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.

Has some clarifications across factions. I assume GW will release an article advising as such.

Aeldari summary for example.

Aeldari:

Spiritseer can no longer resurrect Wraiths in the opponent's command phase.

Wraithguard can no longer shoot into combat when attacked in melee.

Autarch Reaper Launcher damage on 2-shot profile reduced to 1.

Wave Serpent number of shots on Twin Stacannon reduced to 2.

Autarch can now eqip all gear without restrictions, allowing to recreate the model from 9th edition codex cover.

Corsairs can be included in Ynnari.

Wave Serpent Shield discharge is restricted to its shooting phase.

Most, but not all, of the indexes have been updated in the Downloads section of Warhammer Community.

I checked a handful of errors I remembered. All were fixed :
- firing deck missing on some rhinos
- wolf scouts with only 1pv
- some dreadnoughts missing the "Dreadnought" keyword

I hope we'll get a changelog.

Sarigar wrote:

Corsairs can be included in Ynnari.

Finally! They will go aesthetically together perfectly.

I hope they update the Index PDFs too. (EDIT: Apparently they did.)

They added kit-based weapon restrictions to Traitor Guard units.

*sigh*

Change log for datacards

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/YRK9ZpspblzJHLb7.pdf

Well, it's pretty obvious we're in the "open beta" stage of this edition Anyway, glad to see the fixes coming, I hope that we'll get even more soon.

Baal Predator got Deadly Demise. That one seemed wrong in my first game of 10th.

 xttz wrote:
Change log for datacards

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/YRK9ZpspblzJHLb7.pdf

Huh. Looks like they 're-fixed' the autarch weapon options again. Glad they learned nothing from the previous eldar codex.


Votann 'appraising glare' enhancement actually functions now. Their special character got hit with the eldar nerf.


They... had to special rule in majority toughness for grot units. That feels like such a basic design failure.

Love the fixes to space marine units they're obliterating. That just feels bad.

Ooo. Barbgaunts got brought in line with other disruption units and can only affect 1 unit at a time. Still easy to take multiple units and have a big impact, but its no longer quite as stupid.

Time to send off another email for Kasrkin Sergeants getting a basic weapon option, I guess!

Voss wrote:
They... had to special rule in majority toughness for grot units. That feels like such a basic design failure.

Given that the Core Rules explicitly tell you to use the highest Toughness in the unit (except for Leader models), the Grot unit special rule is necessary to give the unit to T2 without putting the Handlers at T2. No design flaw, just a unit that needs to work opposite of the standard rules.

 alextroy wrote:

Voss wrote:
They... had to special rule in majority toughness for grot units. That feels like such a basic design failure.

Given that the Core Rules explicitly tell you to use the highest Toughness in the unit (except for Leader models), the Grot unit special rule is necessary to give the unit to T2 without putting the Handlers at T2. No design flaw, just a unit that needs to work opposite of the standard rules.

Which is a design flaw. If your core rule doesn't work for the most obvious example of a mixed toughness unit, you've done screwed up. Especially since I'm having a hard time thinking of another example that doesn't fall under the leader exemption or that they didn't bail on for completely different rules (tau drones). Ogryn bodyguards, maybe?

 SarisKhan wrote:
Well, it's pretty obvious we're in the "open beta" stage of this edition Anyway, glad to see the fixes coming, I hope that we'll get even more soon.

Early Access/Pre-Alpha testing

So 9e was alpha test as well since it got errataes as well?

Voss wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

Voss wrote:
They... had to special rule in majority toughness for grot units. That feels like such a basic design failure.

Given that the Core Rules explicitly tell you to use the highest Toughness in the unit (except for Leader models), the Grot unit special rule is necessary to give the unit to T2 without putting the Handlers at T2. No design flaw, just a unit that needs to work opposite of the standard rules.

Which is a design flaw. If your core rule doesn't work for the most obvious example of a mixed toughness unit, you've done screwed up. Especially since I'm having a hard time thinking of another example that doesn't fall under the leader exemption or that they didn't bail on for completely different rules (tau drones). Ogryn bodyguards, maybe?

You have noted a perfect example. An Ogryn Bodyguard attached to a Command Squad gives the unit T5 while it is alive, but not while the Command Squad is leading another unit as the bodyguard unit's Toughness is used in those cases.

So we have 2 cases with different results. One of them would need a special rule to work as they currently do. Are there any other cases we can use to determine if GW got the rule backwards? If not, there is no design flaw, just a choice as to where to draw the line.

Any idea if they are going to add the legends to the app as it would be really useful to be able to add them in battleforge.

 Drakheart wrote:
Any idea if they are going to add the legends to the app as it would be really useful to be able to add them in battleforge.

I'm going to venture no since they were released before this update and the previous app didn't have them either.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They added kit-based weapon restrictions to Traitor Guard units.

*sigh*

Don't think it's FULLY kit based. It says max two of the same one, and the kits come with 1 each right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also I love how much needed to be fixed. Really shows the lack of care in creating the indices to begin with.

Going by the changelog, the Terminator Captain can still be left unable to fight in close combat, despite fixes to a bunch of other units with the same problem; and Death Guard Cultists still inexplicably have merged weapons while Chaos Marine cultists have distinct pistol+CCW and autogun options.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They added kit-based weapon restrictions to Traitor Guard units.

*sigh*

Don't think it's FULLY kit based. It says max two of the same one, and the kits come with 1 each right?

