Models Finished an Edition too Late

As I've said many times before, I'm a very slow modeler. Although events in real life have slowed my rate of painting even more, I've still been able to get a few models done recently. Unfortunately, I started all of the most recent batch during 7th Edition and finished them after the previous edition was obsolete.

Two of the recently completed models are the timeless bolter-armed Tactical Marines. Although I don't really need many more Tactical Marines with bolters, especially now that we can take Primaris Intercessors, I wanted to diversify the Marks of armor in my Tactical Squads. One Tactical Marine is wearing a full suit of Mk VI power armor while the other has a Mk IV helmet. (I'm rather fond of the Mk IV helmet and was very happy to see that the Primaris Marines' Mk X armor has a very similar helmet.) The Marine with the Mk IV helmet also has an archaic outline-only Chapter logo from ForgeWorld's Ultramarine Legion transfer sheet.

Three additional Tactical Marines are armed with grav weaponry: one with a grav-cannon, one with a grav-gun, and a Sergeant with a combi-grav. Although grav weapons are still a decent upgrade option (and are a lot less situational since the new rules make them effective against lightly armored units like Ork Boyz), they're not quite the must-take weapons that they were in 7th Edition.

The grav-cannon Marine is also equipped with Mk VI armor. I made the small Tactical logo on both Corvus-armored Marines' shoulder pads by cutting down a full-sized transfer with a razor.

The final model is Chief Librarian Tigurius, whose pewter model I bought back when I started the hobby in 2011. I don't much care for the old pewter models, but the introduction of the Librarius Conclave in the last Space Marine codex convinced me to build a trio of Librarians led by Tigurius. Sadly, by the time I finished painting the model, the Librarius Conclave was obsolete. The other two Librarians (one with a jump pack and one in Terminator armor) are primed and sitting in my storage case. At this point, the only reason I'll ever finish them is because I'm a fan of GW's plastic Librarian models.

1st Company Task Force

Almost two years ago, I wrote about the changes that the 6th Edition C:SM made to my army lists. Other than encouraging me to build up my Tactical Squads and giving me the option of Centurions, the change from 5th Edition to 6th Edition had a relatively small impact. Right up until the release of 7th Edition, I was working on an army that fit into the standard Combined Arms Detachment (CAD). However, Seventh Edition C:SM practically abandoned the traditional Force Organization chart, shredding all my plans. The new codex still allows you to use the CAD, but the benefits of the Demi-Company and Auxiliaries encourage players to use it as a secondary Formation, at best. The CAD is where you cram the units that don't fit into the other Formations.

This is your main force now, Marine players.

After working out some Demi-Company and Auxiliary lists, I've started prepping models for priming. Although I look forward to being able to fill out some of the new Formations, I may be most excited to field a 1st Company Task Force (i.e., 3-5 units of Vanguard, Sternguard, or Terminators). I'm a big fan of the Veteran models and the rules for the task force seem like they have a lot of potential.

First, all members of the task force have the Fearless and Fear special rules. Second, they have the Extremis Level Threat rule:

At the start of the game, before deployment, nominate one unit in the enemy army. Units in this Formation have the Preferred Enemy special rule when making attacks against the nominated unit.

Finally, the Formation has the Terrifying Proficiency rule:

Enemy units subtract 2 from their Leadership whilst they are within 12" of at least three units from this Formation.

It doesn't take too much to make a squad run when it's inflicted with -2 Leadership and takes a fusillade from Sternguard and/or shooty Terminators. And, unless they're Space Marines or are Fearless, the hit to their Leadership means that most units will fail their Fear test if they get into close combat with 1st Company Veterans.

It would be unfortunate to fail a Fear test against these guys.

I'm not too far from being able to field the task force. A lot of my current army's points value is already tied up in thirteen models: eight Close Combat Terminators and five shooty Terminators. With two more models I could meet the three-unit minimum. However, since the 1st Company Task Force's Terrifying Proficiency rule only takes effect when at least three Veteran Squads are within 12" of an enemy unit, I want to have more than those three units. Ideally, additional units would provide effective shooting given that the task force will cause many units to fall back simply by inflicting 25% casualties in the Shooting Phase. Clearly Sternguard are the best unit for this purpose.

I've since primed the necessary Terminator models and I've recently started prepping a couple squads of Sternguard. As I was working on the models, it occurred to me that Combat Squads can be used to maximize the effectiveness of Terrifying Proficiency. The rule for Combat Squads states that "A unit split into combat squads therefore is now two separate units for all game purposes [emphasis mine]". Thus, a 1st Company Task Force composed of three 10 man Veteran Squads could act as six total units if each squad were broken into two Combat Squads.

Even more devious is the argument I've seen regarding Dedicated Transports within the 1st Company Task Force. Since the task force's drop pods, Rhinos, Razorbacks, and/or Land Raiders are part of the unit that purchases them, and therefore part of the Formation, the Transports themselves would count towards the three units needed to activate the Terrifying Proficiency rule. Assuming this interpretation is correct, a drop pod that offloads a ten man Sternguard Squad that breaks into two Combat Squads would provide the necessary three units.

All of a sudden, it seems absurdly easy to get at least three units from the Formation within 12" of any particular enemy unit.

Thoughts on the 7th Edition Space Marine Codex

I was pretty much done buying Marines. Sure, I might have bought a few Bikes, maybe one more Razorback, and a Thunderfire Cannon if it ever came out in plastic. But that was it since I was finally going to start on the Mechanicus and Imperial Knights.

You are not done with the Astartes until they say you are done

And then the 7th Edition Space Marine Codex came out. If GW's motive was to make the army seem fresh and convince me to buy more models, then they succeeded. And I'm not upset about this at all. In fact, I haven't been this excited to work on the army in quite some time.

The new codex is not a rehash of the last one with a few Formations added in. There are various points adjustments, stats changes, and new unit options, too. Below are some of the changes that I found the most noteworthy. Some are small and simply correct annoyances I've had in the past (especially the first one). Others are a lot bigger.

Relic Blades on Terminator Captains
Shortly after it came out, a couple of the Cabal members and I split the cost of the Strike Force Ultra box. My official motivation was to get enough Terminators to field the Strike Force Ultra Formation (which is in the new codex with slightly improved rules), but the real reason I wanted it was for the unique Terminator Captain. Although I loved the look of the model, I hated its wargear; the same underpowered storm bolter and power sword found on a Terminator Sergeant. For whatever reason, Terminator Captains have never been able to take a relic blade.

Does this look like a mere power sword?

I figured I could use it as the Burning Blade, but that would add 55 points to an already expensive model. Plus, it seems like a waste to put the Burning Blade, which isn't a Two-handed or Specialist weapon, on a model that doesn't have a pistol or a second melee weapon.

Apparently, someone at GW also realized that this was a silly oversight. Now, for a mere 10 points, a Captain or Chapter Master in Terminator armor can replace his power sword with a relic blade.

Scout Improvements
Scouts are pretty good in this codex. For starters, they now have Marine stats with no increase in cost. I've always been fond of my Snipers, but I sure seemed to roll a lot of threes when shooting with them.

Second, Telion may actually be worth his points now. Until recently, Telion was a 50 point upgrade to a Scout Sergeant. In the last edition, this meant that he actually cost 61 points since he was replacing an 11 point Sergeant. This was an absurd price to pay for a one Wound Sergeant that got Look Out Sir rolls on a 4+.

I've since updated his base to match the textured ones of my newer models.

