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.

What is the paint rule?

 Da Boss wrote:
What is the paint rule?

+10VP for having a "battle ready" army.

Actually I have a 6th one, but it's only kind of a problem of the rules?
6) Setting up good tables is hard/too little guidance for setting up good tables
They've tossed all these terrain rules at us, posted a couple of pictures of good tables, and expected us to understand. It took me dozens of games and some youtube videos on that topic to understand how to use all the terrain in a way to make an interesting game that actually supports all the things GW advertised about 9th. How to prevent the huge mosh-pit where durable melee reigns supreme, while not also turning the game into a shooting gallery.
I could write pages on my experience on how to build a good table, but that's not the topic. The short version is that, your table needs to have a good mix of dense, obscuring, difficult terrain and pure LOS blockers. Vehicles and monsters need places where they can fit through, big guns need to be able to shoot further than 12" (even if it's with a malus), infantry and smaller vehicles like dreads need to be able to hide, not every objective marker should be easy to defend, not every objective marker should be in an exposed position.
When I read battle reports and problems people describe with 9th, much of that stems from slapping ruins all over the table and calling it a day. In 9th having too much too similar terrain is just as bad for your game as playing on planet bowling ball. Judging from their examples in the BRB, GW seems to have understood that, but they offer too little guidance in that regard. 3 pictures simply isn't enough for such a complicated topic.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
What is the paint rule?

+10VP for having a "battle ready" army.

Thank you!
On terrain, yeah I can see that. You really want some example dimensions and so on I think. The point about space for vehicles and monsters is really important.

 Da Boss wrote:
What is the paint rule?

+10 VP for being battle ready. I removed that because I realized that this might derail the thread.

Technically my models aren't battle-ready because I prefer plain, black bases. While few have an actual issue with it, whenever I closely win a game, people crack that joke which is seriously getting on my nerves.

Thanks, I appreciate it. I agree it might derail the thread.

I had several friends growing up who prefered black bases as well. I usually use black for my RPG minis. Nothing wrong with it in my view.

Haven't decided on all five of my biggest gripes yet, but one is definitely going to be the fact that stratagems still exist.

They add a ridiculous CCG element to a game that has already suffered heavily from bloat.

Further, I still have no clue what they are even supposed to represent. Most of the time it seems like the most highly-trained soldiers in the galaxy need inspiration to remember where they keep their good ammunition or how to conduct a fighting retreat, and then on the next turn they'll have forgotten again.

And this is on top of the fact that a pile of wargear has been made into stratagems for no discernible reason.

But do you know what could have been done?

Stratagems could have been tied to HQs. As in, you need an HQ (possibly of the right type) within X" of the unit you want to use the stratagem on. Could also say that each HQs can only use a limited number of stratagems per turn or phase. HQs could also have unique stratagems, akin to Command abilities in AoS.

Now, granted, the number of Stratagems should still be substantially reduced. All the upgrade/wargear ones (including Relics) should return to being upgrades/wargear, which is paid for in points.

However, this would give HQs something to do on the battlefield, whilst also allowing for the complete removal of all auras. It's probably still not perfect, but thematically you've at least got more to play with (e.g. having an HQ authorise the use of rare ammunition against a specific target, or directing a fighting retreat).

 vipoid wrote:
However, this would give HQs something to do on the battlefield, whilst also allowing for the complete removal of all auras. It's probably still not perfect, but thematically you've at least got more to play with (e.g. having an HQ authorise the use of rare ammunition against a specific target, or directing a fighting retreat).

In my head stratagems have always been actions/orders/extra wargear authorized to be used by supreme command that is somewhere outside of the battlefield (in orbit/base camp/in the capitol/on another planet).

 Jidmah wrote:
Actually I have a 6th one, but it's only kind of a problem of the rules?
6) Setting up good tables is hard/too little guidance for setting up good tables

Yes. If memory serves you get a few photos - but I don't really see why there couldn't be a diagram with a grid showing "put this here, that here, and this there".
I can sort of see why they don't want people to go "okay to play 40k you must put a ruin in cell B2, and a forest in D4" but I don't think it would hurt that much to produce some standard board templates.

