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.

That's likely to get min maxed real quick. Having groupings that encourage different play styles is a lot more likely to create options as long as you don't GIVE GLADIUS EVERY ABILITY YOU COULD WANT.

Honestly they just don't blend well with the games "flow".

There's FAR too many of them to memorise and the information isn't on model unit cards - the place you'd look when controlling a model and considering the options you've got with them.

It's a whole separate chart. So you've got to check the chart, then the models then the game state and so on .


For me I always found that they were harder to learn; harder to use and 100% you end up just using the two or three you've memorised every time

 Overread wrote:
Honestly they just don't blend well with the games "flow".

There's FAR too many of them to memorise and the information isn't on model unit cards - the place you'd look when controlling a model and considering the options you've got with them.

It's a whole separate chart. So you've got to check the chart, then the models then the game state and so on .


For me I always found that they were harder to learn; harder to use and 100% you end up just using the two or three you've memorised every time

In 9th there were a LOT of strategems that should have been part of the rules for specific models for sure.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I don't really like his evil grin, I don't like my Chaos to be that comicbook villainlike.
Hence it would be nice to see him treat a Primaris Lieutenant.
The rest is quite nice.

Agreed

It removes all the balefulness of chaos and turns them into sunday morning cartoon vilains. Thanksfully, a head swap is pretty easy to do (or even adding some bitz to his face to hide that smile)

Yep. Honestly I feel like someone in GW management is on a die-hard battle to make unit profiles as stripped down and simple as possible and is fighting someone else who is trying to retain what we had before.

The result is simpler and simpler unit profiles (eg look how close combat is almost down to a single stat profile in AoS and 40K with no weapon variability); but then layers of additional rules like Strategims on top which kind of restore what was had before but in a super messy way.


The result is yes that unit profile itself is simpler. But actually running the game and model is harder and more complicated.

 Overread wrote:
Yep. Honestly I feel like someone in GW management is on a die-hard battle to make unit profiles as stripped down and simple as possible and is fighting someone else who is trying to retain what we had before.

The result is simpler and simpler unit profiles (eg look how close combat is almost down to a single stat profile in AoS and 40K with no weapon variability); but then layers of additional rules like Strategims on top which kind of restore what was had before but in a super messy way.


The result is yes that unit profile itself is simpler. But actually running the game and model is harder and more complicated.

And every unit has to have a special bespoke rule. It’s not enough to have a statline and gear, you need that little bit extra, just to keep things interesting..

 Nevelon wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Yep. Honestly I feel like someone in GW management is on a die-hard battle to make unit profiles as stripped down and simple as possible and is fighting someone else who is trying to retain what we had before.

The result is simpler and simpler unit profiles (eg look how close combat is almost down to a single stat profile in AoS and 40K with no weapon variability); but then layers of additional rules like Strategims on top which kind of restore what was had before but in a super messy way.


The result is yes that unit profile itself is simpler. But actually running the game and model is harder and more complicated.

And every unit has to have a special bespoke rule. It’s not enough to have a statline and gear, you need that little bit extra, just to keep things interesting..

Oh yes even if some of those special rules are something daft like "+1 armour save" and nothing in game influences that ability at all. So it will never change and could have just been a +1 on the armour save rule itself.

And the annoyance of having the same ability have different names on different units to be fluffy; but again only makes it more confusing cause it means having to learn even more terms

Or the daft situation we have now where psy weapons do nothing save mean that a handful of models get a better than normal save against them. Ergo making them a purely negative modifier on your weapons.

Yeah, a S6 AP-2 D2 Force Weapon is so much worse than the normal S5 AP-2 D1 Power Weapon because of the psychic tag! /s

 JNAProductions wrote:
Yeah, a S6 AP-2 D2 Force Weapon is so much worse than the normal S5 AP-2 D1 Power Weapon because of the psychic tag! /s

This is one of those funny psychological things about rules writing. People always clamor for things to be on the statline but don't actually have much appreciation for statline differences. Honestly, if Force Weapons were just Power Weapons with a second profile that was +1 S/D with the psychic and hazardous keyword, people would respond a lot better to it despite being significantly worse than it is now.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Honestly they just don't blend well with the games "flow".

There's FAR too many of them to memorise and the information isn't on model unit cards - the place you'd look when controlling a model and considering the options you've got with them.

It's a whole separate chart. So you've got to check the chart, then the models then the game state and so on .


For me I always found that they were harder to learn; harder to use and 100% you end up just using the two or three you've memorised every time

In 9th there were a LOT of strategems that should have been part of the rules for specific models for sure.

I never understood why they didn’t just let you have model/unit special abilities that used command points to activate. That way you still get the tactical limitation of only so many command points, but don’t have to memorise an entire deck of cards and sit doing mental gymnastics to figure out which one might benefit this unique situation in front of you.

 Jadenim wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Honestly they just don't blend well with the games "flow".

There's FAR too many of them to memorise and the information isn't on model unit cards - the place you'd look when controlling a model and considering the options you've got with them.

It's a whole separate chart. So you've got to check the chart, then the models then the game state and so on .


For me I always found that they were harder to learn; harder to use and 100% you end up just using the two or three you've memorised every time

In 9th there were a LOT of strategems that should have been part of the rules for specific models for sure.