Telion has gained an extra wound and is now an HQ and an Independent Character (he can only join Scouts, though), meaning that his 50 point cost is actually 50 points. With two Wounds and 2+ Look Out Sir rolls, he's a bit more survivable. Not only that, but now he can fill the HQ slot of a cheap Combined Arms Detachment (CAD).

The Land Speeder Storm is better, too. Not only is it BS4 now, meaning that its heavy bolter or a multi-melta upgrade may be worth something, but its Cerberus Launcher has been improved. Previously it was S2, AP-, Blind, Large Blast. Since Blind only has to hit to work, it wasn't too big a deal if it didn't wound anything. However, the weapon has been changed to S4, AP6, Blind, Large Blast. Not only can you blind a unit, but you now have a decent chance of causing multiple wounds. All this comes with a five point reduction in the Storm's cost.

Finally, the 10th Company Task Force is a very appealing Formation. It's 3-5 Scout Squads and/or Scout Bike Squads with the option of bringing Telion. The Formation has the Concealed Positions rule, which gives Stealth to each unit from the Formation that deploys using the Infiltrate Rule. Stealth is lost when a unit Moves, Runs, Turbo Boosts, Charges, or Falls Back. They also get The Trap is Sprung, which gives them the Precision Shots special rule for the first game turn.

Tank Squadrons
This one could be a game-changer. Predators, Vindicators, and Whirlwinds can now be taken in squadrons of up to three vehicles. (Dreadnoughts and Thunderfire Cannons can also be taken in squadrons now, too.) When you have a trio of tanks, the squadron gains some amazing rules: three Predators gain Tank Hunter and Monster Hunter; three Vindicators gain the Linebreaker Bombardment (replace the three S10, AP2, Large Blasts with an Apocalypic Blast with Ignores Cover!); and three Whirlwinds gain Shred and Pinning.

Now I want three.

I once said that the allowance to take a squadron of Whirlwinds would convince me to buy them. Giving them Shred and Pinning sealed the deal.

Grav Cannon Devastators
If someone had told me two months ago that I would want to put a Devastator Squad into a drop pod and actually bother to upgrade the Sergeant, I wouldn't have believed him. However, the addition of grav cannons with grav-amps to the heavy weapon options has created a build that is so different from the classic Devastator Squad that it might as well be a different type of unit entirely.

Until this edition, all weapons available to Devastators were Heavy weapons (most being Heavy 1), meaning that the squad had to remain static to be effective. The grav cannon, on the other hand, is Salvo 3/5 with a maximum range of 24". This allows the squad to remain mobile, although it limits its effective range to 12". A drop pod is the easiest way around this obstacle, allowing an Astartes player to land four grav cannons and a combi-grav (Salvo 2/3, 18") within easy range of a high value target on Turn 1. Although a grav cannon isn't cheap (each is 35 points versus the lascannon's 20 points), a 220 point grav cannon quartet with a combi-grav on the Sergeant could be expected to inflict 8.9 wounds on a unit with 2+ saves and 8 wounds on a unit with 3+ saves.


Decompressing the Elites
Three types of Dreadnoughts, Vanguard, Sternguard, Assault Centurions, and two types of Terminators have never really fit into the into the three slots allowed by the CAD. GW has fixed this with the 1st Company Task Force.

Now I won't have to run an enormous squad of
Terminators because I'm limited on Elite slots.

The 1st Company Formation is composed of 3-5 units of Terminators, Assault Terminators, Sternguard, and/or Vanguard. In other words, it allows you to bring up to half of the entire 1st Company. The models in the Formation are Fearless and cause Fear, get Preferred Enemy against a chosen enemy unit, and cause enemy units within 12" of at least three 1st Company squads to suffer -2 Leadership. The implications of fielding a Formation that causes Fear while simultaneously lowering an enemy unit's Leadership by two is obvious.

Significantly Cheaper Vanguard Veterans
When 6th Edition changed Vanguard from Fast Attack to Elites, I gave up on them entirely. The only way to make them useful was to load them up with power weapons, which made them prohibitively costly. Not only were they expensive, but they would take a slot away from Terminators, Dreadnoughts, or Sternguard. In my mind, Vanguard could only be remotely justified in a Raven Guard army, where they could use their jump packs in both the Movement and Assault phases.

With the 1st Company Task force, the issue of having enough slots for them was eliminated. Then something utterly unexpected happened; the 7th Edition codex drastically reduced the cost of power weapons for Vanguard, slashing the price of each one by 10 points.

This particular squad is now 40 points cheaper.

In 6th Edition, a Vanguard Veteran with twin lightning claws and a jump pack cost 52 points (they were a mind-boggling 60 points in 5th Edition). Although lethal and mobile, he was only as survivable as the basic Tactical Marine with his 3+ armor save. By comparison, a lightning claw Terminator with a 2+ armor save and a 5+ invulnerable save cost only 40 points. Under 7th, the same Vanguard Veteran costs 32 points, making him cheaper than even the reduced cost of a lightning claw Terminator (now 35 points). While still not as survivable as Terminators, Vanguard have greater mobility, can re-roll one or both dice when determining charge range, and can make Sweeping Advances.

A Different Way to Organize the Army
While the CAD is still an option, the new codex emphasizes the Battle Demi-Company and the Gladius Detachment.

The way an Astartes Company is organized is well known, even if the game didn't always reflect it. The Battle Demi-Company is literally half a Company and is composed of the following:

1 Captain or Chaplain
0-1 Command Squads
3 Tactical Squads
1 Assault Squad, Bike Squad, Attack Bike Squad, Land Speeder Squadron, or Centurion Assault Squad
1 Devastator Squad or Centurion Devastator Squad
0-1 unit of Dreadnoughts of any kind

If you take a Demi-Company, all models in the Detachment have Objective Secured and you get the Tactical Flexibility rule. The latter rule allows the Detachment to use the Tactical Doctrine, which is a slightly revised version of the Ultramarines' Tactical Doctrine from 6th Edition.

The Gladius Detachment is composed of 1-2 Demi-Companies (called Core choices), 1+ Auxiliaries (i.e., task forces ranging from infantry-dominated detachments to vehicle-dominated Formations that have their own special rules), and 0-3 Command detachments (e.g., Calgar and his Honour Guard). If the army fields a Gladius, it has the Tactical, Assault, and Devastator Doctrines (the Assault and Devastator Doctrines are revised forms of the old Ultramarine doctrines).

While potent, this system of organization requires the player to make some hard choices. A reasonably well-equipped Demi-Company can easily cost 1250 points (the Demi-Company in the picture above comes in at over 1400 points and doesn't even include transports). If you're used to 2000 point games, there won't be a lot of points left over for other Detachments or Formations. You can't take any flyers or tanks other than dedicated transports in a Demi-Company (which can include Land Raiders if you take Centurions). Nor can you take any Elites other than Dreadnoughts or Assault Centurions. Those other options are only available through a CAD or an Auxiliary force.

What really gets left out in the cold are Fortifications. None of the Astartes Detachments or Formations include them, leaving the CAD as the only way to field staples like the Aegis Defence Line. This may have been a deliberate decision, since most Space Marine Chapters are depicted as being constantly on the move rather than hiding behind fortifications.

The Auxiliaries
The Auxiliaries (e.g., the 1st and 10th Company Task Forces) range from decent to amazing, but the minimum number of units they require can make them pretty costly. For example, the only flyer-based Auxiliary force is the Storm Wing (this is identical to the dataslate released in late 2013). The Storm Wing is composed of two Stormtalons and one Stormraven and costs at least 420 points.

