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.

Hell, we had a guy edit the Army Builder software/printout so that it didn’t charge him for transports. His list would show all the correct point values, but if you manually added it all up it would be more than what it said his army was running.

Seeing printout is html that is basically editing 1 spot in html file(which is basically plain text)

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It's also trivially easy to edit PDFs

As someone who edited the Warmahorde FAQ pdf to make them more printer-friendly, I take great offense at the "trivially". It required quite a bit of work on my part, and I'm earning a living with computer stuff!!

If you're totally re-tooling the layout, sure. But to edit one or two words? Trivial.

 AduroT wrote:
Hell, we had a guy edit the Army Builder software/printout so that it didn’t charge him for transports. His list would show all the correct point values, but if you manually added it all up it would be more than what it said his army was running.

You sure that just wasn't 7th edition....lol.

the_scotsman wrote:
Huh. Reading that preview, i thought GW had done a clever thing with the "execution force" rule, making it change the cost of a vanguard detachment to 0 - a fun little bonus for if you want to bring multiple assassins.

But nope, in fact, it changes the command BENEFITS to "none."

From "none."

What a very excellent, "designed for 9th edition" rule you've got there, GW. Very good rule to preview since a lot of assassin players will need to keep that in mind!

Could be future proofing, or just listing the rule as it currently exists for 8th edition. GW has been pretty cagey about what changes they'll be making to armies in the FAQ.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
If nothing else though, it does confirm the false advertising in the Pariah rules preview: they clearly intended to make it impossible to field non-Inquisitor Inquisition in other Imperium detachments, just like the actual rules do, and completely at odds with what the rules preview said.

Again, not false advertising, just a lack of understanding of their own game.

And, for your sake, I actually asked them on FB about this:

Me: Was it intentional that bringing an Assassin and an Inquisitor in the same detachment results in the army losing its detachment rules?
Them: We can't speak on behalf of the rules team but you can send question in to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for consideration in future updates.

So, do with that what you will.

You asked the community guys about rules. That's basically like asking the guy who runs your local GW what the rules team meant to do.

What was the issue with targeting models with different weapons and removing them in a certain order, or having to shoot something till it is dead before the next model.
Whatever it was that people were annoyed about (or liked the change).

And also In what Way did this stop a conga line from having just two models together at the ends of the unit, as they would then all be within 2 models?
(Basically I guess what happens to a unit that can’t get back into coherency?)

Danny76 wrote:
What was the issue with targeting models with different weapons and removing them in a certain order, or having to shoot something till it is dead before the next model.
Whatever it was that people were annoyed about (or liked the change).

Particular units (Custodian Guard, Bullgryns, Crisis Suits, Deathwatch Vets, etc.) rely on selectively taking saves on particular models within units to maximize their survivability. That is no longer possible in 9th, once a model has been used to take a save for a unit it has to continue making saves for that unit until its either dead or there are no more saves to make.

Danny76 wrote:

And also In what Way did this stop a conga line from having just two models together at the ends of the unit, as they would then all be within 2 models?
(Basically I guess what happens to a unit that can’t get back into coherency?)

If a model is out of coherencey at the end of the turn, it dies.

Danny76 wrote:
And also In what Way did this stop a conga line from having just two models together at the ends of the unit, as they would then all be within 2 models?
(Basically I guess what happens to a unit that can’t get back into coherency?)

When you pull your first casualty that unit will crumble thanks to no longer maintaining coherency.

Listening to the Vanguard Tactics guys they described it pretty well: GW wanted units to look like units, which beats the soup line look of the congalines.

Something that crossed my mind (after looking at Iyanden's rules) was how GW may change the "never lose more than 1 model to leadership tests" abilities. I suspect it may be something like "this unit never counts as half strength for attrition tests" but that's just a thought.

It'll be really interesting to see if ATSKNF changes, assuming it does at all.

Sterling191 wrote:


Particular units (Custodian Guard, Bullgryns, Crisis Suits, Deathwatch Vets, etc.) rely on selectively taking saves on particular models within units to maximize their survivability. That is no longer possible in 9th, once a model has been used to take a save for a unit it has to continue making saves for that unit until its either dead or there are no more saves to make.

Happened to me a lot vs Deathwatch. Storm Shield tanks plasma. Terminator tanks bolters. Though that is a minor quibble overall.

Danny76 wrote:
And also In what Way did this stop a conga line from having just two models together at the ends of the unit, as they would then all be within 2 models?
(Basically I guess what happens to a unit that can’t get back into coherency?)

Well, as soon as one of those two end-cap models dies, or a single middle string model dies, it causes a resonance cascade that wipes out the large bulk of the unit in the coherency check step. You need a 2-1-2 congaline which lowers the area they can cover pretty dramatically.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Danny76 wrote:
And also In what Way did this stop a conga line from having just two models together at the ends of the unit, as they would then all be within 2 models?
(Basically I guess what happens to a unit that can’t get back into coherency?)

