Wh40k 10th Edition Horus Heresy Units In 10th Edition

[Kallas]

9 minutes ago, Toxichobbit said:

It does still exist somewhat, it's just all in Crusade now.

Honestly, I disagree. One of my most memorable games was in 8e, with Space Wolves. My Jump Pack Captain went on an absolute rampage through a Tau army despite the rest of the army getting torn to shreds by their firepower. It was an interesting situation, and was a noteworthy game from a narrative point of view: it wasn't a capital-N Narrative game, but the game ended up telling a story. We were playing the ITC rules at the time (before the GT Packs were properly established) and it was in preparation for a local league starting up, but it was still a fun and engaging game with a story that unfolded through the events, choices and dice rolls that happened: if his Hammerheads didn't obliterate two of my Captain's Lts on their way into combat, he might not have flown into a fit of rage! 

 

Point being, the accusations (not that you Toxichobbit have made them that is) that folks who want to play tournament-style games are WAAC costs is just wrong. Plenty of us like the game mode that is most balanced, because that provides more tactical challenge to some of us; that's not to say that's the only way to play, and it's not even saying it's better per se. The belief that tournament play = WAAC mindset is just not true - I'll stick to my own personal preferences for my example: I vastly prefer tournament play, because I like balanced gameplay; I still like to bring units that are considered heavily subpar (eg, Land Raiders in 8e/9e) in that format: it's not about playing as cutthroat as possible, it's about having the most even playing field possible to then allow a game to play out between players, rather than between two army lists. Some of 9e's mission designs definitely failed in this regard (eg, late 9e Necron Secondary objectives), but the principle is not the problem.

[Toxichobbit]

3 minutes ago, Kallas said:

Honestly, I disagree. One of my most memorable games was in 8e, with Space Wolves. My Jump Pack Captain went on an absolute rampage through a Tau army despite the rest of the army getting torn to shreds by their firepower. It was an interesting situation, and was a noteworthy game from a narrative point of view: it wasn't a capital-N Narrative game, but the game ended up telling a story. We were playing the ITC rules at the time (before the GT Packs were properly established) and it was in preparation for a local league starting up, but it was still a fun and engaging game with a story that unfolded through the events, choices and dice rolls that happened: if his Hammerheads didn't obliterate two of my Captain's Lts on their way into combat, he might not have flown into a fit of rage! 

 

Point being, the accusations (not that you Toxichobbit have made them that is) that folks who want to play tournament-style games are WAAC costs is just wrong. Plenty of us like the game mode that is most balanced, because that provides more tactical challenge to some of us; that's not to say that's the only way to play, and it's not even saying it's better per se. The belief that tournament play = WAAC mindset is just not true - I'll stick to my own personal preferences for my example: I vastly prefer tournament play, because I like balanced gameplay; I still like to bring units that are considered heavily subpar (eg, Land Raiders in 8e/9e) in that format: it's not about playing as cutthroat as possible, it's about having the most even playing field possible to then allow a game to play out between players, rather than between two army lists. Some of 9e's mission designs definitely failed in this regard (eg, late 9e Necron Secondary objectives), but the principle is not the problem.

 

Sorry, my bad for not making myself clear. I was only addressing the asymmetrical missions that OrangeKnight had mentioned. AFAIK they're only found in Crusade now. I didn't mean to imply that competitive games couldn't be memorable or narrative - they definitely can be :)

[Kallas]

3 minutes ago, Toxichobbit said:

Sorry, my bad for not making myself clear. I was only addressing the asymmetrical missions that OrangeKnight had mentioned. AFAIK they're only found in Crusade now. I didn't mean to imply that competitive games couldn't be memorable or narrative - they definitely can be :)

Ah ok, gotcha. I did also kind of wander off in my train of a thought a bit too 

[Mogger351]

3 minutes ago, BrainFireBob said:

Are you in Britain?

 

Everywhere else, pickup games between strangers are the dominant mode. 

 

The only common point of reference is the *most current rules,* which are the tournament rules, since they are patched most frequently. 

