I haven't played 40k since the last edition, but in general it's always been the same, people play guard for the guardsmen, but the tanks are what make you compete. The main issue the guard have is that guardsmen are weak to bolters, which every second miniature in the game has
@@Peter_Wendt Yeah it's a positive change but overall infantry heavy lists are much worse due to Reinforcements. Being better at killing elite infantry is a bonus, not something you can build a list around in 10th edition.. Though maybe with Ironstorm nerfs, we will see more elite infantry to lethally hit.
Whoever did the Guard rules changes seemed to just not care enough to do any QC. Heavy Weapon lascannon squads don't have Lethal on the necessary targets, and neither do Heavy Lascannon FOBs. Meanwhile, by running 20-strong guard units you are literally giving you opponent the Secondary game with 5 VP per - they just aren't survivable enough (Kreig are close when fully kitted, but require the psyker and marshal for any prayer of lasting more than 1 round). They really have gutted infantry guard without cause. Goddamn it, I don't want another Knight army.
Played my first game with the new updates. I dropped almost everything arty related. Added 2 rogal dorns and upgraded my russes from vanquishers to standard russes. I stomped my buddies bugs into the dust. 100 to 57. Tabled him in turn 3. Tanks just ripped apart everything the infantry just got in the way of everything that could do damage to the tanks. I lost 2 chimeras, 8 catachans, and a leman russ. Thats it. Everything else either healed or took no damage.
I like the idea of the Born Soldiers change, but tying it to squadron and regiment is wonky. There should be a new tag based on weapon/purpose. It doesn’t make sense for Lascannon HWTs to be anti infantry, or Punishers being anti-tank. Just run through and give things a tag for their Born Soldiers target
Yea, so may units screwed by this changes. My favorite part about it is field ordnance. I think that even GW understand that with this model profile you can use only their inderect guns and doesn't even try to make them direct shooting platforms. I have lethal hits on my 4 big lascannon shot, but not against vehicles and monstrs. Great
No, no, no, you just don't get it. Players, especially new ones, are too stupid to follow rules that aren't laid out as ABC 123. That's why we can only build units as the box presents it and play them in that way except in very rare exceptions, why we can't have points on a per weapon/upgrade basis, and most importantly why we can't have such confusing rules like "weapons below strength X have lethal vs models of toughness Y and reverse for stronger weapons against tougher units." You wouldn't want to confuse everyone, would you? We already have ~2000 uniquely named special rules, and that's as complicated as we can manage as players.
While I understand changing things for the health of the game. So many of these changes to guard just feels like they didn't even think how it would effect them.
@@SteelStorm33 I don't know, mate - the competition is tough, there's a lot of worthless datasheets at the moment. 🤣 Astra Militarum index is really stormy and chaotic, that's for sure. I mean, it's not too bad, and winrate is low but not awful - but there are also so many weird game design decisions.
@@superkamigoru you mean before or after the last update? It's not like they are useless, just totally overlooked in terms of balanced and thoughtful rules, much as like lots of other units in IG index.
Guard stratagems had an absolute nerf bat taken to them and beaten to a bloody pulp. FoF, Reinforcements, Inspired Command, Expert Bombardiers. Guard is now heavily reliant upon the Core Rulebook Stratagems, and they were already on a 45% win rate. The Detachment Rule change helps but does it make up for this? I doubt it, but time will tell.
As someone who ran an infantry army with artillery support I'm baffled here... my AT came from HWTs and my Anti-Inf came from my arty vehicles... this slate wrecked my army so hard and I was already struggling to do well in the first place. Hell I've been tabled twice this edition but for some reason someone in GW thinks this playstyle is over-performing? ???
@@blckdrgn813if they're watching your play style they're watching my purchases. Seems every time I buy something or finish painting something it gets nerfed, legendsed, discontinued, or made useless. I finally get two Basilisks and the points increase happened the next morning. I finally get Cyclopes and the OC rules changed in Pariah, I finish painting 6 Bullgryn and assemble 10 Kasrkin and the points went up. I had a panic attack when I woke up the morning after painting Leontus to see the most recent update.
Something interesting too with Creed and stratagem changes : you can now use Armoured Might turn 1 even if you don't get initiative. This can prevent catastrophique loss of a Leman Russ or Rogald Dorn before you could use them once. It have often been a frustrating event, so I look foulard being able to prevent it 😅
The problem with Guard is that their best units doctrinally are artillery, which are conceptually fun (at least if you love WW1 stuff like I do), but very much not fun to play against.
artillery is far from being the best unit, never was. they got better for indirect fire because of the stupid super deadly and high density terrain game, where guard cant use their masses well.
its only not fun to play against because they made the whole game about hiding in terrain every turn. Instead the game needs less terrain and the overall power level of shooting needs to be toned down.
