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.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Sorry if this especially dense even by my standard, but surely the fact they're in units of 2 is really utterly irrelevant for literally anything? Does it matter? Who is upset by it and why? I can promise you if they were in units of 1-3 people would be up in arms about having to buy 2 boxes, sure they could be 2-4, or 2-6, or 2-40 but what does it really matter that anyone needs to be angry about it? How is this in any way "no models no rules"?

Units of 3 and multiples of 3 has been a Guard thing for eons. Tanks come in squadrons of three. Heavy weapon squads come in threes. Sentinels come in threes. A Leman Russ company has 3 squadrons of 3 (+1 command tank). It's a thematic element that has remained fairly consistent for literal decades, and now these come in units of two. And they only come in units of two because they come two to a sprue. There is literally no other reason. You can't even bring units of 2-4 or some multiple. It's a fixed amount, specifically dictated by the sprue and the sprue alone.

And that's how it's an expression of "No model No Rule", because the rules are specifically limited by exactly what the kit is, with no room for expansion or even contraction (ie. units of 1 to 2).

And as the Kid said, GW would have lost nothing by allowing units of 1-4.

I don't disagree there's no reason they can't have done it but when the logic behind it is wanting things to be in 3's, would it have been better for those of you upset if they were sold in kits of 1 with as unit size of 1-3 with a slightly higher price per model (simply because that's how these things inevitably fall)?

1 to 4. Yeah

Dudeface wrote:
I don't disagree there's no reason they can't have done it but when the logic behind it is wanting things to be in 3's, would it have been better for those of you upset if they were sold in kits of 1 with as unit size of 1-3 with a slightly higher price per model (simply because that's how these things inevitably fall)?

That's, at best, a red herring. The fact remains that 2 as a fixed number is "No Model/No Rules", and sticks out like a sore thumb of total inconsistency with the Guard as a whole, and that's why people are annoyed about it.

You asked, we answered.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
I don't disagree there's no reason they can't have done it but when the logic behind it is wanting things to be in 3's, would it have been better for those of you upset if they were sold in kits of 1 with as unit size of 1-3 with a slightly higher price per model (simply because that's how these things inevitably fall)?

That's, at best, a red herring. The fact remains that 2 as a fixed number is "No Model/No Rules", and sticks out like a sore thumb of total inconsistency with the Guard as a whole, and that's why people are annoyed about it.

You asked, we answered.

Well, it's "yes models, yes rules, arbitrary limitations applied", literally the only thing that made sense was that units of 1-4 are a weird absence. "I don't have enough points for the minimum unit" or "I don't have enough slots" is just a list building limitation you can apply to any unit. Likewise citing guard does things in 3's but asking for units of up to 4 isn't exactly super logical either.

But whatever, I've no horse in the race beyond being shot at by them occasionally, so feel free to carry on as you were. If you want a weirder limitation for the unit, the fact I can't take them as brood brothers is... interesting.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


Sorry if this especially dense even by my standard, but surely the fact they're in units of 2 is really utterly irrelevant for literally anything? Does it matter? Who is upset by it and why? They never existed before so it's not a change to anyones list etc. I can promise you if they were in units of 1-3 people would be up in arms about having to buy 2 boxes, sure they could be 2-4, or 2-6, or 2-40 but what does it really matter that anyone needs to be angry about it? How is this in any way "no models no rules"?

It's hardly the worst thing in the world, but it does kind of straight jacket fans. Maybe I scratch build 3 or them, maybe I have 1 of the old FWQ heavy mortars, maybe I only have the points for 1 in my army or maybe I have 4 and only 1 heavy support slot.

It would cost GW nothing to say Field Artillery 1-4 guns, but they didn't.

Can't all these arguments be used for everything that has a required number be taken? It could be argued that these big field guns are a lot less flexible than some other things that also also have their numbers fixed.