In practice the major issue remains that the average punter doesn't own nearly enough terrain - and since buying it from GW etc is expensive, and making it yourself is fiddly, this is likely to remain the case.

Storage is a huge issue too. I have been working on flat pack or easy to store terrain but it isn't exactly easy to have it flat pack, look good, and be functional. And GW no longer give much guidance that making your own terrain is possible, in fact they subtly discourage it.

If you are lacking terrain at home, getting MDF or paper terrain from third party producers is the best way to improve your tables. I'm especially fond of the TTCombat stuff, you can get so many cool things for very little money.

3) Keyword rampage
Try figuring out what the difference between stratagems affecting BUBONIC ASTARTES, DEATH GUARD INFANTRY, DEATH GUARD CORE, BUBONIC ASTARTES CORE and HERETIC ASTARTES is, and you will know what I mean.
I see what they did there, but it didn't go well. I'm working with software every day, so I managed to eventually parse the differences, but the threads about this clearly show that others struggle.

I feel like a lot of complaints about this come from the players who feel like they can't be competitive if they can't know every single thing. IDK how big a problem it truly is as, it's one of those things I see complained about on Dakka ... and rarely anywhere else. I've never seen anyone complain about in real life. I think the bigger issue is, they aren't using it like they said they would, and that initial use-case is the only way the multitude of keywords really functions imo. The amount just doesn't bother me. I don't know most of the keywords for armies I play against, and I've never felt like that's been a issue for me. The issue is, rather than use it like a scalpel to selectively fix specific, problem units, they've simply used it as a different kind of sledgehammer most of the time. CORE being a good example. It's classic GW really. Great idea, failed execution. The one saving grace is that, at least there's not a 30 page USR section with half a dozen to a dozen USRs that exist only to denote a large collection of OTHER usrs ...

I had several friends growing up who prefered black bases as well. I usually use black for my RPG minis. Nothing wrong with it in my view.

Clean, black bases can really show off a mini very well!

Actually I have a 6th one, but it's only kind of a problem of the rules?
6) Setting up good tables is hard/too little guidance for setting up good tables

Yeah, it's kind of funny - a lot of people wondered when the rules came out, if most groups would end up just sticking to maybe three basic terrain keywords and ditching the rest, leaving a swathe of rules generally unused. It seems like that's happening quite a bit in a lot of places unless you take the time with the group to go through all the terrain you have and assign permanent keywords. I agree it's a bit sloppy, but I'm not sure how to fix it. What would you do?

Since I play an army that seemed to have been relatively forgotten in the design process, most of of 9th I guess.

Tycho wrote:

3) Keyword rampage
Try figuring out what the difference between stratagems affecting BUBONIC ASTARTES, DEATH GUARD INFANTRY, DEATH GUARD CORE, BUBONIC ASTARTES CORE and HERETIC ASTARTES is, and you will know what I mean.
I see what they did there, but it didn't go well. I'm working with software every day, so I managed to eventually parse the differences, but the threads about this clearly show that others struggle.

I feel like a lot of complaints about this come from the players who feel like they can't be competitive if they can't know every single thing. IDK how big a problem it truly is as, it's one of those things I see complained about on Dakka ... and rarely anywhere else. I've never seen anyone complain about in real life. I think the bigger issue is, they aren't using it like they said they would, and that initial use-case is the only way the multitude of keywords really functions imo. The amount just doesn't bother me. I don't know most of the keywords for armies I play against, and I've never felt like that's been a issue for me.

I guess it's ok-ish if it's difficult to figure out an army you don't play. But for DG it's genuinely difficult to figure out how your own army works.

Actually I have a 6th one, but it's only kind of a problem of the rules?
6) Setting up good tables is hard/too little guidance for setting up good tables

Yeah, it's kind of funny - a lot of people wondered when the rules came out, if most groups would end up just sticking to maybe three basic terrain keywords and ditching the rest, leaving a swathe of rules generally unused. It seems like that's happening quite a bit in a lot of places unless you take the time with the group to go through all the terrain you have and assign permanent keywords. I agree it's a bit sloppy, but I'm not sure how to fix it. What would you do?

