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.

stormcraft wrote:
Review Videos are up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4qY8iokLh0

No new rules or Buffs for GK at all.

This is deeply dissapointing.

And the fac that they buffed all of 40k besides normal Marines/CSM is really hard to understand tbh.

I really dont get the logic or thougt process on that.

For those wondering the datasheets are intercessors and daemon units only


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Newman wrote:

Just more fuel for the "GW is going to squat old-marines" there. The points drops had me thinking about picking up some Sternguard and another Dreadnaught for a couple of minutes, and then it sunk in (again) that I already regret buying all the stuff I own that isn't Primaris and I'm probably going to regret it more at some point in the not-to-distant future.

Doesn't your first statement stand in contrast to the rest of it?

Or they don't care.

Or there is a chaos update on the horizon that will change it.

Wayniac wrote:
Or they don't care.

Or there is a chaos update on the horizon that will change it.

I can see 23 point Slaanesh CSM termies with plasma being super strong. They could up the CP to double tap, but then at 3 CP it becomes useless for all but the biggest baddest units (e.g. just terminators).

 Daedalus81 wrote:

The Newman wrote:
Just more fuel for the "GW is going to squat old-marines" there.

The points drops had me thinking about picking up some Sternguard and another Dreadnaught for a couple of minutes, and then it sunk in (again) that I already regret buying all the stuff I own that isn't Primaris and I'm probably going to regret it more at some point in the not-to-distant future.

Doesn't your first statement stand in contrast to the rest of it?

I don't see how. Point changes today make some old-marine options that I wouldn't have looked twice a bit more attractive, but in the longer term Primaris marines are the future. Sternguard I buy today are probably destined to be proxies for Veteran Intercessors or whatever, the smarter move is just waiting for Primaris wave two instead of taking the bait and buying stock GW is trying to get rid of before they discontinue the line and no one wants it anymore.

Rules changes would have been in the Big FAQ (and probably as a Beta rule first).

Why would core rules changes be found in CA? Rumors sounded fishy immediately to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Helbrute with Scourge and Reaper autocannon is 105 points now. Pretty awesome if you ask me. I used them before as it was already one of the few heavy hitters of DG. It being cheap like that makes me happy.

Also, prince went down 10points? Haha, I thought it'd go up 30 points at least (Same with crawler basically, but I haven't used it yet).

Plague marines got their points changed the third time in 8th edition. They're now that cheap that I'll probably take squads of 7 again, as they're a very solid unit anyway.

Tallyman 50 points seems like an auto-include.

Prince with wings remained the same. You still need to pay for his war gear. They're just printing the option since its missing from the codex, and only found in the FAQ.

Yeah. The whole "They are changing traits" sounded great on paper but CA isn't the place for it. Not to say those rumors were incorrect, but the timing might have been.

I think they'll get to those changes eventually.

The Newman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

The Newman wrote:
Just more fuel for the "GW is going to squat old-marines" there.

The points drops had me thinking about picking up some Sternguard and another Dreadnaught for a couple of minutes, and then it sunk in (again) that I already regret buying all the stuff I own that isn't Primaris and I'm probably going to regret it more at some point in the not-to-distant future.

Doesn't your first statement stand in contrast to the rest of it?

I don't see how. Point changes today make some old-marine options that I wouldn't have looked twice a bit more attractive, but in the longer term Primaris marines are the future. Sternguard I buy today are probably destined to be proxies for Veteran Intercessors or whatever, the smarter move is just waiting for Primaris wave two instead of taking the bait and buying stock GW is trying to get rid of before they discontinue the line and no one wants it anymore.

I don't disagree with not investing in old models, but it's also self fulfilling prophecy. GW will continue to produce what sells. Obviously new people jumping on will not likely buy old stuff when Primaris have the same flexibility. Not buying old stuff just hastens the decline, but that's probably the smart choice.

All that, however, is separate from points policy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:
Yeah. The whole "They are changing traits" sounded great on paper but CA isn't the place for it. Not to say those rumors were incorrect, but the timing might have been.

I think they'll get to those changes eventually.

I would think CA is the better place to do it, but I'm a patient man.

Wayniac wrote:
Yeah. The whole "They are changing traits" sounded great on paper but CA isn't the place for it. Not to say those rumors were incorrect, but the timing might have been.

