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.

 WisdomLS wrote:
Completely agree, i think the base rules 9f 9th are awesome they just have expanded out of them far to far.
The codexs are very flavourful but the rules are cranked up to hard as to make anything baseline pretty unplayable

Yeah, the changes to how they approached objectives is much better than 8th, its really the individual codices and the extremely slow rules-release rate that has made 9th ed feel like a slog since so many factions were basically left behind and you only had pretty much 3-5 codices that were consistently doing well since they were actually written for this edition in mind. GW really dropped the ball and should have been more open to a proper digital rules release versus the bizarre backwards approach where you only get the pdf rules once you buy the actual physical product. It would have pivoted much more smoothly during COVID where supply chain issues are so pronounced across all industries at the moment.

It also doesn't help how unimaginative GW is in applying the same -1D and transhuman mechanic across armies. The only good thing is stratagems generally getting toned down for most armies.

If they had digital codexes, this really wouldn't have been a problem. They have used Covid/shipping to weaponize FOMO.

I made a list on the changes and i see way more stuff on the plus side.

Positiv changes:
new blade champion model is awesome
sister are part of the codex and they are troops

buffs:
Trajann axe is 3 dmg
spears are+2 S
swords are +1 S and -1AP 2 dmg shooting
chars get +1 W and +1 A
stances
ka'tahs
witchseeker Flamers are AP-1
witchseekers get a scout move
Grenade Launcher gets +6" range and +1 S
LD up to 11
dmg from d3 do 2d



negativ changes and nerfs:
chars, tanks, flyers and telemon no longer get reroll 1's to hit from captain aura
Vexilla magnifica grants dense cover instead of flat -1 to hit
Your army can only include each type of vexilla (e.g. vexilla magnifica) once

undicided:
Vexilla Defensor
termi units size is now 1-6



What did i miss?

 nordsturmking wrote:
Trajann profile from reboxing

Spoiler:

8W, axe is 3 dmg now, 6 attacks

Can I just say I really hate those symbols


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
It's currently impossible to get that model now without finding one of those boxes. Because that was a timed exclusive model, on a limited release.

Allow me to introduce you to the wonderful world of ebay where Castellan Crowe is not only plentiful but costs $25-30 just like he would from GW...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 The Red Hobbit wrote:
Having Sisters units spread out and not just in the Elite role will be nice. I'm disappointed the Blade Champion is a 3+ though.

I have zero interest in buying/building/painting/playing sisters. I feel like throwing them into the Custodes codex will force us to take them to be competitive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
If they had digital codexes, this really wouldn't have been a problem. They have used Covid/shipping to weaponize FOMO.

I don't know whether it's hilarious or sad that they discontinued digital rules in the middle of a global pandemic while literally the entire rest of the world is trying to go as digital as possible. The natural response to production issues and global shipping delays would be to release your rules digitally but GW seems to think it's still 1987.

I'm seriously not sure if GW didn't care about the negative affects of refusing to go digital during Covid, or outright didn't understand why it was the wrong thing to do. I don't know which is worse.

I do know the BC will be an exclusive model on this limited release, and who knows when we'll see them as a separate model, but as soon as anyone gets the model dimensions I'd love to know them.

Also, for the rules list write up, did we lose just the +1 to hit on bikes? I thought they lost the reroll wounds on charge as well.

Also Swords going to Pistol 3 was a pretty good buff as well. It's only 1 extra shot but it's not bad for our best unit.

Has anyone ever done the math on making as many SC's with Swords/shields and Miseracordias as possible, without costing CP? How many is that?

Do Custodes still get easy access to 4++ & 3++ saves?

Unknown, but some have said yes. Or at least they would have told us that we don't by now. The leaker originally said we lose it I think, but they also said the new HQ was a buffer with an aura, which was wrong, so who knows?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Unknown, but some have said yes. Or at least they would have told us that we don't by now. The leaker originally said we lose it I think, but they also said the new HQ was a buffer with an aura, which was wrong, so who knows?

The most consistent leaker (Superninja) said we keep the 4++ and I believe he never said the new guy was a buffer (his leaks were after the weapon profile reveal). So right now, I'd say our odds are that we do have it.

Storm shields and the 3++ are more unknown. No consistent leaker says we lose it and none says we keep it. Lots of speculation about losing it but it's just that: speculation.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I'm seriously not sure if GW didn't care about the negative affects of refusing to go digital during Covid, or outright didn't understand why it was the wrong thing to do. I don't know which is worse.