I never understood why they didn’t just let you have model/unit special abilities that used command points to activate. That way you still get the tactical limitation of only so many command points, but don’t have to memorise an entire deck of cards and sit doing mental gymnastics to figure out which one might benefit this unique situation in front of you.

So, you want every army to be Dark Eldar?

Ordered my 500 Worlds Titus.

Used all my Element Crystals to knock £26 off the asking price. So that was nice.

Check out my review of Captain Titus and the Wardens of Ultramar. I have a 4K unboxing video with a flip-through the assembly guide, high-res sprue images, and a list of all build options: https://taleofpainters.com/2026/01/review-captain-titus-the-wardens-of-ultramar/

Ordered the Necron Battalion Box from Element Games. Seems to have sold out really quickly everywhere.

Necrons got a LOT of attention being the main enemy not that long ago in a starter set so there' still a big fanbase for them. Plus two major new models being released right now makes them really a hot thing.

If anything I'd even argue that Necrons almost appear to have remained stronger than Tyranids even though Tyranids had a fantastic update and are still the primary "enemy" this edition for a little bit longer.

 Overread wrote:
Necrons got a LOT of attention being the main enemy not that long ago in a starter set so there' still a big fanbase for them. Plus two major new models being released right now makes them really a hot thing.

If anything I'd even argue that Necrons almost appear to have remained stronger than Tyranids even though Tyranids had a fantastic update and are still the primary "enemy" this edition for a little bit longer.

I wonder what the fall off/retention of the OpFor side of the starter boxes is over editions? Marines are evergreen; they are the “good” side and the poster boys. Nids are the big bad of 10th, and I’ve seen more of them at the FLGS then I have ever before. Necrons were 9th, and I still see a few around. Deathguard from 8th? Still occasionally, but probably down to the baseline.

Without the cheep minis from the starters will nids endure? To make the classic army of them you need to carpet the table in gribbles. And that’s a lot of money/work.

Necrons are a lower model count, and paint up pretty easy. So I suspect they will have more legs than the nids.

You can build Tyranid armies of all kinds - elites, monsters, gaunts. So that's only true of swarm Tyranid armies that you need loads of gaunts. Even then the number of gaunts you need right now is way less than at some points in the past.


Honestly I think its a mix of things and also just impressions - we don't have GW's sales data to know the actual sales rate of armies. So its really easy to let a current trend in online or releases make us think something is super popular when its not.


Tyranids have been around since Rogue Trader days so they aren't going anywhere.

 Overread wrote:
You can build Tyranid armies of all kinds - elites, monsters, gaunts. So that's only true of swarm Tyranid armies that you need loads of gaunts. Even then the number of gaunts you need right now is way less than at some points in the past.


Honestly I think its a mix of things and also just impressions - we don't have GW's sales data to know the actual sales rate of armies. So its really easy to let a current trend in online or releases make us think something is super popular when its not.


Tyranids have been around since Rogue Trader days so they aren't going anywhere.

I know there are different types, but the “classic” look you see in most of the art/lore is a horde army.

Not saying they are going anywhere, but when they are not bundled with the starter marines, we will see a lot less of them across the table.

The lack of numbers is what fueled my question. Necrons used to be pretty rare. Pre-9th I only saw them a handful of times on the battlefield. Even after Nids took over as the bad guys, I see more death bots eradicating life in 10th then I did in 2nd-8th. How many people are starting necrons without the help of the starters? How many will start Nids when the are not free with marine purchases?

I suspect nids will see a sharper drop off then necrons did. But that’s just my gut guess.

Part of the trouble with Nids is making your army look like the background.

Though I’ve not seen modern, post FoC Nid armies. I imagine that’s helped somewhat, as an oversubscribed (typically elites) slot was always the bane of Nid list building.

Eh...

I guess it depends if you build an army based on your own image of the fluff or based on what seems to be working competitively.

I'd be put off these days because Tyranids are basically a bio-tank army. Buying and painting up 2-3 Norn Emissaries, Exocrines and Tyrannofexes doesn't excite me at all. I don't think many are running around with 60 Hormagaunts and not sure they ever have.

But then I don't think Necrons were ever that unpopular. They burned brightly in late 5th. Popular again in 7th (perhaps mainly due to being brokenly OP). I think they had a downturn in 8th due to being quite bad. They were then the poster child of 9th - and anyone who facied could buy second half the starter box. They aren't Space Marines or Eldar, but I don't think they are so uncommon over the last 15 years or so.

Necrons are certainly easier to paint to a basic standard than Tyranids which I think is a selling point.

 Nevelon wrote:
Necrons are a lower model count, and paint up pretty easy. So I suspect they will have more legs than the nids.

I'm pretty sure that, on average, Tyranids feature more legs than Necrons do.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
Necrons are a lower model count, and paint up pretty easy. So I suspect they will have more legs than the nids.

I'm pretty sure that, on average, Tyranids feature more legs than Necrons do.

Well, some necrons have an over abundance, but others have no legs at all!

I did debate making that joke myself as I was typing that post, but decided to leave it for the crowd. Thanks for picking it up!