Astra Militarum Rumors 2022-2023

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**

Gadzilla666 wrote:
nekooni wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
xttz wrote:
Ah yes, relentlessly calling everything "gakky" and being a mindless GW consumer are the only two possible states of being. The duality of man.

They are at this point with everything GW's Knights will mindlessly gobble and defend.

Or maybe some people are willing to overlook flaws and look at the brighter side of things, too.

I started playing Night Lords when the CSM codex came out, and while I'm not happy with the lack of support for Jump Pack characters (and a few other things), I'm still having a blast playing them in our Crusade campaign. The codex could be better, but it could also be worse. Saying it's a decent/good codex isn't "mindlessly gobble and defend" - I just don't expect "perfect", and that obviously was xttz's point as well. Right now you're just calling anyone "mindless" that doesn't angrily demand a perfect codex.

I'm sorry, I realize that you're "new" to the 8th Legion, but playing Night Lords with the 9th edition CSM codex when our HH 2.0 list is right there for the taking is like buying a brand new Ferrari and driving it in bumper to bumper stop-and-go traffic when the Autobahn is right there for the taking. You're choosing what are the Legion's worst rules ever (yes, even worse than the 4th edition trash pile) instead of the best rules they've ever had (yes, even better than 3.5. And that's quite the statement coming from an old Chaos Dog like me). I mean, there's settling for what's "current", and then there's filling up on rice cakes when a fresh gourmet meal is right there in front of you.

Umm. Telling the player of a 40K Army they should play HH is more like telling someone going out for burgers they should have some fine seafood. They are both food, but not even close to the same cuisine.

**H.B.M.C.**

He's not telling him to play HH. It's making a comparison between the 40k and 30k Night Lord's rules, incredulous that the former can even exist when the same company made the latter.

**GiToRaZor**

Here is a guide to proper communication in a dispute:
1. If I feel emotional, I write it all down and then hit cancel.
2. If my message carries the word "you" in it and is making a declaration, I hit cancel.
3. If my message has no direct connection to the topic, I hit cancel.
4. If I want to discuss something, I state a fact that has no connection to who I am talking to and my opinion always carries a softening component (I think, IMHO, etc)

About the topic:
I'm a bit confused about the weapon loadout of the Churchill. It doesn't look anywhere near as "oh wow, that is certainly a cool new addition that I would need. The oppressor weapon looks okaish, like a better demolishers, but a farcry from the baneblade main gun. And the twin battlecannon has hardly more damage output than the regular one? 2d6 is almost the same as d6+3, did I miss a +6? And it doesn't look that cheap either to me.

**Dudeface**

Gadzilla666 wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2022/10/20/warhammer-40000-metawatch-unpacking-the-latest-balance-dataslate/ - 50% WR and podium pretty regularly https://40kstats.goonhammer.com/#ft4. Got anything to disprove it?
So it has a consistent win rate. Big deal. The 4th Ed 'Chaos' Codex was plenty powerful - it was the era of Fzorgle, after all - but that didn't make it a good book. This Guard book, just like the recent Chaos 'Dex, is full of maddening choices that invalidate so many existing units or render things nonviable in wildly inconsistent ways.

Customisation means a lot to a lot of us. Dismissing such concerns because some blasted 'meta-watch' article shows a promising percentage doesn't change that.

Nooooo H.B.M.C.. It doesn't matter if you don't find the codex fun or interesting. All that matters is that someone (not you, but someone, somewhere) won random 40k tournament #46521 with it. Like, how could you not have fun with it? No matter how dull, flavorless, or unsatisfying it may seem to you, when [INSERT NAME HERE] won [INSERT RANDOM 40K TOURNAMENT] with it? I mean isn't that what gives you that warm fuzzy feeling of fun? Knowing that someone else won a game with the same codex that you're not happy with?

I was asked to provide data it was balanced, not fun. It can be the most fun fluffy book in the world but if it's easy wins or woefully underpowered, all the fun flavour choices will be ignored for cries of "not balanced or competitive".

The point is no release on here is entirely happy but it's not always a case it's a total write off either. If someone is happy with it, let them be.

Of course alternatively we're all either brainless white knight "consoomers" which no ability for independent thought, or edge lord black knights bringing down the evil corporation.

**tneva82**

Rule 1 please.

**AtoMaki**

Haighus wrote:
I've been mulling over the codex leaks today, and I think I can finally put my finger on what feels off-putting about the book.

It increasingly feels like an army of special characters/units, and less like a sandbox I can create my own lore and units within.

This seems to be a growingly popular sentiment as far as I can tell. "Imperial Guard going Aspect Warriors" is something I can see popping up and I can't help but agree with it. But hey, it is sure a new and unique concept for the army, so I don't bother and look forward to seeing it in action.

