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.

So not just all Cadians then?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So not just all Cadians then?

No...but this thing literally labeled "Codex Supplement: Cadia" is.

The rumoured releases seem to be staggered. How or why remains to be known. Best guess is they don't want to just drop three whole regiments worth of 'core' plastic kits in one go.

Additionally if one goes and looks into the KT: Core book...it looks like they've done a redesign on Steel Legion and Tallarn as well. They both look aces though!

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Welp, I would rather have it fast than reworked, if the rework only applies to 10% of the army.

When I'm saying "rework" with regards to the codex, I'm referring to the army itself.

I am fairly convinced at this point that we're going to see something Big happening for Guard. They would have just pushed out some updated kits and a book or the DKoK boxes and been done with it otherwise. There's no sign of a codex on the horizon, it just keeps seeming like they're rolling out some iconic regiments in a method that would work under the current book.

Genuine question, do you have any evidence for us getting "Something Big" beyond that you don't think GW would have done things this way if there weren't?

 waefre_1 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Welp, I would rather have it fast than reworked, if the rework only applies to 10% of the army.

When I'm saying "rework" with regards to the codex, I'm referring to the army itself.

I am fairly convinced at this point that we're going to see something Big happening for Guard. They would have just pushed out some updated kits and a book or the DKoK boxes and been done with it otherwise. There's no sign of a codex on the horizon, it just keeps seeming like they're rolling out some iconic regiments in a method that would work under the current book.

Genuine question, do you have any evidence for us getting "Something Big" beyond that you don't think GW would have done things this way if there weren't?

A very big and reliable rumour dump from a few months ago said there were notable guard releases for the back end of next year iirc.

Why not fix a regiment with a supplement that barely works this edition like Mordian which requires you now to use a CP to even use a part its regimental trait. A trait that only works now once.

 BlackoCatto wrote:
Why not fix a regiment with a supplement that barely works this edition like Mordian which requires you now to use a CP to even use a part its regimental trait. A trait that only works now once.

Because they don't sell Mordians as the default models, crap reason but a logical one.

Probably because Cadians are the most popular ( because of the kit availability ).

I'd rather not drag this game any further into supplement hell.

Dudeface wrote:

 waefre_1 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Welp, I would rather have it fast than reworked, if the rework only applies to 10% of the army.

When I'm saying "rework" with regards to the codex, I'm referring to the army itself.

I am fairly convinced at this point that we're going to see something Big happening for Guard. They would have just pushed out some updated kits and a book or the DKoK boxes and been done with it otherwise. There's no sign of a codex on the horizon, it just keeps seeming like they're rolling out some iconic regiments in a method that would work under the current book.

Genuine question, do you have any evidence for us getting "Something Big" beyond that you don't think GW would have done things this way if there weren't?

A very big and reliable rumour dump from a few months ago said there were notable guard releases for the back end of next year iirc.

That's the one that predicted "two new regiments, veterans, kasrkin, and a vehicle 'between a Leman Russ and a Baneblade'", right? I thought there was talk that two regiments were updated Catachan + plastic Krieg - combine that with Kasrkin being a redo of an old sculpt, and that leaves the veterans (which could be just the Cadian upgrade sprue we got earlier in the year plus some new bodies) and the tank (which screams "plastic Macharius/Malcador")...idk, I don't feel like that would really qualify as "Something Big" (save in the literal sense for the not!Macharius/Malcador), considering how many kits we've lost over the years. Not without something more concrete to go on.

Can someone tell me what the count is for books needed if I want to play my Flesh Tearers in a tourney? I'm seeing Codex, Suppliment, BRB, 3 FAQs, and Imperial Armor? Plus warzone books?

Kasrkin "being a redo of an old sculpt" is a bit more than that, given that the unit hasn't had rules since C: Eye of Terror. They were suggested models for the Grenadiers option in a Cadian army, then kinda/sorta pushed at us for the Carapace armored "Grenadier Veterans" option.

