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.

 Crimson wrote:

beast_gts wrote:


EDIT - The new Celestian Insidiants Kill Team is in the SoB doc.

But the models still have not been released, right?

Correct.

Logic stands they'll appear on Sunday.

Dudeface wrote:
Logic stands they'll appear on Sunday.

Yep. Raptors / Warp Talons are in the Chaos doc so it's unlikely to be a mistake.

C'tan changes...

All of them get:
- Movement 10" (from 6") - huge buff
- Deep strike - huge buff
- 16 Wounds (from 12)
- 3+ Amour (from 4+)
- New necrodermis (-1D instead of half damage)

Dragon also gets:
- Ranged spear up to D3 attacks and strength 8 (from A1/S4) - huge buff
- Melee spear strike profile up to AP-4 (from Ap-3)

Deceiver also gets:
- Ranged attack up to damage 2 (from 1) - huge buff
- Melee up to strength 10 (from 8)

Transcendent sidegrades:
- Ranged attack to damage 2 (from 1D3)
- Melee up to strength 10 (from 9)

All of them are slightly up in points, Deceiver still by far the cheapest (and now the easiest to deep strike with his tiny base). You can still run all 6 in a 2k skew list, but if you run the new C'tan detachment you can only fit 5 in to have enough points for your warlord after paying for the mandatory upgrades (which you can duplicate on the transcendent).

*Edit - it's a good day to be a star god, and my favourite of the bunch (Dragon) is shaping up very nicely indeed.

 Insularum wrote:
Damage characteristics of 1-3 (the most common weapons) do not see any difference between either version of necrodermis (so the change is a buff against these as you just straight up have more wounds), anything with Damage 4 and up causes at least 33% more damage than it used to so you are less resilient here. The only exceptions to this are high damage AP0 weapons (so rare I can't think of any examples) who take a hit versus the new 3+ armour.

The main buffs are getting across no mans land faster and deep strike - both enable you to take less incoming fire so indirectly give another layer of durability.

The math doesn't bear out your assessments because Necrodermis isn't the only change in their durability. D1 and D2 take ~70 more shots than the old to kill, with D3 taking ~40 more.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Insularum wrote:
Damage characteristics of 1-3 (the most common weapons) do not see any difference between either version of necrodermis (so the change is a buff against these as you just straight up have more wounds), anything with Damage 4 and up causes at least 33% more damage than it used to so you are less resilient here. The only exceptions to this are high damage AP0 weapons (so rare I can't think of any examples) who take a hit versus the new 3+ armour.

The main buffs are getting across no mans land faster and deep strike - both enable you to take less incoming fire so indirectly give another layer of durability.

The math doesn't bear out your assessments because Necrodermis isn't the only change in their durability. D1 and D2 take ~70 more shots than the old to kill, with D3 taking ~40 more.

Yeah I think you're right, just checked again and after adding fnp I get about the same 70ish extra hits required - assuming the attacks have some AP they are now more durable up to damage 4, about the same at damage 5, and start to get weaker from damage 6 and up.

Looking and it says the Astra militarum faction pack is updated but I can’t see in what way?

Andykp wrote:
Looking and it says the Astra militarum faction pack is updated but I can’t see in what way?

FAQ/Errata update - They've excluded Aircraft from the Mechanised Assault, Swift Interception strat.

What a relief, finally we'll be spared from the Valkyries ripping up tournaments.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but these appear to be the first Space Marine detachments that don't have access to Armor of Contempt. Sign of things to come?

beast_gts wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Looking and it says the Astra militarum faction pack is updated but I can’t see in what way?

FAQ/Errata update - They've excluded Aircraft from the Mechanised Assault, Swift Interception strat.

Thanks might never have spotted that. Was worried it was nerf to grizzled vets before I’d had chance to use it.

 Asmodai wrote:

Piousservant wrote:
Is "500 Worlds" going to be the overarching narrative though? We know the 'next' campaign after is the Corsairs one which doesn't seem to link into the 500 Worlds theme, as far as I can see...?

It seems to be a few separate mini-campaigns 500 Worlds is the name for this one. Maelstrom next, then Eye of Terror after that.

Ah okay, I guess I can see the benefits of that approach though it feels a little disjointed. At least it means no huge grand narrative where some factions are crowbarred in so they don't miss out.

 BorderCountess wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but these appear to be the first Space Marine detachments that don't have access to Armor of Contempt. Sign of things to come?

I'm kinda hoping it's the end of the Gladius Detachment too.

People are speculating that one of the changes for 11th ed will that there's certain core strats that each faction will have regardless of detachment, which would include stuff like AoC, since it's basically seen as a mandatory include for most relevant detachments.

Not sure how I feel about that personally, but it opens up design space.

I think it makes sense that there are certain things that “faction x can just do” as a standard facet of their training, equipment, or biology but others that require special setup or coordination beyond the basics.

It will be interesting to see where they draw those lines, assuming that’s what is happening.

I think its a good idea. It'll just be a question of of how many strats there are and whether it ends up as bloat or streamlining.

I hope it's not on top of the current stratagems, but like 1, 2 or 3 core stratagem for the army as a whole, then the rest that fill out the detachment for a total of 6 like we have now. So could be 2 army strats, and 4 per detachment or something like that.

I think you probably COULD get away with 2 faction 6 detachment strats for a total of 8 alright without it getting too bloated.

It would be nice if they also nuked some of the General Detachments in favor of Special Rules. We don't really need a Smoke Launchers and Grenades as Stratagems.

Probably they're trying to figure out a good way to monetize the strategems.

