Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Dunno. All Chapter Approved throughout 8th had completely new missions, additional content like strats, datasheets, some cool open play content, etc...

gakky FLG/ITC practices creeping in of only doing matched-play stuff and that at minimal effort is definitely not a good sign.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I remain a fan of the AoS model of filling the gap with content that has value. The Anvil of Apotheosis from GHB2020 has been awesome, especially as they have been tossing in additional content for it in White Dwarf.

AoS is the better product at the moment in many ways

but this is more of a standard buisness model, you have your cash cow on the one side were you try to get as much money as possible with the least investment and a question mark/rising star on the other side that has a lot of potential but there is not much room to dissapoint the consumer and you have to make high afford/quality products to grow

it also looks like AoS is the first main game from GW that does get 3 Editions in a row without major changes to the core

and yes, having a Narritive Campaigne, new units or progress in the story in each CA and the price would not be that bad

I do enjoy AoS' second-child status to be sure. It is funny to think about though, 40k already dominates the wargaming scene but if GW developed it competently they could just obliterate the competition in popularity.

So, looking at the full leaks, it looks like Thousand Sons are getting Inferno Bolts for all their vehicle weapons, now.

I am now giddy.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
So, looking at the full leaks, it looks like Thousand Sons are getting Inferno Bolts for all their vehicle weapons, now.

I am now giddy.

About damn time.

Looks like orks, tau and necron get their super heavy auxiliary for 1CP in new CA rather than 3CP. Interesting it was so faction limited.

tneva82 wrote:
Looks like orks, tau and necron get their super heavy auxiliary for 1CP in new CA rather than 3CP. Interesting it was so faction limited.

Which FAQ is this in? BRB?

Edit: Never mind. Sorry tneva, got so damned mad I didn't realize you said CA.

If this is right, I'm gonna drown gw in salt.

I'm confused, ignore me

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Looks like orks, tau and necron get their super heavy auxiliary for 1CP in new CA rather than 3CP. Interesting it was so faction limited.

Which FAQ is this in? BRB?

Edit: Never mind. Sorry tneva, got so damned mad I didn't realize you said CA.

If this is right, I'm gonna drown gw in salt.

Yeah it's in the CA2021 page that describes CP's per game size, how many datasheets you can have etc. Very small casual mention that says "barring these factions(like imperium, aeldar etc)" super heavy aux det's command bonus gets changed to +2 CP if faction matches with warlord. Ie -3 and then you get 2 back for 1CP loss total.

Bit surprised how restrictive it is. I would have expected baneblade's to fall for this for IG armies etc but guess not.

tneva82 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Looks like orks, tau and necron get their super heavy auxiliary for 1CP in new CA rather than 3CP. Interesting it was so faction limited.

Which FAQ is this in? BRB?

Edit: Never mind. Sorry tneva, got so damned mad I didn't realize you said CA.

If this is right, I'm gonna drown gw in salt.

Yeah it's in the CA2021 page that describes CP's per game size, how many datasheets you can have etc. Very small casual mention that says "barring these factions(like imperium, aeldar etc)" super heavy aux det's command bonus gets changed to +2 CP if faction matches with warlord. Ie -3 and then you get 2 back for 1CP loss total.

Bit surprised how restrictive it is. I would have expected baneblade's to fall for this for IG armies etc but guess not.

You'd still be able to get the bonus as Guard though right? The wording is "from the same faction as your Warlord, and that Faction is not Chaos, Imperium, Aeldari, Ynnari or Tyranids", so if your warlord shares any other faction (like Astra Militarum) you'd still get the benefit.

tneva82 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Looks like orks, tau and necron get their super heavy auxiliary for 1CP in new CA rather than 3CP. Interesting it was so faction limited.

Which FAQ is this in? BRB?

Edit: Never mind. Sorry tneva, got so damned mad I didn't realize you said CA.

If this is right, I'm gonna drown gw in salt.

Yeah it's in the CA2021 page that describes CP's per game size, how many datasheets you can have etc. Very small casual mention that says "barring these factions(like imperium, aeldar etc)" super heavy aux det's command bonus gets changed to +2 CP if faction matches with warlord. Ie -3 and then you get 2 back for 1CP loss total.