Even then you're confusing points, army balance changes, FAQ's and missions/secondaries. The GT pack is only the last one on that list. Matched play still entailed the points, balance dataslate and FAQ's, albeit in an optional manner.

[Plaguecaster]

The problem is the competitive way will be the only way to play matched especially once they go back to seasons again and very likely will just ban legends from them in general. 

 

Even in AOS it did the exact same all the FW monster stuff got relegated to Legends status, still "matched game legal" yet secretly faqed the current season/ generals handbook to have FW legends not allowed. I can legally still use my Nighthaunt Mourngul in some matched but if I'm wanting to use the latest and up to date rules, points and balance with current season I can't and literally everyone only plays the current season rules because they benefit their army the most.

 

The reason for doing so is utterly pathetic 

Oh it's rare to see them 

We have god damn primarchs running around yet still every player of that faction can still include them in their army. "There's too much bloat" for loyalist yes but for chaos with TS, WE and DG who got basically half the army cut  it now eliminates even more units that helped shore up some of the things missing.

 

Balance has to be the biggest cop out I see people using to try and defend this pathetic decision 

Maybe previous editions FW may of been scary to people but show me one example of a FW unit being so op this edition compared to the normal stuff like Nids etc being far more OP and unbalanced yet part of the codex so somehow acceptable.

 

 

[BrainFireBob]

And we're full circle to "tournament rules are always useable as a non-negotiable commonality with strangers." Better to stay tournament compliant than miss your one time a week to game

[DemonGSides]

6 minutes ago, BrainFireBob said:

Are you in Britain?

 

Everywhere else, pickup games between strangers are the dominant mode. 

 

The only common point of reference is the *most current rules,* which are the tournament rules, since they are patched most frequently. 

 

Yeah no I get that, but that's LITERALLY the crux of this whole argument; Tournament rules blow, because if you aren't WAAC at a tournament, why are you bothering and if you're WAAC at a casual pick-up game, why are you the worst type of person?  This is the problem with codifying tournament playstyle as the "main" playstyle, which GW doesn't do enough to combat against and is what Phaandaal et al are trying to push.

I think if they pushed "Matched Play is how we go, and that includes Legends" and REALLY pushed it, we'd see the community transform and start being more accepting.  I'm hoping that's what GW is doing, and their talk about it so far actually does give me hope.  I don't expect it will last, because Competitive Voices Are The Loudest (A problem with WAAC-ers, also always have to be the loudest in the room, which makes sense if you view everything as a competition), and GW routinely succumbs to pressure on the rules front, as long as it is loud enough (Armor of Contempt, anyone?)

But also, that requires PLAYERS to step up an advocate for the game they want to play.  If you WANT to use your contemptor, well, your opponents need to come to terms with it.  Why is it that the people who want to play the game as it's designed aren't the ones being listened to, and instead we're catering to a smaller contingency of players?

[WatchCaptainNavar]

25 minutes ago, lansalt said:

I wonder if GW could re-release some of the current CSM kits using the new HH ones. Like the plastic Deimos Predator with all its options plus the CSM sprue as a new 10ed Chaos Predator. It would be a way to give back CSM some of the firepower they've lost with this change.

Up until today I had assumed GWs game plan was that the new HH plastics were the slow replacement for the firstborn units without upsetting anyone.

That with the new HH plastic vehicle kits and the mk6 beakies they’d eventually pull the old rhino and predators along with the tactical and devestator marines while pointing to the HH plastics and saying there’s your X firstborn option but now refreshed, rescaled and with more build options in the kit.

the new tanks all come with havoc launchers, combi heavens and even pintle mounted heavy weapon options and after using the mk6 marines and the multi melta heavy weapons pack to make multi melta stern guard for my iron hands competitive army i was looking at the upgrade sprue and thinking how long until gw reveals a spikey chaos upgrade sprue for these kits and tanks.

 

but I was very wrong.

[BrainFireBob]

27 minutes ago, Plaguecaster said:

The problem is the competitive way will be the only way to play matched especially once they go back to seasons again and very likely will just ban legends from them in general. 

