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.

 Nevelon wrote:
I wonder if they are rejiggering army building to be like 30k? Take a HQ to unlock army slot formations kinda think.

Not a bad shout in honesty!

 Nevelon wrote:
I wonder if they are rejiggering army building to be like 30k? Take a HQ to unlock army slot formations kinda think.

There seems to have been a global game designer illuminati briefing that list building needs to be complete gak in all games going forward, so very likely.

It makes more sense for some armies then others. Chaos, makes a lot of sense. My understanding of necrons as well. Maybe nids? You have a synapse node and the swarms under it’s control. Guards and officers.

Less for marines. They are billed more as independent squads. Although a battle company has 4 officers (captain, 2 LTs, chaplain) for 100 guys. So one per 25 guys is not out of line for this kind of build. And gets better if you include chapter characters like the apothecary and ancient.

I sure hope not. I bounced hard off that with AoS. I really don't see it adding anything of value.

If you look at it now, you still need a character to lead your army.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
If you look at it now, you still need a character to lead your army.

Yes, but there's no structural restrictions behind it. It's just a simple "must have one" check. In the new AoS you have to organize all of your other units underneath specific characters which creates this annoying layer of complication where if you have to add or cut a character during list building you need to reorganize everything that was attached to that character. It's just complication without really adding anything.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
If you look at it now, you still need a character to lead your army.

Yes, but there's no structural restrictions behind it. It's just a simple "must have one" check. In the new AoS you have to organize all of your other units underneath specific characters which creates this annoying layer of complication where if you have to add or cut a character during list building you need to reorganize everything that was attached to that character. It's just complication without really adding anything.

In theory it promotes fluffy thematic builds where you have leaders and lieutenants with retinues of appropriate followers.

In practice it;s a headache of juggling things to get the list you want to the table.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
If you look at it now, you still need a character to lead your army.

Yes, but there's no structural restrictions behind it. It's just a simple "must have one" check. In the new AoS you have to organize all of your other units underneath specific characters which creates this annoying layer of complication where if you have to add or cut a character during list building you need to reorganize everything that was attached to that character. It's just complication without really adding anything.

Oh. Didn't realize that.

I'm still in the WarCry Wading Pool when it comes to AoS.

 kodos wrote:
And how to you know that producing and distribution of 4 times more of the same boxes would not have decreased their earnings?

In addition the reason why people are happy to buy those prices and the models increase in value over time is because it sells out in 5 minutes and not because there is plenty available all the time.

If GW would think they would make much more money by making 4 times as much they would do it.

Not really true. GW knows they could sell more of each battleforce or army box then they make, but why should they? They know their average consumer will pay retail, they just use these FOMO boxes as a way to grab some cash but mostly for advertising and to gain interest. They only have the capacity to manufacture so many products at the end of the day, so why do it at a discount? Plus GW is all about publishing anyway, they are becoming more of a book company than a mini company. It is a lot easier for them to have another company print books which they sell for a heavy mark up then it is for them to make molds for a new mini. They can make a lot more money simply changing the rules or making something needed for game play then by manufacturing a new mini.

The simple truth of the matter is this, GW makes these value boxes for advertising purposes, not because it is their best way to make money. GW knows their consumers will pay any amount for their product and can keep raising prices whenever they want because people will keep paying the prices. Until the demand decreases, GW will not go out of their way to provide value boxes or stop raising prices. They are a company run by stock holders and they keep paying their stock holders well. At the end of the day, the average consumer has a lot less value to GW then their average stock holder.

Early Epic games used detachment cards in that way. I’m not sure in practice if it is that different from choosing a detachment with all of its special rules and suchlike, and building up the most effective units to make us of that.

 Nevelon wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
If you look at it now, you still need a character to lead your army.

Yes, but there's no structural restrictions behind it. It's just a simple "must have one" check. In the new AoS you have to organize all of your other units underneath specific characters which creates this annoying layer of complication where if you have to add or cut a character during list building you need to reorganize everything that was attached to that character. It's just complication without really adding anything.

In theory it promotes fluffy thematic builds where you have leaders and lieutenants with retinues of appropriate followers.

In practice it;s a headache of juggling things to get the list you want to the table.

