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.

 Togusa wrote:

 Carnikang wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

 Carnikang wrote:
I'm just hoping that Space Marines make enough money for GW to consider producing plastic Biovores, Lictors, Pyrovores, Shrikes, redone Deathleaper, and Red Terror.

Get that money Space Marines....

I've heard from several sources that GW has a 20 year policy on models, once those models hit 20 years, I'm sure they'll be replaced. People need to be patient, GWs releases have been in overdrive for three to four full years now, we've seen more new models kits since 2016 than we did the previous decade, and they're not done yet. Look at how AoS evolved over time. Your factions will get redone, necrons are proof of that. You're just going to have to be patient and wait it out.

-squint-

I am having a hard time guessing whether this is sarcasm or a legitimate bit of scuttlebutt.

I've heard this from a lot of people, including my local gw store manager. Once a model hits the big 20, it gets either replaced with a new version, or with a new unit entirely. I expect that Tyranids, Eldar and Guard will get the necron treatment within the next 18-24 months, and I imagine Orcs will also show up at some point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Carnikang wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

 Carnikang wrote:
I'm just hoping that Space Marines make enough money for GW to consider producing plastic Biovores, Lictors, Pyrovores, Shrikes, redone Deathleaper, and Red Terror.

Get that money Space Marines....

I've heard from several sources that GW has a 20 year policy on models, once those models hit 20 years, I'm sure they'll be replaced. People need to be patient, GWs releases have been in overdrive for three to four full years now, we've seen more new models kits since 2016 than we did the previous decade, and they're not done yet. Look at how AoS evolved over time. Your factions will get redone, necrons are proof of that. You're just going to have to be patient and wait it out.

-squint-

I am having a hard time guessing whether this is sarcasm or a legitimate bit of scuttlebutt.

If that's true, then they're behind schedule on the Ork Boyz, Cadian Shock Troops and Catachan Jungle Fighters.

Cadian plastic sprues are 2002 correct? So they still have 2 years before hitting the big 20.

But Beserkers hit 20 two years ago. That theory is also massively blown out of the water by Falcons and Vypers, which are both well over 20 without replacements.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

 Carnikang wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

 Carnikang wrote:
I'm just hoping that Space Marines make enough money for GW to consider producing plastic Biovores, Lictors, Pyrovores, Shrikes, redone Deathleaper, and Red Terror.

Get that money Space Marines....

I've heard from several sources that GW has a 20 year policy on models, once those models hit 20 years, I'm sure they'll be replaced. People need to be patient, GWs releases have been in overdrive for three to four full years now, we've seen more new models kits since 2016 than we did the previous decade, and they're not done yet. Look at how AoS evolved over time. Your factions will get redone, necrons are proof of that. You're just going to have to be patient and wait it out.

-squint-

I am having a hard time guessing whether this is sarcasm or a legitimate bit of scuttlebutt.

I've heard this from a lot of people, including my local gw store manager. Once a model hits the big 20, it gets either replaced with a new version, or with a new unit entirely. I expect that Tyranids, Eldar and Guard will get the necron treatment within the next 18-24 months, and I imagine Orcs will also show up at some point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Carnikang wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

 Carnikang wrote:
I'm just hoping that Space Marines make enough money for GW to consider producing plastic Biovores, Lictors, Pyrovores, Shrikes, redone Deathleaper, and Red Terror.

Get that money Space Marines....

I've heard from several sources that GW has a 20 year policy on models, once those models hit 20 years, I'm sure they'll be replaced. People need to be patient, GWs releases have been in overdrive for three to four full years now, we've seen more new models kits since 2016 than we did the previous decade, and they're not done yet. Look at how AoS evolved over time. Your factions will get redone, necrons are proof of that. You're just going to have to be patient and wait it out.

-squint-

I am having a hard time guessing whether this is sarcasm or a legitimate bit of scuttlebutt.

If that's true, then they're behind schedule on the Ork Boyz, Cadian Shock Troops and Catachan Jungle Fighters.

Cadian plastic sprues are 2002 correct? So they still have 2 years before hitting the big 20.

But Beserkers hit 20 two years ago. That theory is also massively blown out of the water by Falcons and Vypers, which are both well over 20 without replacements.

To name a couple.

