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.

 Asmodai wrote:
https://spikeybits.com/2020/07/gw-nerfs-grand-tournament-play-40k-rules.html

Vigilus detachments are banned in competitive play.

But now how am I going to make my vanquisher worthwhile, by having it as a counts-as hammer of sundrance?

 Mr_Rose wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Overread wrote:


If anything their book is likely built with 9th edition in mind

Lol no it wasn't. Too much rules that gets totally neutered or even completely removed for it to be 9th ed compliant. Plus whole sacred rites makes zero sense in edition where core rules encourage mono building. That is mark of 8th ed codex. 9th ed codexes shouldn't have that.

Examples? And what about sacred rites no longer makes sense?

Sacred rose had 2/3 of bonuses lose most of sting. Mortifiers flat out lost one special rule(it doesn't do anymore and indeed errata removed lt).

Sacred rite rewards staying mono. In 8th made sense because without it there wasn't any reason not to soup. Souping is basically free powerup. In 9th you pay for souping up. There's reason to not soup. So sacred rites reward you for taking rewards. It's like giving point decrease to gun while doublig damape output same time

So you think specialist detachments are just dead? You know how tournament comp rules tend to spread to more casual play...

 Trickstick wrote:

 kodos wrote:
Bases for Tanks?
https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/YhayvIqNFF5guBJt.jpg

It would make the game work better if there was not the weird hull mechanic, it does cause problems. I don't think I would love updating my Armoured Company though...

I would honestly love to see GW start reboxing vehicles with bases. They should also release a recommended base size chart like they did with WHFB models for AoS. It would make the game a lot cleaner.

tneva82 wrote:

 Mr_Rose wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Overread wrote:


If anything their book is likely built with 9th edition in mind

Lol no it wasn't. Too much rules that gets totally neutered or even completely removed for it to be 9th ed compliant. Plus whole sacred rites makes zero sense in edition where core rules encourage mono building. That is mark of 8th ed codex. 9th ed codexes shouldn't have that.

Examples? And what about sacred rites no longer makes sense?

Sacred rose had 2/3 of bonuses lose most of sting. Mortifiers flat out lost one special rule(it doesn't do anymore and indeed errata removed lt).

Sacred rite rewards staying mono. In 8th made sense because without it there wasn't any reason not to soup. Souping is basically free powerup. In 9th you pay for souping up. There's reason to not soup. So sacred rites reward you for taking rewards. It's like giving point decrease to gun while doublig damape output same time

I still think the design paradigm going forward is still to encourage mono-faction play. With rules like Rites and Combat Doctrines for the coming factions. Just because 9th doesn't actively reward multiple detachments and soup doesn't mean they won't exist and that some armies may find their most optimal builds that way. It's still a big advantage over armies that don't even have that option.


We'll know going forward, but my prediction is that Necrons will also have a set of mono-faction rules and it's likely the "Protocols" that were alluded to on stream by Stu Black.

 Trickstick wrote:
So you think specialist detachments are just dead? You know how tournament comp rules tend to spread to more casual play...

Yup. No more Host Raptorial. No more Tip of the Spear or Viscous Descent. With the new points for warp talons the Eighth Legion is officially hurting bad.

Grand Tournament Pages:
https://imgur.com/a/uH74BUw

 Asmodai wrote:
https://spikeybits.com/2020/07/gw-nerfs-grand-tournament-play-40k-rules.html

Vigilus detachments are banned in competitive play.

That's fine since nobody wanted Raptors and Warp Talons to be playable anyway.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
So you think specialist detachments are just dead? You know how tournament comp rules tend to spread to more casual play...

Yup. No more Host Raptorial. No more Tip of the Spear or Viscous Descent. With the new points for warp talons the Eighth Legion is officially hurting bad.

Wellp , that sucks for a lot of Strategies and even more for warlord trait access , which hurts Double for csm...

 kodos wrote:
Bases for Tanks?
https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/YhayvIqNFF5guBJt.jpg

I think its more a 'if you want to' situation. The 9th edition rules allow for it, and it simplifies things a lot- lots of 'modeling for advantage' and stray antenna/fins/protrusions issues just vanish.
Personally I think a lot of models look better on bases.

