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.

Audustum wrote:

 mrhappyface wrote:

Tiberias wrote:
I've recently read a FAQ excerpt from 8th ed on reddit that specifically addressed this question and said that the ability inhibiting deepstrike always takes precedence.

I don't have the link to that FAQ right now, but there is definitely one that addresses this question specifically

Ooo, that reminds me.

Do all the FAQs and erratas from 8th ed still count for the 9th ed core rules? Me and a mate were discussing and decided we'd continue to use the 8th ed rulings on everything.

Technically, 8th edition FAQ's are advisory. It's prooooobably how GW will rule again but it's not technically 9th so it's not technically binding.

That said, even as a fairly strong RAW-advocate, I follow the 8th FAQ's for 9th questions.

So, as an example, Captain Commander - Strategic Mastermind: in 8th ed we'd only be able to gain back 1CP per turn due to tactical restraint, is this still in place or can we regen as many CP as we want now?

 mrhappyface wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 mrhappyface wrote:

Tiberias wrote:
I've recently read a FAQ excerpt from 8th ed on reddit that specifically addressed this question and said that the ability inhibiting deepstrike always takes precedence.

I don't have the link to that FAQ right now, but there is definitely one that addresses this question specifically

Ooo, that reminds me.

Do all the FAQs and erratas from 8th ed still count for the 9th ed core rules? Me and a mate were discussing and decided we'd continue to use the 8th ed rulings on everything.

Technically, 8th edition FAQ's are advisory. It's prooooobably how GW will rule again but it's not technically 9th so it's not technically binding.

That said, even as a fairly strong RAW-advocate, I follow the 8th FAQ's for 9th questions.

So, as an example, Captain Commander - Strategic Mastermind: in 8th ed we'd only be able to gain back 1CP per turn due to tactical restraint, is this still in place or can we regen as many CP as we want now?

That rule has been incorporated into the main rules, see the command points section.

 greyknight12 wrote:

stratigo wrote:
Wow, compared to what they've previewed for changes of space marine weapons... custodes CC stuff looks like gak. Like really bad. And that makes me sad.

Hopefully Custodes get a similar buff in their codex. But you know what they say about Hope...

Hope and belief in the emperor is what carries our army!

But seriously, our CC is hopefully going to get buffed a little.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wait.... gak gets converted to gak? Damn I thought it was just everyone using that term

Evidently I'm not on this forum enough

 mrhappyface wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 mrhappyface wrote:

Tiberias wrote:
I've recently read a FAQ excerpt from 8th ed on reddit that specifically addressed this question and said that the ability inhibiting deepstrike always takes precedence.

I don't have the link to that FAQ right now, but there is definitely one that addresses this question specifically

Ooo, that reminds me.

Do all the FAQs and erratas from 8th ed still count for the 9th ed core rules? Me and a mate were discussing and decided we'd continue to use the 8th ed rulings on everything.

Technically, 8th edition FAQ's are advisory. It's prooooobably how GW will rule again but it's not technically 9th so it's not technically binding.

That said, even as a fairly strong RAW-advocate, I follow the 8th FAQ's for 9th questions.

So, as an example, Captain Commander - Strategic Mastermind: in 8th ed we'd only be able to gain back 1CP per turn due to tactical restraint, is this still in place or can we regen as many CP as we want now?

Abilities like the Captain Commander option that net you CP are capped at 1 per turn. However, strats that net you CP, such as Priority Threat Neutralized for an Assassin is not affected by the cap, as per the recent FAQ.

Not to sound out of sorts here, but if they let marines go live hitting harder in melee than dedicated melee classes, I might as well sell my still in box minis. What is the point of building all 4 boxes of bikes and terminators if they get out swung by basic level marines. This is just silly. I am struggling to understand what the incentive is to make a single faction so ungodly op? More people are buying non-SM than SM.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Not to sound out of sorts here, but if they let marines go live hitting harder in melee than dedicated melee classes, I might as well sell my still in box minis. What is the point of building all 4 boxes of bikes and terminators if they get out swung by basic level marines. This is just silly. I am struggling to understand what the incentive is to make a single faction so ungodly op? More people are buying non-SM than SM.

