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.

Agreed. Overall, I like the idea of more variety and as someone who wants to focus more on my SCE, I look forward to mixing and matching far more of my collection. My poor Nighthaunt though...

Just a quick one about Fyreslayers, this might not be a massive concern if the rumours of a combined Dwarf faction comes true.

 lare2 wrote:
I'm sure some of you will have seen this rumour.

"Reinforcements are 4 max in a 2000 point army. Take a unit from 10 - 20 is 1 reinforcement. Battleline units can be reinforces 2 times. None battleline only 1 time."

If true, alongside the new coherency rules which are causing such consternation, it's pretty clear GW are pushing MSU.

There is also a discrepancy(or rather new design paradigm) I found interesting in the last two tomes. The new Daughters of Khaine and Soulblight tomes omit all Max Size bonuses so there is no longer an incentive to maximize units. So I agree that GW appears to want people to run smaller units, or at least not incentivize maximizing them in regards to point costs.

The max unit size thing was rarely applied appropriately IMO. A lot of units were just min to fill requirements or max to get the discount and no reason to run them in-between. So removing that is more balancing and opening up options than anything else. The new coherency rule seems pretty clearly designed to restrict daisy chains IMO, and doesn't fit into the MSU argument much to begin with since the majority of units are stuck on one side or the other; heroes, monsters, and chariots don't care, anything with a min size of 6 or more doesn't have a choice, and a decent portion of what's left were best used at 5-man to begin with. What it stops is 10-man chaff units making a 20" screen.

I agree, so far these changes sound like they are fixing problems and issues. Removing daisy chains and making more unit composition options viable within the game.

A big unit is still going to deal more damage (over time) and take more damage. It's still going to have a lot of power on the tabletop. It's just now you might run a few smaller units alongside for support and to move around. We might even see mid-sized forces become the normal.

Slaanesh Hedonites book also dropped the bonus for max unit size.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
The max unit size thing was rarely applied appropriately IMO. A lot of units were just min to fill requirements or max to get the discount and no reason to run them in-between. So removing that is more balancing and opening up options than anything else. The new coherency rule seems pretty clearly designed to restrict daisy chains IMO, and doesn't fit into the MSU argument much to begin with since the majority of units are stuck on one side or the other; heroes, monsters, and chariots don't care, anything with a min size of 6 or more doesn't have a choice, and a decent portion of what's left were best used at 5-man to begin with. What it stops is 10-man chaff units making a 20" screen.

Problem being when 30 isn't equal value to 3x10. Which it often isn't.

GW games at the core encourage small units. MSU has been the go to generally with the exception of 1-2 if there's lots of things combining. And that works for 1 unit.

And that's why 30-strong Liberator blobs were part of the meta for a while, or 20-strong grimghast blobs being peak NH. Blobbing has usually been the way to go except for specific armies like Idoneth who rely on cavalry.

Let's not pretend this is motivated by anything else than f ing up your rosters to make you buy new stuff.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Let's not pretend this is motivated by anything else than f ing up your rosters to make you buy new stuff.

The cynical part of me can only agree with this.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
There would be some fallout from that though, there is some serious exploitation possible in AoS that isn't viable in 40k because of the radically different attack dynamic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:
It's just stupid that 6 32mm models cannot stand shoulder to shoulder in a line according to the new rules.

Are there any pitched battle profiles where it is possible to take a 6-man 32mm unit? Seems like it would always be 5 or 10. And regardless--you want to stagger them anyways in order to give the unit a more narrow frontage.

Kind of old to reply to now but Endrinriggers/Skywardens for Kharadron come in sets of 3 up to 12.

 lare2 wrote:
I'm sure some of you will have seen this rumour.

"Reinforcements are 4 max in a 2000 point army. Take a unit from 10 - 20 is 1 reinforcement. Battleline units can be reinforces 2 times. None battleline only 1 time."

If true, alongside the new coherency rules which are causing such consternation, it's pretty clear GW are pushing MSU.

Sounds a lot like a Meeting Engagement rule.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Let's not pretend this is motivated by anything else than f ing up your rosters to make you buy new stuff.

How does taking you 30 man unit and running it as 3x10 "make you buy new stuff"? Come on guys, this is obviously just them copying a rule to limit units spreading out and it having some unfortunate consequences.
Probably unforeseen ones, as they aren't the best at this.

 Trimarius wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Let's not pretend this is motivated by anything else than f ing up your rosters to make you buy new stuff.

How does taking you 30 man unit and running it as 3x10 "make you buy new stuff"? Come on guys, this is obviously just them copying a rule to limit units spreading out and it having some unfortunate consequences.
Probably unforeseen ones, as they aren't the best at this.