Similarly, the most advantageous way to field tanks is through the Armoured Task Force. This force is composed of 0-1 Sergeant Chronus (he's an HQ now and his tank becomes a character), 1 Techmarine (which now has two wounds and is an HQ; the Master of the Forge is no longer an option) , 0-3 units of Thunderfire Cannons, and 3-5 units of Whirlwinds, Predators, and/or Vindicators in any combination. This Formation is pretty strong, with all tanks within 6" of the Techmarine ignoring Stunned and Shaken results while the Techmarine himself has a +1 to his repair rolls. Unfortunately, the cost of entry can be pretty high when the Formation has a minimum composition of one HQ and three tanks.

The Auxiliaries are strong enough by themselves that I suspect a lot of players will simply skip the Demi-Company altogether in favor of a points-efficient CAD. At an absolute minimum, a Detachment composed of Telion and two basic Scout Squads costs only 160 points.

One Final Thought
If one disregards the points cost, the Gladius Detachment is the best way to field Space Marines. However, it's very hard to fit a Gladius into a standard 2000 point game due to the size of the Core Force and the high minimum cost of many of the Auxiliaries. I suspect that this is GW's method of surreptitiously encouraging gamers to play larger and larger games so they can fit in all their toys. I wouldn't be surprised if 2500 point games started to become the norm.

New Tyranid Models

In one of the most unexpected moves since the introduction of the Imperial Knights, GW has just released the Toxicrene/Maleceptor kit for Tyranids. Both are monstrous creatures, with the first being a highly toxic Cthulhu-like critter while the other is a psyker with a potent witchfire ability.

Fluff and Rules
According to the fluff, Tyranid bioforms such as Warriors, Hormagaunts, Termagants, and Gargoyles are essentially more advanced and/or specialized forms of Rippers. The Hive Mind can further enhance these forms to monstrous proportions: e.g., Trygons are essentially enormous Raveners (which are themselves a variation of Warriors), Harpies are big Gargoyles, etc. The new models are no exception. According to the recent White Dwarf, the Maleceptor is an "adaptation of the Zoanthrope", while the Toxicrene is an "expression of the 'family tree' begun with the creation of the Venomthrope".

Imagine these guys, but big enough to actually need limbs

Both have the standard Tyranid WS and BS, as well as the same toughness as most monstrous creatures. The Maleceptor's strength is one point higher than the Toxicrene's, while both have five Wounds. The Maleceptor, being a Synapse Creature, has a higher Leadership. Sadly, both have a 4+ save, meaning that they won't get armor saves against the majority of weapons suited for monster hunting. A 5++ on the Maleceptor and Shrouded on the Toxicrene improve their survivability, though.

The Maleceptor is essentially a psychic assassin with a pretty mean focussed witchfire attack. This power, and the big bug's mediocre close combat ability, mean that it's designed to stand back and pick off high value targets. The cost of the unit seems too high for what it does, although I don't have a whole lot of experience with 7th Edition Tyranids. Regardless of its abilities, I find the model to be pretty boring.

The Maleceptor

It's the Toxicrene that really interests me. This bug has a very short range Poisoned (2+) large blast attack that can actually damage a vehicle that has lost one or more hull points. Where it really excels, though, is in close combat. The Toxicrene has six Poisoned (2+) attacks that strike at I6 thanks to its lash whips. Being a monstrous creature, all of its close combat attacks are AP2. On top of that, it has the Hypertoxic rule, which means that To Wound rolls of 6 have the Instant Death special rule. GW threw in Toxic Miasma and Acid Blood for kicks and giggles.

Although the Toxicrene model shares most of the same parts as the Maleceptor, the model is a lot more interesting to me. The lash whips and the tentacles around the mouth make an enormous difference.

The Toxicrene

Precedence?
Although I appreciate that GW is continuing to develop new models and rules, this release is downright odd. Tyranids got their most recent codex in January 2014, making theirs the second to last full codex of 6th Edition. (I don't count Legion of the Damned or Imperial Knights given that they aren't really meant to work as stand-alone armies.) Now, a mere nine months after getting a new codex, Tyranids have two entirely new units.

In recent years, the only new units added to an army outside of a codex release were the Stormtalon and the Ork flyer variants. The reason for this was obvious; when 40K 6th Edition introduced Flyers, the new models ensured that Space Marines and Orks would have Flyers along with those armies that had models grandfathered into the Flyer category (i.e., the Stormraven, the Razorwing, the Doom Scythe/Night Scythe, and the Valkyrie).

But the Toxicrene and Maleceptor aren't new unit types at all, they're just monstrous creatures with new abilities. So why were they released less than a year after their army's latest codex?

Third Party Paranoia
We're all aware of GW's newfound phobia of third party model makers and the crusade to eliminate any pre-existing units that don't have a model or to avoid introducing rules for a new unit unless they're accompanied by a kit. It's possible that GW wanted to release the Toxicrene and the Maleceptor earlier this year, but didn't want to introduce even more models at the time of the Tyranids' 6th Edition update. Or perhaps their manufacturing capability wasn't sufficient to simultaneously produce another large kit. Rather than risk creating new units for 6th Edition and allowing third parties to produce models of them, they simply decided to release the rules only after the models were ready.

Appealing to the Hobbyists

It seems to me that a lot of people who are attracted to Tyranids enjoy them as much, if not more so, for the modeling aspects. It's very possible that the Toxicrene and Maleceptor were thought up after the codex release as a way of interesting Tyranid players into buying even more large models. Modern CAD/CAM drastically shortens design and manufacture times, meaning that even large models could be devised and produced within less than year.

Big models seem to be the thing right now, with Imperial Knights, Wraithknights, and the new giant Fantasy models selling pretty well. Maybe GW believes that there's a critical mass of large models that will get hobbyists interested in starting a new army that can be filled with them. Two and a half years ago, I was strongly tempted to start a Tyranid army dominated with monstrous creatures. I have to admit that these new models may have re-sparked my interest.

Filling a Gap
The Tyranid codex may have been one of the most disappointing codexes of 6th Edition. After their mediocre 5th Edition codex, Tyranid players were hoping for a competitive boost. The new codex wasn't exactly what they were looking for. (Although some players believe the Rising Leviathan dataslates released afterward significantly improved the army.)

While the new units look interesting, opinion on their rules has been mixed. No one seems to be able to figure out how they're supposed to improve the army or what gap they're supposed to be filling. If GW believes that these new models fill a niche in the army, I have yet to see any guesses on what it could be.

The fact that GW is releasing models outside of the codex is a good sign, though, since it suggests that they may become more flexible in addressing armies' weaknesses in between codex releases. Maybe they'll finally release a model for the Mycetic spore along with a re-release (or an improved version) of its rules.

Preparation for a New Codex?
Not long ago, I suggested that GW would update the 6th Edition codexes to match the style and power levels of the 7th Edition codexes. I guessed that this would happen within three years of the last update of a codex. With these new models, I wonder if GW is testing the Forge World method: release a new model with experimental rules, allow the gaming community to play test it for you, adjust the rules as necessary, and publish the rules in an updated book.

Come to think of it, it's strange that GW hasn't been doing that all along.

Predicting the Future of 40K

Curse my lack of Prescience

About two years ago I started posing my multi-part C:SM 6th Edition Codex Wishlist (see here, here, and here). Granted, these were more wants than predictions, but when the codex finally came out, it was obvious that I wasn't particularly good at forecasting the kinds of changes that we did see (here and here). Despite that, it's still fun to try to predict the direction of 40K.

