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.

So for a list of things that have been included in these leaks so far but don't have official models for HH:
Consuls - Librarian, Esoterist, Delegatus, Pathfinder, Armistos, Herald, Siege Breaker, Mortificator.
Praetor - Bike upgrade, Jetbike upgrade.
Legion Scout Squad
LR Proteus Explorator (there is no such model)
SW Grey Stalkers
DA Marduk Sedras
DA Corswain

Then we have the plethora of units that do have models for HH or 40k that have been removed. NMNR does not apply here, shoddy work on the behalf of the rules team does.

As said earlier - those axed Army list entries make particulary no sense;

We have options axed - they have Miniatures
We have options remaining - they don't have any Miniatures

Why? Whats the logic behind this?

I guess GW is playing "bs bingo"...

[edit]
Didn't saw that Gert answered

Another interesting thing I noticed, Phalanx Warders now all have both bolter and power axe, which makes for a difficult time for anyone who had previously built so many with axe and so many with bolter, as per the old rules for them

warl0rdb0b wrote:
Another interesting thing I noticed, Phalanx Warders now all have both bolter and power axe, which makes for a difficult time for anyone who had previously built so many with axe and so many with bolter, as per the old rules for them

And the IF rite of war seems to have changed so that you need more Phalanx Warders, whereas you used to have to use Breachers for compulsory troops.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

Ask the guy who designs Primaris models

You mean Jes Goodwin? Or do you mean the rules team who decided that because he designed multiple types of bolter they should all have bespoke profiles?

As for the cut minis: I'll.be saddened for those affected if they are really gone but I would advise waiting until we see thefinal copy start circulating before we claim it's all gone. Just maybe if you're thinking on adding any of that stuff wait a bit just in case otherwiseet's wait for the actual rulebooks to go off of.

 Albertorius wrote:
Are they? Iron Havocs never needed any model that did not exist, and they're on the "no rules" list.

But they don't make any "Iron Havoc" models.

What difference does that really make, I hear you say.

All the difference.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

Ask the guy who designs Primaris models

You mean Jes Goodwin? Or do you mean the rules team who decided that because he designed multiple types of bolter they should all have bespoke profiles?

I mean whoever decided that they needed a dedicated all-Bolter squad, a dedicated all Chainsword+Pistol squad, a dedicated all-Plasma squad, a dedicated all-Melta squad...

 ClockworkZion wrote:
As for the cut minis: I'll.be saddened for those affected if they are really gone but I would advise waiting until we see thefinal copy start circulating before we claim it's all gone. Just maybe if you're thinking on adding any of that stuff wait a bit just in case otherwiseet's wait for the actual rulebooks to go off of.

It is why I'm being very specific in what I'm saying because there is still a part of me that doesn't believe this is real or the final copy. The biggest issue is the two projects I was working on in anticipation of this new edition have currently been shelved or postponed until the rules come out. I haven't got anything to build towards now which kills my excitement massively.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

Ask the guy who designs Primaris models

You mean Jes Goodwin? Or do you mean the rules team who decided that because he designed multiple types of bolter they should all have bespoke profiles?

I mean whoever decided that they needed a dedicated all-Bolter squad, a dedicated all Chainsword+Pistol squad, a dedicated all-Plasma squad, a dedicated all-Melta squad...

Ironically, isn’t that a port of rules that originally started in HH though? With Legion tactical squads, special weapon squads, etc.

 Jadenim wrote:

Ironically, isn’t that a port of rules that originally started in HH though? With Legion tactical squads, special weapon squads, etc.

Yes.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

Ask the guy who designs Primaris models

You mean Jes Goodwin? Or do you mean the rules team who decided that because he designed multiple types of bolter they should all have bespoke profiles?

I mean whoever decided that they needed a dedicated all-Bolter squad, a dedicated all Chainsword+Pistol squad, a dedicated all-Plasma squad, a dedicated all-Melta squad...

Jes Goodwin. He created the Primaris design and runs the sculpting studio.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jadenim wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

Ask the guy who designs Primaris models

You mean Jes Goodwin? Or do you mean the rules team who decided that because he designed multiple types of bolter they should all have bespoke profiles?

I mean whoever decided that they needed a dedicated all-Bolter squad, a dedicated all Chainsword+Pistol squad, a dedicated all-Plasma squad, a dedicated all-Melta squad...

