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.

I like the changes to super heavy aux detachments. I might actually get a monolith now.

Necronmaniac05 wrote:
I like the changes to super heavy aux detachments. I might actually get a monolith now.

They already did that though as of last years changes?

2021 mission pack rule:

Still not super clear.

Sub-faction restrictions confirmed

Is that per detachment? Or the entire army? (Article made it seem like "entire army")

If it's per army, that's a massive nerf to armies like Drukhari and thousand sons.

EDIT: re-read it again:

Originally these were picked on a unit-by-unit basis, so squads and Detachments could come from different subfactions. This selection is now made when you start to build your list, and the sub-faction you choose now replaces every example of that keyword – meaning your whole army now has to come from the same grouping.

 whembly wrote:
Still not super clear.

Sub-faction restrictions confirmed

Is that per detachment? Or the entire army? (Article made it seem like "entire army")

If it's per army, that's a massive nerf to armies like Drukhari and thousand sons.

EDIT: re-read it again:

Originally these were picked on a unit-by-unit basis, so squads and Detachments could come from different subfactions.

Drukhari still get to take 1 of each Keyword type, they just can't double Coven anymore.

 Platuan4th wrote:


Drukhari still get to take 1 of each Keyword type, they just can't double Coven anymore.

 whembly wrote:

Only in Realspace Raid...right?

Because according to article:

...sorta implies that every detachment has to match.

Every unit with the same keyword has to match. <KABAL> / <WYCH CULT> / <COVEN> are different, so you get one of each.

 xttz wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:


Drukhari still get to take 1 of each Keyword type, they just can't double Coven anymore.

Only in Realspace Raid...right?

Because according to article:

meaning your whole army now has to come from the same grouping.

...sorta implies that every detachment has to match.

Ohhhhhh... got it guys. THANKS!

Points drops for the two best characters in custodes lol.

Interesting to see mention of a new Balance Dataslate in February - I wonder how it'll be presented.

Will it be FAQ style, with new entries added to the original document (and, presumably, stuff that has made it to print being removed), or will players be expected to have both around.

Where... where are the FW points changes for Custodes?

Also, couldn't they have just said "Move nearby terrain slightly" rather than "remove the entire piece of nearby terrain"?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Where... where are the FW points changes for Custodes?

Page 12 of this thread.

The real question is: where are the fw points changes for CSM?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Where... where are the FW points changes for Custodes?

Also, couldn't they have just said "Move nearby terrain slightly" rather than "remove the entire piece of nearby terrain"?

I can see why they did it. The abject terror of things touching other things that informs the current terrain system absolutely forbids it. If you move terrain to make room for fortifications, it might breach the 3" bubble around other terrain or, horror of horrors, objectives, and we can't have that. No one in the 40k universe would dare put important cargo, information, or other resources inside a building or forest!

Dudeface wrote:

Necronmaniac05 wrote:
I like the changes to super heavy aux detachments. I might actually get a monolith now.

They already did that though as of last years changes?

2021 mission pack rule:

Spoiler:

Huh. I didn't know about that either. We've been playing matched play games using power levels (for easy list building) so didn't pick up the GT pack for 2021. I wonder why this didn't make it into the balance data slate as it seems like a general rule change not just an amendment to tournament play

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Page 12 of this thread.

Why aren't they part of the PDF GW uploaded? They even show off two FW units in their summary, yet the document is 1 page and just has regular GW units.

Voss wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Where... where are the FW points changes for Custodes?

Also, couldn't they have just said "Move nearby terrain slightly" rather than "remove the entire piece of nearby terrain"?

I can see why they did it. The abject terror of things touching other things that informs the current terrain system absolutely forbids it. If you move terrain to make room for fortifications, it might breach the 3" bubble around other terrain or, horror of horrors, objectives, and we can't have that. No one in the 40k universe would dare put important cargo, information, or other resources inside a building or forest!

Tbh I think we can all easily imagine TFG making a concerted effort to want to place the fortification in a spot that means they get to move a solid wall 3" to close off someone's firing lanes etc.

Or remove a terrain piece entirely...

So does a fortification have to be wholly within my deployment zone, but if I can't fit it in due to terrain I can remove one piece of my choice to fit it in? Or is placing fortifications a bit more flexible than the deployment zone?

Dudeface wrote:

Voss wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Where... where are the FW points changes for Custodes?

Also, couldn't they have just said "Move nearby terrain slightly" rather than "remove the entire piece of nearby terrain"?

I can see why they did it. The abject terror of things touching other things that informs the current terrain system absolutely forbids it. If you move terrain to make room for fortifications, it might breach the 3" bubble around other terrain or, horror of horrors, objectives, and we can't have that. No one in the 40k universe would dare put important cargo, information, or other resources inside a building or forest!

Tbh I think we can all easily imagine TFG making a concerted effort to want to place the fortification in a spot that means they get to move a solid wall 3" to close off someone's firing lanes etc.

Oh, sure. I just don't think that was what informed GW's decision. There seems to be something about the Holy Three Inches that informs their decisions far more than game practicality, fairness or whatever.

Voss wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Voss wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Where... where are the FW points changes for Custodes?

Also, couldn't they have just said "Move nearby terrain slightly" rather than "remove the entire piece of nearby terrain"?

I can see why they did it. The abject terror of things touching other things that informs the current terrain system absolutely forbids it. If you move terrain to make room for fortifications, it might breach the 3" bubble around other terrain or, horror of horrors, objectives, and we can't have that. No one in the 40k universe would dare put important cargo, information, or other resources inside a building or forest!