Right now it's just a gut feeling. The Veteran Guardsman Kill Team rules felt very much like a tease of what might be coming down the road. The shift in the box photos for the new Cadian Shock Troop squad is also an interesting one--they've armed them up as a Veteran squad in terms of special weapons rather than standard Infantry Squads. Oh and they didn't pack a Heavy Weapons Team in there despite the option to.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Can someone tell me what the count is for books needed if I want to play my Flesh Tearers in a tourney? I'm seeing Codex, Suppliment, BRB, 3 FAQs, and Imperial Armor? Plus warzone books?

It depends on what you've taken.
The basic requirements are BRB and SM Codex. If you're taking any FT specific stuff like Seth or Death Company then you'll need the BA Supplement. I don't count FAQ's since you can just slot them inside the Codex cover easily enough. You only need IA if you've taken FW units. Anyone who's saying you need 100 books for a 9th Ed army like FT is talking out their rear.

i think, in subject of Tyranids, dont get me wrong i'm not enemy of this army


its just, i think they should have various abilities despite what the GW design team say


is in the key words of the mechanics of the game, "as they understand this"


i think, lots of units, especially juggernaut units should be able to walk on the buildings



why a Dominatrix cant jump off the roof, i dont understand


especially , if the army has , cults and mutations and so on - but i never had time to read Tyranid codex


there , is limits of how inhuman can be rulebook,


or i could say i would see more flying units, in Nids army


more shooting, too

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Can someone tell me what the count is for books needed if I want to play my Flesh Tearers in a tourney? I'm seeing Codex, Suppliment, BRB, 3 FAQs, and Imperial Armor? Plus warzone books?

No one brings the BRB. FAQs are not a book. IA is only if you want those units and again...no one brings that book.

Do you want to know what really happens at tournaments? People print off the output from Battlescribe and hand it t their opponent and then maybe once or twice every other game we'll check a book for a strat.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Can someone tell me what the count is for books needed if I want to play my Flesh Tearers in a tourney? I'm seeing Codex, Suppliment, BRB, 3 FAQs, and Imperial Armor? Plus warzone books?

No one brings the BRB. FAQs are not a book. IA is only if you want those units and again...no one brings that book.

Do you want to know what really happens at tournaments? People print off the output from Battlescribe and hand it t their opponent and then maybe once or twice every other game we'll check a book for a strat.

Yeah, I don't disagree with people that it's annoying to have rules from many different sources, and it would be inconvenient to bring 3+ books to a game, but basically nobody does it. That's always felt like a pretty hollow thing to complain about.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:
"Should I put this trait in to double the attacks a succubus can do? I'm sure its fine.'

"Should we give Transhuman Physiology and All Is Dust to Guardsmen? I'm sure it's fine."

Permanent transhuman would be a good hive mind trait. I like it.

 Niiai wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:
"Should I put this trait in to double the attacks a succubus can do? I'm sure its fine.'

"Should we give Transhuman Physiology and All Is Dust to Guardsmen? I'm sure it's fine."

Permanent transhuman would be a good hive mind trait. I like it.

Medium bugs definitely need something- its the army I really want to play, but its a 'put models down, pick up causalities' army, simply because t4, 3w and ~4+ save is terrible in the face of 9th edition firepower.

I definitely think all these 'IF leviathan' abilities are a bad sign for the codex. For some reason (vague optimism), I was hoping not to see color-coded 'have and have nots' outside marine books.

I like it. Transhuman physiology works on a 1-3, regular human physiology on a 1-2. Makes me wonder if hoping for a 1-4 for the nids' superhuman physiology would be too much?

shortymcnostrill wrote:
I like it. Transhuman physiology works on a 1-3, regular human physiology on a 1-2. Makes me wonder if hoping for a 1-4 for the nids' superhuman physiology would be too much?

yes, yes it probably would :p

But if we are going to fix toughness issues through handing out transhuman like candy then yeah sure give Nid monsters Transhuman.

I wonder what kind of physiology an actual tank would have...

oh wait, that's right, none. Silly me they get wounded like plebs.