Also see Avatar of Khaine, Colonel Schaffer, other phoenix lords

Lets not talk about how old eldar minatures are again.. Not while there another wave of space marines with some pointless plastic-brick-with-guns. Makes me sad...

I hope they don't replace the falcon kit for another 50 years, it's one of the best ever made and there's about a bajillion other things in the Eldar army that need a remake much worse.

How is any of this News and Rumors for 9th edition?

yukishiro1 wrote:
The whole point of Primaris was to replace the entire marine line with new models so all marine players would have to buy whole new armies. There is no other reason for Primaris. It is 100% about getting marine players to replace their armies. The lore is just a shallow justification for getting people to replace their armies.

You can't do that all at once, it would piss people off way too much and lots of people would just quit the game rather than having to immediately drop 1k on a new army. You gotta boil the frog, do it slowly, piece by piece, so before people know it they've replaced their army without realizing they had to.

GW are smart when it comes to selling people stuff. If they weren't, they wouldn't be the biggest, most successful miniature company by far.

Yea they'll let old marines die on the vine. They'll be supported a good while in rules, but eventually they'll fade away.

 ingtaer wrote:

How is any of this News and Rumors for 9th edition?

It's almost like an internet forum post that isn't curated mod/press-release posts will tend to have a natural ebb and flow of the conversation within it, which may drift slightly from the strict definition of the topic.

So, some actual news, apparently the GW team are "aware" of the 1+ save issue and will fix it. How true that is or how well they will fix it is yet to be seen.

Something I just noticed is that vehicles on bases will just use the base for all measuring. So the annoyance of a valkyie's hull footprint being massive, and having to worry about it hanging over the edge of the board, will be gone.

I do see some ambiguity in their repeated use of the term "(or hull)". However, I believe that the hull only becomes a thing you account for when a model doesn't have a base, due to the initial definition.

Measuring distances, page 5 of free rules, 1st paragraph:

If a model does not have a base, such as is the case with many vehicles, measure to the closest point of any part of that model; this is called measuring to the model’s hull.

I can see people trying to use the hull on based models, mainly as a hold over from 8th where you had to do that. But I think that the hull is entirely irrelevent for measuring when a vehicle has a base. Am I wrong here?

 Trickstick wrote:
Something I just noticed is that vehicles on bases will just use the base for all measuring. So the annoyance of a valkyie's hull footprint being massive, and having to worry about it hanging over the edge of the board, will be gone.

I do see some ambiguity in their repeated use of the term "(or hull)". However, I believe that the hull only becomes a thing you account for when a model doesn't have a base, due to the initial definition.

Measuring distances, page 5 of free rules, 1st paragraph:

If a model does not have a base, such as is the case with many vehicles, measure to the closest point of any part of that model; this is called measuring to the model’s hull.

I can see people trying to use the hull on based models, mainly as a hold over from 8th where you had to do that. But I think that the hull is entirely irrelevent for measuring when a vehicle has a base. Am I wrong here?

There is a rule on vehicle model that tell us to measures the distance from its hull instead, which will overide the core rule if I understand correctly.

 Trickstick wrote:
Something I just noticed is that vehicles on bases will just use the base for all measuring. So the annoyance of a valkyie's hull footprint being massive, and having to worry about it hanging over the edge of the board, will be gone.

I do see some ambiguity in their repeated use of the term "(or hull)". However, I believe that the hull only becomes a thing you account for when a model doesn't have a base, due to the initial definition.

Measuring distances, page 5 of free rules, 1st paragraph:

If a model does not have a base, such as is the case with many vehicles, measure to the closest point of any part of that model; this is called measuring to the model’s hull.

I can see people trying to use the hull on based models, mainly as a hold over from 8th where you had to do that. But I think that the hull is entirely irrelevent for measuring when a vehicle has a base. Am I wrong here?

There's no ambiguity with 'hull' anymore.

page 5, measuring distances wrote:If a model does not have a base, such as is the case with many vehicles,
measure to the closest point of any part of that model; this is called
measuring to the model’s hull.

Any part of the model is the hull. _Anything_. [Its completely unrelated to the real world definition of hull, but its unambiguous in terms of the game.
Crazy poking out parts also become problematic for the owning player for 'wholly within,' if any little bobbin is outside the distance, it isn't completely within.