Actually, that is perfectly fine. Your really only need four types of terrain for a good table:
1) Ruins - obscuring obviously makes a huge difference, as does light cover. The center of your table should definitely be blocked by some ruins.
2) Forests/Industrial/ruined walls - blocking some firing lanes with dense terrain instead of obscuring makes it possible to shoot at least at some of the elite melee units heading for the center, and allows shooty units to use their range without enabling alpha-strikes
3) Barricades/pipes - these are basically the opposite of obscuring terrain, as the combination of difficult ground and unstable position make them great defenses against melee units, but close to useless against shooting. One of the best tips from the Tabletop Titan guys was to protect objectives to one side with barricades and with ruins to the other, suddenly making maneuvering matter.
4) Containers/Rocks - despite not having any keywords (except maybe unstable position), symetrical LoS blockers still have great use in games. Unlike ruins, units cannot run through them to gain LoS, and they don't necessarily block LoS to large models.
All other keywords but the ones I bolded are great fun to use, but rarely make a difference. They serve to further immersion more than anything.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
What is the paint rule?

+10 VP for being battle ready. I removed that because I realized that this might derail the thread.

Technically my models aren't battle-ready because I prefer plain, black bases. While few have an actual issue with it, whenever I closely win a game, people crack that joke which is seriously getting on my nerves.

So just paint your bases black with a tiny bit of grit added in.... You add the grit so that the idiots realize that you have in-fact painted your black bases black.

ccs wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
What is the paint rule?

+10 VP for being battle ready. I removed that because I realized that this might derail the thread.

Technically my models aren't battle-ready because I prefer plain, black bases. While few have an actual issue with it, whenever I closely win a game, people crack that joke which is seriously getting on my nerves.

So just paint your bases black with a tiny bit of grit added in.... You add the grit so that the idiots realize that you have in-fact painted your black bases black.

Back when I had most of my Marine Infantry painted, I would paint the top black and the rims different colors to help keep squads separated if they ever got jumbled up together. And yeah, I had to actually paint the tops of the base black because of my own sloppy painting of the feet.

For comparison:

The heavy bolter guy in the second was a fresh from a Devastator squad and I hadn't gotten around to painting his rim, yet.

1 Personally I'd rather not see the game continue down what appears to be an ever increasing game of rock paper scissors where cettain factions seem to be designed to hard counter specific weapons.

Oh you brought high strength weapons better hope you don't hit deathwing unit's.
Oh you brough lots of D2 weapons better hope you don't hit deathguard.
Oh you brought lota of AP better hope you don't meet Harlequines or demons.
Oh you brought decent save models better hope you dont fight marines with their AP for days.
Oh you brought a horde well better hope you don't meet someone with lots of blast weapons.

2 the slow rolling of codex creep again while it also being dragged out longer with the amount of suppliments.

3 Allowing a high crack addict to produce the points for the MFM 2020.

4 That we are what 3 codex's in and know-one understands what half of the new keywords are supposed to be achieving as GW has once again been as consistent as a falling leaf on how to apply it to different codex's.

5 Their point blank refusal to acknowledge that their mission design was nowhere near as balanced as they claimed and clearly had not been play tested nearly enough to be rolled out like it was.

 Jidmah wrote:
...

Seconded. With the exception that some 8th edition armies hold up quite well. But yeah, some others are burning garbage.

 Charistoph wrote:

ccs wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
What is the paint rule?

+10 VP for being battle ready. I removed that because I realized that this might derail the thread.

Technically my models aren't battle-ready because I prefer plain, black bases. While few have an actual issue with it, whenever I closely win a game, people crack that joke which is seriously getting on my nerves.

So just paint your bases black with a tiny bit of grit added in.... You add the grit so that the idiots realize that you have in-fact painted your black bases black.

Back when I had most of my Marine Infantry painted, I would paint the top black and the rims different colors to help keep squads separated if they ever got jumbled up together. And yeah, I had to actually paint the tops of the base black because of my own sloppy painting of the feet.

