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.

 kodos wrote:
and everyone who has 18 Sentinels need to put 6 in the shelf and buy something new to fill the points again = more models sold

everyone who has a number not divided by 2 might also buy more sentinels to get the 2 per units, = more models sold

changing things always results in more models sold, not necessary the same models but overall

Except they arent putting 6 on the shelf, theyre selling them, which is less money in GWs pocket.

Plus, after 23 years in this hobby, the number of people i know who had 18 sentinels is precisely 0. I have 12 (6 old, 6 new), which is twice more than anyone else i know. The number of people with 18 sentinels is very small, not large enough for GW to care enough to mandate a unit size change for business reasons as you have proposed.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 kodos wrote:
and everyone who has 18 Sentinels need to put 6 in the shelf and buy something new to fill the points again = more models sold

everyone who has a number not divided by 2 might also buy more sentinels to get the 2 per units, = more models sold

changing things always results in more models sold, not necessary the same models but overall

Except they arent putting 6 on the shelf, theyre selling them, which is less money in GWs pocket.

Plus, after 23 years in this hobby, the number of people i know who had 18 sentinels is precisely 0. I have 12 (6 old, 6 new), which is twice more than anyone else i know. The number of people with 18 sentinels is very small, not large enough for GW to care enough to mandate a unit size change for business reasons as you have proposed.

I think I might have 18? But only through chance and some are in a terrible condition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 tauist wrote:
I'm really not a fan of the planned obsolence business model when it comes to miniature wargames.

Wrong company, you need to shift game system.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
I hope next edition this 2 box max thing gets rolled back. Squadrons ought to be 3 not 2, and hordes of 20 are a joke when they should be 30 or more.

 Dysartes wrote:
There are n people at GWHQ - probably in Marketing and/or management - who need a good kick in the junk and telling to keep their noses out of it.

I strongly suspect that this 1-2 box thing is less of a marketing decision and more a result of the recent drive towards game balancing & tournament play. The early part of 8th struggled to balance certain horde style units and skew lists with 200+ models. Later on in 9th there were also plenty of examples of layered buffs giving more benefit to large units over small, particularly with stratagems.

Rather than have 10th try to accomodate ~30 model units alongside character buffs, enhancements, resurrection abilities, strats, etc I believe the rules writers instead just decided to slap hard limits on how army lists are written and dodge the issue.

As an AdMech player, it's nothing new - Onager Dunecrawlers went from squadrons of 1-3 to single models and Kastelan Robots went from max. 6 per unit to max. 4 (so I now own too many of each!).

 xttz wrote:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
I hope next edition this 2 box max thing gets rolled back. Squadrons ought to be 3 not 2, and hordes of 20 are a joke when they should be 30 or more.

 Dysartes wrote:
There are n people at GWHQ - probably in Marketing and/or management - who need a good kick in the junk and telling to keep their noses out of it.

I strongly suspect that this 1-2 box thing is less of a marketing decision and more a result of the recent drive towards game balancing & tournament play. The early part of 8th struggled to balance certain horde style units and skew lists with 200+ models. Later on in 9th there were also plenty of examples of layered buffs giving more benefit to large units over small, particularly with stratagems.

Rather than have 10th try to accomodate ~30 model units alongside character buffs, enhancements, resurrection abilities, strats, etc I believe the rules writers instead just decided to slap hard limits on how army lists are written and dodge the issue.

You say that, but the changes in the new codex now allows for you to bring 9 heavy weapon squads in an army (3 each cadian, catachan, krieg), even though the rule of 3 was implemented because (among other things) guard armies with 9 hws w/mortars was oppressive. Now youll be able to bring at least 6 squads worth (cadian/catachan), unlear if krieg has mortars in their version.

The next thing will be GW selling their own range of magnets..

Do we think that the the new Krieg artillery team crew minis would make for good alternatives to the cadians in the Field Ordnance Battery (you know, so you can make them Krieg flavored)?

If so, is it worth the time and money to do so, or do we think GW will be GW and attach the "Cadian" label to the ordnance team next edition and release a krieg version with an entirely different weapons load?

chaos0xomega wrote:
Do we think that the the new Krieg artillery team crew minis would make for good alternatives to the cadians in the Field Ordnance Battery (you know, so you can make them Krieg flavored)?

If so, is it worth the time and money to do so, or do we think GW will be GW and attach the "Cadian" label to the ordnance team next edition and release a krieg version with an entirely different weapons load?

