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.

**Nevelon**

Looks like it has some options. In the big pic it looks like the platform section has an option for a low wall for guns to shoot over, but the close up back side pic looks like they are all high walls.

**Togusa**

Looks cool. Been working on my box today and I have to say that the new models are just stunning. The field batteries are just amazing kits all around...

Now if I could just get at the new HWTs and that Tank!

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

Someone with the book on hand can check, but I saw someone say that only the platform provides any benefits as the new Aegis Line is listed as 'area terrain', and the platform is the only thing anyone can be 'within'.

**waefre_1**

I can't say I've much interest in the kit, but I'm glad whoever wrote the old Regimental Standards is still around.

Spoiler:

**Gue'vesa Emissary**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Someone with the book on hand can check, but I saw someone say that only the platform provides any benefits as the new Aegis Line is listed as 'area terrain', and the platform is the only thing anyone can be 'within'.

Yep. ADLs were previously classified as Obstacles, now they are Area Terrain and worthless (if they weren't already because of the fortification setup rules).

**MajorWesJanson**

Looks like the watch post has an option for the front panel, with either a full size wall or low gun port.

**Togusa**

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
Someone with the book on hand can check, but I saw someone say that only the platform provides any benefits as the new Aegis Line is listed as 'area terrain', and the platform is the only thing anyone can be 'within'.

Yep. ADLs were previously classified as Obstacles, now they are Area Terrain and worthless (if they weren't already because of the fortification setup rules).

What makes them worthless?

**KillerAngel**

Togusa wrote:
What makes them worthless?

Worthless is a bit hyperbolic, but certainly a bit more complicated as it isn't intuitive, nor well defined by the datasheet. It really needs an FAQ or designers commentary.

Area Terrain
Area Terrain can include Ruins, Woods, Craters and other terrain features that models can move into and through. Each time an Area Terrain feature is set up on the battlefield, both players must agree upon the footprint of that terrain feature — that is, the boundary of the terrain feature at ground level. This is essential to define so that players know when a model is wholly on or within that terrain feature, and when it is not. For some Area Terrain features, their footprint will be obvious, especially if the terrain feature has a base or some other well defined boundary, but if not, then agree with your opponent what the footprint is. Models can move up, over and down Area Terrain following the normal rules for movement. A model on or behind Area Terrain uses the normal rules for determining if another model is visible to it, or if it is visible to another model. Area Terrain cannot be chosen as the target of an attack (but units within them can).

INFANTRY, BEAST and SWARM models receive the benefits of cover from Area Terrain features while they are within it.

So as the footprint isn't defined by the datasheet nor the model, you need to agree with your opponent what it is. This means it could change from game to game or tourny to tourny. Since this isn't some neutral terrain piece, I suspect there will be many disagreements until some sort of standard practice is defined.

Also worth noting that:
As it's area terrain and not obstacle terrain, you only get cover being on one side of the wall, not the other
You're protected from all sides, not just sight-lines that pass over the wall

**Togusa**

KillerAngel wrote:
Togusa wrote:
What makes them worthless?

Worthless is a bit hyperbolic, but certainly a bit more complicated as it isn't intuitive, nor well defined by the datasheet. It really needs an FAQ or designers commentary.

Area Terrain
Area Terrain can include Ruins, Woods, Craters and other terrain features that models can move into and through. Each time an Area Terrain feature is set up on the battlefield, both players must agree upon the footprint of that terrain feature — that is, the boundary of the terrain feature at ground level. This is essential to define so that players know when a model is wholly on or within that terrain feature, and when it is not. For some Area Terrain features, their footprint will be obvious, especially if the terrain feature has a base or some other well defined boundary, but if not, then agree with your opponent what the footprint is. Models can move up, over and down Area Terrain following the normal rules for movement. A model on or behind Area Terrain uses the normal rules for determining if another model is visible to it, or if it is visible to another model. Area Terrain cannot be chosen as the target of an attack (but units within them can).

INFANTRY, BEAST and SWARM models receive the benefits of cover from Area Terrain features while they are within it.