Oh absolutely. I've been color coding the edges/rims of my squads bases for decades. 40k/WHFB/AoS/other GW games, WWII squads, other games....
I do this for my own benefit as well as yours. There's no confusion over who's in what squad.

Ice_can wrote:
1 Personally I'd rather not see the game continue down what appears to be an ever increasing game of rock paper scissors where cettain factions seem to be designed to hard counter specific weapons.

Oh you brought high strength weapons better hope you don't hit deathwing unit's.
Oh you brough lots of D2 weapons better hope you don't hit deathguard.
Oh you brought lota of AP better hope you don't meet Harlequines or demons.
Oh you brought decent save models better hope you dont fight marines with their AP for days.
Oh you brought a horde well better hope you don't meet someone with lots of blast weapons.

2 the slow rolling of codex creep again while it also being dragged out longer with the amount of suppliments.

3 Allowing a high crack addict to produce the points for the MFM 2020.

4 That we are what 3 codex's in and know-one understands what half of the new keywords are supposed to be achieving as GW has once again been as consistent as a falling leaf on how to apply it to different codex's.

5 Their point blank refusal to acknowledge that their mission design was nowhere near as balanced as they claimed and clearly had not been play tested nearly enough to be rolled out like it was.

Or Knights, don't forget Knights. No other army has done as much to push everyone away from weapons like lascannons and towards mid-strength, mid-AP, high ROF weapons than an entire army of T8 walking tanks that invalidate any AP above AP-2, and AP-1 for the low price of 1CP.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
1 Personally I'd rather not see the game continue down what appears to be an ever increasing game of rock paper scissors where cettain factions seem to be designed to hard counter specific weapons.

Oh you brought high strength weapons better hope you don't hit deathwing unit's.
Oh you brough lots of D2 weapons better hope you don't hit deathguard.
Oh you brought lota of AP better hope you don't meet Harlequines or demons.
Oh you brought decent save models better hope you dont fight marines with their AP for days.
Oh you brought a horde well better hope you don't meet someone with lots of blast weapons.

2 the slow rolling of codex creep again while it also being dragged out longer with the amount of suppliments.

3 Allowing a high crack addict to produce the points for the MFM 2020.

4 That we are what 3 codex's in and know-one understands what half of the new keywords are supposed to be achieving as GW has once again been as consistent as a falling leaf on how to apply it to different codex's.

5 Their point blank refusal to acknowledge that their mission design was nowhere near as balanced as they claimed and clearly had not been play tested nearly enough to be rolled out like it was.

Or Knights, don't forget Knights. No other army has done as much to push everyone away from weapons like lascannons and towards mid-strength, mid-AP, high ROF weapons than an entire army of T8 walking tanks that invalidate any AP above AP-2, and AP-1 for the low price of 1CP.

Adding Knights into the game is easily one of the biggest mistakes GW has made in a long while.

Ice_can wrote:


...SNIP...

5 Their point blank refusal to acknowledge that their mission design was nowhere near as balanced as they claimed and clearly had not been play tested nearly enough to be rolled out like it was.

It could also be that the testers called it out and GW ignored it but yeah. This. That, and the fact that I feel like it's almost the same mission every time regardless of what mission it actually is, has become a bit of a drag. We're in a fresh lockdown, so kind of hoping we get some more variety from GW by the time the new lockdown ends.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
1 Personally I'd rather not see the game continue down what appears to be an ever increasing game of rock paper scissors where cettain factions seem to be designed to hard counter specific weapons.

Oh you brought high strength weapons better hope you don't hit deathwing unit's.
Oh you brough lots of D2 weapons better hope you don't hit deathguard.
Oh you brought lota of AP better hope you don't meet Harlequines or demons.
Oh you brought decent save models better hope you dont fight marines with their AP for days.
Oh you brought a horde well better hope you don't meet someone with lots of blast weapons.

2 the slow rolling of codex creep again while it also being dragged out longer with the amount of suppliments.

3 Allowing a high crack addict to produce the points for the MFM 2020.

4 That we are what 3 codex's in and know-one understands what half of the new keywords are supposed to be achieving as GW has once again been as consistent as a falling leaf on how to apply it to different codex's.