I would normally wouldn't be interested and therefore not comment on this type of stuff, but like Dudeface I was a bit confused and wondered why this is such a hardship...turns out it's Dakka things /Edit - but really I have no clue, forgive my sarcasm if this is a genuine issue.

Dudeface wrote:
Likewise citing guard does things in 3's but asking for units of up to 4 isn't exactly super logical either.

You're missing the point.

1-4 is a concession or compromise made with the full knowledge that GW will only do things based around kits, so 1-4 would at least allow some level of flexibility within the confines of a kit that builds two platforms.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Likewise citing guard does things in 3's but asking for units of up to 4 isn't exactly super logical either.

You're missing the point.

1-4 is a concession or compromise made with the full knowledge that GW will only do things based around kits, so 1-4 would at least allow some level of flexibility within the confines of a kit that builds two platforms.

I understand that entirely, I just thought you'd follow the issue through to the root which is the fact they're in 2s in the first place. 1-4 is a reasonable compromise given the current box, but if you want to be unhappy with what is currently, then go whole hog.

JWBS wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


Sorry if this especially dense even by my standard, but surely the fact they're in units of 2 is really utterly irrelevant for literally anything? Does it matter? Who is upset by it and why? They never existed before so it's not a change to anyones list etc. I can promise you if they were in units of 1-3 people would be up in arms about having to buy 2 boxes, sure they could be 2-4, or 2-6, or 2-40 but what does it really matter that anyone needs to be angry about it? How is this in any way "no models no rules"?

It's hardly the worst thing in the world, but it does kind of straight jacket fans. Maybe I scratch build 3 or them, maybe I have 1 of the old FWQ heavy mortars, maybe I only have the points for 1 in my army or maybe I have 4 and only 1 heavy support slot.

It would cost GW nothing to say Field Artillery 1-4 guns, but they didn't.

Can't all these arguments be used for everything that has a required number be taken? It could be argued that these big field guns are a lot less flexible than some other things that also also have their numbers fixed.

I would normally wouldn't be interested and therefore not comment on this type of stuff, but like Dudeface I was a bit confused and wondered why this is such a hardship...turns out it's Dakka things

Admittedly I'm spitballing here, but are there any other non-vehicle units in the game with a base size of 100mm and 3+ models? I wonder if the reason for the unit cap is because they wanted to prevent 'gamey' interactions like using these models to screen out objectives / terrain / deep strike with lots of large ~60pt bases.

At the end of the day it's in GW's interest to increase the unit size because then Guard players have a reason to buy more than six of these models.

I dunno, I edited my post to clarify my ignorance.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


Sorry if this especially dense even by my standard, but surely the fact they're in units of 2 is really utterly irrelevant for literally anything? Does it matter? Who is upset by it and why? They never existed before so it's not a change to anyones list etc. I can promise you if they were in units of 1-3 people would be up in arms about having to buy 2 boxes, sure they could be 2-4, or 2-6, or 2-40 but what does it really matter that anyone needs to be angry about it? How is this in any way "no models no rules"?

It's hardly the worst thing in the world, but it does kind of straight jacket fans. Maybe I scratch build 3 or them, maybe I have 1 of the old FWQ heavy mortars, maybe I only have the points for 1 in my army or maybe I have 4 and only 1 heavy support slot.

It would cost GW nothing to say Field Artillery 1-4 guns, but they didn't.

If you scratch build 3 when thev are shown in 2's you took risk. Did we ever see pic with 3 of them?

It's little things, like taking jump packs away from chaos lords or limiting your options to what's exactly in the box, or now even limiting the number of models you can take to what's in the box (which we already saw with plague marines years ago) that are little expressions of GWs control over the game.

Ultimately, it doesn't really mean much when it comes to someone's collection. A person adamant enough to have field artillery in squads of 3 can do so, rules or GW's tongue-in-cheek 'lore' be damned.

On the tabletop, you cap out at 3 squads of 2 (as long as Rule of 3 is still a thing) and whether or not it meets some measure of balance or whatever is irrelevant, since balance changes every week.