**Swastakowey**

This codex is the first one in a long time where you can actually make your own thing though? Pick doctrines, template units, a lot of interesting rules and useful characters. Honestly Im surprised at how decent it is overall. My only complaint so far is the way special weapons might work and maybe some suspected issues depending on full release. First time since 5th (which wasnt even that good anyway) we've had something that could be fun. The 9th codex sucked anyway, most regiments werent even real options and most of the rules universal. The new one at least you can build your tallarn or whatever how you want.

**vipoid**

Haighus wrote:
I've been mulling over the codex leaks today, and I think I can finally put my finger on what feels off-putting about the book.

It increasingly feels like an army of special characters/units, and less like a sandbox I can create my own lore and units within.

Want a veteran squad? I'm afraid you have to use Cadian Shock Troops, Cadian Kasrkin, Catachan Devils, or Death Korps of Krieg. Oh, you want to kitbash a squad of Harakoni Warhawk Grenadiers or a veteran unit from the light companies of Horizele 4? Too bad, they are Cadians or Catachans now.

It looks like only Cadians, the Catachan II, and Tanith First and Only get the top Guard field commanders now (2 orders/turn, I'm guessing Straken and Gaunt/Colm will get this). Sure, it seems you can counts-as and mix and match freely, but things like strategems are likely to be tied to keywords.

I preferred it when everything but the named characters were generic. It would have been very easy to have, for example, a grenadiers unit entry rather than specifically a Kasrkin entry.

I'd second this.

I was pleased when it seemed we were moving away from named regiments and instead just letting people choose a couple of traits to best represent their own regiment. However, having taken that one step forward, GW then took a step backwards and off a cliff by tying most of the individual units to specific regiments.

"You can pick any regiment you want . . . so long as it's Cadia."

**Agamemnon2**

There's something odd about it, the first comparison that came to me was the 2nd edition Ork Codex from before most of you were even born, where all the specialist units were tied to a given klan, so all Kommandos were Blood Axes, all Boarboyz Snakebites, all Lootas Deathskulls.

**Swastakowey**

vipoid wrote:
Haighus wrote:
I've been mulling over the codex leaks today, and I think I can finally put my finger on what feels off-putting about the book.

It increasingly feels like an army of special characters/units, and less like a sandbox I can create my own lore and units within.

Want a veteran squad? I'm afraid you have to use Cadian Shock Troops, Cadian Kasrkin, Catachan Devils, or Death Korps of Krieg. Oh, you want to kitbash a squad of Harakoni Warhawk Grenadiers or a veteran unit from the light companies of Horizele 4? Too bad, they are Cadians or Catachans now.

It looks like only Cadians, the Catachan II, and Tanith First and Only get the top Guard field commanders now (2 orders/turn, I'm guessing Straken and Gaunt/Colm will get this). Sure, it seems you can counts-as and mix and match freely, but things like strategems are likely to be tied to keywords.

I preferred it when everything but the named characters were generic. It would have been very easy to have, for example, a grenadiers unit entry rather than specifically a Kasrkin entry.

I'd second this.

I was pleased when it seemed we were moving away from named regiments and instead just letting people choose a couple of traits to best represent their own regiment. However, having taken that one step forward, GW then took a step backwards and off a cliff by tying most of the individual units to specific regiments.

"You can pick any regiment you want . . . so long as it's Cadia."

I was under the impression you can have a Cadian shock troop squad in your custom regiment army, these choices aren't locked out by your doctrines?

**AtoMaki**

Swastakowey wrote:

I was under the impression you can have a Cadian shock troop squad in your custom regiment army, these choices aren't locked out by your doctrines?

They aren't, but those Cadian Shock Troops remain Cadian with all their normal Cadian traits and keywords, they don't become part of your custom regiment. So they (technically) can't represent specialists, just attached actual Cadians.

**Swastakowey**

AtoMaki wrote:
Swastakowey wrote:

I was under the impression you can have a Cadian shock troop squad in your custom regiment army, these choices aren't locked out by your doctrines?

They aren't, but those Cadian Shock Troops remain Cadian with all their normal Cadian traits and keywords, they don't become part of your custom regiment. So they (technically) can't represent specialists, just attached actual Cadians.

To me, thats just a unit template. No different to the veteran upgrades of the past in 5th. I guess im just not hooked on the name that much, why would anyone be that hooked on the name? How many eldar are running ulthwe right now in rules name only? Or running some named marines with their own colours and stuff. I prefer this new codexs way of doing it to the lame 9th ed way of doing it by miles.

**Crimson**

I’m actually glad that there seems to now be variety of different “infantry squads” you can mix in one army. It gives varied modelling opportunities and of course you don’t need to model Cadians as Cadians etc.