I think they'll get to those changes eventually.

Ok, so what is the place for it? When the spring FAQ comes out and has no rules changes, everyone says it will be done in the summer FAQ or CA. Then both of those come, there are no rules changes in sight, but people keep telling that in the next upcomming thing the changes will sure be there. Is the place for rules changes the event books ?

I would think CA is the better place to do it, but I'm a patient man.

I envy you, I had to take double the dose of anti depressants to go to sleep today.

Karol wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Yeah. The whole "They are changing traits" sounded great on paper but CA isn't the place for it. Not to say those rumors were incorrect, but the timing might have been.

I think they'll get to those changes eventually.

Ok, so what is the place for it? When the spring FAQ comes out and has no rules changes, everyone says it will be done in the summer FAQ or CA. Then both of those come, there are no rules changes in sight, but people keep telling that in the next upcomming thing the changes will sure be there. Is the place for rules changes the event books ?

I would think CA is the better place to do it, but I'm a patient man.

I envy you, I had to take double the dose of anti depressants to go to sleep today.

CA would be the place for it if they said it wasn't going to be for points balance and then adding more bloat--I mean options--for Open/Narrative/Matched. What they really need to do is in addition to Chapter Approved (because this is GW), have an actual rules update periodically. That's where. GW seems reluctant to take advantage of having datasheets by being able to update them independent of everything else; they don't seem to "get" how rules work in the digital age. They don't even do this for AOS where all of the warscrolls are freely available online, so it would literally be update that, post a thing on community saying these have been updated to adjust balance, and boom done.

GW being GW, it will probably be in another book to make sure that it gets sold.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

The Newman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

The Newman wrote:
Just more fuel for the "GW is going to squat old-marines" there.

The points drops had me thinking about picking up some Sternguard and another Dreadnaught for a couple of minutes, and then it sunk in (again) that I already regret buying all the stuff I own that isn't Primaris and I'm probably going to regret it more at some point in the not-to-distant future.

Doesn't your first statement stand in contrast to the rest of it?

I don't see how. Point changes today make some old-marine options that I wouldn't have looked twice a bit more attractive, but in the longer term Primaris marines are the future. Sternguard I buy today are probably destined to be proxies for Veteran Intercessors or whatever, the smarter move is just waiting for Primaris wave two instead of taking the bait and buying stock GW is trying to get rid of before they discontinue the line and no one wants it anymore.

I don't disagree with not investing in old models, but it's also self fulfilling prophecy. GW will continue to produce what sells. Obviously new people jumping on will not likely buy old stuff when Primaris have the same flexibility. Not buying old stuff just hastens the decline, but that's probably the smart choice.

All that, however, is separate from points policy.

Is it though? Sure, all but the most rabidly competitive players are likely to have something in their collection that they bought just because they like the model, but there's no way GW doesn't sell significantly more of whatever the good options are in any given army. If they want to keep selling Tac squads they make them better. If they want to sell more Intercessors instead they make those better instead. Which one of those two things happened?

(Admittedly both, but Tacs got better indirectly due to weapon cost changes that impacted everything else while Intercessors got direct buffs.)

To me the message is clear.
Since we know that someday minimarines are going the way of the squats, GW is starting by making tac squads less attractive.

We wanted viable marines, and we got that. Intercessors at 17 are nice troops, and 14 point veterans fix a lot of stuff for marines, including having something decent to put in transports. The new dreadnaughts open up a lot of plays too. The price was tac squads, which were borderline unsalvageable and were discarded. Now they are there if you want them, but the good marine troops are scouts (buffed) and intercessors (buffed).

 Grimgold wrote:

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
The fact an annihilation barge is now 33 points cheaper in total makes them a very attractive option.

Immortals and deathmarks getting a 2 point drop whilst warriors are now a point cheaper brings smiles to metal faces.

No because they are still saddled with Tesla destructors, which are useless. It's nice that you can take a gauss cannon on it though, but being a double cost destroyer probably does not rank as attractive.

How the hell is a tesla destructor useless?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On the necron front gauss blasters and tesla carbines have dropped 2 points each, making units that use them cheaper. Tomb blade are now usually 4 points cheaper for example.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
The fact an annihilation barge is now 33 points cheaper in total makes them a very attractive option.

Immortals and deathmarks getting a 2 point drop whilst warriors are now a point cheaper brings smiles to metal faces.

