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.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Oh, that is weird. So you can take Field Ordinance AND HWTs? This is gonna get ugly.

no its not? "Oh no, you can take a Rhinos AND Razorbacks"

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Oh, that is weird. So you can take Field Ordinance AND HWTs? This is gonna get ugly.

How so?
Lots of armies have multiple choices in the Heavy Support category. Guard already being a prime example.
I can already take Heavy weapon teams, I can take squadrons if Lemen russ, etc.
So now I'll soon have more field support to choose from....

If Rhinos and Razor backs had Heavy 12 out of LOS shooting at S6 ap2 d2, and the Bombard is basically a missile launcher with multi attack profiles, but it basically another Basalisk, So no, it's not really a good comparison. The thing that worries me is accross the board IDF spam. They can take Earth Shakers, Baslisks, Bombards, Heavy Mortars, and Mortar Teams. That's a hell of a lot more IDF than any other faction in the game boasts.

I get that I over react a lot, but I find it weird that GW is going all in on making IG the "Doesn't need LOS" Faction.

Manticores and Wyverns, too. The IG was always the faction with the most IDF faction, so it makes sense they get more.

yeah, its their identity lol

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
If Rhinos and Razor backs had Heavy 12 out of LOS shooting at S6 ap2 d2, and the Bombard is basically a missile launcher with multi attack profiles, but it basically another Basalisk, So no, it's not really a good comparison. The thing that worries me is accross the board IDF spam. They can take Earth Shakers, Baslisks, Bombards, Heavy Mortars, and Mortar Teams. That's a hell of a lot more IDF than any other faction in the game boasts.

I get that I over react a lot, but I find it weird that GW is going all in on making IG the "Doesn't need LOS" Faction.

Hypothetically: yes, but remember that this all costs quite some points and said artillery is dead when touched. So you need units to sceen etc...
A Basilisk is >100 points and while it does have indirect shooting it's... lets say not oppressive in times of armor of contempt etc.


Apart from that: Guard already hat enough indirect fire entries to fill 2000 points. As some of those might go the way of the Dodo I assume our indirect fire options will likely even be reduced a bit.
Just from a quick glance on Wahapedia (without Legend units):
Basilisk (up to 9 for 1125 points), Deathstrike (up to 3 for 360), Manticore (up to three for 465), Wiverns (9 for 1215), Armageddon Basilisks (9 for 1170), Armageddon Medusas (9 for 1260) Collossus Bombard (9 for 1350) Earthshaker Battery (9 for 1080), Heavy Mortar Battery (9 for 630) Quad Launcher Battery (9 for 810) Medusa Carriage Battery (9 for 1080) Praetor Launcher (3 for 1200), Minotaur (3 for 900).
So even before the field Ordnance we could technically field 11.745 points of indirect fire Artillery WITHOUT counting normal mortar teams in infantry Squads, Veteran Squads, Command Squads and Heavy weapons Squads as well as Death Korps Mole Launchers and Masters of Ordnance.

It just does not make a difference if we get one more...

I have always felt Guard lacked proper non-powered artillery. Sure we finally got the earthshaker without the Basilisk, but it's such an iconic part of the World War style of the guard that it always seemed lacking. I put my lascannons on WW1 style artillery carriages just to get that look in my force.

Not jumping into 40k again, but these look good and once these units hit 40k, they'll show up in Grimdark Future (my rules of choice) and then I'll be looking at options for adding something like them to my Guard.

by the way: now I really want to see some crazy player put together a 10.000 points artillery list and make a battle report for an Apocalypse game...

I don't know if the "leaks" are trust worthy or not, but so far in 9th they've got a 90% success rate. If IG go to print with this, and the ability to fish for 6s to auto-wound, it's gonna be a SLOW game. Like, the shooting phase alone is gonna be stupid long.

Thread has seemingly moved on - but really, as people say, unless you are going to some big tournament or something, it doesn't matter. If you were planning that, it might be sensible to email the TO and ask.

If someone in a random FLGS starts whinging, they are probably a terrible person and you'd be best finding other people to play with.

I don't believe GW have ever kicked off about people using the old base sizes. (But I admit I could be wrong about this.)

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
If Rhinos and Razor backs had Heavy 12 out of LOS shooting at S6 ap2 d2, and the Bombard is basically a missile launcher with multi attack profiles, but it basically another Basalisk, So no, it's not really a good comparison. The thing that worries me is accross the board IDF spam. They can take Earth Shakers, Baslisks, Bombards, Heavy Mortars, and Mortar Teams. That's a hell of a lot more IDF than any other faction in the game boasts.