The Current State
As is becoming apparent, GW is likely to bring all of its codexes up to 6th/7th Edition standards within the next year. The Dark Eldar codex is expected to be released later this month, leaving only Necrons, Blood Angels, and Sisters of Battle without a hardcover 6th/7th Edition codex (I don't count Inquisition since it's not one of the classic, established armies). I would guess that new codexes and the associated models are GW's primary source of income, meaning that they'll have to keep producing something to stay in business.

The 'rule set that was here to stay', 6th Edition, was replaced within two years. But 7th Edition was essentially a slightly revised and expanded version of 6th Edition, which suggests to me that GW saw some things they didn't like with 6th and decided that they wanted a more polished rule set to be 'the one to stay'. Seventh Edition also left the door wide open for army builds (e.g., Lords of War, Super-heavies, Formations and non-traditional Detachments, non-traditional allies), giving GW little reason to revise the rulebook anytime soon and all the reason in the world to encourage gamers to build enormous armies with an unprecedented amount of variety.

Models, Models, Models
This is a safe bet. There are still a lot of resin and metal models out there, some of which are for popular units; e.g., the Space Marine Thunderfire Cannon, the Zoanthrope, all Sisters of Battle). Even the fancy Inquisition and Assassin units that GW is pushing are predominately in Finecast or pewter.

I would buy this model in a heartbeat if it were made of plastic

In most circles, Finecast still has a bad reputation, with many gamers like myself simply refusing to buy the stuff. Thus, I expect GW to keep pushing out kits to replace as many Finecast/pewter models as possible. I also expect them to continue producing mono-pose HQs and/or named characters (complete with dataslates, where necessary). As much as I hate the price tags on these models (the Librarian I just bought has a retail price of $30), they look great. I would be even more willing to buy a jump pack Chaplain or a Librarian in Terminator armor for the same cost. I'd probably pay even more for a plastic Master of the Forge.

Oh, and I want a plastic Thunderhawk.

I would easily spend $200 for that

Codexes
Contrary to my expectations, 7th Edition codexes ended up being different from the 6th Edition codexes. The biggest changes include reduced opportunities for shifting units from one Force Organization slot to another (this is most notable for Grey Knights), alternate Force Organization charts (probably intended to compensate for the first change), and the movement of major HQ choices into the Lord of War slot.

Where's your Draigo-wing now?

That leaves several 6th Edition codexes with a few less restrictions than the newer ones (e.g., Deathwing Terminators, Wraithguard, and Space Marine bikes can still be made troops with the right HQs while beasts like Marneus Calgar are still HQs) but a bit less flexibility (the older codexes are still restricted to the traditional Force Organization chart).

I would guess that GW will start revising the 6th Edition codexes, possibly aiming for a release within three years after the last update (e.g., a new Codex: Chaos Space Marines before October 2015). The bulk of the changes would simply bring them in line with the 7th Edition codexes by eliminating the shifting of certain units from one Force Organization slot to another, adding new and fluffy alternate Force Organizations, and moving characters like Calgar into the Lord of War slot.

This would also be the perfect opportunity to fix the problems that have become apparent in certain codexes. The consensus seems to be that Chaos Space Marines and Dark Angels could use a few strategic points adjustments or some boosts (I'm no fan of the Ruinous Powers, but Chaos Space Marines should not run away if they lose combat) while Eldar could be toned down a bit.

Dataslates and Formations
That GW will keep producing dataslates seems obvious. They're cheap and easy to produce and distribute. To GW's benefit, they encourage gamers to buy models they wouldn't have bought otherwise or to buy them in previously unthinkable quantities. An otherwise undesirable model might get special rules that make it worth taking or a dataslate might allow a player to bring more HQ, Elite, Fast Attack, or Heavy Support units than would normally be allowed (and therefore purchased).

So many Terminators...

For example, until he got Dataslate: Helbrutes, the 40K Cabal's Chaos Space Marine player was very unhappy with his underperforming multi-melta Helbrute (any C:SM player will tell you that a multi-melta Dreadnought without a drop pod is pretty useless). Now the other members of the Cabal have to worry about a trio of Deep Striking Helbrutes showing up in their rear lines.

As for me, with five Terminators, eight Assault Terminators, and a Terminator Captain, I figured I was done buying Terminator models. Now, thanks to the Strike Force Ultra dataslate (20 Terminators plus a Terminator Captain), I've found myself buying even more of them.

While being a cash cow for GW, I think dataslates also benefit the gamers by keeping existing codexes fresh and allowing the development of new strategies and an endless variety of builds.

I'll take an Ultramarines 1st
Company Supplement, please

Supplements
I'll finish with the dataslate's big brother. I had thought that GW gave up on these when the rumored Raven Guard and White Scars supplements failed to turn up and GW started cranking out dataslates. Now that the two existing 7th Edition codexes have supplements (Waaagh! Ghazkull and Champions of Fenris, respectively) and the Dark Eldar codex is rumored to have at least one supplement, it looks like GW may be dedicated to producing them after all.

These are also no-brainers. Like dataslates they keep a codex fresh and encourage gamers to buy more models, but with their expanded scope, they inspire fluff-minded gamers to build entire armies around the Supplement rather than just one or two smaller detachments.

I suspect that a 7th Edition Space Marine codex would be more generic in its builds while Supplements would allow more specialization than was previously available; e.g., Mounted Assault would be removed from the parent codex and a similar rule or a Force Organization that promotes the use of bikes would be provided in a White Scars Supplement. A Raven Guard Supplement, on the other hand, could allow the use of more jump pack units.

Refitting the Ironclad

I finished my Ironclad Dreadnought almost exactly one year ago. At the time, I built the Ironclad with dual heavy flamers because of the types of armies I was playing against. However, with the rapid growth of the Cabal and the increased variety of armies that I might play against on any given game night, I found myself frequently wishing that my Ironclad had a ranged anti-tank capability.

With the advent of 7th Edition's revised Vehicle Damage Table, it became obvious that AP1 and 2 are vital if you want to remove tanks from the table. One of the most obvious responses was to modify my Ironclad by removing the heavy flamer from the seismic hammer and replacing it with the meltagun that I had saved in my bits box.

It took me a while to finally go ahead with it. I was worried that the heavy flamer would be difficult to remove, that I would damage the model, that I would offend the Ironclad's machine spirit, etc. I tried to convince myself that I could easily field melta weapons on other units and leave the Ironclad alone. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that the dual heavy flamers have always driven me to use the Walker as an anti-infantry vehicle. Usually it disembarks from a Drop Pod and immediately hits a high value squad with two S5, AP4 templates. An Ironclad Dreadnought tends to attract a lot of attention, so my opponent would spend the following turn hammering away at it before it had a chance to assault, often hitting the rear armor and very often putting the Dreadnought out of commission. Although I tried to focus on higher value infantry units, the instances in which the Ironclad earned its points were few and far between.

Ironclad Dreadnought with its original wargear in June 2013

This weekend, I finally sat down to figure out how I was going to remove the heavy flamer. I was worried about freeing the weapon's hose from the seismic hammer without breaking something and figured I could pry it out with a knife or a small screw driver. Then, on a whim I simply gave the heavy flamer a gentle twist and the whole thing came loose without any problems.

Now that the heavy flamer was free, I notice that one leg had come loose at some point. With only a small amount of force, I separated the Dreadnought entirely from its feet and base. Not only did this allow me to re-glue the legs, but it gave me better access for installing the meltagun.

Within a few hours I had the meltagun entirely painted and weathered to match the heavy flamer on the power fist. Soon the meltagun was in place and the Ironclad was reattached to its feet. I also took advantage of the time to clean up the paint job in a few spots, particularly in those joints where drying glue had left a white residue.