 

Even in AOS it did the exact same all the FW monster stuff got relegated to Legends status, still "matched game legal" yet secretly faqed the current season/ generals handbook to have FW legends not allowed. I can legally still use my Nighthaunt Mourngul in some matched but if I'm wanting to use the latest and up to date rules, points and balance with current season I can't and literally everyone only plays the current season rules because they benefit their army the most.

 

The reason for doing so is utterly pathetic 

Oh it's rare to see them 

We have god damn primarchs running around yet still every player of that faction can still include them in their army. "There's too much bloat" for loyalist yes but for chaos with TS, WE and DG who got basically half the army cut  it now eliminates even more units that helped shore up some of the things missing.

 

Balance has to be the biggest cop out I see people using to try and defend this pathetic decision 

Maybe previous editions FW may of been scary to people but show me one example of a FW unit being so op this edition compared to the normal stuff like Nids etc being far more OP and unbalanced yet part of the codex so somehow acceptable.

 

 

How often did you see posts saying someone wasn't getting a Redemptor because they preferred their Contemptor? 

 

I rather think this is some kind of internal scapegoating at GW HQ, or some idiot pitching that they'll be able to sell us all a Horus Heresy army on top of our 40k armies. 

[Squark]

5 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

Even then you're confusing points, army balance changes, FAQ's and missions/secondaries. The GT pack is only the last one on that list. Matched play still entailed the points, balance dataslate and FAQ's, albeit in an optional manner.

Perhaps, but it's an incredibly pervasive point of confusion across the States and many other parts of the world.

[BrainFireBob]

33 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

 

Yeah no I get that, but that's LITERALLY the crux of this whole argument; Tournament rules blow, because if you aren't WAAC at a tournament, why are you bothering and if you're WAAC at a casual pick-up game, why are you the worst type of person?  This is the problem with codifying tournament playstyle as the "main" playstyle, which GW doesn't do enough to combat against and is what Phaandaal et al are trying to push.

I think if they pushed "Matched Play is how we go, and that includes Legends" and REALLY pushed it, we'd see the community transform and start being more accepting.  I'm hoping that's what GW is doing, and their talk about it so far actually does give me hope.  I don't expect it will last, because Competitive Voices Are The Loudest (A problem with WAAC-ers, also always have to be the loudest in the room, which makes sense if you view everything as a competition), and GW routinely succumbs to pressure on the rules front, as long as it is loud enough (Armor of Contempt, anyone?)

But also, that requires PLAYERS to step up an advocate for the game they want to play.  If you WANT to use your contemptor, well, your opponents need to come to terms with it.  Why is it that the people who want to play the game as it's designed aren't the ones being listened to, and instead we're catering to a smaller contingency of players?

This is wishful thinking. If X, then I think/hope Y- nope, got to take the world as it is. I've also now stated multiple times why someone bot WAAC will stay tournament legal- let me bluntly tell you real WAAC players will try to use banned broken units. Staying current is *prorection* from that.

 

Just because category X of people do something doesn't make the thing wrong. 

 

Also, you are misusing WAAC. WAAC is win at all costs- poor sportsmanship, gotcha behavior being just as valid as straight up skill dominance. Following the latest tournament rules isn't WAAC, it's just something WAAC players will also do, for different reasons. 

Edited June 1, 2023 by BrainFireBob

[Rain]

5 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

 

Yeah no I get that, but that's LITERALLY the crux of this whole argument; Tournament rules blow, because if you aren't WAAC at a tournament, why are you bothering and if you're WAAC at a casual pick-up game, why are you the worst type of person?  This is the problem with codifying tournament playstyle as the "main" playstyle, which GW doesn't do enough to combat against and is what Phaandaal et al are trying to push.
 

 

I don't want to put words into @phandaal's mouth, but that is not how I construe his position at all. He is not saying that everyone should play the latest GT pack all the time. He is saying that this is what actually happens in his experience. He is not the dictator of his local game scene, and neither are you or I. He might well prefer to play other missions, or Crusade or whatever, but he can't put a gun to his opponent's head and make them, especially if it is "generally accepted" at his store/club to just play the GT pack. Does that make sense? There is a difference between what some players wish was the standard, and what actually is the de facto standard. We don't have to like it to admit that it is what it is.

