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.

General Hobbs wrote:


What is the rumor about how giving orders has changed? Someone said models deepstriking in would no longer be able to have orders given to them???

The leak (not just a rumor) is that orders are given in the command phase, which means units arriving via deep strike would not yet be on the table to receive them.

Overpowered rough riders, the new AoS character being the only way to issue orders to certain units (and doing it with extreme efficiency), GW isn't exactly being subtle about making the new kits a mandatory purchase.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
That's impossible, that implies the Votaan were poorly designed too!

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply any such thing. Let me clarify and say it explicitly: SQUATS WERE POORLY DESIGNED.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Irbis wrote:


Kinda sad RR lost their special weapons, but if they could also do drive-by-melta on the way in the unit could be a little too good...

Yeah, I could hear the screaming in my head about it from an alternate reality where they were allowed to keep them. While I'm sad that I once again have illegal models, at least the rest are decently good now.

I don't think it would have been a big deal. You had to give up the lance to take a special weapon and TBH with those lance stats I don't think it would even be a good idea from a list optimization point of view. It's pretty clearly a "no model no rules" thing, not a balance decision.

 GiToRaZor wrote:
b) screen your valuable units with cheap chaff

How do you profitably screen something that can kill your chaff for 100 points? At 20ppm rough riders are going to trade at least neutrally and probably somewhat favorably even if they're "only" wiping all your chaff off the table. And not all armies even have chaff that can stand in front of your real army and die without taking up an excessive amount of points.

Yes Leroy Arcadia is a powerful multiplier, but he is also a massive points sink and in top 1 per army.

180 points is hardly a "massive point sink", especially when you're getting three standard officers worth of orders plus the ability to give orders to things that can't normally receive them plus a change of objectives or +1 CP. Even ignoring the combat stats he compares pretty favorably to his points in normal officers and he does it from a single FOC slot. And there's still the possibility that he unlocks storm troopers as troops like the leaks suggested, adding even more value. He's going to be an auto-include in almost every army at 180 points.

And also, complaining that they have las pistols and lasrifles? Did I miss something?

Not from a balance point of view, it's just a stupid concept that these guys are carrying 3-4 different weapons and somehow managing to swap between a two-handed rifle and a lance in the middle of a charge.

tneva82 wrote:
Well it's now replacing regimental traits(2 of them) so not just free bonus.

Free or not it's still a stupid rule from a design point of view. My only hope is that the opportunity cost of taking it means that hardly anyone ever does and we can all pretend it doesn't exist anymore.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Sorry for the dumb question but what does 6s to autowound mean? I thought 6 to wound always wounded in 9th? Does it bypass armor?

A 6 to hit automatically hits in 9th.

The guard rule is that a 6 to hit also automatically wounds instead of rolling normally, with saves/FNP/etc taken as normal.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Doubling down on the "Aspect Warrior" Guard squads.

Calling it now, in the 10th edition codex each aspect regiment gets a phoenix lord legendary general with an improved version of the rules. Catachans get S6 and a heavy flamer, Krieg can only be wounded on unmodified 6s, Cadian has a Heavy 10 lasgun that auto-wounds on a 3+ to hit if you didn't move.

 Kanluwen wrote:
We're still pretending that people outside of fluffbunnies took some of these choices? Coolcoolcool

"It's ok that other people had their armies invalidated because it doesn't hurt my own army."

No.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 BlackoCatto wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
So, the same insanity that was applied to the CSM codex has also been applied to the Guard Codex. Lovely. /s

Except where with CSM their was seemingly some love, their is none here. Maybe units have been improved or fixed up, but the soul is withered and dead.

I'm sorry, you seem to have forgotten to add a "/s" after your first sentence to show that you were being sarcastic.

Wait.......were you, being........serious?

Why would there be a /s? The new codex may be good at winning games but it's been senselessly gutted of options and character.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I noticed in WarCom's army list article that you can take 2 Tank Commanders in a list.

Does the new Guard 'Dex not have the "one commander" rule that every other Codex has been getting?

Those limits have only applied to the highest-tier commander. You can take one chapter master but you can take every single primaris lieutenant variant GW has ever made. Guard can take unlimited tank commanders as second-tier HQs but only one castellan (and named character equivalents).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
So the Castellan is their "one per". Isn't the Castellan specifically Cadian?

And named equivalents. Straken is a "castellan" and subject to the same rule.

(Not that being Cadian really matters anymore outside of stratagem keywords.)

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
Tank commanders don't get a 3+ BS any more though

But the Valkyrie does, for some incomprehensible reason. **** you GW and this dumpster fire of a codex.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Pictures were out in the wild looooong before any of that eBayer's pics of stolen goods.

That's a very bold claim you're making. Do you have proof that it was stolen goods or are you committing an act of libel by accusing the seller of a crime without any evidence?