Ironclad Dreadnought with its new meltagun

I'm sure it seems silly, but to modify a completed model with anything more than a touch-up to the paint is unprecedented for me. Once it's done, I hate to go back. But I've found myself in too many situations where I really needed a ranged anti-tank weapon on a durable forward-based unit. And now that 7th Edition has made melta weapons even more valuable than they were in 6th, it would be ridiculous to pass up the opportunity.

The preferred weapon of any well-equipped Ironclad in 7th Edition

How Do D-Weapons Work in 7th Edition?

I eagerly purchased my 7th Edition rulebook from the local HobbyTown today. I've been scouring it all night and, overall, I'm rather happy with the rules. Although I still don't have enough experience to judge the Psychic Phase or the new powers, I've been happy with how many things have been simplified and/or clarified.

However, there may be some confusion with regards to how D-weapons work in this edition and what effect they have on vehicles and Super-heavies. I'm pretty sure I understand the rules, but I've seen so many assumptions and arguments about them (all of them interspersed with yet more tiresome complaints about GW) that I wanted to put my ideas out into the ether and see if others agree.

For starters, I believe that GW listened to gamers' complaints that 6th Edition D-weapons were too powerful and set out to create D-weapon rules that would be potent, but wouldn't necessarily relegate all non-Super-heavy models to players' shelves. I think they also intended to develop a table that would work for all vehicles and wouldn't need separate rules for standard vehicles and Super-heavies.

Standard Weapons and Vehicle Damage
Let's start with the rules for damaging vehicles on page 75 of the new rulebook. Under "Penetrating Hits" it says "If a penetrating hit was scored, the vehicle not only loses 1 Hull Point, but also suffers additional damage." The new Vehicle Damage table follows on page 76. It's the same as the one in 6th Edition except Crew Shaken now occurs on a 1 through 3 and Explodes! only occurs on a 7. For Super-heavy vehicles, page 94 says that Super-heavies don't suffer Crew Shaken results, Weapon Destroyed results, etc., but that "each time a Super-heavy vehicle suffers an Explodes! result on the Vehicle Damage table, instead of suffering the effects listed, it loses D3 additional Hull Points as well as the hull Point it loses for the penetrating hit."

So far, so good. Except for the slightly more forgiving Damage Table, standard weapons have the same rules as before. A penetrating shot against normal vehicles causes them to lose a single Hull Point and forces them to take their chances with the Vehicle Damage table. Super-heavies lose a single Hull Point and may lose an additional D3 Hull Points if an Explodes! result is rolled.

D-Weapons and Vehicle Damage
Under 6th Edition, D-weapons were insanely devastating. On a 1, any vehicle would suffer a penetrating hit. On a 2-5, Super-heavies lost D3+1 Hull Points while all other vehicles simply exploded. On a six, normal vehicles still exploded while Super-heavies lost D6+6 Hull Points. Fortunately, GW decided to tone it down in 7th.

The new rules actually give regular vehicles a chance at surviving a D-weapon blast, although there's still a good probability that they won't survive. The Destroyer Weapon Attack Table also omits any special exceptions or rules for Super-heavies; it works for any type of vehicle (or buildings, for that matter, which now have Hull Points).

As before, the rules state that if a target vehicle is hit by a D-weapon, you roll on the Destroyer Weapon Attack Table instead of rolling for penetration. The table on page 163 provides the following results:

1 - "Lucky Escape: The model is unharmed"
2-5 - "Solid Hit: The model suffers a penetrating hit that causes it to lose D3 Hull Points instead of 1." (Below it says that cover and invulnerable saves may be taken against a Solid Hit.)
6 - "Devastating Hit: The model suffers a penetrating hit that causes it to lose D6+6 Hull Points instead of 1. No saves of any kind are allowed against this hit."

In various places, I've seen people argue that a Solid Hit has no other result but to remove D3 Hull Points (and thus whine that melta-weapons are better than D-weapons). Others seem to think that the result is D3 Hull Points lost plus one for the penetrating hit. However, I think these ideas completely miss the mark.

Although their chainswords will do
less damage, Imperial Knights will
have a much higher survival rate

As is apparent from the table, a D-weapon is merely one that auto-penetrates on a 2+ and that has a modifier affecting how many Hull Points are immediately lost to such a hit. Nothing in the Destroyer Weapon table states that it negates or supersedes the effects of the normal Vehicle Damage Table (do we honestly believe that D-weapons can only take off Hull Points and have lost the ability to explode vehicles?). On the contrary, the table specifically says that on a 2-6, "The model suffers a penetrating hit"; the rules for a penetrating hit on page 75 state that a vehicle whose armor has been penetrated "suffers additional damage", which ranges from a Crew Shaken result to an Explodes! result. And it should be clear that the D3 Hull Points lost to a Solid Hit, or the D6+6 Hull Points lost to a Devastating Hit, aren't meant to be the sole consequence of a D-weapon attack, but instead represent a modification to the normal rule that a penetrating hit causes a model to lose only 1 Hull Point; e.g., "a penetrating hit that causes it to lose D3 Hull Points instead of 1" (emphasis mine).

Having determined from the Destroyer Weapon table exactly how many Hull Points have been lost from a penetrating hit caused by a D-weapon, we can resolve the target vehicle's fate by referring back to the penetrating hit rules found on page 75. These tell us the following: "After deducting any Hull Points, roll a D6 for each shot that penetrated the vehicle's armour and look up the result using the Vehicle Damage Table."

I think the confusion stems from the fact that the 6th Edition Destroyer Weapon Table entirely replaced the Vehicle Damage Table whenever a D-weapon was involved. It stated explicitly that on a 2-6, normal vehicles suffered an Explodes! result. The 7th Edition Destroyer Weapon Table provides no actual damage results, it merely tells us that a penetrating hit was made and how many hull points were initially removed when this happened. The fact that a penetrating hit occurred sends us back to the Vehicle Damage Table on page 76.

The Consequences of D-Weapon Hits
Most vehicles, whether standard or Super-heavy, are unlikely to survive a Devastating Hit, so let's focus on Solid Hits. At a minimum, a standard vehicle is going to lose a single hull point along with whatever damage is rolled on the Vehicle Damage Table. The Shadowsword's Volcano Cannon and the Imperial Knight's Reaper Chainsword are AP2 and will therefore get +1 on the Damage Table while the Stompa's Mega-choppa and the Lord of Skull's Great Cleaver of Khorne are AP1 and will get a +2 on the Damage Table.

In a worst case scenario, a standard vehicle will lose 3 Hull Points from the initial hit (which will immediately destroy anything except for models like Land Raiders) and then get an Explodes! result on the Damage Table. However, unlike D-weapon attacks under 6th Edition, there is still some chance that the vehicle might survive.

As for Super-heavies and D-weapons, the 7th Edition Destroyer Weapon table makes no distinction between what happens to a Super-heavy and what happens to a standard vehicle. Thus, a Super-heavy that takes a Solid Hit will also suffer an automatic penetrating hit, losing D3 Hull Points instead of just one. Like a standard vehicle, the Super-heavy will also have to roll on the Vehicle Damage Table. The biggest difference here is that only an Explodes! result can affect the Super-heavy, and then it won't necessarily be destroyed but will instead lose an additional D3 Hull Points.

In a best case scenario, a Super-heavy may only lose a single Hull Point to a Solid Hit, as opposed to at least two Hull Points under 6th (in the previous edition Super-heavies lost D3+1 Hull Points to a Solid Hit). At worst it may lose 6 Hull Points where it couldn't lose more than 4 under the previous edition.