People say the latter, and its sometimes true. But sometimes they are foreseen... the studio can be randomly persnickety about how the game 'should' play in a way that seems alien to the wider player base.
Ivory Tower game design strikes when least expected.

'Outlast Any Enemy With the Soulblight Gravelords in the New Edition' on Warhammer Community:













The Only Thing Scarier Than Dominion’s Killaboss Is the Hungry-looking Mount They Ride

Are they... are they previewing rules printed in books that are already out, and why are you hotlinking them?

Not everyone has read the Gravelords book enough to know those are current rules.

Additionally?

Now that you know a bit more about the Soulblight Gravelords, we’ll hand you over to Warhammer Age of Sigmar playtester and Nagash’s Mortarch of Tournaments, Steve Curtis, to tell us more about how they play in the new edition.

It's just a "faction overview" for the new edition. I'll totally agree that Soulblight is a weird choice for one though. Would rather have seen Idoneth or Maggotkin.

They've done one for each grand alliance now. Would've been more weird if it wasn't a death faction.

I'm sure we'll get to some of the older battletomes soon enough. I'm looking forward to see what they have for Gloomspite Gitz.

 lare2 wrote:
They've done one for each grand alliance now. Would've been more weird if it wasn't a death faction.

Sure, but they could have done Ossiarch or Flesh-Eater Courts instead of the brand new book.

When 40k got its new edition with the Marines and Necrons as the focus, Sisters had a strong presence even though they had no particular connection to 9th ed. GW probably promotes vampires for the same reason as Sisters, to get some extra sales out of their latest release while it's still on people's mind.

$200 is the reported price for Dominion according to BOLS. I’m guessing that I’ll be £125.

Well 125 pounds is absolute minimum it would be. Good thing didn't up the price from indomitus

That's almost half the price of PS5 (possibly the only thing more scarce than GW LE Not Starter boxes) for a handful of models and a book, that's a yike.

Cronch wrote:
That's almost half the price of PS5 (possibly the only thing more scarce than GW LE Not Starter boxes) for a handful of models and a book, that's a yike.

You must have quite large hands then, since it's 50 models.

While I generally think GW could always benefit from going lower the price is reasonable enough I'm going to preorder.

Cronch wrote:
That's almost half the price of PS5 (possibly the only thing more scarce than GW LE Not Starter boxes) for a handful of models and a book, that's a yike.

A PS5 is 449 pounds.125 is quite far from almost half.

Well gw's solution to coherency issues. Remove most units above minimums. 4 size increases for 2k. So 12 gluttons, 75% of unit sizes. 12 gluttons, 8 ironguts, rest have to be min sized. Guess that's one way...

And of course toughest lumineth list doesn't care at all.

Another gw typical blanket rule that　screws some armies(generally already weak ones) and favours others(often the top dogs anyway)

Koveras wrote:

Cronch wrote:
That's almost half the price of PS5 (possibly the only thing more scarce than GW LE Not Starter boxes) for a handful of models and a book, that's a yike.

A PS5 is 449 pounds.125 is quite far from almost half.

Don’t let facts stand in the way of a good moan.

Koveras wrote:

Cronch wrote:
That's almost half the price of PS5 (possibly the only thing more scarce than GW LE Not Starter boxes) for a handful of models and a book, that's a yike.

A PS5 is 449 pounds.125 is quite far from almost half.

PS5 retail price is 499$. rumored 200$ is $50 short of half of it's retail price, and I am sorry but 50 toy soldiers and a book are not worth as much as half a brand new gaming console.

Depends on person. Value is　subjective. I wouldn't pay 100 bucks for any gaming console

tneva82 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
The max unit size thing was rarely applied appropriately IMO. A lot of units were just min to fill requirements or max to get the discount and no reason to run them in-between. So removing that is more balancing and opening up options than anything else. The new coherency rule seems pretty clearly designed to restrict daisy chains IMO, and doesn't fit into the MSU argument much to begin with since the majority of units are stuck on one side or the other; heroes, monsters, and chariots don't care, anything with a min size of 6 or more doesn't have a choice, and a decent portion of what's left were best used at 5-man to begin with. What it stops is 10-man chaff units making a 20" screen.

Problem being when 30 isn't equal value to 3x10. Which it often isn't.

GW games at the core encourage small units. MSU has been the go to generally with the exception of 1-2 if there's lots of things combining. And that works for 1 unit.

Uh, no? The inherent disadvantages of one large unit over MSU also comes with upsides--being a single pick in the combat phase is quite notable. But more importantly than that, most buffs affect one unit regardless of size so with 3x10 you are buffing 10 models, whereas the 1x30 is buffing 30 models. With the generic command ability buffs getting stronger this is even more relevant to every army in the new edition by default, let alone any buffs the army may have itself.