Sorry, I'm not caught up, besides the slight changes to melee weapons, what's making marines better than Custodes in cc?

 mrhappyface wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Not to sound out of sorts here, but if they let marines go live hitting harder in melee than dedicated melee classes, I might as well sell my still in box minis. What is the point of building all 4 boxes of bikes and terminators if they get out swung by basic level marines. This is just silly. I am struggling to understand what the incentive is to make a single faction so ungodly op? More people are buying non-SM than SM.

Sorry, I'm not caught up, besides the slight changes to melee weapons, what's making marines better than Custodes in cc?

They seem to be giving marines a flat across the board set of buffs. Plus 1 str on powerswords takes away one of the utilities of, like, the guardian spear. Everything is getting AP, further devaluing having a good save. And HBs are going to 2 damage.

But the big thing is thunderhammers IMHO. On of the saving graces of Custodes elite units (termies and bikes) is that they had 1 more wound then a thunder hammer could one shot (barring a couple of tricked out slam captains that paid out the nose in CP for the privilege). Now any slam captain will trivially attrition down a squad of terminators by about 4 or more, providing marines with a rather big hard counter to custode's primary tool in this new edition.



Also, death guard getting 2 wounds is going to make fighting plague marine infuriating. Like truly the worst.

Yeah... Death guard. That is going to suck some major ass.


And on the thunder hammers point, here's hoping we go up a wound across the board bois
But seriously this is also going to suck. The worst part is that even if you price thunder hammers at about 50 points per character they are still worth it. I hate it.

While it's wrong that marines hitting in combat will be better than us (aside from specific situations where they're better regardless), it is about time we see some upgrades to our melee. Most importantly A FLAT DAMAGE VALUEE. Because while I might be able to roll saves, the number of times a character has survived with a wound because I roll triple 1 on d3... Agh.

I don't think that custodes should be made tougher per se just yet, it might be sensible (if it is needed) if they end up absorbing their 6+++ in the psychic into their basic statline. This would massively increase their durability due to the ability to negate damage spilling over if you pass 1 each time you roll. This would probably up the cost considerably of every custodian however and probably have us starting with 1 or even 2 less models

Aside from that, some upgrades to our combat consistency across the board could be nice. While an extra attack would do this, I feel like this would be buffing the damage potential of custodes too far, which would be wrong especially when paired with +1A banner. So as I mentioned earlier, getting some flat dmg on weapons feels right.

Ps buff valoris to flat 3dmg !!! That boy embarasses himself whenever he charges something with more than 1W.

Flat damage on melee weapons would be great.

Another benefit would be to just extend our FnP to all mortal wounds, not just psychic phase.

Also, lowering the AP value of all weapons for all armies by 1 permanently would make 2+ saves feel much more valuable.

Just because this was the point of discussion recently, I had a friendly game against space wolves who brought Wulfen, again.
This time tough I brought a 4man squad of venatari in anticipation of his Wulfen. He deployed the Wulfen just a bit too aggressively and I was able too shoot them first turn with the venatari and they severely crippled the Wulfen squad by killing 3 out of 5. Which really isn't bad in my book (was just a 1000point game so no huge units of either Wulfen or venatari).

A sqaud of Wulfen without a priest is just a dead squad of wulfen. Also, I think if a space marine is going to hit for flat 4 damage with a damn thunder hammer, or a flat 3 damage with a relic sword, then Our axes and spears should be 4/3 respectively. Our swords should be flat S+2 with AP3 and D2. Unfortunately, we are likely not going to get any buffs, because we are a FW heavy faction, and this is GW flooding the market with FW like statted minis, to drown out the market of non-plastic models. This is GW heavy swinging back in the opposite direction. over compensating. We don't sell many models for GW, and those we do are relatively small potatoes. We don't have any expensive models by GW. We don't have (For instance) Baneblades, knights, Daemon Primarchs, or 150+ dollar model kits that GW can push hard. We won't be seeing anything until they come around on the codex, and even then, unless they severely Primaris-ize the Custodes plot fluff, we won't be seeing anything major.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
A sqaud of Wulfen without a priest is just a dead squad of wulfen. Also, I think if a space marine is going to hit for flat 4 damage with a damn thunder hammer, or a flat 3 damage with a relic sword, then Our axes and spears should be 4/3 respectively. Our swords should be flat S+2 with AP3 and D2. Unfortunately, we are likely not going to get any buffs, because we are a FW heavy faction, and this is GW flooding the market with FW like statted minis, to drown out the market of non-plastic models. This is GW heavy swinging back in the opposite direction. over compensating. We don't sell many models for GW, and those we do are relatively small potatoes. We don't have any expensive models by GW. We don't have (For instance) Baneblades, knights, Daemon Primarchs, or 150+ dollar model kits that GW can push hard. We won't be seeing anything until they come around on the codex, and even then, unless they severely Primaris-ize the Custodes plot fluff, we won't be seeing anything major.