Assuming my interpretation of the rules is correct, I think 7th Edition D-weapon are pretty fair. They're still the scariest things on the table, but at least non-Super-heavies have a fighting chance again.

But If I Were Going to Play an Unbound Army...

So I've already said that the 40K Cabal would probably stick to Battle-forged armies in our games. However, not a day after we had agreed that we would generally stick to the Force Organization Chart, we each started fantasizing about what our Unbound army would look like. It's notable that many of our fantasy builds weren't based on their competitiveness (although some would undoubtedly be powerful), but on a theme that appealed to us.

For example, Sam loved the idea of a pre-awakening Necron army. This would be a force built entirely of Tomb World guardians like Canoptek Wraiths, Spyders, Scarabs, and Forge World's Tomb Sentinel and Tomb Stalker.

My ideal Unbound army came to me immediately. Regular visitors to this blog are surely aware of my fascination with Sternguard/Tyrannic War Veterans (see here, here, here...), so of course my fantasy army ended up being composed entirely of 1st Company Veterans and their support vehicles.

This weekend I assembled the following 2490 point list that made me positively giddy:

• Terminator Captain (Agemman) w/ thunder hammer and the Shield Eternal
• Chaplain Cassius
• 5 Man Sternguard Squad w/ 3 combi-flamers; Sergeant w/ lightning claw and melta bombs
• Razorback transport with TL assault cannon
• 10 Man Sternguard Squad w/ 3 combi-gravs; Sergeant w/ melta bombs
• Drop Pod transport
• 10 Man Sternguard Squad w/ 3 combi-meltas; Sergeant w/ melta bombs
• Drop Pod transport
• Stormtalon Gunship w/ TL lascannon
• 7 Assault Terminators w/ 3 storm shields and thunder hammers and 4 pairs of lightning claws
• Land Raider Crusader transport w/ multi-melta
• Venerable Dreadnought w/ TL lascannon and heavy flamer
• Drop Pod transport
• Predator w/ TL lascannon and lascannon sponsons
• Stormraven w/ TL lascannon, TL multi-melta, and hurricane bolter sponsons
• Aegis Defence Line w/ Comms Relay

This is very similar to several of my other lists. Obviously the biggest difference is that the Troops section has been filled with Sternguard. Because the Veterans are so much more expensive than normal Troops, I had to reduce the amount of Heavy Support, which usually includes Centurions with a Land Raider and Devastators.

This list puts a lot of points into very few wounds, but it can do some pretty mean stuff. The Math-Hammer shows that three combi-meltas fired under the Ultramarine Tactical Doctrine (i.e., Tactical Squads re-roll fails to hit while all other squads re-roll ones) will explode an AV14 vehicle 68% of the time and an AV13 vehicle 84% of the time. And three combi-gravs and seven bolters firing Hellfire rounds under the Tactical Doctrine will kill a Wraithknight in a single volley more than 50% of the time.

In fact, I liked this list so much that I made a Battle-forged version by tweaking one of the Sternguard Squads and putting it in Elites. I dropped the other two Sternguard Squads and took out Cassius (who was going to accompany the smaller squad in the Razorback) and replaced them with three 10 man Tactical Squads spread across two Drop Pods and a lascannon Razorback. While not as versatile as the Sternguard, the Tactical Squads are equipped to perform similar tasks.

40K 7th Edition: And Another Rumor Bites the Dust

Well that didn't take long. Not two days after I post my reasons for not believing the rumors about 40K moving to a percentage-based system, conflicting rumors come out. But this time, they came with pictures from an upcoming issue of White Dwarf.

I don't want to post the photos for legal reasons, but you can find a link here. I'm going to accept these as legitimate. I've been Photoshopping for years, and these images show none of the obvious signs of manipulation.

Here's the most interesting part:

If you're a Warhammer 40,000 player you'll be familiar with the Force Organisation Chart. It's still there in the new Warhammer 40,000, and if you follow it, your army is referred to as 'Battle-forged'. A Battle-forged army is a very desirable thing as it gets certain in-game bonuses. But there's another way to use your miniatures, and that comes in the form of taking an Unbound army. Basically, Unbound armies allow you to take whatever you want from your collection, and throw the Force Organisation chart out of the window (while still adhering to unit sizes and heeding the relationships described in the all-new Allies Matrix).

So, not only are we not moving to a highly restrictive percentage-based force organization, but now we'll have the option to field an Unbound army that's effectively a mini-Apocalypse force (except with some Allies restrictions). Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the exact opposite of what those rumors from a "reliable source" were saying.

How could anyone have doubted that they
would try to sell as much plastic as possible?

Upon hearing about the anything goes option, the percentage proponents are already declaring the game to be doomed. However, I'm rather happy that GW didn't go the more restrictive route. That being said, I see the 40K Cabal playing Battle-forged armies almost exclusively, with the occasional prearranged Unbound game. As I said in my last post, the Cabal is composed of friends who are capable of coming to mature agreements about the kinds of games we play. Unless the bonuses for Battle-forged armies are significant, I could see Unbound games becoming very one-sided.

Also of note is that they've added six Maelstrom of War missions in addition to the existing Eternal War missions. Maelstrom of War uses a deck of Tactical Objective cards that give you objectives ranging from controlling markers to eliminating enemy characters, vehicles, flyers, etc. Once you achieve your objectives, you get the points and draw new ones. This could be pretty interesting as it may add a dynamic element that the current missions don't have.

Additionally, there's now a psychic phase and it looks like the way psykers are used has changed a bit. Although the White Dwarf goes into little detail, apparently manifestation of psychic powers will involve a Warp Charge pool that involves a number of dice equal to the roll of a D6 plus the total of your psykers' Mastery levels. A player can use as many of the dice as he wants to manifest powers, but the more you use the more likely you are to suffer Perils of the Warp, which is now a table with "some very scary results".

The new edition is supposed to be "fully compatible with all existing Codexes, supplements and rules expansions."

40K 7th Edition: Why I Don't Believe the Rumored Changes

What Rumors?
Okay, I do believe some of the rumors. Specifically, it seems apparent that a new rulebook is being released and that it will be at least somewhat different that the current rulebook. The fact that the rulebook is labeled as "No longer available" on GW's website, and has been unavailable for a while, certainly indicates that something is going on.

Gone so soon?

What I don't believe are the wild rumors that 7th Edition is going to fundamentally change the way we play the game. At first, the rumors made perfect sense. Several sources were referring to the new book as "version 6.5" or "revised 6th". These rumors said that the new book would incorporate the FAQs as well as the rules for Escalation and Stronghold Assault. (Stronghold Assault's "recommended" building rules make infinitely more sense than the ones released with 6th.) Others said that there would also be a few simple tweaks that would partially nullify certain extremely powerful builds; e.g., it was said that Prescience would no longer be the Primaris Power for Divination. (I really wanted to field Chief Librarian Tigurius and to take advantage of this power, but I can see why you wouldn't want such a potent ability to be the Primaris Power.)

It was around this time that the rumors started running wild. People started talking about percentage limitations replacing the Force Organization Chart and that some complicated system called "sideboards" would be introduced that would allow players to choose from among preset sublists of their army upon seeing their opponent's army. Supposedly this information was being provided by a "reliable source". Not long after, actual percentage values were being posted.

