It's essentially morathi from aos. With the healing as well it is crazy
Essentially, if it doesn't take wounds in the first battle round and it kills a vehicle then it will last for the entire game. If it takes full 3 every round, but it kills 4 vehicles, it will last the entire game. Coupled with a brutal vehicle killer shooting attack and combat profile.
And that's on top of all the ctan MW shenanigans. Chuck this into someone's lines and it is a repeatedly exploding bomb of MW that physically cannot be removed.
Seriously, this is primarch level power here. Better than that as it can hide and it cannot be focused.
We don't know for certain it can hide. If it can't then it's still just going to eat some small arms, couple of smiles and a decent charge then die potentially.
It has some decent tank hunting potential but it seems middle of the road to me, but then I don't expect it to be a character.
nintura wrote: My god man.... do NOT let the void dragon get near your vehicles. I'm hoping he's as hard to kill as he sounds.
Morathin AoS has similar damage restrictions as does Gotrek and they've generally worked ok. There's a few other ways to get past the 3 wound per turn limits; plus their point costs often make them super powerful, but also a very heavy point sink. So sure the can do a lot, but they are only one point on the table and can be distracted/tarpitted or otherwise disabled or even (in the case of gotrek - who is slow and has no speed boosts allowed) avoided.
nintura wrote: My god man.... do NOT let the void dragon get near your vehicles. I'm hoping he's as hard to kill as he sounds.
Morathin AoS has similar damage restrictions as does Gotrek and they've generally worked ok. There's a few other ways to get past the 3 wound per turn limits; plus their point costs often make them super powerful, but also a very heavy point sink. So sure the can do a lot, but they are only one point on the table and can be distracted/tarpitted or otherwise disabled or even (in the case of gotrek - who is slow and has no speed boosts allowed) avoided.
This is 3 wounds per phase, not turn. If he's caught out somewhere you can kill him without receiving a blow in return, even if that is unlikely to happen.
Dudeface wrote: The new RP doesn't trigger off psychic powers or vehicles exploding etc. Since it specifies an attack sequence.
Oh good. Because what RPs really needed was a stealth-nerf.
Yeah I agree. The old rule was actually a lot better but so rarely could come into effect.
I feel like with the way it works now it's going to need some additional stratagems or abilities that let you roll more times to bring models back. Otherwise - there is no reason to take anything but 1 wound models.
I feel the best way yo take advantage of this new rule is to take lots of warriors with ghost archs and illuminator/crtptecs. Or Immortals can work too.
It's essentially morathi from aos. With the healing as well it is crazy
Essentially, if it doesn't take wounds in the first battle round and it kills a vehicle then it will last for the entire game. If it takes full 3 every round, but it kills 4 vehicles, it will last the entire game. Coupled with a brutal vehicle killer shooting attack and combat profile.
And that's on top of all the ctan MW shenanigans. Chuck this into someone's lines and it is a repeatedly exploding bomb of MW that physically cannot be removed.
Seriously, this is primarch level power here. Better than that as it can hide and it cannot be focused.
It can suffer 9 damage on single turn. Even fully healed enemy can kill it in one turn. Some armies won't even need all the phases
Ghaz has same limit and can heal better without being invincible.
Kanluwen wrote: Remember that you're supposed to resolve all attacks made with weapons that have the same profile before resolving attacks with the next.
That isn't relevant for Reanimation Protocols, though.
"Each time an enemy unit shoots or fights, after it makes its attacks" In other words, after you've resolved attacks from the entire unit.
Did you even read the post that I replied to...?
The guy commented about this "encouraging to commit enough shots to wipe out a unit then fire". p217 of the Core Rulebook specifies: -Select targets for all weapons before any attacks are resolved. -At least one model in the target unit must be visible to the attacking model and within range of the attacking weapon. -If a unit targets multiple units, all attacks against one unit must be resolved before resolving attacks against the next. -If a unit shoots with multiple weapons, all attacks made with weapons that have the same profile must be resolved before resolving attacks with the next.
The new Resurrection Protocols? It makes it so people are going to have to figure out that weight of fire is important when fighting Necrons. When not wiping a unit can lead to said unit getting back up? Oh boy, that'll be a sight!
Bonus points though: -All of a ranged weapon's attacks must be made against the same target unit.
The long and short of my 'reminder' was that while you can choose to devote different weapons to targeting different units when choosing targets, but the resolution of the attacks is supposed to be done based upon the weapons in question.
"Proliferation" of dangerous units with wound limitations like that makes it more important to have a Psyker in your list, just in case.
Maybe the "Abhor the Witch" secondary is so "skewed" towards Psyker armies, because it will be a real drawback not to be able to inflict damage in that phase.
I can imagine Tyranids will get a similar rule on the Swarmlord, Chaos on Abaddon and so on.
buddha wrote: Also, still a number of questions on characters and RP. It will next to useless if you need to roll five 5+ dice for an overlord or something to work.
Other missing Codex information notwithstanding - as it looks right now, it doesn't work for characters at all, at least not if they're an individual unit of 1. The moment the model goes down, the unit's gone too, so you're not eligible to roll for RP.
buddha wrote: Also, still a number of questions on characters and RP. It will next to useless if you need to roll five 5+ dice for an overlord or something to work.
Other missing Codex information notwithstanding - as it looks right now, it doesn't work for characters at all, at least not if they're an individual unit of 1. The moment the model goes down, the unit's gone too, so you're not eligible to roll for RP.
Throwing this out there, but "Edge of Silence" has zero characters with Reanimation Protocols.
The closest thing to a character are the Cryptothralls who get both Living Metal and RP. Skorpekh Lord, Plasmancer, Overlord, Royal Warden all have Living Metal.
Dudeface wrote: The new RP doesn't trigger off psychic powers or vehicles exploding etc. Since it specifies an attack sequence.
Oh good. Because what RPs really needed was a stealth-nerf.
Yeah I agree. The old rule was actually a lot better but so rarely could come into effect.
I feel like with the way it works now it's going to need some additional stratagems or abilities that let you roll more times to bring models back. Otherwise - there is no reason to take anything but 1 wound models.
I feel the best way yo take advantage of this new rule is to take lots of warriors with ghost archs and illuminator/crtptecs. Or Immortals can work too.
With Immortals back to T5 and just 17 points, I think they're a pretty good contender for best Troop choice, but granted this is just the beginning of the edition.
Nobody's going to comment on the fact that the stupid rule "when you GET CHARGED" still exists ? It's lazy, discourages aggressive gameplay from both players and makes no sense. Just stop pretending and give them +1 top Hit or +1 to Wound permanently, the second round of CC is never relevant anyway.
Getting punished for charging a unit by getting hit harder in return is anti-fun. If the Blood Angels unit is in a Defensible terrain it can get +1 to Hit too in the same phase lol.
Also just to continue on the subject, looks like they just buffed the Chapter traits instead of nerfing them. Glad to see the game is going in a good direction. Every faction is going to get buffed to high heavens and we'll get the same lethality as 8th but with more wounds.
Dudeface wrote: The new RP doesn't trigger off psychic powers or vehicles exploding etc. Since it specifies an attack sequence.
Oh good. Because what RPs really needed was a stealth-nerf.
Yeah I agree. The old rule was actually a lot better but so rarely could come into effect.
I feel like with the way it works now it's going to need some additional stratagems or abilities that let you roll more times to bring models back. Otherwise - there is no reason to take anything but 1 wound models.
I feel the best way yo take advantage of this new rule is to take lots of warriors with ghost archs and illuminator/crtptecs. Or Immortals can work too.
With Immortals back to T5 and just 17 points, I think they're a pretty good contender for best Troop choice, but granted this is just the beginning of the edition.
I thought Immortals were 18ppm? That's what Battlescribe has them listed as.
Dudeface wrote: The new RP doesn't trigger off psychic powers or vehicles exploding etc. Since it specifies an attack sequence.
Oh good. Because what RPs really needed was a stealth-nerf.
Yeah I agree. The old rule was actually a lot better but so rarely could come into effect.
I feel like with the way it works now it's going to need some additional stratagems or abilities that let you roll more times to bring models back. Otherwise - there is no reason to take anything but 1 wound models.
I feel the best way yo take advantage of this new rule is to take lots of warriors with ghost archs and illuminator/crtptecs. Or Immortals can work too.
With Immortals back to T5 and just 17 points, I think they're a pretty good contender for best Troop choice, but granted this is just the beginning of the edition.
I thought Immortals were 18ppm? That's what Battlescribe has them listed as.
It seems that you roll for each dead model like before, for every time you roll.
No. The dice you roll for your pool after an enemy unit's attacks is just from models destroyed by that enemy unit's attacks.
Models destroyed earlier (and not reanimated) aren't even getting a shot anymore.
Oh yeah you’re right. It’s just a really complicated and worse version of DR now.
You roll for the total wounds of the dead models not the number of dead models. Makes a lot of difference for multi-wounds models like Lychguard.
Yeah it’s a bad version of DR. With DR, you roll there and then and can keep multi-wound dudes around a while. With this you have to wait and hope the unit isn’t fully destroyed before getting to roll your DR equivalent roll, and then need to roll every wound worth of 5+ to get them back, not just getting to stay alive with a wound like DR. So I went from thinking this was a cool change to a really disappointing change that just turns it into a really complicated and bad version of DR.
It was meant to become more consistent, not receive such a big nerf lol.
Alright, I’ll stop nerd raging now haha.
It seems that you roll for each dead model like before, for every time you roll.
No. The dice you roll for your pool after an enemy unit's attacks is just from models destroyed by that enemy unit's attacks.
Models destroyed earlier (and not reanimated) aren't even getting a shot anymore.
Oh yeah you’re right. It’s just a really complicated and worse version of DR now.
You roll for the total wounds of the dead models not the number of dead models. Makes a lot of difference for multi-wounds models like Lychguard.
It makes it possible for them to revive, but still gives them terrible odds of actually doing so. Especially for the 3-wound models like Destroyers.
That's easier to stomach if they're not priced like they're always going to be resurrecting (or at all in the case of destroyers), so unit pricing will be key
It seems that you roll for each dead model like before, for every time you roll.
No. The dice you roll for your pool after an enemy unit's attacks is just from models destroyed by that enemy unit's attacks.
Models destroyed earlier (and not reanimated) aren't even getting a shot anymore.
Oh yeah you’re right. It’s just a really complicated and worse version of DR now.
You roll for the total wounds of the dead models not the number of dead models. Makes a lot of difference for multi-wounds models like Lychguard.
It makes it possible for them to revive, but still gives them terrible odds of actually doing so. Especially for the 3-wound models like Destroyers.
That's easier to stomach if they're not priced like they're always going to be resurrecting (or at all in the case of destroyers), so unit pricing will be key
It seems that you roll for each dead model like before, for every time you roll.
No. The dice you roll for your pool after an enemy unit's attacks is just from models destroyed by that enemy unit's attacks.
Models destroyed earlier (and not reanimated) aren't even getting a shot anymore.
Oh yeah you’re right. It’s just a really complicated and worse version of DR now.
You roll for the total wounds of the dead models not the number of dead models. Makes a lot of difference for multi-wounds models like Lychguard.
It makes it possible for them to revive, but still gives them terrible odds of actually doing so. Especially for the 3-wound models like Destroyers.
That's easier to stomach if they're not priced like they're always going to be resurrecting (or at all in the case of destroyers), so unit pricing will be key
Aaranis wrote: Nobody's going to comment on the fact that the stupid rule "when you GET CHARGED" still exists ? It's lazy, discourages aggressive gameplay from both players and makes no sense. Just stop pretending and give them +1 top Hit or +1 to Wound permanently, the second round of CC is never relevant anyway.
Getting punished for charging a unit by getting hit harder in return is anti-fun. If the Blood Angels unit is in a Defensible terrain it can get +1 to Hit too in the same phase lol.
Also just to continue on the subject, looks like they just buffed the Chapter traits instead of nerfing them. Glad to see the game is going in a good direction. Every faction is going to get buffed to high heavens and we'll get the same lethality as 8th but with more wounds.
It's also amazing! The Ultras trait continues to be terrible even though it is clearly the ONLY trait that needs to be buffed or chaged. The others give you raw stats LOL.
Dudeface wrote: The new RP doesn't trigger off psychic powers or vehicles exploding etc. Since it specifies an attack sequence.
Oh good. Because what RPs really needed was a stealth-nerf.
Yeah I agree. The old rule was actually a lot better but so rarely could come into effect.
I feel like with the way it works now it's going to need some additional stratagems or abilities that let you roll more times to bring models back. Otherwise - there is no reason to take anything but 1 wound models.
I feel the best way yo take advantage of this new rule is to take lots of warriors with ghost archs and illuminator/crtptecs. Or Immortals can work too.
With Immortals back to T5 and just 17 points, I think they're a pretty good contender for best Troop choice, but granted this is just the beginning of the edition.
Yeah I think they are great. t5 with a 5+ FNP (even better except against mortals) and 2 solid weapon choices. Warriors also pretty great. My 2 k list I had planned was running 20 immortals and 20 warriors. I might increase that to 30 and 40. Also might take a royal warden with all these damn infantry running around. Probably worth it. Illuminator is also pretty auto include too.
Dudeface wrote: The new RP doesn't trigger off psychic powers or vehicles exploding etc. Since it specifies an attack sequence.
Oh good. Because what RPs really needed was a stealth-nerf.
Yeah I agree. The old rule was actually a lot better but so rarely could come into effect.
I feel like with the way it works now it's going to need some additional stratagems or abilities that let you roll more times to bring models back. Otherwise - there is no reason to take anything but 1 wound models.
I feel the best way yo take advantage of this new rule is to take lots of warriors with ghost archs and illuminator/crtptecs. Or Immortals can work too.
So what they first sentence actually said was ' the old rule was bad because no one could ever use it.
I think it's good overall to take this slow with the rule. Honestly DG DR is OP as feth. So this had even more potential to be OP. They should basically give DG the same rule if they are to come out at the same time.
Xenomancers wrote: I think it's good overall to take this slow with the rule. Honestly DG DR is OP as feth. So this had even more potential to be OP. They should basically give DG the same rule if they are to come out at the same time.