Sorry mate, but this is pure hyperbole. I would argue that custodes sell quite well, especially now where many tactics channels on YouTube habe hailed them as the new hotness in 9th, a LOT of people are jumping on the golden bandwagon right now.
As for new rules, just wait man...if we really get absolutely nothing compared to space marines you are free to say I told you so, but until then there is hoping that we get some interesting stuff.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Also, I think if a space marine is going to hit for flat 4 damage with a damn thunder hammer, or a flat 3 damage with a relic sword, then Our axes and spears should be 4/3 respectively. Our swords should be flat S+2 with AP3 and D2.

Do you want 15 point Sentinel Blades, 20 point Spears and 25 point Axes? Because thats what the point equivalents for what you're demanding are going to be, if not more.

Im as sick of endless marine upgrades as anyone, but you're being absurdly unrealistic. The units that can actually take the upgraded weapons en masse (IE: arent paying 40 points a model for a Thunder Hammer) are S4 with a WS of 3+, barring hyper-specialized edge cases.

Demanding S7 / S8 with 2/3/4 flat damage on the basic melee profiles across an entire army is a ludicrous position to take.

Sterling191 wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Also, I think if a space marine is going to hit for flat 4 damage with a damn thunder hammer, or a flat 3 damage with a relic sword, then Our axes and spears should be 4/3 respectively. Our swords should be flat S+2 with AP3 and D2.

Do you want 15 point Sentinel Blades, 20 point Spears and 25 point Axes? Because thats what the point equivalents for what you're demanding are going to be, if not more.

Im as sick of endless marine upgrades as anyone, but you're being absurdly unrealistic. The units that can actually take the upgraded weapons en masse (IE: arent paying 40 points a model for a Thunder Hammer) are S4 with a WS of 3+, barring hyper-specialized edge cases.

Demanding S7 / S8 with 2/3/4 flat damage on the basic melee profiles across an entire army is a ludicrous position to take.

While I generally agree with you I understand the frustration at the ongoing stat increase of space marines.

There are other ways to boost weapon profiles instead of just continuing to slap additional Ap and dmg on the profile.

I suggested altered profiles for our melee weapons on the previous page of this thread:



And while I adjusted the dmg, the main way forward to make especially melee armies with low model counts interesting and on par with space marines, is to work with extra abilities and multiple profiles for the weapons, that other non-elite armies don't have access to.
This way you can make the faction, in this example custodes, more interesting and unique. And provide meaningful and interesting choices.

This is also the main thing I feel nobody is really talking about. Everybody is complaining that space marines are OP and get constant buffs, so everybody calls for their faction to get similar buffs to be in line with space marines.
The problem in the long run with this stat inflation will inevitably be though, that different factions and units will feel less and less special and distinct from one another. This thing started with the introduction of a fixed to-hit WS stat and the removal of the initiative stat and is only exacerbated by all those new releases that constantly buff weapon stats and profiles on a D6 system. You lose granularity, which is crucial for a game with that many interesting and unique factions.

We are not getting WS values and a comparison chart or the initiative stat back, that ship has sailed with the dawn of 8th ed. So the only way forward in my opinion, especially for melee armies like custodes or harlequins, is to give them interesting special abilities on their weapons that make up for their low model count and also provide interesting options and some form of flexibility, because you can't inflate stats infinitely or you will end up with a custodian guard that costs 100points and has S6, T6 and 5-6 wounds.....it does not work on a D6 system and with stat limitations from 1-10.

Tiberias wrote:
We are not getting WS values and a comparison chart or the initiative stat back, that ship has sailed with the dawn of 8th ed. So the only way forward in my opinion, especially for melee armies like custodes or harlequins, is to give them interesting special abilities on their weapons that make up for their low model count and also provide interesting options and some form of flexibility, because you can't inflate stats infinitely or you will end up with a custodian guard that costs 100points and has S6, T6 and 5-6 wounds.....it does not work on a D6 system and with stat limitations from 1-10.