It's also garbage for Crusade where named characters don't grow, so being forced to take one in order to unlock a detachment is mandatory dead weight.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
If you look at it now, you still need a character to lead your army.

Yes, 1 minimum.
Some of my armies? Like my Drukari for example? I don't need even 1 character for the force to be effective. The only reason I have that one character is because the rules say I have to have one. More will be a waste of points.

@PenitentJake - you are conflating current rules with something that isn’t even a rumour! I don’t think it’s quite time to panic

Also, as with all things, there is nothing really stopping you and your friends allowing that to see if it’s better.

Having character with their 'retinue' would add at least a minimal amount of structure to army-building, without GW going back to a force organisation chart.

Valrak can't explain further but confirms the 500 worlds stuff is real.

To be honest, im tired of ultramarines and necrons now. It was meant to be nids edition, except they did nothing with them.

Dudeface wrote:
Valrak can't explain further but confirms the 500 worlds stuff is real.

To be honest, im tired of ultramarines and necrons now. It was meant to be nids edition, except they did nothing with them.

Maybe it's time to paint my Astra Militarum blue and make them a part of Ultramar...

I don't think fighting against the inevitable is a winning strategy.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:


Maybe it's time to paint my Astra Militarum blue and make them a part of Ultramar...

I don't think fighting against the inevitable is a winning strategy.

For Macragge and Ultramar

 Lathe Biosas wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Valrak can't explain further but confirms the 500 worlds stuff is real.

To be honest, im tired of ultramarines and necrons now. It was meant to be nids edition, except they did nothing with them.

Maybe it's time to paint my Astra Militarum blue and make them a part of Ultramar...

I don't think fighting against the inevitable is a winning strategy.

Sometimes, winning isn't the point.

Anyone know if Catachan are coming out with new models?

Helldiver0621 wrote:
Anyone know if Catachan are coming out with new models?

No one's heard anything. Heck, Sly Marbo is still sold as Finecast resin.

Helldiver0621 wrote:
Anyone know if Catachan are coming out with new models?

Pure speculation, but I'd be surprised if they didn't come out with the post-Tomb world season of Kill Team (from September 2026).
When that Season launches we'll be losing Kasrkin on top of the Guard Vets rotating out off the Classified format this time around. Aquilons and Ratlings will still be flying the Militarum flag, but seems a little odd not to have any more basic grunts running about.

When it comes to Catachans my guess is that the 11th edition codex will be the time for Catachans to shine. 9th was Cadian, 10th was Krieg, so I'm hoping Catachan have their turn next. They could just as easily be squatted in the 11th edition codex but I'm hoping not.

This doesn't mean we won't get a Catachan Kill Team before the 11 edition Astra Militarum codex drops. I won't be holding my breath though.

Leak that has been circulating online, the backpack matches with the recent rumor engine.[img]


Edit: Apparently it’s an AI generated fake

The concept of a chirurgeon in berzerker mode is kind of funny.

 Fayric wrote:
The concept of a chirurgeon in berzerker mode is kind of funny.

They were mentioned as far back as the Siege of Vraks and are mentioned in the current Codex.

Vargheist wrote:
Leak that has been circulating online, the backpack matches with the recent rumor engine.[img]

I’m not convinced that’s real; the two lines of text at the bottom are at an angle to one another, but it doesn’t look like the box is bent or curved to match.

Too basic a pose for modern GW.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Fayric wrote:
The concept of a chirurgeon in berzerker mode is kind of funny.

They were mentioned as far back as the Siege of Vraks and are mentioned in the current Codex.

Also world eaters just got butcher-surgeons in horus heresy, for their inductii.

New from Valrak -

Some kind of "ork killer" unit for the Votann - not sure if an actual unit or a character, I guess like the Tyranid killer one they have already.

Repeats some rumours from Boole on the TGA forums that have since been deleted that Iron Warriors are getting some stuff, Perterabo is coming, and they will be split out of the CSM dex. Valrak says he has heard they are getting a Night Lords style upgrade sprue so makes sense.

The Boole rumour mentioned:

"unique units"
"an abundance of upgrade kits"
"obliterators and their steadfast companions"

Sounds as though they're finally addressing the current combined venomcrawler/oblit sprue by making them separate kits.