5 Their point blank refusal to acknowledge that their mission design was nowhere near as balanced as they claimed and clearly had not been play tested nearly enough to be rolled out like it was.

Or Knights, don't forget Knights. No other army has done as much to push everyone away from weapons like lascannons and towards mid-strength, mid-AP, high ROF weapons than an entire army of T8 walking tanks that invalidate any AP above AP-2, and AP-1 for the low price of 1CP.

I will give you they probably contributed but that was what over a year and a bit into 8th before Knight got their codex, and people were already way down the more shots is better long before that.
I think multiple minus to hit stacking turning a lascanon from a 66% hit chance to a 16% chance on 1 dice was also a big issue.
But yes high strength low shot weapons with D6 damage augh whoever tested their points has some questions to answer.

Hmmm. Mixed views on point 1. I think its good to discourage people from spamming one form of damage just because its the mathematically superior option.

Whether this contributes to balance is questionable - because certain factions lack the options to really push a combined gun-profile approach - but if that's what GW are going for then I think its a reasonable step.

Tyel wrote:
Hmmm. Mixed views on point 1. I think its good to discourage people from spamming one form of damage just because its the mathematically superior option.

Whether this contributes to balance is questionable - because certain factions lack the options to really push a combined gun-profile approach - but if that's what GW are going for then I think its a reasonable step.

Agreed, discouraging spamming is good. If you go whole hog on any type of weapon profile you should be punished, and that's what it seems they're trying to do. But they need to expand the options for many armies or some match ups could be very lopsided. Every faction should be able to assemble a reasonable TAC that can deal with all of these defensive profiles, at least to some degree.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Hmmm. Mixed views on point 1. I think its good to discourage people from spamming one form of damage just because its the mathematically superior option.

Whether this contributes to balance is questionable - because certain factions lack the options to really push a combined gun-profile approach - but if that's what GW are going for then I think its a reasonable step.

Agreed, discouraging spamming is good. If you go whole hog on any type of weapon profile you should be punished, and that's what it seems they're trying to do. But they need to expand the options for many armies or some match ups could be very lopsided. Every faction should be able to assemble a reasonable TAC that can deal with all of these defensive profiles, at least to some degree.

While if that's the intention is not a bad intention, however so far GW implementation of said intention is BAD.

Too many factions especially those on 8th edition rules have 1 or 2 profiles of weapons that are usable and many others that arn't points effective against anything.

This feels like once again GW designers trying to win 3 dimention chess when they can't even win 2d chess games.

Not to mention the issues of some codex's having bonuses to this and that right and left and others having well nothing even close.

Ice_can wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Hmmm. Mixed views on point 1. I think its good to discourage people from spamming one form of damage just because its the mathematically superior option.

Whether this contributes to balance is questionable - because certain factions lack the options to really push a combined gun-profile approach - but if that's what GW are going for then I think its a reasonable step.

Agreed, discouraging spamming is good. If you go whole hog on any type of weapon profile you should be punished, and that's what it seems they're trying to do. But they need to expand the options for many armies or some match ups could be very lopsided. Every faction should be able to assemble a reasonable TAC that can deal with all of these defensive profiles, at least to some degree.

While if that's the intention is not a bad intention, however so far GW implementation of said intention is BAD.

Too many factions especially those on 8th edition rules have 1 or 2 profiles of weapons that are usable and many others that arn't points effective against anything.

This feels like once again GW designers trying to win 3 dimention chess when they can't even win 2d chess games.

Not to mention the issues of some codex's having bonuses to this and that right and left and others having well nothing even close.

I'd say it's an issue of factions still playing with 8th edition rules vs those with 9th edition codexes. Which goes back to other posters points about the slow way gw has decided to update some factions rules (while others can't be allowed to wait for even a month for their rules to be updated).

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Hmmm. Mixed views on point 1. I think its good to discourage people from spamming one form of damage just because its the mathematically superior option.

Whether this contributes to balance is questionable - because certain factions lack the options to really push a combined gun-profile approach - but if that's what GW are going for then I think its a reasonable step.