I never really got "not fun to play against" Nothing other than the Manticore was really all that deadly. Artillery was supplemental fire most times for comboing with other stratagems or for nerfs like with the Earthshaker.
@@oblivionfan345Tony Indirect isn't fun to play against and getting lethals for no trade off was too good. The movement debuff is horrible if your anti-tank was melee based. I used to play Stormlance SM and I'd lose almost all the time because of the Earthshaker type rules on Indirect.
I think artillery needs to come down at least another 10 points each to be In a good spot with these changes. And the expert bombardiers stratagem needs to be replaced with something better that would help infantry guard makeup for the loss of more reinforcements. Something that would add significant survivability when you popped it so you could get through five battle rounds without losing every one of your guys before the game is over.
Fun fact: the Praetor no longer has rules thanks to the indirect fire rules change. It's whole ability by design was to be able to ignore the indirect fire penalty if you gave it an order and hit on a 2+ as it is supposed to be guided missile artillery. Now its an inferior Manticore that costs twice as much in points and four times as much in real world money.
I think Lord Solar is still just as auto-take for most armies. (It’s not like tanks got less useful and the Tank Commander is still an iffy unit rules wise.) Now that Reinforcments is less of a concern, LS’s extra CP is gonna be used to pay for smokescreen every turn and 1 cp for fields of fire with creed. Maybe I’ll get to use Suppression Fire for the first time!
IG Stratagem internal balance was quite bad before but it got even worse. 2 useless stratagems, 3 2 CP stratagems, 1 is only one use. Fields of Fire is gonna be spammed every turn if you bring Creed anyways and you keep 2 CP for one Reinforcement. Suppression Fire is quite niche but Fields of Fire is better investment and Armoured Might is too expensive to ever be used. I might have used once or twice, but really you can't afford it. Expert Bombardiers and Inspired Command are literally dead. Is there any other detachment with overall worse stratagems?
Armored Might has _a few_ use cases - it makes Hellblasters cry, for one. But yeah, it's usually very niche - most anti-tank does too much damage per shot for the -1 to matter.
My 12 strong Leman Russ army is looking forward to the changes, still testing out some changes such as replacing an Eradicator with a Punisher running 3 heavy flamers.
@@SteelStorm33 Not true. You need the guard on foot to take advantage of all those sweet lethal hits. It's just that mech guard does the same job, because chimeras have been great for many editions. Keep them in until the last minute...turn three...and then let loose on the objectives to bring the game home.
@@SteelStorm33 You can still run blobs of 20 Kriegers and kick arse. But the chimera option is so much less stressful and easier. It's not the last resort, it just makes sense. Fairplay to my fellow infantry players! No more free stuff...but then you were taking armour already, right?
At this point I think GW is just overthinking what to do with artillery. It should not be to just attack their rules directly. Either just give more units the Indirect Fire keyword so you have more units to counterplay each other, stick to just points raises, or just concede that 10e's Army Force Organization rules aren't working and return to dedicated, limited slots. Although at this point now I'm worried they're going to go all the way and sunset all artillery units to Legends...
Ran pure infantry into tsons last weekend, was not fun, got wrecked. Ran 12 russ into dark angels mostly terminator list with 2 dreadnoughts, he called it end of turn 4 with only 5 models left and 30+VP pts behind. Bear in mind.. I went first and had nothing to shoot at turn 1.
I just turned in my final for my summer class and have like a month off (other than work) so I’m going to try to knock out all my Krieg tanks and infantry. Looking forward to this video. /popcorn
I played my first game on tenth with these rules and triple heavy bolters on a russ reliably did more damage to tanks than triple autocannons in a heavy weapon team. A critical hit from the battlecannon causes a 3 damage wound at ap-1, whereas a crit from the heavy bolter causes a damage 2 wound at ap-1. Being able to bypass the wound roll is huge, particularly with guns that have any AP. Combine with fields of fire for maximum effect
@@SZUPERhun what about the 13 plasma gun shots? I particularly like the scions because full rerolls on objectives plus sustained so more likelihood of getting sixes.