Well, as soon as one of those two end-cap models dies, or a single middle string model dies, it causes a resonance cascade that wipes out the large bulk of the unit in the coherency check step.

Such narrative! Much versimilitude!

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Danny76 wrote:
And also In what Way did this stop a conga line from having just two models together at the ends of the unit, as they would then all be within 2 models?
(Basically I guess what happens to a unit that can’t get back into coherency?)

Well, as soon as one of those two end-cap models dies, or a single middle string model dies, it causes a resonance cascade that wipes out the large bulk of the unit in the coherency check step.

Such narrative! Much versimilitude!

Units looking like units and not soup kitchen lines.

I’ve been trying to explain to someone why it stops them from being possible anymore as they couldn’t find the line in rules to say that the way I wanted. This will do nicely!

it is still possible, but the longer conga line will be more risky while the save line will be shorter
and units with 5 models can still do it like before

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Units looking like units and not soup kitchen lines.

in what century?
units should look like medieval blocks and less like WW1 fireing lines and of course not like WW2 or modern tactical groups?

You know, given that coherency range is 2", you can still form a single line if everyone's base-to-base. The line won't be as long, but you can still do it.

But really I think GW is tired of people trying to screen a whole army with a single unit of Poxwalkers/Guardsmen/what-have-you.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
You know, given that coherency range is 2", you can still form a single line if everyone's base-to-base. The line won't be as long, but you can still do it.

But really I think GW is tired of people trying to screen a whole army with a single unit of Poxwalkers/Guardsmen/what-have-you.

It also stops the infuriating nonsence of a single buffed to the nines unit spread to the 5 winds being on 3 objectives and you having to kill every last model to stop them claiming them all.

 kodos wrote:
it is still possible, but the longer conga line will be more risky while the save line will be shorter
and units with 5 models can still do it like before

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Units looking like units and not soup kitchen lines.

in what century?
units should look like medieval blocks and less like WW1 fireing lines and of course not like WW2 or modern tactical groups?

Considering 40k is fantasy in SPAAAAAAAAAAAACE (imagine the reverb if you want) and Space Marines are literally cursading knights in space midevil block warfare fits the setting more than modern warfare patrol formations.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
You know, given that coherency range is 2", you can still form a single line if everyone's base-to-base. The line won't be as long, but you can still do it.

But really I think GW is tired of people trying to screen a whole army with a single unit of Poxwalkers/Guardsmen/what-have-you.

You don't even need to be base-to-base- you can form a single-file line of 25mm bases, with a full half-inch between each base, and that's still valid coherency (2" gets you to the next model in the line).

This seems like it's being blown way out of proportion.

Edit: Also, if someone's going to complain about this rule making infantry units not look like modern formations, I want to hear an explanation for why a 2" maximum coherency (about 12ft when translated to real life) is realistic to begin with. All the better if they can explain, in their own words, what squad column and squad wedge look like, and why exactly they need to deploy their models in a stretched single-file line at maximum spacing to replicate those standard, modern formations.

In modern warfare spreading out (often even further than 12' since a lot of explosive weapons have a kill radius of 15+ feetl is actually encouraged to reduce the effects of indirect fire on patrols, but we're also talking about a patrol. During combat it becomes a disjointed move to taking cover (or concealment if cover isn't available) so you can use suppressing fire to allow a portion of ths unit to outflank the enemy and engage them from an exposed side.

Basically nothing about moder squad tactics translates to how 40k works, or really has ever worked.

I mean we're talking a setting where individuals call out challenges and their foes agree instead of just shooting them on the spot.

Actually any unit on 60mm bases such as harlequin bikes can no longer be in base to base in a single line. You now have to have a staggered unit of some sort to not lose models at the end of the first turn. So it is a change in that regards.

mightymconeshot wrote:
Actually any unit on 60mm bases such as harlequin bikes can no longer be in base to base in a single line. You now have to have a staggered unit of some sort to not lose models at the end of the first turn. So it is a change in that regards.

Skyweaver jetbikes have a unit limit of 6, so as soon as they lose a model they no longer have to abide by the 2 model coherency rule.

It's almost like they are encouraging you to keep units on big bases to 5 or less models

Is there any major advantage to taking 6 jetbikes? It drastically limits your spacing and enables blast weapons. Is there anything that they get to offset that, other than the inherent +1 model?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
If nothing else though, it does confirm the false advertising in the Pariah rules preview: they clearly intended to make it impossible to field non-Inquisitor Inquisition in other Imperium detachments, just like the actual rules do, and completely at odds with what the rules preview said.

Again, not false advertising, just a lack of understanding of their own game.

And, for your sake, I actually asked them on FB about this:

Me: Was it intentional that bringing an Assassin and an Inquisitor in the same detachment results in the army losing its detachment rules?
Them: We can't speak on behalf of the rules team but you can send question in to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for consideration in future updates.

So, do with that what you will.

That's not the issue. The issue is they claimed you can bring non-Inquisitor Inquisition forces in other Imperium detachments, which you can't. E.g. Jokaeros. These can only be taken in Inquisition detachments, despite their rules preview clearly saying the opposite.