Andykp wrote:
I thought it was quite amusing l little dig at people moaning on the internet about it. We all know why they did put two in the box, they know we all know, so let’s have a little fun with those upset by it.

It's not about why they put two in the box, it's about why they had to make the unit size a fixed two models, no more no less. No model no rules is a profoundly stupid and anti-customer design philosophy and GW's lame attempt at a meme defending it deserves every bit of mockery it gets.

 Gibblets wrote:
This book has 4 months of active service ahead of it.

I see we're at the "make up" stage of coming up with reasons to hate on GW.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Is that at all confirmed for May 2023 or is this an assumption?

Nothing has been confirmed. And there has certainly been no confirmation that 10th (whenever it happens) will be an 8th edition style reset where all your codices are replaced on release day vs. the more conventional edition change where you keep your previous-edition codex until it gets its turn in the update cycle and the new guard codex will almost certainly be used for at least a year or two.

 Gibblets wrote:
There's nothing concrete anyone can point to about 10th

Cool. Thanks for admitting that you're raging about something you made up yourself.

tneva82 wrote:

Ok.show me picture of irl dorn tank(real. Not fake) with complete bottom.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that the "real" Dorn tank in the 40k universe has a hollow bottom? Do you really need photo proof that water is wet?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Could itbe so they don't scratch mats or tables?

Doubt it. The LRBT and Baneblade have normal solid bottom sections and tracks, and the omitted lower hull on the Dorn wouldn't be touching the table.

 insaniak wrote:
A wargaming model is a physical representation of a set of gaming stats, and often by necessity has missing or distorted details as a result of manufacturing limitations and usage considerations. Having pieces missing that have no impact on the function of the model in-game make it less polished as a thing to look at, but ultimately don't detract from the actual, intended purpose of the model.

But then how far do you take that? Removing the detail on the tracks and having a flat surface instead of individual links would make it less nice to look at but have zero impact on its function as a game piece. 40k's models are intended for use as game components but they are also intended to be purely aesthetic pieces and that aesthetic use is at least as important as their gaming functions.

tneva82 wrote:
So I guess those people who complain aren't buying leman russ, rhino, impulsor etc. Those after all are missing stuff as exact replicate of springs, control things, ammunition etc. After all it's supposed to be COMPLETE scale replicate right?

Yes, because "this model doesn't have perfect representation of the suspension springs" is definitely the same as "this model has a giant obvious hole on the bottom that is only hidden if you keep the tank sitting flat on the ground and never look closely at the engine vents".

Smart people wouldn't even paint that underplate...

You have an odd definition of "smart" if not spending a token amount of effort to have a fully painted model is smart.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Honest question though, tneva82: I see you frequently criticizing competitive play and people who focus "too much" on balance/meta statistics/etc, and now you're mocking people who care "too much" about the aesthetics of the models. What exactly is it about this hobby that you enjoy and approve of? Is the hobby for you nothing more than Buying™ Citadel™ Models™? Or is it all some weird performative apathy, where the goal is to care the least about everything?

It's just amazing to me that GW is charging premium prices for such sub-premium products and it's instantly selling out online. It's the happy meal version of a Macharius FFS!

 Nazrak wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
In what situation people expect to observe the lack of the bottom plate?

Still haven't seen anyone answer this completely reasonable question; seems they just want another excuse to be mad at GW, which is pretty standard for DD. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Here's an obvious answer: if you have your models on display that prime eye-level viewing angle makes it easy to see the bottom of the tank and the giant hole in it.

 Miguelsan wrote:
I don't get why some posters display such an obtuse attitude.

I suspect that, to put it in polite terms, they feel the need to validate their decision to spend $$$$$$$$ on the new kit. If a gaping hole in the bottom is a genuine design flaw then they're fools for spending premium money on a sub-par product. So the only alternative is that the hole is not a problem, and anyone who threatens their nice neat rationalization must be a hater who is just looking for reasons to be mad at GW.

 Kanluwen wrote:
The embargo is lifted before the majority of preorders go live. It's really just the Pacific that gets affected by the preorders going live before embargo gets lifted, with NZ+AUS getting their preorders before the embargo gets lifted the day of preorders.

The fact that the first articles might go live at 3am is not very relevant for most customers. Most people have already made their decisions days in advance, that's the whole point of GW's "coming soon" preview articles. They aren't frantically reading through blog posts and watching videos to confirm their decision, they're going about their normal day until it's pre-order time and then buying everything they'd planned. So yes, the information technically might have been out there in time but it didn't become common knowledge until after the pre-orders went live.

Or they don't care, because when you look at the thing it's going to require a specific set of circumstances to really know that it has no floor plate.

Yeah, that real edge case scenario of "picking up the model to get a closer look".

 Dysartes wrote:
Having not watched/read any coverage of the tank prior to the pre-order going up, there's also the question of how many of these influencers bothered to mention the gaping void in their review.

