Nephilim Chapter Approved Rumors

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.**

Much like Hammer of the Emperor, the asinine Indirect Fire changes, and arbitrary flyer limitations, I am going to fully ignore this tournament bull gak.

NinthMusketeer wrote:
It does seem to make the cut to starting CP a bit steep though, I think 4/9 would have been more reasonable given the amount of pre-game upgrade strats there are.

Like I've been saying: It's an overcorrection. They found two ways to deal with an 'abundance' of starting CPs, and rather than picking one they just went with both. This is after greatly expanding how many CPs you get because people didn't have enough in 8th.

These buffoons don't know what they're doing.

NinthMusketeer wrote:
Credit where due though, GW doing the points updates for free is a good step.

I don't think they should get credit for ending a gakky consumer unfriendly practice.

**ArcaneHorror**

H.B.M.C. wrote:Much like Hammer of the Emperor, the asinine Indirect Fire changes, and arbitrary flyer limitations, I am going to fully ignore this tournament bull gak.

This is my position. If I play a tournament, I'll abide by its rules. Otherwise, all of these new, ridiculous rules will have nothing to do with my matched play games.

**eldritchx**

Dirk Reinecke wrote:
I don't know if you have seen the new Warhammer Community Article. It has an image with the secondaries for the Astra Militarum.

I guess the rule of only one faction secondary is still in effect, because it it wasn't I would see the guard really moving up in the rankings. {It seems this is gone}

The "Inflexible Command" secondary (No Mercy, No Respite) is very, very tasty.

At the end of your turn you score +2 victory points if all your infantry are within 6' of a friendly officer.

Score 1 victory point if every vehicle is within 12' of a vehicle officer unit.

Score 1 victory point if if any units were destroyed by a unit that had an order on it.

As an interesting note it also goes on that if the officer is in a transport, that transport is assumed to have the officer keyword.

It also goes on to state that infantry units with a vox caster is within 24' of an officer it counts as being within 6' if the officer is within 1' of a friendly command squad.

This one should be easy to max. Incidentally did you know the Master of Ordinance also has the officer keyword? As does the master of the Fleet. It doesn't seem to be <Regiment> Locked either.

I think this will be a lot less easy to max than you think. The opponent just has to focus down your tank commanders to immediately deny you 5-10 points from it (because which infantry unit with an order are you going to be reliably destroying units with?)

**Nazrak**

I’m surprised how mad everyone seems to be about this tbh. CP adjustment seems to me like a reasonable way of limiting the extent to which you can stack stratagems, which was always my least favourite aspect of the strats system. I do feel though like the relic/WLT adjustment on top of that is a classic bit of GW overcorrection, and also think it’s a shame that a couple of things that essentially served as a nice bit of characterful garnish are now looking a lot less likely to be considered.

**Gadzilla666**

Nazrak wrote:
I’m surprised how mad everyone seems to be about this tbh. CP adjustment seems to me like a reasonable way of limiting the extent to which you can stack stratagems, which was always my least favourite aspect of the strays system. I do feel though like the relic/WLT adjustment on top of that is a classic bit of GW overcorrection, and also think it’s a shame that a couple of things that essentially served asa nice bit of characterful garnish are now looking a lot less likely to be considered.

People probably wouldn't be as cranky if it was only the CP change. The WLT/Relic change in addition to that is what seems to be generating the most ill will. So, I think you understand just fine.

**Daedalus81**

Dendarien wrote:
Yeah someone pushes 27 tyranid warriors with transhuman into the middle of the table.

Or someone pushes 14 chaos knight war dogs into the center of the table.

They don’t need cp or relics or traits to do that. Just good cost efficient data sheets.

You presume there will be no point changes to nids. Also, I don't see 14 armigers fitting all that well and they die pretty easily most days.

At the same time those nids won't have two tyrants and may have fewer relics and similarly for the knights their durability enhancements come at a cost.

**Manfred von Drakken**

Daedalus81 wrote:
Dendarien wrote:
Yeah someone pushes 27 tyranid warriors with transhuman into the middle of the table.

Or someone pushes 14 chaos knight war dogs into the center of the table.

They don’t need cp or relics or traits to do that. Just good cost efficient data sheets.

You presume there will be no point changes to nids. Also, I don't see 14 armigers fitting all that well and they die pretty easily most days.

At the same time those nids won't have two tyrants and may have fewer relics and similarly for the knights their durability enhancements come at a cost.

Yeah, but since things still seem to be judged by how quickly it can kill a Knight, Knights need those enhancements.

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

Why wouldn't 'Nids have two Tyrants?