But these little things are still frustrating to gamers and collectors because it takes away that little extra measure of freedom while GW continues to refuse to maintain consistency.

Obliterators are still 1-3, and GW only sells those in a combo-box with a Venomcrawler that was originally made for a mono-pose two-faction starter set.

But the modern new multi-part and multi-option plastic? Only 2. No more, no less.

Feels a little AoS'y

Changing subject: Guard codex legal for tourney play after Jan 28th. This book has 4 months of active service ahead of it. $15+ for access to it per month. That's the punchline, our army was the joke. Sickening, I hope some of you avoid cucking yourself and buying it. This dismal release schedule should not be rewarded. Send the book back to the testers again and again because, I guess a guard bock is hard to design. Yet still they think it's worth something, don't support this crap please. Also the book is bare bones with really only 5-6 good unit choices. It is not going to be able to hold my attention for over a year with such an anemic collection of viable builds.

 Gibblets wrote:
This book has 4 months of active service ahead of it.

I see we're at the "make up" stage of coming up with reasons to hate on GW.

 Gibblets wrote:
Changing subject: Guard codex legal for tourney play after Jan 28th. This book has 4 months of active service ahead of it.

I'm assuming you're basing this on rumors of 10th edition. Is that at all confirmed for May 2023 or is this an assumption?

(That being said, yeah, I do not recommend buying the last book or two of an edition since they'll usually be the first book or two of the next edition, I still bought it, but he IG is MY army.)

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Is that at all confirmed for May 2023 or is this an assumption?

Nothing has been confirmed. And there has certainly been no confirmation that 10th (whenever it happens) will be an 8th edition style reset where all your codices are replaced on release day vs. the more conventional edition change where you keep your previous-edition codex until it gets its turn in the update cycle and the new guard codex will almost certainly be used for at least a year or two.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

 Gibblets wrote:
Changing subject: Guard codex legal for tourney play after Jan 28th. This book has 4 months of active service ahead of it.

I'm assuming you're basing this on rumors of 10th edition. Is that at all confirmed for May 2023 or is this an assumption?

(That being said, yeah, I do not recommend buying the last book or two of an edition since they'll usually be the first book or two of the next edition, I still bought it, but he IG is MY army.)

There's no definite proof / leaks yet, but the word from several people associated with playtesting & accurate rules leaks is that 10th edition will come this summer, and be a continuation like 8th>9th was rather than a full reset.

New codexes will have significantly cut down rules similar to what we've seen about the upcoming World Eaters book, but current codexes will still be used in some fashion.

Edit: June is apparently the date for 10E. A recent WD article confirmed that there's a total of five Arks of Omen books .If those are released one per month in January - May that lines up.

There's nothing concrete anyone can point to about 10th, when, or if dexs will be carried across the threshold. However it has been my gut feeling with the way the game has been developing for over a year that we are fast approaching the re-start phase of WH40K. I'd love to be wrong, trust me I hope for good business practices. But all of the things I've heard GW say or seen them do since has only further convinced me this happening. As someone who got burned hard like most of us in the long wait of 5yrs from 5th. Only to get skunked at the surprise tail end of 6th where the book was largely neutered by the core rule changes of 7th the next month. Finally 8th came around and the field was level. It feels very 6th ed around here fellas. I'd love to be wrong, but I doubt it.

 Gibblets wrote:
Changing subject: Guard codex legal for tourney play after Jan 28th. This book has 4 months of active service ahead of it. $15+ for access to it per month. That's the punchline, our army was the joke. Sickening, I hope some of you avoid cucking yourself and buying it. This dismal release schedule should not be rewarded. Send the book back to the testers again and again because, I guess a guard bock is hard to design. Yet still they think it's worth something, don't support this crap please. Also the book is bare bones with really only 5-6 good unit choices. It is not going to be able to hold my attention for over a year with such an anemic collection of viable builds.