I've heard that DR is being replaced with -1 to wound...
Now, it's going to be *rough* for multi-wound models (Destroyers might as well not even have it), but for the common Necrons, it's faboo.
Two notations I take away from the additional reading, however.
One is that there'll likely be some ways to get more dice in the pool... Res Orbs, for instance, or Ghost Arks, to get more support in there.
The other is that there's a max of +1 on the roll … and a max PENALTY of -1. What on Earth is there that gives Necrons a penalty on reanimation roll? Some new Crusade artifact maybe? I don't know. But I'm darned curious.
(Oh, and third note … since there's a +1 cap, that "Reroll reanimation of 1" bit from Warriors is even BETTER.)
GW might just be saying +-1 for simplicity even if there is no modifier against it (or for it). Basically it could be future proofing itself.
There might also be abilities which are a blanket "-1 from named enemy ability dice roll" in the future. So something that isn't specifically targeting Necrons but which has an impact on their RP.
Ghaz wrote: The official Warhammer40,000 Facebook page in the discussion about the article with the Reanimation Protocols and was posted by GW.
Cool...in the future, could you lead with something like "Warhammer 40k Facebook"? FB's new nonsense means that kinda stuff doesn't just pop up like it used to.
Looks like they're nerfing the more powerful chapter tactics (master artisans virtually confirmed nerfed based on salamanders, long ranged nerfed to cut out aggressors, the main abuser of it) while buffing the weaker ones, which is a surprisingly sensible, un-GW-like change.
If this sensibility is replicated throughout the codex it might actually be a smart space marines release for the first time in forever.
Xenomancers wrote: I think it's good overall to take this slow with the rule. Honestly DG DR is OP as feth. So this had even more potential to be OP. They should basically give DG the same rule if they are to come out at the same time.
I've heard that DR is being replaced with -1 to wound...
That is probably more broken to be honest. WAY too good.
Xenomancers wrote: I think it's good overall to take this slow with the rule. Honestly DG DR is OP as feth. So this had even more potential to be OP. They should basically give DG the same rule if they are to come out at the same time.
I've heard that DR is being replaced with -1 to wound...
That is probably more broken to be honest. WAY too good.
Yeah I hope that isn’t a thing. DR is fine how it is.
With the base SM Dex having the SW,DW,DA and BA chapter tactics I assume the intention is that you can play those chapters with just that book, and the supplements will be added extras? Really interested to see how that is going to work. Especially with DW and SW traditionally using some quite different core units to the regular Codex Chapters.
Necronmaniac05 wrote: The new RP probably just means your reanimators should be targeting your multi wound models then? 4+ RP rolls might make a bigger difference for them?
It suggests to me that an army focusing on multiwound models might well allow or require support and synergies to give them powerful reanimation boosts. Meanwhile an army relying on warriors, immortals and other 1 wound models might not have to rely on that same trick.
The pay off is that elite style units with multiple wounds are individually more power; whilst warriors are powerful in larger blocks.
Honestly until we see the rest of the synergies and profiles we can't make a final call.
Necronmaniac05 wrote: The new RP probably just means your reanimators should be targeting your multi wound models then? 4+ RP rolls might make a bigger difference for them?
Reanimator is just bad atm. Cost way too much. Characters can do their job way better while costing less.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
GoatboyBeta wrote: With the base SM Dex having the SW,DW,DA and BA chapter tactics I assume the intention is that you can play those chapters with just that book, and the supplements will be added extras? Really interested to see how that is going to work. Especially with DW and SW traditionally using some quite different core units to the regular Codex Chapters.
DA get +1 to hit for standing still...I mean..come on. The internal balance on this is so bad.
Necronmaniac05 wrote: The new RP probably just means your reanimators should be targeting your multi wound models then? 4+ RP rolls might make a bigger difference for them?
Reanimator is just bad atm. Cost way too much. Characters can do their job way better while costing less.
Necronmaniac05 wrote: The new RP probably just means your reanimators should be targeting your multi wound models then? 4+ RP rolls might make a bigger difference for them?
Reanimator is just bad atm. Cost way too much. Characters can do their job way better while costing less.
Hopefully not in 2 weeks
I don't expect a lot of points changes. Rules maybe.
GoatboyBeta wrote: With the base SM Dex having the SW,DW,DA and BA chapter tactics I assume the intention is that you can play those chapters with just that book, and the supplements will be added extras? Really interested to see how that is going to work. Especially with DW and SW traditionally using some quite different core units to the regular Codex Chapters.
It seems likely that the supplement will have all the extras, doctrines, relics, strats unique to the Chapters and Successors, plus the few actually unique units
Many of the "different" units are a single rule and a name away from the standard units....easily handled. Same with some strats.
Ghaz wrote: The official Warhammer40,000 Facebook page in the discussion about the article with the Reanimation Protocols and was posted by GW.
Cool...in the future, could you lead with something like "Warhammer 40k Facebook"? FB's new nonsense means that kinda stuff doesn't just pop up like it used to.
Other than the Facebook page for my FLGS, the official GW Facebook pages are the only ones that I look at.
Xenomancers wrote: DA get +1 to hit for standing still...I mean..come on. The internal balance on this is so bad.
I think this is at least only situationally good. They have to move early on to at least get into position in 9th. Static gunlines just don't work in 9th as far as I can see so far.
I would say the DA chapter tactic is the weakest of all the ones listed so far. Although it's still stronger than any chaos tactics.
I'll be very interested to see what DG get when their codex comes out. The tactic they have now just doesn't actually work properly in 9th (And unlike SM doesn't affect vehicles)
Mildly curious how the Spear of the Void Dragon ranged attack could be used. Two questions really:
1) The wording sounds like you could theoretically have friendly fire on, since it doesn't specify making wound rolls against ENEMY units in between.
ie: Target --------- Friendly Unit ---------------Shard of Void Dragon
2) Can this be used theoretically to character snipe? Say an enemy has poorly positioned their units bunched up, so that there is an infantry squad spread out, a character behind them, and then the actual target unit behind the character, but still within 12". The attack states to to "make one wound roll against the target unit, and each other unit this line passes over". Does this take precedence over the Character's protection rule?
ie: Target - Character - Unit in front of Character ---------------------- Shard of Void Dragon
kurhanik wrote: Mildly curious how the Spear of the Void Dragon ranged attack could be used. Two questions really:
1) The wording sounds like you could theoretically have friendly fire on, since it doesn't specify making wound rolls against ENEMY units in between.
ie: Target --------- Friendly Unit ---------------Shard of Void Dragon
2) Can this be used theoretically to character snipe? Say an enemy has poorly positioned their units bunched up, so that there is an infantry squad spread out, a character behind them, and then the actual target unit behind the character, but still within 12". The attack states to to "make one wound roll against the target unit, and each other unit this line passes over". Does this take precedence over the Character's protection rule?
ie: Target - Character - Unit in front of Character ---------------------- Shard of Void Dragon
Just curious on thoughts on these cases.
it appears to be yes to both questions, though I imagine a faq to turn off the friendly fire.
kurhanik wrote: Mildly curious how the Spear of the Void Dragon ranged attack could be used. Two questions really:
1) The wording sounds like you could theoretically have friendly fire on, since it doesn't specify making wound rolls against ENEMY units in between.
ie: Target --------- Friendly Unit ---------------Shard of Void Dragon
2) Can this be used theoretically to character snipe? Say an enemy has poorly positioned their units bunched up, so that there is an infantry squad spread out, a character behind them, and then the actual target unit behind the character, but still within 12". The attack states to to "make one wound roll against the target unit, and each other unit this line passes over". Does this take precedence over the Character's protection rule?
ie: Target - Character - Unit in front of Character ---------------------- Shard of Void Dragon
Just curious on thoughts on these cases.
This exact rule already exists on mortarions lantern.
Basically character sniping is one of the main uses and yes you have to be careful not to hit friendlies.
I don't know, that friendlyfire option looks intentional. You aren't targeting your own units, just hitting them because of bad placement. Same as if you used grenades or flamethrowers back in the template and random landing era of games. If you used a grenade near to your own units you could easily have it random land and hit your own squad not just the enemy
Overread wrote: I don't know, that friendlyfire option looks intentional. You aren't targeting your own units, just hitting them because of bad placement. Same as if you used grenades or flamethrowers back in the template and random landing era of games. If you used a grenade near to your own units you could easily have it random land and hit your own squad not just the enemy
This could very well be. I didn't see the similarity to Mortartions lantern, so you are probably right.
kurhanik wrote: Mildly curious how the Spear of the Void Dragon ranged attack could be used. Two questions really:
1) The wording sounds like you could theoretically have friendly fire on, since it doesn't specify making wound rolls against ENEMY units in between.
ie: Target --------- Friendly Unit ---------------Shard of Void Dragon
2) Can this be used theoretically to character snipe? Say an enemy has poorly positioned their units bunched up, so that there is an infantry squad spread out, a character behind them, and then the actual target unit behind the character, but still within 12". The attack states to to "make one wound roll against the target unit, and each other unit this line passes over". Does this take precedence over the Character's protection rule?
ie: Target - Character - Unit in front of Character ---------------------- Shard of Void Dragon
Just curious on thoughts on these cases.
This exact rule already exists on mortarions lantern.
Basically character sniping is one of the main uses and yes you have to be careful not to hit friendlies.
Huh, interesting, I'm honestly not super familiar with Mortarian's abilities so was not aware of that. Interesting, and if that is the case it is a kind of interesting set up. Was mostly curious on the Friendly Fire bit as if the Shard of the Void Dragon ends up being a character, what with its 9 wounds, it could be hard to aim it without hurting your shielding unit.
I rather all of the Chapters have a supplement with special units, characters, equipment, and stratagems in them. I like the idea of having a universal codex.
kurhanik wrote: Mildly curious how the Spear of the Void Dragon ranged attack could be used. Two questions really:
1) The wording sounds like you could theoretically have friendly fire on, since it doesn't specify making wound rolls against ENEMY units in between.
ie: Target --------- Friendly Unit ---------------Shard of Void Dragon
2) Can this be used theoretically to character snipe? Say an enemy has poorly positioned their units bunched up, so that there is an infantry squad spread out, a character behind them, and then the actual target unit behind the character, but still within 12". The attack states to to "make one wound roll against the target unit, and each other unit this line passes over". Does this take precedence over the Character's protection rule?
ie: Target - Character - Unit in front of Character ---------------------- Shard of Void Dragon
Just curious on thoughts on these cases.
This exact rule already exists on mortarions lantern.
Basically character sniping is one of the main uses and yes you have to be careful not to hit friendlies.
Huh, interesting, I'm honestly not super familiar with Mortarian's abilities so was not aware of that. Interesting, and if that is the case it is a kind of interesting set up. Was mostly curious on the Friendly Fire bit as if the Shard of the Void Dragon ends up being a character, what with its 9 wounds, it could be hard to aim it without hurting your shielding unit.
If you throw spear really hard logical enough it's hitting all on path.
And i doubt c'tans will get character protection anymore. With max 3 per phase that would be near invulnerable c'tans.
Or they better get hefty price hike.
Or we'll play codex:c'tans
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: Pretty sure they said chapters that already have 8th edition supplements will just be using those.
Until they get around redoing those anyway. Gw won't be stoppieg pressieg print money button.
yukishiro1 wrote: Pretty sure they said chapters that already have 8th edition supplements will just be using those.
Until they get around redoing those anyway. Gw won't be stoppieg pressieg print money button.
That was my thought too. I suspect it would be towards the end of the edition, when everybody else has had a fair crack of the Codex whip - but... well... we all saw what happened with Psychic Awakening.
Now that I think about it - I really struggle to see how Space Wolves are going to be covered by this new Codex. Primaris, fair enough - but an awful lot of "standard" Marine units are off-limits to them, and it's not like their equivalents are a perfect match.
Grey Hunters are not Tac Marines in the same way that Blood Claws are not Assault Marines and Wolf Scouts aren't just any old Scouts (Long Fangs, I can see being close enough not to really matter). Combine that with a lack of any special units that will no doubt be saved for the supplement, and you're not really playing Space Wolves are you? You're playing The Kinda-Bluey-Grey Marines Chapter.
They could squat some of the older units. Already, its difficult to get a lot of the standard firstborn space wolf units. (Although given the terminator on the cover of the book, maybe they're just reboxing it?)
A lot of the other marines have unique units too; deathwing knights, ravenwing, sanguinary guard, death company, all the BA dreadnoughts, etc, so maybe the book will have a dedicated section for each of the big chapters. That could also explain why its so expensive (though I haven't checked if the necron codex was more expensive)
likely not anytime soon for chapter supplements but they could come later on. as it is they're going to have to FAQ nearly every weapon relic in the old supplements as suddenly some of the relic swords etc are going to be worse then a vanilla power sword
Will the FAQ include a note to ignore page 63 in each of the existing supplements (or page 79 in the case of the Ultramarines)? Those'd be the "Tactical Objective" pages that appear to have no purpose in 9th.
Or will GW release yet another ring-binder quasi-rulebook for "Tactical Objectives", a new type of matched play book that doesn't actually include the Tactical Objectives themselves (other than one sample), but sells them separately as cards.
Why bother? If you choose to use the Missions from a prior versions of the game, the Tactical Objectives are there for you to use. Otherwise, why mention the invalid rules at all?
alextroy wrote: Why bother? If you choose to use the Missions from a prior versions of the game, the Tactical Objectives are there for you to use. Otherwise, why mention the invalid rules at all?
Bossdoc wrote: Die I get it right that RP - as far as we know now - no longer seem to work against Psi/ MW caused by Stratagem?
The wording appears to only kick in following an attack sequence so... yes? Admittedly, having only skimmed the rulebook so far, I thought offensive psychic powers would have an attack sequence, but apparently not.
Billagio wrote: Will codex-adherent chapters (UM, IH, IF, Sallies etc) be eventually getting their own supplements again or just BA/DA/SW/DW?
Probably with the next wave of Marine releases - there is very little actual rules content in the current supplements and what there is should be able to be updated by FAQs.
Billagio wrote: Will codex-adherent chapters (UM, IH, IF, Sallies etc) be eventually getting their own supplements again or just BA/DA/SW/DW?