On the other hand, if there is a base, you always use the base.

armisael wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
Something I just noticed is that vehicles on bases will just use the base for all measuring. So the annoyance of a valkyie's hull footprint being massive, and having to worry about it hanging over the edge of the board, will be gone.

I do see some ambiguity in their repeated use of the term "(or hull)". However, I believe that the hull only becomes a thing you account for when a model doesn't have a base, due to the initial definition.

Measuring distances, page 5 of free rules, 1st paragraph:

If a model does not have a base, such as is the case with many vehicles, measure to the closest point of any part of that model; this is called measuring to the model’s hull.

I can see people trying to use the hull on based models, mainly as a hold over from 8th where you had to do that. But I think that the hull is entirely irrelevent for measuring when a vehicle has a base. Am I wrong here?

There is a rule on vehicle model that tell us to measures the distance from its hull instead, which will overide the core rule if I understand correctly.

From the 9th edition Core Rules:

Distances are measured in inches (") between the closest points of the bases of the models you’re measuring to and from. If a model does not have a base, such as is the case with many vehicles, measure to the closest point of any part of that model; this is called measuring to the model’s hull.

So if the vehicle has a base (e.g., the Ork Megatrakk Scrapjet) you would measure from the base without a specific rule saying otherwise.

 Ghaz wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
As well as Deffkoptas, and most of the Craftworld line.

I was presuming that it was in regards to plastic kits, but I could be wrong.

The lifespan of those old models shouldn't be longer than that of plastic ones.

So the new App is supposed to be available next week. What do we know about it? I'd assume it'll be pretty similar to the AoS App. Any Aos players want to share their opinions on that one and explain what's in it and what it does? Sorry if everyone else already knows this, but I don't play AoS, and I'd like a little more information.

The Repulsor and Impulsor both have rules for measuring from the hull so exceptions will occur.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
So the new App is supposed to be available next week. What do we know about it? I'd assume it'll be pretty similar to the AoS App. Any Aos players want to share their opinions on that one and explain what's in it and what it does? Sorry if everyone else already knows this, but I don't play AoS, and I'd like a little more information.

We know that it exists. GW has yet to show us the app, or anything really in detail about it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Thinking of things still unseen, anyone see the Appendix for the new book yet? I've been waiting to see it spoiled but everyone seems to be ignoring it for coverage.

jivardi wrote:


If DG and TS should go back into CSM than DA, BA, SW, IH, IF, CF, etc should all be rolled into one codex.

Black Legion represents the generic CSM. The 4 "god" legions in fluff don't behave or fight battles like Black Legion. The "4" SHOULD have separate codeciies and I'm hoping like hell the EC and WE get a codex in 9th.

I'm catching up to this thread but just wanted to say that I've heard that some Slaaneshi marines with most likely their big daddy are coming this Christmas So they might get their book then too (nothing on that though, just speculating for the book)!

 Ghaz wrote:

armisael wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
Something I just noticed is that vehicles on bases will just use the base for all measuring. So the annoyance of a valkyie's hull footprint being massive, and having to worry about it hanging over the edge of the board, will be gone.

I do see some ambiguity in their repeated use of the term "(or hull)". However, I believe that the hull only becomes a thing you account for when a model doesn't have a base, due to the initial definition.

Measuring distances, page 5 of free rules, 1st paragraph:

If a model does not have a base, such as is the case with many vehicles, measure to the closest point of any part of that model; this is called measuring to the model’s hull.

I can see people trying to use the hull on based models, mainly as a hold over from 8th where you had to do that. But I think that the hull is entirely irrelevent for measuring when a vehicle has a base. Am I wrong here?

There is a rule on vehicle model that tell us to measures the distance from its hull instead, which will overide the core rule if I understand correctly.

From the 9th edition Core Rules:

Distances are measured in inches (") between the closest points of the bases of the models you’re measuring to and from. If a model does not have a base, such as is the case with many vehicles, measure to the closest point of any part of that model; this is called measuring to the model’s hull.

So if the vehicle has a base (e.g., the Ork Megatrakk Scrapjet) you would measure from the base without a specific rule saying otherwise.