Ironically, isn’t that a port of rules that originally started in HH though? With Legion tactical squads, special weapon squads, etc.

It is and it's one of my favorite things about Primaris.

 Jadenim wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

Ask the guy who designs Primaris models

You mean Jes Goodwin? Or do you mean the rules team who decided that because he designed multiple types of bolter they should all have bespoke profiles?

I mean whoever decided that they needed a dedicated all-Bolter squad, a dedicated all Chainsword+Pistol squad, a dedicated all-Plasma squad, a dedicated all-Melta squad...

Ironically, isn’t that a port of rules that originally started in HH though? With Legion tactical squads, special weapon squads, etc.

Yes, but this was caused by the Epic Ruleset.

New kit previews starting this Thursday folks.

I hope this no models no rules doesnt gets to Imperial Militia because thats my army specifically because how much freedom it gives you.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
New kit previews starting this Thursday folks.

They did say they'd be doing that. Hopefully it means rules previews too so we can start seeing how close the playtest rules are to the final copy.

 ScarletRose wrote:

 tauist wrote:
WTF - Tarantulas are out? They're hard enough to include in a 40K list already. Disappointed.

Soon, I will not only have an army incompatible with 40K, but 30K as well. Great

My guess is there's enough 3rd party sci-fi gun turrets out there that GW decided it was ok to toss them.

This aint even about "No Model No Rules" since these are still in stock on FW.

Tarantula sentry guns were pivotal to my Army's style of warfare, as ubiqutous as drop pods. I'll find a way to keep them in my games, house rule it if I must but they are staying.

And I'll keep on using Indomitus Terminators as well, play them as Counts-as Cataprachtii or something.

Yeah, Tarantulas are my goto for close support of my Rapiers. They provide basically something nothing else really does for the price.

Unless they're gonna come out with new 30k Indomitus sculpts I'm kinda pissed. I love all patterns of Terminator armour and removing one of the mainstays of some legions is beyond dumb. Just like the artillery and multitude of other stuff.

Isn't part of 30k kitbashing and making your own characters?

Racerguy180 wrote:


Isn't part of 30k kitbashing and making your own characters?

It doesn't seem like kitbashing is part of any GW game any more. Look at Titanicus, literally designed from the ground up to house magnets in their arm sockets and be able to swap out weapons. Battlebling starts making weapon arms and all of a sudden we have the warmaster/iconoclast situation where you can't swap anything between the 2 models even though they're the same class of titan with different arms.

Toofast wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:


Isn't part of 30k kitbashing and making your own characters?

It doesn't seem like kitbashing is part of any GW game any more. Look at Titanicus, literally designed from the ground up to house magnets in their arm sockets and be able to swap out weapons. Battlebling starts making weapon arms and all of a sudden we have the warmaster/iconoclast situation where you can't swap anything between the 2 models even though they're the same class of titan with different arms.

Not to mention you can't really get cards easily for new weapons and they sorta stopped making the thick card terminals for new stuff. Not to mention they make a million strategem cards then make them hard to get or limited run. But ya, they've like suffered the modularity they created and let everyone else eat their lunch on the accessories/weapons front.

So...seeing the pdf the leaks came from....some of the missing stuff might be hidden in the Traitor Legions since the pdf is all loyalist stuff.

Ah, the pdf's themselves have leaked! Interesting

 tauist wrote:
Ah, the pdf's themselves have leaked! Interesting

Only loyalist and core rules. /tg/ shared them today.


Automatically Appended Next Post:


So things may not be missing as originally thought.

Toofast wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:


Isn't part of 30k kitbashing and making your own characters?

It doesn't seem like kitbashing is part of any GW game any more. Look at Titanicus, literally designed from the ground up to house magnets in their arm sockets and be able to swap out weapons. Battlebling starts making weapon arms and all of a sudden we have the warmaster/iconoclast situation where you can't swap anything between the 2 models even though they're the same class of titan with different arms.

Easy on the assumptions there.

The core three Titan chassis are your flexibility. Any of those three have the widest choice of weapons and thus tactical/strategic role in your list. Once you get into the Warmaster, Warbringer and Dire Wolf offer new, but limited options to a would-be Princeps. They have their role, but don’t really operate outside of said role. That keeps everything in the game more or less desirable, and nothing rendered obsolete because a New Chassis Just Does That Job Better.