Honestly a good many of these changes feel like "edition" changes that could all change up next edition and be entirely different again. Sometimes GW feels like they've a long term plan; other times it feels like they had one and then it changes. Heck sometimes it feels like it changes mid-season

So Krieg heavy weapon teams cannot take mortars now.
It is above stupid. And FW ones are useless.
Magnificent update for the army.

Voss wrote:
Huh. The Krieg squad options got even worse.
Its almost impressive.

Now there are two groups of options.
0-2 models can take a flamer, grenade launcher or long las (no duplicates, unless 20 man squad)
and
0-2 models can take a meltagun, plasma gun or lasgun & vox (also no duplicates, unless 20 men)


BUT, all the special weapons (so, everything except the vox) are limited to 2 total (4 total if 20 man squad)
So you can take 0-2 special weapons and 0-2 special weapons, as long as you only take 2 special weapons. or 2 and a vox. (or 0-4 + 0-4, but max of 4 (+vox) for 20 man squad)

Its also all laid out with asterisks, so people are going to misread it.

----
Also the medi-pack is assigned to a model now (who has to keep is his lasgun, and can't double up with a vox), but that seems reasonable.

I actually can't work this one out (and I've seen the screenshot of the actual entry too) - why separate them out into those two chunks? It seems from the wording like I can have any two of the five listed special weapons in a 10-man squad, so why not just have one list?

mortar_crew wrote:
So Krieg heavy weapon teams cannot take mortars now.
It is above stupid. And FW ones are useless.
Magnificent update for the army.

I doubt in the grand scheme of things there are that many owners of Krieg mortars from Forgeworld. And in any case, as the article points out, you can just field them as either Cadian or Catachan teams. GW rules have fluctuated since they started publishing.

Personally I'd rather something like the 4th Ed books with traits and such rather than the named Regts they are going with. But GW is clearly been moving towards a CCG model but with miniatures at least for now.

The two boxes to a unit thing is most likely downstream from GW hearing the complaints that in 8th ed. Fantasy you needed 4+ boxes of Greatswords to make a useful unit, which then got insta-gibbed by your opponant rolling some 6s to cast a spell at them, and that's a Feels Bad; so this is their belated 'solution'.

I think it is also a balance thing as raised earlier. If stratagems and abilities from characters only impact one unit, limiting the max unit size limits the impact of those to avoid 'gotcha' moments that GW playtesters never seem to catch.

There are a few oddities in this release that feel like a foreshadowing of direction change. Similar to that 9th ed free wargear patch and the WE codex loosely following the detachments format.

The "subfaction" - unit might be a thing they start shoving into other armies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dawnbringer wrote:
I think it is also a balance thing as raised earlier. If stratagems and abilities from characters only impact one unit, limiting the max unit size limits the impact of those to avoid 'gotcha' moments that GW playtesters never seem to catch.

Sorry, you'd have to explain to me what you could apply to 3 sentinels that breaks them compared to 2.

Dudeface wrote:

 Dawnbringer wrote:
I think it is also a balance thing as raised earlier. If stratagems and abilities from characters only impact one unit, limiting the max unit size limits the impact of those to avoid 'gotcha' moments that GW playtesters never seem to catch.

Sorry, you'd have to explain to me what you could apply to 3 sentinels that breaks them compared to 2.

If you can have 3 units of sentinels, the change from 3 to 2 per unit make a difference. And for cold calculated lists small variation can make or break a spam unit.

 Fayric wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Dawnbringer wrote:
I think it is also a balance thing as raised earlier. If stratagems and abilities from characters only impact one unit, limiting the max unit size limits the impact of those to avoid 'gotcha' moments that GW playtesters never seem to catch.

Sorry, you'd have to explain to me what you could apply to 3 sentinels that breaks them compared to 2.

If you can have 3 units of sentinels, the change from 3 to 2 per unit make a difference. And for cold calculated lists small variation can make or break a spam unit.

We're talking about 1 lascannon shot or something. Maybe a defensive buff, but I don't see it being gamebreaking exactly?

 cerebaton wrote:

Voss wrote:
Huh. The Krieg squad options got even worse.
Its almost impressive.

Now there are two groups of options.
0-2 models can take a flamer, grenade launcher or long las (no duplicates, unless 20 man squad)
and
0-2 models can take a meltagun, plasma gun or lasgun & vox (also no duplicates, unless 20 men)


BUT, all the special weapons (so, everything except the vox) are limited to 2 total (4 total if 20 man squad)
So you can take 0-2 special weapons and 0-2 special weapons, as long as you only take 2 special weapons. or 2 and a vox. (or 0-4 + 0-4, but max of 4 (+vox) for 20 man squad)

Its also all laid out with asterisks, so people are going to misread it.

