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.

tneva82 wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Continue to think this is just this editions "assault guns dont work" but the simplest FAQ would just be "a units save can't be improved beyond a 2+". Therefore a 1+ save can't exist and any problem goes away.

One way to solve. Another is to do so that 1+ is buffer vs ap rather than 2++

Which is, after all, how it will be played by pretty much everyone.

I don't like to moan (and I know I just joined in), but please can this 1+ save stuff move to a separate thread?

 Platuan4th wrote:

tneva82 wrote:


And miss scenarios

The Tournament missions book is a separate purchase from the points book.

You got a source for that as I thought they said CA2020 is the points and the tournamenr missions it's liek CA 2019 with the points book and the missions book but you buy them as a pair.

Are there any missions in the BRB, or do we need the tournament missions to play the missions where we pick secondaries?

Ice_can wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

tneva82 wrote:


And miss scenarios

The Tournament missions book is a separate purchase from the points book.

You got a source for that as I thought they said CA2020 is the points and the tournamenr missions it's liek CA 2019 with the points book and the missions book but you buy them as a pair.

Re-reading the leaked sales list, you're correct. Mis-read it the first time, my mistake.

 Slinky wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Continue to think this is just this editions "assault guns dont work" but the simplest FAQ would just be "a units save can't be improved beyond a 2+". Therefore a 1+ save can't exist and any problem goes away.

One way to solve. Another is to do so that 1+ is buffer vs ap rather than 2++

Which is, after all, how it will be played by pretty much everyone.

I don't like to moan (and I know I just joined in), but please can this 1+ save stuff move to a separate thread?

Based on gw track record they will more likely cap sh to 2+

 Jidmah wrote:
Are there any missions in the BRB, or do we need the tournament missions to play the missions where we pick secondaries?

The BRB has missions and secondaries, the tournament pack just adds more.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Are there any missions in the BRB, or do we need the tournament missions to play the missions where we pick secondaries?

The BRB has missions and secondaries, the tournament pack just adds more.

Thanks

Just for information, is the increase to armour in Crusade is a Merit for Infantry (I suppose)? Or it is for Characters? To what it is attached to?

Because, you know, there are also Quaestoris Knight with a 2+ save in the game... Arguing that a 1+ = 2++ may have such consequences too...

Generally speaking I don't understand why cap at 1 with such bad wording the minimum results possible... It really smells of marketing or sales constraints rather than a game design choice.

Just Characters. so it does indeed look like you could get a 1+ Sv Knight. You'd have to use a stratagem to make the Knight a character, however, as the Crusade rules disable that part of the Knight Lance and Traitoris Lance abilities.

The mystery of the "No Longer Available" objective markers has been solved.

We have new ones:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The mystery of the "No Longer Available" objective markers has been solved.

We have new ones:

I really like these, I do worry as with the last set, that on a terrain filled table they might be hard to spot.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The mystery of the "No Longer Available" objective markers has been solved.

We have new ones:

Funnily enough, I just spotted that (after missing it on an earlier read through of the page). That mini popemobile might be good for a Preacher/Missionary conversion.

Did they add those in to the article or did I completely miss them yesterday?

Added them in. They weren't there yesterday at all.

Box confirmed as 155€, because that was the price we were lacking.

I really wish they were doing a nice day 1 update book for all factions.

The new objectives are nice (but was hoping for Cadian girl behind barrier)

Fat Necron in the centre is a favourite already.

 Mr Morden wrote:
I really wish they were doing a nice day 1 update book for all factions.

The new objectives are nice (but was hoping for Cadian girl behind barrier)

Fat Necron in the centre is a favourite already.

They seem to be, it's just tied up in a CA.

Because it wouldn't be a GW rules update if they didn't use it to cash in on their existing playerbase.

Ah well, the points values will certainly leak in the coming weeks along with any other rules changes, and we've all got Pen Technology.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
I really wish they were doing a nice day 1 update book for all factions.

The new objectives are nice (but was hoping for Cadian girl behind barrier)

Fat Necron in the centre is a favourite already.