That said, pay attention various datasheets- some models, like the primaris tanks, explicitly say always measure to and from the hull (and 9th defines 'hull' as any and every part of the model)

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
So you think specialist detachments are just dead? You know how tournament comp rules tend to spread to more casual play...

Yup. No more Host Raptorial. No more Tip of the Spear or Viscous Descent. With the new points for warp talons the Eighth Legion is officially hurting bad.

Can't say I'll miss most of then seeing as they were all over the ppace interms of powerups to factions that certainly didn't need them.

Though it does seem more and more like 9th will be GT packet or Crusade at clubs and store's.

 Asmodai wrote:
https://spikeybits.com/2020/07/gw-nerfs-grand-tournament-play-40k-rules.html

Vigilus detachments are banned in competitive play.

Waaaaat!

Guess GW decided they were bad idea and don't want to expand on other factions and now just try to forget it. Not unusual for GW to turn around before completing design style for everybody.

Jesus I love my Vigilus Detachments. They're the only thing making melee Kastelan Robots viable and one of the few things making them fun and they're getting rid of this. Seeing as every fart that comes from Competitive spreads to Matched Play no doubt everyone at the LGS is going to want this applied.

This also kills the Plasma Destroyer 666® list and so reduces the amount of variety of lists one can produce. This goes for every codex that has Vigilus detachments, some are bonkers but can be just balanced a bit better, while most are ways to allow fun themed lists that we wouldn't see otherwise.

Stop killing variety GW please

Ice_can wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
So you think specialist detachments are just dead? You know how tournament comp rules tend to spread to more casual play...

Yup. No more Host Raptorial. No more Tip of the Spear or Viscous Descent. With the new points for warp talons the Eighth Legion is officially hurting bad.

Can't say I'll miss most of then seeing as they were all over the ppace interms of powerups to factions that certainly didn't need them.

I tend to agree. Not because such and such faction is losing things, as just the basic principle. I really dislike campaign books that linger on like bad relatives, with no idea when it will be over or how increasingly few people have the actual rules (rather than what they think they say, or what the internet says they say).

The further the rules (and codex releases) get from their origin point, the more problems they create, and its never clear when it will finally stop.
So an arbitrary, 'Nope, done.' is fine by me.

If they could hurry up and do ti to the PA books, I'd be just as pleased.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Asmodai wrote:
https://spikeybits.com/2020/07/gw-nerfs-grand-tournament-play-40k-rules.html

Vigilus detachments are banned in competitive play.

That's fine since nobody wanted Raptors and Warp Talons to be playable anyway.

Yeah, absolutely great for a legion based on using jump troops. Thanks gw, you executed one of my armies (R&H), and kneecaped the other.

Voss wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
So you think specialist detachments are just dead? You know how tournament comp rules tend to spread to more casual play...

Yup. No more Host Raptorial. No more Tip of the Spear or Viscous Descent. With the new points for warp talons the Eighth Legion is officially hurting bad.

Can't say I'll miss most of then seeing as they were all over the ppace interms of powerups to factions that certainly didn't need them.

I tend to agree. Not because such and such faction is losing things, as just the basic principle. I really dislike campaign books that linger on like bad relatives, with no idea when it will be over or how increasingly few people have the actual rules (rather than what they think they say, or what the internet says they say).

The further the rules (and codex releases) get from their origin point, the more problems they create, and its never clear when it will finally stop.
So an arbitrary, 'Nope, done.' is fine by me.

If they could hurry up and do ti to the PA books, I'd be just as pleased.

The PA books will linger untill atleast the last codex of 9th drops so they are probably going to be around for a 18 months to two years. Likely to be CA 2022 or CA2023.

I think it's pretty obvious that they are trying to create a new baseline. I expect PA stuff to be phased out as each army's codex comes out, which may hint at the order that happens. I don't think that those getting the last PA are going to get an early Codex.

tneva82 wrote:

 Mr_Rose wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Overread wrote:


If anything their book is likely built with 9th edition in mind

Lol no it wasn't. Too much rules that gets totally neutered or even completely removed for it to be 9th ed compliant. Plus whole sacred rites makes zero sense in edition where core rules encourage mono building. That is mark of 8th ed codex. 9th ed codexes shouldn't have that.

