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.
Spoletta wrote: This isn't the first time that the GT mission pack introduced changes to the detachments.
CA2021 made some changes to the Super heavy auxiliary detachments.
Are you using those in your crusade games?
I actually don't own any superheavy models yet, so I haven't been impacted.
I remember vaguely the changes- if I recall correctly, the changes were generally seen as improvements that made the detachments easier to use. I had forgotten they came via GT Mission pack. And there you have it- if THOSE changes were regarded as impacting the game and not merely matched play RAW, these rules will be too.
I lack those analytics skills, but a read through the latest Goonhammer recap of top lists for the week's events shows that lists with two sub-factions feature quite a bit (Grey Knights, TSons, Sisters). It would seem that the designers don't want this and are going to take steps. For quite some time the various Space Marines have had to be mono-subfaction to gain Chapter Tactics etc, so this move makes sense.
Make a decision with your list and accept the opportunity cost of picking the sub-faction that appeals to you.
Playing a narrative campaign with like-minded friends? Do what you want! Going to a tourney? Mono sub-faction it is. Seems like a good move to me.
All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand
Yep, the only real way to find rules these days is using a searchable database with all the rules in it, which is sadly not provided by GW.
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks do not think that purple makes them harder to see. They do think that camouflage does however, without knowing why. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
I wonder if they're going to include the detachment rules in the latest iteration of the GT pack. That's an annoying thing to leave out, and probably a big part of the reason people overlook the 'no detachment abilities' thing.
Jidmah wrote: Yep, the only real way to find rules these days is using a searchable database with all the rules in it, which is sadly not provided by GW.
Imagine if warhammer+ had something as convenient as wahapedia in it lmao.
The fact that even big streamers openly use wahapedia instead of figuring out where their rules are is golden
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
Galas wrote: Most of my group would not be playing without Wahapedia TBH.
People at my LGS used to but after constant "Thats not the rules anymore, check on wahapedia to see the updated one" i converted most of them.
Without Waha and Battlescribe, i would not be playing 40k
At this point I'm quite sure that GW lets them be because they are more useful than harmful.
Players have this need of an hard copy of the rules to feel legit in using them, then just scrap them and use those 2 sources.
No profit lost for GW with all the advantages to customer satisfaction.
Spoletta wrote: At this point I'm quite sure that GW lets them be because they are more useful than harmful.
Players have this need of an hard copy of the rules to feel legit in using them, then just scrap them and use those 2 sources.
No profit lost for GW with all the advantages to customer satisfaction.
Idk, but i know most in-store players at my LGS just stopped purchasing codexes in favor of waha. And the store has a single GT pack for the missions that everyone can use
Without Waha and Battlescribe, i would not be playing 40k
How legal are these sites?
Wahapedia is clearly not legal (but its russian so good luck enforcing it),
Battlescribe itself is legal but the community putting GW's stuff in it most probably isnt
Either way, i don't care, they're convenient and IMO a necessity. Every wargame should have at the very least a free online list builder. Ideally rules in an up to date PDF too.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/17 16:23:41
The core Battlescribe engine, as it is just providing a mechanism to build an army list without having the mechanics for specific games built in, is fine. It also doesn't seem to have been updated for over 2 years at this point.
The community-generated data files for specific games may breach IP law - I'm not an IP lawyer, so I'm not going to make a definitive claim - but I'd argue are either immoral or unethical, especially if you're using material for which you have not paid the creator of the game for.
As an example, if I were to use it to build a Dark Eldar list, that would be bad, as I don't own the Dark Eldar book. If I were to build a Death Guard or Space Marine list, I'm probably OK, as I've got the current books for those factions.
Fair use is a tricky beast at the best of times, though, so I'd say it's generally safer to avoid use cases which rely on it.
And streamers/YouTubers who are promoting either of the above really shouldn't be getting promo material from GW, given their examples are encouraging people not to buy stuff from GW.
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
Without promoting piracy its reasonable to say GW would almost certainly be served by facilitating easy access to the rules.
A system where the rules are spread over dozens of publications - and FAQs - isn't overly convenient for anyone and it is a potential barrier to people playing the game.
Admittedly there may be cost implications of giving the rules away for free, as the number of people buying codexes, chapter approveds, grand tournament packs etc etc would likely decline significantly. But then its possible people would use the money they would have spent on such to buy more plastic for their respective piles of shame.
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
Most folk will not concern themselves with legality, what is convenience is always more important. HOWEVER, if the company can offer a service that is both legal and convenient, people will flock to it.
We've seen this before with Napster and itunes. If GW could get their arse in gear and make the 40k app as good as Waha, it'll quickly overtake it in popularity. Even if a fee is attached (as long as its reasonable)
honestly, GW should straight up copy how wahapedia works, its probably the most convenient way to filter their mess of releases. Being able to go on a unit's datasheet and see right there what all the possible stratagems that you can use on them is huge. Hovering on Keywords to see what unit has them while reading Abilities is also huge, its all so convenient.
So obviously GW won't ever implement something like that
If they would at least upgrade Sisters(with a Codex by GW blatantly written in a way to encourage mixed subfactions) for example in a notable way, instead of nerfing them even further with completely laughable point drops in exchange(it will still pretty much nobody play Paragons and absolutely nobody will play the tanks competetively, cause they are still all pretty much just overcosted garbage from a competetive viewpoint).
But no, Sisters aren't even an actual Top Tier army anymore and are one of the factions that get hit the hardest by this and GW is apparently yet again too incompetent to make up for that in any way let alone to use a reasonable and cautious approach with such a huge rules change. And Sisters are really just one of the most notable examples.
Spoletta wrote: Reminder to everyone that these changes come together with a point rebalance, so talking these in relation to the current meta is completely useless.
Orks for example are seeing extensive nerfs to their main build.
The leaked point changes straight up make it even worse for Sisters, and i'm not even sure what insane point changes it needs to finally get Drukhari under control if they get somewhat excluded from the rule.
alextroy wrote: I think you are 100% wrong on your analysis here. I sincerely doubt GW designed any of it's armies with the idea that the player should divide up their armies into small subfactions pieces to maximize the effectiveness of every unit by giving them the best subfaction. Rather, they designed for the subfaction rules to make the the same armies play with a different flavor that favors certain styles of play.
That's theoretically possible, but would practically mean GW are so incredibly incompetent that they somehow didn't realize that pretty much everything about the Sisters Codex screams: MIX SUBFACTIONS.
This message was edited 9 times. Last update was at 2022/01/18 00:26:16
H.B.M.C. wrote: I think Alex is right: GW did not design the sub-factions to be mixed. They designed them to make individual armies play differently to one another.
Of course, GW play a very different 40k to the rest of us, so is it any wonder they didn't realise how what they wrote actually worked?
I mean just read the Sister Codex, you don't even need to play Sisters or have much experience to see the obvious(it could be barely any less subtle, hell and even beyond that specific Codex Sisters are neither as cheap as Guard nor as Elite as Marines therefore it's pretty much part of their core design to need highly effective specialized units to begin with). But the sad part is, i wouldn't even be too surprised if GW really would be that incompetent(there was just this little hope that they've gained at least some minor competence in recent years).
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/01/18 00:48:40
Maybe their intent was that certain Orders would be better suited to a specific play-style, and that your army would consist of the units that fit that playstyle, and not that people would just take everything, and split them off into the Orders that fit the unit types being chosen.
But then maybe if theFOC actually meant somethingand you couldn't just addmore detachments totake as muchof anything you wantthen this wouldn't reallybe a problem inthe first place...
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2022/01/18 01:03:01
" I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever." 