I do know the BC will be an exclusive model on this limited release, and who knows when we'll see them as a separate model, but as soon as anyone gets the model dimensions I'd love to know them.

Also, for the rules list write up, did we lose just the +1 to hit on bikes? I thought they lost the reroll wounds on charge as well.

Also Swords going to Pistol 3 was a pretty good buff as well. It's only 1 extra shot but it's not bad for our best unit.

Has anyone ever done the math on making as many SC's with Swords/shields and Miseracordias as possible, without costing CP? How many is that?

We don't know anything about the bikes.

Swords are still Pistol 2
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/11/25/troops-are-better-than-ever-how-the-next-three-codexes-improve-your-units/

A few pages back superninja said "My initial intention to leak part of the revised codex is to bring the discussion here to a reasonable level. People were talking about losing 4++, keeping 3++ shield and all kinds of crazy idea."

So he calls losing the 4++ a crazy idea, which I take to mean 'It's way off the mark', so we do keep it. However he also calls keeping the 3++ crazy, so it seems we lose that.

We don't know what our shields will do as yet, I fully expect us to have a 4++ army wide (instead of a 5++ and a plus 1) so I would also expect that our shields are no longer storm shields but something different so they don't have to follow the same rules.

All shields seem to give +1 to armour saves so I expect that to stay and then they will likely have another bonus, perhaps -1 to be hit in melee like the Galadus dread. Could even make it a relic shield like the indominus captain and give us a 4+++ against MW but that wouldn't mess well with one of the host abilities we've seen.

As far as buffs/nerfs go - I'd put the change from Dd3 -> D2 as a side grade at best, every army released seems to have -1 damage now (new nids have just got it on all their monsters) making 2 damage pointless against alot of targets its needed against - it only seems good VS marines (who are admittedly alot of the meta still).

Other than that I think the shield hosts, stances and having sisters much more accessible (assuming their anti psyker does something useful) are pretty decent buffs, I do fear for the gutting of our strat section though.... I'm expecting ours to be pulled right in like marines and orks not pushed out like admech and drukhari.

I'm still pretty new to 9th and I'm familiar with some of the -1 damage abilities out there, but I'm not familiar with it being as prevalent as people on this board make it out to be.

Am I wrong, or aren't we talking about some units in some armies and some stratagems? There's no way that any army has access to -1 damage across the board except Death Guard, no?

Iggy88 wrote:
I'm still pretty new to 9th and I'm familiar with some of the -1 damage abilities out there, but I'm not familiar with it being as prevalent as people on this board make it out to be.

Am I wrong, or aren't we talking about some units in some armies and some stratagems? There's no way that any army has access to -1 damage across the board except Death Guard, no?

They're talking mainly from a competitive standpoint, because lots of people spam units like those in the majority of the top competing lists right now. So you have to deal with guys like loyalist redemptor or contemptor dreadnoughts that make using most melee custodes units unviable to engage with, you have Ramshackle for most Ork vehicles that are being used competitively, I believe Dark Eldar with a specific Coven subfaction has this as part of their trait and you've already mentioned Death Guard. With very few exceptions, -1D and some version of Transhuman seem to be a consistent thing that is applied across 9th edition codices to help beef up specific units which inevitably skews the armies moving towards these being some of the core of the meta which isn't likely to be changed anytime soon. So it makes a reliance on D2 weaponry a liability and Custodes have very few weapons that have flat 3 damage or higher that isn't from Forgeworld.

Yep, as well as the above you have the Beastboss on Squigosaur, and now Tyranids can put it on all their monsters for free. Altogether that's a huge amount of scary units that demand to be dealt with, with many armies able to get -1D on the majority of their scariest units. On top of this Eldar are rumoured to be getting it on their Wraithguards.

Twilight Pathways wrote:
A few pages back superninja said "My initial intention to leak part of the revised codex is to bring the discussion here to a reasonable level. People were talking about losing 4++, keeping 3++ shield and all kinds of crazy idea."

So he calls losing the 4++ a crazy idea, which I take to mean 'It's way off the mark', so we do keep it. However he also calls keeping the 3++ crazy, so it seems we lose that.

Man if that's what he meant (i.e. he knows it's gone) I'm gonna get mighty salty.

