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.

No One Important wrote:
Those will drop in 6 months because "no one could have foreseen this."

"We thought people would play the way do in the studio - haphazardly, using whatever models we have on hand, with quirky rules we make up on the fly - but it turns out we were wrong. People are actually playing using the rules we wrote, rather than the rules we play! So now you can only ever bring 2 Aircraft of any type!"

A niche issue I'm sure, and I'm fairly certain I already know the answer (no), but per the agents of the imperium index, there is no way to put inquisitorial henchmen into a transport, as that index does not have listed transports? In addition, the same applies to Arbites and Navy breachers (and everything else in the index) other than inquisitors when they attach to imperium battleline units who can use transports?
.
It might have been 8th edition when agents of the imperium had their own transports still, or even 7th maybe so it was a far-flung hope.

Anyway, GW if you are reading this, an updated repressor kit for the arbites would sell like hot cakes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ZergSmasher wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Well, my Squat horde army is dead. I was excited when they're stats dropped, as that means lower points and more bodies.

However, unit size went from 5-20 to a fixed unit of 10. So, max of 60 Hearthkyn at lower points.

That is hardly the worst thing to happen to the Leagues in 10th. They got done dirty, like real bad. Of course, if most of their stuff got cheaper it could still be okay, we'll know tomorrow. I would think GW would want Votann to be good, given that they are a brand new range and all, but sadly they capitulated to the whiny manbabies and nerfed them into the ground over and over and over again. The first nerf was admittedly deserved; everyone with any experience in 40k could tell that book was busted as hell, but then GW decided to keep hitting them, punishing them for the sins they never got to commit.

GSC has proved that theory wrong before, they have had major teething issues since release. They've had brief periods of being competitive, but have been mostly underpowered, as well as being a very technical and highly difficult army to play.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

No One Important wrote:
Those will drop in 6 months because "no one could have foreseen this."

"We thought people would play the way do in the studio - haphazardly, using whatever models we have on hand, with quirky rules we make up on the fly - but it turns out we were wrong. People are actually playing using the rules we wrote, rather than the rules we play! So now you can only ever bring 2 Aircraft of any type!"

Hehe. Yeah, 100%

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

No One Important wrote:
Those will drop in 6 months because "no one could have foreseen this."

"We thought people would play the way do in the studio - haphazardly, using whatever models we have on hand, with quirky rules we make up on the fly - but it turns out we were wrong. People are actually playing using the rules we wrote, rather than the rules we play! So now you can only ever bring 2 Aircraft of any type!"

"Oh noes! They ruined my Belisarius Cawl with 3 of each thopter and 2 Dunecrawlers list!"

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:

 cole1114 wrote:
Do people really not know why a melee character would go into a ranged unit? Like I get it's not obvious, but melee counterpunch protecting a ranged unit seems like one of those things experienced players should understand...

While I like the TAC nature of that, for most of 40k history, the best path to victory was not a well balanced list, but taking highly efficient hyper specialist units, get them to do what they do best, and ride that to the win.

Okay, but Locust Lords have been a melee unit THE WHOLE GODDAMN TIME. Now it can't even attach to the wraith looking Destroyers.

I might have missed something, but when have Lokhurst Destroyer Lords ever been able to attach to Ophydian Destroyers?

 Dysartes wrote:
I might have missed something, but when have Lokhurst Destroyer Lords ever been able to attach to Ophydian Destroyers?

That's a trick question. Ophydians have only existed for one edition, and HQs couldn't join units during that edition. If this query was an oversight on your part, then fair enough, but if it is an attempt at a "Gotcha!" then it is a poor one.

The point being made is that Destroyer Lords - the classic Destroyer Lord that first showed up in 3rd Edition and is now called a Lokhurst Lord - is decidedly a HTH style unit, and yet cannot join units of Destroyers that are equally geared for close combat. This is clearly ruffled some feathers with Purge and cole, as they fail to see the (cold Necron) logic behind this restriction.

In fairness, few Necrons that aren't also insane understand the logic of Destroyers

*shrugs*

It's just free datasheets to play the new edition while waiting for the updated codexes. There are always people who think they're smarter than GW rule designers, it's not really important. Let them make new rules if they want and play the game like they wish it so.

The majority will enjoy the rules they're given and play the game without trouble, anyway.

Not that some extra detachments going to alter dramatically

 endlesswaltz123 wrote:
A niche issue I'm sure, and I'm fairly certain I already know the answer (no), but per the agents of the imperium index, there is no way to put inquisitorial henchmen into a transport, as that index does not have listed transports? In addition, the same applies to Arbites and Navy breachers (and everything else in the index) other than inquisitors when they attach to imperium battleline units who can use transports?
.
It might have been 8th edition when agents of the imperium had their own transports still, or even 7th maybe so it was a far-flung hope.

Anyway, GW if you are reading this, an updated repressor kit for the arbites would sell like hot cakes.

