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.

We don't even know how many points they were off by, it could just be that they'd already maxed out the size of all the Tyranid units and didn't have enough points for a whole new unit with a difference small enough it wasn't worth also adding more Marines.

well, if it just was a staged game to show off, why adding additional units in the first place

and if they based it on points, why writing that it was almost matched, as 5 points would have changed anything

 Sarigar wrote:
Just reviewed the US GW Aeldari site and all the older, non plastic, Phoenix Lords are no longer in the webstore. 50 Total items for sale within the Aeldari range.

The resin pheonix lords have been gone for a while. Sucked into the mythical Range Rotation.

We had a range rotation recently for a bunch of Dark Eldar models if I recall right.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/L8FE4F808oEwCq9T.pdf

RIP close combat weapon symbiotes. And long live Tyranid sergeants(!?)

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:

 Sarigar wrote:
Just reviewed the US GW Aeldari site and all the older, non plastic, Phoenix Lords are no longer in the webstore. 50 Total items for sale within the Aeldari range.

The resin pheonix lords have been gone for a while. Sucked into the mythical Range Rotation.

Thanks. I suppose I have not looked at the GW 40K site in awhile.

Carnifexes seem fun and Tyrant Guard should be pretty difficult to drag down.

Still no points

Whoah! Haven't paid attention to nids since 7th edition, man have they grown in diversity since then..

Santtu wrote:
And long live Tyranid sergeants(!?)

Yeah, at least Neurothrope sergeant do something unlike Prime.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Still no points

Point values are supposedly dropping June 16th, if rumours are credible

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Still no points

Those come after all the (main game) datasheets, according to the completely accurate (so far) rumor.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Still no points

They said very early on that datasheets will not contain points so that they don't have to touch them when they do points adjustments.

Can anyone figure the order in which these datasheets appear? Seems to be vaguely in battlefield role order, but is that even still a meaningful concept?

I have no idea why you'd replace bonesword and lash whip with scytals on the HT.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Can anyone figure the order in which these datasheets appear? Seems to be vaguely in battlefield role order, but is that even still a meaningful concept?

Roughly, yea. Some out of order. Not meaningful now though.

 alextroy wrote:
We don’t know if they were 5 points or 50 points off. Why make a big deal about a few points difference?

Well aos 3rd had more like 1300 vs 1000. Indomitus also busted.

Launch box contents tend to be evened on money, not point.

Hordes tend to have poor cash/point ratio.

Guess which army from leviathan is horde?

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I have no idea why you'd replace bonesword and lash whip with scytals on the HT.
.

Legacy. Its an option for the kit and some people have them built that way.
Its now a bad option (same for the carnifex), but on paper at least, people don't have to rebuild their models.

So how many times can i use a stratagem per turn if i have 3 winged hive tyrants? 2 times or 4 times?

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Can anyone figure the order in which these datasheets appear? Seems to be vaguely in battlefield role order, but is that even still a meaningful concept?

Given role isn't a thing any more, you'd've thought they might've just gone in alphabetical order to make it easier to find things - and included a flaming table of contents on the PDF...

Wrong thread. Sorry, thought I was in the Tyranid one.

Biasn wrote:
So how many times can i use a stratagem per turn if i have 3 winged hive tyrants? 2 times or 4 times?

How many times can use a particular strat? Twice. Once normally and once for free.

The ability is once per turn no matter how many models of that type you have. Having more than one tyrant just opens up where you can target the ability (12" of any of them).

 Dysartes wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Can anyone figure the order in which these datasheets appear? Seems to be vaguely in battlefield role order, but is that even still a meaningful concept?

Given role isn't a thing any more, you'd've thought they might've just gone in alphabetical order to make it easier to find things - and included a flaming table of contents on the PDF...

Its meant to be printed out and used as physical game aids, not as a PDF

Voss wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I have no idea why you'd replace bonesword and lash whip with scytals on the HT.
.

Legacy. Its an option for the kit and some people have them built that way.
Its now a bad option (same for the carnifex), but on paper at least, people don't have to rebuild their models.

Yea - I just wish they didn't make it a handicap.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Can anyone figure the order in which these datasheets appear? Seems to be vaguely in battlefield role order, but is that even still a meaningful concept?

Given role isn't a thing any more, you'd've thought they might've just gone in alphabetical order to make it easier to find things - and included a flaming table of contents on the PDF...

Its meant to be printed out and used as physical game aids, not as a PDF

Doing a table of contents literally costs you nothing and is just good design; people don't need to print it, and it helps if you use the pdf.

Tsagualsa wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Can anyone figure the order in which these datasheets appear? Seems to be vaguely in battlefield role order, but is that even still a meaningful concept?

Given role isn't a thing any more, you'd've thought they might've just gone in alphabetical order to make it easier to find things - and included a flaming table of contents on the PDF...

Its meant to be printed out and used as physical game aids, not as a PDF

Doing a table of contents literally costs you nothing and is just good design; people don't need to print it, and it helps if you use the pdf.

oh i agree, i was just giving the possible logic GW had when not including one

Tsagualsa wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Can anyone figure the order in which these datasheets appear? Seems to be vaguely in battlefield role order, but is that even still a meaningful concept?

Given role isn't a thing any more, you'd've thought they might've just gone in alphabetical order to make it easier to find things - and included a flaming table of contents on the PDF...

Its meant to be printed out and used as physical game aids, not as a PDF

Doing a table of contents literally costs you nothing and is just good design; people don't need to print it, and it helps if you use the pdf.

Gonna be a little pedantic and say it costs something. It would take extra time to track/order the data slates and make the actual table of contents. That time costs money.

Domandi wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Can anyone figure the order in which these datasheets appear? Seems to be vaguely in battlefield role order, but is that even still a meaningful concept?

Given role isn't a thing any more, you'd've thought they might've just gone in alphabetical order to make it easier to find things - and included a flaming table of contents on the PDF...

Its meant to be printed out and used as physical game aids, not as a PDF

Doing a table of contents literally costs you nothing and is just good design; people don't need to print it, and it helps if you use the pdf.

Gonna be a little pedantic and say it costs something. It would take extra time to track/order the data slates and make the actual table of contents. That time costs money.

Effectively every editing software under the sun can do that automatically nowadays, you do not need to invest extra time for it. Same goes for creating an Index. The time cost is close to rounding to zero.

Tsagualsa wrote:


Doing a table of contents literally costs you nothing and is just good design; people don't need to print it, and it helps if you use the pdf.

On the upside you can at least use text search in your PDF reader app to find stuff.

 xttz wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:


Doing a table of contents literally costs you nothing and is just good design; people don't need to print it, and it helps if you use the pdf.

On the upside you can at least use text search in your PDF reader app to find stuff.

Spoiler:

unlike many of the less-than-legal scanned codex PDFs floating around for 9th

Sounds like something a non-iOS user would say..

And yeh, most docs apps these days autopopulate an index when exporting to PDF, just choose your Heading number threshold, boom

What I do like about this index is the layout of the cards fits very nicely into iPad's 4:3 aspect ratio, legibility of the cards is superb like this and searching by unit name works well enough