Examples? And what about sacred rites no longer makes sense?

Sacred rose had 2/3 of bonuses lose most of sting. Mortifiers flat out lost one special rule(it doesn't do anymore and indeed errata removed lt).

Sacred rite rewards staying mono. In 8th made sense because without it there wasn't any reason not to soup. Souping is basically free powerup. In 9th you pay for souping up. There's reason to not soup. So sacred rites reward you for taking rewards. It's like giving point decrease to gun while doublig damape output same time

Sacred rose rule does exactly what it always did; prevent more than one model from fleeing, not that anyone took it for that, and Mortifiers lost half of one rule. In exchange Miracle Dice gained the power to auto-pass morale tests without spending CP or burning a 1/battle stratagem. As for the Rites… you do know there is no actual penalty for souping still? Just a lack of an outright benefit for taking a MSB with some spare points – which was the problem – taking two patrols leaves you with the same CP no matter if you fill them both with Sisters or one of Sisters and one of Guard so if there a tactical advantage to having numerous cheap heavy weapons in that second detachment, mono-faction better have something to offset it.

people are surprised that past edition campaign book rules are not useable with the next edition?

must be your first edition change with GW.....

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Asmodai wrote:
https://spikeybits.com/2020/07/gw-nerfs-grand-tournament-play-40k-rules.html

Vigilus detachments are banned in competitive play.

That's fine since nobody wanted Raptors and Warp Talons to be playable anyway.

This seems to lends to the rumor that a CSM book isn't far off. Crossing my fingers until they break.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kodos wrote:
people are surprised that past edition campaign book rules are not useable with the next edition?

must be your first edition change with GW.....

They're usable. Just not in tournament play. Which, yes, it will probably become standard.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 kodos wrote:
people are surprised that past edition campaign book rules are not useable with the next edition?

must be your first edition change with GW.....

They're usable. Just not in tournament play. Which, yes, it will probably become standard.

I was gonna say, you initially said matched play, which is not true. It's just tournament play, which is perfectly reasonable IMHO.

Tournament missions are the same basic structure and most of the same secondaries as the matched play ones (though some of them have different scoring).

Well, I guess we're going to find out pretty soon whether first-turn advantage is really as bad as I think it is, and as bad as a lot of other people playing games have been saying.

Someone at GW really hated orks last edition.

Both the SSAG and shoot twice strat is gone
I don’t think any army relied on vigilus detachments to be competitive as much as orks... the SAG in any form is dead this edition...

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 kodos wrote:
people are surprised that past edition campaign book rules are not useable with the next edition?

must be your first edition change with GW.....

They're usable. Just not in tournament play. Which, yes, it will probably become standard.

I was gonna say, you initially said matched play, which is not true. It's just tournament play, which is perfectly reasonable IMHO.

LOL they're not viable for even casual play unless you REALLY want to be in that much denial about it.

gungo wrote:
Someone at GW really hated orks last edition.

Both the SSAG and shoot twice strat is gone
I don’t think any army relied on vigilus detachments to be competitive as much as orks... the SAG in any form is dead this edition...

Orks got hit the least and still have tons of tools. The SSAG was a crutch of layered CP shenanigans. It's probably better than its gone to let people use something else for a change.

Orks got hit the least...

5 point grots.

Yeah...

 Daedalus81 wrote:

gungo wrote:
Someone at GW really hated orks last edition.

Both the SSAG and shoot twice strat is gone
I don’t think any army relied on vigilus detachments to be competitive as much as orks... the SAG in any form is dead this edition...

Orks got hit the least and still have tons of tools. The SSAG was a crutch of layered CP shenanigans. It's probably better than its gone to let people use something else for a change.

Hit the least? Grots cost the same as a guardsmen! Ork boys went up...the most used relic was deleted... one of the most used strats was deleted
All of the above was used in every tournament list. Literally core units gone...
The relic never prevented you from using anything else...

 JNAProductions wrote:
Orks got hit the least...

5 point grots.

Yeah...

Well i guess you could argue they still got rules

But all sarcasm aside this release get's really into wierd territory imo...

I'm still laughing over 5 point Guardsmen. The entire of 8th there were people wishing for them to go to 5 points. Then when it happens...

Which one of you made the monkey's paw wish?