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.

Tycho wrote:

I’ve only picked up extra Plague Marines, Blightlords, and Blight Haulers for that. It’s looking like those were good purchases. I think I’m building DG as my primary force now.

DG is my primary. Based on the 9th ed games I played this weekend (and all the "official" ones I've seen online form playtesters), GET RHINOS. They will be essential to your Plague Marines. Essential.

I think, at least from looking at other people games, that having transports is going to be important to many armies, not just DG.

The issue with how silly the points changes to grots are is really played up when you notice that nurglings got no points increase at all, something that is so mind-boggling that you almost think they just missed them in their spreadsheet because they're swarms not infantry.

54 points of nurglings: 12 T2 wounds, 5++/5+++ (for D1).

55 points of grots: 11 T2 wounds, 6+ save.

Nurglings also get infiltrate, which is straight-up fire in the new missions.

yukishiro1 wrote:
The issue with how silly the points changes to grots are is really played up when you notice that nurglings got no points increase at all, something that is so mind-boggling that you almost think they just missed them in their spreadsheet because they're swarms not infantry.

54 points of nurglings: 12 T2 wounds, 5++/5+++ (for D1).

55 points of grots: 11 T2 wounds, 6+ save.

Nurglings also get infiltrate, which is straight-up fire in the new missions.

Swarms in general didn't see significant point increases, since they cannot interact with a lot of scoring stuff.

Games may matter - but intuitively this seems profoundly negative.

As I think a lot of people have said, this feels like they hurriedly gave this to an intern, GW said "our basic principles are X, Y and Z" and so they just pointed stuff accordingly and then it was thrown out.

There seems to be almost no serious thought towards creating a balanced game, so yes, considerations of units are all over the shop.

Perhaps the most disappointing is that, as people have said, the good stuff seems to have got better, and the bad stuff seems to have got worse. Not universally perhaps, but in so many cases to show this was a job lot decision.

The FAQs are live on GW's website.

Tyel wrote:
Games may matter - but intuitively this seems profoundly negative.

As I think a lot of people have said, this feels like they hurriedly gave this to an intern, GW said "our basic principles are X, Y and Z" and so they just pointed stuff accordingly and then it was thrown out.

There seems to be almost no serious thought towards creating a balanced game, so yes, considerations of units are all over the shop.

Perhaps the most disappointing is that, as people have said, the good stuff seems to have got better, and the bad stuff seems to have got worse. Not universally perhaps, but in so many cases to show this was a job lot decision.

May also point to playtesters sticking to their bubble and only providing feedback on the units they already 'know' are good.

Other stuff getting a cursory 'yeah, that's fine' to GW and a private muttered 'who even cares, anyway?'

GW introduced most of the Faction Focus articles by providing a 'playtester and tournament player' who's an expert in 'such and such' army. In my experience, army experts will fight tooth and nail to keep their favorites from being nerfed, even (or especially) if they need it. Anything else gets a pass.

Spoletta wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
The issue with how silly the points changes to grots are is really played up when you notice that nurglings got no points increase at all, something that is so mind-boggling that you almost think they just missed them in their spreadsheet because they're swarms not infantry.

54 points of nurglings: 12 T2 wounds, 5++/5+++ (for D1).

55 points of grots: 11 T2 wounds, 6+ save.

Nurglings also get infiltrate, which is straight-up fire in the new missions.

Swarms in general didn't see significant point increases, since they cannot interact with a lot of scoring stuff.

Oh, that's a good point I guess: nurglings can't do actions.

 Blackie wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


A 10 man grot unit is a good middle ground.

No one is shooting BCs at them or if they do... you're winning. A TFC gets no extra shots and kills half a unit. Previously that mean 10 grits dead. Now it means 1 dead and maybe some more.

For 50 points you could take a deffkopta though, which is more durable, faster, fly and is better in CC and shooting. At 80 you could have 10 boyz. I suspect this is the age of extinction for the little fellas

As you should take deffkoptas if you want something for that particular role, but that really depends on the rest of your list. Not taking boyz and need to fill troop slots? FA full up with buggies? Need grot shields?

So, to the fellas who were like "you can't draw any conclusions yet, maybe the FAQs have changed things!" The FAQs are now out. Am I allowed to have a opinion on all these changes now, or do I have to wait until 10th edition?

Essentially no changes in the DG and CSM faqs, just a couple changes to game phrases ie Kharn's Betrayer rule effects friendly models in "engagement range".

rip to machine spirit.

Voss wrote:
May also point to playtesters sticking to their bubble and only providing feedback on the units they already 'know' are good.

Other stuff getting a cursory 'yeah, that's fine' to GW and a private muttered 'who even cares, anyway?'

Its possible, but this feels very much like a GW gonna do what GW want to do job.

To some extent - I can see the old agonies.

Like okay, lets say Grots are overcosted at 5 points. I can see that. Lets say they should be 4. (Argue the toss to get down to 3 etc - but go with it).
If you were bringing say 30... that's still only 30 points lost. In a 2k list, its not all that. If you were bringing 90 okay its more significant, but arguably by bringing 90 (or whatever) you are making your opponent's list ask some questions.
I never really liked this argument, because... maths is maths and everything should be balanced - but at the same time those 30 points is only 30 points, its probably not making or breaking a game.

