Deathmarks 130

10 Flayed Ones 140
Really?

Legionaries makes some sense since they have access to more upgrades. I haven't looked deeply at Necrons yet so no comment there.

No, it doesn't, because those upgrades are optional, and should therefore cost points, as they improve the unit. This is obvious. Pricing a unit as if it will always have the most optimal upgrades is just wrong.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Voss wrote:
Huh. So.

10 Intercessors... 190
10 (man) Tactical Squad.... 175

Chaos Marines
10 Legionnaires... 200.

Legionaries makes some sense since they have access to more upgrades. I haven't looked deeply at Necrons yet so no comment there.

That's a hard sell. The difference is a powerfist equivalent and a psychic (a detriment in its own right) junk heavy bolter for 25 points.
Well and access to autocannons and chaincannons rather than grav weapons, and that seems like a loss.

Huh. They're priced the same as SM Devastator squads.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
It seems they prices the book and all the bits baseline in the legionaires nope no issue at all with freue upgrades...

I should clarify my other statement. It makes sense for Legionaries to cost more, but not for people to be essentially forced into those upgrades.

I called it , this is PL pretending to be points. I called it when free upgrades became the norm.


But it's a smart move by gw, now some people will need a box or two more of the units to fill in upgrades..

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
Better designers may have been able to accomplish that

Yea. If the datacards had been on point a case could be made, but again - feels like we're playtesting for them. Gonna be a rough 6 to 12 months.

Going to be the exciting wild west in my opinion. For many this is uncharted territory and I imagine there will be a lot of growing pains.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
No, it doesn't, because those upgrades are optional, and should therefore cost points, as they improve the unit. This is obvious. Pricing a unit as if it will always have the most optimal upgrades is just wrong.

Yea, sorry. I know what I'm saying is confusing, because there's two parts to it for me mentally and I don't often cross those thoughts. I completely agree that forcing upgrades is dumb.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eldarsif wrote:
Going to be the exciting wild west in my opinion. For many this is uncharted territory and I imagine there will be a lot of growing pains.

I'm totally going to dive in and enjoy the game, but I get the grief that people are experiencing right now.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Don't worry, all the usual "influencers" will tell us it is the bestest edition EVAR! as they pout in their videos claiming to be huge fans of 40k as they chuck the free gak GW gave them in the bin once GW forgets Leviathan exists when the new hotness appears for them...

"In previous editions putting together an army was an absolute chore. It was almost like a second job! Thankfully, with 10th Editions FinePoints™, we've taken the guesswork out of adding numbers together. Now all units have two set sizes... except for the ones that have multiple unusual sizes. All points are divisible by 5, and every upgrade is free! FinePoints™, they're simple, not simplistic!"

So you've already received the script from their social media department?

The one that gets me are Necron bikes. They’ve got that 4+ save and no invulnerable on their card. Then they all get free no restrictions wargear on the back for a 3+ save and 5++ inv, which just serves to make the front of their card essentially list the wrong stats.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
Going to be the exciting wild west in my opinion. For many this is uncharted territory and I imagine there will be a lot of growing pains.

I'm totally going to dive in and enjoy the game, but I get the grief that people are experiencing right now.

I get it. As I have played Drukhari in the past you could say I am inured to these changes. I am like a leaf in the wind.

 AduroT wrote:
The one that gets me are Necron bikes. They’ve got that 4+ save and no invulnerable on their card. Then they all get free no restrictions wargear on the back for a 3+ save and 5++ inv, which just serves to make the front of their card essentially list the wrong stats.

That would require them to think about what they're doing.

 AduroT wrote:
The one that gets me are Necron bikes. They’ve got that 4+ save and no invulnerable on their card. Then they all get free no restrictions wargear on the back for a 3+ save and 5++ inv, which just serves to make the front of their card essentially list the wrong stats.

Not quite. They have to choose between Ignores Cover and the 5++. However, you're correct that the +1 to their save is a completely redundant line on their datacard since the upgrade is free.

 BertBert wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Don't worry, all the usual "influencers" will tell us it is the bestest edition EVAR! as they pout in their videos claiming to be huge fans of 40k as they chuck the free gak GW gave them in the bin once GW forgets Leviathan exists when the new hotness appears for them...

"In previous editions putting together an army was an absolute chore. It was almost like a second job! Thankfully, with 10th Editions FinePoints™, we've taken the guesswork out of adding numbers together. Now all units have two set sizes... except for the ones that have multiple unusual sizes. All points are divisible by 5, and every upgrade is free! FinePoints™, they're simple, not simplistic!"