This is by definition false advertising. False advertising doesn't have to be intentional, it just has to be false. If you advertise something as being $50 and then when someone goes to buy it say "oops, that's at typo, it's actually $500" that is false advertising.

I emailed them over the weekend and haven't got anything back yet, which doesn't surprise me - they always respond to inquiries about sales within 24 hours, but other stuff they often take much longer. If I get any response, I'll post it in the thread about Pariah.

 alextroy wrote:
It's almost like they are encouraging you to keep units on big bases to 5 or less models

Nah. That's just the community's knee-jerk reaction to being told to stop gaming unit coherency.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
If nothing else though, it does confirm the false advertising in the Pariah rules preview: they clearly intended to make it impossible to field non-Inquisitor Inquisition in other Imperium detachments, just like the actual rules do, and completely at odds with what the rules preview said.

Again, not false advertising, just a lack of understanding of their own game.

And, for your sake, I actually asked them on FB about this:

Me: Was it intentional that bringing an Assassin and an Inquisitor in the same detachment results in the army losing its detachment rules?
Them: We can't speak on behalf of the rules team but you can send question in to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for consideration in future updates.

So, do with that what you will.

That's not the issue. The issue is they claimed you can bring non-Inquisitor Inquisition forces in other Imperium detachments, which you can't. E.g. Jokaeros. These can only be taken in Inquisition detachments, despite their rules preview clearly saying the opposite.

This is by definition false advertising. False advertising doesn't have to be intentional, it just has to be false. If you advertise something as being $50 and then when someone goes to buy it say "oops, that's at typo, it's actually $500" that is false advertising.

I emailed them over the weekend and haven't got anything back yet, which doesn't surprise me - they always respond to inquiries about sales within 24 hours, but other stuff they often take much longer. If I get any response, I'll post it in the thread about Pariah.

Iv been fighting with GW for over a week due to a shipment of my SoB fortification that iv been waiting on for 3+ months, and they have ignored every email iv sent them asking if they were going to reship a replacement order or what they were going to do, the only responce iv gotten from them was take it up with fedex and fedex telling me to take it up with GW. i am 100% convinced the fedex driver stole my package sicne he pulled up drove away and marked it as delivered without ever getting out of his truck.

Everytime I've ever had an issue with my order I've always called GW customer service. Never failed to get help that way.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
In modern warfare spreading out (often even further than 12' since a lot of explosive weapons have a kill radius of 15+ feetl is actually encouraged to reduce the effects of indirect fire on patrols, but we're also talking about a patrol. During combat it becomes a disjointed move to taking cover (or concealment if cover isn't available) so you can use suppressing fire to allow a portion of ths unit to outflank the enemy and engage them from an exposed side.

Basically nothing about moder squad tactics translates to how 40k works, or really has ever worked.

I mean we're talking a setting where individuals call out challenges and their foes agree instead of just shooting them on the spot.

Yeah, there's very little left in the game that tries to simulate warfare like most traditional wargames. Was just talking to a friend recently about that.

Modern warfare at the infantry level is mostly suppressive fire while the actual killing is done by artillery or aircraft.

gorgon wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
In modern warfare spreading out (often even further than 12' since a lot of explosive weapons have a kill radius of 15+ feetl is actually encouraged to reduce the effects of indirect fire on patrols, but we're also talking about a patrol. During combat it becomes a disjointed move to taking cover (or concealment if cover isn't available) so you can use suppressing fire to allow a portion of ths unit to outflank the enemy and engage them from an exposed side.

Basically nothing about moder squad tactics translates to how 40k works, or really has ever worked.

I mean we're talking a setting where individuals call out challenges and their foes agree instead of just shooting them on the spot.

Yeah, there's very little left in the game that tries to simulate warfare like most traditional wargames. Was just talking to a friend recently about that.

I would be shocked if any tabletop war game actually simulates anything outside of the basic premise of tactical exercise. They are overwhelmingly just games with little toy soldiers.

gorgon wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
In modern warfare spreading out (often even further than 12' since a lot of explosive weapons have a kill radius of 15+ feetl is actually encouraged to reduce the effects of indirect fire on patrols, but we're also talking about a patrol. During combat it becomes a disjointed move to taking cover (or concealment if cover isn't available) so you can use suppressing fire to allow a portion of ths unit to outflank the enemy and engage them from an exposed side.

Basically nothing about moder squad tactics translates to how 40k works, or really has ever worked.

I mean we're talking a setting where individuals call out challenges and their foes agree instead of just shooting them on the spot.

Yeah, there's very little left in the game that tries to simulate warfare like most traditional wargames. Was just talking to a friend recently about that.

Tyran wrote:Modern warfare at the infantry level is mostly suppressive fire while the actual killing is done by artillery or aircraft.

Yeppers, the infantry rifle doesn't do much more than corral enemies into the machine gun or hold enemy for indirect fire. That would make for a pretty dull board game probably.