Probably with the next wave of Marine releases - there is very little actual rules content in the current supplements and what there is should be able to be updated by FAQs.
Chapter specific crusade stuff for one.
And of course primary reason is: Money. They are more marine releases for GW to release.
Billagio wrote: Will codex-adherent chapters (UM, IH, IF, Sallies etc) be eventually getting their own supplements again or just BA/DA/SW/DW?
Probably with the next wave of Marine releases - there is very little actual rules content in the current supplements and what there is should be able to be updated by FAQs.
Chapter specific crusade stuff for one.
And of course primary reason is: Money. They are more marine releases for GW to release.
Oh they will come but I think with the next big wave of Marine models
Xenomancers wrote: I think it's good overall to take this slow with the rule. Honestly DG DR is OP as feth. So this had even more potential to be OP. They should basically give DG the same rule if they are to come out at the same time.
I've heard that DR is being replaced with -1 to wound...
That is probably more broken to be honest. WAY too good.
The DG tactics thread has already mathhammered it to be a downgrade in almost every case, especially against mortal wounds.
Bossdoc wrote: Die I get it right that RP - as far as we know now - no longer seem to work against Psi/ MW caused by Stratagem?
The wording appears to only kick in following an attack sequence so... yes? Admittedly, having only skimmed the rulebook so far, I thought offensive psychic powers would have an attack sequence, but apparently not.
See also: vehicle explosions.
Of note, mortal wounds caused by a shooting or melee attack will still qualy for the RP pool.
Billagio wrote: Will codex-adherent chapters (UM, IH, IF, Sallies etc) be eventually getting their own supplements again or just BA/DA/SW/DW?
Probably with the next wave of Marine releases - there is very little actual rules content in the current supplements and what there is should be able to be updated by FAQs.
Chapter specific crusade stuff for one.
And of course primary reason is: Money. They are more marine releases for GW to release.
Oh they will come but I think with the next big wave of Marine models
I suspect if we get a supplement beyond whats announced it'll be a black templars one.
although I could see them releasing new supplements on occasion. thing is GW might not see a need to publish all supplements at the same time. I could see them putting out say.. a new mini for an U;tramarine char, and putting out an ultramarines supplement, while letting ravenguard go unupdated, just for example. I can DEFINATLY see the unification of marine chapters into one codex, not removing the sense of "tiers of marine content" at all.
Wow, hail the king you shall! He seems pretty beastly. Concerned about T7 and surviving with movement 8”, but 26 wounds (counting the floaty thingos) and I would assume a 4++ and living metal.
Restrictions
- Entire army myst be from same Dynasty (Exclude C'tan, agents, unaligned)
- Must have Necron <NOBLE> as warlord
- Must be a Necron <NOBLE> on the battlefield that turn
- Unit must be within 6" of non-C'tan <CHARACTER> (so... C'tan are still characters)
Choose order of Command Protocols
- This is done AFTER deplyment but BEFORE roll for 1st turn
- Can note down secretly on army rost
- Can lay datacards down in order
- Each turn select one of the two directives (named dynasties have both of 1)
If game goed on longer than 5 turns, the last one continues in effect
Eternal Guardian:
- If didn't move, fall back or advance this BR, gain light cover.
- Can holt steady or set to defend as if in heavy cover
Sudden Storm
+1" movement
- Can do actions and still shoot
Vengeful Stars
- Ranged wound roll of 6 = AP better by 1
- Ranger attacks <half range = ignore cover
Hungry Void
- Melee wound roll of 6 = AP better by 1
- +1S if charged, was charged or made heroic int.
Undying Legions
- Living metal = gain 2 wounds instead of 1
- Re-Roll one die each time the unit makes RP
Concuering Tyrant
- +3" to auras and " Rites of reanimation", Lords will and My will be done
- Fall back and shoot but will be =1 to hit>
Stormonu wrote: *sigh* here we go with the plethora of "Fight first" rules that will start showing up in every codex.
Yeah, that’s one of the things in AoS that even AoS players didn’t like very much, and I’m disappointed to see it show up now in multiple places in 40k.
Impact12 wrote: Looks like the command protocols have leaked:
Restrictions
- Entire army myst be from same Dynasty (Exclude C'tan, agents, unaligned)
- Must have Necron <NOBLE> as warlord
- Must be a Necron <NOBLE> on the battlefield that turn
- Unit must be within 6" of non-C'tan <CHARACTER> (so... C'tan are still characters)
Choose order of Command Protocols
- This is done AFTER deplyment but BEFORE roll for 1st turn
- Can note down secretly on army rost
- Can lay datacards down in order
- Each turn select one of the two directives (named dynasties have both of 1)
If game goed on longer than 5 turns, the last one continues in effect
Eternal Guardian:
- If didn't move, fall back or advance this BR, gain light cover.
- Can holt steady or set to defend as if in heavy cover
Sudden Storm
+1" movement
- Can do actions and still shoot
Vengeful Stars
- Ranged wound roll of 6 = AP better by 1
- Ranger attacks <half range = ignore cover
Hungry Void
- Melee wound roll of 6 = AP better by 1
- +1S if charged, was charged or made heroic int.
Undying Legions
- Living metal = gain 2 wounds instead of 1
- Re-Roll one die each time the unit makes RP
Concuering Tyrant
- +3" to auras and " Rites of reanimation", Lords will and My will be done
- Fall back and shoot but will be =1 to hit>
So majority minor effects that require the player to hem and haw at length about ordering them before the game can start. Lovely.
I hope that there's some kind of Stratagem to continue a Protocol for a turn, as well as one to switch them up a bit. The learning curve on which one should be used on what turn will be tricky and made harder depending on the foe … someone with turn 1 charge options requires a MUCH different approach than one that'll never engage you in melee willingly, for instance.
Gonna be a challenge, for sure.
(Also, man alive, they're nowhere near as good as marine Doctrines. Wonder if those are getting nerfed to work similarly?)
Tiberius501 wrote: Wow, hail the king you shall! He seems pretty beastly. Concerned about T7 and surviving with movement 8”, but 26 wounds (counting the floaty thingos) and I would assume a 4++ and living metal.
So are the menhirs a single unit with him or just nearby and acting as bodyguards? I thought they had pretty much got rid of mixed units?
Crazyterran wrote: The current supplements are fine, no? Will probably get FAQs once the new codex comes out to update weapons, who knows what else the might go over.
Yes. Just like current codexes are fine. Doesn't mean gw doesn't press print money button and do new ones
We don't know, but they have the same relevant stat lines (T7, 3+) so could be a 3 model unit. Considering they're shown under the stat block for the King himself I'd err on mixed unit you can assign wounds to first instead of having to make a 'look out sir' kind of roll
I suspect there will be ways of messing with the order of these. The silent King has an ability allowing you to swap out your protocol that should activate that turn for the protocol you didn't select at the start of the game for example.
Necronmaniac05 wrote: I suspect there will be ways of messing with the order of these. The silent King has an ability allowing you to swap out your protocol that should activate that turn for the protocol you didn't select at the start of the game for example.
Maybe a strat.
But I doubt much else given that is an ability reserved for the faction figurehead.
I’m really interested in what Rites of Reanimation is going to be. I’m a little sad that living metal wasn’t buffed to healing d3 but whatcha gonna do.
Invaders puzzles me for just helping one specific unit type do completely opposing things in a single very specific situation.
Are vehicles in combat that much a problem? (its been a long time since I've seen real 'vehicle heavy' armies)
Hmm, protocols seem kinda... meh? I mean, they’re extra free rules so I’m not complaining about that. It’s more just, they seem like a lot of hassle and book keeping for just some simple extras. Am I looking at them wrong? Maybe they’re more game changing than I think.
I'm broadly underwhelmed by the protocols. They seem very situational and swingy with lots of opportunity for them to be completely useless if you mess up your ordering. A far cry from the relatively simple (and much much less situational) +1 AP for certain weapons plus super doctrine that marines got. We can't even choose the order pre finding out who goes first which really shows why protocols are such a problem. If it was necrons v marines and you are doing your pre game stuff it sort of goes:
Marine player: Ok, turn 1 i have devastator doctrine active so i can really focus on my heavy weapons squads while moving my assault and rapid fire weapons into position and advancing my assault troops, turn 2 i can then let rip with my assault and rapid fire guns and T3 my assault troops should either be in combat already or in charge range. I can slot my super doctrine in wherever.
Necron player: Well, Eternal Guardian would be great turn 1 if i go second but useless if i go first but we haven;t rolled for that yet. Conversely, if i go first Raging Storm for +1 move stacked with my will be done might be good for dashing up and seizing some objectives but if i go second they might already have units camped on them so its pointless, i'd might be better with Avenging stars to try and blast them off it... and so on.
The point is, the necron player is having to consider all kinds of things like what do they want to do with their units, what might their opponent do with theirs, are they going to go first or second, when do they think their 'super protocol' would be best used (this is particularly tricky for some of them, like undying legion). The space marine player doesn't really have to think at all. A flat +1 ap is always useful whatever turn and they synergise well with what units carrying the weapons are likely to be doing on each turn 0 i.e. heavy weapons are more likely to be in range to shoot turn 1 without moving, rapid fire and assault same on turn 2 and assault units same on turn 3 and you don't have to think about what turn to put what bonus on or anything and their effectiveness is not affected by anything your opponent may or may not do.
Protocols seem like a total waste of time. You spend a bunch of time agonizing over and writing down an order for stuff that, with a few minor exceptions that are hard to time (fall back and still shoot, for example), have very meh effects.
Xenomancers wrote: I think it's good overall to take this slow with the rule. Honestly DG DR is OP as feth. So this had even more potential to be OP. They should basically give DG the same rule if they are to come out at the same time.
I've heard that DR is being replaced with -1 to wound...
That is probably more broken to be honest. WAY too good.
The DG tactics thread has already mathhammered it to be a downgrade in almost every case, especially against mortal wounds.
Well there is an issue already with an army wide trait that is as good or better than -1 to wound in almost every case. The reason -1 to wound armywide can be worse though is for t8 vehicals and t5 vs str 4 guns...You can be functionally invulnerable if things need 6's to wound you. Theres nothing to stop a deathstar DG unit from getting a 5+ FNP another way and it really starts to get stupid.
yukishiro1 wrote: Protocols seem like a total waste of time. You spend a bunch of time agonizing over and writing down an order for stuff that, with a few minor exceptions that are hard to time (fall back and still shoot, for example), have very meh effects.
I’m more concerned about my opponents agonising over that stuff. I can be fairly reasonable about it and then proceed to forget I even have protocols five or six times across the course of the game, an opponent might take a really infuriating length of time to pick them out.
Command Protocols are perhaps the worst rules I've ever seen as a faction's major force multiplier. What on earth were GW thinking setting such a staggering amount of restrictions for such little payoff?
I'm not even going to bother with them at all. I'll simply make a custom Dynasty with the traits I like and not worry about jumping through half a dozen different hoops to get marginal gains.
For sudden storm...do actions and still shoot...does this mean you can advance and shoot? That is frankly incredible.
And where white scars have that trait every turn. Necrons can advance and shoot first turn.
Second turn they can ignore cover or have -1 AP on a 6 (FOR ALL THEIR GUNS)
Then have +1 str or -1 AP in melee.
These are pretty dang good rules if you really think about it.
You also have the defensive trait you can always start in if you want (pretty awesome if you have an advantaged position).
pretty comparable to marine doctrines (though the super doctrine ability is a lot better than having 2 codes active at once). We have no idea if super doctrines are sticking anyways.
Cynista wrote: Command Protocols are perhaps the worst rules I've ever seen as a faction's major force multiplier. What on earth were GW thinking setting such a staggering amount of restrictions for such little payoff?
I'm not even going to bother with them at all. I'll simply make a custom Dynasty with the traits I like and not worry about jumping through half a dozen different hoops to get marginal gains.
I'm really not sure either. Some of the protocols are really good, like Sudden storm, but the amount of the hoops you have to jump through for the payoff is really odd.
Unless Doctrines and other future army-wide rules are going to have similar restrictions, it seems pretty annoying. It's a cool concept, but really seems to have failed in execution.
That being said, you can still get protocols with a custom dynasty, you just won't get the two directives that a core dynasty would grant on a single protocol.
I think Protocols are bad. Its nice because its an upgrade versus *nothing* - but if this is the equivalent mono-faction rule to Marines and Sisters, it seems clearly weaker.
Tyel wrote: I think Protocols are bad. Its nice because its an upgrade versus *nothing* - but if this is the equivalent mono-faction rule to Marines and Sisters, it seems clearly weaker.
But wait and see I guess.
No incentive to really go mono-dynasty when you can actually get the best dynasty for each unit's purpose
Cynista wrote: Command Protocols are perhaps the worst rules I've ever seen as a faction's major force multiplier. What on earth were GW thinking setting such a staggering amount of restrictions for such little payoff?
I'm not even going to bother with them at all. I'll simply make a custom Dynasty with the traits I like and not worry about jumping through half a dozen different hoops to get marginal gains.
I'm really not sure either. Some of the protocols are really good, like Sudden storm, but the amount of the hoops you have to jump through for the payoff is really odd.
Unless Doctrines and other future army-wide rules are going to have similar restrictions, it seems pretty annoying. It's a cool concept, but really seems to have failed in execution.
Not going to lie, even if they are weaker than other factions, I don't want to see other factions saddled with similar restrictions. The complexity vs smooth gameplay cost is just too high. Game rules just don't need to be nested IF/THEN loops. They need to be fun.
Tyel wrote: I think Protocols are bad. Its nice because its an upgrade versus *nothing* - but if this is the equivalent mono-faction rule to Marines and Sisters, it seems clearly weaker.
But wait and see I guess.
It's definitely the "super doctrine" equivalent.
One thing I will say is that new rules seem to be highly tactical and in the hands of a skilled player might be very competitive. Does not seem like an auto-pilot type army which also means it is unforgiving.
Tyel wrote: I think Protocols are bad. Its nice because its an upgrade versus *nothing* - but if this is the equivalent mono-faction rule to Marines and Sisters, it seems clearly weaker.