[Kallas]

5 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

if you aren't WAAC at a tournament, why are you bothering

Seriously??

 

People can play at tournaments for fun you know? Winning is not the only goal of playing in a tournament. Again, I'll use my own experience as an example: I took a triple Land Raider list to a tournament in October 2022. I did not expect to win, I did not expect to even do well. I intended to play competitive games with people with the competitive mindset and to have fun doing so - my goal was very much acheived, as I played 5/6 games where they were interesting and pretty balanced, as well as some of the nicest people. Only one game was not enjoyable, and that was against someone who ended up somewhere in the top three (I can't quite remember) and simply demolished me through extremely good play, while my limited list couldn't punch back - because of the build limitations I had imposed on myself when choosing to run suboptimal units.

[WatchCaptainNavar]

41 minutes ago, Rhavien said:

Exactly this. The consequence I take from this personally is never ever again buying something from Forgeworld or labeled as HH. Why should I? For me it's less the question if I'm willing to play with models without up2date rules, but what comes next. Are they totally phased out in 11th? Who can tell... 

they did say that they’d only role out 40k rules to HH vehicles where appropriate now, which is really shutting the stable door 6 weeks after the horse has bolted. If this was the plan from the get go the resin forgeworld units should have been sent to legends in the gap between when they went out of production and the plastic replacements announced.

 

id put a vindicator laser destroyer on us not getting past the next 3 heresy space marine vehicle reveals without one getting a non legends 10th data card. 
 

and in the long run GW are about to find out if the HH vehicle sales stand on there own over the next 2 quarters or will we be getting a ‘Christmas present’ of an online codex heresy relics from warhammer community if they feel the need to course correct in December 

[Evil Eye]

I get the wish for a more balanced and fair ruleset, the problem is GW seems utterly incapable of delivering that, and when they try the game doesn't actually get any fairer, just more restrictive. Game is still an unbalanced mess, the only difference being it's an unbalanced mess where you can't take FW units. Personally, given the choice between getting to play with units other than what GW has dictated are the Hot New Thing and having a single atom's worth of additional balance, I'll take the former any day of the week. At the end of the day GW only cares about balance as far as they can use it as a gimmick to sell new models and push Codex-invalidating patch books; their word on "balance" is worth nothing.

 

It's also particularly insulting to people who have bought and lavished care and attention in building and painting FW models to have support for them yanked with the flimsy excuse of "balance" (which again, GW has NEVER been good at) and the expectation that people should just buy the shiny new thing instead.

[Wispy]

2 hours ago, Captain Idaho said:

=][= Please do not aggravate each other by dismissing their opinions with flippant comments, such as "Spend time with better people." It doesn't add to the discussion and comes off as trolling. I've removed corresponding posts =][=

It's a tough conversation to have in the first place because many people's default position of a unit moving to free Legend rules is the same as deleting the unit from existence entirely. Just as hard to be constructive from there.

Edited June 1, 2023 by Wispy

[Bloody Legionnaire]

32 minutes ago, BrainFireBob said:

You are missing two elements.

 

40k is a hobby with high cost of entry that takes large chunks of time to play. 

 

If a list is tournament legal, it is legal in all game formats. This is not true of any other format. 

 

GW would prefer, by inference, us all to have large developed sideboards and constantly evolving lists.

 

Players generally want to *play,* which means wasting the least amount of time and money. That means a *planned* list that a players buys, assembles, and paints, to maximize playtime before the next game shakeup (which can make lists illegal). You can always play people- events, pickup games, etc.- with a tournament legal list. 

 

Yes, WAAC players will meta chase, but they're not the problem here. The problem is most people can play, events aside, 1-2 games a week? And they now change the rules (including points costs) every 3 months, so 12 weeks? It is *not worth* including maybe, maybe-not useable units as part of a planned list. 

 

How is point 1 an element I am missing... are you seriously trying to assert people care about a competitive army or playing in the tournament scene when they come into the hobby? No.. they are thinking about what models the like the look of and coming to terms with what it means to build a list. Those are the players who tend to get curb stomped by tournament players with WAAC lists, which continues the cycle. 