No because they are still saddled with Tesla destructors, which are useless. It's nice that you can take a gauss cannon on it though, but being a double cost destroyer probably does not rank as attractive.

How the hell is a tesla destructor useless?

By typical Dakka hyperbole. It if can't oneshot a knight it's useless, and if it can it's still useless because it doesn't delete 40 guardsmen at the same time. A twin tesla destructor inflicts 2,64 damages on a ravager, double the damage inflicted by the gauss cannon on the same target. I wouldn't call it useless.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Doesn't mean much, and I'm convinced that putting one model against another doesn't mean squat, but just wanted to say that now an annihilation barge can win a shoot out with a 3x dissie ravager...

The Newman wrote:


Is it though? Sure, all but the most rabidly competitive players are likely to have something in their collection that they bought just because they like the model, but there's no way GW doesn't sell significantly more of whatever the good options are in any given army. If they want to keep selling Tac squads they make them better. If they want to sell more Intercessors instead they make those better instead. Which one of those two things happened?

(Admittedly both, but Tacs got better indirectly due to weapon cost changes that impacted everything else while Intercessors got direct buffs.)

I'm positive dropping points has a net positive effect on purchases for those units. I just don't see a direct motive given that increases have come to weak units and decreases to strong ones (much less for those though).

Did the unit need a price drop?
Was the price drop appropriate?

If you answer yes to both then there is little room to claim it was done for sales.

Tank Commander you can't arguably answer yes to both, but then if the goal was to sell LRBTs then why didn't the regular datasheet go down?

The other problem with that theory is that the logic is inconsistent. People claim GW priced up FW models, but we just saw decreases for many. Just because people disagree with the status of titans in regular 40K doesn't mean GW is pricing them out of sales.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Ah, the typical inane trolling of 'hurr durr if you don't like something sell your army that you've invested a ton of time and money into for a pittance.'

I'll remember this comment when the nerf bat next hits TS and you express any disappointment.

What is your beef? Ork codex and CA was likely written at about the same time - so no changes - this should have been expected.

Current orks are top tier. An unbuffed ork boy was undercosted at 6 points. A 7 point buffed boy with traits and +1 attack is actually better than the 6 point boy was. DE with no changes is actually kind of suprising - I am assuming they used DE as baseline for everything and tried to get every codex up to that level. They did fail miserably at this - but that seems to be what happened.

So with the leaks and reviews for chapter approved, what does everything Imperial Knights future is looking like?.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

The Newman wrote:


Is it though? Sure, all but the most rabidly competitive players are likely to have something in their collection that they bought just because they like the model, but there's no way GW doesn't sell significantly more of whatever the good options are in any given army. If they want to keep selling Tac squads they make them better. If they want to sell more Intercessors instead they make those better instead. Which one of those two things happened?

(Admittedly both, but Tacs got better indirectly due to weapon cost changes that impacted everything else while Intercessors got direct buffs.)

I'm positive dropping points has a net positive effect on purchases for those units. I just don't see a direct motive given that increases have come to weak units and decreases to strong ones (much less for those though).

Did the unit need a price drop?
Was the price drop appropriate?

If you answer yes to both then there is little room to claim it was done for sales.

Tank Commander you can't arguably answer yes to both, but then if the goal was to sell LRBTs then why didn't the regular datasheet go down?

The other problem with that theory is that the logic is inconsistent. People claim GW priced up FW models, but we just saw decreases for many. Just because people disagree with the status of titans in regular 40K doesn't mean GW is pricing them out of sales.

That's a nonsensical argument. The argument that actually holds water is that if sales were GW's only motivation you would never see anything go up in point cost, and we have seen some things go up that were obvious problems. The counter-argument to that is that losing some sales on Shining Spears or Knights is acceptable if it improves sales overall by improving the broader game-state.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Ah, the typical inane trolling of 'hurr durr if you don't like something sell your army that you've invested a ton of time and money into for a pittance.'

I'll remember this comment when the nerf bat next hits TS and you express any disappointment.

What is your beef? Ork codex and CA was likely written at about the same time - so no changes - this should have been expected.

Current orks are top tier. An unbuffed ork boy was undercosted at 6 points. A 7 point buffed boy with traits and +1 attack is actually better than the 6 point boy was. DE with no changes is actually kind of suprising - I am assuming they used DE as baseline for everything and tried to get every codex up to that level. They did fail miserably at this - but that seems to be what happened.