But wait and see I guess.
It's definitely the "super doctrine" equivalent.
One thing I will say is that new rules seem to be highly tactical and in the hands of a skilled player might be very competitive. Does not seem like an auto-pilot type army which also means it is unforgiving.
No, “Git gud” isn’t a valid Defense of minor benefits that require a ton of unnecessary hoop jumping and tracking.
Tyel wrote: I think Protocols are bad. Its nice because its an upgrade versus *nothing* - but if this is the equivalent mono-faction rule to Marines and Sisters, it seems clearly weaker.
But wait and see I guess.
No incentive to really go mono-dynasty when you can actually get the best dynasty for each unit's purpose
The incentive is command points and less points wasted on HQ's.
It all comes down to stratagems.
Cynista wrote: Command Protocols are perhaps the worst rules I've ever seen as a faction's major force multiplier. What on earth were GW thinking setting such a staggering amount of restrictions for such little payoff?
I'm not even going to bother with them at all. I'll simply make a custom Dynasty with the traits I like and not worry about jumping through half a dozen different hoops to get marginal gains.
I'm really not sure either. Some of the protocols are really good, like Sudden storm, but the amount of the hoops you have to jump through for the payoff is really odd.
Unless Doctrines and other future army-wide rules are going to have similar restrictions, it seems pretty annoying. It's a cool concept, but really seems to have failed in execution.
That being said, you can still get protocols with a custom dynasty, you just won't get the two directives that a core dynasty would grant on a single protocol.
The only part I would say they failed at the execution is with the core code for each faction. That rule should be a lot better. With none of these main factions being overwhelmingly good. There is a pretty good chance a unique dynasty could be a lot stronger with the ability to customize exactly to the force you want.
Tyel wrote: I think Protocols are bad. Its nice because its an upgrade versus *nothing* - but if this is the equivalent mono-faction rule to Marines and Sisters, it seems clearly weaker.
But wait and see I guess.
It's definitely the "super doctrine" equivalent.
One thing I will say is that new rules seem to be highly tactical and in the hands of a skilled player might be very competitive. Does not seem like an auto-pilot type army which also means it is unforgiving.
No, “Git gud” isn’t a valid Defense of minor benefits that require a ton of unnecessary hoop jumping and tracking.
Who said anything about "git gud"? I was just commenting they offer tactical options for those who can utilize them.
Command Protocols don't fire me up to play Necrons, and they're certainly super annoying and more needless bookkeeping, but I don't think they're as bad as people are making them out to be.
I think CP order is a list-building tool, not a gameplay hindrance. Going into a tournament, I would have a pre-determined order for my Command Protocols, I would have a list designed to maximize the effectiveness of my CP order, and I would make myself stick to the plan of battle that made me select the CP order in the first place.
Does that mean sometimes the CPs will be useless or near-useless? Yes. Does that suck? Sure. Is it better than nothing? Absolutely.
Also, let's be honest: you set your strongest CPs for the first two turns because that's when most of the killing will happen, then you pick "utility" CPs for turns three, four, and five.
For instance, I would almost always choose Sudden Storm for turn 1. If I'm going first, I probably do +1 movement. If second, I probably pick shoot and perform actions. If I'm a melee list, I choose Hungry Void for turn 2. If I'm a ranged list, I pick Conquering Tyrant. And so on.
Tyel wrote: I think Protocols are bad. Its nice because its an upgrade versus *nothing* - but if this is the equivalent mono-faction rule to Marines and Sisters, it seems clearly weaker.
But wait and see I guess.
It's definitely the "super doctrine" equivalent.
One thing I will say is that new rules seem to be highly tactical and in the hands of a skilled player might be very competitive. Does not seem like an auto-pilot type army which also means it is unforgiving.
No, “Git gud” isn’t a valid Defense of minor benefits that require a ton of unnecessary hoop jumping and tracking.
Who said anything about "git gud"? I was just commenting they offer tactical options for those who can utilize them.
“and in the hands of a skilled player might be very competitive”
“Could be good if you’re skilled” is a direct rephrase of git gud.
Tyel wrote: I think Protocols are bad. Its nice because its an upgrade versus *nothing* - but if this is the equivalent mono-faction rule to Marines and Sisters, it seems clearly weaker.
But wait and see I guess.
It's definitely the "super doctrine" equivalent.
One thing I will say is that new rules seem to be highly tactical and in the hands of a skilled player might be very competitive. Does not seem like an auto-pilot type army which also means it is unforgiving.
No, “Git gud” isn’t a valid Defense of minor benefits that require a ton of unnecessary hoop jumping and tracking.
Look I'm gonna break it down for you.
The codes could be locked in a turn order like marine doctrines. Instead they let you choose the order. That is not hoop jumping - that is called options.
The benefits aren't minor ether. If the standard for doctrines is -1 for a few specific weapon types per turn. Necrons have that beat here (not counting super doctrine). Ignore cover/ 6's for -1 AP on all weapon types/ +1 Str in melee are all roughly equivalent to a +1 AP bonus. If you use them at the right time (are a good general and can see how the battle unfolds before it happens) you should actually be able to beat out the doctrine bonus.
Super doctrines...you got no answer to that. Though I do like the Szarekhan combo for 2 wounds on living metal and a reroll for a reanimation on the same turn. That bonus is pretty decent. The double code bonus does not seem equal to super doctrine bonus for any of the OP marine factions. Maybe we see a big change to those super doctrines.
The most annoying thing about Command protocols vs Doctrines is doctrines are always going to be useful. Like there is no way without deliberately trying that you are not going to benefit to a greater extent from +1AP to your weapons on specific turns over the course of a game.
Command Protocols seem like they COULD be good but also if you put them in the wrong spot in your order they could be completely useless but you don;t get to wait until you know the turn order before choosing them. Or if your opponent doesn't do what you expect them to do they could have minimal effect. Lets not even start about how you have to be within 6" of a <Necron> <Noble> to get them or how should you lose all your nobles you no longer get your command protocols at all.
Last time i checked there was no way to 'switch off' doctrines and marines didn't have to be within 6" of a captain or lieutenant to get them.
Tyel wrote: I think Protocols are bad. Its nice because its an upgrade versus *nothing* - but if this is the equivalent mono-faction rule to Marines and Sisters, it seems clearly weaker.
But wait and see I guess.
It's definitely the "super doctrine" equivalent.
One thing I will say is that new rules seem to be highly tactical and in the hands of a skilled player might be very competitive. Does not seem like an auto-pilot type army which also means it is unforgiving.
No, “Git gud” isn’t a valid Defense of minor benefits that require a ton of unnecessary hoop jumping and tracking.
Look I'm gonna break it down for you.
The codes could be locked in a turn order like marine doctrines. Instead they let you choose the order. That is not hoop jumping - that is called options.
The benefits aren't minor ether. If the standard for doctrines is -1 for a few specific weapon types per turn. Necrons have that beat here (not counting super doctrine). Ignore cover/ 6's for -1 AP on all weapon types/ +1 Str in melee are all roughly equivalent to a +1 AP bonus. If you use them at the right time (are a good general and can see how the battle unfolds before it happens) you should actually be able to beat out the doctrine bonus.
Super doctrines...you got no answer to that. Though I do like the Szarekhan combo for 2 wounds on living metal and a reroll for a reanimation on the same turn. That bonus is pretty decent. The double code bonus does not seem equal to super doctrine bonus for any of the OP marine factions. Maybe we see a big change to those super doctrines.
The distinction is that they’re aura based and require more paperwork.
If they just applied to the army flat, the analogy to the marine equivalent would be more complete.
That is a good point but it is fairly easy to have characters in range. They are just trying to have it be fluffy. Much like the reason RP doesnt work if you wipe the unit compared to DR which is 100% active all the time. They want it to be different.
Heck - look at tyrranids leviathan requirement. It's 6+ FNP and have to be within 6 of a synapse creature. More or less being 6" of a synapse creature is almost 100% of the time anyways. I wish in these cases the army with the restriction ended up with the better rule though at least. In this case with nids and with crons it is totally the opposite. Many armies get 6+ FNP with no restrictions. Marines get their doctrine bonus with no character requirements. It is not really going to be a hindrance.
tneva82 wrote: The statistic that was overwritten by plethora of special rules before?
It's not stat or lack of it that's problem. Problem is tons of exceptions that ignore the basics anyway.
It's like morale generally. What's the point of morale when most armies just ignore it?
Honestly there was nothing wrong with the charger always going first and the interrupt system. It worked just fine. These additional rules should only affect subsequent rounds of combat.
tneva82 wrote: The statistic that was overwritten by plethora of special rules before?
So either cut down on those or make them modifiers to Initiative.
Removing Initiative entirely was throwing the baby out with the bathwater and has left us with a completely nonsensical system.
"Quickly, brother! Strike them down fast and true!"
"Hole, brother! Our brothers in yonder ruins have already struck first! Thus we must endure the full brunt of our enemies might before we are able to strike them back!"
Xenomancers wrote: I think it's good overall to take this slow with the rule. Honestly DG DR is OP as feth. So this had even more potential to be OP. They should basically give DG the same rule if they are to come out at the same time.
I've heard that DR is being replaced with -1 to wound...
That is probably more broken to be honest. WAY too good.
The DG tactics thread has already mathhammered it to be a downgrade in almost every case, especially against mortal wounds.
Well there is an issue already with an army wide trait that is as good or better than -1 to wound in almost every case. The reason -1 to wound armywide can be worse though is for t8 vehicals and t5 vs str 4 guns...You can be functionally invulnerable if things need 6's to wound you.
The difference between 5+++ and -1 to wound in those cases is marginal and it wasn't a good idea to shoot that kind of weapon at those models in the first place.
Theres nothing to stop a deathstar DG unit from getting a 5+ FNP another way and it really starts to get stupid.
Well, nothing stops them, except of course there not being a way to give DG units a 5+ FNP.
Xenomancers wrote: I think it's good overall to take this slow with the rule. Honestly DG DR is OP as feth. So this had even more potential to be OP. They should basically give DG the same rule if they are to come out at the same time.
I've heard that DR is being replaced with -1 to wound...
That is probably more broken to be honest. WAY too good.
The DG tactics thread has already mathhammered it to be a downgrade in almost every case, especially against mortal wounds.
Well there is an issue already with an army wide trait that is as good or better than -1 to wound in almost every case. The reason -1 to wound armywide can be worse though is for t8 vehicals and t5 vs str 4 guns...You can be functionally invulnerable if things need 6's to wound you.
The difference between 5+++ and -1 to wound in those cases is marginal and it wasn't a good idea to shoot that kind of weapon at those models in the first place.
Theres nothing to stop a deathstar DG unit from getting a 5+ FNP another way and it really starts to get stupid.
Well, nothing stops them, except of course there not being a way to give DG units a 5+ FNP.
Niiai wrote: Not skimming 45 pages of rumours. Is there a compiled list of cofirmed changes to other codexes? Mostly conserned about GSC.
Nothing. We only have a few confirmed changes to Space Marines, Space Wolves, Dark Angels, and Necrons.
Hand flamer range, at a minimum?
When do we expect those changes to weapons in other codexes to take effect? Will we get an errata when the new Loyalists codex is released? And more importantly (at least to csm players) do we get our extra wound in that errata or do we have to wait for our new codex?
The only thing they have said they are errataing is weapons that are literally identical to ones being updated in the SM codex. I.e. heavy bolters and autocannons should be updated, but reaper autocannons will not be until the chaos codex comes out. The wounds they explicitly said are not changing until the respective codexes.
Niiai wrote: Not skimming 45 pages of rumours. Is there a compiled list of cofirmed changes to other codexes? Mostly conserned about GSC.
Nothing. We only have a few confirmed changes to Space Marines, Space Wolves, Dark Angels, and Necrons.
Hand flamer range, at a minimum?
When do we expect those changes to weapons in other codexes to take effect? Will we get an errata when the new Loyalists codex is released? And more importantly (at least to csm players) do we get our extra wound in that errata or do we have to wait for our new codex?
Weapons changes are simultaneous:
However, it’s not just the Adeptus Astartes who will benefit from all of the shiny new rules found within the next codex. These changes will also be rolled out to all other factions that utilise the same wargear* – even xenos races such as the T’au Empire and Aeldari – at the same time the codex is launched!
And as for future codexes for other genetically engineered transhuman warriors (both of the shiny grey and spikey variety), the same will apply to them. Just think how durable that will make units like Rubric Marines or Plague Marines.
Niiai wrote: Not skimming 45 pages of rumours. Is there a compiled list of cofirmed changes to other codexes? Mostly conserned about GSC.
Nothing. We only have a few confirmed changes to Space Marines, Space Wolves, Dark Angels, and Necrons.
Hand flamer range, at a minimum?
When do we expect those changes to weapons in other codexes to take effect? Will we get an errata when the new Loyalists codex is released? And more importantly (at least to csm players) do we get our extra wound in that errata or do we have to wait for our new codex?
Weapons changes are simultaneous:
However, it’s not just the Adeptus Astartes who will benefit from all of the shiny new rules found within the next codex. These changes will also be rolled out to all other factions that utilise the same wargear* – even xenos races such as the T’au Empire and Aeldari – at the same time the codex is launched!
And as for future codexes for other genetically engineered transhuman warriors (both of the shiny grey and spikey variety), the same will apply to them. Just think how durable that will make units like Rubric Marines or Plague Marines.
Well that's annoying, but expected, I guess. Guess csm will remain Inferior Marines for a while, even compared to tacs, devastators, etc. At least the Death Guard won't have to wait as long.
I literally want to cry about tactical marines getting 2 wounds. You have no idea how many times I have thought about selling my marines. I was even thinking about going pure Xenos!
Yes. The ones that were also supposedly simultaneously with the launch. Last time 2 weeks later isn't simultaneous.
So don't be surprised if you are waiting for using 2 shot multi meltas with non-marines week after codex is out.
If GW says "immediately" it doesn't mean neccessarily same what it might mean for most. Players likely think it will come same day as codex comes. For GW it could be 2 weeks after codex is on sale.
tneva82 wrote: Yes. The ones that were also supposedly simultaneously with the launch. Last time 2 weeks later isn't simultaneous.