So you've already received the script from their social media department?

Did you see the article?

Rich from the Studio says: “Unit sizes are now much easier to manage. Rather than adding individual models to a squad, you buy them in increments – sets of five models, 10 models, and so on. These generally correlate to the quantity you’ll get in that unit’s box, so you won’t need to agonise over how to include all of the models you’ve bought. It also helps to quickly understand the strength of a full squad at a glance, and makes list-building far quicker and simpler.

They've spared us agony.

So combined keywords...

What does that mean for units that gain character and epic hero keywords?

I guess we'll see how it shakes out - but I think there's going to be massive imbalance in say Marines being priced with free stuff before the jump - and now other stuff being priced on the assumption you'll take 9 out of 10 possible upgrades whether you wanted to or not.

Kabalites for instance jumping to 120 from 80. Okay, I guess we get a dark lance, splinter cannon, shredder, blaster, blast pistol and (kinda) agonizer which costed 50. But I'm not sure they were actually "worth that" - hence the fact people typically didn't splash the points (and two heavy weapons wasn't allowed until yesterday). Wracks jumping from 45 to 65 because you'll take all the weapons.

But then a Ravager is only 95 so clearly they've finished paying for 8th edition's sins.

Comparing my 9th edition lists with the new 10th points, I am getting the impression that this is another round of model count creep that GW seems to do with each new edition. Anyone else feeling the same?

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 oni wrote:
Holy feth! The Rules Commentary is longer than the fething Core Rules. What the literal feth?!?!?!

I would recommend trip to check your evesight if you think 18 pages longer than 61

The points pdf is 30 pages mate.

Also, I reckon the meant the volume of content rather than the literal page count.

It's also not a Rules Commentary, it's The Rules, Part 2. Usually a 'commentary' does not contain definitions, binding stipulations and so on.

It's "Please God let us call it anything other than an Errata/FAQ, it's gonna look a bit bad if we need corrections/clarifications that are 1/3 of the size of the actual rules before the game is even released, call it a "Designer's Commentary" or something, that way we can style it out like these were obviously the only way to correctly interpret the rules and it isn't down to our shoddy work or lack of proofreading, it's user error on the part of the stupid players that picked up on the mistakes ambiguities. Yes, that'll do it, Designer's Commentary..."

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Legionaries makes some sense since they have access to more upgrades. I haven't looked deeply at Necrons yet so no comment there.

It doesn't make sense Daed. None of this makes sense.

Free upgrades is stupid. And you know it is.

My poor Eldar army. All Aspect warriors arranged in units of 5 + exarch. Now it's gone. Oh well, not like I was going to buy more GW's ones.

M.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Legionaries makes some sense since they have access to more upgrades. I haven't looked deeply at Necrons yet so no comment there.

It doesn't make sense Daed. None of this makes sense.

Free upgrades is stupid. And you know it is.

Stop complaining h.b.m.c , we can't allow that here, you are far too unhappy! And bring everyone else down you toxic person you/sarcasm.

Just consome product and get hyped for new product!!!

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Legionaries makes some sense since they have access to more upgrades. I haven't looked deeply at Necrons yet so no comment there.

It doesn't make sense Daed. None of this makes sense.

Free upgrades is stupid. And you know it is.

I agree - see my other posts elaborating. I'm referencing a different aspect in this comment.

 AduroT wrote:
The one that gets me are Necron bikes. They’ve got that 4+ save and no invulnerable on their card. Then they all get free no restrictions wargear on the back for a 3+ save and 5++ inv, which just serves to make the front of their card essentially list the wrong stats.

It took me a couple of times to work out what you were talking about but... yeah. These models don't have 4+ saves, they have 3+/5++ saves. Because you'd never not take this.

What the fething feth?

What's the point of making Enhancements cost points if no other upgrades cost points?

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Legionaries makes some sense since they have access to more upgrades. I haven't looked deeply at Necrons yet so no comment there.

I'm going to charitably call that "a stretch". You know what doesn't make sense? Noise Marines are 3ppm cheaper than Legionaries. Due to the stupidity of free equipment, they also have utterly redundant boltguns since Sonic Blasters are strictly better.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
What's the point of making Enhancements cost points if no other upgrades cost points?

Plausible deniability that you didn't just pl-ified the pointssystem