----
Also the medi-pack is assigned to a model now (who has to keep is his lasgun, and can't double up with a vox), but that seems reasonable.

I actually can't work this one out (and I've seen the screenshot of the actual entry too) - why separate them out into those two chunks? It seems from the wording like I can have any two of the five listed special weapons in a 10-man squad, so why not just have one list?

Yeah, its... odd. The restrictions (2 groups, no duplicates, but only 2 special weapons total) work together in a very weird way. Effectively its a continuation of the old sheet, which prevented a plasma gun if you took a vox. But, with the addition of the meltagun to that group, the only thing prevented is the very specific combination of meltagun, plasmagun and vox (because they're all in the same group and its 0-2 of the 3). If you chose any anything else, you can have a vox and your choice of 2 weapons.

As that is a stupid restriction (and personally, not something I'd want, and not exactly definitely 'better' than a grenade launcher and meltagun against high toughness, if not good armor), it would've been much better to have the vox be its own 0-1 like the medpack, and just group the special weapons up. But GW decided to GW it.

Dudeface wrote:

 Fayric wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Dawnbringer wrote:
I think it is also a balance thing as raised earlier. If stratagems and abilities from characters only impact one unit, limiting the max unit size limits the impact of those to avoid 'gotcha' moments that GW playtesters never seem to catch.

Sorry, you'd have to explain to me what you could apply to 3 sentinels that breaks them compared to 2.

If you can have 3 units of sentinels, the change from 3 to 2 per unit make a difference. And for cold calculated lists small variation can make or break a spam unit.

We're talking about 1 lascannon shot or something. Maybe a defensive buff, but I don't see it being gamebreaking exactly?

Honestly, personally I could not make a competetive list if my life depended upon it. Still the point was its a difference between 6 or 9 lascannons in total, and also (more important) that GW make sweeping changes because they cant see the impact or consequences of synnergy and spam units. It dont necessary say that Sentinels would break the meta, just that GW use collective punishment when trying to balance the game.

It's 3d edition, all over again.

Unfortunate that Rogal Dorn's dual battle cannons remain trash. There are of course other subpar option too. It is unfortunate that they did not take the opportunity to try to make more weapon options viable.

 Dawnbringer wrote:
I think it is also a balance thing as raised earlier. If stratagems and abilities from characters only impact one unit, limiting the max unit size limits the impact of those to avoid 'gotcha' moments that GW playtesters never seem to catch.

Any claim that it is for balance while said Sentinels can have a Heavy Flamer OR a Lascanon and Hunter Killer Missile and a Sentinel Chainsaw for the same cost is laughable.

Rules aside.

Sentinels, if memory serves, used to have a max squadron size of 3. And when restricted by the old FOC, you could field 9.

Which given their role wasn’t exactly undesirable.

But. Now it’s 6. Which means those who previously favoured Sentinels for whatever reason have at least 3 which will just sit on the shelf.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Which means those who previously favoured Sentinels for whatever reason have at least 3 which will just sit on the shelf.

Someone could have had three sentinels from each generation!

One could always whack some armour plates on and run the spares as 'Armoured Sentinels'. Unless that person already also had 9 armoured sentinels...

 Shakalooloo wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Which means those who previously favoured Sentinels for whatever reason have at least 3 which will just sit on the shelf.

Someone could have had three sentinels from each generation!

One could always whack some armour plates on and run the spares as 'Armoured Sentinels'. Unless that person already also had 9 armoured sentinels...

Don't forget the Horus Heresy Sentinels.

 cerebaton wrote:

Voss wrote:
Huh. The Krieg squad options got even worse.
Its almost impressive.

Now there are two groups of options.
0-2 models can take a flamer, grenade launcher or long las (no duplicates, unless 20 man squad)
and
0-2 models can take a meltagun, plasma gun or lasgun & vox (also no duplicates, unless 20 men)


BUT, all the special weapons (so, everything except the vox) are limited to 2 total (4 total if 20 man squad)
So you can take 0-2 special weapons and 0-2 special weapons, as long as you only take 2 special weapons. or 2 and a vox. (or 0-4 + 0-4, but max of 4 (+vox) for 20 man squad)

Its also all laid out with asterisks, so people are going to misread it.

----
Also the medi-pack is assigned to a model now (who has to keep is his lasgun, and can't double up with a vox), but that seems reasonable.