So don't be surprised if you are waiting for using 2 shot multi meltas with non-marines week after codex is out.
If GW says "immediately" it doesn't mean neccessarily same what it might mean for most. Players likely think it will come same day as codex comes. For GW it could be 2 weeks after codex is on sale.
Yeah, kind of like the new fw rules coming out "soon" after the release of 9th going to "after we get all this other stuff out", like weird terrain based matched play rules.
To be fair their entire year's worth of releases has been royally messed by Corona. We don't even know how smooth things are running behind the scenes and it might be that releases are being shifted around a lot behind the scenes. Sons of Bahamat already feels like they started marketing for an earlier release and then moved it.
GW might also be reacting to the news and the potential for the north (where GW are) getting even tighter lockdowns in the UK. So GW might have pushed sons on one week to try and get Necrons and Marines out a week early etc...
Not to mention we've no idea how shipments are for them; both in terms of getting material in and getting material out. Already we've seen the likes of Black Library have several months where they clearly slowed down dramatically in releases and appear to only now be getting back up to speed.
You can bet originally this month would have likely been wave 2/3 or whatever of the necron/marine release or even have them out fully and be the supplements or another codex etc..
Sure. There's plenty of good reasons. I'm not saying GW is bad for putting them later. All I'm just saying is don't be surprised if the erratas DON'T come out same day as codex and don't bring in pitchfork in that case. If you have tournament coming up right away brace for the possibility you might not be using the new stats yet.
Theres nothing to stop a deathstar DG unit from getting a 5+ FNP another way and it really starts to get stupid.
Well, nothing stops them, except of course there not being a way to give DG units a 5+ FNP.
Pretty sure there is a way to do it.
As usual, you are absolutely wrong. No stratagem or aura or psychic power or warlord trait that can affect either nurgle daemons or heretic astartes in general or death guard gives them the ability to ignore damage, except for the disgustingly resilient rule.
Theres nothing to stop a deathstar DG unit from getting a 5+ FNP another way and it really starts to get stupid.
Well, nothing stops them, except of course there not being a way to give DG units a 5+ FNP.
Pretty sure there is a way to do it.
As usual, you are absolutely wrong. No stratagem or aura or psychic power or warlord trait that can affect either nurgle daemons or heretic astartes in general or death guard gives them the ability to ignore damage, except for the disgustingly resilient rule.
Disgustingly Resilient is the only way for Nurgle to get FNP, correct. Heretic Astartes can get a 6+ FNP though but that requires a psychic power and for the unit to be Slaanesh. I personally believe we keep our current Disgustingly Resilient rules though since every time I encounter the -1 to wound rumor no source is ever given beyond "some forum/fb/insta post", it's 2W cult marines for PA all over again.
CKO wrote: I literally want to cry about tactical marines getting 2 wounds. You have no idea how many times I have thought about selling my marines. I was even thinking about going pure Xenos!
I definatly think Marines are going to feel like the small elite strike teams whom the mear presence of a hundred can change the course of a battle
BrianDavion wrote: I definatly think Marines are going to feel like the small elite strike teams whom the mear presence of a hundred can change the course of a battle
...and a hundred you may have.
...given how cheap those "elite strike teams are"...
BrianDavion wrote: I definatly think Marines are going to feel like the small elite strike teams whom the mear presence of a hundred can change the course of a battle
...and a hundred you may have.
...given how cheap those "elite strike teams are"...
BrianDavion wrote: I definatly think Marines are going to feel like the small elite strike teams whom the mear presence of a hundred can change the course of a battle
...and a hundred you may have.
...given how cheap those "elite strike teams are"...
18+ PPM is cheap?
I mean, it's 1 for every 2 Kabalite Warriors. And I know which of those I'd rather have.
CKO wrote: I literally want to cry about tactical marines getting 2 wounds. You have no idea how many times I have thought about selling my marines. I was even thinking about going pure Xenos!
I definatly think Marines are going to feel like the small elite strike teams whom the mear presence of a hundred can change the course of a battle
Now if we can only have csm feel like ancient terrors from the age of legend whom the mear presence of a hundred can strike abject terror in the forces of the cursed Imperium, including those thin blooded so called "astartes " when they strike from the very heart of hell.
BrianDavion wrote: I definatly think Marines are going to feel like the small elite strike teams whom the mear presence of a hundred can change the course of a battle
...and a hundred you may have.
...given how cheap those "elite strike teams are"...
18+ PPM is cheap?
I mean, it's 1 for every 2 Kabalite Warriors. And I know which of those I'd rather have.
Kalabites aren't good without their transport though.
BrianDavion wrote: I definatly think Marines are going to feel like the small elite strike teams whom the mear presence of a hundred can change the course of a battle
...and a hundred you may have.
...given how cheap those "elite strike teams are"...
18+ PPM is cheap?
Compared to what they have and related to others, yes.
BrianDavion wrote: I definatly think Marines are going to feel like the small elite strike teams whom the mear presence of a hundred can change the course of a battle
...and a hundred you may have.
...given how cheap those "elite strike teams are"...
18+ PPM is cheap?
Compared to what they have and related to others, yes.
umm no dude, he's not talking about points efficancy, his exact words where "and you may have a hundred of them given how cheap they are"
to have a hundred tactical marines in a 2000 point game?
you'd literally have only 200 points to spend on well.. ANYTHING else. it's utterly absurb. so let's try to take our "I hate space marines" whining to another thread and not see, yet another news and rumors thread hijacked by the "anti marine brigade" that hijacked ya know.. every psykic awakening thread eh?
BrianDavion wrote: I definatly think Marines are going to feel like the small elite strike teams whom the mear presence of a hundred can change the course of a battle
...and a hundred you may have.
...given how cheap those "elite strike teams are"...
18+ PPM is cheap?
I do think so, because in the end you are buying units, not models. For 90 points you get a pretty decent infantry unit that takes some fire to remove and can fight and shoot reasonably well. To get something in that ballpark I would have to at least put a 90 point units of boyz into 65 point trukk.
Overread wrote: To be fair their entire year's worth of releases has been royally messed by Corona. We don't even know how smooth things are running behind the scenes and it might be that releases are being shifted around a lot behind the scenes. Sons of Bahamat already feels like they started marketing for an earlier release and then moved it.
GW might also be reacting to the news and the potential for the north (where GW are) getting even tighter lockdowns in the UK. So GW might have pushed sons on one week to try and get Necrons and Marines out a week early etc...
Not to mention we've no idea how shipments are for them; both in terms of getting material in and getting material out. Already we've seen the likes of Black Library have several months where they clearly slowed down dramatically in releases and appear to only now be getting back up to speed.
You can bet originally this month would have likely been wave 2/3 or whatever of the necron/marine release or even have them out fully and be the supplements or another codex etc..
Exactly. For example I noticed when looking in my Lumineth book yesterday in the points section that it said at the top “these points changes are accurate at time of writing in April and override all earlier publications” or some such. Point being that means Lumineth were originally due April not September.
Will be interesting to see if there’s some mention of a month in the SM or Cron dexes
So, just to be clear, with the Sautekh Dynasty code, I assume that the new Warriors weapon, the Gauss Reaper, doesn't magically increase to 18", but that at 14" it's always rapid firing?
Nightbringer's Chosen wrote: So, just to be clear, with the Sautekh Dynasty code, I assume that the new Warriors weapon doesn't magically increase to 18", but that at 14" it's always rapid firing?
Lol this needs an faq. If it does go to 18” rapid fire sautekh will become the gauss reaper faction.
I feel like the protocols will depend on how easy it is to access characters. If we're limited to the 3 or so HQ in a standard detachment, that could be worrisome. If there's some sort of Royal Court that is multiple models that split up but only take one Force Org slot, or if there are some decent Elite choices for lieutenant type characters, it could be okay.
I also worry about Invasion Beamers. I like using Night Scythes to get my troops around. But if I can't beam down the unit and the character leading the unit in the same turn...
Necrons used to have a royal court unit, consisting of Crypteks and “Lords” (contrast Overlords and Phaerons) which were mid level characters. At the time they basically existed to be extra voidblades or staff of light shots which is one reason they got dropped but now they would have a purpose again I can see them coming back.
Or maybe a two-for-one slot level arrangement at HQ for Wardens and others like Nemesors?
Why does Sautek need an FAQ? It doesn't say 'increase all weapons' minimum ranges to 18". In addition instead of following the normal rapid fire rules, models with this dynastic code make double the number of shots if the target is within 18" of the firing model'.
It just says 'units with this dynastic code make double the number of shots if the target unit is within 18"'. It's pretty obvious that the target must be both in range AND within 18" for the benefit to apply. Just another example of a player created rules problem.
Because if it end up being a frequently asked question, they should answer it.
What it doesn't need is errata.
Yeah, this has been asked a lot on the Necron Discord as well. They should FAQ it. The intention is clear, but it still gets asked a lot. No reason not to clarify it.
I'd still say leave it a few days before gathering questions for an FAQ - sometimes people just need a few days to actually think about something not just go with a confused gut reaction.
Overread wrote: I'd still say leave it a few days before gathering questions for an FAQ - sometimes people just need a few days to actually think about something not just go with a confused gut reaction.
You must be new here.
Most reasonable people would apply common sense to such a situation. But this is Dakka Dakka, home to people who claimed you couldn't fire Assault weapons after Advancing.
Kanluwen wrote: This isn't just a Dakka Dakka phenomenon, unfortunately.
It's an "I don't want it to work this way" phenomenon.
It's more a case that as everything is new people are overexcited, rushing the reading and then thinking the rule works how they want it rather than how its described. It's just over excitement and not reading things through more than once before people react. It happens all the time and given a few days and someone saying "you numpty go read it properly" most will sort itself out without being an issue.
You get the same reaction from people looking for problems or issues or thinking something is underpowered. Again they are often reading what they think is written rather than what is actually written.
Again give it till the book is out and people have read it and played with it (or at least read it since corona and all).
BrianDavion wrote: I definatly think Marines are going to feel like the small elite strike teams whom the mear presence of a hundred can change the course of a battle
...and a hundred you may have.
...given how cheap those "elite strike teams are"...
An "average" 1k list has 27-29 Primaris Marines in it.
Quest For Atonement is the perfect blend of hilariously fluffy yet also mechanically interesting. It's precisely the sort of niche narrative tool that I had hoped Crusade would start leaning into for the individual Codex level installments.
"Attention Necron Warriors. You will each receive an identity glyph. Everything you do or learn will be imprinted on this glyph. If you lose your glyph, or fail to follow commands, you will be subject to immediate de-commissioning. That is all."
gorgon wrote: "Attention Necron Warriors. You will each receive an identity glyph. Everything you do or learn will be imprinted on this glyph. If you lose your glyph, or fail to follow commands, you will be subject to immediate de-commissioning. That is all."
I wonder how many people are going to get that?
But otherwise, the automatic extra mortal wound trait sounds fun on like a Skorpekh Lord.
gorgon wrote: "Attention Necron Warriors. You will each receive an identity glyph. Everything you do or learn will be imprinted on this glyph. If you lose your glyph, or fail to follow commands, you will be subject to immediate de-commissioning. That is all."
gorgon wrote: "Attention Necron Warriors. You will each receive an identity glyph. Everything you do or learn will be imprinted on this glyph. If you lose your glyph, or fail to follow commands, you will be subject to immediate de-commissioning. That is all."
Overread wrote: I'd still say leave it a few days before gathering questions for an FAQ - sometimes people just need a few days to actually think about something not just go with a confused gut reaction.
You must be new here.
Most reasonable people would apply common sense to such a situation. But this is Dakka Dakka, home to people who claimed you couldn't fire Assault weapons after Advancing.
Is the fault with players that can read english or gw writers who are incapable of writing it?
Have we seen GW do bases like that before? That's some aftermarket resin level of debris there. Aren't their studio bases usually clean except for a few rocks and tufts?
gorgon wrote: "Attention Necron Warriors. You will each receive an identity glyph. Everything you do or learn will be imprinted on this glyph. If you lose your glyph, or fail to follow commands, you will be subject to immediate de-commissioning. That is all."
Overread wrote: I'd still say leave it a few days before gathering questions for an FAQ - sometimes people just need a few days to actually think about something not just go with a confused gut reaction.
You must be new here.
Most reasonable people would apply common sense to such a situation. But this is Dakka Dakka, home to people who claimed you couldn't fire Assault weapons after Advancing.
Is the fault with players that can read english or gw writers who are incapable of writing it?
Well right now I'd say more players than GW at present. So far things like "all shots within 18 inches are doubled" is pretty easy to understand. It's just players wishing it was "all shots within 18 inches are doubled and all ranges increased to 18inches). The language GW used was very clear, it doesn't really need clarification. The interaction players are thinking of just hasn't got any basis to happen.
Reanimation Protocols on its first day being exposed had the same thing with people thinking you rolled at all kinds of odd moments.
I'm fully willing to say that GW needs it write better, but so far the Necrons have been written well; one part is on players to read what is written.
- Honor the Chapter stratagem is now restricted to assault intercessors only
-There's a new stratagem that states: if your warlord is alive in the command phase of your turn, select a unit (dont think its restricted to core) and that unit is treated as having all doctrines active.
