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.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Do we know anything about the FW books so far outside that they're eventually happening?

We know that they are coming out later this year, and rumor is putting them around July-ish.

It sounds like they'll be staggered. I wouldn't be surprised to see one in March/April.

Where are you getting that from? Any info on what will be first? (Heretic astartes please please please. )

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Where are you getting that from? Any info on what will be first? (Heretic astartes please please please. )

Just by how I read this sentence.

Keep an eye out for the first in the new range of books from the Warhammer 40,000 Studio later in 2020.

No idea what it will be. For everyone's health i'll vote Astartes.

Marines first, followed by Chaos, followed by everything else, then there will be a round of improvements that get applied to everyone.

Except Chaos.

If I had to guess, I think they'll do two books at a time.

Marines/Chaos

Imperial Guard/ Xenos.


And for the love of God I hope they get the abilities and points right for the Destroyer Tank Hunter. That thing have been beaten back and forth for 15 years on what it does and how much it costs.

Historically, FW books have always been Guard first, then Marines, then Xenos.

 Trickstick wrote:
Historically, FW books have always been Guard first, then Marines, then Xenos.

In this case though, guard is misleading due to FW throwing R&H in with guard, which makes, limited sense i guess.
So it's mortal fodder for Chaos or IoM first and then the fancy pants afterwards.


Heck maybee we see an actual corsair list?

I'll still be very happy if my Hierodules could go down 150 points and gain a few more wounds/attacks so that they become actually worth bothering with.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I'll still be very happy if my Hierodules could go down 150 points and gain a few more wounds/attacks so that they become actually worth bothering with.

compared to knights most superheavies can't perfomr in regards to effectiveness.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I'll still be very happy if my Hierodules could go down 150 points and gain a few more wounds/attacks so that they become actually worth bothering with.

compared to knights most superheavies can't perfomr in regards to effectiveness.

Survivability or firepower?

The_Real_Chris wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I'll still be very happy if my Hierodules could go down 150 points and gain a few more wounds/attacks so that they become actually worth bothering with.

compared to knights most superheavies can't perfomr in regards to effectiveness.

Survivability or firepower?

Both, mostly because knights are designed to work as a mono faction.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Survivability or firepower?

Yes.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Do we know anything about the FW books so far outside that they're eventually happening?

We also know the main 40K Team will be writing the new FW books, not the Forge World Team. We all would have been pretty confident that was a good thing before Space Marines 2.0.

 alextroy wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Do we know anything about the FW books so far outside that they're eventually happening?

We also know the main 40K Team will be writing the new FW books, not the Forge World Team. We all would have been pretty confident that was a good thing before Space Marines 2.0.

considering the utter disregard brought to FW units in the previous CA's written by the GW team it was never out of question that it' would turn into a gakfest, except now we can toss a coin and the result will either be utter SM brokenness or useless as before.

 alextroy wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Do we know anything about the FW books so far outside that they're eventually happening?

We also know the main 40K Team will be writing the new FW books, not the Forge World Team. We all would have been pretty confident that was a good thing before Space Marines 2.0.

Yea I only hope the slow down on codexes helps them, because there is no way they're testing these PA books on this release schedule.

Like, Ritual of the Damned - the points match CA and it is the only PA book to have them so far. It is one of two scenarios:

A) The book was done after CA, which means there was maybe a month or two to test 3 factions - nowhere near enough time.
B) They knew these points before CA, which means they didn't test in the current meta (but that would be misleading if they intend to tone down marines, anyway). Which further kills the idea of play testing, because test results are totally futile if you smash them up against marines.

 cuda1179 wrote:
And for the love of God I hope they get the abilities and points right for the Destroyer Tank Hunter. That thing have been beaten back and forth for 15 years on what it does and how much it costs.

What would you define as being around the ballpark of "right" for the Destroyer, cuda?

Not Online!!! wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I'll still be very happy if my Hierodules could go down 150 points and gain a few more wounds/attacks so that they become actually worth bothering with.

compared to knights most superheavies can't perfomr in regards to effectiveness.