I'd expect a card pack for each faction with the 2 "always available" strategems and then 4 for each detachment. That'd be roughly 30 cards, for which they would charge $25. There's so much $$ to be made that way!

 alextroy wrote:
It would be nice if they also nuked some of the General Detachments in favor of Special Rules. We don't really need a Smoke Launchers and Grenades as Stratagems.

Speak fir yourself not needing the Grenades strat.

But as long as my units have options to use grenades I suppose it doesn't matter what form it takes.

I've long thought the game would be improved massively by getting rid of most of the core strats. Grenades, smoke and tank shock all feel like they should either be core rules or removed. Command re-roll needs to die, as does Insane Bravery. Heroic Intervention, Overwatch, Combat Interrupt, Epic Duel could also be removed without any real issues, I think.

We're starting to see GW add Precision to more units, for example. That makes the Epic Duel strat kind of weird and it seems much better to have Precision be a thing decided on a unit-by-unit basis, rather than given as a blanket rule. Same with Heroic Intervention. You could easily give a similar rule to specific units rather than maing it generally available.

Slipspace wrote:
Command re-roll needs to die

Honestly at this point, trying to pass a 2+/3+ roll by re-rolling a one into another one is such a fundamental Warhammer experience that I can't agree here.

Command Re-roll is the single most important change to the game in 8th. Absolutely no reason it should go away.

I kind of agree with cutting down on the Core strats in general though when I go through the list I have trouble actually doing so. Maybe Go to Ground, but honestly all of them have useful applications that are probably good to be limited by CP.

In a game where success and failure are determined by random number generator cubes, learning to accept that things haven't gone your way is an important life lesson.

 Dysartes wrote:
In a game where success and failure are determined by random number generator cubes, learning to accept that things haven't gone your way is an important life lesson.

On the other hand, cutting down on 'feels bad' moments in a game is generally a good thing.

Of course, removing the Command Re-Roll might help my nephew improve his resource management skills...

The command re-roll is also good for new players. It’s one thing they can remember to do with their CP. less worries about keywords matching, or the right phase.

I’m glad we are down to a sensible amount of strats. I could see a couple being added to the army rules without getting out of control.

Mixed views on command rerolls.

There are undoubtedly annoyances when you target something big, theoretically kill it with your last shot/attack, only for them to command reroll and no, its fine actually. (Some would I guess say this adds to excitement, and its not guaranteed, but its just a bit annoying sometimes, especially if someone is constantly getting lucky.)

But I kind of feel you need it in reserve for failed charges, given how important charges are for getting across the board, scoring objectives and so on. I mean sure if you fish for a 12"~ charge then thats on you - but if you fail a 5" charge it feels a bit stupid. Not entirely clear what life lesson I'm learning beyond the fickleness of dice.

 Nevelon wrote:


I’m glad we are down to a sensible amount of strats. I could see a couple being added to the army rules without getting out of control.

In truth, there are no fewer strats than there ever were. If you've got 5 detachments in your dex, you've got 30 strats + the core in the BRB.

It's just that you can only use 6 dex based strats with a given detachment, and the thing nobody seemed to get in 9th is that that was always an option. I NEVER took cards for every strat available to me in 9th to any game ever. Usually 10 or less... Sometimes as few as 5.

People who didn't look at their army and just short list the 6-10 most likely to be relevant were always behaving inefficiently, but they had to wait for GW to force efficiency in order to see it. Most of us got it right away. We were the ones who never saw a need to whine about "cognitive load."

I miss the flexibility of choosing my own 6 from a list of 30-40 before the game. GW never NEEDED to publish detachments. Many of us did the work ourselves before each game because it just made sense.

Seriously. Try it with 9th ed dex: pool all your enhancements and all your strats. Build your army. Then pick your own 4 enhancements and 6 strats from the pool. I bet you can come up with a detachment that feels more like "your dudes" than ANY of the premade detachments in your dex.

 PenitentJake wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:


I’m glad we are down to a sensible amount of strats. I could see a couple being added to the army rules without getting out of control.

In truth, there are no fewer strats than there ever were. If you've got 5 detachments in your dex, you've got 30 strats + the core in the BRB.

It's just that you can only use 6 dex based strats with a given detachment, and the thing nobody seemed to get in 9th is that that was always an option. I NEVER took cards for every strat available to me in 9th to any game ever. Usually 10 or less... Sometimes as few as 5.

People who didn't look at their army and just short list the 6-10 most likely to be relevant were always behaving inefficiently, but they had to wait for GW to force efficiency in order to see it. Most of us got it right away. We were the ones who never saw a need to whine about "cognitive load."

I miss the flexibility of choosing my own 6 from a list of 30-40 before the game. GW never NEEDED to publish detachments. Many of us did the work ourselves before each game because it just made sense.

Seriously. Try it with 9th ed dex: pool all your enhancements and all your strats. Build your army. Then pick your own 4 enhancements and 6 strats from the pool. I bet you can come up with a detachment that feels more like "your dudes" than ANY of the premade detachments in your dex.

I’ll be the first to admit that despite having dozens to choose from, I still only used a handful of them reguarly. If the rules said “pick 6 from the lot for a game” I wouldn’t have had an issue with it. But there were times in games where it was “hold on a sec, I’ve got a gotcha strat for just this niche situation” or thinking you do and double checking. Even though you generally didn’t use all of them, you could. And so could your opponent.

I much prefer the 10th ed philosophy of everything on one sheet of paper for army rules.

Yeah, I can get behind that. A rule exlicitly telling people to pick six would have prevented a lot of folks from searching for the "Hail Mary" strat.