Tbh I think we can all easily imagine TFG making a concerted effort to want to place the fortification in a spot that means they get to move a solid wall 3" to close off someone's firing lanes etc.

Oh, sure. I just don't think that was what informed GW's decision. There seems to be something about the Holy Three Inches that informs their decisions far more than game practicality, fairness or whatever.

Given most terrain is largely impassible to non-infantry, 3" lets lighter vehicles get by without issue (3" is the width of a Rhino hull), and means bikers don't have to queue up in a conga line to get through.

You probably won't be able to use the terrain-removing rule in most cases anyway. I've fit the Sororitas Battle Sanctum on tournament tables, and the footprint of that thing is hyuuge.

You only get to delete terrain if your fortification can't be placed anywhere in your deployment zone. So long as it fits, it sits.

Hankovitch wrote:
You probably won't be able to use the terrain-removing rule in most cases anyway. I've fit the Sororitas Battle Sanctum on tournament tables, and the footprint of that thing is hyuuge.

You only get to delete terrain if your fortification can't be placed anywhere in your deployment zone. So long as it fits, it sits.

Flip side of that, I've never once actually been able to fit it on a table that wasn't player placed terrain. Not even close. Especially then it can't be on an objective.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
Wait, so they nerfed the Beastboss but not the character version?

Asking this literally disqualifies you from every being taking serious in any discussion related to orks ever again

In fairness to him, it makes about as much sense as GW nerfing the Beastboss on squig into the ground, giving Kommandos a 20% increase in price and then going "Ohh! but look! the Battlewagon is now only 20pts over priced for what little it does!"

SemperMortis wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
Wait, so they nerfed the Beastboss but not the character version?

Asking this literally disqualifies you from every being taking serious in any discussion related to orks ever again

In fairness to him, it makes about as much sense as GW nerfing the Beastboss on squig into the ground, giving Kommandos a 20% increase in price and then going "Ohh! but look! the Battlewagon is now only 20pts over priced for what little it does!"

Come on. That's 25 points more than a rhino for 6 wounds, ramshackle, and a way better degrade. 15 points for T8 from there is a steal.

Besides...now you can't say boyz aren't worth it because kommandos exist.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
Wait, so they nerfed the Beastboss but not the character version?

Asking this literally disqualifies you from every being taking serious in any discussion related to orks ever again

In fairness to him, it makes about as much sense as GW nerfing the Beastboss on squig into the ground, giving Kommandos a 20% increase in price and then going "Ohh! but look! the Battlewagon is now only 20pts over priced for what little it does!"

Come on. That's 25 points more than a rhino for 6 wounds, ramshackle, and a way better degrade. 15 points for T8 from there is a steal.

Besides...now you can't say boyz aren't worth it because kommandos exist.

I get you're kind of joking but no one will take boyz instead of kommandos. A lot of builds are moving away from kommandos already.

The problem I have with the battlewagon is sure its cheaper but it still doesn't do anything. It has no weapons by default and the rolla is not what it was editions ago.

I think the BW with 'ard case, deff rolla and forktress is farily priced, but pretty useless without all those upgrades. Its real problem is the lack of precious cargo. All things considered it's still a transport that eats up an HS slot, not a gun boat or a melee specialist. Specialist mobs can't be embarked in it. So you need to field a sub optimal model carrying other sub optimal models, getting a points sink of 300-400 points all in one place.

Same problem with rhinos in some armies. They're fairly costed for their profile, but that's assuming some valuable units can get benefits from riding in them. They're useful to sisters for example and in fact they're taken pretty often, but to SM? Not so much.

Empty wagon can be played as a distraction maybe but if it wasn't popular before I don't think going from 170 to 150 points would really change anything. Could be ok and cheap/useful enough for an Army of Renown though since it wouldn't need the forktress upgrade then.

I'm personally happy because I do use it pretty often in conjuction with meganobz and points drops on those model counter a bit the hikes on buggies and kommandos which I will still bring in the same numbers, probably reducing the squigbuggies to a single one and switching to more of the cheaper ones.

Nids changes:
Hive Guard +5pts as already confirmed
Dimachaeron +25 to 280pts

Exocrine -15 to 155pts
Haruspex -15 to 155pts
Tfex -15 to 160pts

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kou2U5DBb3U&t=319s

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Where... where are the FW points changes for Custodes?

Also, couldn't they have just said "Move nearby terrain slightly" rather than "remove the entire piece of nearby terrain"?

they list the FW stuff seperately, as they seem to do points lists on a "per book" basis, so they list everything for codex: custodes, then later on have the imperail armour compendium which will have a section for the custodes FW stuff.

yhea, they should have attached it to the free download, but they didnt.


what i find intresting is these points changes, coming so soon after the codex was released, CANNOT be a result of playtesting or player feedback on the 9e rules, given the lead time to get hardcopy books out. Ergo, they were planning to do this regardess, and its only the logistic problems that made it apparent. Either theirs was some super secret plan influence players spending that needed to be enacted, or the MFM team doesnt talk to or care what the codex custodes team put in thier points chart, made thier own and overrode them. I mean, some of the FW stuff might be because the codex custodes team didnt have authority to change their point values or some other internal bull like that, and these "new-new" points better reflect the reduced buffability of the telemon and such now that custodes auras are CORE locked, but still, this move must have been planned independent of playtesting.

just i little observation on what must be happening inside GW.

Oh hey, they missed a nerf to dominions, Awesome! i would of hated to have any competitive options left!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDsCaBMYfIs

TTT review of CA.

Skip to 01:08 for a great rant that's 100% on point