Drop my fellblade's points down to about 550 with full load out and I'll make some knights BURN.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Where are you getting that from? Any info on what will be first? (Heretic astartes please please please. )

Just by how I read this sentence.

Keep an eye out for the first in the new range of books from the Warhammer 40,000 Studio later in 2020.

No idea what it will be. For everyone's health i'll vote Astartes.

I could hold out hope 1ksons get an actually good book with decent rules but GW has proven they don't know what the feth they want to do with the faction. I never thought I would see the day where I wished 1ksons didn't get their own book book but damn the last 2 have just been such a huge disappointment.

 Dysartes wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
And for the love of God I hope they get the abilities and points right for the Destroyer Tank Hunter. That thing have been beaten back and forth for 15 years on what it does and how much it costs.

What would you define as being around the ballpark of "right" for the Destroyer, cuda?

Leman Russ basic stats for starters (obviously). I also think that it should have the fire-twice ability for its hull gun. As that one gun is basically all it has, it better be good too. I'd want it to be a mini Shadowsword. S10, Ap-3, D3 shots, 2D6 damage, 96 inch range. Perhaps minimal rolls on the damage too.

Obviously a waste against infantry, but totally brutal against tanks. I know it slightly overlaps with the Demolisher cannon, but I'd be willing to pay extra for the cannon.

Hey am I the only one who noticed that the traitor guardsmen from Blackstone Fortress are 35 ppm? Wasn't changed in the faq either.

Good job gw.

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Hey am I the only one who noticed that the traitor guardsmen from Blackstone Fortress are 35 ppm? Wasn't changed in the faq either.

Good job gw.

It was changed. From the CA19 errata:

Page 56 – Blackstone Fortress
Change the ‘Points per Model’ value to ‘Points per Unit’

And then they added errata to one of the units to say

"Borewyrm Infestation 1-2 12 (points per model)"

Why GW? Why do things like this?

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Hey am I the only one who noticed that the traitor guardsmen from Blackstone Fortress are 35 ppm? Wasn't changed in the faq either.

Good job gw.

That section could be clearer - all the models you'd expect to be units (Black Legionnaires, Beastmen, Cultists of the Abyss, Negavolt Cultists, Rein/Raus, Spindle Drones and Traitor Guardsmen) have per model costs that appear to be per unit costs instead.

That table really needs to be split down to units and characters, with the fixed-size-units having the column titled points per unit instead, given they're units with a fixed size.

Have you emailed the FAQ email address about the matter, btw, or just complained on here?

 Dysartes wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Hey am I the only one who noticed that the traitor guardsmen from Blackstone Fortress are 35 ppm? Wasn't changed in the faq either.

Good job gw.

That section could be clearer - all the models you'd expect to be units (Black Legionnaires, Beastmen, Cultists of the Abyss, Negavolt Cultists, Rein/Raus, Spindle Drones and Traitor Guardsmen) have per model costs that appear to be per unit costs instead.

That table really needs to be split down to units and characters, with the fixed-size-units having the column titled points per unit instead, given they're units with a fixed size.

Have you emailed the FAQ email address about the matter, btw, or just complained on here?

Yup. Auto answer. I see what bcb was talking about in the errata. They only listed the one unit. None of the rest. For feths sake.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Hey am I the only one who noticed that the traitor guardsmen from Blackstone Fortress are 35 ppm? Wasn't changed in the faq either.

Good job gw.

That section could be clearer - all the models you'd expect to be units (Black Legionnaires, Beastmen, Cultists of the Abyss, Negavolt Cultists, Rein/Raus, Spindle Drones and Traitor Guardsmen) have per model costs that appear to be per unit costs instead.

That table really needs to be split down to units and characters, with the fixed-size-units having the column titled points per unit instead, given they're units with a fixed size.

Have you emailed the FAQ email address about the matter, btw, or just complained on here?

Yup. Auto answer. I see what bcb was talking about in the errata. They only listed the one unit. None of the rest. For feths sake.