Thing is, alot of Custodes players WOULD like that profile. Look at how many of our posters cross-post in the IK and GK threads...we want to play an elite army, and are willing to pay the points for it to feel like that. Custodes fluffwise are to space marines what space marines are to guardsmen, the least I want is that same relationship on the tabletop.

Tiberias wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
A sqaud of Wulfen without a priest is just a dead squad of wulfen. Also, I think if a space marine is going to hit for flat 4 damage with a damn thunder hammer, or a flat 3 damage with a relic sword, then Our axes and spears should be 4/3 respectively. Our swords should be flat S+2 with AP3 and D2. Unfortunately, we are likely not going to get any buffs, because we are a FW heavy faction, and this is GW flooding the market with FW like statted minis, to drown out the market of non-plastic models. This is GW heavy swinging back in the opposite direction. over compensating. We don't sell many models for GW, and those we do are relatively small potatoes. We don't have any expensive models by GW. We don't have (For instance) Baneblades, knights, Daemon Primarchs, or 150+ dollar model kits that GW can push hard. We won't be seeing anything until they come around on the codex, and even then, unless they severely Primaris-ize the Custodes plot fluff, we won't be seeing anything major.

Sorry mate, but this is pure hyperbole. I would argue that custodes sell quite well, especially now where many tactics channels on YouTube habe hailed them as the new hotness in 9th, a LOT of people are jumping on the golden bandwagon right now.
As for new rules, just wait man...if we really get absolutely nothing compared to space marines you are free to say I told you so, but until then there is hoping that we get some interesting stuff.

Custodes weapons need, at the least, fixed damage profiles. And the axes should get damage 3 in my opinion.

New stodes player, trying this at a local 1k pts tourney:

Patrol
Dread host

Dawneagle capn, superior creation, eagle's eye
Dawneagle capn, all-seeing annihilator, unstoppable destroyer, auric aquilis

9 Custodian guard w spears

10 persecutors
5 persecutors


Can choose to ds the 9 guard, and 3d6 charge them for 2 cp total
Can shoot them twice, +1 to wound in melee, 1cp each

Can fire the 10 persecturos as assault 3 for 30 s4 shots, rerolling wounds against psyker units

List is locked in
Thoughts?

First off good look and have fun on your tourney. As for your list: dread host is strong, and bike captains are always strong and will definitely do much work for you.

Custodian guard with spear are fine, though the storm shield and sentinel blade configuration is considered better right now, because objective holding is so crucial in 9th and the guards with the storm shields are considerably harder to shift.

Also if you go dread host and want a strong hard hitting unit to deepstrike, allarus or aquilon terminators are going to be more consistent at deleting whatever they reach than a squad of spear custodians. They are also a bit more survivable with the new strats.

Sisters of silence I personally would not take unless I expect a very psyker heavy meta. So depending on your local meta they might be worth their points.

That's my honest take. So welcome to the golden boys and have fun.

 dicerage wrote:
New stodes player, trying this at a local 1k pts tourney:

Patrol
Dread host

Dawneagle capn, superior creation, eagle's eye
Dawneagle capn, all-seeing annihilator, unstoppable destroyer, auric aquilis

9 Custodian guard w spears

10 persecutors
5 persecutors

Can choose to ds the 9 guard, and 3d6 charge them for 2 cp total
Can shoot them twice, +1 to wound in melee, 1cp each

Can fire the 10 persecturos as assault 3 for 30 s4 shots, rerolling wounds against psyker units

List is locked in
Thoughts?

Otherwise, that 5 woman squad looks good for holding a backfield, and the 9 woman squad perhaps as a midfield holder.
Its a little late for it, but i'd have suggested splitting your 9 man squad into a 4 and 5 man squad, or 2 4 man squads with some shields for board control and durability. Looks fun, good luck and let us know how it goes!

Is there are reason you took all-seeing annihilator and unstoppable destroyer? I would have thought taking the -1 to hit WLT and the CP regen upgrade would be better?

mrhappyface wrote:Is there are reason you took all-seeing annihilator and unstoppable destroyer? I would have thought taking the -1 to hit WLT and the CP regen upgrade would be better?