 

Sure, a tournament list is legal in all formats, but is it appropriate in all formats? There's another facet here which also applies to the legends realm in context and that is, just because you bring a list that is tournament legal doesn't mean it has to be a good list. It can be a very poor list that loses every game. So what point are you attempting to make here? What percentage of those who game in the hobby do you actually think has ever attended a tournament, let alone taken part in a local league? The players that "just want to play" and have limited money aren't wasting time with tournament packs, may or may not care about campaign books, and certainly don't care about the gaming effectiveness of their models in their collection... that is until they get absolutely destroyed by another player using a "fair, tournament purposed" list, multiple times over and then make the fatal mistake of looking for help on the internet and being faced with "well you just don't have competitive units bro.."

Y'all are the problem. 

[phandaal]

13 minutes ago, Rain said:

 

I don't want to put words into @phandaal's mouth, but that is not how I construe his position at all. He is not saying that everyone should play the latest GT pack all the time. He is saying that this is what actually happens in his experience. He is not the dictator of his local game scene, and neither are you or I. He might well prefer to play other missions, or Crusade or whatever, but he can't put a gun to his opponent's head and make them, especially if it is "generally accepted" at his store/club to just play the GT pack. Does that make sense? There is a difference between what some players wish was the standard, and what actually is the de facto standard. We don't have to like it to admit that it is what it is.

 

This is exactly what I am saying. If it were up to me, I would actually play a lot more narrative games. The Crusade mission packs especially have some really cool ones, like the epic Fatberg Clearance from Amidst the Ashes.

 

But yeah, that is not how things are. Arguing about it does not change the fact. Trying to lawyer around the definition of "baseline" or other words does not change that fact. Reality is what reality is.

[OttoVonAwesome]

So here's my beef, The excuse to not update the rules for balance is beacuase it's too much work? For who? All the data they use for balancing comes from tournements and forums, they don't playtest anything. The only decisions they make are oh this thing is showing up alot let's jack it's points up a little. Or hey people are commonly saying this thing is too powerful let's nerf it like these guys on the forums are saying. Too much work? Seems it's the community doing most of it all they gotta do is make a decision and update a datasheet. If that's too much I dunno maybe hire some new people I thought GW was a billion dollar company.

[BrainFireBob]

31 minutes ago, Bloody Legionnaire said:

 

How is point 1 an element I am missing... are you seriously trying to assert people care about a competitive army or playing in the tournament scene when they come into the hobby? No.. they are thinking about what models the like the look of and coming to terms with what it means to build a list. Those are the players who tend to get curb stomped by tournament players with WAAC lists, which continues the cycle. 

 

Sure, a tournament list is legal in all formats, but is it appropriate in all formats? There's another facet here which also applies to the legends realm in context and that is, just because you bring a list that is tournament legal doesn't mean it has to be a good list. It can be a very poor list that loses every game. So what point are you attempting to make here? What percentage of those who game in the hobby do you actually think has ever attended a tournament, let alone taken part in a local league? The players that "just want to play" and have limited money aren't wasting time with tournament packs, may or may not care about campaign books, and certainly don't care about the gaming effectiveness of their models in their collection... that is until they get absolutely destroyed by another player using a "fair, tournament purposed" list, multiple times over and then make the fatal mistake of looking for help on the internet and being faced with "well you just don't have competitive units bro.."

Y'all are the problem. 

How? Because we aren't using 4th ed codices and pount values in 9th? Because the functional situation is the same: You want a pickup with strangers, you play the most current and patched rules.

 

Otherwise, the *large amount of time and money invested in your army is wasted, because you are missing game opportunities.* And these represent enough money and time that that's a big writeoff.

 

Running a tuned tournament list and a tournament legal list are not the same, you can comprehend this, yes?

[Irate Khornate]

1 hour ago, Closet Skeleton said:

 

Forgeworld Daemon Engines haven't been mentioned at all.

 

Daemon Engines have never been Horus Heresy units. The article said nothing about FW units in general.