So as the footprint isn't defined by the datasheet nor the model, you need to agree with your opponent what it is. This means it could change from game to game or tourny to tourny. Since this isn't some neutral terrain piece, I suspect there will be many disagreements until some sort of standard practice is defined.

Also worth noting that:
As it's area terrain and not obstacle terrain, you only get cover being on one side of the wall, not the other
You're protected from all sides, not just sight-lines that pass over the wall

Ah, yeah my friends and I use an extremely simple cover system of our own design so the issues with the 9th ed rules don't apply to us, but for the majority of players I see the problem.

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

You have to be "within" it. The only thing you can be "within" is the platform, as the walls don't have anywhere to stand.

So the walls are basically meaningless.

**Jarms48**

Yep. They really screwed up with the rules. Also no quad gun makes me sad.

**NAVARRO**

Old ones a lot better looking than these and they had guns.

**Gimgamgoo**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
You have to be "within" it. The only thing you can be "within" is the platform, as the walls don't have anywhere to stand.

So the walls are basically meaningless.

I seriously hope this is a joke.
GW, the biggest player in the business, after 9 iterations of the game, can't get a rule for a 'wall/barricade' done correctly?

Jeez, after writing rules for moving and shooting, rules for hiding behind a wall are pretty much next on the list for any wargames designer surely.
Every game in its first edition has this pretty much nailed.

**Haighus**

H.B.M.C. wrote:You have to be "within" it. The only thing you can be "within" is the platform, as the walls don't have anywhere to stand.

So the walls are basically meaningless.

Someone literally posted this just above:

KillerAngel wrote:
Togusa wrote:
What makes them worthless?

Worthless is a bit hyperbolic, but certainly a bit more complicated as it isn't intuitive, nor well defined by the datasheet. It really needs an FAQ or designers commentary.

Area Terrain
Area Terrain can include Ruins, Woods, Craters and other terrain features that models can move into and through. Each time an Area Terrain feature is set up on the battlefield, both players must agree upon the footprint of that terrain feature — that is, the boundary of the terrain feature at ground level. This is essential to define so that players know when a model is wholly on or within that terrain feature, and when it is not. For some Area Terrain features, their footprint will be obvious, especially if the terrain feature has a base or some other well defined boundary, but if not, then agree with your opponent what the footprint is. Models can move up, over and down Area Terrain following the normal rules for movement. A model on or behind Area Terrain uses the normal rules for determining if another model is visible to it, or if it is visible to another model. Area Terrain cannot be chosen as the target of an attack (but units within them can).

INFANTRY, BEAST and SWARM models receive the benefits of cover from Area Terrain features while they are within it.

So as the footprint isn't defined by the datasheet nor the model, you need to agree with your opponent what it is. This means it could change from game to game or tourny to tourny. Since this isn't some neutral terrain piece, I suspect there will be many disagreements until some sort of standard practice is defined.

Also worth noting that:
As it's area terrain and not obstacle terrain, you only get cover being on one side of the wall, not the other
You're protected from all sides, not just sight-lines that pass over the wall

So the walls are not useless, but you have to tediously define what counts as within for each pick-up game. It is terrible rules writing, but technically functional.

**tneva82**

And opponent then gets to nerf you by disagreeing with the idea...

**Agamemnon2**

Your opponent never has an incentive to agree with you on the definition, though, which is a problem for all games not played against friends.

**Haighus**

tneva82 wrote:And opponent then gets to nerf you by disagreeing with the idea...

Agamemnon2 wrote:Your opponent never has an incentive to agree with you on the definition, though, which is a problem for all games not played against friends.

Not going to argue it is a gak way of doing it. Although it sucks if you can't find anyone to play against that is enough of a good sport to agree something sensible. The incentive is having a good game and not being an arse.

**Geifer**

Gimgamgoo wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
You have to be "within" it. The only thing you can be "within" is the platform, as the walls don't have anywhere to stand.

So the walls are basically meaningless.

I seriously hope this is a joke.
GW, the biggest player in the business, after 9 iterations of the game, can't get a rule for a 'wall/barricade' done correctly?