- Thunder hammers are a flat 20pts regardless if equipped to a character or non-character. and now they are -2ap not -3 (3 dmg still)
- Scouts are elites
- Whirlwind bombardment strat stops units in defensive positions from getting that benefit and makes them fight last in the fight phase. 1cp
- Master of sanctity upgrade was either 20 or 25pts (cant remember exactly)
- Chapter master is 40pts and CM picks one unit in the command phase to get full rerolls. The captain reroll 1's aura is active otherwise
- Not all non primaris marines characters are getting the +1 wound too....Centurions remain at 4 wounds. Terminators, bikes etc DID get +1 wound though
- There WERE army restrictions for the 3 odd chapters in the book (DASWDW)
- Wisdom of the Ancients strat was changed to have 2 options for the aura provided (either reroll 1s to hit or reroll 1s to wound)
- Deathwatch seems to have lost special ammo and cant take bike squads oddly
- Hellfire stratagem is back but it also deals 2d3 dmg to monsters
- Flakk missiles deals 2d3 dmg to fliers
- There werent many "new" strats iirc - The Reaper variant of the new floaty tank came to 230pts (without useless upgrades)
- Theres a melta bomb stratagem that deals 2d3 MW in CC (to a vehicle or monster), 1 or 2 cp, unsure
- The Hammer of Wrath stratagem got a bit of a rework and improved quite a bit I think MWs dealt by rolling equal to or higher than enemy units toughness. Number of dice equal to number of models in engagement range (i think)
- Outriders are 3 per unit Erads and BGVs are 3-6
- BGVs and Erads are 35pts and 40pts respectively
- There was a strat for reuplsors to fall back and shoot at full BS - The SM-only secondary objectives were all awful
- Incursors lost their combat knives exploding on 6s to hit in cc (are ap-1)
- Blood Angel assault squads cant take meltaguns anymore
- More stuff that I thought seem to have the CORE keyword. Exmaple of what dont: Centurions and Invictor warsuits
- Transhuman was there and appears to be the same
- There was a strat for phobos units to be put into reserves from the battlefield
- Non codex chapters do appear to get access to all the marine psychic powers and warlord traits and relics
- Speed of the Primarch was mentioned as the Blood Angel- only WL trait in the dex (fight first on wl)
- Only in death does duty end got nerfed can only use it if you havent already fought in the fight phase
Not gonna lie. Those don't really sound like nerfs. A little more restrictive but I feel like it's not going to impact a lot of the current lists. And if bladeguard and eradicators didn't bump in points those are central units. I think we all saw toned down rerolls coming.
Hulksmash wrote: Not gonna lie. Those don't really sound like nerfs. A little more restrictive but I feel like it's not going to impact a lot of the current lists. And if bladeguard and eradicators didn't bump in points those are central units. I think we all saw toned down rerolls coming.
Yep...plus the "Core" thing.
So many people seemed to focus on "it's gonna be Troops! or things that could be Troops via a FOC swap in the Old Days!" that they seemed to gloss over GW outright implying they're going to be the 'main' themes for an army's units.
Sotahullu wrote: Well there goes my idea for Outrider death squad for Flesh Tearers if the unit size is limited to 3.
Although hard to swallow as its hard to imagine Scouts being Elite choice now.
I have a feeling it’s because they aren’t getting a proper kit and are stuck with the easy build one in the starter sets. I have a horrible feeling the Skorpekh Destroyers are also going to be like this.
If those leaks are real, I'm kinda liking them (I play Space Marines).
I'm just curious if Special Issue Ammunition is simply moved to the Deathwatch supplement, and what unit restrictions there are for the previously separate codex marines (DW, BA, DA, SW).
I've held off on painting all of indomitus space marines since I'm still not sure whether several of the units will end up as DW or Iron Hands.
Sotahullu wrote: Well there goes my idea for Outrider death squad for Flesh Tearers if the unit size is limited to 3.
Although hard to swallow as its hard to imagine Scouts being Elite choice now.
I have a feeling it’s because they aren’t getting a proper kit and are stuck with the easy build one in the starter sets. I have a horrible feeling the Skorpekh Destroyers are also going to be like this.
People said this about Eliminators too, but they're capped at 3s.
Personal hope:
Aggressors get nerfed down to 3 model units, tops. Same with all the other Gravis stuff barring maybe Heavy Intercessors.
I'm just curious if Special Issue Ammunition is simply moved to the Deathwatch supplement, and what unit restrictions there are for the previously separate codex marines (DW, BA, DA, SW).
SIA is (presently) a datasheet ability for specific Deathwatch units. There is quite literally zero chance it will be printed in the prime Marine codex, because those units for regular Marines never had SIA.
Spoletta wrote: Those leaks though are in direct contrast with what we now from datasheets in boxes.
What exactly? The only thing I could think of is the thunder hammer, but that had different stats in different leaked sheets so it doesn't really count
Sotahullu wrote: Well there goes my idea for Outrider death squad for Flesh Tearers if the unit size is limited to 3.
Although hard to swallow as its hard to imagine Scouts being Elite choice now.
I have a feeling it’s because they aren’t getting a proper kit and are stuck with the easy build one in the starter sets. I have a horrible feeling the Skorpekh Destroyers are also going to be like this.
I can almost guarantee that the current Skorpekhs are all we are getting. It'll be a Datasheet like the Ophydians where every 3 models must have a reap blade and cap at 6. That is my guess
On to the leaks, I want to say the only thing I remember being diffrent from the leaked Datahseets is the Thunder Hammer. Does anyone know of any others?
Sotahullu wrote: Well there goes my idea for Outrider death squad for Flesh Tearers if the unit size is limited to 3.
Although hard to swallow as its hard to imagine Scouts being Elite choice now.
I have a feeling it’s because they aren’t getting a proper kit and are stuck with the easy build one in the starter sets. I have a horrible feeling the Skorpekh Destroyers are also going to be like this.
I can almost guarantee that the current Skorpekhs are all we are getting. It'll be a Datasheet like the Ophydians where every 3 models must have a reap blade and cap at 6. That is my guess
On to the leaks, I want to say the only thing I remember being diffrent from the leaked Datahseets is the Thunder Hammer. Does anyone know of any others?
Mainly the thunder hammer, that had different dmg on the different sheets shown, but were both still -3AP.
People, don't humour sourceless leaks with any more attention than they deserve. I mean, looking at that list I can pick out a few that sound like absolute nonsense, which calls the rest of that list into severe question.
But hey, I heard from my cousin's boyfriend's brother who works at a GW store in the North that you can now take 20-man Devastator squads! And he works for them, so it must be true!
Super Ready wrote: People, don't humour sourceless leaks with any more attention than they deserve. I mean, looking at that list I can pick out a few that sound like absolute nonsense, which calls the rest of that list into severe question.
But hey, I heard from my cousin's boyfriend's brother who works at a GW store in the North that you can now take 20-man Devastator squads! And he works for them, so it must be true!
Or you can be an ahole to people to rpove how cool you and smart you are! Honestly no one seems to be taking them as gospel but discussion of rumor is something thisnis for. Additionally different groups get different rules for playtesting so some could be accurate and some not. Most seem reasonable honestly.
There is a purpose to the snark. Encouraging people to back up their claims with their sources, which in turn reduces the spread of 'fake news' and the like.
Maybe I could have put it nicer, but I stand by my point. Post your source or by default, I'm not going to believe a word you say.
Sotahullu wrote: Well there goes my idea for Outrider death squad for Flesh Tearers if the unit size is limited to 3.
Although hard to swallow as its hard to imagine Scouts being Elite choice now.
I have a feeling it’s because they aren’t getting a proper kit and are stuck with the easy build one in the starter sets. I have a horrible feeling the Skorpekh Destroyers are also going to be like this.
People said this about Eliminators too, but they're capped at 3s.
Personal hope:
Aggressors get nerfed down to 3 model units, tops. Same with all the other Gravis stuff barring maybe Heavy Intercessors.
This list has Eradicators(Gravis) at 3-6, so if the list isn't a jape, you can stop hoping.
KurtAngle2 wrote: - Chapter master is 40pts and CM picks one unit in the command phase to get full rerolls.
That sounds like typical GW balancing. Take something that's overpowered and raise its cost (or give it one in this case) but also change its rules to be worse.
H.B.M.C. wrote: That's core to the identity of the Deathwatch. How can they remove that?
SIA is a Deathwatch datasheet specific ability. It was never going to appear in the general Astartes Codex because quite literally nothing in the Codex has it. It'll be handled in the Deathwatch Supplement.
SIA is a Deathwatch datasheet specific ability. It was never going to appear in the general Astartes Codex because quite literally nothing in the Codex has it. It'll be handled in the Deathwatch Supplement.
Not to pick on you, but didn't Sternguard Veterans have it or was it a stratagem?
Haven't used them in some time so might be missing something--other than my book not being handy.
SIA is a Deathwatch datasheet specific ability. It was never going to appear in the general Astartes Codex because quite literally nothing in the Codex has it. It'll be handled in the Deathwatch Supplement.
Not to pick on you, but didn't Sternguard Veterans have it or was it a stratagem?
Haven't used them in some time so might be missing something--other than my book not being handy.
Sternguard had it before DW was a thing.
Then they had it removed, and replaced with one profile special issue bolters.
They also have a strat to boost their bolter fire +1 to wound IIRC.
Not to pick on you, but didn't Sternguard Veterans have it or was it a stratagem?
Haven't used them in some time so might be missing something--other than my book not being handy.
In 7th they did (and probably prior, but that was before my time with 40k). They lost it going into 8th in favor of the special issue boltgun that's just a long range Inferno Boltgun, and (barring something exceedingly stupid from GW) wont have it for 9th either.
Sternguard certainly had special issue ammo before Deathwatch were created as a faction - they were part of the lore, but only thanks to Brother Artemis being in the Inquisition game system.
But if you want to go even further back? Hellfire rounds were available to the Ultramarines' Tyrannic War Veterans, which existed even before Sternguard were called Sternguard (they existed, but as just "Veteran Tactical Squads", and only had a slightly better profile to boast over the non-veteran version).
For a time Hellfire rounds were also available to heavy bolters, before Deathwatch seemingly snapped them all up along with the other rounds available.
That thing about a strat for whirlwinds that makes whatever they shoot lose defensive positions and also fight last seems both stupid and strange enough to be just the sort of thing GW would do, because giving space marines a fights last character wasn't enough, gotta also give them the ability to put it on anything literally anywhere on the table with a non-LOS shooting unit!
If someone came up with that as a fake I actually gotta hand it to them, it's perfection.
Super Ready wrote: Sternguard certainly had special issue ammo before Deathwatch were created as a faction - they were part of the lore, but only thanks to Brother Artemis being in the Inquisition game system. But if you want to go even further back? Hellfire rounds were available to the Ultramarines' Tyrannic War Veterans, which existed even before Sternguard were called Sternguard (they existed, but as just "Veteran Tactical Squads", and only had a slightly better profile to boast over the non-veteran version). For a time Hellfire rounds were also available to heavy bolters, before Deathwatch seemingly snapped them all up along with the other rounds available.
Deathwatch had rules in White Dwarf before Sternguard were a thing and had SIA and Hellfire round Heavy Bolters in those rules. The rules were released when GW put out the metal upgrade kit in 4th.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Makes me wonder how they'll handle Space Wolves.
"Here is your Codex. You can use the vehicles... well most of them. And... your supplement will have your infantry units! Enjoy!"
that'd be better then my fear "grey hunters are now tac marines in 6 months we'll get around to remembering to FAQ that grey hunters should be able to take 2 special weapons and we'll spend the next handful of editions jerking space wolf players around as to weather or not their grey hunters get chainswords"
H.B.M.C. wrote: Makes me wonder how they'll handle Space Wolves.
"Here is your Codex. You can use the vehicles... well most of them. And... your supplement will have your infantry units! Enjoy!"
that'd be better then my fear "grey hunters are now tac marines in 6 months we'll get around to remembering to FAQ that grey hunters should be able to take 2 special weapons and we'll spend the next handful of editions jerking space wolf players around as to weather or not their grey hunters get chainswords"
I’m wondering how much from the special chapters will bleed into the main book. What if Tacs could add one special or heavy per 5, and not restrict them to one of each at 10? Dedicated Ultras can follow the old ways, but grey hunters can be played with minimal fuss without the supplement.
Nevelon wrote: I’m wondering how much from the special chapters will bleed into the main book. What if Tacs could add one special or heavy per 5, and not restrict them to one of each at 10? Dedicated Ultras can follow the old ways, but grey hunters can be played with minimal fuss without the supplement.
It'd be nice. Certainly make tactical squads a little more, well, tactical!
Super Ready wrote: Sternguard certainly had special issue ammo before Deathwatch were created as a faction - they were part of the lore, but only thanks to Brother Artemis being in the Inquisition game system.
But if you want to go even further back? Hellfire rounds were available to the Ultramarines' Tyrannic War Veterans, which existed even before Sternguard were called Sternguard (they existed, but as just "Veteran Tactical Squads", and only had a slightly better profile to boast over the non-veteran version).
For a time Hellfire rounds were also available to heavy bolters, before Deathwatch seemingly snapped them all up along with the other rounds available.
Uh, no. Just no. DW as a 'faction' predates all of these by a pretty big margin:
Spoiler:
In fact 5th edition Sternguard was created from DW fluff bit, namely returning veterans being given supply of DW bullets on their way out. Ditto for Artemis, he is only a thing thanks to people's tabletop armies.
If CM is truly +40pts, makes you wonder how much the named CMs are going to cost now. I'm also fine with reroll all for one unit, should have always been that way.
bullyboy wrote: If CM is truly +40pts, makes you wonder how much the named CMs are going to cost now. I'm also fine with reroll all for one unit, should have always been that way.
I guess it shows that they are giving orders to one specific unit.
Still, it's a kind of weak way of backing away from auras.
yukishiro1 wrote: That thing about a strat for whirlwinds that makes whatever they shoot lose defensive positions and also fight last seems both stupid and strange enough to be just the sort of thing GW would do, because giving space marines a fights last character wasn't enough, gotta also give them the ability to put it on anything literally anywhere on the table with a non-LOS shooting unit!
If someone came up with that as a fake I actually gotta hand it to them, it's perfection.
How dare GW decide that a bombarding artillery unit actual do something a bombarding artillery unit is actually supposed to do
H.B.M.C. wrote: Makes me wonder how they'll handle Space Wolves.
"Here is your Codex. You can use the vehicles... well most of them. And... your supplement will have your infantry units! Enjoy!"
that'd be better then my fear "grey hunters are now tac marines in 6 months we'll get around to remembering to FAQ that grey hunters should be able to take 2 special weapons and we'll spend the next handful of editions jerking space wolf players around as to weather or not their grey hunters get chainswords"
I’m wondering how much from the special chapters will bleed into the main book. What if Tacs could add one special or heavy per 5, and not restrict them to one of each at 10? Dedicated Ultras can follow the old ways, but grey hunters can be played with minimal fuss without the supplement.
honestly that's what I'd do. I'd also allow you to equip tac marines with chainswords for 1 PPM. which would allow grey hunters to be a thing, and also proably make Caracadons astra players happy
alextroy wrote: How dare GW decide that a bombarding artillery unit actual do something a bombarding artillery unit is actually supposed to do
If only there was mechanic that the game used to have, something that allowed you to pin units, rather than an overly simplistic (yet somehow still more complicated) morale system that just results in removing more models.