 

FW units weren't updated more than once per edition in 8th or 9th. Them becoming legends is basically no change at all.

You sure about them not being mentioned?

[Bloody Legionnaire]

4 minutes ago, BrainFireBob said:

How? Because we aren't using 4th ed codices and pount values in 9th? Because the functional situation is the same: You want a pickup with strangers, you play the most current and patched rules.

 

Otherwise, the *large amount of time and money invested in your army is wasted, because you are missing game opportunities.* And these represent enough money and time that that's a big writeoff.

 

Running a tuned tournament list and a tournament legal list are not the same, you can comprehend this, yes?

 

Welp, way to contradict yourself. I'm glad to know you think that someone who has limited funds and is new to the game also has the ability to ensure his entire collection is full of units which can build "a tuned tournament list."

What I was trying to say, since it appears you weren't able to make an inference, is legends is a double edged sword. A unit may become OP in a given meta or a unit could be  in a given meta. How's that any different from a tournament player who decides to bring a fluffy list containing sub par unit choices because they are "that" guy or gal that would rather focus on fluff instead of WAAC? We all know it happens. Some of us may have seen them. There is nothing (historically) guaranteeing that a tournament format, games in that tournament, or the lists are going to be fair and balanced for all, that makes it a better starting point for anyone. 

[BrainFireBob]

28 minutes ago, Bloody Legionnaire said:

 

Welp, way to contradict yourself. I'm glad to know you think that someone who has limited funds and is new to the game also has the ability to ensure his entire collection is full of units which can build "a tuned tournament list."

What I was trying to say, since it appears you weren't able to make an inference, is legends is a double edged sword. A unit may become OP in a given meta or a unit could be  in a given meta. How's that any different from a tournament player who decides to bring a fluffy list containing sub par unit choices because they are "that" guy or gal that would rather focus on fluff instead of WAAC? We all know it happens. Some of us may have seen them. There is nothing (historically) guaranteeing that a tournament format, games in that tournament, or the lists are going to be fair and balanced for all, that makes it a better starting point for anyone. 

There's no contradiction, and you are the one who is unable to distinguish between "tournament legal" and "fine tuned."

 

Tuning's not required for pickups. The current rules are, and that's generally perceived as the latest rules- i.e., tournament rules. It is simply how it is.

 

A new player can use this thing called the internet for list building advice, but it can't negotiate with strangers face to face on Wednesday in the game store looking for a pickup. It can tell them what's legal, though.

 

You're tilting at windmills of your own creation claiming that any of us stated that tournament rules are balanced. What they are is patched against egregious issues outside the codex cycle. The ones WAAC people actually exploit. 

 

I'm guessing you didn't survive the 6 months after the VDR went live.

[jaxom]

5 hours ago, Bloody Legionnaire said:

I don't think that is the problem at all. The article states the units in legends ARE useable for matched play.
*SNIP*

I see the need for tournaments to be the more controlled and balanced mode of play. That's why I would like to see GW have some sort of guidelines for when gamers should be playing that style of game. It shouldn't be the sole focus for matched play. 

 

3 minutes ago, BrainFireBob said:

Tuning's not required for pickups. The current rules are, and that's generally perceived as the latest rules- i.e., tournament rules. It is simply how it is.

 

A new player can use this thing called the internet for list building advice, but it can't negotiate with strangers face to face on Wednesday in the game store looking for a pickup. It can tell them what's legal, though.

 

*SNIP*

What they are is patched against egregious issues outside the codex cycle. The ones WAAC people actually exploit. 

 

Tournament play refers to the events that share their results and data with the various national and the international tournament communities. As you noted in a different post, the tournament crowd trends towards efficient lists (most bang, reliability, whatever per point) with the intent of winning. This develops into the tournament metagame, which GW attempts to balance with it's balance dataslates. Matched play is (theoretically) your local meta. For example, if John McTournament has made some new T'au list and three weeks later the T'au have a 65% win rate over 8 different tournaments, then GW is going to hit T'au with a nerf for tournament play. If your local T'au player has been playing the same list for years and puttering along with their 50% win rate, then there's no need to apply the tournament balance slate to their matched play experience. However, that is very much a cherry-picked example simply to show what I think the intent of differentiating between tournament play and matched play.

