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.

Noticed that people have found a few unannounced updates to datasheets in new boxes, thought there should be a proper place to collect them all. If you guys find anything else feel free to put them in here too

Necrons

Canoptek Spyder

6 wounds (was 4)

5 attacks (was 4)

Particle beamer changed from [24", Assault 6, 6/0/1] to [18", Assault 6, 5/0/1](it lists the shots for both weapons)

Automaton Claws changed from [S+User/AP-2/d3] to [S+2/AP-3/2]

Spoiler:

Triarch Praetorians

3 attacks (was 2)

Rods of Covenant increased to 2 damage for melee & shooting profiles (was 1)

Particle Casters have 2 shots (was 1)

Lychguard — 3 attacks (was 2)

Spoiler:

Deathmarks

Spoiler:

Immortals

Spoiler:

Space Marines

Invictor Warsuit

Heavy Bolter changed to 1 shot with S5/AP-1/2D — unknown if this is going to be a new weapon, or an updated heavy bolter profile.

(Twin) Ironhail Heavy Stubbers listed as Heavy 8, S4/AP-1/1D (was Heavy 3 S4/AP-1/1D) — Most likely lists both stubbers shots combined for the condensed sheet, which sounds more reasonable.

Twin Ironhail Autocannon is S7/AP-2/2D (was S7/AP-1/2D)

Incendium Cannon is S6/AP-1/1D (was S5/AP-1/1D)

Spoiler:

Terminator Squad +1 wound, Chainfists are D3 damage, power fists flat 2 damage, power swords are S+1, heavy flamer is 12" range, Cyclone Launcher Frag Profile changed to 2d6 shots (was 2d3).

Spoiler:

Vanguard Veteran Squad +1 wound, 4 dmg Thunderhammer, Power Axe is S+2, Chainsword has AP-1

Spoiler:

Space Marine Redemptor Dreadnought:

Spoiler:

That Heavy Bolter change makes very little sense - it'd have to be a new weapon name for that profile. The "Invictor Heavy Bolt Pistol", perhaps?

In the case of the Ironhail Heavy Stubbers, isn't that for a pair of them, so we could halve the number of shots for a single? I don't have the 2.0 SM book, so I'm not sure how the Invictor (what is it with Primaris and the letter I?) is currently set up.

I had to do some digging for the old version but you're right about the ironhail stubbers, it lists them as Heavy 6, so it'd be more reasonable that the stubbers changed to 4 shots instead of 8 each.

I've no idea about the bolter pistol though, if the standard heavy bolter changed to 2D, it might explain the noticeable points increase it received across all the factions, but that would shake things up a bit.

 Khorzain wrote:
I had to do some digging for the old version but you're right about the ironhail stubbers, it lists them as Heavy 6, so it'd be more reasonable that the stubbers changed to 4 shots instead of 8 each.

I've no idea about the bolter pistol though, if the standard heavy bolter changed to 2D, it might explain the noticeable points increase it received across all the factions, but that would shake things up a bit.

Not if they're 1 shot like that one- that's a much worse weapon.

But it wouldn't explain the points increase, either, since the CA2020 value is for the current version of the HB. (heavy 3, damage 1, etc).


No one has mentioned it, but just FYI , the new datasheet format was mentioned in the PDF rules. Its the Condensed Datasheet, so they can stop printing multiple pages of translated sheets (and leave out rules text) in assembly guides. Expect it in every box going forward- only the actual codex/supplement will have full rules for units.

Actually I just watched a video of someone going through the old instruction booklet and it does list the stubbers as Heavy 3, but it shows the whole datasheet, so I don't know if the shots are being combined in this new one.
And well, I guess if it is the Heavy Bolter, they can just say "we wrote it with 9th edition in mind", lol.

 Khorzain wrote:
I had to do some digging for the old version but you're right about the ironhail stubbers, it lists them as Heavy 6, so it'd be more reasonable that the stubbers changed to 4 shots instead of 8 each.

I've no idea about the bolter pistol though, if the standard heavy bolter changed to 2D, it might explain the noticeable points increase it received across all the factions, but that would shake things up a bit.

No it would not make sense because you would be paying overprice until codex comes where points change anyway. Any stuff in codex shouldn't affect points in CA.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Khorzain wrote:
Actually I just watched a video of someone going through the old instruction booklet and it does list the stubbers as Heavy 3, but it shows the whole datasheet, so I don't know if the shots are being combined in this new one.
And well, I guess if it is the Heavy Bolter, they can just say "we wrote it with 9th edition in mind", lol.

Or they want it to not just be heavy bolter now that the shoot in melee speciality is gone so it's new weapon altogether with cawlized name.