@@SZUPERhun Scions with a command squad, if their target is kind enough to stand on an objective have full rerolls to hit, sustained and lethal. Overwatch with them slaps into infantry.
then fucking play infantry spam, just dont bring it to the absolute most competitive tournaments possible. Nothing in this balance change is PREVENTING you from playing what you want to play
@@aqz7603 This always happens lol, it's a circle. GW changes the rules/points > Complain about how they can't do X anymore> Switch to a new meta-ish list> Complain about winrate when they lose after they adjusted their army> GW changes the rules/points.
I want to play tank spam. I fact, I _already_ play tank spam. It's just that tank spam isn't very good and this dataslate does very little to improve it while hitting on the head a few of the tools it used to make up for its shortcomings (like returning Scions for secondaries).
Great video. But generally this dataslates had me put my guard back on the shelf and go back to playing PC games again. The amount of ‘collateral damage’ to our stratagems & unit abilities makes me feel like we werent really considered when making changes to rules. They were trying to nerf something else and didnt even think outside the box for us. Arty nerf might have been palpable if they had taken to time to rework our strats etc. but this just seems like a mindless swipe when you dont. Reinforcements being ones a game is ludicrous considering all the book guard quotes about “clogging the eye of terror with bodies” Anyway whilst it doesnt feel like i got my moneys worth with the QA team.. I refuse to reward that type of behaviour by running out and spending my wages to buy 3 Rogal Dorns, just cause that fixes there blunders.
I think GW are taking the wrong route by straight nerfing artillery. The core Indirect rules need a reimagining to make them interesting to play against as opposed to just "Normal guns but ignore LOS". The right idea was there initially with most artillery giving a debuff but the problem is that the fantasy of e.g. Earthshaker Cannons still requires the guns themselves to be powerful. My kneejerk idea is to make artillery more limited in what it can/wants to target. One way could be having artillery hit on flat 6'es against units wholly inside area terrain. This gives opponent's a choice on whether to stay outside and take the full brunt or to play around it and limit their movement options. They could also for a middle ground of safeguarding their key targets while allowing the artillery to pound more expendable troops. Another way could be the reintroduction of minimum ranges and give debuffs to weapons firing indirectly on the move. Effectively making the guns more awkward at close range but allowing them to be more powerful in long-range firefights. These are by no means necessarily the best solutions but I think the current path of "Nerf artillery out of the game because they are unfun" is lazy. Sidenote that while the above ideas don't apply to Aircraft or Fortifications, I'd like to believe alternate solutions should similarly be found for these unit types to give them a niché but unique flavor on the battlefield.
I think the core indirect fire nerf was heavy handed but not an unreasonable attempt to fix it. (Compared to further points nerfs). That being said, our artillery’s points needed to come down further (much further maybe for manticores) to justify this heavy handed if an approach.
@@rileysmith7763 I guess I expect more from a multi-million $ company than an afternoon's effort that I can see holes through within 5 minutes of reading the changes. To understand more of my point of view check out the Praetor rule for an example.
I guess they had a bunch of Rogals in the warehouse to sell. I'm assuming they'll go back up by 10 points next update, and then 10 or 20 the update after that after they sell a bunch of them.
Auspex, do you or anyone else have a pointer toward the source of the FAQ about Kasrkin doubling up on Orders? Cant find it in any of the new documents
I had the same issue. I also put a comment here because of it. I checked the Index, Core Rules Update, Balance Dataslate and the Pariah Nexus Tournament Companion FAQ and I can not find it
I genuinly wonder about the internal function/dysfunction of GW at this point. There are multiple teams working on 40k and they do not communicate, that much is clear.
Which FAQ has the Kasrkin rule changes because I can not for the life of me find it under the Balance Dataslate, Core Rules Commentary, Index:Astra Militarum or anywhere else. I have seen a lot of confusion over it because Auspex said it but no one seemingly can find it.
Honestly, it just feels like GW wanted to nerf Guard artillery to the ground. Beyond that a lot of the changes seem half-baked and not thought out - Drill Commander? No Lethals for non-Regiment/Squadron units? Wyverns? And more... My prediction: If you run anything but Tank heavy the Guard win rate will nose dive.
The detachment ability being linked to keyword and target is too restrictive. It should be a vehicle targeting vehicles and monsters gets lethals and infantry targeting anything gets lethals within line of sight (since gw wants to get rid of arty). But gdubs is trying to limit lethals on the Guard for some reason. When you look at how lethals are handled in other armies it's odd. Look at the tau mon' ka detachment for example. Lethals on everything and assault on every unit for three turns. Completely bonkers. This just makes me think that each index faction should get a new detachment every six months. Specifically because gw is trying to make one detachment do it all when there are five ways to play Gurad.