Please bear in mind that I have no direct access to any rumor sources. All I have is a grasp of mathematics and a basic understanding of economics and human behavior. Nor is this meant as a criticism of the owner of Faeit212; Naftka seems like a decent guy with a positive attitude about the game who simply reports rumors for the entertainment of geeks like us. Mostly I'm writing this because the rumors don't stand up to scrutiny. I also hope to debunk the notion that a percentage based system would "balance" the game.

What's This About Percentages?
I'm not going to touch the sideboard issue since our group would probably skip the mechanic altogether. The whole concept seems to cater to the hyper-competitive tournament crowd, which a) doesn't sound like something GW would do and b) doesn't remotely describe the 40K Cabal. What I will address is the supposed abandonment of the Force Organization Chart in favor of a percentage system.

According to one source, the percentages would be:

• 10%-30% HQ (single character HQ Warlords can break this limit)
• 40%+ Troops
• < 20% Elites
• < 25% Fast Attack
• < 25% Heavy Support
• < 25% Lords of War
• < 20% Fortifications
• < 25% Allies, Secondary Detachments, or Allied Army formations
• < 50% Primary Army formations.

I've seen a huge number of positive comments about such a system in the comments sections of various rumor sites. "It will get rid of the Death Stars" they say, "it will finally balance the game" they say.

It will do no such thing.

Why This Rumor Is Absurd:
First of all, lets look at what these percentages would mean to a 2000 point game:

• 200-600 points of HQ (single character HQ Warlords can break this limit)
• 800+ points of Troops
• < 400 points of Elites
• < 500 points of Fast Attack
• < 500 points of Heavy Support
• < 500 points of Lords of War
• < 400 points of  Fortifications
• < 500 points of Allies, Secondary Detachments, or Allied Army formations
• < 1000 points of Primary Army formations.

Wait a minute; less than 400 points of Elites? A mimimum-sized squad of Terminators with a Land Raider comes in at 450 points. Do we really believe that GW would give us a new rule set that would prohibit Vanilla Marines from fielding the iconic five man Terminator Squad and their Land Raider transport in a 2000 point game? If that's the case, you can definitely forget about bringing a slightly larger squad and taking advantage of the increased transport capacity of the Land Raider Crusader.

It should be obvious that a 20% limit would be devastating for Space Marines, which are very dependent on their Elites.

But I just finished these, you can't take them away from me!

What about 500 points for Heavy Support? Just last year GW gave us Centurions who could take a Land Raider as a Dedicated Transport. I hope nobody wanted to put both the lascannons and the missile launchers on those Centurions; three Centurions with just the TL lascannon upgrade and a Land Raider would already max out the rumored limit on Heavy Support.

According to the rumor, the majority of the
content of a codex is just meant to tease us.

How about the shiny new thing in the game, Escalation? Supposedly we'd only be allotted 25% for a Lord of War. Space Marines can only field a Thunderhawk, which comes in at 685 points (775 with the turbo-laser destructor). To bring the lone Lord of War that my Ultramarines are allowed, the game would have to be 2740 points or 3100 points if I want to bring a useful weapon. Eldar are even worse; they wouldn't be able to field their 900 point Lord of War in anything under a 3600 point game. The Cabal plays Escalation games at around 2500 points, which is a decent level for the size of most of our armies. We would completely lose interest if we were required to play 3000+ point games just to allow some of our members to bring their Lord of War.

Sorry Eldar players, the rumors say
that GW doesn't want you to buy
this $330 model anymore

Driving people away from playing with expensive Super-heavy models; does that sound like GW's modus operandi?

So we've seen how absurdly restrictive this purported percentage system would be. How about the other end; 40%+ of Troops:

Raise your hand if you own 800 points of basic Troops. I sure don't, and except for the few that have HQs that can change Elites or Fast Attack units into Troops, neither do any of my fellow Cabal members. It gets even worse in our 2500 point Escalation games, where you would be required to bring 1000 points of Troops. Oh, and to play a 3600 point game so our Eldar player can use his Lord of War? 1440 points. I have absolutely no desire to paint or field 800 points of Tactical Marines, let alone 1440 points.

Without upgrades, Space Marines would have to bring over 57 Tactical Marines to meet the supposed minimum value in a 2000 point game (and 72 for a 2500 point game). It's technically possible to get the model count down to 25, but that's only through taking the most expensive upgrades possible, which most players will recognize as being uncompetitive.

A much more viable list would still involve 30+ Marines with several upgrades, two drop pods, and two Razorbacks with TL lascannons. That's an awful lot of power armor to paint just to be able to play a basic 2000 point game.

And that's just Marines, who have relatively expensive models and could get away with a low model count. Does anyone care to crunch the numbers on how may Guardsmen would be needed to add up to 800 points? Or Orks? If a 2000 point Ork army tried to minimize its model count by taking almost every upgrade (i.e., one squad being upgraded to 'Ard Boyz and each squad having a Rokkit Launcha, a power klaw Nob with a Bosspole, and a Trukk), it would still have 60 Troop models. How many Ork players actually want to paint that many infantry? How many people want to face 55 Boyz and 5 power klaw Nobs, all of them in Trukks, and 12 of them 'Ard Boyz?

Why Percentages Wouldn't "Balance" the Game
"No more Riptide spam!" the believers cheer. "No more triple Heldrakes!" Okay, so percentage based lists would demolish the much hated Death Stars (which I've never seen since the Cabal avoids spam as being completely uninteresting)...

...and would merely shift the advantage to other armies. Azrael would be an auto-include in Dark Angels armies so their Ravenwing Attack Squadrons and Deathwing Terminators would count towards their 40%+ of Troops. Sure, you wouldn't see Tau dominating the tables anymore, but you would have plenty of Wave Serpents and Spiritseers leading units of Wraithguard. Grey Knight Terminators and Draigo's Paladins would be everywhere. Typhus, his Plague Marines, and hordes of Plague Zombies would take the place of the Heldrake spam.

And we thought we saw these guys a lot in 5th Edition.

And since those of us who can't play such shenanigans with our Troop slots would be stuck with extremely limited numbers of Elites and Heavies, we would have a difficult time countering the new Death Stars. Our basic Troops simply couldn't compete with the kind of variety that certain armies can field.

Here's the problem; the current 40K codexes weren't designed around a percentage system. Armies such as mine were designed around the idea that there would be a relatively small number of durable troops fighting alongside some very expensive Elite and Heavy units. A percentage system would disfavor my army while favoring those that have cheaper Elites and Heavies or that have more flexible Troop options. Is it really that hard to see that balance is the last thing that would come out of such a system?

Just out of curiosity, how many people in a casual setting regularly see Riptide spam or triple Heldrakes? I don't know about other gaming clubs (the Cabal is a pretty closed group, after all) but none of us spam anything. None of us have any interest in painting or playing spam, nor do we want to alienate our fellow gamers, most of whom were friends before we even started playing 40K together. In comment after comment I see people declaring that percentages would eliminate spam, but all I see is a rule that would force most of the Cabal members into extremely boring and restrictive lists just to "fix" a problem that casual gamers like us don't have.

A Complete Change in Philosophy?
So, I think I've shown why a percentage based system (especially one with the rumored percentage values) would be a bad idea. I'm not saying that GW doesn't occasionally make bad decisions, but I believe that they would have considered the consequences of fundamentally altering 40K's Force Organization and rejected the idea.

But even if they did suddenly decide to address the supposed problem of imbalance, why would they choose such a restrictive method? For months they've enthusiastically expressed the attitude of "play what you want" by releasing Escalation, Imperial Knights, Inquisition, Militarum Tempestus, dataslates, etc. Given how quickly people snatched up the Knights, this approach seems to have been reasonably successful; why would they immediately turn around and severely restrict army builds? Why would they renege on everything they've done for months, force gamers to abandon their new toys, and risk a huge customer backlash?