Hello, yes.

1) My thinking is since use 3-4(or even -6) of my 6 CP pre-game, there is little use for the 5+ cp regen.

2) As to the -1 to hit, I don't know if it's better than the 3+ invu! I figured terrain might help in some cases.

3) As to all-seeing annihilator, it pairs with my big unit of guardians. They are all in one unit to be buffed with +1 to wound, double shooting, 3d6 charge from strat, reroll 1s and exploding 6's from dawneagle

4) unstoppable destroyer i thought would be nice to go in, hit a dangerous melee unit, and get out before they can strike back. Example knight, demon prince, some of the new skorpekh destroyers etc

Thoughts? I have no strong opinions on any of this

iGuy91 wrote:

 dicerage wrote:
New stodes player, trying this at a local 1k pts tourney:

Patrol
Dread host

Dawneagle capn, superior creation, eagle's eye
Dawneagle capn, all-seeing annihilator, unstoppable destroyer, auric aquilis

9 Custodian guard w spears

10 persecutors
5 persecutors

Can choose to ds the 9 guard, and 3d6 charge them for 2 cp total
Can shoot them twice, +1 to wound in melee, 1cp each

Can fire the 10 persecturos as assault 3 for 30 s4 shots, rerolling wounds against psyker units

List is locked in
Thoughts?

Otherwise, that 5 woman squad looks good for holding a backfield, and the 9 woman squad perhaps as a midfield holder.
Its a little late for it, but i'd have suggested splitting your 9 man squad into a 4 and 5 man squad, or 2 4 man squads with some shields for board control and durability. Looks fun, good luck and let us know how it goes!

Thank you for the feedback.

1)Yes I'm thinking exactly that with the two woman squads, and again the 10 man can be buffed for 1 cp to fire 30 shots at 18", and for another 1cp can be buffed to reroll all hits if a nearby stodes unit attacked first. So against psykers where there are automatic rerolls, like 1k sons and gk and nid monsters etc, maybe they can be worthwhile, I don't know.

2) As to splitting the squads, yes, I think you are right. I went with one 9 man squad for the strategem buffs + dawneagle buffs (see post above) and dread host for the deep strike 3d6 hammer charge. But upon reflection, I would go solar watch, and either as you say 4/5man, or even 3/3/3 man. As well as 5/5/5 for the sisters of silence as well.

We'll see!

Tiberias wrote:First off good look and have fun on your tourney. As for your list: dread host is strong, and bike captains are always strong and will definitely do much work for you.

Custodian guard with spear are fine, though the storm shield and sentinel blade configuration is considered better right now, because objective holding is so crucial in 9th and the guards with the storm shields are considerably harder to shift.

Also if you go dread host and want a strong hard hitting unit to deepstrike, allarus or aquilon terminators are going to be more consistent at deleting whatever they reach than a squad of spear custodians. They are also a bit more survivable with the new strats.

Sisters of silence I personally would not take unless I expect a very psyker heavy meta. So depending on your local meta they might be worth their points.

That's my honest take. So welcome to the golden boys and have fun.

Thanks, I think you make very good points. Only thing I have to say is that Allarus are sold out everywhere! My ideal list looks like this:

2x1 dawneagles
1x3 guards
1x7 allarus

How is it hyperbole to state that right now, Vanguard Vets outhit and cost less than the nearest comparable Custodes Models?

Stat wise, our BEST unit is either out bikes or our Telemons. Both cost WAY more than a full squad of Vanguard Vets with Thunder hammers and 2w each. How is that hyperbole? Marines go live right now with an unprecedented edge.

Not since the Tau of 7th has there been this level of cheese in a faction.

And to the "People are flocking to the golden bandwagon" argument. BS.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
How is it hyperbole to state that right now, Vanguard Vets outhit and cost less than the nearest comparable Custodes Models?

Because it's not true. A five man team of VanVets with hammers and shields are the same cost as four basic Custodians with Spear (roughly, there's some uncertainty as to whether non-Tac units are going to see a greater cost increase given their increased ability sets). The Hammer Vets do better against heavy armor, but are comparable to the Custodians against mid-toughness targets, and fall faaaaaaaar behind against infantry. The former also dies in spades to massed AP0/AP1 fire, which custodians shrug off with their T5 and innate 2+, and has zero function if they are prevented from making their charge.