In slightly related news, even without our Codex, we're apparently the 2nd best faction in the game by winrate:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/12/14/metawatch-following-2000-games-across-the-2021-us-open-grand-tournament-series/

Can we stop with the win rate? The codex isn't even out yet. I think Tiberias said it before, We are an A faction, we are not S Tier. If we hold in top 5 at the end of 2023 I'll be happily surprised.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Can we stop with the win rate? The codex isn't even out yet. I think Tiberias said it before, We are an A faction, we are not S Tier. If we hold in top 5 at the end of 2023 I'll be happily surprised.

I'm bringing it up to kind of reinforce Siegler's point, which I quoted earlier (and because I thought it was surprising). That 'even if we keep the trash 8th rules' as long as we get a good faction specific secondary we'll be 'in a good place'. That analysis is looking pretty spot on.

Iggy88 wrote:
I'm still pretty new to 9th and I'm familiar with some of the -1 damage abilities out there, but I'm not familiar with it being as prevalent as people on this board make it out to be.

Am I wrong, or aren't we talking about some units in some armies and some stratagems? There's no way that any army has access to -1 damage across the board except Death Guard, no?

As someone mentioned above its more about the meta armies and units having it than anything else. If you want to do well you will face it.

Off the top of my head.... deathguard, drukhari coverns, drahzar, all dreads, dark angels deathwing (via a relic), thousand sons (a strat), ork beast boss (wl trait) and all ork vehicles, admech flyers, celestine...... all pretty meta stuff.

Well, maybe we'll get some bonkers +1dmg stratagem for axes or something....idk.

What I really want to see though is our version of the space marine "I can take 2 warlord traits" stratagem.
If you wanna play hero hammer, our faction should be the one to be able to do it best. (aside from knights of course)

 WisdomLS wrote:
Completely agree, i think the base rules 9f 9th are awesome they just have expanded out of them far to far.
The codexs are very flavourful but the rules are cranked up to hard as to make anything baseline pretty unplayable

I mean, this happens half the time with GW games


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grimskul wrote:

Iggy88 wrote:
I'm still pretty new to 9th and I'm familiar with some of the -1 damage abilities out there, but I'm not familiar with it being as prevalent as people on this board make it out to be.

Am I wrong, or aren't we talking about some units in some armies and some stratagems? There's no way that any army has access to -1 damage across the board except Death Guard, no?

They're talking mainly from a competitive standpoint, because lots of people spam units like those in the majority of the top competing lists right now. So you have to deal with guys like loyalist redemptor or contemptor dreadnoughts that make using most melee custodes units unviable to engage with, you have Ramshackle for most Ork vehicles that are being used competitively, I believe Dark Eldar with a specific Coven subfaction has this as part of their trait and you've already mentioned Death Guard. With very few exceptions, -1D and some version of Transhuman seem to be a consistent thing that is applied across 9th edition codices to help beef up specific units which inevitably skews the armies moving towards these being some of the core of the meta which isn't likely to be changed anytime soon. So it makes a reliance on D2 weaponry a liability and Custodes have very few weapons that have flat 3 damage or higher that isn't from Forgeworld.

Custodes are a melee army that has a single infantry model do more then 2 damage. And he's a special character.

Like, legit, the army remains the telemon show, but I am absolutely unwilling to buy three telemons


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Audustum wrote:

Twilight Pathways wrote:
A few pages back superninja said "My initial intention to leak part of the revised codex is to bring the discussion here to a reasonable level. People were talking about losing 4++, keeping 3++ shield and all kinds of crazy idea."

So he calls losing the 4++ a crazy idea, which I take to mean 'It's way off the mark', so we do keep it. However he also calls keeping the 3++ crazy, so it seems we lose that.

Man if that's what he meant (i.e. he knows it's gone) I'm gonna get mighty salty.

In slightly related news, even without our Codex, we're apparently the 2nd best faction in the game by winrate:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/12/14/metawatch-following-2000-games-across-the-2021-us-open-grand-tournament-series/

Warcom puts out trash statistics.

I'm not even sure where they source this from. All time maybe?

The article seems to indicate it's all of this year's U.S. Opens combined. It does seem to support Siegler and Nick's opinions though (they had us a little lower).

We're actually a good faction. We're getting some buffs that should boost us. I really want to see faction secondaries but I am optimistic.