But lets look at the Guardsman.
I can now take a flamer, a grenade launcher or a plasma gun for the same 5 points. Now okay, maybe you apply the same logic above and go "well lets say we are off, its only a few points".
But... I'm not convinced by that at all. There is no evidence of trying to balance these different options. The idea these are worth the same is faintly laughable.
Now I can see playtesters going "it doesn't seem that broken" - and indeed it might not be - but I feel safe in saying you won't see guard without plasma, if indeed they bother with the special weapon. Because I think the maths will come out that way except perhaps if you knew your opponent was only running Ork Boyz, and enjoyed being mopped up by so many armies in the game.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
So, to the fellas who were like "you can't draw any conclusions yet, maybe the FAQs have changed things!" The FAQs are now out. Am I allowed to have a opinion on all these changes now, or do I have to wait until 10th edition?

Nah, still plenty of things we could wait for. Maybe the BRB faq will change some key thing? Then you have to wait for the meta to settle. Then it will probably be a new codex or something.

Jokes aside, I think as long as you keep in mind that it is hard to be 100% certain about your conclusions it should be fine.

the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, the problem isn't with infantry units, its with everything else in relation to them.

Gee, should I take the minimum 30 cultists for a battalion or should I have a disco lord?

The disco lord will die faster now - especially now with the -1 cap. And it really just depends on what kind of list you want to run.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Trickstick wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
So, to the fellas who were like "you can't draw any conclusions yet, maybe the FAQs have changed things!" The FAQs are now out. Am I allowed to have a opinion on all these changes now, or do I have to wait until 10th edition?

Nah, still plenty of things we could wait for. Maybe the BRB faq will change some key thing? Then you have to wait for the meta to settle. Then it will probably be a new codex or something.

Jokes aside, I think as long as you keep in mind that it is hard to be 100% certain about your conclusions it should be fine.

What I'm confused about is that they didn't update the chainswords for all Astartes. It seemed like they were certainly set to do that for all marines, but I see it nowhere in the FAQ. I imagine they'll do it in the codex then, but will CSM get them, too?

Minimarines don't get the better bolters, so why would they get the better chainswords?

Primaris just do everything better. That's always been GW's approach, presumably in order to get all the space marine players to replace their collections with new Primaris collections.

@Karol - yes, fast dedicated transports are key for everyone. The reason it’s so much more important for DG is because the way that codex is structured, combined with the way 9th ed missions seem to play, means your standard foot-sloghing DG no have ZERO chance to win even in a “friendly” game. For some factions, transports will be extremely helpful - for DG- as things currently sit, they will be borderline unplayable in most cases w/out those Rhinos.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Minimarines don't get the better bolters, so why would they get the better chainswords?

Primaris just do everything better. That's always been GW's approach, presumably in order to get all the space marine players to replace their collections with new Primaris collections.

There was an article on, but cant recall which. The new storm shields aren't named differently, which implies crossover.

There's basically no reason to bring grots.

You might as well spend the 30 points, and get a free 11th wound out of your nob.

Boys can also benefit from clan cultures, and get stuff like a free 6++ save from being DS.

That's a nice Land Raider you got there... Here, let me fix that for you *drops an 80pt Meltagun Scion Command Squad 5" away for 1CP*, and a 40pt Tempestor Prime 9" away... Total cost: 120pts, Land Raider: 180+weapons...
BUT WAIT!
THERE'S MORE!
Now you can Deep Strike your Lambdan Lions Tempestus Plasmagun Command Squads with their own dedicated Primes and still have additional Primes to hand out orders on the frontlines, since the Ro3 is gone!

GG GW ya morons...

 Slayer6 wrote:
That's a nice Land Raider you got there... Here, let me fix that for you *drops an 80pt Meltagun Scion Command Squad 5" away for 1CP*, and a 40pt Tempestor Prime 9" away... Total cost: 120pts, Land Raider: 180+weapons...
BUT WAIT!
THERE'S MORE!
Now you can Deep Strike your Lambdan Lions Tempestus Plasmagun Command Squads with their own dedicated Primes and still have additional Primes to hand out orders on the frontlines, since the Ro3 is gone!

GG GW ya morons...

Ro3 is a mission restriction now.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
What I'm confused about is that they didn't update the chainswords for all Astartes. It seemed like they were certainly set to do that for all marines, but I see it nowhere in the FAQ. I imagine they'll do it in the codex then, but will CSM get them, too?

Can't see the woods for the trees. I'd bet good money that if you asked them that question they'd answer with something along the lines of "But don't people play them that way already?". GW is a very "we play this way and we assume everyone else does too" place. If it was't updated it was probably because they assume it didn't need to be updated.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
So, to the fellas who were like "you can't draw any conclusions yet, maybe the FAQs have changed things!" The FAQs are now out. Am I allowed to have a opinion on all these changes now, or do I have to wait until 10th edition?