Oh good, just what we needed, buffs to the melon-fething invictor warsuit, everyone's favorite miserable to play against piece of trash that deploys 9" away from your lines, destroys twice its points value and then explodes dealing d6 mortal wounds to your whole army.

boy oh boy do I love games being decided by who wins the roll off for turn 1.

I wonder if the icons mean something. The blast looking one could mean the weapon is blast, and the FF up turned could mean rapid fire.

Although blast heavy bolter would be strange.

Karol wrote:
I wonder if the icons mean something. The blast looking one could mean the weapon is blast, and the FF up turned could mean rapid fire.

Although blast heavy bolter would be strange.

Heavy and Assault would be my guess.

Probably, but realy to use an explosion icon to depict heavy weapons, instead of blast weapons is , at least to me, very counter intuitive. If blast ends up a bullseye or something that is easily mistood for a sniper or assault weapon, I am going to be in real trouble.

Karol wrote:
Probably, but realy to use an explosion icon to depict heavy weapons, instead of blast weapons is , at least to me, very counter intuitive. If blast ends up a bullseye or something that is easily mistood for a sniper or assault weapon, I am going to be in real trouble.

I dont see any of the special rules on the instruction kit profile here. Like, the "explodes" rule or the "infiltrate" rule is nowhere. new profiles in codexes are probably going to look like this:

I hope we see d2 heavy boltersfor everyone, explains their point adjustments and hands out primaris handling tools.

Dudeface wrote:
I hope we see d2 heavy boltersfor everyone, explains their point adjustments and hands out primaris handling tools.

You hope heavy bolters go to 1 shot D2?

That's....way way way worse than current heavy bolters, thoughh.

the_scotsman wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
I hope we see d2 heavy boltersfor everyone, explains their point adjustments and hands out primaris handling tools.

You hope heavy bolters go to 1 shot D2?

That's....way way way worse than current heavy bolters, thoughh.

I never said 1 shot.

Dudeface wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
I hope we see d2 heavy boltersfor everyone, explains their point adjustments and hands out primaris handling tools.

You hope heavy bolters go to 1 shot D2?

That's....way way way worse than current heavy bolters, thoughh.

I never said 1 shot.

I hope the invictor heavy bolter gets renamed to Heavy Heavy Bolt Pistol.

the_scotsman wrote:

Karol wrote:
I wonder if the icons mean something. The blast looking one could mean the weapon is blast, and the FF up turned could mean rapid fire.

Although blast heavy bolter would be strange.

Heavy and Assault would be my guess.

Yes - have a look at page 17 of the Core (basic) Rules.

the_scotsman wrote:Oh good, just what we needed, buffs to the melon-fething invictor warsuit, everyone's favorite miserable to play against piece of trash that deploys 9" away from your lines, destroys twice its points value and then explodes dealing d6 mortal wounds to your whole army.

boy oh boy do I love games being decided by who wins the roll off for turn 1.

the_scotsman wrote:
You hope heavy bolters go to 1 shot D2?

That's....way way way worse than current heavy bolters, thoughh.

so which one is it? is it a nerf or a buff?

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
so which one is it? is it a nerf or a buff?

Given that every other weapon profile on the datasheet has apparently been buffed, I thought the implication is pretty clear...

Karol wrote:
Probably, but realy to use an explosion icon to depict heavy weapons, instead of blast weapons is , at least to me, very counter intuitive. If blast ends up a bullseye or something that is easily mistood for a sniper or assault weapon, I am going to be in real trouble.

There's no such thing as a "blast weapon". Blast is a special rule attached to weapons, not a type. You can have Heavy, Assault, etc. that all have Blast as a rule. Having a symbol for Blast wouldn't tell you what other rules affect the weapon.

 catbarf wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
so which one is it? is it a nerf or a buff?

Given that every other weapon profile on the datasheet has apparently been buffed, I thought the implication is pretty clear...

Well the main gun and the stubber were buffed, the melee weapon and grenade launcher are unchanged, and the pistol weapon was nerfed.

to me, the invictors new statline says no more combat doctrines, at least how they exist now.

ERJAK wrote:
to me, the invictors new statline says no more combat doctrines, at least how they exist now.

why? Because they buffed the weapons on a space marine thing?

You think GW buffing some aspect of a space marine thing means they're going to nerf some other aspect? Boy oh boy do I have a bridge in brooklyn to sell you my friend.

the_scotsman wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
to me, the invictors new statline says no more combat doctrines, at least how they exist now.

why? Because they buffed the weapons on a space marine thing?

You think GW buffing some aspect of a space marine thing means they're going to nerf some other aspect? Boy oh boy do I have a bridge in brooklyn to sell you my friend.