On the one hand, even in WW1 real-world artillery was very accurate, provided you had some way of seeing where the rounds were landing. Especially by WW2 with a radio-equipped FOO calling it in, artillery went pretty reliably exactly where you wanted it to go. Maybe a couple of rounds to get it properly ranged, but then it was very accurate. On the other hand, outside of an infantry mortar, none of that artillery should actually be shooting at a target on the same board as the weapon. 40K doesn't actually have ranges but if we use the 12-24 inches for infantry weapons as a benchmark, a 4'x8' table would be somewhere in the vicinity of 1 km by 2 km and that is very, very short range for the big artillery vehicles. So I suppose the rule change can be justified by the challenge of firing indirectly at something so close.
Well, yeah, but assuming a lasgun is generally equal to an AK in terms of range, it should be effective to roughly 400 inches. Tanks should have a movement of at least 30 inches a turn and bikes? 70 inches at least. Don't even get me started about fliers. All of the ranges are comically short in 40k.
@@Peter_Wendt How are you calculating that? It sounds like you're assuming the ground scale should be the same as the miniatures scale. If 40K did that, it would be pretty much unique. The *only* games I'm aware of where ground scale and minis scale are the same are pre-gunpowder and either fantasy skirmish games with max 12 figures per side, or 15mm or smaller historical. Anything more modern uses a compressed ground scale. Heavy Gear uses 1:87 scale miniatures, but the ground scale is 1 inch = 30 metres, which works out to around 1:1200. Gear Krieg uses the same 1:1200 ground scale with 1:100 miniatures. Stargrunt II is writeen for true 25mm minis, which are roughly 1:56 scale; that uses a ground scale of 1 inch = 10 m or roughly 1:400. Disposable Heroes uses 28mm minis, so around 1:50 scale. No specific ground scale is listed, but the useful effective range of a WW2 rifle is 30", so we can assume that to be about 300m which was the limit of effective fire over open sights, and this brings us back to the 1 inch is 10m scale. Micro-Armour uses 1:285 scale minis, and a ground scale of 1 inch = 100 yards. which works out to 1:3600 scale. The idea of the ground scale being compressed is *normal* in minis games, and that's not the problem I was describing. The problem I was describing arises when you start comparing ranges inside the rules. Last time I played, which admittedly was 3rd ed, 40K didn't specify a ground scale, but the maximum range of something like a lasgun was 24 inches. So we can assume that 24 inches is around 300m, because *that* is the maximum useful range of a longarm firing over open sights, and that limit arises from the physics of *aiming.* Switching from a bullet to a laser won't remove that problem. If 24" represents around 300m, the ground scale is around 1:500, and a 4-foot by 8-foot table is depicting an area of 600m by 1.2 km. Corner to corner is about 1.35km. And that means we can compare the ranges of everything else to the infantry weapons, and discover that 40K is not, in fact, very consistent internally, resulting in dumbass things like 200mm artilery pieces engaging targets all but inside their own blast radius...
@@davydatwood3158 That's exactly what I was doing, yeah. I am not that familiar with miniature games systems and their relative scale, I just want firearms to work roughly the way they would be expected to. I remember being pretty annoyed back in 3rd edition when a rules change dropped all the ranges, to the point where some units would be unable to take a single shot with their weapons before being charged. Literally some cavalry units could stop outside of pistol range, then charge next round and there was nothing you could do about it. Ridiculous. Anyway, your point about scale consistency is well-made. Thanks for explaining further.
@@Peter_Wendt One of the things I like about Stargrunt II is that the ranges are based on the unit's quality. The theory is that even with the compressed ground scale, the bullet out of the infantry rifle is going to travel the entire board and more - but aiming under stress is *hard*. So the range increments reflect how good the unit is at figuring out where the target *is*, not the balistic performance of the weapon. Most units will be able to fire to at least 3 times their range increment, with increasing penalties. A fresh-out-of-basic unit has a range increment of 6" while a Tier-1 Special Forces Elite unit would have a range increment of 12". It's a very different style of game, but if you want to add more "this acts like the real world" to your table, you might want to give Stargrunt II a read. Everything's online, just google it.b
I came into warhammer thinking that my guard army will need actual soldiers, I bought 10 packs of guardsmen just to realise they get completely pointless after tanks are just all round better, I really do think infantry need some sort of buff or point decrease
I overall dislike the new changes to Born Soldiers. They are on the right track, but the rule should be based on maybe weapon strength, and not type of unit weilding it. Maybe S8 and lower lethals vs infantry. 9 and higher vs tanks/monsters. And with all the nerfs to indirect already, crazy point hikes, and the 1-3 always miss. Lethal hits against their intended targets should still be allowed. Basilisks would only work vs infantry and Manticores only vs Vehicles/monstrous.
