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.

First, I believe that this is a really good change. SM captains allowing full re-rolls to hit for entire armies was a bit much. Assuming the don't pass out "Core" like candy at Halloween, this makes sense and also tones down some units like Leviathan Dreadnoughts (who with re-roll basically hit with all shots most times) etc.

This will also help with the "alpha strike" problem making the first round less deadly because now a whole army, or most of an army, is not getting all kinds of re-rolls. On top of the Terrain changes I think they are really making first turn less problematic.

It will be interesting to see how they apply this. I am wondering if there will be rules like :"if your warlord has the mark of Khrone, Beserkers gain CORE" type stuff to make it so you get rewarded for making a thematic army. I hope they do that so there is an incentive to taking thematic armies.

 Crimson wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

No the Normal Contemptro Dreadnaughts are not relics never have been.
FW built the both of the Contemptors and then a Plastic nockoff for one of the 30k Box sets. But GW main studio in their infinite wisdom (totally not Office Politics BS honest) decieded that the plastic 30k model must have rules in the 40k Codex.

Yes, we all know the model history. And I'm not talking about FW's 'relic' keyword. All Contemptors are relics in the fluff, ancient machines from the HH era, thus it is bizarre to have a better, even relicier version of them.

The Relic versions are the oldest of the old, they were relics even at the time of the heresy, they are from the time of the crusade, some are even crewed by founding legioneries. The have different rules in the heresy why wouldn't FW make a similar distinction in 40k.
If anything needs squatting it's the codex contemptor.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Ehh Maybe. I have 0 faith in GW's ability to balance a more complicated system as they are pretty bad at balancing a less complex system.

As with anything encountering this much fundamental change there is always the chance for it to go wrong, but GW has demonstrated pretty clear-eyed awareness of the issues surrounding 8th and has produced what appears to be acceptable fixes.

These changes do offer more complexity for internal balancing. Do infantry with rerolls outshine tanks? They kind of were already. If point changes aren't handled delicately it could shake out other issues.

Sisters are the army this issue is easiest to illustrate with. Exorcists and a full compliment of retributors are both approximately the same points

As it stands, with the new multi-melta rules, Retributors put out significantly more damage than the exorcist(8 shots vs 6 shot average for the exorcist, armorium cherubs, access to a simulacrum for double miracle dice, melta) at the expense of shorter range and being more resource hungry. The exorcist is relatively tough for a baseline tank, but retributors are generally going to be 2+4++6+++ immune to AP-2 with 6 ablative wounds so retributors in practice are slightly more durable than exorcists.

Retributors are much more likely to recieve core than Exorcists are, which means that Exorcists will likely be losing both the immunity to AP-2 AND canoness rerolls compared to retributors. Unless massive amounts of S4 AP-1 bolters become the be all end all of the competitive scene, there'd be no meaningful reason to run exorcists over retributors(given all else stays the same).

If BOTH lose CORE then neither unit is likely to be a worthwhile pick anymore, without some kind of compensatory changes.

ERJAK wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Ehh Maybe. I have 0 faith in GW's ability to balance a more complicated system as they are pretty bad at balancing a less complex system.

As with anything encountering this much fundamental change there is always the chance for it to go wrong, but GW has demonstrated pretty clear-eyed awareness of the issues surrounding 8th and has produced what appears to be acceptable fixes.

These changes do offer more complexity for internal balancing. Do infantry with rerolls outshine tanks? They kind of were already. If point changes aren't handled delicately it could shake out other issues.

Sisters are the army this issue is easiest to illustrate with. Exorcists and a full compliment of retributors are both approximately the same points

As it stands, with the new multi-melta rules, Retributors put out significantly more damage than the exorcist(8 shots vs 6 shot average for the exorcist, armorium cherubs, access to a simulacrum for double miracle dice, melta) at the expense of shorter range and being more resource hungry. The exorcist is relatively tough for a baseline tank, but retributors are generally going to be 2+4++6+++ immune to AP-2 with 6 ablative wounds so retributors in practice are slightly more durable than exorcists.

Retributors are much more likely to recieve core than Exorcists are, which means that Exorcists will likely be losing both the immunity to AP-2 AND canoness rerolls compared to retributors. Unless massive amounts of S4 AP-1 bolters become the be all end all of the competitive scene, there'd be no meaningful reason to run exorcists over retributors(given all else stays the same).

If BOTH lose CORE then neither unit is likely to be a worthwhile pick anymore, without some kind of compensatory changes.

I think both units will still work just fine like they always have, even without re rolls. I think your exaggerating, since when did a unit require re rolls to be considered a good unit? They can still perform amazing.

Why do people assume that Core units will be added without points adjustments? I expect them to be added in with new codexes (AS WE ARE SEEING!) where rules and points are adjusted anyway.