I get that I over react a lot, but I find it weird that GW is going all in on making IG the "Doesn't need LOS" Faction.

Oh no! Not more IDF options....
I can already spend every point, every CP, & every Heavy slot I can lays hands on for IDF units.
Another option or two isn't going to do anything but cost me $$ and present my foe something new to look at.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
If Rhinos and Razor backs had Heavy 12 out of LOS shooting at S6 ap2 d2, and the Bombard is basically a missile launcher with multi attack profiles, but it basically another Basalisk, So no, it's not really a good comparison. The thing that worries me is accross the board IDF spam. They can take Earth Shakers, Baslisks, Bombards, Heavy Mortars, and Mortar Teams. That's a hell of a lot more IDF than any other faction in the game boasts.

I get that I over react a lot, but I find it weird that GW is going all in on making IG the "Doesn't need LOS" Faction.

Why does it matter? You're limited by FOC slots and points, not number of unique datasheets. Having more artillery units means nothing when the existing units can already fill up all of your points, FOC slots, and useful places on the table to put artillery.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
If Rhinos and Razor backs had Heavy 12 out of LOS shooting at S6 ap2 d2, and the Bombard is basically a missile launcher with multi attack profiles, but it basically another Basalisk, So no, it's not really a good comparison. The thing that worries me is accross the board IDF spam. They can take Earth Shakers, Baslisks, Bombards, Heavy Mortars, and Mortar Teams. That's a hell of a lot more IDF than any other faction in the game boasts.

I get that I over react a lot, but I find it weird that GW is going all in on making IG the "Doesn't need LOS" Faction.

They can already build armies that are almost entirely indirect fire. This isn't a new thing. It was even fairly good back in 8th (though that was mainly just because the IG Codex was pretty broken when it first came out). You might as well complain that CSM can take both Havocs and Obliterators, who fulfil very similar roles. Having multiple options for the same role is not unique to IG.

All of this is also dependent on the points costs of these units, which we don't know yet. We don't know their ranges, or even their basic defensive stats, or what buffs - if any - can be applied to them. We know almost nothing about them and you're acting like the sky is falling.

It's madness to me that orks and Necrons don't have no LOS weapons.

 Blndmage wrote:
It's madness to me that orks and Necrons don't have no LOS weapons.

Orks have the Squigbuggy (and Lobbas).

beast_gts wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
It's madness to me that orks and Necrons don't have no LOS weapons.

Orks have the Squigbuggy (and Lobbas).

And the Grot Bomb Launcha.

 Pyroalchi wrote:
Ok, thanks for the input that has been reducing my concerns. I will never play on tourneys and from what I hear, it will likely not be a concern when I find a casual group to play in.

40k has no basing rules. Zero.

Age of Sigmar actually put out a pdf some years ago, which give suggestions, but that is the closest you'll get to any "rules" for base sizes in a GW flagship game.

The correct answer is simply this - Can you find someone (the variable here) who is fine with how you base your models? Yes? Well, then play the game.

 BuFFo wrote:

 Pyroalchi wrote:
Ok, thanks for the input that has been reducing my concerns. I will never play on tourneys and from what I hear, it will likely not be a concern when I find a casual group to play in.

40k has no basing rules. Zero.

Age of Sigmar actually put out a pdf some years ago, which give suggestions, but that is the closest you'll get to any "rules" for base sizes in a GW flagship game.

The correct answer is simply this - Can you find someone (the variable here) who is fine with how you base your models? Yes? Well, then play the game.

40k has basing rules, they depend on the TO for each event.
Some TOs may be fine with the original size, some may be fine with "wrong" sizes, some may require the most recent size.

And the current GW Warhammer World rule is:

Many models are no longer produced on the bases they originally came with. Wherever possible, base your models according to their current boxed kit.

 Aenar wrote:

 BuFFo wrote:

 Pyroalchi wrote:
Ok, thanks for the input that has been reducing my concerns. I will never play on tourneys and from what I hear, it will likely not be a concern when I find a casual group to play in.

40k has no basing rules. Zero.

Age of Sigmar actually put out a pdf some years ago, which give suggestions, but that is the closest you'll get to any "rules" for base sizes in a GW flagship game.

The correct answer is simply this - Can you find someone (the variable here) who is fine with how you base your models? Yes? Well, then play the game.

40k has basing rules, they depend on the TO for each event.
Some TOs may be fine with the original size, some may be fine with "wrong" sizes, some may require the most recent size.

That's not at all the same as saying 40k itself has such rules.

beast_gts wrote:
And the current GW Warhammer World rule is:

Many models are no longer produced on the bases they originally came with. Wherever possible, base your models according to their current boxed kit.