The equation swings considerably towards Custodes when you look at say, four Wardens with Axes instead (which come in slightly more expensive than a five pack of VanHammers, but still within the expected MoE of the 2W bump cost).

Wait till the marine book is actually out, complain about its brokenness when its actually broken and you know what the rules and more importantly the points are.

I think people are deluding themselves if they think that multimeltas will double in shots, hammer will hit harder and everything will have more wounds without appropriate point increases.

Personally I think it is part of an overall plan to up the wounds of tougher things to create more design space for weaker units. They seem to be increasing the damage of various weapons as well to give them a more defined anti elite roll at the same time.
If this is the approach GW is taking i would expect Custode to get similar buffs (and pts increases) to keep them in line.

Why is it literally every time GW creates an utterly game breaking unit (Castellan, Iron Hands Leviathan lists, Riptides, Conscript deathstars, etc.) There is an equally vocal contingent that says "It's not broken, we need to wait and see how it plays on tournament lists before nerfing it." and almost without fail, it's the same people who cry what a terrible shame it was when the offending tactic/unit is inevitably nerfed into oblivion? How many people claimed the Castellen was not broken, that Iron hands were just fine, and that a good player could overcome a triptide list?

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Why is it literally every time GW creates an utterly game breaking unit (Castellan, Iron Hands Leviathan lists, Riptides, Conscript deathstars, etc.) There is an equally vocal contingent that says "It's not broken, we need to wait and see how it plays on tournament lists before nerfing it." and almost without fail, it's the same people who cry what a terrible shame it was when the offending tactic/unit is inevitably nerfed into oblivion? How many people claimed the Castellen was not broken, that Iron hands were just fine, and that a good player could overcome a triptide list?

You mean like how its the same people who routinely make histrionic assertions about how particular things do or do not function, and when called on how their hysterics arent grounded in reality drive right into another exuberant rant?

We dont have 9th edition rules for any army right now, with the exception of a handful of Marine or Necron units. Stomping around and making blanket statements about how everything is broken when we quite literally do not know what is happening with every army in the game is not productive.

So i have a fun allegorical story from a game recently to share.

I was playing vs Space Marines and used a Shield Captain with 'Gatekeeper', plus the Superior Firing Patterns Stratagem to make him rapid fire 6 on his spear (base is rapid fire 3), and mow down half a squad of assault intercessors by himself before charging, and mowing down the rest in melee +morale. So that was cool, and is a neat little synergy to bully marines off objectives.

Sterling191 wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Why is it literally every time GW creates an utterly game breaking unit (Castellan, Iron Hands Leviathan lists, Riptides, Conscript deathstars, etc.) There is an equally vocal contingent that says "It's not broken, we need to wait and see how it plays on tournament lists before nerfing it." and almost without fail, it's the same people who cry what a terrible shame it was when the offending tactic/unit is inevitably nerfed into oblivion? How many people claimed the Castellen was not broken, that Iron hands were just fine, and that a good player could overcome a triptide list?

You mean like how its the same people who routinely make histrionic assertions about how particular things do or do not function, and when called on how their hysterics arent grounded in reality drive right into another exuberant rant?

We dont have 9th edition rules for any army right now, with the exception of a handful of Marine or Necron units. Stomping around and making blanket statements about how everything is broken when we quite literally do not know what is happening with every army in the game is not productive.

Part of the issue is, how long will it be until all armies get updated?

Sure, Orks might be top-tier with their new Dex... but if that doesn't come out for two years, fat lot of good that does any Ork players for now.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Part of the issue is, how long will it be until all armies get updated?

Sure, Orks might be top-tier with their new Dex... but if that doesn't come out for two years, fat lot of good that does any Ork players for now.

As someone who plays several armies that fall into that category, I understand and agree unreservedly. Piecemeal codex rollout is a major concern of mine across the board, and something GW has absolutely gotten wrong in the past.

In my last game I rolled a double 1 on a 4" charge with my sword and board Dreadnought, re-rolled it and rolled another double 1: a 1 in 1296 chance.

I need to buy new dice blocks because I only ever roll 1s and 2s with my current dice.