Also, expect points changes when the weapon/wound changes come in...

 Crimson wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

No the Normal Contemptro Dreadnaughts are not relics never have been.
FW built the both of the Contemptors and then a Plastic nockoff for one of the 30k Box sets. But GW main studio in their infinite wisdom (totally not Office Politics BS honest) decieded that the plastic 30k model must have rules in the 40k Codex.

Yes, we all know the model history. And I'm not talking about FW's 'relic' keyword. All Contemptors are relics in the fluff, ancient machines from the HH era, thus it is bizarre to have a better, even relicier version of them.

Very much agreed!

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Why? The codex one sucks. It has literally two options for range weapons AND degrading movement for a melee walker.

There can of course be rules for the FW loadouts. The point is that there should be one contemptor profile and all contemptors should use that.

You're right, and it should be the FW entry!

 Alwrath wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Ehh Maybe. I have 0 faith in GW's ability to balance a more complicated system as they are pretty bad at balancing a less complex system.

As with anything encountering this much fundamental change there is always the chance for it to go wrong, but GW has demonstrated pretty clear-eyed awareness of the issues surrounding 8th and has produced what appears to be acceptable fixes.

These changes do offer more complexity for internal balancing. Do infantry with rerolls outshine tanks? They kind of were already. If point changes aren't handled delicately it could shake out other issues.

Sisters are the army this issue is easiest to illustrate with. Exorcists and a full compliment of retributors are both approximately the same points

As it stands, with the new multi-melta rules, Retributors put out significantly more damage than the exorcist(8 shots vs 6 shot average for the exorcist, armorium cherubs, access to a simulacrum for double miracle dice, melta) at the expense of shorter range and being more resource hungry. The exorcist is relatively tough for a baseline tank, but retributors are generally going to be 2+4++6+++ immune to AP-2 with 6 ablative wounds so retributors in practice are slightly more durable than exorcists.

Retributors are much more likely to recieve core than Exorcists are, which means that Exorcists will likely be losing both the immunity to AP-2 AND canoness rerolls compared to retributors. Unless massive amounts of S4 AP-1 bolters become the be all end all of the competitive scene, there'd be no meaningful reason to run exorcists over retributors(given all else stays the same).

If BOTH lose CORE then neither unit is likely to be a worthwhile pick anymore, without some kind of compensatory changes.

I think both units will still work just fine like they always have, even without re rolls. I think your exaggerating, since when did a unit require re rolls to be considered a good unit? They can still perform amazing.

Retributors already don't work how they always have (because they don't suck now!). And the answer to your question is "Literally always." A unit that 'CAN' perform AMAZING is generally nowhere near as good as a unit that DOES perform WELL. That's why the beta codex Exorcist was such a PoS.

It's not about them being a good unit or not, it's about them being better than your alternatives. With units like Mortifiers and repentia(neither of which requiring much in the way of buffs) kicking around being pretty goddam good already, seeing exorcists suddenly being about 8% worse offensively and significantly more fragile, it's competitors suddenly look much better by comparison.

Stand and shoot retributors would be DOA for sure though. You'd have them played as a unit you SR like marines do with eradicators or cheap transport unit with 2 MM and cherubs, but without the immune to -2 and not getting the 4++ they die to harsh language. You'd never see a full 10 girl, 4MM squad again.

 Crimson wrote:
That the FW guys idiotically decided to make even relicier version doesn't change that. (I am eagerly waiting for them to come up with a new venerable relic-relic contemptor dreadnought.)

There was nothing idiotic about it. The rules are defined by the miniature kits. There are two kits - an extremely limited plastic one that has all of two gun options, and the resin one with far more guns. The Codex gets the limited one, and FW had to make rules for their original version.

It's got nothing to do with lore or any of that. There are two Contemptor dreads simply because GW won't make a unified entry that includes all the weapons in the Codex as the kit does not have those weapons.

Same reason there's no Flamestorm Cannon or Autocannon options for Dreadnoughts in the main Codex.

I suspect you already know this, and despite agreeing with you that there should just be one entry for the Contemptor, this is the reason why there are two.

Regardless, there’s absolutely nothing to stop you using the FW rules for the GW plastic model. They’re straight-up better.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
That the FW guys idiotically decided to make even relicier version doesn't change that. (I am eagerly waiting for them to come up with a new venerable relic-relic contemptor dreadnought.)

There was nothing idiotic about it. The rules are defined by the miniature kits. There are two kits - an extremely limited plastic one that has all of two gun options, and the resin one with far more guns. The Codex gets the limited one, and FW had to make rules for their original version.

It's got nothing to do with lore or any of that. There are two Contemptor dreads simply because GW won't make a unified entry that includes all the weapons in the Codex as the kit does not have those weapons.