I mean, a few codexes back they had black Templar troop choices in the regular marine codex. But they were BT exclusive sorta. Like they had the black Templar keyword rather than (CHAPTER) so it's possible they may do the same with chapter specific units right? But that would cause a lotta pages of near identical units right? But is that better than 6 books with near identical selections?
cody.d. wrote: I mean, a few codexes back they had black Templar troop choices in the regular marine codex. But they were BT exclusive sorta. Like they had the black Templar keyword rather than (CHAPTER) so it's possible they may do the same with chapter specific units right? But that would cause a lotta pages of near identical units right? But is that better than 6 books with near identical selections?
The Black Templar thing might be an exception as they weren't willing to do them as a full force (which is a shame).
But yeah, this current endeavour with a single core book and supplements for all Marine Chapters* is meant to cut down on the repetition of datasheets that we saw plague the latter half of 8th. Also means that if when we get another wave of Stormhost Eternals Primaris Marines in 6 months, they don't have to update it for Marines, Dark Angels, Blood Angels and so on.
Of course it then does create problems with Chapters that have largely unique structure and don't use regular units (Deathwatch and especially Space Wolves standing out). It also means that we have some supplements that are rich in datasheets (congrats to all Woof players, you have 98 datasheets from your Codex + a further 20 from your supplement!), and others that might be a bit thin on the ground (all the existing less popular first Foundings are a good example).
This is very much a damned if the do/damned if they don't situation. I don't think there's a one-size fits all solution, but I think that the approach their taking might be the lesser evil.
*Except for Grey Knights, which in a way kind of proves how silly it is. They get a special book where Space Wolves, who don't use Tac Squads, Dev Squads, Scout Squads, and so on in their traditional forms, somehow don't.
cody.d. wrote: I mean, a few codexes back they had black Templar troop choices in the regular marine codex. But they were BT exclusive sorta. Like they had the black Templar keyword rather than (CHAPTER) so it's possible they may do the same with chapter specific units right? But that would cause a lotta pages of near identical units right? But is that better than 6 books with near identical selections?
really blood angels and dark angels don't need much more then a line in their supplement or under their chapter tactics saying "blood angels X squad can take Y"
where it gets complictaed are honestly with the space Wolves where every unit is subtly differant. it's subtle eneugh that I could see wolves just LOSING these options but the differances are IMHO pretty important to the point where if they do space wolves are gonna be unhappy
Yeah you got a fair point there. We've seen it a few times in 8th huh? Chapter books come out, new marines come out a few months later and put everything in this awkward position.
I wonder if they're going to make an oldmarine codex sooner or later and have a primaris codex all to themselves. Which would in theory be fully compatible with the supplements.
cody.d. wrote: Yeah you got a fair point there. We've seen it a few times in 8th huh? Chapter books come out, new marines come out a few months later and put everything in this awkward position.
I wonder if they're going to make an oldmarine codex sooner or later and have a primaris codex all to themselves. Which would in theory be fully compatible with the supplements.
more to the point we also saw a LOT of little screw ups in the shared units section of the index with space wolves.
Super Ready wrote: There is a purpose to the snark. Encouraging people to back up their claims with their sources, which in turn reduces the spread of 'fake news' and the like.
Maybe I could have put it nicer, but I stand by my point. Post your source or by default, I'm not going to believe a word you say.
Of course there's one issue. Any real leaks by this point comes from person who isn't supposed to be leaking and by revealing source could land source/whoever let source read codex ahead of time
This is contradictory to what was said in the codex show. It was confirmed there that SIA ist still around in 9th. Maybe not in the codex, but at least in the ssuupplement.
Sterling191 wrote: SIA is (presently) a datasheet ability for specific Deathwatch units. There is quite literally zero chance it will be printed in the prime Marine codex, because those units for regular Marines never had SIA.
Had, yeah. It used to have the option for the various rounds, but in 8th (7th maybe?) it just switched to their bolters being "special issue": 30" & -2AP.
I'm actually hoping that those list of changes are true, even if those thunder hammers really make everything suspicious.
Most of the changes are great both for internal and external balance.
The only dumb point are obviously the eradicators at 40 points, but at this point they are likely to be nerfed in the datasheet. Whoever did those spoilers did also miss the nerf on aggressors, so he probably didn't read the datasheets, just skimmed through points and stratagems.
Confirmation tesla are unmodified 6's. Internal balance between gauss and tesla improves but mostly by external nerf. 30" range is nice but not sure is that worth lower damage output.
Immortals looking to be better and better as cheap minsized squads for objectives/actions rather than any resemblance of actual damage output.
Spoletta wrote: I'm actually hoping that those list of changes are true, even if those thunder hammers really make everything suspicious.
Most of the changes are great both for internal and external balance.
The only dumb point are obviously the eradicators at 40 points, but at this point they are likely to be nerfed in the datasheet. Whoever did those spoilers did also miss the nerf on aggressors, so he probably didn't read the datasheets, just skimmed through points and stratagems.
Spoletta wrote: I'm actually hoping that those list of changes are true, even if those thunder hammers really make everything suspicious.
Most of the changes are great both for internal and external balance.
The only dumb point are obviously the eradicators at 40 points, but at this point they are likely to be nerfed in the datasheet. Whoever did those spoilers did also miss the nerf on aggressors, so he probably didn't read the datasheets, just skimmed through points and stratagems.
Aggressor nerf?
We know from one of the playtesters that aggressors are being harshly nerfed, to the point that according to him we will no longer see them on competitive tables.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Makes me wonder how they'll handle Space Wolves.
"Here is your Codex. You can use the vehicles... well most of them. And... your supplement will have your infantry units! Enjoy!"
that'd be better then my fear "grey hunters are now tac marines in 6 months we'll get around to remembering to FAQ that grey hunters should be able to take 2 special weapons and we'll spend the next handful of editions jerking space wolf players around as to weather or not their grey hunters get chainswords"
What IMO they should do is for this specfic example is
All Tac Marines can take one Heavy or Special per 5
All Marines can take a Chainsword at 1pt per model.
Done. There are plenty of non Wolves in the lore who use chainswords - there is no reason to restirct to one Chapter just to make them seem a bit different.
Spoletta wrote: I'm actually hoping that those list of changes are true, even if those thunder hammers really make everything suspicious.
Most of the changes are great both for internal and external balance.
The only dumb point are obviously the eradicators at 40 points, but at this point they are likely to be nerfed in the datasheet. Whoever did those spoilers did also miss the nerf on aggressors, so he probably didn't read the datasheets, just skimmed through points and stratagems.
Aggressor nerf?
We know from one of the playtesters that aggressors are being harshly nerfed, to the point that according to him we will no longer see them on competitive tables.
if centurions aren't core I'd expect agressors wouldn't be eaither.
Spoletta wrote: I'm actually hoping that those list of changes are true, even if those thunder hammers really make everything suspicious.
Most of the changes are great both for internal and external balance.
The only dumb point are obviously the eradicators at 40 points, but at this point they are likely to be nerfed in the datasheet. Whoever did those spoilers did also miss the nerf on aggressors, so he probably didn't read the datasheets, just skimmed through points and stratagems.
Aggressor nerf?
We know from one of the playtesters that aggressors are being harshly nerfed, to the point that according to him we will no longer see them on competitive tables.
if centurions aren't core I'd expect agressors wouldn't be eaither.
Eradicators are CORE to Aggressors will very likely be so as well. Also, the nerf comment could be unreliable. We'll just have to wait and see. (REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE)
H.B.M.C. wrote: So you want 10-man Tac squads taking 2 heavy weapons?
Big problem with that is?
As much as I grind my teeth at chaos space marine equivalent units being objectively worse space marines, I do think it’s fair that tac squads can bring 2 heavies because chaos can and let’s be honest it’s hardly a game changer. If it was you’d just bring devs/havocs. My only objection is if the codex Astartes dictates that optimal squad load outs involve one special and one heavy weapon (no more than one of each Per squad). Plus, limited resources have limited that document more to guidelines than actual rules... let the first born rock their preferred load outs.
Spoletta wrote: I'm actually hoping that those list of changes are true, even if those thunder hammers really make everything suspicious.
Most of the changes are great both for internal and external balance.
The only dumb point are obviously the eradicators at 40 points, but at this point they are likely to be nerfed in the datasheet. Whoever did those spoilers did also miss the nerf on aggressors, so he probably didn't read the datasheets, just skimmed through points and stratagems.
Aggressor nerf?
We know from one of the playtesters that aggressors are being harshly nerfed, to the point that according to him we will no longer see them on competitive tables.
if centurions aren't core I'd expect agressors wouldn't be eaither.
Eradicators are CORE to Aggressors will very likely be so as well. Also, the nerf comment could be unreliable. We'll just have to wait and see. (REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE)
The rest of the changes (if true) make me slightly optimistic. They are well done, so it would be weird if they fine tuned all that stuff and then failed big on those 2 gravis models, especially considering that they are a well known problem at the moment.
H.B.M.C. wrote: So you want 10-man Tac squads taking 2 heavy weapons?
Big problem with that is?
Fluff, tradition and overly encouraging castle gunline armies yet again?
You can already do this with two small squads?
Gunline armies - An extra Missile Launcher is not the issue when there is BS like Eradicators.
Fluff - well thats up to the person building their army - what era the Chapter is from, which Chapter etc. If you feel that a given Chapter, comany squad would have a single Special and a Single Heavy then you can do this
Tradition - ??? Well 8th and 9th have brought back more of the original RT style background and such
H.B.M.C. wrote: So you want 10-man Tac squads taking 2 heavy weapons?
Big problem with that is?
Fluff, tradition and overly encouraging castle gunline armies yet again?
You can already do this with two small squads?
Gunline armies - An extra Missile Launcher is not the issue when there is BS like Eradicators.
Fluff - well thats up to the person building their army - what era the Chapter is from, which Chapter etc. If you feel that a given Chapter, comany squad would have a single Special and a Single Heavy then you can do this
Tradition - ??? Well 8th and 9th have brought back more of the original RT style background and such
If you double your missile launcher or heavy bolter count on top of eradicators it becomes an issue. You're right that if you spam 5 man squads you get the same effect but in 10 man units you use less spots then combat squad so its technically more efficient.
Hulksmash wrote: Why, they've been elites for some armies before. It's not surprising at all. 10% of your army isn't the core of your army.
The only army I can think of where Scouts were an Elites choice at various time has been Space Wolves - and that's because in their case the Wolf Scouts are a veteran unit, not a bunch of trainees.
Hulksmash wrote: Why, they've been elites for some armies before. It's not surprising at all. 10% of your army isn't the core of your army.
The only army I can think of where Scouts were an Elites choice at various time has been Space Wolves - and that's because in their case the Wolf Scouts are a veteran unit, not a bunch of trainees.
Dark angels scouts were elites for a while as well iirc 3rd-6th?
They also used to be a nice bridge in profile between a marine and human, seems they're artificially being put back there.
Hulksmash wrote: Why, they've been elites for some armies before. It's not surprising at all. 10% of your army isn't the core of your army.
The only army I can think of where Scouts were an Elites choice at various time has been Space Wolves - and that's because in their case the Wolf Scouts are a veteran unit, not a bunch of trainees.
He was referencing other armies not other Marines I think. The Space Wolf version is more in keeping with that - BUT a Space Marine Scout is already a formidable warrior - its only by comparison with other Marines that they are not Elite.
I am hoping there are both versions of Scouts in the main book - as Chapters like Raven Guard shoud have always had similar full Marine Scouts/Snipers/infiltrators but they were ignored "because the Wolves had them" .
You're right that if you spam 5 man squads you get the same effect but in 10 man units you use less spots then combat squad so its technically more efficient
As you say its something you can do now (and get an extra Sergant). Given the new bonuses against larger squads - the smaller version may still be prevelant.
- Honor the Chapter stratagem is now restricted to assault intercessors only Oof. I hate it. Personally I think 3Cp fight twice at the very end of the fight phase is probably not all that imbalanced, it's a significant investment and good lord knows that shooting units can do an insane amount of damage. But why in heaven would you limit it to freaking Assault Intercessors, which already throw out a suspension of disbelief-shredding number of melee attacks? Why not have it be some kind of "Veteran" keyword that includes terminators, vanvets, sternguard, dreadnoughts, etc etc etc.
-There's a new stratagem that states: if your warlord is alive in the command phase of your turn, select a unit (dont think its restricted to core) and that unit is treated as having all doctrines active. Presumably this means doctrines are around and unchanged. A critical thing I would have noted!
- Thunder hammers are a flat 20pts regardless if equipped to a character or non-character. and now they are -2ap not -3 (3 dmg still) Yeah no point in the crazy character cost with the MASSIVE nerfs to character damage ouptut. Good.
- Scouts are elites eh, scouts are basically dead with the 1w thing. They're obviously soft-squatting them.
- Whirlwind bombardment strat stops units in defensive positions from getting that benefit and makes them fight last in the fight phase. 1cp Is this a replacement for the current strat that makes a whirlwind shoot twice? Or a new strat?
- Master of sanctity upgrade was either 20 or 25pts (cant remember exactly) Sure. Whatever. Probably the least offensive SM character upgrade. honestly, probably worth 20pts more so than 1cp.
- Chapter master is 40pts and CM picks one unit in the command phase to get full rerolls. The captain reroll 1's aura is active otherwise Interesting. I'm guessing it's also CORE restricted. That's pretty interesting. I wonder if there's any other benefits, because that seems pretty weak for 40pts.
- Not all non primaris marines characters are getting the +1 wound too....Centurions remain at 4 wounds. Terminators, bikes etc DID get +1 wound though I didn't think CHARACTERS were changing in statline at all...do you just mean nonprimaris in general?