So, this means that models without a base (like the Defiler) measure to the top of their model when measuring for engagement distance to another floor of a building? Those things are almost 5 inches tall, that means they can engage with things 10 inches in the air above them (4th floor?).

I could definitely see a defiler 'rearing up' on its back legs while the front half crawls up a building and claws at the 4th floor.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I could definitely see a defiler 'rearing up' on its back legs while the front half crawls up a building and claws at the 4th floor.

That sounds adorable and terrifying all at once.

It does have legs for a reason. I'm sure it could crawl up most walls that can support it's weight.

Apparently the defiler is going to be good this edition. At least the dudes over on Tabletop Titans seem to think so.

Might need to try out some defilers in my DG army.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
So the new App is supposed to be available next week. What do we know about it? I'd assume it'll be pretty similar to the AoS App. Any Aos players want to share their opinions on that one and explain what's in it and what it does? Sorry if everyone else already knows this, but I don't play AoS, and I'd like a little more information.

It's good. Does everything you want for the cost of £1 per month. Used to use it all the time but unsubscribed when Soul Wars hit... it took far, far long to update. If the 40k ones the same, there'll be some major waiting time when major rule changes drop.

So, this means that models without a base (like the Defiler) measure to the top of their model when measuring for engagement distance to another floor of a building? Those things are almost 5 inches tall, that means they can engage with things 10 inches in the air above them (4th floor?).

It gets really absurd with the Ork Battlewagon, which is almost as high if built with turret and periscope... yes, in 9th ed you can measure from antennas etc...

jivardi wrote:
It does have legs for a reason. I'm sure it could crawl up most walls that can support it's weight.

Apparently the defiler is going to be good this edition. At least the dudes over on Tabletop Titans seem to think so.

Might need to try out some defilers in my DG army.

Me too. Especially since they can now have disgustingly resilient thanks to war of the spider.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bossdoc wrote:

So, this means that models without a base (like the Defiler) measure to the top of their model when measuring for engagement distance to another floor of a building? Those things are almost 5 inches tall, that means they can engage with things 10 inches in the air above them (4th floor?).

It gets really absurd with the Ork Battlewagon, which is almost as high if built with turret and periscope... yes, in 9th ed you can measure from antennas etc...

The instructions tell you to model the turret with the periscope, so it's not even modeling for advantage. So, have fun getting run over by a deff rolla despite being 12" up on a ruin

 lare2 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
So the new App is supposed to be available next week. What do we know about it? I'd assume it'll be pretty similar to the AoS App. Any Aos players want to share their opinions on that one and explain what's in it and what it does? Sorry if everyone else already knows this, but I don't play AoS, and I'd like a little more information.

It's good. Does everything you want for the cost of £1 per month. Used to use it all the time but unsubscribed when Soul Wars hit... it took far, far long to update. If the 40k ones the same, there'll be some major waiting time when major rule changes drop.

Pretty much my singular major gripe sigh the AoS app is it periodically forgets I’m subscribed. I’ll to use the army builder and it tells me you have to be subscribed to use that. I hit subscribe and it tells me I’m already subscribed. I go back to the builder and it tells me I have to subscribe to use that. The only way I’ve found to fix that is to delete the app and redownload it, which also deletes all your downloaded books and army lists. It does correctly remember you’ve paid for all those books and lets you download them again for free, but it’s a giant hassle and I hope you didn’t need those army lists you made or can remember what you had in them. It’s been a good bit since I’ve done AoS so I checked the app just now and I am once again locked out of the army builder I’m paying for.

 cuda1179 wrote:
So, this means that models without a base (like the Defiler) measure to the top of their model when measuring for engagement distance to another floor of a building? Those things are almost 5 inches tall, that means they can engage with things 10 inches in the air above them (4th floor?).

Oh, that's another thing to add to the dumb rule list. It's not that long this edition at least, they have done alright to limit it so far. I feel sorry for the guy with the awesome rearing defiler who is going to catch heat for modelling for advantage, even though his model is ten years old.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 ingtaer wrote:

How is any of this News and Rumors for 9th edition?

It's almost like an internet forum post that isn't curated mod/press-release posts will tend to have a natural ebb and flow of the conversation within it, which may drift slightly from the strict definition of the topic.

So, some actual news, apparently the GW team are "aware" of the 1+ save issue and will fix it. How true that is or how well they will fix it is yet to be seen.