Same reason there's no Flamestorm Cannon or Autocannon options for Dreadnoughts in the main Codex.

I suspect you already know this, and despite agreeing with you that there should just be one entry for the Contemptor, this is the reason why there are two.

Also the FW one existed as an entry long before the gakky plastic kit came to existence.

ERJAK wrote:

Stand and shoot retributors would be DOA for sure though. You'd have them played as a unit you SR like marines do with eradicators or cheap transport unit with 2 MM and cherubs, but without the immune to -2 and not getting the 4++ they die to harsh language. You'd never see a full 10 girl, 4MM squad again.

On the other end of that a 2MM squad is now going to get you 8/4 shots where the old squad was 6/4.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
That the FW guys idiotically decided to make even relicier version doesn't change that. (I am eagerly waiting for them to come up with a new venerable relic-relic contemptor dreadnought.)

There was nothing idiotic about it. The rules are defined by the miniature kits. There are two kits - an extremely limited plastic one that has all of two gun options, and the resin one with far more guns. The Codex gets the limited one, and FW had to make rules for their original version.

It's got nothing to do with lore or any of that. There are two Contemptor dreads simply because GW won't make a unified entry that includes all the weapons in the Codex as the kit does not have those weapons.

Same reason there's no Flamestorm Cannon or Autocannon options for Dreadnoughts in the main Codex.

I suspect you already know this, and despite agreeing with you that there should just be one entry for the Contemptor, this is the reason why there are two.

Nope, not talking about the weapon options, I'm talking about the profile. There is 'normal' Contemptor profile (some FW Contemptors use this too) and then souped up super relic version. As all Contemptors are already ancient super tech, the even superer and ancienter version doesn't make sense.

Obviously done to make the FW one slightly more special and explain why it had more weapon options.

Again, it comes down the miniatures, not the rules. The miniatures are what define the rules. It always starts with the miniatures:

"If any new miniatures are being released alongside the project, we spend a long time first gawping at how cool they are, then get down to working out how they’ll fit into that particular army and what profiles and abilities they should have." - Robin Cruddace, WD 455, Jul/Aug 2020.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Regardless, there’s absolutely nothing to stop you using the FW rules for the GW plastic model. They’re straight-up better.

Until they don't exist anymore, or get rewritten into something different.

Remember we have a new "Compendium" coming up that is going to significantly cut the amount of FW units available in the game. I can see a lot of options that people either really like or have relied on going bye bye with that book.

Breton wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

Breton wrote:


But none of the unplayable units become playable either.

Giving them re-rolls is not the way to go. An HQ that babysits tanks to make them more accurate is a stupid thing and I'm glad it's going to disappear.

My point is if we're all about making everyone else's stuff worse, we're all going to be playing with nerf chainswords.

I don't care if the captain is sitting back with the (pick your tank) . I care that the "best" army was two captains, one with the front line, one with the whirlwinds (pick your tank) I'm far more interested in pushing more and more units into playable. I'd rather go back to some sort of table wide bonus like Rites of Battle (but more useful) that you can't double up on to push people into Libbys and Chappies. And for the love of God, please make the Chappie aura not a second rate Captain aura. You can reroll all 1's, or you can reroll only the close combat 1's. Why did GW ever think people would take a chaplain?

which is proably why they changed chappies into, effectively, casters

 Daedalus81 wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

Stand and shoot retributors would be DOA for sure though. You'd have them played as a unit you SR like marines do with eradicators or cheap transport unit with 2 MM and cherubs, but without the immune to -2 and not getting the 4++ they die to harsh language. You'd never see a full 10 girl, 4MM squad again.

On the other end of that a 2MM squad is now going to get you 8/4 shots where the old squad was 6/4.

That's the reason you would take retributors at all now. Literally that entire discussion from the very first post hinged entirely on retributors new profile finally making them reasonable competition to the exorcist. I wish I had the will to pull up that internet explorer heading to area 51 meme here.

BrianDavion wrote:

which is proably why they changed chappies into, effectively, casters

Oh yeah, they had to fix it, but the point is they didn't even think about it when they released. GW just doesn't spend anywhere near enough time on multiple good options.

There are a lot of complaints about bloat, and how many data sheets are in a codex etc, but Realistically how often do you see more than a handful of them because the rest are junk? Would you rather see the same army over and over, or would you rather see a codex with those 90 some datasheets make 20 different armies because all the datasheets can work?

Of course I see a lot of people wondering if Terminators/Aggressors will be CORE when Terminators were one of the examples of units they were making CORE

I hope its a relatively small list that are core. So in marine armies, just terminators, standard bikes and standard troops. I am not even sure if Dreadnaughts should get it.