I actually can't work this one out (and I've seen the screenshot of the actual entry too) - why separate them out into those two chunks? It seems from the wording like I can have any two of the five listed special weapons in a 10-man squad, so why not just have one list?

Im not convinced that interpretation of the rules are correct, as written, a 20 model squad can still take 2 vox casters + 4 special weapins because the vox caster option is not covered by the ** clause

 Olthannon wrote:
The next thing will be GW selling their own range of magnets..

They looked into it (Titanicus models have specific slots for them, as do some of the FW Tau aircraft), but there's some very complicated rules regarding whether the things that use them count as toys or not for tax reasons internationally, so they dropped the idea.

 Tastyfish wrote:

 Olthannon wrote:
The next thing will be GW selling their own range of magnets..

They looked into it (Titanicus models have specific slots for them, as do some of the FW Tau aircraft), but there's some very complicated rules regarding whether the things that use them count as toys or not for tax reasons internationally, so they dropped the idea.

I believe there's also issues with packaging and labelling, esp when you ship large amounts of them. It's why PP started putting them in boxes and had to take them out.

Suffice to say magnets get complicated and messy which is a reason most firms just don't even bother supporting them. It's money out of their pocket in terms of lowering how many things a customer might buy and its not something they can even sell easily as an addon/extra.

That said I noticed a few magnet only shops started marketing specifically on FB toward wargamers so perhaps in the future GW might strike a deal "GW official brand magnets from Magnets R US" or something

 Tastyfish wrote:

 Olthannon wrote:
The next thing will be GW selling their own range of magnets..

They looked into it (Titanicus models have specific slots for them, as do some of the FW Tau aircraft), but there's some very complicated rules regarding whether the things that use them count as toys or not for tax reasons internationally, so they dropped the idea.

Its actually a product and child safety issue, nothing to do with taxes. Specifically there are laws in the EU and elsewhere prohibiting inclusion of magnets in toys and model kits.

chaos0xomega wrote:

Except they arent putting 6 on the shelf, theyre selling them, which is less money in GWs pocket.

Plus, after 23 years in this hobby, the number of people i know who had 18 sentinels is precisely 0. I have 12 (6 old, 6 new), which is twice more than anyone else i know. The number of people with 18 sentinels is very small, not large enough for GW to care enough to mandate a unit size change for business reasons as you have proposed.

I have three for each one produced, except the old FW Rocket and Missile ones, which annoys me. Plus the absolutely ballooning number of minis it takes to make a legal guard list anymore.

I think I'm just tired of having army after army removed from Game, after I spend all the time that it takes to paint a full guard list.

I don't like the direction I see GW moving in.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 cerebaton wrote:

Voss wrote:
Huh. The Krieg squad options got even worse.
Its almost impressive.

Now there are two groups of options.
0-2 models can take a flamer, grenade launcher or long las (no duplicates, unless 20 man squad)
and
0-2 models can take a meltagun, plasma gun or lasgun & vox (also no duplicates, unless 20 men)


BUT, all the special weapons (so, everything except the vox) are limited to 2 total (4 total if 20 man squad)
So you can take 0-2 special weapons and 0-2 special weapons, as long as you only take 2 special weapons. or 2 and a vox. (or 0-4 + 0-4, but max of 4 (+vox) for 20 man squad)

Its also all laid out with asterisks, so people are going to misread it.

----
Also the medi-pack is assigned to a model now (who has to keep is his lasgun, and can't double up with a vox), but that seems reasonable.

I actually can't work this one out (and I've seen the screenshot of the actual entry too) - why separate them out into those two chunks? It seems from the wording like I can have any two of the five listed special weapons in a 10-man squad, so why not just have one list?

Im not convinced that interpretation of the rules are correct, as written, a 20 model squad can still take 2 vox casters + 4 special weapins because the vox caster option is not covered by the ** clause

Wow! That might be one of the worst written set of Wargear Options I have ever seen from GW, and I remember there have been some bad ones already.

From my reading, a unit of 20 DKoK can take up to 8 models with the first two options, but is limited to 4 weapons. However, you can't take more than 6 (4 weapons and 2 Vox-casters) AND Vox-Casters cut into your maximum of 4 Meltagun/Plasma guns (only 2 of each, but 4 total).

Medi-packs are outside of the weapon/vox limits, so you can only get 8 total option Troopers in your 20 man squad.

Also, they need Day 1 Errata to fix the mistake that the Watchmasters replace their Chainsword and Laspistol for Bolt Pistol and Close Combat Weapon when it should be Bolter (missing from Ranged Weapon list) and Close Combat Weapon if you follow the assembly instructions.