Would the issue be fixed if Storm Shields instead just gave you a +1 to your roll?

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
See The Silent King’s enslaved C’Tan?

I’m going to refer to it as Bob.

And given its clearly in pain, imagine Szarekh has to say “shut up, Bob” with regularity.

What do you call a C'Tan with no arms and no legs floating tortured and bound by eldritch technological forces?

Bob.

Exalted! (Original post)

Also Twin Peaks, Bob is scary as hell.

 AduroT wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 ingtaer wrote:

How is any of this News and Rumors for 9th edition?

It's almost like an internet forum post that isn't curated mod/press-release posts will tend to have a natural ebb and flow of the conversation within it, which may drift slightly from the strict definition of the topic.

So, some actual news, apparently the GW team are "aware" of the 1+ save issue and will fix it. How true that is or how well they will fix it is yet to be seen.

Would the issue be fixed if Storm Shields instead just gave you a +1 to your roll?

Yes, it would, +1 to the save roll is very different to 1+ save. I'm hoping this is the way they go on this one.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 ingtaer wrote:

How is any of this News and Rumors for 9th edition?

It's almost like an internet forum post that isn't curated mod/press-release posts will tend to have a natural ebb and flow of the conversation within it, which may drift slightly from the strict definition of the topic.

So, some actual news, apparently the GW team are "aware" of the 1+ save issue and will fix it. How true that is or how well they will fix it is yet to be seen.

+1 save issue?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Skywave wrote:

jivardi wrote:


If DG and TS should go back into CSM than DA, BA, SW, IH, IF, CF, etc should all be rolled into one codex.

Black Legion represents the generic CSM. The 4 "god" legions in fluff don't behave or fight battles like Black Legion. The "4" SHOULD have separate codeciies and I'm hoping like hell the EC and WE get a codex in 9th.

I'm catching up to this thread but just wanted to say that I've heard that some Slaaneshi marines with most likely their big daddy are coming this Christmas So they might get their book then too (nothing on that though, just speculating for the book)!

You know what I'd like to see story wise?

That clone of Flugrim mentioned in PA get's freed, picked up by Roboute and expressed his desire to make amends. Make a "good" Fulgrim and then the Deamon Fulgrim. Have them both around. Imagine all the story potential. How does Guiliman feel about having an ally that slit his throat (even if this clone isn't the one who did that, the resemblance would be more than a bit unnerving). What goal would the clone have, does he want to atone for the sin of Fulgrims fall? Or does he actually want to try and save members of the legion. (Have there ever been any traitor marines who came back to the loyalist side after finding their choice distasteful?) How does the imperial administration feel about this, and what does Fulgrim himself think? Will they eventually meet and fight?

Lots of amazing potential there...

 Togusa wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 ingtaer wrote:

How is any of this News and Rumors for 9th edition?

It's almost like an internet forum post that isn't curated mod/press-release posts will tend to have a natural ebb and flow of the conversation within it, which may drift slightly from the strict definition of the topic.

So, some actual news, apparently the GW team are "aware" of the 1+ save issue and will fix it. How true that is or how well they will fix it is yet to be seen.

+1 save issue?

A weird collision of rules that causes a 1+ armor save to effectively be a 2+ invulnerable save. (Any dice roll of 0 or less counts as a 1, and 1’s save because you have 1+ armor, but a Natural one always fails)
The new Storm Shields improve your armor characteristic by 1, so terminators and such would have a 1+ armor save.

 AduroT wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 ingtaer wrote:

How is any of this News and Rumors for 9th edition?

It's almost like an internet forum post that isn't curated mod/press-release posts will tend to have a natural ebb and flow of the conversation within it, which may drift slightly from the strict definition of the topic.

So, some actual news, apparently the GW team are "aware" of the 1+ save issue and will fix it. How true that is or how well they will fix it is yet to be seen.

Would the issue be fixed if Storm Shields instead just gave you a +1 to your roll?

Would vanish. Another fix would be remove can't be modified below zero. That way removes worry gw will do it 3rd time with another way to gett 1+. If you just modify storm shield issue can pop again. They did same mistake with meganobz banning it from them. And here again. If they change storm shield it leaves door open for same issue come later.