You're right about CA, it was well known that orks would have been out of the book because their codex is too new.

I disagree about drukhari, it's the aeldari soup that is top tier and too powerful. In fact I wished that several drukhari units and loadouts were buffed by CA since we have lots of underperforming stuff.

Orks top tiers is also debatable, but I think SM are solid top tiers, always have been so fair enough. AM and IK deserved a lot of nerfs, way more than drukhari, and the fact that they didn't get massive points hikes is the real surprise.

Where did you get that +1A for orks boyz?

 Blackie wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Ah, the typical inane trolling of 'hurr durr if you don't like something sell your army that you've invested a ton of time and money into for a pittance.'

I'll remember this comment when the nerf bat next hits TS and you express any disappointment.

What is your beef? Ork codex and CA was likely written at about the same time - so no changes - this should have been expected.

Current orks are top tier. An unbuffed ork boy was undercosted at 6 points. A 7 point buffed boy with traits and +1 attack is actually better than the 6 point boy was. DE with no changes is actually kind of suprising - I am assuming they used DE as baseline for everything and tried to get every codex up to that level. They did fail miserably at this - but that seems to be what happened.

You're right about CA, it was well known that orks would have been out of the book because their codex is too new.

I disagree about drukhari, it's the aeldari soup that is top tier and too powerful. In fact I wished that several drukhari units and loadouts were buffed by CA since we have lots of underperforming stuff.

Orks top tiers is also debatable, but I think SM are solid top tiers, always have been so fair enough. AM and IK deserved a lot of nerfs, way more than drukhari, and the fact that they didn't get massive points hikes is the real surprise.

Where did you get that +1A for orks boyz?

Speaking of the +1 attack if they have a certain number of boys in the unit. Much like the geensteeler rule? right?

Did necrons get any rules buffs?

The Newman wrote:


That's a nonsensical argument. The argument that actually holds water is that if sales were GW's only motivation you would never see anything go up in point cost, and we have seen some things go up that were obvious problems. The counter-argument to that is that losing some sales on Shining Spears or Knights is acceptable if it improves sales overall by improving the broader game-state.

And so point costs will just decrease ad infinitum?

A balanced game state increases sales - correct. That doesn't mean GW has targeted specific units to achieve that result.

When all units are viable all sales are viable and that's win-win.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
Did necrons get any rules buffs?

We'll see what faqs bring.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

The Newman wrote:


That's a nonsensical argument. The argument that actually holds water is that if sales were GW's only motivation you would never see anything go up in point cost, and we have seen some things go up that were obvious problems. The counter-argument to that is that losing some sales on Shining Spears or Knights is acceptable if it improves sales overall by improving the broader game-state.

And so point costs will just decrease ad infinitum?

A balanced game state increases sales - correct. That doesn't mean GW has targeted specific units to achieve that result.

When all units are viable all sales are viable and that's win-win.

That's the opposite of what I said, I flat out said that some things have gone up in price. I was using Shining Spears and Knights as examples, not implying that GW has specific targets.

(Also, how do you thing all units could end up viable without most things being adjusted?)

I think we're saying the same things from different perspectives.

Regardless as long as GW is changing points in the right ways everyone wins.

The only difference is choosing whether or not to be cynical about those changes.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

The Newman wrote:


That's a nonsensical argument. The argument that actually holds water is that if sales were GW's only motivation you would never see anything go up in point cost, and we have seen some things go up that were obvious problems. The counter-argument to that is that losing some sales on Shining Spears or Knights is acceptable if it improves sales overall by improving the broader game-state.

And so point costs will just decrease ad infinitum?

A balanced game state increases sales - correct. That doesn't mean GW has targeted specific units to achieve that result.

When all units are viable all sales are viable and that's win-win.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
Did necrons get any rules buffs?

We'll see what faqs bring.

Yes this. Don’t Nerf good units. Buff everything else (except grey knights lol) so everything is good.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Karol wrote:

Bharring wrote:
@Karol: https://imgur.com/gallery/d8Ae4TN

ok thanks man. LoL interceptors costing the same as strikes and 39 termintors when other armies get theirs for 23.