Start with a smaller list and see how it goes. Terminators were not that popular, so I think rerolls can stay on them. Because if its mostly infantry, then given how marines can have infantry for just about every slot, it wouldnt seem to make any difference.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Obviously done to make the FW one slightly more special and explain why it had more weapon options.

Again, it comes down the miniatures, not the rules. The miniatures are what define the rules. It always starts with the miniatures:

"If any new miniatures are being released alongside the project, we spend a long time first gawping at how cool they are, then get down to working out how they’ll fit into that particular army and what profiles and abilities they should have." - Robin Cruddace, WD 455, Jul/Aug 2020.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Regardless, there’s absolutely nothing to stop you using the FW rules for the GW plastic model. They’re straight-up better.

Until they don't exist anymore, or get rewritten into something different.

Remember we have a new "Compendium" coming up that is going to significantly cut the amount of FW units available in the game. I can see a lot of options that people either really like or have relied on going bye bye with that book.

I’m aware of the upcoming FW book. There will still be a Contemptor in it, because the Codex rules don’t cover FW options and GW are most unlikely to suddenly start providing FW rules in Codexes. So there will be a FW Contemptor option, and if it’s “better” or more fun for you you can still use those rules with the plastic chap. My whole point still stands regardless of the new FW Compendium.

 Alwrath wrote:


I think both units will still work just fine like they always have, even without re rolls. I think your exaggerating, since when did a unit require re rolls to be considered a good unit? They can still perform amazing.

every +4 to hit unit, that doesn't cost 5-6pts per model ? It is not a question of potentialy being amazing, it is a question of being to give them same results game after game after game. It is like sports, if you are great for one bout, but lose every one after, then it doesn't matter how amazing you are in that one fight you win, because you are expected to have multiple per day. Same with armies and models, no one buys them to have one or two good games with them.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

I’m aware of the upcoming FW book. There will still be a Contemptor in it, because the Codex rules don’t cover FW options and GW are most unlikely to suddenly start providing FW rules in Codexes. So there will be a FW Contemptor option, and if it’s “better” or more fun for you you can still use those rules with the plastic chap. My whole point still stands regardless of the new FW Compendium.

Karol wrote:

 Alwrath wrote:


I think both units will still work just fine like they always have, even without re rolls. I think your exaggerating, since when did a unit require re rolls to be considered a good unit? They can still perform amazing.

every +4 to hit unit, that doesn't cost 5-6pts per model ? It is not a question of potentialy being amazing, it is a question of being to give them same results game after game after game. It is like sports, if you are great for one bout, but lose every one after, then it doesn't matter how amazing you are in that one fight you win, because you are expected to have multiple per day. Same with armies and models, no one buys them to have one or two good games with them.

I can think of an awfully high amount of models that hit on 4+ and have no rerolls which are considered plenty competitive.

Plot twist: Firstborn marines will not get the CORE keyword

(Source: completely made up)

Yeah, well. The preview article literally has Terminators as an example of a unit that gets Core.

 Jidmah wrote:
Plot twist: Firstborn marines will not get the CORE keyword

(Source: completely made up)

Termies were one of their examples that will. But maybe Tacs and Devs won't.

ERJAK wrote:
Retributors are much more likely to recieve core than Exorcists are, which means

If Retributor receive CORE, it means that there was a new codex release for the Sisters. Which means that everything you wrote above is possibly no longer true. Maybe the Retributors are now much much more expensive than the Exorcist, so your point comparison? Moot. Maybe they changed the faction rules AND the Imagifier rule and none of those provide any kind of AP protection. Same thing for the SoF improvements. Your points are all moot now!

 harlokin wrote:
That's really interesting....sounds good at first blush.

I kinda dig it.

It's seeming to me like certain Characters will buff Core units, but there will also be other dudes that buff specific other units. For example, maybe Techmarines would be the guys that buff your tanks/war machines and things of that nature.

It never made sense to me that some guy standing in the dirt outside the tank would be waving his sword around so the gunner shoots better. Or more comically, making the aircraft that flies over his head more accurate because he pointed sternly at a bad guy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
. Your points are all moot now!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62necDwQb5E

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
. Your points are all moot now!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62necDwQb5E

I expected a rick roll and was pleasantly surprised.

Breton wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

I’m aware of the upcoming FW book. There will still be a Contemptor in it, because the Codex rules don’t cover FW options and GW are most unlikely to suddenly start providing FW rules in Codexes. So there will be a FW Contemptor option, and if it’s “better” or more fun for you you can still use those rules with the plastic chap. My whole point still stands regardless of the new FW Compendium.

Unless the FW options/sheet goes Legends.

It seems like generic stratagems too are being limited to core units.

Things like double shooting obliterators and hive guards will probably not survive 9th.