They seem to be, it's just tied up in a CA.

Because it wouldn't be a GW rules update if they didn't use it to cash in on their existing playerbase.

Ah well, the points values will certainly leak in the coming weeks along with any other rules changes, and we've all got Pen Technology.

Well if they can cram it all into a CA that would be great - i just worry that there will be dozens of pages of downloads to print off :(

the_scotsman wrote:

They seem to be, it's just tied up in a CA.

Points are going to be in CA (and I agree they should be free) but we should also get pdf FAQs for every book though.

tneva82 wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Continue to think this is just this editions "assault guns dont work" but the simplest FAQ would just be "a units save can't be improved beyond a 2+". Therefore a 1+ save can't exist and any problem goes away.

One way to solve. Another is to do so that 1+ is buffer vs ap rather than 2++

Another one is to say you can never improve your save to 1+.
I mean, I looked at my (supposedly “designed with 9th ed in mind”) codex Sisters of Battle, and we have two ways to improve a Canoness armor save. One is a relic, that gives a straight 2+ save. The other is a warlord trait, that improves the armor save by one. But the warlord trait specifies “To a maximum of 2+”, which solves the issue. They could just generalize this.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The mystery of the "No Longer Available" objective markers has been solved.

We have new ones:

I don't care for necrons objective on a table with no necrons army, and not even fan of the other objective, but I love the pulpit (not for an objective, for conversions!)

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I don't care for necrons objective on a table with no necrons army, and not even fan of the other objective, but I love the pulpit (not for an objective, for conversions!)

I don't know, it makes sense to me. Like a Mechanicus and Ork army fighting over the scraps of Necron tech, or something.

Edit: I do get that it is weird in every battle though.

'I don't know, Dave; perhaps the staff we made for the Silent King just isn't big enough, y'know?'
'Fear not Steve; for we shall make an even bigger staff - a staff so big that it will have to be used as an objective marker it's so huge!'

Damn. I'm not interested in 3 of these but the other 3...

I NEED

Especially that throne thing.

Wouldn’t surprise me if inherent 2+ save models n0 longer had access to storm shields anymore. This is GW and maybe assault terminators are this editions legends...

 Uriels_Flame wrote:
Wouldn’t surprise me if inherent 2+ save models n0 longer had access to storm shields anymore. This is GW and maybe assault terminators are this editions legends...

Yeah, that's not happening. There are these things called Deathwing Knights, one of the better kits in the DA line. Plus Assault terminators with storm shields are in same box with Lightning Claws. But hey, much easier to ditch them than add a simple line in an FAQ, right? lol

 bullyboy wrote:
...Deathwing Knights, one of the better kits in the DA line.

I happened to see those model the other day, and burst out laughing at how bad they look. I guess that is just how opinions work though, can't please everyone. My only real gripe is the bare, hooded heads, which look comically silly to me. Give them helmets and they are awesome models.

 bullyboy wrote:
But hey, much easier to ditch them than add a simple line in an FAQ, right? lol

With GW wanting you to replace them with new Primaris Veterans anyway, yes

Concerning this 1+ save story. I've read on Facebook the WH staff saying that Indomitus models get their own datasheets with their own gear, and that for now it must be considered different than already existing datasheet, even if they have the same name. So Terminators and the likes who carry a Storm Shield do NOT use the Indomitus profiles but their own.

It's not FAQ yet but at least they're aware of the problem and giving a hint as how to solve this in the meantime.

Even if most sensible people see no problems with this rule in the first place

Primaris were going to be a simple new marine range, then they complicated everything with rule and fluff changes...

 Aaranis wrote:
Concerning this 1+ save story. I've read on Facebook the WH staff saying that Indomitus models get their own datasheets with their own gear, and that for now it must be considered different than already existing datasheet, even if they have the same name. So Terminators and the likes who carry a Storm Shield do NOT use the Indomitus profiles but their own.

It's not FAQ yet but at least they're aware of the problem and giving a hint as how to solve this in the meantime.

Even if most sensible people see no problems with this rule in the first place

Its pretty much people that just want to whine about something that still bring it up