Massive cuts on characters. Draigo is only 180, which is a steal. Psilencers and psycannons cut in half. GK termies still have force weapons. Not sure why CSM termies are 28 and loyalist are 23 though.

Screwey feature of kit pricing. Loyalist Terminators are stuck with powerfists, which means the bare minimum price is now 37pts (unless there's a change to powerfists or storm bolters I haven't noticed), while Chaos Terminators can just take power swords and come in at 34pts.

Which doesn't excuse making Chaos Terminators with powerfists 5pts more than an equivalent loyalist Terminator, but trying to separate out all the equipment prices from the unit prices leads to all kind of screwey oversights like that. Remember when Dire Avengers were 17pts/model because they had to give the shuriken catapult a price for putting it on an Autarch, but forgot to take the cost out of the Dire Avenger's price?

Waiting to see the Victrix Guard stuff before I start whining about old marines getting squatted, since the only units in that formation that can be Primaris is the Captain and the Ancient.

It might even be something that makes me want to run an army of Locutarus. I mean Vanguard Veterans.

Well looking at the review therecs really nothing I need asides from the points adjustments and I have those now. Sorry, GW, I won't be turning around and bending over to pick up CA 18. I've already paid for my codexes and don't feel lime paying again because you changed the points values.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
Well looking at the review therecs really nothing I need asides from the points adjustments and I have those now. Sorry, GW, I won't be turning around and bending over to pick up CA 18. I've already paid for my codexes and don't feel lime paying again because you changed the points values.

Just use battlescribe or another tool for army building. The pt changes will be integrated asap.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I think we're saying the same things from different perspectives.

Regardless as long as GW is changing points in the right ways everyone wins.

The only difference is choosing whether or not to be cynical about those changes.

Ok. will the CA changes make more people play GK, as in new people buy GK from GW? I think no. For people already with GK armies did anything new become good? Again no, the good stuff is the stuff people already had bought in 8th ed. So for GK players the changes were made to do what? Force people to buy more GK to have a legal sized army, without fixing the army? Or maybe make GK players buy another codex and another army, and hope that the GK player gets angry enought to buy a whole new army later on, seeing how more efficient anything he can ally in is?

I must be missing something about GW plans and GK. Point cost drops mean little when they are applied to units you take very few of like HQs or special characters, or never will take anyway because they are bad like special weapons, purifires etc The point costs mean even less when all armies get them. I would see the drops as a small buff to GK, if it was just GK only. But all armies got cheaper and if all armies got cheaper, and GK clearly did not get some whooping 50% drop in points, then the point change may as well have not happened. I will get 5 strikes and a rhino and my opponent will take 1-3 more units too, only his units will be better then anything I can take, so the gap will only get wider. Worse thing is that from a GK players perspective something like tau suits becoming playable or cheaper plasma is a huge problem. We can't just take 15 scouts and load up on characters, and call it a day adding a castellan.

Karol wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I think we're saying the same things from different perspectives.

Regardless as long as GW is changing points in the right ways everyone wins.

The only difference is choosing whether or not to be cynical about those changes.

Ok. will the CA changes make more people play GK, as in new people buy GK from GW? I think no. For people already with GK armies did anything new become good? Again no, the good stuff is the stuff people already had bought in 8th ed. So for GK players the changes were made to do what? Force people to buy more GK to have a legal sized army, without fixing the army? Or maybe make GK players buy another codex and another army, and hope that the GK player gets angry enought to buy a whole new army later on, seeing how more efficient anything he can ally in is?

I must be missing something about GW plans and GK. Point cost drops mean little when they are applied to units you take very few of like HQs or special characters, or never will take anyway because they are bad like special weapons, purifires etc The point costs mean even less when all armies get them. I would see the drops as a small buff to GK, if it was just GK only. But all armies got cheaper and if all armies got cheaper, and GK clearly did not get some whooping 50% drop in points, then the point change may as well have not happened. I will get 5 strikes and a rhino and my opponent will take 1-3 more units too, only his units will be better then anything I can take, so the gap will only get wider. Worse thing is that from a GK players perspective something like tau suits becoming playable or cheaper plasma is a huge problem. We can't just take 15 scouts and load up on characters, and call it a day adding a castellan.

8e 40k isn't a game, it's a viral marketing campaign for Imperial Guardsmen/Imperial Knights.