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.

 alextroy wrote:
Not that I agree with GW's decision on this, but GW has received constant complaints that "all the options to build my unit to my desired configuration are not in the kit" along with "evil GW is trying to make me buy multiple kits to get my desired unit configuration". They seem to be solving the problem by either upgrading the kit to contain all the options (Battle Sisters kit, soon to be upgraded Cadian Infantry kit) or restricting the unit to what the kit can support (Plague marines/Blightlords, Wyches, Skittari). Really sucks if you are on the downgrade side of the equation, but it does solve the problem going forward for GW

You say that, but the Battle Sister kit very conspicuously doesn't include a Multi-melta to force players to buy multiple boxes of Retributors (which are about twice as expensive on a per-model basis).

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Not that I agree with GW's decision on this, but GW has received constant complaints that "all the options to build my unit to my desired configuration are not in the kit" along with "evil GW is trying to make me buy multiple kits to get my desired unit configuration". They seem to be solving the problem by either upgrading the kit to contain all the options (Battle Sisters kit, soon to be upgraded Cadian Infantry kit) or restricting the unit to what the kit can support (Plague marines/Blightlords, Wyches, Skittari). Really sucks if you are on the downgrade side of the equation, but it does solve the problem going forward for GW

You say that, but the Battle Sister kit very conspicuously doesn't include a Multi-melta to force players to buy multiple boxes of Retributors (which are about twice as expensive on a per-model basis).

Keep complaining about that and SoB squads will lose their multimeltas. Alextroy is right; I personally don't mind buying multiple kits* and/or having to convert, but people have been complaining about that for years and this is the result.

(* Especially if they are core unit kits that I would buy multiple of anyway.)

 Aaranis wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
GW's embarrassing inability to proofread strikes again, the transports can transport literally any infantry in the game. It's as if the guy who wrote the Ad Mech codex saw the 10 point Reavers in the DE book and was like "hold my beer..."

How a company worth billions still can't find a way to hire a halfway decent proofreader is just mind-boggling.

?

The French copy I saw has the <Forge-World> keyword, doesn't the English one have it ?

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

The English version says <Forge World> INFANTRY or just INFANTRY, period, no other keywords at all. So they screwed it up in both versions, the English one obviously but the French version too because Secutarii can't ride in them, like they used to before the book. Makes it even more clear they screwed it up by forgetting about Secutarii and then trying to add them at the last minute. Though it's even more embarrassing that they screwed that up in two separate ways in two different language versions.

 Crimson wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Not that I agree with GW's decision on this, but GW has received constant complaints that "all the options to build my unit to my desired configuration are not in the kit" along with "evil GW is trying to make me buy multiple kits to get my desired unit configuration". They seem to be solving the problem by either upgrading the kit to contain all the options (Battle Sisters kit, soon to be upgraded Cadian Infantry kit) or restricting the unit to what the kit can support (Plague marines/Blightlords, Wyches, Skittari). Really sucks if you are on the downgrade side of the equation, but it does solve the problem going forward for GW

You say that, but the Battle Sister kit very conspicuously doesn't include a Multi-melta to force players to buy multiple boxes of Retributors (which are about twice as expensive on a per-model basis).

Keep complaining about that and SoB squads will lose their multimeltas. Alextroy is right; I personally don't mind buying multiple kits* and/or having to convert, but people have been complaining about that for years and this is the result.

(* Especially if they are core unit kits that I would buy multiple of anyway.)

That very much reads like 'Don't complain or Daddy GW will punish you'.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

That very much reads like 'Don't complain or Daddy GW will punish you'.

It should read as "Be careful what you wish for", but haters gonna hate.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Not that I agree with GW's decision on this, but GW has received constant complaints that "all the options to build my unit to my desired configuration are not in the kit" along with "evil GW is trying to make me buy multiple kits to get my desired unit configuration". They seem to be solving the problem by either upgrading the kit to contain all the options (Battle Sisters kit, soon to be upgraded Cadian Infantry kit) or restricting the unit to what the kit can support (Plague marines/Blightlords, Wyches, Skittari). Really sucks if you are on the downgrade side of the equation, but it does solve the problem going forward for GW

You say that, but the Battle Sister kit very conspicuously doesn't include a Multi-melta to force players to buy multiple boxes of Retributors (which are about twice as expensive on a per-model basis).

You are right in that there are exactly four options for a Battle Sister/Celestian/Dominion squad that are not in the Battle Sister box (inferno pistol, hand flamer, power maul and Multi-melta). They were intentionally placed by design in the Retributor and Seraphim boxes as part of the same release. Besides those options, everything is in the box including 4 copies of each special weapon.

But I won't derail this thread with more talk of Sisters. Just be aware that GW is slowing and inconsistently moving towards a the box (and possibly associated boxes) contains everything you need to build the unit paradigm.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

That very much reads like 'Don't complain or Daddy GW will punish you'.