Jeez, after writing rules for moving and shooting, rules for hiding behind a wall are pretty much next on the list for any wargames designer surely.
Every game in its first edition has this pretty much nailed.

Ah, I see your issue. Let me help you. You'll probably be happier if you stop thinking of the people GW employs to write the 40k rules as game designers. They're a clown act with little knowledge of wargame design, whose field of expertise is the curious, the comical and the grotesque. You'll find a lot of things to come out of GW to make more sense if you think of it like that.

This isn't a new situation either. You could tell from the 8th ed previews what kind of rules writing you had to expect. Not just in terms of terrain rules or more accurately their absence, but on a fundamental, systematic level. Yet here we are, six years later and looking forward to the next ~~train wreck~~ edition, and some people are still hopeful that against all evidence 40k might get well written rules.

**JWBS**

Agamemnon2 wrote:
Your opponent never has an incentive to agree with you on the definition, though, which is a problem for all games not played against friends.

Is gaming culture really that bad? Would generally accepted social norms (eg the desire that most people have to be agreeable, among many others) not be enough?

**hotsauceman1**

It isn't,. Most of the tome people agree, even in hyper competitive tournaments

**AllSeeingSkink**

Haven't been following the thread, maybe it's already been mentioned. The regular Leman Russ is listed as "sold out" on the UK site, and on the Oz site the regular one is completely gone and the Demolisher is "sold out".

Site error? Repackaging? Getting replaced?

**Tsagualsa**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
It isn't,. Most of the tome people agree, even in hyper competitive tournaments

It stands to reason that a hypercompetitive tournament would have some sort of referee to resolve that sort of problem, or use house rules or a FAQ in the tournament package to make general rulings about problems that arise frequently.

**Haighus**

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Haven't been following the thread, maybe it's already been mentioned. The regular Leman Russ is listed as "sold out" on the UK site, and on the Oz site the regular one is completely gone and the Demolisher is "sold out".

Site error? Repackaging? Getting replaced?

My gut feeling is repackaging, I think there would have been a reveal of some kind if the Russ kit is getting updated.

Having said that, it is more-or-less the same age as the current Sentinel kit, and that just got axed

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Could be repackaging into a single SKU.

Downside? Likely price increase. Upside? From memory, the various turret options are super easy to make modular, so you will get more bang for your more bucks.

**VAYASEN**

No hint when the new stuff hits yet?

Only had a quick read of the new codex and atm...we are a little short on Warlord choices arnt we until new stuff hits?

**JWBS**

Contents of Cadia Stands slated for release after Christmas, I assume the rest will be alongside, so between two and six weeks? Unfortunately.

**Geifer**

Something to add to this is that both Imperial Guard and Slaves to Darkness come with a substantial model release, and they're both next in line. I don't think we know if 40k or AoS comes first, so there's a possibility that Guard is pushed one or two weeks further out. I reckon we'll still see something before the end of January, even if it's just a pre-order announcement.

Of course ideally it's Guard, Slaves to Darkness, World Eaters so the 40k releases aren't too close to each other. But I'm sure GW has other filler to space things out to that end.

**Haighus**

Geifer wrote:
Something to add to this is that both Imperial Guard and Slaves to Darkness come with a substantial model release, and they're both next in line. I don't think we know if 40k or AoS comes first, so there's a possibility that Guard is pushed one or two weeks further out. I reckon we'll still see something before the end of January, even if it's just a pre-order announcement.

Of course ideally it's Guard, Slaves to Darkness, World Eaters so the 40k releases aren't too close to each other. But I'm sure GW has other filler to space things out to that end.

That would put Chaos back-to-back, so I can see the logic for either order.

**Nazrak**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Could be repackaging into a single SKU.

Downside? Likely price increase. Upside? From memory, the various turret options are super easy to make modular, so you will get more bang for your more bucks.

Think this is unlikely – the turrets aren't a separate sprue (and there are some minor hull differences between the kits too).

**Kanluwen**

Don't forget that the accessory sprue is back in play, effectively...might be repacking that in there.