**Dendarien**

Daedalus81 wrote:
Dendarien wrote:
Yeah someone pushes 27 tyranid warriors with transhuman into the middle of the table.

Or someone pushes 14 chaos knight war dogs into the center of the table.

They don’t need cp or relics or traits to do that. Just good cost efficient data sheets.

You presume there will be no point changes to nids. Also, I don't see 14 armigers fitting all that well and they die pretty easily most days.

At the same time those nids won't have two tyrants and may have fewer relics and similarly for the knights their durability enhancements come at a cost.

You clearly haven't faced the war dog spam yet. It's very real.

**Leth**

Seems like every other change. People claim it’s the end of the world and the. 2-3 weeks later find that games are ending up more fun when factoring in all the changes instead of just one aspect.

But we will see, I know I don’t have enough information to reach a conclusion right now.

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

I don't see anyone calling it the "end of the world", more just discussion of how it's another (sadly typical) overcorrection by GW as they lurch from one style of game design to another as they can't into game design.

**EviscerationPlague**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Why wouldn't 'Nids have two Tyrants?

Same reason an army won't have two Captains or two Crisis Commanders: GW can't balance for gak.

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

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Same reason an army won't have two Captains or two Crisis Commanders: GW can't balance for gak.

Well those armies can have two if they take a second detachment.

D might have been getting at something else that I'm missing.

**Gadzilla666**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
Same reason an army won't have two Captains or two Crisis Commanders: GW can't balance for gak.
Well those armies can have two if they take a second detachment.

D might have been getting at something else that I'm missing.

I think Daed is assuming that most Nids players won't want to pay the CP for a second detachment to get a second Hive Tyrant because of this over-correction.

**gungo**

I mean Strats probably should be a lot more limited. 1 use per game, can’t use more then 1 strat on a unit a turn… or something similar to age of sigmar…
Make relics cost points again…
And 1 warlord trait for your 1 warlord….

Let’s be honest 9th Ed has a rules bloat problem and Strats are one of the main reasons.

**NinthMusketeer**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
NinthMusketeer wrote:
Credit where due though, GW doing the points updates for free is a good step.
I don't think they should get credit for ending a gakky consumer unfriendly practice.

I think they deserve criticism when they end a customer friendly practice, so it logically follows that they deserve credit for ending a customer unfriendly one. I'm not exactly gushing with praise either; they went from shooting five toes off their own foot to four.

If anything that is the comedy of the matter; putting points for free online benefits all parties involved and if anything benefits GW more. Customers get a convenient source for free points, but we definitely had the points for free either way. GW actually saves money that would have been spent printing out the extra booklet with all the point costs. It wasn't even a customer-unfriendly move so much as hurting both sides for no gain whatsoever.

**Dudeface**

NinthMusketeer wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
NinthMusketeer wrote:
Credit where due though, GW doing the points updates for free is a good step.
I don't think they should get credit for ending a gakky consumer unfriendly practice.
I think they deserve criticism when they end a customer friendly practice, so it logically follows that they deserve credit for ending a customer unfriendly one. I'm not exactly gushing with praise either; they went from shooting five toes off their own foot to four.

If anything that is the comedy of the matter; putting points for free online benefits all parties involved and if anything benefits GW more. Customers get a convenient source for free points, but we definitely had the points for free either way. GW actually saves money that would have been spent printing out the extra booklet with all the point costs. It wasn't even a customer-unfriendly move so much as hurting both sides for no gain whatsoever.

I keep having to bring this up because people keep acting like the only "GW approved" source of points was the paid book when the app updated for free. Free points already existed if you bought a legitimate first hand codex.

**tneva82**

You don't even need the codex to get access to points. I can get custodian points via app. Never bought custodian codex. Don't have custodian army. No need.

Don't recall when it started but app has provided points for all codexes for quite a while.

**SaneqSasha**

tneva82 wrote:
You don't even need the codex to get access to points. I can get custodian points via app. Never bought custodian codex. Don't have custodian army. No need.

Don't recall when it started but app has provided points for all codexes for quite a while.

Good afternoon, is there any information about changes in the prices of Custodians: points, stratagems, nerfs?

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

Dudeface wrote:
I keep having to bring this up because people keep acting like the only "GW approved" source of points was the paid book when the app updated for free. Free points already existed if you bought a legitimate first hand codex.

That's not free.

And some of us don't want their lousy app.

**Dudeface**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
I keep having to bring this up because people keep acting like the only "GW approved" source of points was the paid book when the app updated for free. Free points already existed if you bought a legitimate first hand codex.
That's not free.