They're not total idiots. They know that SM are the strongest army in the game right now and they know a lot of that is due to combat doctrines being wildly unfair. Doctrines are also solving a problem that doesn't exist anymore with the new detachment system. It makes perfect sense to just shelve doctrines and move some of their power onto the individual units to compensate.

Edited by RiTides - Language, please

TheAvengingKnee wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
so which one is it? is it a nerf or a buff?

Given that every other weapon profile on the datasheet has apparently been buffed, I thought the implication is pretty clear...

Well the main gun and the stubber were buffed, the melee weapon and grenade launcher are unchanged, and the pistol weapon was nerfed.

The overall change to the datasheet is

1) you got a buff to the main gun

2) 2 S5 Ap-1 D1 shots became 2 S4 Ap-1 D1 shots (wow such nerf very balance)

3) 1 S5 Ap-1 D1 shot became 1 S5 Ap-1 D2 shot

I dunno, looks like a buff to me to a unit that was already fething miserable to play against. I'd complain the same way if they buffed custode bike shield captains, or tau riptides+shield drones, or when they did buff eldar -5 to hit flyers with PA, or chaos discolords.

Certain units just suck ass to play against. Usually when you can't touch them, and they have the ability to remove tons and tons of models from the table every turn with basically no effort or before those models ever get to act. The fact that this thing mounts both anti-infantry and anti-tank weaponry and does most of its gak top of turn 1 before you've ever gotten to even move your models makes it among the worst offenders in the whole game.

There's a really good reason GW removed turn 1 deep strike from the game with a blowtorch. It made the game miserable to play. You could even ruin games with models that didn't hardly even do anything. I remember one game I played where I had a 5-man ranger squad back when they had marine scout deploy, and I got turn 1 and was able to Advance them up and just string in front of like 3 chaos rhinos and a bike squad, and it just completely ended the game. my opponent had absolutely no way to move his most critical units turn 1, and the game was completely one-sided from that point on. That was the first and only time I ever used rangers as long as they had that stupid, stupid deployment rule.

ERJAK wrote:
to me, the invictors new statline says no more combat doctrines, at least how they exist now.

It is possible, the supplements aren't invalidated and they only refer to an additional bonus for being in X doctrine, it might be something far more mundane now rather than an AP buff.

1) you got a buff to the main gun

Yep, one got an extra ap, the other went up a strength.

2) 2 S5 Ap-1 D1 shots became 2 S4 Ap-1 D1 shots (wow such nerf very balance)

Not sure what gun your talking about here, none of them dropped from str 5 to 4

3) 1 S5 Ap-1 D1 shot became 1 S5 Ap-1 D2 shot

3 D1 shots became 1 D2 shot, I’d rather have the 3 D1 shots as I always miss with single shot weapons.

The Ironhail Heavy Stubbers went from a total of 6 S4 AP-1 D1 shots (with 2 stubbers, the current profile) to a total of 8.

Since the heavy bolter went from 3 shots to 2, the overall effect is the same number of shots, but one of them became damage 2, and 2 of them dropped by 1 strength.

ERJAK wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
to me, the invictors new statline says no more combat doctrines, at least how they exist now.

why? Because they buffed the weapons on a space marine thing?

You think GW buffing some aspect of a space marine thing means they're going to nerf some other aspect? Boy oh boy do I have a bridge in brooklyn to sell you my friend.

Quit being dense. They're not total idiots. They know that SM are the strongest army in the game right now and they know a lot of that is due to combat doctrines being wildly unfair. Doctrines are also solving a problem that doesn't exist anymore with the new detachment system. It makes perfect sense to just shelve doctrines and move some of their power onto the individual units to compensate.

If you weren't so busy bitch moaning and feeling like a victim, it would have been obvious to you too.

I'm not convinced doctrines were for solving a detachment problem.
Their main purpose seemed to be giving marines a buff without touching the 'classic' stat line. I don't see that changing.

And the snapshots we're getting for Necrons suggest they are adjusting codexes upwards again, if they're doing that, I highly doubt they're going to take toys away from marines.


It actually seems more likely that these changes are in response to needing to fix doctrines to certain turns because they were initially more abusable than GW believed.

Yeah, they're also giving necrons special army-wide "dynastic codes" which you get 1 of just for playing necrons and 2 of for playing mono-dynasty necrons.

Bet you a shiny nickel those will be flat, army-wide special rules akin to the sisters of battle ones, intended to be equivalent to doctrines.

the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, they're also giving necrons special army-wide "dynastic codes" which you get 1 of just for playing necrons and 2 of for playing mono-dynasty necrons.

Bet you a shiny nickel those will be flat, army-wide special rules akin to the sisters of battle ones, intended to be equivalent to doctrines.

That wouldn’t be to bad at all, the sisters ones seem pretty good, not broken but a nice little boost for running mono faction.