Could you turn towards the YMDC sub and shout this louder for the people in back?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

beast_gts wrote:
And the current GW Warhammer World rule is:

Many models are no longer produced on the bases they originally came with. Wherever possible, base your models according to their current boxed kit.

Could you turn towards the YMDC sub and shout this louder for the people in back?

But that's just their specific house rule. If they actually ment it, they would have tossed those 2 sentences in the book.

 Blndmage wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

beast_gts wrote:
And the current GW Warhammer World rule is:

Many models are no longer produced on the bases they originally came with. Wherever possible, base your models according to their current boxed kit.

Could you turn towards the YMDC sub and shout this louder for the people in back?

But that's just their specific house rule. If they actually ment it, they would have tossed those 2 sentences in the book.

I don't understand what you mean. They did. In the how to assemble instructions for every model. It's even listed on most of the boxes. Base size for unit. How is that "Not in the book" as you say?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

beast_gts wrote:
And the current GW Warhammer World rule is:

Many models are no longer produced on the bases they originally came with. Wherever possible, base your models according to their current boxed kit.

Could you turn towards the YMDC sub and shout this louder for the people in back?

But that's just their specific house rule. If they actually ment it, they would have tossed those 2 sentences in the book.

I don't understand what you mean. They did. In the how to assemble instructions for every model. It's even listed on most of the boxes. Base size for unit. How is that "Not in the book" as you say?

Do we know when it changed from "use what the model came with" to "use the current size as listed on the (subject to change) packaging"?

 Blndmage wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

beast_gts wrote:
And the current GW Warhammer World rule is:

Many models are no longer produced on the bases they originally came with. Wherever possible, base your models according to their current boxed kit.

Could you turn towards the YMDC sub and shout this louder for the people in back?

But that's just their specific house rule. If they actually ment it, they would have tossed those 2 sentences in the book.

I don't understand what you mean. They did. In the how to assemble instructions for every model. It's even listed on most of the boxes. Base size for unit. How is that "Not in the book" as you say?

Do we know when it changed from "use what the model came with" to "use the current size as listed on the (subject to change) packaging"?

I guess, that would be assuming it was EVER "what the model came with". The other thought is that GW sets a standard for what is a WIDGET. If their Standard is EVERY WIDGET WILL HAVE 4 DOOBERS, And your widget only has 3 Doobers, You do not have a widget. You have a proxy model, that can or cannot be accepted at will by both a tournament organizer, and an opponent that wants to be a cad.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
In the how to assemble instructions for every model. It's even listed on most of the boxes. Base size for unit. How is that "Not in the book" as you say?

so instructions and boxes are official rules now and people with existing armies need to purchase the new boxes in addition to the Codex to get all the needed rules?

if it is not in the book but somewhere else, well it is not in the book and since the instructions are instructions and not "rules" there are no rules references on what base to use for which model

it is that simple, there are no rules for bases in 40k, none, nothing
everything that is there are house rules by events/tournaments

Is it a "house rule" that you have to assemble your models and can't have an army of space marine legs on bases?

Assembly certainly adds an element to the game/play. And may well be expected/required in some environments.
But the rules in the book? They work just as well for flat tokens as they do for 3d models.

ccs wrote:
Assembly certainly adds an element to the game/play. And may well be expected/required in some environments.
But the rules in the book? They work just as well for flat tokens as they do for 3d models.

Yes or no, is it a house rule that you have to assemble your models?

beast_gts wrote:
And the current GW Warhammer World rule is:

Many models are no longer produced on the bases they originally came with. Wherever possible, base your models according to their current boxed kit.

Reckon it's those two words 'wherever possible' that sensibly gives a lot of leeway; and if the wording is a bit stricter at some tournaments -

Vintage models are allowed and are treated as proxies. However, you must use the current model’s dimensions for game play decisions and it must be on the correct base size (this is determined by which models and bases come in the box if bought directly from GW at the time list submission closes). The same applies to base sizes more generally.

All models must be on the correct base size. Where there is ambiguity regarding which is the current base size due to GW repackaging some kits (as is the case with Tyranid Warriors), please submit a ruling request and our team of referees will review this for you. Players should use base extenders if they are using vintage miniatures they do not wish to rebase.

-from the Warhammer Tournaments pack (main events in the UK) - well then imo that's 'cos they wanna cover their arse and be able to give clear cut rulings if need be; in reality a few mm ain't gonna be a problem. If it is, especially for something like Guard HWT's, then you got real unlucky with your draw.