Bit surprised how restrictive it is. I would have expected baneblade's to fall for this for IG armies etc but guess not.

Yeah, sounds weird. Like 4chan weird.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
You'd still be able to get the bonus as Guard though right? The wording is "from the same faction as your Warlord, and that Faction is not Chaos, Imperium, Aeldari, Ynnari or Tyranids", so if your warlord shares any other faction (like Astra Militarum) you'd still get the benefit.

You can't get much more "Imperium" than Imperial Guard. Don't think it's real though.

I’m celebrating my Monolith only costing me 1cp to use. Now I just wish they let them get Dynasty bonuses…

Ok, I get it. IMPERIUM doesn't work, because then loyalists or Guard could use Knights. CHAOS doesn't work, because CSM could use Chaos Knights or the Daemon LoWs. It has to be a HERETIC ASTARTES LoW, or a ASTRA MILITARUM LoW. The reason it doesn't mention Orks, Necrons, or Tau is because they can't ally with anyone. This is perfect.

My Fellblade is now 2CP instead of 4CP.

Groovy.

Right. A CHAOS detachment could have regular CSM, demons, Death Guard, and Thousand Sons all mixed in.

A detachment consisting of just THOUSAND SONS units would be a THOUSAND SONS detachment, not a CHAOS detachment.

What's interesting is that seems to only apply to Grand Tournament missions, and not the game in general.

I'd generally agree with that interpretation, but it seems a bit clunky, and probably worth an FAQ (or designer's commentary) request for clarity.

 Dysartes wrote:
I'd generally agree with that interpretation, but it seems a bit clunky, and probably worth an FAQ (or designer's commentary) request for clarity.

Isn't that just the same wording which prevents people from souping inside a detachment?

 Dysartes wrote:
I'd generally agree with that interpretation, but it seems a bit clunky, and probably worth an FAQ (or designer's commentary) request for clarity.

It’s the same wording as for factions within a detachment is it not? Has to share a codex faction keyword rather than a super-faction keyword.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Ok, I get it. IMPERIUM doesn't work, because then loyalists or Guard could use Knights. CHAOS doesn't work, because CSM could use Chaos Knights or the Daemon LoWs. It has to be a HERETIC ASTARTES LoW, or a ASTRA MILITARUM LoW. The reason it doesn't mention Orks, Necrons, or Tau is because they can't ally with anyone. This is perfect.

My Fellblade is now 2CP instead of 4CP.

Groovy.

My Lord of Skulls now cost just 1 CP to field! I am so happy now!

 Jidmah wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
I'd generally agree with that interpretation, but it seems a bit clunky, and probably worth an FAQ (or designer's commentary) request for clarity.

Isn't that just the same wording which prevents people from souping inside a detachment?

That is my interpretation. For the Wraithknight, I can't use the Aeldari keyword, but I can use the Asuryani keyword if I were building a pure Craftworld army and now get the benefit to spending less CP.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I do enjoy AoS' second-child status to be sure. It is funny to think about though, 40k already dominates the wargaming scene but if GW developed it competently they could just obliterate the competition in popularity.

What would AoS' competition be, other than people who only play 40k/AoS because they're the biggest wargames? And those people are already playing 40k for that reason anyway.

The only fantasy, large-scale 'skirmish' game with major success I can think of is WarmaHordes and PP was too busy blowing it's own foot off for AoS' growing success to really factor into that. Everything else out there is either rank-and-file, uses a handful of models and completely different rules, is a different genre entirely, or is an historical.

 Sarigar wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
I'd generally agree with that interpretation, but it seems a bit clunky, and probably worth an FAQ (or designer's commentary) request for clarity.

Isn't that just the same wording which prevents people from souping inside a detachment?

That is my interpretation. For the Wraithknight, I can't use the Aeldari keyword, but I can use the Asuryani keyword if I were building a pure Craftworld army and now get the benefit to spending less CP.

Wouldn't even need to be a pure Craftworld Army. You could have an Asuryani warlord in one detachment, a Harlequin or Drukhari detachment, and still get the bonus for the ASH detachment.

So, has anyone checked if the BRB part of the book has been errata'ed?