And some of us don't want their lousy app.

How is that not free given you need a codex to use the army? It doesn't matter if you don't want the free app, the points were free on there if you could tolerate using it for 10 minutes.

**Not Online!!!**

Dudeface wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
I keep having to bring this up because people keep acting like the only "GW approved" source of points was the paid book when the app updated for free. Free points already existed if you bought a legitimate first hand codex.
That's not free.

And some of us don't want their lousy app.

How is that not free given you need a codex to use the army? It doesn't matter if you don't want the free app, the points were free on there if you could tolerate using it for 10 minutes.

Considering the waste of space the app is... no it isn't free it costs space on my phone / tablet.

jokes aside, the core issue is, that if you look outside of 40k you basically see free rules and rulesupdates as common norm, or if sold are at a cheaper price and of better quality.

Mind i don't want them to stop producing codices and books, especially their well done ones like IA13 or some other codices but i'd like them to make these into actual objects for collectors, worth the price they are asking for them and not the current system.

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

If you have to buy a Codex, it's not free. Period.

More over, updating points is a patch, and one should never have to pay for patches.

**Not Online!!!**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
If you have to buy a Codex, it's not free. Period.

More over, updating points is a patch, and one should never have to pay for patches.

Also there is that issue.
arguably the same can and should be said about secondaries and changes to core missions since they are fundamental game mechanics.
Not even EA gets a pass on monetising a patch, why should GW?

**tneva82**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
If you have to buy a Codex, it's not free. Period.

More over, updating points is a patch, and one should never have to pay for patches.

So what patches you are paying then? Points? As said multiple time already GW provides point updates free of charge. Has been doing so for months as bare minimum. Likely last year.

**Wha-Mu-077**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
If you have to buy a Codex, it's not free. Period.

More over, updating points is a patch, and one should never have to pay for patches.

Tell that to FIFA and Overwatch fans

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

tneva82 wrote:
So what patches you are paying then?

Up until this newest Chapter Approved Tournament Pack, points were paid for. That was a patch. A paid patch.

How did you not garner that from the conversation?

**Dudeface**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
If you have to buy a Codex, it's not free. Period.

More over, updating points is a patch, and one should never have to pay for patches.

If you don't buy the codex how are you playing your army? I don't really feel it's valid to level criticism at GW because you didn't get the same free stuff as someone who doesn't pirate.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

H.B.M.C. wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
So what patches you are paying then?
Up until this newest Chapter Approved Tournament Pack, points were paid for. That was a patch. A paid patch.

How did you not garner that from the conversation?

Because they're assuming you needed the codex to play, hence got them for free (or in some instances without the codex) via the app. If you're in a position where you're refusing to pay for the codex but complaining about the points being in a paid-for book, which you then pirate, what grounds is the complaint based on? That you'll have to pirate a book you would never buy anyway.

**EightFoldPath**

Gadzilla666 wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
Same reason an army won't have two Captains or two Crisis Commanders: GW can't balance for gak.
Well those armies can have two if they take a second detachment.

D might have been getting at something else that I'm missing.

I think Daed is assuming that most Nids players won't want to pay the CP for a second detachment to get a second Hive Tyrant because of this over-correction.

I think you will see a lot less two detachment armies.

The Nids specifically have been taking 2 patrol detachments, 2 broken to excellent relics, 2 excellent warlord traits. That would be the Nids starting on 0 CP (+1 for the first turn) for Nephilim.

There are plenty of other factions that have got a similar issue though. The TSons 2 CP to forward deploy a Rubric squad strategem looks expensive and the 3 CP reduce shooting damage by 1 on a 6+ squad strategem is eye watering (although against Tyranids you luckily don't have to use it as a thoughtful rules writer handed out D4 like candy to their guns).

**xttz**

Dudeface wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

H.B.M.C. wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
So what patches you are paying then?
Up until this newest Chapter Approved Tournament Pack, points were paid for. That was a patch. A paid patch.

How did you not garner that from the conversation?

Because they're assuming you needed the codex to play, hence got them for free (or in some instances without the codex) via the app. If you're in a position where you're refusing to pay for the codex but complaining about the points being in a paid-for book, which you then pirate, what grounds is the complaint based on? That you'll have to pirate a book you would never buy anyway.

You're wasting your time.

As tneva82 posted twice above, point values for all datasheets have been freely in the app without any codex code or purchase for some time. Of course both of those posts were completely ignored.

The complaint is based on bad faith debate and flat out ignoring any inconvenient facts. Nothing else.