And yeah. Kit bashing absolutely is still part of the hobby. You don’t have to use Space Marine Lieutenant #3859 if you don’t want to. You’re still free to convert it up. Rightly or wrongly, GW’s approach seems to be removing the need to kitbash.

The document also has a box about "core and expanded models".
It says any models in that book are "core" and there will be a variety of "expanded" models coming in PDFs, White Dwarfs, etc.
It says there's no difference between Core and Expanded and both are 100% legit to play.
[So why have the distinction I ask]

So I remain hopeful that this missing stuff will be available in "expanded" units.

That makes me doubt the legitimacy of these documents. No other GW rules publication makes it clear that units/rules will be added in future expansions/WD supplements or as Legends. But also certain units being in the Traitor rules but not the Loyalist one makes me think this is also not real. There comes a point when too much stupidity is present in the rules decisions we've seen and I think this is all BS.

 Gert wrote:
That makes me doubt the legitimacy of these documents. No other GW rules publication makes it clear that units/rules will be added in future expansions/WD supplements or as Legends. But also certain units being in the Traitor rules but not the Loyalist one makes me think this is also not real. There comes a point when too much stupidity is present in the rules decisions we've seen and I think this is all BS.

I feel like the presence of stupidity in the rules is more likely to confirm their authenticity than the opposite.

 Crablezworth wrote:
I feel like the presence of stupidity in the rules is more likely to confirm their authenticity than the opposite.

There is a limit to stupidity though. I will agree that the rules teams often make stupid decisions but there is so much bad in these documents and the fact that after a few days of stewing and salt at the revelation that chunks of units were being axed, a new part of the document appears that says "oh yeah don't worry everything is fine", which hasn't been in a single other GW publication, to my recollection, leads me to beleive this is either super early versions of the rules that aren't going to be in the edition proper, or it's all BS.
Don't let hatred cloud your skepticism on rumours.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
The document also has a box about "core and expanded models".
It says any models in that book are "core" and there will be a variety of "expanded" models coming in PDFs, White Dwarfs, etc.
It says there's no difference between Core and Expanded and both are 100% legit to play.
[So why have the distinction I ask]

So I remain hopeful that this missing stuff will be available in "expanded" units.

I would have to guess it's to start all armies off (I hate to say) "Balanced".

Basically if you have everyone able to take Core models plus a couple legion specific ones then there is not all the specialization out there and easier for them to start off "balanced". As they start to roll out the legion specific books then some will get extra powerful because of the new Expanded units. By calling some Core and some Expanded they could write rules saying if one army with it's Expanded roster is facing another army which does not have it's expanded rules yet, then both sides may ONLY choose Core units to keep the battle reasonably "Balanced". If both armies have their Expanded supplements out and available then neither side is restricted from taking their Expanded units. Likewise if there are battles that take place during a certain period in the Hersey, then maybe one side will be restricted by the number of Core or Expanded units. Think of it like restrictions to troops, fast attack, elite or heavy.

The "core" and "expanded" Stuff makes lesser sense when you think about some Legions have special Units while others got all of them axed...

I would only see a limited form of Balance in those Army Lists when all Legion special units were treated as"expanded".

 Theophony wrote:
I would have to guess it's to start all armies off (I hate to say) "Balanced".

Basically if you have everyone able to take Core models plus a couple legion specific ones then there is not all the specialization out there and easier for them to start off "balanced". As they start to roll out the legion specific books then some will get extra powerful because of the new Expanded units. By calling some Core and some Expanded they could write rules saying if one army with it's Expanded roster is facing another army which does not have it's expanded rules yet, then both sides may ONLY choose Core units to keep the battle reasonably "Balanced". If both armies have their Expanded supplements out and available then neither side is restricted from taking their Expanded units. Likewise if there are battles that take place during a certain period in the Hersey, then maybe one side will be restricted by the number of Core or Expanded units. Think of it like restrictions to troops, fast attack, elite or heavy.

Except some Legions kept their full roster of units and Characters but some lost almost their entire list. It doesn't help balance to add in random arbitrary rules depending on what faction the players are using. It's just too stupid to be a legit reason.