**tneva82**

Swastakowey wrote:
AtoMaki wrote:
Swastakowey wrote:

I was under the impression you can have a Cadian shock troop squad in your custom regiment army, these choices aren't locked out by your doctrines?

They aren't, but those Cadian Shock Troops remain Cadian with all their normal Cadian traits and keywords, they don't become part of your custom regiment. So they (technically) can't represent specialists, just attached actual Cadians.

To me, thats just a unit template. No different to the veteran upgrades of the past in 5th. I guess im just not hooked on the name that much, why would anyone be that hooked on the name? How many eldar are running ulthwe right now in rules name only? Or running some named marines with their own colours and stuff. I prefer this new codexs way of doing it to the lame 9th ed way of doing it by miles.

Key will be keywords. Can your non-cadian officer help those cadian squads? Or not.

If keywords are locked in and buffs work by those it's not really unit template. You either are cadian or you miss out buff.

If it's keyword locked it's no different to running whatever marines you have as blood angels/ultramarines/whatever like people do now. So no different to now.

**Dudeface**

tneva82 wrote:
Swastakowey wrote:
AtoMaki wrote:
Swastakowey wrote:

I was under the impression you can have a Cadian shock troop squad in your custom regiment army, these choices aren't locked out by your doctrines?

They aren't, but those Cadian Shock Troops remain Cadian with all their normal Cadian traits and keywords, they don't become part of your custom regiment. So they (technically) can't represent specialists, just attached actual Cadians.

To me, thats just a unit template. No different to the veteran upgrades of the past in 5th. I guess im just not hooked on the name that much, why would anyone be that hooked on the name? How many eldar are running ulthwe right now in rules name only? Or running some named marines with their own colours and stuff. I prefer this new codexs way of doing it to the lame 9th ed way of doing it by miles.

Key will be keywords. Can your non-cadian officer help those cadian squads? Or not.

If keywords are locked in and buffs work by those it's not really unit template. You either are cadian or you miss out buff.

If it's keyword locked it's no different to running whatever marines you have as blood angels/ultramarines/whatever like people do now. So no different to now.

This, with a bit of luck you can hopefully it's just a name and your Bungholian Veterans with their extra special weapon will just use the Cadian vets sheet.

**Swastakowey**

tneva82 wrote:
Swastakowey wrote:
AtoMaki wrote:
Swastakowey wrote:

I was under the impression you can have a Cadian shock troop squad in your custom regiment army, these choices aren't locked out by your doctrines?

They aren't, but those Cadian Shock Troops remain Cadian with all their normal Cadian traits and keywords, they don't become part of your custom regiment. So they (technically) can't represent specialists, just attached actual Cadians.

To me, thats just a unit template. No different to the veteran upgrades of the past in 5th. I guess im just not hooked on the name that much, why would anyone be that hooked on the name? How many eldar are running ulthwe right now in rules name only? Or running some named marines with their own colours and stuff. I prefer this new codexs way of doing it to the lame 9th ed way of doing it by miles.

Key will be keywords. Can your non-cadian officer help those cadian squads? Or not.

If keywords are locked in and buffs work by those it's not really unit template. You either are cadian or you miss out buff.

If it's keyword locked it's no different to running whatever marines you have as blood angels/ultramarines/whatever like people do now. So no different to now.

How would that even work though? You have one single Catachan squad right now and 3 catachan characters. Unless you get to pick key words on the generic stuff? But then how does that mix with the regimental doctrine system.

I understand we havent seen it all yet but I dont see how it works with what we do see. But yes if thatt turns out to be the case then that sucks big time.

**Dirk Reinecke**

I don't think they will be doing the keyword locking like that. That would be the silliest thing possible. I think the reasons for the datasheet names is so that the datasheets name match that of the box sets.

It is still very silly to essentially make 4 versions of the same squad, but maybe the wanted to make the book bigger.

**Haighus**

Being locked to specific regimental doctrines means they won't be able to fit or synergise with other units. For example, if you want deathworld hand-to-hand fighters with a non-Catachan-esque culture, well too bad. All of them are Catachan Devils with Catachan doctrines rather than Deathworld warriors with selectable keywords. Sometimes it is cool to mix and match, but here it is forced.

It would have been so easy to have archetypes without being regiment-locked: grenadiers, shock troopers, deathworld warriors, siege pioneers, senior officers instead of Kasrkin, Cadian shock troops, Catachan Devils, DKoK, Cadian castellans respectively. I hope the Rough Riders are not specifically Attillan rough riders too.

**Swastakowey**

Having it more generic like in the old old old codex would be better but given how low the bar has been for guard for so long im happy with this. I expected way worse.