You planning to throw book to garbage bin when 10e comes?

Dunno. If I had IG army I would just keep using it. I know I'll be using my daemon/tson/sob codex Marine codex I have to replace as they are likely getting first codex anyway.

Sure not planning to bin army until new codex rolls out...Why wait when I can just keep playing it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

 Gibblets wrote:
Changing subject: Guard codex legal for tourney play after Jan 28th. This book has 4 months of active service ahead of it.

I'm assuming you're basing this on rumors of 10th edition. Is that at all confirmed for May 2023 or is this an assumption?

(That being said, yeah, I do not recommend buying the last book or two of an edition since they'll usually be the first book or two of the next edition, I still bought it, but he IG is MY army.)

Uuh no. First book or two in new edition are starter set armies and guess what? DG wasn't last army of 7th. Necrons wasn't last army of 8th. Chaos marines weren't last army of 5e...

This is rather niche but does anyone have any pics of how the new upgrades work with the Hostile Environment packs? All my guardsmen are in HE gear so wouldn't want to get the new ones if they're not compatible.

 Gibblets wrote:
There's nothing concrete anyone can point to about 10th

Cool. Thanks for admitting that you're raging about something you made up yourself.

I certainly understand the feeling that we are approaching reboot time. Usually once GW switches focus from core armies to new armies (Legion of Voltron and World Eaters now, GS cults and Adepus Mech in 7th, heck Sisters and Assassins in 2nd) it means it's time for a refresh. Gotta sell everyone new books somehow right?

New ways to play like boarding actions are another sign that the edition is closing in on a full reboot.

But we can't say for certain the 9th edition IG book is worthless just yet...

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
But we can't say for certain the 9th edition IG book is worthless just yet...

10th Ed or no, I'd call the new Guard book pretty worthless.

Haver any of you people considered trying, idk, having *fun* with the game? Or if it's really so bad that you're incapable of doing so, why not just take up a different hobby? It must be awful devoting so much time and mental energy to something completely unnecessary that you're incessantly upset about.

 Nazrak wrote:
Haver any of you people considered trying, idk, having *fun* with the game?

I have, and thus I have increased the number of players who vowed to never play against me to 2. Tho the "The Imperial Guard can do that now? / What Imperial Guard? It is the Astra Militarium!" jokes will seemingly never get old, and I think this new 'dex was worth it just for that.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It does seem kind of…restrained? Leman Russ price is also OK, I guess.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Character prices can get right in the bin though.

I mean. Come on.

40 euros for 10 cadians will never be restrained in my mind. It's not exactly like you only need a box.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
How much has the Baneblade gone up by this time?

And that pegs the Ordnance Battery at AUD$84, which would make the ones I own worth AUD$504. Yeah, sure, I'll live with the 58% discount I got...

It was 85 euros back when I bought it, but it came with just the Baneblade parts.

"You planning to throw book to garbage bin when 10e comes?

Dunno. If I had IG army I would just keep using it. I know I'll be using my daemon/tson/sob codex Marine codex I have to replace as they are likely getting first codex anyway.

Sure not planning to bin army until new codex rolls out...Why wait when I can just keep playing it."

Personally, I'm glad for you that you have a group that doesn't immediately latch onto w/e is just released for tourney hammer.

Once an edition change (reset rumors) happens there won't be a way to re-use this. So for me, I'm not getting it, that means my next 4-6 games until June wont be with Guard. But probably against lots of Guard though, so it's a break even. Frankly if I need to I could print it off and do some hole punching and whammo, 4 month codex. Which can sit in my stack of old guard books as the LOL of the bunch.

New vehicle transfer sheet to go along with the reboxed and new tanks.

Looks decent to be fair. I like the Valhallan badges with the bear and crossed axes.

Lots of markings for OOP regiments. Dare we hope for some Necromunda style remakes?

Honestly I just decided to just not play all. Play a different game that I actually like.