*looks at errata document*

...no, I think the changes there sort things. The Borewyrm Infestation is the only entry in the table with a variable unit size, so it is the only one needing the "(points per model)" adding to the cost column once that column is retitled "Points per unit" (which is done as part of the errata).

You pay 35 points for a unit of 7 Traitor Guardsmen (including wargear), or 24 points for a unit of 4 Chaos Beastmen. I don't have the datasheets to hand, but I'm fairly sure they have no wargear options, and as you can't vary the size of the unit the ppm value is irrelevant.

 Dysartes wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Hey am I the only one who noticed that the traitor guardsmen from Blackstone Fortress are 35 ppm? Wasn't changed in the faq either.

Good job gw.

That section could be clearer - all the models you'd expect to be units (Black Legionnaires, Beastmen, Cultists of the Abyss, Negavolt Cultists, Rein/Raus, Spindle Drones and Traitor Guardsmen) have per model costs that appear to be per unit costs instead.

That table really needs to be split down to units and characters, with the fixed-size-units having the column titled points per unit instead, given they're units with a fixed size.

Have you emailed the FAQ email address about the matter, btw, or just complained on here?

Yup. Auto answer. I see what bcb was talking about in the errata. They only listed the one unit. None of the rest. For feths sake.

*looks at errata document*

...no, I think the changes there sort things. The Borewyrm Infestation is the only entry in the table with a variable unit size, so it is the only one needing the "(points per model)" adding to the cost column once that column is retitled "Points per unit" (which is done as part of the errata).

You pay 35 points for a unit of 7 Traitor Guardsmen (including wargear), or 24 points for a unit of 4 Chaos Beastmen. I don't have the datasheets to hand, but I'm fairly sure they have no wargear options, and as you can't vary the size of the unit the ppm value is irrelevant.

Well they could have been a little clearer. It is a digital document. It wasn't exactly like they were trying to save on page count.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Dysartes wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Hey am I the only one who noticed that the traitor guardsmen from Blackstone Fortress are 35 ppm? Wasn't changed in the faq either.

Good job gw.

That section could be clearer - all the models you'd expect to be units (Black Legionnaires, Beastmen, Cultists of the Abyss, Negavolt Cultists, Rein/Raus, Spindle Drones and Traitor Guardsmen) have per model costs that appear to be per unit costs instead.

That table really needs to be split down to units and characters, with the fixed-size-units having the column titled points per unit instead, given they're units with a fixed size.

Have you emailed the FAQ email address about the matter, btw, or just complained on here?

Yup. Auto answer. I see what bcb was talking about in the errata. They only listed the one unit. None of the rest. For feths sake.

*looks at errata document*

...no, I think the changes there sort things. The Borewyrm Infestation is the only entry in the table with a variable unit size, so it is the only one needing the "(points per model)" adding to the cost column once that column is retitled "Points per unit" (which is done as part of the errata).

You pay 35 points for a unit of 7 Traitor Guardsmen (including wargear), or 24 points for a unit of 4 Chaos Beastmen. I don't have the datasheets to hand, but I'm fairly sure they have no wargear options, and as you can't vary the size of the unit the ppm value is irrelevant.

Well they could have been a little clearer. It is a digital document. It wasn't exactly like they were trying to save on page count.

The first element in the Blackstone Fortress line says to change the column header from Points per Model to Points per Unit, and this templating is then repeated when they show the one entry that needs amending to work under that template - sure, they could've reprinted the whole table, but why do that when there is only one row that needs errata?

 Dysartes wrote:


That section could be clearer - all the models you'd expect to be units (Black Legionnaires, Beastmen, Cultists of the Abyss, Negavolt Cultists, Rein/Raus, Spindle Drones and Traitor Guardsmen) have per model costs that appear to be per unit costs instead.

That table really needs to be split down to units and characters, with the fixed-size-units having the column titled points per unit instead, given they're units with a fixed size.

Well some people can apparently think of better ways it can be handled.