Well people here are already saying "We need to play games first!", so no, you're not allowed to have an opinion.

They should definitely errata all marine chainswords and stormshields to work the same way. It will just be confusing if there are several different versions of the same item in one army.

 Trickstick wrote:

 Slayer6 wrote:
That's a nice Land Raider you got there... Here, let me fix that for you *drops an 80pt Meltagun Scion Command Squad 5" away for 1CP*, and a 40pt Tempestor Prime 9" away... Total cost: 120pts, Land Raider: 180+weapons...
BUT WAIT!
THERE'S MORE!
Now you can Deep Strike your Lambdan Lions Tempestus Plasmagun Command Squads with their own dedicated Primes and still have additional Primes to hand out orders on the frontlines, since the Ro3 is gone!

GG GW ya morons...

Ro3 is a mission restriction now.

But no longer a core rule, which means if the specific missions aren't being used, then it can be abused and ignored. It's @#$%ups like this which make new iterations of 40k, less than amazing...

Voss wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Games may matter - but intuitively this seems profoundly negative.

As I think a lot of people have said, this feels like they hurriedly gave this to an intern, GW said "our basic principles are X, Y and Z" and so they just pointed stuff accordingly and then it was thrown out.

There seems to be almost no serious thought towards creating a balanced game, so yes, considerations of units are all over the shop.

Perhaps the most disappointing is that, as people have said, the good stuff seems to have got better, and the bad stuff seems to have got worse. Not universally perhaps, but in so many cases to show this was a job lot decision.

May also point to playtesters sticking to their bubble and only providing feedback on the units they already 'know' are good.

Other stuff getting a cursory 'yeah, that's fine' to GW and a private muttered 'who even cares, anyway?'

GW introduced most of the Faction Focus articles by providing a 'playtester and tournament player' who's an expert in 'such and such' army. In my experience, army experts will fight tooth and nail to keep their favorites from being nerfed, even (or especially) if they need it. Anything else gets a pass.

If you're looking at 5 point handflamers and 50 point twin Multimeltas and thinking 'yeah, playtesters did that'...you're just wrong.

Nah, im done with GW. Been dealing with the chaos tax for to long. 6 point cultists and 14 point CSM's while Inter's are at 20. That's just blatant favoritism. Problem is, not sure where is the best place is to sell my stuff? Ebay?

 Crimson wrote:
They should definitely errata all marine chainswords and stormshields to work the same way. It will just be confusing if there are several different versions of the same item in one army.

The chainsword isn't the same. There's a normal chainsword, and an astartes chainsword. Not the same item.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
So, to the fellas who were like "you can't draw any conclusions yet, maybe the FAQs have changed things!" The FAQs are now out. Am I allowed to have a opinion on all these changes now, or do I have to wait until 10th edition?

Essentially no changes in the DG and CSM faqs, just a couple changes to game phrases ie Kharn's Betrayer rule effects friendly models in "engagement range".

rip to machine spirit.

Same people said we had to wait on scatbikes.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
They should definitely errata all marine chainswords and stormshields to work the same way. It will just be confusing if there are several different versions of the same item in one army.

The chainsword isn't the same. There's a normal chainsword, and an astartes chainsword. Not the same item.

He did say Marine Chainswords, not all Chainswords.

Table wrote:
Nah, im done with GW. Been dealing with the chaos tax for to long. 6 point cultists and 14 point CSM's while Inter's are at 20. That's just blatant favoritism. Problem is, not sure where is the best place is to sell my stuff? Ebay?

Selling your army just as you think they have been nerfed seems like a terrible market decision...

 Slayer6 wrote:

But no longer a core rule, which means if the specific missions aren't being used, then it can be abused and ignored. It's @#$%ups like this which make new iterations of 40k, less than amazing...

It wasn't really a core rule either before.

It was a suggested rule for tournament organizers to implement, that then got widely accepted as "basically a core rule".

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
They should definitely errata all marine chainswords and stormshields to work the same way. It will just be confusing if there are several different versions of the same item in one army.

The chainsword isn't the same. There's a normal chainsword, and an astartes chainsword. Not the same item.

He did say Marine Chainswords, not all Chainswords.

Right, but it's not the same item. There's a Chainsword, and then an Astartes Chainsword. The Primaris guys get the Astartes Chainsword, the minimarines get the normal Chainswords. It's not any more confusing to have both than to have power swords and power mauls.

Table wrote:
Nah, im done with GW. Been dealing with the chaos tax for to long. 6 point cultists and 14 point CSM's while Inter's are at 20. That's just blatant favoritism. Problem is, not sure where is the best place is to sell my stuff? Ebay?

Ebay is kinnda crap for selling mini's these days, you'll either get ignored or scalped with very little middle ground. The best place would actually be your local 40k focused facebook group/discord channel, because even if it goes for a little less than you want, there is no shipping or listing fee, and your growing your local scene. Failing that, I'd suggest the miniswap subreddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/Miniswap/ though it's becoming more popular which means dealing with jerks.