I might point out that list has IMPERIAL KNIGHTS as 4th. Does anyone actually believe knights are dominating 9th? Or that Dark Angels are among the worst in the game? Or Necrons the worst? This list is sus as hell.

I hope we keep our 4+. Only thing that protects our custodes within reason from mass ap fire you see in the meta

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I might point out that list has IMPERIAL KNIGHTS as 4th. Does anyone actually believe knights are dominating 9th? Or that Dark Angels are among the worst in the game? Or Necrons the worst? This list is sus as hell.

From what I've been seeing on Goons Imperial Knights actually are having a bit of a renaissance. Necrons place occasionally but most people seem to think they do have issues. Competitively, DA are kinda of seen as a dud despite how awesome they look on paper.

So as far as 'how performance at the US Opens went', yeah, I can see it.

 WisdomLS wrote:

That would be nice but it would again be a rule written to counter a rule that is written to counter a rule.

You said it best. I would love it if we could move away from this kind of game design in 40k but it seems we are charging full speed ahead with it.

On a different note, with the datasheet reveals and seemingly true list of leaks we know quite alot about the upcoming codex but there is still alot to speculate upon.

As mentioned above - what do shields do?

We know we still have aegis of the emperor - I'm hoping its a catchall term for various rules (like angels of death). I think we';; have an army wide 4++, hopefully some generic MW mitigation power and possibly something else to help up our damage (maybe ignore damage reduction).

Similarly with sisters we can see they have the Daughters of the abyss rule. - this will cover their anti psyker ability which hopefully has some teeth this edition. I'm thinking a general aura of negative LD, a stackable negative to cast which hopefully has better range than before so can actually be used and I suspect they will have a native negative to hit as that is how they have been portrayed in the HH books.

What do our special characters do? Trajan has gone to D3 which is great but his buffs have taken a major hit as they will only effect Core - I think he will need something else to make him feel special. Knowing GW it will be a -1 dam or transhuman effect......

Valerian should be a proper special character now and not just a shield captain with a negligible additional ability and no customisation - I don't know enough about him to speculate but I think he is a good investigator so perhaps something to reflect that.
SImilarly with Aleya, but its certainly good to have a sister character on board.

Are they going to do anything to make wardens stand out from the crowd? I've asked for a box for christmas so I hope so ;-)

 Grimskul wrote:

 WisdomLS wrote:
Completely agree, i think the base rules 9f 9th are awesome they just have expanded out of them far to far.
The codexs are very flavourful but the rules are cranked up to hard as to make anything baseline pretty unplayable

Yeah, the changes to how they approached objectives is much better than 8th, its really the individual codices and the extremely slow rules-release rate that has made 9th ed feel like a slog since so many factions were basically left behind and you only had pretty much 3-5 codices that were consistently doing well since they were actually written for this edition in mind. GW really dropped the ball and should have been more open to a proper digital rules release versus the bizarre backwards approach where you only get the pdf rules once you buy the actual physical product. It would have pivoted much more smoothly during COVID where supply chain issues are so pronounced across all industries at the moment.

It also doesn't help how unimaginative GW is in applying the same -1D and transhuman mechanic across armies. The only good thing is stratagems generally getting toned down for most armies.

They wouldn't go fully digital so it wouldn't actually help if you can buy PDF. They wouldn't release PDF before book(they don't dilute the sales of launch at all since the first few months is what matters for sales).

Also they won't go for all codexes at once due to marketing reasons anyway.

So no it wouldn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

stratigo wrote:

I'm not even sure where they source this from. All time maybe?

Their invitational tournament. Which had bunch of own weird things like organizers made army lists. So don't put too much weight on it.

This was sourced from the 3 gw open major events, each a 3 day 200 plus player tournament played with the official tournament pack.

The invitational consisted of about 8 games, half of which were exhibition game, these stats are obviously not from there - dont just make gak up to suit your agenda! Thats exactly what your complaining about....

I think there is still one thing that could/would kill us, that being if our FW units still get core. IF Telemon or the other high value dreads lose core, our best units instantly become bikes and shield guardians. If they keep core, then pretty much nothing has changed. It's still the Telemon show.

The core keyword was already included in the latest FW book. Telemon doesn't have core, but the other dreads do, as do venetari. Presumably they won't include anything in the codex about FW, so this will likely stay the same. Of course they could errata the FW book, but I doubt they would as the keywords there will only even start to matter for the first time with the release of the codex.