Agreed, discouraging spamming is good. If you go whole hog on any type of weapon profile you should be punished, and that's what it seems they're trying to do. But they need to expand the options for many armies or some match ups could be very lopsided. Every faction should be able to assemble a reasonable TAC that can deal with all of these defensive profiles, at least to some degree.

While if that's the intention is not a bad intention, however so far GW implementation of said intention is BAD.

Too many factions especially those on 8th edition rules have 1 or 2 profiles of weapons that are usable and many others that arn't points effective against anything.

This feels like once again GW designers trying to win 3 dimention chess when they can't even win 2d chess games.

Not to mention the issues of some codex's having bonuses to this and that right and left and others having well nothing even close.

I'd say it's an issue of factions still playing with 8th edition rules vs those with 9th edition codexes. Which goes back to other posters points about the slow way gw has decided to update some factions rules (while others can't be allowed to wait for even a month for their rules to be updated).

I'm going to keep an * to that until we see a couple of xenos codex. Wouldn't be the first time they get screwed on their updates compared to Imperium.

The Dark Eldar codex will be telling

 Ordana wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Hmmm. Mixed views on point 1. I think its good to discourage people from spamming one form of damage just because its the mathematically superior option.

Whether this contributes to balance is questionable - because certain factions lack the options to really push a combined gun-profile approach - but if that's what GW are going for then I think its a reasonable step.

Agreed, discouraging spamming is good. If you go whole hog on any type of weapon profile you should be punished, and that's what it seems they're trying to do. But they need to expand the options for many armies or some match ups could be very lopsided. Every faction should be able to assemble a reasonable TAC that can deal with all of these defensive profiles, at least to some degree.

While if that's the intention is not a bad intention, however so far GW implementation of said intention is BAD.

Too many factions especially those on 8th edition rules have 1 or 2 profiles of weapons that are usable and many others that arn't points effective against anything.

This feels like once again GW designers trying to win 3 dimention chess when they can't even win 2d chess games.

Not to mention the issues of some codex's having bonuses to this and that right and left and others having well nothing even close.

I'd say it's an issue of factions still playing with 8th edition rules vs those with 9th edition codexes. Which goes back to other posters points about the slow way gw has decided to update some factions rules (while others can't be allowed to wait for even a month for their rules to be updated).

I'm going to keep an * to that until we see a couple of xenos codex. Wouldn't be the first time they get screwed on their updates compared to Imperium.

The Dark Eldar codex will be telling

I'm going to second that I wouldn't be surprised if they screw atleast one xeno faction over.

 Ordana wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Hmmm. Mixed views on point 1. I think its good to discourage people from spamming one form of damage just because its the mathematically superior option.

Whether this contributes to balance is questionable - because certain factions lack the options to really push a combined gun-profile approach - but if that's what GW are going for then I think its a reasonable step.

Agreed, discouraging spamming is good. If you go whole hog on any type of weapon profile you should be punished, and that's what it seems they're trying to do. But they need to expand the options for many armies or some match ups could be very lopsided. Every faction should be able to assemble a reasonable TAC that can deal with all of these defensive profiles, at least to some degree.

While if that's the intention is not a bad intention, however so far GW implementation of said intention is BAD.

Too many factions especially those on 8th edition rules have 1 or 2 profiles of weapons that are usable and many others that arn't points effective against anything.

This feels like once again GW designers trying to win 3 dimention chess when they can't even win 2d chess games.

Not to mention the issues of some codex's having bonuses to this and that right and left and others having well nothing even close.

I'd say it's an issue of factions still playing with 8th edition rules vs those with 9th edition codexes. Which goes back to other posters points about the slow way gw has decided to update some factions rules (while others can't be allowed to wait for even a month for their rules to be updated).

I'm going to keep an * to that until we see a couple of xenos codex. Wouldn't be the first time they get screwed on their updates compared to Imperium.

The Dark Eldar codex will be telling

I fully expect that there'll be a few "duds", and that they'll probably be either Xenos or Chaos related. At least we'll know how there going to be handling Eldar soon.