In 8th and 9th Legends they could take one of the FW land raiders, the land raider prometheus, the one that mounts nothing but bolters.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
I might have missed something, but when have Lokhurst Destroyer Lords ever been able to attach to Ophydian Destroyers?

That's a trick question. Ophydians have only existed for one edition, and HQs couldn't join units during that edition. If this query was an oversight on your part, then fair enough, but if it is an attempt at a "Gotcha!" then it is a poor one.

The point being made is that Destroyer Lords - the classic Destroyer Lord that first showed up in 3rd Edition and is now called a Lokhurst Lord - is decidedly a HTH style unit, and yet cannot join units of Destroyers that are equally geared for close combat. This is clearly ruffled some feathers with Purge and cole, as they fail to see the (cold Necron) logic behind this restriction.

stupid question as i do not know anything bout necrons.... but if that blurp lord was there for 3rd edition... then he was definatly able to join units because attaching chars was a thing back in 3rd

RedNoak wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
I might have missed something, but when have Lokhurst Destroyer Lords ever been able to attach to Ophydian Destroyers?

That's a trick question. Ophydians have only existed for one edition, and HQs couldn't join units during that edition. If this query was an oversight on your part, then fair enough, but if it is an attempt at a "Gotcha!" then it is a poor one.

The point being made is that Destroyer Lords - the classic Destroyer Lord that first showed up in 3rd Edition and is now called a Lokhurst Lord - is decidedly a HTH style unit, and yet cannot join units of Destroyers that are equally geared for close combat. This is clearly ruffled some feathers with Purge and cole, as they fail to see the (cold Necron) logic behind this restriction.

stupid question as i do not know anything bout necrons.... but if that blurp lord was there for 3rd edition... then he was definatly able to join units because attaching chars was a thing back in 3rd

Ophidians came out in 9th thougg. Can't join lord to them in 3rd. Lord was yes, unit not.

Downloads section has now 40k as a separate category.

when are the points meant to be dropping again? that late part of next week?

leopard wrote:
when are the points meant to be dropping again? that late part of next week?

Somewhere in the next hour or so, based on the previous week.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

leopard wrote:
when are the points meant to be dropping again? that late part of next week?

Somewhere in the next hour or so, based on the previous week.

eck!

 Shadow Walker wrote:
Downloads section has now 40k as a separate category.

And, at the moment, EVERYTHING is empty. Even the Age of Sigmar stuff is currently MIA.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 Shadow Walker wrote:
Downloads section has now 40k as a separate category.

And, at the moment, EVERYTHING is empty. Even the Age of Sigmar stuff is currently MIA.

Um i see them just fine.

Checking 40k downloads periodically.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 Shadow Walker wrote:
Downloads section has now 40k as a separate category.

And, at the moment, EVERYTHING is empty. Even the Age of Sigmar stuff is currently MIA.

Hit the GB flag

tneva82 wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 Shadow Walker wrote:
Downloads section has now 40k as a separate category.

And, at the moment, EVERYTHING is empty. Even the Age of Sigmar stuff is currently MIA.

Um i see them just fine.

Checking 40k downloads periodically.

They're doing wonky stuff with the download section, you may be seeing a cached version on your end.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 Shadow Walker wrote:
Downloads section has now 40k as a separate category.

And, at the moment, EVERYTHING is empty. Even the Age of Sigmar stuff is currently MIA.

Switch from the US flag to British in the center of the page. Not sure why they even have the category, but that's why its empty.

Though they've also got the 40k stuff on a new page, but it provides a link under the flag.

Or you are having issues? Since they moved stuff to 40k yesterday no hickup.

I am fully prepared to be whelmed by points costs that will likely, I suspect, end up looking not too drastically dissimilar to 9ths points. I was hoping for a slightly smaller headcount game, so fingers crossed.

40K downloads disappeared from me as well (every other game system is there however)

I don't use caches on my browser, iOS Safari

EDIT: D'oh! found em, nvm

The 40k downloads tab has just disappeared so incoming shortly.

Edit: that'll teach me not to read.

I really hope the article gives some context to the points. If its just a 'happy hunting for changes' article, its going to suck.

Voss wrote:
I really hope the article gives some context to the points. If its just a 'happy hunting for changes' article, its going to suck.

Well they're all 100% new, there's no changes to hunt.

Dudeface wrote:

Voss wrote:
I really hope the article gives some context to the points. If its just a 'happy hunting for changes' article, its going to suck.

Well they're all 100% new, there's no changes to hunt.

Provide a baseline, then.

And I see the 2pm BST article was an AoS piece. Sneaky!

Dudeface wrote:
I am fully prepared to be whelmed by points costs that will likely, I suspect, end up looking not too drastically dissimilar to 9ths points. I was hoping for a slightly smaller headcount game, so fingers crossed.

20 point Warriors and 30 point Zoanthropes or bust!

Voss wrote:
I really hope the article gives some context to the points. If its just a 'happy hunting for changes' article, its going to suck.

So first point of edition has already changes?