(A shadowsword wounds a Land Raider more easily than a Cadian Conscript)...

I'd be happy to let you pay 1cp for a custom stratagem called Tankhuman Physiology (crew counts too!), letting all wound rolls fail on a one

shortymcnostrill wrote:
I'd be happy to let you pay 1cp for a custom stratagem called Tankhuman Physiology (crew counts too!), letting all wound rolls fail on a one

Why, that's mighty kind of you, I'll ju...
...waiiiiiiiiiiiit

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I wonder what kind of physiology an actual tank would have...

oh wait, that's right, none. Silly me they get wounded like plebs.

(A shadowsword wounds a Land Raider more easily than a Cadian Conscript)...

"A shadowsword wounds a Land Raider(with no stratagems or buffs or anything) more easily than a Cadian Conscript(with a stratagem burnt on it)".

That should be the correct statement, right?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:
"Should I put this trait in to double the attacks a succubus can do? I'm sure its fine.'

"Should we give Transhuman Physiology and All Is Dust to Guardsmen? I'm sure it's fine."

I mean, better bet to just slap it on a faction with like a 35% wr than one that...youuuu do not know because the new codex is coming out concurrently with the super-strats?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
(A shadowsword wounds a Land Raider more easily than a Cadian Conscript)...

And this is why I hate Transhuman and all related rules, and especially this new one.

"It's meant to show Cadians digging in and not breaking like their world did!"

Oh rack off! It's a bad rule written by people who should know better by now.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
(A shadowsword wounds a Land Raider more easily than a Cadian Conscript)...

And this is why I hate Transhuman and all related rules, and especially this new one.

"It's meant to show Cadians digging in and not breaking like their world did!"

Oh rack off! It's a bad rule written by people who should know better by now.

Agreed, but I hate the reasoning behind Transhuman Physiology sooooo much more. "Cawl stuffed primaris with extra organs so they're SUPER TOUGH compared to "normal" Astartes!". Oh . I don't care how many extra bits Cawl stuck in them. When my 15 foot tall 14 ton dreadnought comes in swinging its 6 foot long power field sheathed chainsaws at them that should only mean there's more loyalist guts spread all over the place, not less. Tougher against autocannons and heavy bolters? Sure. But weapons designed to kill tanks? Hell no. There should be a cut off where it stops working, like Prophets of Flesh.

Transhuman should be something that:

1. You use in the Command Phase.
2. You pick a unit of Primaris Marines.
3. You pay the X command points (cost is a balance issue, I'm not going to get into a specific figure).
4. The unit's special Cawl-Pattern organs go into overdrive, and the unit cannot be wounded on better than a 4+, and they get +1" to Move/Advance/Charge.
5. It lasts until your next Command Phase, at which point that unit takes D3 Mortal Wounds, and cannot be selected to use that strat again.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Transhuman should be something that:

1. You use in the Command Phase.
2. You pick a unit of Primaris Marines.
3. You pay the X command points (cost is a balance issue, I'm not going to get into a specific figure).
4. The unit's special Cawl-Pattern organs go into overdrive, and the unit cannot be wounded on better than a 4+, and they get +1" to Move/Advance/Charge.
5. It lasts until your next Command Phase, at which point that unit takes D3 Mortal Wounds, and cannot be selected to use that strat again.

I could see that, but the "only wounded on a 4+" needs to stop once an attack's S = 2× or more of the unit's Toughness. All of the extra organs in the world won't help you once you take a melta shot to the face or the Demolisher Cannon shell drops on your head.

Which is why we need USRs:

Unit USRs
Unnatural Toughness (X): Cannot be wounded by a result lower than the value in parentheses.

Insane Durability (X): Reduces all Damage suffered by the value in the parentheses (to a min of 1?).

Weapon USRs
High Impact: This weapon ignores the Unnatural Toughness rule and wounds based on regular Strength vs Toughness.

Devastating (X): Ignores levels of Insane Durability equal to number listed in parentheses.

@H.B.M.C: Agreed.