As a casual mainly guard player it's things like this that put me off playing 40k as its a nightmare trying to keep up with the changes. The core rules updates are 33 pages long FFS and I have ploughed through all the updates and I cant find where the reinforcement rules have changed (the updated data card pack is exactly the same as the hard copy I have at home)
I would recommend basecoating the wheel-wells black before you put it together completely. Makes it easier to drybrush it metallic later on without any annoying hard-to-reach spots.
@@Peter_Wendt I decided to leave the tracks on the sprue for now, as soon as I started putting the first bit together I realized I would have problems.
At first I didn't like many of the changes gaurd got, but as I watched your vid, I realized something: this was a nerf for most Imperial Gaurd armies, but it was a buff for MY Imperual Gaurd army. I never used Epic Heroes, never buffed my artillery, and never used the reinforcement stratagem more than once a game In exchange, my units are far less unwieldy because they can move and keep their lethal hits and I don't have to feel like I'm taking a handicap by not using Epic Heroes (besides not taking Lord Solar, but that's modern GW for you). So huzzah?
I say we bring back templates and scatter. There wasn't all this faff with artillery when there was a chance your shot would scatter off target and deal zero damage 🤣
Hi dear auspex, where did you find the answer about the voice of command per battle round. I can find it in the dataslate document nor in the rules commentary. I love your work ! All of your vidéos are very usefull for every 40k players
Srsly why do we have since 8th ed these stupid rules for Indirect Fire, they were fine and quite far in 4th-7th, why not simply combine and adapt it to 10th ed? Why always these stupid "verschlimmbessern" of the rule? Furthermore the synergy between the trinity of Guard: Infantry, Artillery and Tanks, is so damn off in this index, the worst it probably has ever been. Truly a shame that they decided to cut so much of the awesome stuff away from 9th ed codex, which was arguably the 2nd best Guard ever had, best was imho 4th or 5th (can't remember when they had the awesome, yet well balanced, platoons to take). And the buffs/nerfs feel like GW wants the players to shift to buy more tanks, espc. the (overcosted) Rogal Dorn. Bigger units = more money!.
before watching this video my 2 cent: artillery got nerfed a tad too much but guard got soo much more mobile that we maybe dont need it anymore anyways. dorns got better AND cheaper and now we can have solar buff a 3x dorn pack instead of staying backline with arti. scion bomb got better with lethal hits when they drop and against regular infantery guard was always quite fine with their huge pile of pea-shooters and lasguns. and chimera are still crazy good; they rarely got borns anyways as they were on the move more often than not. Soo maybe field something like 3xdorns + solar (maybe with voxteam), 4-6 chimeras with catachans/lone harker, a scion bomb. then fill the rest with a frontline blob of catachans with straken and maybe armored sentinels if there are points left.
Bah, i still dont like the aesthetics of the Rogal Dorn. Cant fathom why GW deviated so much from the traditional boxy, sharp angles and flat surfaces design of the Imperiums vehicles. The Dorn just does not fit when placed next to Russes, Chimeras and Baneblades...
Can I get your advice on something, please? I just got into warhammer and love the blood angels. But the rumor is that they’re one of next armies to get their codex with a high probability of new versions of figures. Should I wait to buy more blood angel specific figures because of this rumor?
Unless you have a good deal you'll miss out on, I don't see why you shouldn't wait. I guess it depends on how much you have at the moment vs. what you want.
@@nickrivas6429 this was the answer I was hoping for. My money is limited, and I’m terrified of buying blood Angel specific characters only for new versions to come out, making the old ones obsolete and retired lol
Yes I'd wait personally (as I am to add anything else to mine yet). If you did want to slowly build up and paint some things in codex preparation, Dante, Mephiston and the Jump Intercessors could be good options to start with given they're already updated models. I'm hoping they redo the Sanguinary guard as seems to have been rumoured :)
@@auspextactics agreed! The sanguinary guard are solid pieces but their stupid high point cost keep me from ever considering using them with Commander Dante
The field ordnance battery is one of the fundamentally worst designed units in 40k history largely due to the core rules of 10th. You can pick examples from every edition but purely from a design perspective (not meaning balance/unit strength) GW have done very poorly in the last few editions of multiple of their game systems. A key example might be Raven Guard in horus heresy.