More like I don't want to lose options because GW tries to appease whiners that will never be satisfied by anything anyway.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Not that I agree with GW's decision on this, but GW has received constant complaints that "all the options to build my unit to my desired configuration are not in the kit" along with "evil GW is trying to make me buy multiple kits to get my desired unit configuration". They seem to be solving the problem by either upgrading the kit to contain all the options (Battle Sisters kit, soon to be upgraded Cadian Infantry kit) or restricting the unit to what the kit can support (Plague marines/Blightlords, Wyches, Skittari). Really sucks if you are on the downgrade side of the equation, but it does solve the problem going forward for GW

You say that, but the Battle Sister kit very conspicuously doesn't include a Multi-melta to force players to buy multiple boxes of Retributors (which are about twice as expensive on a per-model basis).

Well that issue is soon gone with　new codex on way.

Yeah, I certainly wouldn't buy a bunch of multi-melta retributors right now. Seems like about a 50% chance they go to 2 per squad.

You mean just like they did to the Drukhari Fast Attack and Heavy Support units?

Retributors are Heavy Support, so I wouldn't worry about them,

GW is reducing the options of Troops units to those in the box, probably under the logic that Troops shouldn't be spamming specialist weaponry, but specialist units have not been affected.

There are no such thoughts. Plague marines can now field more special weapons than they could before, just less of the same kind.

There is no more or less to these changes than this:

 alextroy wrote:
GW is slowing and inconsistently moving towards a the box (and possibly associated boxes) contains everything you need to build the unit paradigm.

I'm still salty about the DE Trueborn I made with splinter carbines became invalidated after one codex. Same with my Duke Sliscus count-as.

I'm seriously not liking this "well, you only get what's in the box" trend...

Yeah, the load out change is bad. All my infantry are now illegal and all I did was have two specials per squad. And I only used what came in the boxes without ordering bits. It makes me scared for crisis suits.

 Jidmah wrote:
There are no such thoughts. Plague marines can now field more special weapons than they could before, just less of the same kind.

There is no more or less to these changes than this:

 alextroy wrote:
GW is slowing and inconsistently moving towards a the box (and possibly associated boxes) contains everything you need to build the unit paradigm.

Except scourges have nowhere near the bits needed, but can still field multiples.

If there is a logic the more consistent one is where they aim to restrict options on troops.

That or they want just troops to be consistent.

Or none of the above.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
There are no such thoughts. Plague marines can now field more special weapons than they could before, just less of the same kind.

There is no more or less to these changes than this:

 alextroy wrote:
GW is slowing and inconsistently moving towards a the box (and possibly associated boxes) contains everything you need to build the unit paradigm.

Except scourges have nowhere near the bits needed, but can still field multiples.

If there is a logic the more consistent one is where they aim to restrict options on troops.

That or they want just troops to be consistent.

Or none of the above.

I'd go with "none of the above". If it's just troops, how do you explain Blightlords?

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

I'd go with "none of the above". If it's just troops, how do you explain Blightlords?

I think you have to consider the purpose of the unit. The primary purpose of troops is holding ground and/or objectives. Terminators may not be Troops, but that is still their primary purpose.

On the other hand if the purpose of a unit is just killing, weapon restrictions just get in the way of that.

 Tyran wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

I'd go with "none of the above". If it's just troops, how do you explain Blightlords?

I think you have to consider the purpose of the unit. The primary purpose of troops is holding ground and/or objectives. Terminators may not be Troops, but that is still their primary purpose.

On the other hand if the purpose of a unit is just killing, weapon restrictions just get in the way of that.

I'm not sure that logic works. I mean... wyches? Dithering around on objectives and not getting in trying to kill folks?

Not really sure that's true for Blightlords, either. Most of the time I've seen people use them, they're getting jammed into combat, not trying to plink with their weaker selection (and higher cost ratio) of ranged weapons.

 Tyran wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

I'd go with "none of the above". If it's just troops, how do you explain Blightlords?

I think you have to consider the purpose of the unit. The primary purpose of troops is holding ground and/or objectives. Terminators may not be Troops, but that is still their primary purpose.

On the other hand if the purpose of a unit is just killing, weapon restrictions just get in the way of that.

Loyalist terminators, maybe. Chaos Terminators primary purpose is usually: <drop in>, <delete problem>.

I would argue Death Guard Terminators are more about tankiness, considering they are T5 2+/4++ - 1 damage.

 Tyran wrote:
I would argue Death Guard Terminators are more about tankiness, considering they are T5 2+/4++ - 1 damage.

True, they are incredibly durable. But most everything in the Death Guard codex is. And I don't think all those Death Guard players went to the trouble of acquiring all of the required bits and then paid the points for those combi-weapons so their terminators could just sit on objectives and die as slowly as possible. They wanted that offensive firepower for a reason.

 Tyran wrote:
I would argue Death Guard Terminators are more about tankiness, considering they are T5 2+/4++ - 1 damage.

Have you seen deathguard terminators in action in melee? Trust me, they can definitely kill stuff in melee.