 

4 hours ago, Orange Knight said:

For the last 10 years or so, Horus Heresy and Forgeworld units have been staples in the game even though they were difficult to work with and expensive resin models that dropped in and out of production. 

 

In the last 12 months these models have started to transition to plastic, they are cheaper to buy and easy to obtain and only NOW does GW deside to relegate them to legends. 

 

The grotesque attack bike and land speeder models will probably have codex rules in 10th, but the beautiful Leviathan and Kratos plastic models will be omitted from the codex and discarded from a large portion of play?

 

Staple in whose game is the question. I don't have any sort of attachment to FW in 40k because for decades it was expensive and out of reach for most folks I game(d) with. Now that it's in plastic, I am not surprised GW is making this decision. The Space Marine range has more options for specific roles in a list without having to dip into HH plastic units. Why bother trying to tournament balance the points efficiency of a Redemptor-chassis vs a Contemptor-chassis vs a Leviathan-chassis or the points efficiency of a Ballistarius vs a Deredeo? Or taking an indirect-fire HH Rapier vs a Thunderfire vs a Desolator squad. Ironically, I think it's a smart game decision and a poor business decision. If they kept them all in and just rotated which was the most points efficient on a regular basis, they could make a lot of sales. However, see my response to same later comments for my thoughts on counts-as for those who really want to use those neat-looking kits.

 

There's the rumor that the old bike and speeder line are being dropped.

3 hours ago, Toxichobbit said:

 

It might be to do with Codex size. The Marine Codex has a lot of datasheets. They'll be adding more in with new Primaris stuff on top of what is in Leviathan & Agastus. So adding in all the plastic HH units as well - it's going to increase page count by a load more on an already bloated book, or reduce the lore section more than last edition.

3 hours ago, gaurdian31 said:

I agree, but they could release the rules in Imperial Armour like they have in the past.

 

Right, but I want to use models designed for 40k in 40k, like almost all the demon engines. 

 

I think @Toxichobbit has the way of it. It's not about the bloat of a book, it's about the bloat of an army's options and if those additional options don't mesh with the actual army. I've addressed the former above, but the Mechanicus gives us a look at the latter. The Mechanicus line isn't anywhere near as large as the Space Marine so why are they losing access to Secutarii Hoplites and Peltasts, and Terrax-pattern Termites? Those units (particularly the Termite) provide an option to the army that it was designed around not having. 

 

I do agree that the daemon engines are a loss, but because I think they're a concept that should get more attention. For tournament play, I feel like they occupy the same tournament ecology as Helbrutes, Forge-fiends, Mauler-fiends, and Defilers; so again, why bother starting a race to the bottom with points efficiency?

 

3 hours ago, crimsondave said:

Hilariously, I bought a NOS Spartan for a great price off Ebay like 3 hours ago.  I’ll use it anyway but it’s still funny.

 

With the new Terminators coming out, I think they’ve lost their minds.  The Spartan would have flown off the shelf.

2 hours ago, Captain Idaho said:

It's alright I got it:

 

 

I'm pretty annoyed with this.

 

GW have basically made my army obsolete. All my Terminators, a bunch of Dreadnoughts... cheers GW.

 

If the wider TO community has any sense at all, knowing the impact and trickle down effect they have, they should get some sort of common counts-as list out as soon as possible. Miniature size variance and "modeling for advantage" has already been a conversation and it shouldn't be huge jump to get everyone to accept that Contemptors count as Venerable Dreadnought chassis, Leviathans count as Redemptor chassis, Deredeo count as Ballistarius chassis, Spartans count as Land Raiders, various HH flyers count as Stormravens or  Stormtalons or Stormhawks, etc.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 1, 2023 by jaxom
A post went up while I was typing and it seemed appropriate to reference it

[OttoVonAwesome]

38 minutes ago, Irate Khornate said:

You sure about them not being mentioned?

One take away I'm getting is 30k is getting Deamon Engines cuase those were all made for 40k.