Whinging aside though good video. Thank you. I didn't notice the change to Voice of Command. I'm glad I won't be getting that wrong but that is a bummer that another strategym was nerfed by proxy. More and more it looks like gdubs is preemptively nerfing and just relying on knee jerk reactions instead of thinking things through.
I wish you would do a video on how the rules changes effect the Rapier Laser Destroyer, its an anti-tank weapon with the Regiment keyword? Edit: I also just heard there is a 2nd anti-tank unit that also has the Regiment keyword. How's that work?
Isn´t it straight forward? The Rapier now gets lethal hits against anything not Monster or Vehicle. Luckly it got the special rule that it gains lethal hits against anything if ordered so it can finaly profit of its rule.
So ironstorm lethal hits 6" aura only for vehicles is too good needs to be nerfed, but imperial guard lethal hits rulr for basically every unit is too weak, needs to be buffed. You will never understand gw logic.
Constant rule changes is the single worst thing about this game. Where is the fun in always having to look up rules because they keep changing? Please GW, find rules for each army that is thematic and then stick with it, balance with points costs if you really have to. What's going on now seems to only be on account of the small part of the players that actually take part in tournament, so like 1%?
This change kinda sucks honestly. Took away our best strategy for winning games and didn't give us a hole lot to replace it with. What am i supposed to do now spam armored sentinels and dorns are we an elite army now?
The artillery nerfs are also a slight nerf to Lord Solar and the Supreme Command Blob. Think about it: Artillery basically doesn't benefit from orders anymore, so Lord Solar's 3 orders are less important. He's still good in hybrid lists where you're not taking 3 Tank Commanders for your 3 Rogal Dorns, but I think you could genuinely consider dropping him in pure infantry or pure tank lists.
I dont think this is a great change for casual play, encouraging you to just field ungodly amounts of tanks, a lot of army's struggle to take enough anti tank to deal with the shear weight of armour we can field now. It doesn't matter about OC when you table you're apponent, and from play testing this most people I play against just don't have fun fighting tanks.
BTE I pray we get more tank variation, different utility's different loadouts. Ya know, because all the different enemies 🎉 I have a APC and I want more kits! Freaking GW and they're cool army unit designs!
I was thinking they need a light tank design! We have medium (Russes), heavy (Dorns), super-heavies (Baneblades) but where are our speedy light tanks? I guess Sentinels are supposed to fill that role?
@@Peter_Wendt we kinda do have light tanks, but they are dold by Forge World. Carnadons are these cool light tanks that solar auxillia used in the times of great crusade
We'll need an update once we verify whether or not Scout Sentinels will allow artillery to ignore all of the penalties of indirect fire, new ones included
I mean, the new one isn't a penalty, in the same way that "you hit only on an unmodified 6" isn't a penalty on Overwatch. It's not ignorable - not with Sentinels for us, not with Mortarion for Death Guard.
I think its great they nerfed the arty, the game shouldn't have seriously lethal firepower your opponent can do nothing about, feels like its in a good spot game play wise, though maybe another small points drop for balance. Multmeltas all the way! Hellhound and Russes are really really good now and i can see Tank companies absolutely annihilating the meta. Infantry getting lethals is a massive boast, though now i will feel i actually have to fire them and time was already precious! My beloved ogrns got nerfed...combat guard is even harder now! Expect Russes, Dorns and Scions to all go up next time... enjoy them whilst you can!
More sloppy dogshit from GW, untested and stupid rules with unforeseen consequences that hurt a 45% WR army for no reason. I've 3d printed everything and I still feel robbed. Thank you GW for forcing us all to run tank spam, what a wonderful company...
this really sucks, i just finished putting together my guard army of artillery and infantry and now essentially my army is useless, the nerfs were super unnecessary and guard wont be winning any tournaments now. thanks gw :)
reinforcements is completely useless now. you have to use it as the unit gets destroyed, that was limiting enough, you had no controle over it. if they change it to bring back a destroyed unit without timing restrictions, it will be fine, but once per game stuff is just annoying bs, delete it. think about why once per game works in fantasy, but not in 40k.
It annoys the he'll out of me that gw is so lazy. Instead of addressing artillery on a army based level they just lay down carpet rules for all artillery in the game. Just so lazy