Wait, you wanted to actually play with your Knights?

Other than the rumors from "trusted sources", there's no evidence that GW has any intention of changing course.

Since decisions that affect rulebooks aren't made on the fly, we should have seen them reflected in recent publications. Can anyone point to any indications that percentages are coming? It seems to me that the Astra Militarum Codex clearly declares that there are no major changes on the horizon. After all, why would it still have vehicle squadrons if the Force Organization Chart is going away? The codex now includes Tank Commanders and allows them to bring two additional tanks in an HQ slot. Was that so GW could laugh when the 10% HQ limit prevented Guard players from taking more than a single command tank in anything less than a 3000 point game? And now Guard Troops and several upgrades are even cheaper; was that to make sure that when many Guard players found themselves unable to meet the 40%+ Troop requirement that they would have to build and paint even more models?

Giving Guard players a new codex with interesting units and builds and then immediately forcing them into playing a horde army a few months later isn't a recipe for success or balance, it's a way to enrage your customers and drive them out of the game. Regardless of what GW-haters may think, I don't believe that GW's current management is that dense.

The Timeline
It's apparent that the rumored changes would adversely affect multiple armies and that they don't match GW's philosophy. For the sake of argument, let's say that GW is willing to completely change course (which they tend not to do because they're an extremely conservative corporation) and that they don't realize or don't care that several armies will get the short end of the stick. Would it make sense that now, only a few years after the release of the edition that was 'here to stay', they would be poised to drastically alter the game? Would they even have had the time to do it?

As I understand it, a completely new edition of the rulebook can take years to develop. Even a revised codex like the C:SM that added a few units, tweaked a few points values, and introduced Chapter Tactics will be in the works for a year or more. When would GW have even started a reengineering of the Force Organization mechanic?

Many argue that these changes are meant to counter the various Death Stars and power builds, but the most notorious of these (i.e., the Tau/Eldar combinations) were introduced less than a year ago. The 40K community itself didn't even really know which way the meta was going until fairly recently. How long would it take for GW to concede that there may be a problem, particularly when said problem seems to exist mostly in the tournament/hyper-competitive scene that GW says it doesn't care about? Then, how long would it take to completely redesign a fundamental mechanic (i.e., percentages versus the Force Organization Chart) as well as devise a mechanic that's completely new to the game (i.e., sideboards)? Once that's done, how long would it take to play test it and publish it? Oh, and all this has to happen while your game design team is expected to be developing codexes and dataslates and releasing them at an unprecedented rate.

The time frame is completely unrealistic.

It Makes No Financial Sense
GW has said it time and time again; 40K is a "beer and pretzels game". Many of us in the Cabal are teetotalers, and those who do drink don't want a sober opponent to have an advantage, so ours is more of a Dr Pepper and Doritos game. Either way, GW has clearly stated that it isn't interested in catering to the tournament crowd. And it seems to be the more competitive gamers among us who think that a percentage system or sideboards will solve their problems.

GW is a business, and as a business they are more interested in selling models than they are in severely restricting our lists so that the game is more "balanced" for the competitive players. Making popular combinations difficult or impossible to field (e.g., Terminators or Centurions with a Land Raider transport) while forcing gamers to meet an unreasonably high minimum Troop requirement would cause huge swaths of players to simply quit. With a handful of exceptions, it would drive multiple armies into extraordinarily boring lists (not unlike many tournament lists, now that I think about it). Most of us in the Cabal would simply refuse to play that way.

Those who didn't despair at the idea of painting and playing with huge numbers of Troops and quit would certainly end up buying more Troop models, but it would be at a net loss for GW. Troop kits are some of the cheapest sets that GW sells, while relatively expensive kits like Leman Russes, Dreadnoughts, Riptides, Wraithknights, Land Raiders, Centurions, Terminators, or Imperial Knights would simply sit on the shelves since their numbers in a reasonably-sized game would be extremely restricted.

Captain Agemman has some strongly
worded opinions regarding these rumors.

For example, I now run 8 Assault Terminators (3 TH/SS, 5 LC) in a Land Raider Crusader with a multi-melta. These guys are my heavy hitters and come in at a cost of 595 points. Under the rumored percentage system I could only take the squad in a 3000 point game. (In the meantime, Carl and Jake could bring as many Terminators and Land Raiders as they wanted with the right HQ; balance!) As I said earlier, even if I dropped the squad down to its minimum number and points cost, a 20% limit on Elites would mean that I still couldn't field the squad and their transport in a 2000 point game.

The Crusader's transport capacity is very attractive and encourages players to buy two boxes of Terminators to take advantage of it. At retail price, the two Terminator boxes and the Land Raider Crusader cost $174.25. Even if you go cheap, a single box of Terminators and the Crusader still cost $124.25. But if you can't take them in a standard-sized game, why would anyone spend that much? A Dreadnought model costs $46.25, but who's going to get one when they can't even fit Terminators with a Dedicated Transport into their lists?

Gee, I really wanted to spend $152.25 to field that Devastator Centurion Squad and their Land Raider so I could counter all those Wraithguard and DA/GK Terminators I keep having to fight, but they come in at over the allotted 500 points with the necessary upgrades. I guess I'm just going to skip that $74.25 Land Raider. Or maybe I'll just get a box of Devastators and a Razorback for $76.25 instead. And with the 500 point limit on Heavy Support, I think I'll leave that new $65 Stalker on the game store's shelf.

Boy those Imperial Knights are pretty cool. I'd love to buy two or three of those $140 beauties and take them as Allies, but I'd have to play a 3000 point game to have two and a 4500 point game to have three. I don't want to play games that big, and I certainly don't want to paint even more Troops. Maybe I'll just get one.

I can have three Knights in an Allied Detachment?
Only if we're playing Apocalypse, apparently.

Does any of this sound like GW's policies? Does making the game boring for most players and discouraging them from buying the latest and greatest model kits sound like GW?

My Sinking Opinion on Rumors
I've lost a lot of confidence in the rumormongers recently, even with so-called "reliable sources". Not only did IG not get the new artillery models that they were supposed to get, but they saw rules for the previous units disappear. There were even rumors of plastic Steel Legion kits, complete with some of the most blatantly Photoshopped images I've ever seen. Tyranid rumors, such as the supposed ability to ally with themselves, were entirely off base. Most of the rumored Eldar models never materialized. And I clearly remember a persistent rumor that claimed that Space Marines were going to get specialized Razorbacks.

I have regularly visited 40K rumor sites since I got into the hobby, but now I'm regretting the time I spend there. The rumors seem to be getting less and less accurate yet they still succeed in riling up the 40K community with outrageous claims or wishlisting. The Steel Legion Photoshop fakes may have been some of the most egregious. Despite the efforts of myself and others to convince our fellow gamers of the truth, there were many more who were convinced that they were real.

I see the same thing with the latest batch of rumors. It makes no sense that GW would risk alienating players in exchange for little or no financial gain. Yet there are those who are already trying to play games according to the rumored rules as if they were established fact. It reminds me of those who started playing according to the "leaked" 6th Edition rulebook, which turned out to be an early play test copy at best and a total fraud at worst.

The only rumors that make sense are the ones saying that FAQs, Escalation, and Stronghold Assault will be incorporated into the book. And maybe they'll add a couple tweaks to allies and Prescience too. Anything else is wishlisting, misinformation, or trolling.