The thing I observe now though, is that being good at melee is no longer a thing that only "fighty" factions have. Nowadays, everyone is good in melee. Look at all the 9th ed codexes coming out. Every 9th ed codex has lethal melee fighting units. Being good in melee doesn't really seem to be a "trait" anymore. Like admech is known for being the shootiest of factions, but now, I believe its totally possible to fashion an admech list that would kick butt in melee.

You don't need to look across multiple units to see how inconsistent GW's limiting of weapons/options is.

Take the Necron Overlord for example - can't take either of tachyon arrow or hyperphase glaive without the other because the Indomitus model had both; but can take a hyperphase sword or voidblade despite no Lord model ever having either.

GW gonna annoy a lot of people if GC Acolytes go down to one rocksaw per unit, but sadly seems likely at this point.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Not that I agree with GW's decision on this, but GW has received constant complaints that "all the options to build my unit to my desired configuration are not in the kit" along with "evil GW is trying to make me buy multiple kits to get my desired unit configuration". They seem to be solving the problem by either upgrading the kit to contain all the options (Battle Sisters kit, soon to be upgraded Cadian Infantry kit) or restricting the unit to what the kit can support (Plague marines/Blightlords, Wyches, Skittari). Really sucks if you are on the downgrade side of the equation, but it does solve the problem going forward for GW

You say that, but the Battle Sister kit very conspicuously doesn't include a Multi-melta to force players to buy multiple boxes of Retributors (which are about twice as expensive on a per-model basis).

Keep complaining about that and SoB squads will lose their multimeltas. Alextroy is right; I personally don't mind buying multiple kits* and/or having to convert, but people have been complaining about that for years and this is the result.

(* Especially if they are core unit kits that I would buy multiple of anyway.)

That very much reads like 'Don't complain or Daddy GW will punish you'.

Literally buying enough skitarii troop boxes to build a basic battalion detachment gives you enough of the various specials to equip multiples of the same squad.

I can't possibly think of a unit for whom this is any more of a non-issue than Skitarii. And you've also got weird arbitrary crap going on - for example:

-the kit includes a bunch of pistol options and melee weapons - why is there only one dedicated member of the squad that can take those? Why can't one skitarii take a taser goad, one a power sword, and one an arc maul in the same way Plague Marines may take their squad with 4 melee weapons?
-the kit includes 10 models - why is the min size squad 5 at all? and how did they determine that for every five you could only take one weapon for Skitarii, while Wyches who have 5 members of the squad may only take sergeant upgrades and no specials at all?

They're not going with 'you must abide by the kit', theyre just arbitrarily juggling things around so a few people need to change their builds (hopefully buying new kits) to stay compliant with their units, and that sucks ass.

Whatever the reason is, I very much doubt that "Let's screw with existing units" is part of the equation. GW knows perfectly well that when player reshapes that unit, he will do that by scrapbuilding or hunting bits. GW will not see a penny for that.

Spoletta wrote:
Whatever the reason is, I very much doubt that "Let's screw with existing units" is part of the equation. GW knows perfectly well that when player reshapes that unit, he will do that by scrapbuilding or hunting bits. GW will not see a penny for that.

I'm pretty sure GW is hoping that people will buy new boxes to make legal units now that they made their previous ones illegal.

The worst part about forcing one of each weapon is that:
-It makes the units look worse on the table
-It slows down the game making each unit have 5 different weapon profiles
-It makes units without purpose

Is just bad game design all around. But is something GW is trying to enforce in 9th , so we shall see where this rabbit hole goes.

 Galas wrote:
The worst part about forcing one of each weapon is that:
-It makes the units look worse on the table
-It slows down the game making each unit have 5 different weapon profiles
-It makes units without purpose

Is just bad game design all around. But is something GW is trying to enforce in 9th , so we shall see where this rabbit hole goes.

Hopefully they will change that in an FAQ

Bah, the ranger/vanguard thing is an extreme nothing burger in the grand scheme.

The real issue I'm seeing with this codex is the keyword confetti going on.

I mean kataphron servitors. . . what the heck? Biker, Troop, Cult Mechanicus, but not Core?

Mars gives Skitarii canticles, which kinda makes it default best again, since most things in the codex are Skitarii?

The Doctrina pluses and minuses but no minuses if you have a Marshall?

Kastelan robots becoming more mix and match, but now their shoulder gun and fist guns have different profiles, they can become Core with the Datasmith, but lose Core if they change programming?

There are so many things to remember with this codex, and a lot of it seems like complication for complication's sake. I mean seriously, taking the Datasmith should let you change programming during the command phase, period. That would have been enough to justify taking him. Just get rid the gaining/losing Core thing completely. Talk about a wasted opportunity to fix the thing that people have always not liked about Kastelans and the Datasmith together, while adding a totally different reason to take the Datasmith that's probably even more powerful because of the override strat.

Oddly the Transvector transport splitting a unit between two planes seems really complex at first, but then it's all done pre-game and set up into deep strike, so it's actually not really something that you can screw up during the game. It's just wild that you can even do it at all! Seriously what a crazy idea that actually made it into the codex.