- There WERE army restrictions for the 3 odd chapters in the book (DASWDW) Ew. Looks like between this and the bike comment, Deathwatch are in for their third edition-ual "Sorry bro those guys you bought arent legal no mo"
- Wisdom of the Ancients strat was changed to have 2 options for the aura provided (either reroll 1s to hit or reroll 1s to wound)Cool. Are Dreadnoughts CORE?
- Deathwatch seems to have lost special ammo and cant take bike squads oddly Well, we know that DWSWDABA are getting "hold you over" rules presumably in PDF form until their supplement, SIA could be in there.
- Hellfire stratagem is back but it also deals 2d3 dmg to monsters
- Flakk missiles deals 2d3 dmg to fliers Wow I hate it.please tell me that the orbital bombardment stratagem is still super duper gakky so you can use a melta bomb to deal 2d3 mortal wounds but a giant laser from the sky still does like 1MW on a 6 or some gak.
- There werent many "new" strats iirc Honestly I think space marine players brains would probably scanners if they were to have many more to keep track of.
- The Reaper variant of the new floaty tank came to 230pts (without useless upgrades) Yeesh, well that's one way to make it not OP. Gonna be tough to make your points back with that crazy expensive thing.
- Theres a melta bomb stratagem that deals 2d3 MW in CC (to a vehicle or monster), 1 or 2 cp, unsure Hmm what haven't we given space marines yet oh I know a MORTAL WOUND STRATAGEM they definitely need more of those.
- The Hammer of Wrath stratagem got a bit of a rework and improved quite a bit I think MWs dealt by rolling equal to or higher than enemy units toughness. Number of dice equal to number of models in engagement range (i think) Boy sure was a lot of effort put into those mortal wound stratagems.
- Outriders are 3 per unit Erads and BGVs are 3-6
- BGVs and Erads are 35pts and 40pts respectively Former: Fine. Latter: Ugh. Ugh and "huh?" considering their damage output and defenses (9W T5 Sv3+) vs what the damage output and defenses is of the TWO HUNDRED FORTY POINT new tank (presumably 11W T7 Sv3+ as its impulsor based). Doesn't...really seem like double the value you're getting....
- There was a strat for reuplsors to fall back and shoot at full BS Cool, wish it was land raiders too, but, fine.
- The SM-only secondary objectives were all awful
- Incursors lost their combat knives exploding on 6s to hit in cc (are ap-1) So their damage output is going to be basically the same.
- Blood Angel assault squads cant take meltaguns anymore
- More stuff that I thought seem to have the CORE keyword. Exmaple of what dont: Centurions and Invictor warsuits
- Transhuman was there and appears to be the same
- There was a strat for phobos units to be put into reserves from the battlefield
- Non codex chapters do appear to get access to all the marine psychic powers and warlord traits and relics
- Speed of the Primarch was mentioned as the Blood Angel- only WL trait in the dex (fight first on wl)
- Only in death does duty end got nerfed can only use it if you havent already fought in the fight phase Cool, honestly I would have been fine with this being (effectively)_removed and honor the chapter stay in the game. But if GW wants to do a systematic strip-out of all the fight/shoot twice abilities in the game I am cooooooooooool with that.
Make a ten man squad, two heavies, then combat squad them and put both heavies in the same half. Leave them back to shoot and hold the back field while the others go forward.
regarding scouts being elite this has been basicly a known thing for awhile, and I think it's a good thing. How many Marine lists over the years have consisted of "1 captain, 3 5 man scout squads and *insert whatever marines are spamming at the moment*"? the core of a marine army should be tac marines/intercessors not scouts.
BrianDavion wrote: regarding scouts being elite this has been basicly a known thing for awhile, and I think it's a good thing. How many Marine lists over the years have consisted of "1 captain, 3 5 man scout squads and *insert whatever marines are spamming at the moment*"? the core of a marine army should be tac marines/intercessors not scouts.
This is literally the first we've seen mentioning Scouts as Elites in the vanilla book.
Space Wolves had them, but their Scouts have always been different.
Dark angels had them as elites as well. Scouts were ever only troops because otherwise marines only had 1 troop. They arent the core of a marine army and being elite is fine.
BrianDavion wrote: regarding scouts being elite this has been basicly a known thing for awhile, and I think it's a good thing. How many Marine lists over the years have consisted of "1 captain, 3 5 man scout squads and *insert whatever marines are spamming at the moment*"? the core of a marine army should be tac marines/intercessors not scouts.
This is literally the first we've seen mentioning Scouts as Elites in the vanilla book.
Space Wolves had them, but their Scouts have always been different.
In the first GW teaser video for the new dex we could see the contents and the chapter tactics. And scouts had been sorted with the other elite slots and not with the troops.
It might not be the fluffiest change but good for the game.
Maybe if we see the Elite slot not as really elite but rather than as rarer or different from core troops. I mean lots of elite slots have the same profile as troop marines, just different gear. Sure, real "elites" like Veterans are also in this slot, but not all of them, i.e. Vanguard Vets.
It's probably the same reason why gretchin have gone to 5 points. GW doesn't want marines to have large parts of their army consist of scouts, so they get a nerf to ensure that players won't bring as many anymore.
H.B.M.C. wrote: So you want 10-man Tac squads taking 2 heavy weapons?
Big problem with that is?
Fluff, tradition and overly encouraging castle gunline armies yet again?
Yes, the tactical squad gunline castle..what ? You can just spam MSU tacticals and get a free sarge upgrade for every second squad, and still have the same number of heavy weapons.
H.B.M.C. wrote: So you want 10-man Tac squads taking 2 heavy weapons?
Big problem with that is?
Fluff, tradition and overly encouraging castle gunline armies yet again?
You can already do this with two small squads?
Gunline armies - An extra Missile Launcher is not the issue when there is BS like Eradicators.
Fluff - well thats up to the person building their army - what era the Chapter is from, which Chapter etc. If you feel that a given Chapter, comany squad would have a single Special and a Single Heavy then you can do this
Tradition - ??? Well 8th and 9th have brought back more of the original RT style background and such
If you double your missile launcher or heavy bolter count on top of eradicators it becomes an issue. You're right that if you spam 5 man squads you get the same effect but in 10 man units you use less spots then combat squad so its technically more efficient.
In the fluff, don’t scouts usually fill a more specialised roll than front line troops? I know they aren’t exactly elite in the fluff, but they do fill a roll more specific than being a shock trooper. Maybe I’m wrong, but I always thought being troops also didn’t suit them.
Tiberius501 wrote: In the fluff, don’t scouts usually fill a more specialised roll than front line troops? I know they aren’t exactly elite in the fluff, but they do fill a roll more specific than being a shock trooper. Maybe I’m wrong, but I always thought being troops also didn’t suit them.
i would challenge you to find a meaningfully distinct tactical role fulfilled by Scouts that is not fulfilled by Primaris Infiltrators.
Tiberius501 wrote: In the fluff, don’t scouts usually fill a more specialised roll than front line troops? I know they aren’t exactly elite in the fluff, but they do fill a roll more specific than being a shock trooper. Maybe I’m wrong, but I always thought being troops also didn’t suit them.
i would challenge you to find a meaningfully distinct tactical role fulfilled by Scouts that is not fulfilled by Primaris Infiltrators.
Well you’re right, infiltrators are also a strange thing to have as troops, but I presume it’s with their new thing of having a type of troop in all the types of armour. So in that sense they work as the infantry section of vanguard groups, who do larger scale covert assaults. Scouts, on the other hand, are younglings who fulfil the niche roll of scouting missions and rarely see frontline combat in full fights, to my understanding.
Tell me if I’m wrong though, I’m not the biggest on this sort of fluff but this is just how I’ve seen it.
Kanluwen wrote: Eh. With the addition of the "Core" keyword to the game, it's plausible that Scouts don't get it.
Yeeeah, because people reeeally care about buffing the throwaway screening squads that were all expected to die T1 anyway and denying them core will change anything
Mr Morden wrote: Gunline armies - An extra Missile Launcher is not the issue when there is BS like Eradicators.
Meanwhile, in real life, more and more tournament armies drop them in favour of spamming grav pods, las contemptors, FW land speeders, and other resin pay to win gak. Funny that.
I wish people read less hysteric paperhammer nonsense, which in eradicator case is especially hilarious as a lot of who accuse them of being broken previously attacked limits on (far stronger) quad fusion commanders as unfair and claimed one of the most broken units in the game was totally balanced (and the less said about defence of reapers, the better...)
Kanluwen wrote: Eh. With the addition of the "Core" keyword to the game, it's plausible that Scouts don't get it.
Yeeeah, because people reeeally care about buffing the throwaway screening squads that were all expected to die T1 anyway and denying them core will change anything
Mr Morden wrote: Gunline armies - An extra Missile Launcher is not the issue when there is BS like Eradicators.
Meanwhile, in real life, more and more tournament armies drop them in favour of spamming grav pods, las contemptors, FW land speeders, and other resin pay to win gak. Funny that.
I wish people read less hysteric paperhammer nonsense, which in eradicator case is especially hilarious as a lot of who accuse them of being broken previously attacked limits on (far stronger) quad fusion commanders as unfair and claimed one of the most broken units in the game was totally balanced (and the less said about defence of reapers, the better...)
I really, reeeeeeeeeeeally want to see the data from these tournaments where the real smart competitive players are ditching eradicators for....forgeworld land speeders?
Tiberius501 wrote: In the fluff, don’t scouts usually fill a more specialised roll than front line troops? I know they aren’t exactly elite in the fluff, but they do fill a roll more specific than being a shock trooper. Maybe I’m wrong, but I always thought being troops also didn’t suit them.
What didn't suit them was being able to be taken en masse. Scouts were, fluffwise, supposed to play a fairly important role in preparing the battlefield for the remainder of a Chapter's forces.
Kanluwen wrote: Eh. With the addition of the "Core" keyword to the game, it's plausible that Scouts don't get it.
Yeeeah, because people reeeally care about buffing the throwaway screening squads that were all expected to die T1 anyway and denying them core will change anything
Mr Morden wrote: Gunline armies - An extra Missile Launcher is not the issue when there is BS like Eradicators.
Meanwhile, in real life, more and more tournament armies drop them in favour of spamming grav pods, las contemptors, FW land speeders, and other resin pay to win gak. Funny that.
I wish people read less hysteric paperhammer nonsense, which in eradicator case is especially hilarious as a lot of who accuse them of being broken previously attacked limits on (far stronger) quad fusion commanders as unfair and claimed one of the most broken units in the game was totally balanced (and the less said about defence of reapers, the better...)
I really, reeeeeeeeeeeally want to see the data from these tournaments where the real smart competitive players are ditching eradicators for....forgeworld land speeders?
Seconded. I'd also like to see where the broken resin units were in the daemon and orks lists that placed highly recently.
H.B.M.C. wrote: So you want 10-man Tac squads taking 2 heavy weapons?
Big problem with that is?
Fluff, tradition and overly encouraging castle gunline armies yet again?
Yes, the tactical squad gunline castle..what ? You can just spam MSU tacticals and get a free sarge upgrade for every second squad, and still have the same number of heavy weapons.
H.B.M.C. wrote: So you want 10-man Tac squads taking 2 heavy weapons?
Big problem with that is?
Fluff, tradition and overly encouraging castle gunline armies yet again?
You can already do this with two small squads?
Gunline armies - An extra Missile Launcher is not the issue when there is BS like Eradicators.
Fluff - well thats up to the person building their army - what era the Chapter is from, which Chapter etc. If you feel that a given Chapter, comany squad would have a single Special and a Single Heavy then you can do this
Tradition - ??? Well 8th and 9th have brought back more of the original RT style background and such
If you double your missile launcher or heavy bolter count on top of eradicators it becomes an issue. You're right that if you spam 5 man squads you get the same effect but in 10 man units you use less spots then combat squad so its technically more efficient.
You know that tacticals are troop choices,right ?
Thats kinda my point, you're giving troops who can willing split into 2 smaller 5 man units the ability to plonk multiple 5 man 2 heavy weapon units as their troops tax. Why even bother with devastators at that point?
Kanluwen wrote: Eh. With the addition of the "Core" keyword to the game, it's plausible that Scouts don't get it.
Yeeeah, because people reeeally care about buffing the throwaway screening squads that were all expected to die T1 anyway and denying them core will change anything
Mr Morden wrote: Gunline armies - An extra Missile Launcher is not the issue when there is BS like Eradicators.
Meanwhile, in real life, more and more tournament armies drop them in favour of spamming grav pods, las contemptors, FW land speeders, and other resin pay to win gak. Funny that.
I wish people read less hysteric paperhammer nonsense, which in eradicator case is especially hilarious as a lot of who accuse them of being broken previously attacked limits on (far stronger) quad fusion commanders as unfair and claimed one of the most broken units in the game was totally balanced (and the less said about defence of reapers, the better...)
Any actual "Real Life" examples you can show? or are you just making BS up?
And Mate when I have ever defended Fusion commanders - answer I didn.t
Kanluwen wrote: Eh. With the addition of the "Core" keyword to the game, it's plausible that Scouts don't get it.
Yeeeah, because people reeeally care about buffing the throwaway screening squads that were all expected to die T1 anyway and denying them core will change anything
Mr Morden wrote: Gunline armies - An extra Missile Launcher is not the issue when there is BS like Eradicators.
Meanwhile, in real life, more and more tournament armies drop them in favour of spamming grav pods, las contemptors, FW land speeders, and other resin pay to win gak. Funny that.
I wish people read less hysteric paperhammer nonsense, which in eradicator case is especially hilarious as a lot of who accuse them of being broken previously attacked limits on (far stronger) quad fusion commanders as unfair and claimed one of the most broken units in the game was totally balanced (and the less said about defence of reapers, the better...)
You must have missed all of the numerous GT's recently featuring Marine lists with 9 Eradicators.
Play this when your Reanimation Protocols haven’t been as successful as you would have liked. Just when your opponent thinks they have an advantage, your dead Necrons return to the fray.
who accuse them of being broken previously attacked limits on (far stronger) quad fusion commanders as unfair and claimed one of the most broken units in the game was totally balanced (and the less said about defence of reapers, the better...) 