From what I've seen they mentioned it, but were very careful not to highlight it or criticize GW too much and risk losing their early access. For example, in Goonhammer's review they do say "something worth mentioning is that they didn’t do a full floor plate on this tank, which is an advantage for painting as it gives a good area to hold the tank by," but only at the very end after paragraphs of praise and tons of pictures. Since there's no picture of the hole it's very easy to skim past that part or believe the pro-GW spin and assume it's not a major thing.

I haven't looked at every piece of coverage since I'd already seen enough of the new stuff to know what I'd want to buy (none of it ATM) but from what I've seen of the conversation it seems like most/all of the coverage was like the Goonhammer review: if you talk about it at all bury it under tons of praise and certainly don't include any clear pictures.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
Or it's a marginal issue that doesn't affect our use and enjoyment of the kit, and see no need for such an absolutionist take on the subject. There is no reason it has to be a polarized issue to belittle others like some want it to be.

Good point.

tneva82 wrote:
So I guess those people who complain aren't buying leman russ, rhino, impulsor etc. Those after all are missing stuff as exact replicate of springs, control things, ammunition etc. After all it's supposed to be COMPLETE scale replicate right?

There's also no correct scale cabling, spare parts etc...The horror! It's not SCALE MODEL! Ah the ignomity!

Smart people wouldn't even paint that underplate...

 xttz wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
In what situation people expect to observe the lack of the bottom plate?

The only plausible situation I can think of is when someone tearfully carries the half-built model into a store yelling about a refund and demanding to speak to James Workshop's manager.

...

If you're not turning trivial complaints into multiple pages of online drama, then are you really getting the most out of the Warhammer hobby experience?

 Nazrak wrote:
Still haven't seen anyone answer this completely reasonable question; seems they just want another excuse to be mad at GW, which is pretty standard for DD. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
People are getting awfully upset over big load of nothing here. Literally.

Dudeface wrote:
They wouldn't change them, they'd expect an extra sprue included for no change in price.

And why not? The new 30k marine tank has five sprues vs. the RDBT's three and costs the same. GW could have easily included another sprue for the floor plate and used the rest of the space to add some other weapon options. A plasma variant would have been awesome and a nice alternative to the very generic turrets we got. But whatever the rest of the sprue could have been used for having a giant hole in the bottom of a kit is inexcusable.

Oh wait, I lied, the marine tank isn't the same price. It's cheaper.

tneva82 wrote:
Well is it flaw? Does it make the model less sturdy? Because that's only reason it would be flaw unless you also insist it has full interior, full control gear, full ammunition, full spare part supply etc all in scale as well.

Yes, because not having a full interior that is literally invisible once the model is built is definitely comparable to having a giant hole in the bottom that is very visible unless you avoid looking at it from the wrong angle.

It's only flaw if it affects the gaming piece as a gaming piece. Aka durability.

You know that for many people 40k is primarily an artistic hobby and the use as a gaming piece is secondary at best, right?

Hell the part shouldn't even be painted if you are smart guy. Waste of good paint on irrelevant part. Do you paint interior of model before gluing it up as well?

Yes, clearly every smart person avoids spending $0.01 worth of paint to avoid having an ugly unpainted spot be visible if someone picks up the model to take a closer look at it. Seriously, your rationalizations for GW selling a poor quality product at a premium price are absurd.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
As pointed out by multiple posters, the Dorn is $5 more expensive than a Land Raider Proteus, but includes 2 less sprues and fails to make a complete tank. It isn't cheaper due to the lack of parts. You're literally paying more for less. If that makes you happy, then enjoy. But some of us don't find that as enjoyable as you.

Exactly. "But cost" is not a valid defense for the happy meal Macharius when the Proteus has two full additional sprues for a lower price tag. GW didn't do this because it was the only way to make the kit, they did it because they expect the whales to keep paying premium prices and defending the company no matter how much they cut quality.

 xttz wrote:
Forecasted sales of HH vehicles will be an order of magnitude higher than the Rogal Dorn.

{citation needed}

These aren't marine kits we're talking about, they're kits for a tertiary game that from anecdotal evidence is doing very poorly and they have no (realistic) use in 40k. Worse, the Proteus is an off-meta kit for a tertiary game that will only be bought by collectors who don't care about its on-table performance. I don't see any reason to assume an order of magnitude better sales when the "marines always sell" effect does not apply, especially compared to a shiny new tank aimed at the faction of obsessive tank hoarders.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
It the end result of how something looked as a "gaming piece" was all that was important then kits would be as simple as possible with minimal to no unnecessary extras, but that's not the only consideration at all.

And, very importantly, they would be cheap. Nobody would care about a hole if the kit cost $10 like the lowest-tier historical models. It's a throwaway game piece that is suitable for playing the game and has a price to match. But GW wants to sell it at a premium price, which means being judged compared to premium products. And by that standard the Dorn falls inexcusably short.