Is it confirmed that the regiment traits have 0 effect on say Cadian Shocktroops etc?

**xttz**

Haighus wrote:
Being locked to specific regimental doctrines means they won't be able to fit or synergise with other units. For example, if you want deathworld hand-to-hand fighters with a non-Catachan-esque culture, well too bad. All of them are Catachan Devils with Catachan doctrines rather than Deathworld warriors with selectable keywords. Sometimes it is cool to mix and match, but here it is forced.

It would have been so easy to have archetypes without being regiment-locked: grenadiers, shock troopers, deathworld warriors, siege pioneers, senior officers instead of Kasrkin, Cadian shock troops, Catachan Devils, DKoK, Cadian castellans respectively. I hope the Rough Riders are not specifically Attillan rough riders too.

Are there even specific regimental doctrines? My impression is that some of the doctrine traits grant a specific keyword such as BORN SOLDIERS or CULT OF SACRIFICE specifically instead of being locked to CADIA or KRIEG.

Maybe they'll have both keywords, but it very much looks like the codex is written to facilitate a 2nd-edition style structure with mixed regiments so I doubt having CADIA on a unit will disqualify it from working with the rest of a list.

**The_Real_Chris**

Whilst this is all fascinating, I haven't yet seen a way round the '10 people who die easily' problem with the current games love of primary and secondary objectives. Unless the idea is you rush 3 squads forward, form an intricate pattern in the target area and see if 1 survives.

Of course I could be wrong, and we get the secondary objective 'die for the emperor' and get points for losing units....

**endlesswaltz123**

If regiment specific stratagems are locked to the regimental traits then it will work. If the regiment specific stratagems are locked to regimental keywords, then it will not.

E.g. - Cult of sacrifice trait gets *example* unique stratagem - this is fine.

If the stratagems are locked to regimental keywords - e.g. Cadian - this is not fine as it means certain units will have different stratagem choices than others, even though they should be functioning as one 'custom' regiment.

Same with relics and keywords, it predominantly just break immersion which is a little annoying for purests.

For my DKoK Assault Korps, I want to be able to use the same stratagems for the same units, not be locked out of a stratagem for 1 unit as it is a count As Cadian Castellan.

**alextroy**

H.B.M.C. wrote:He's not telling him to play HH. It's making a comparison between the 40k and 30k Night Lord's rules, incredulous that the former can even exist when the same company made the latter.

Really

Gadzilla666 wrote:I'm sorry, I realize that you're "new" to the 8th Legion, but playing Night Lords with the 9th edition CSM codex when our HH 2.0 list is right there for the taking[/i] is like buying a brand new Ferrari and driving it in bumper to bumper stop-and-go traffic when the Autobahn is [i]right there for the taking. You're choosing what are the Legion's worst rules ever (yes, even worse than the 4th edition trash pile) instead of the best rules they've ever had (yes, even better than 3.5. And that's quite the statement coming from an old Chaos Dog like me). I mean, there's settling for what's "current", and then there's filling up on rice cakes when a fresh gourmet meal is right there in front of you.

Looks to me like he is saying use the HH 2.0 Night Lord rules instead of the 9th Edition CSM Rules. I can't imagine how you are supposed to do that without playing HH 2.0

**tneva82**

Or he's saying rather than play 40k play hh.

Simple?

**Agamemnon2**

Surely the winning move is to play nothing at all.

**Mr_Rose**

Agamemnon2 wrote:
Surely the winning move is to play nothing at all.

Thanks, Joshua. Magos Falken would be proud.

**H.B.M.C.**

alextroy wrote:
Really

Yes. Really.

It wasn't a call to play HH. It was commentary on 30k Night Lords vs... I just explained this. Why am I doing it again?

Believe me. Don't believe me. I don't care.

**Inquisitor Kallus**

I genuinely hope they bring back that limited ed Catachan guy with the fist, he was epic

**Garrac**

Inquisitor Kallus wrote:
I genuinely hope they bring back that limited ed Catachan guy with the fist, he was epic

Not in the MG leaks. In fact, according to him, catachan can only pick the spetial weapons featured on the plastic kit. Yeah, exactly, only two flamethrowers

**Bureau Gnome**

Garrac wrote:
Inquisitor Kallus wrote:
I genuinely hope they bring back that limited ed Catachan guy with the fist, he was epic

Not in the MG leaks. In fact, according to him, catachan can only pick the spetial weapons featured on the plastic kit. Yeah, exactly, only two flamethrowers

I'm sensing this all building towards the 9th edition IG codex being a stopgap measure mostly focussing on Cadians, with an earlish 10th edition codex expanding towards other regiments models and rulewise?