I wonder if that is so that you can mash both units from Blackstone Fortress together to make one WYSIWYG legal unit..?
EDIT: Nope, you're still a guy short

 alextroy wrote:

Voss wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

Voss wrote:
They... had to special rule in majority toughness for grot units. That feels like such a basic design failure.

Given that the Core Rules explicitly tell you to use the highest Toughness in the unit (except for Leader models), the Grot unit special rule is necessary to give the unit to T2 without putting the Handlers at T2. No design flaw, just a unit that needs to work opposite of the standard rules.

Which is a design flaw. If your core rule doesn't work for the most obvious example of a mixed toughness unit, you've done screwed up. Especially since I'm having a hard time thinking of another example that doesn't fall under the leader exemption or that they didn't bail on for completely different rules (tau drones). Ogryn bodyguards, maybe?

You have noted a perfect example. An Ogryn Bodyguard attached to a Command Squad gives the unit T5 while it is alive, but not while the Command Squad is leading another unit as the bodyguard unit's Toughness is used in those cases.

So we have 2 cases with different results. One of them would need a special rule to work as they currently do. Are there any other cases we can use to determine if GW got the rule backwards? If not, there is no design flaw, just a choice as to where to draw the line.

And yet Proteus Kill teams have to count as T4 unless you max out termies (+1 bike) and don't attach any characters because it goes by majority. This is the same rule as kill teams but even dumber because it's grots and not Marimes and Bikes/termies.

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

Voss wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

Voss wrote:
They... had to special rule in majority toughness for grot units. That feels like such a basic design failure.

Given that the Core Rules explicitly tell you to use the highest Toughness in the unit (except for Leader models), the Grot unit special rule is necessary to give the unit to T2 without putting the Handlers at T2. No design flaw, just a unit that needs to work opposite of the standard rules.

Which is a design flaw. If your core rule doesn't work for the most obvious example of a mixed toughness unit, you've done screwed up. Especially since I'm having a hard time thinking of another example that doesn't fall under the leader exemption or that they didn't bail on for completely different rules (tau drones). Ogryn bodyguards, maybe?

You have noted a perfect example. An Ogryn Bodyguard attached to a Command Squad gives the unit T5 while it is alive, but not while the Command Squad is leading another unit as the bodyguard unit's Toughness is used in those cases.

So we have 2 cases with different results. One of them would need a special rule to work as they currently do. Are there any other cases we can use to determine if GW got the rule backwards? If not, there is no design flaw, just a choice as to where to draw the line.

And yet Proteus Kill teams have to count as T4 unless you max out termies (+1 bike) and don't attach any characters because it goes by majority. This is the same rule as kill teams but even dumber because it's grots and not Marimes and Bikes/termies.

That's because the Proteus Kill Team has its own special rule for determining toughness that doesn't seem to have been written with character attachments in mind.

I don't see how the Kill Team Toughness rule cares about Leaders one way or another. The Kill Team is the bodyguard units and all attacks against the Attached Unit are resolved against the Kill Team's Toughness. That means you apply the Toughness as determined per the rules for the Kill Team bodyguard unit, disregarding any models leading the unit.

You do have to give GW negative props for managing to have three different ways of how to determine a unit's Toughness over such a small subset of units.

 alextroy wrote:
I don't see how the Kill Team Toughness rule cares about Leaders one way or another. The Kill Team is the bodyguard units and all attacks against the Attached Unit are resolved against the Kill Team's Toughness. That means you apply the Toughness as determined per the rules for the Kill Team bodyguard unit, disregarding any models leading the unit.

You do have to give GW negative props for managing to have three different ways of how to determine a unit's Toughness over such a small subset of units.

Leaders are considered part of the unit, no? and the rule cares about the *models* in the unit, and as such the leader will be counted in determining the majority toughness in the unit. And since only units that can join on-foot vanguard vets can join the Proteus kill team, the majroity Toughness willl near always be T4 (unless I'm forgetting one).

"Each time an attack targets a Kill Team unit from your army that contains models with different Toughness characteristics, until the attacking unit has finished making its attacks, use the Toughness characteristic of the majority of the models in that unit when determining what roll is required for that attack to successfully wound. If two or more Toughness characteristics are tied for majority, use the highest value."

Deathwing Ancient still can't change his weapons.

Santtu wrote:
Deathwing Ancient still can't change his weapons.

Whelp, that's what happens when GW thinks Dark Amgels need separate entries for THEIR Terminators instead of just rightfully consolidating them.

It's because the instructions only show how to build it with storm bolter and powerfist.

Santtu wrote:
It's because the instructions only show how to build it with storm bolter and powerfist.

Makes sense, the players are too fething stupid to figure out how to build models without their hands being held the whole time

Voss wrote:
Huh. Looks like they 're-fixed' the autarch weapon options again. Glad they learned nothing from the previous eldar codex.

I can't wait for the Eldar Codex to hit so that they can forget this for a third time in a row, and then FAQ it.

 SarisKhan wrote:
Well, it's pretty obvious we're in the "open beta" stage of this edition Anyway, glad to see the fixes coming, I hope that we'll get even more soon.

I mean, we don't even have a single codex released yet, and unlike say Ravening hordes for 6th WFB, they've tried to release factions that aren't just bare bones. (Whether that means they don't get immediately eclipsed by codex factions remains to be seen). But the fact remains they've released quite alot content in a short period of time, and any other time they have done this (8th, AOS), its effectively been an open beta.

Open beta sucks at least in this form...I'm not a fan of 10th. Might just skip it and wait till 11th lol.