Upgrading units: when playing with power Sergent level models ware free, but when playing with points I am almost dead certsin that when you upgrade the unit you replace the cost of the upgraded model with the cost of whatever the model you've upgraded them to is.
ClockworkZion wrote: Upgrading units: when playing with power Sergent level models ware free, but when playing with points I am almost dead certsin that when you upgrade the unit you replace the cost of the upgraded model with the cost of whatever the model you've upgraded them to is.
ClockworkZion wrote: Upgrading units: when playing with power Sergent level models ware free, but when playing with points I am almost dead certsin that when you upgrade the unit you replace the cost of the upgraded model with the cost of whatever the model you've upgraded them to is.
Can you find an example of that? I can't.
I'll look later when I,m on a proper computer and not an iPad1 that crashes iBooks whenever I switch oages too fast on the rules pdfs.
But what about walkers? Well that's always been a point of contention for me (and a lot of other people, I've discovered). It never made sense that a Rip Tide was an MC but a Sentinel was a vehicle. I think that vehicles should be treated differently and walkers should be treated like big infantry because that's the role they play. A Dread twisting its torso to shoot is no different to a Land Raider turning its sponson to shoot something, but vastly different to a Land Raider shooting its left sponson through itself to hit something on its right.
And I see that, I really do. But I much much prefer all models get treated the same. The alternative, was where tanks sucked. Sucked, period. MC were just point for point better than tanks. People just didn't take Land Raiders or Baneblades, and transports were given out for FREE much of the time. If the cost of fixing that is douchy players shooting their guns from the end of their antenna just like any MC could already do, color me happy. I'm fully willing to give the system the benefit of imagining that it is a duration of time where minor movement is possible.I have far far more issue with an I go you go game where there is nothing given up for overwatch, you can literally do it an infinite amount of times in one turn. I also don't see most MC as fully articulate or nimble as a human.
I want to actually play the tanks, this makes tanks survivable enough that I can dust off some armor and play some games and have some fun.
davou wrote: anyone able to find command squads for space marines? I got a command squad on bikes tooled up for CC that I cant find in the rules
Command Squads per se are no more. Now you get to field them separately as sort of characters. You get Apothecaries, Ancients (Standard bearers) and Champions.
You can either shoot with all your pistols or all your other weapons.
So how does cover work in this edition? I see in the core rules that if you're in terrain you get +1 save, and some of the terrain types are in the Battlefield Terrain section, but I don't see anything about intervening models, or being obscured in general.
MasterSlowPoke wrote: You can either shoot with all your pistols or all your other weapons.
So how does cover work in this edition? I see in the core rules that if you're in terrain you get +1 save, and some of the terrain types are in the Battlefield Terrain section, but I don't see anything about intervening models, or being obscured in general.
There doesn't appear to be anything in the rules about intervening models.
Cavalry does nothing. It enables the rules to refer to models that are "Cavalry". A model that is "Cavalry" may not have any rules itself that take advantage of that. Of likely more importance is that a model that is "Cavalry" will likely not be "Infantry" which means it treats cover differently, etc.
Yea that is my thought process, too. It's just sort of odd in comparison with the status of Fly.
Fly is special because it has core rules that act on it (Movement, Fall Back). The vast majority of Keywords currently do nothing more than add flavour.
The vast majority of keywords don't do anything for now. Most will be limited to just determining eho can ally with what, or which rules they can benefit from, but I can see others gaining special bonuses. Like The Bike keyword for White Scars, or the Vehicle keyword for Iron Hands.
One place the keywords are important are with poison (which only effects non-vehicles) and support units like Meks (which only recover wounds on vehicles) and Apothecaries (which only recover wounds on infantry and biker keywords). There's other examples peppered throughout the army lists, like Nightbringers C'Tan abilities being more effective against non vehicles.
davou wrote: anyone able to find command squads for space marines? I got a command squad on bikes tooled up for CC that I cant find in the rules
Command Squads per se are no more. Now you get to field them separately as sort of characters. You get Apothecaries, Ancients (Standard bearers) and Champions.
In particular for Apothecaries, Medics and Hospitilars this is far more satisfactory - they are moving about the field attending to the wounded wherever they are needed
- not stuck with the same unit for no real reason.
But what about walkers? Well that's always been a point of contention for me (and a lot of other people, I've discovered). It never made sense that a Rip Tide was an MC but a Sentinel was a vehicle. I think that vehicles should be treated differently and walkers should be treated like big infantry because that's the role they play. A Dread twisting its torso to shoot is no different to a Land Raider turning its sponson to shoot something, but vastly different to a Land Raider shooting its left sponson through itself to hit something on its right.
And I see that, I really do. But I much much prefer all models get treated the same. The alternative, was where tanks sucked. Sucked, period. MC were just point for point better than tanks. People just didn't take Land Raiders or Baneblades, and transports were given out for FREE much of the time. If the cost of fixing that is douchy players shooting their guns from the end of their antenna just like any MC could already do, color me happy. I'm fully willing to give the system the benefit of imagining that it is a duration of time where minor movement is possible.I have far far more issue with an I go you go game where there is nothing given up for overwatch, you can literally do it an infinite amount of times in one turn. I also don't see most MC as fully articulate or nimble as a human.
Can an elephant turn this quickly? I'm not sure.
Spoiler:
This also seems like a very silly thing to argue about given the countless number of abstractions already baked into the game.
Really enjoyed that Eavy Metal stream, some really good tips and insight. Still need to watch the full art stream again. So pleased not every bit of art now has to been based on a model now. Praise 8th!
Nothing urked me more than that Ironjawz artwork were it was 3 Warbosses, all the same look, same weapons just different colours. *Shudders.*
str00dles1 wrote: Doing just a rough guess, it seems for Power Level games its 50/100/150 for up to 1k, 1-2k, 2-3k games.
Made a 985 AdMech list for a 1k game and power lvl wise it came to 49. someone mentioned on average 1 power =20 points.
The average does get thrown out the window by things like 1 Power Inquisitorial Agents who are 8ppm, or Repentia who are 1 power each at 17ppm but DCA are 2 to a power at 17ppm.
str00dles1 wrote: Doing just a rough guess, it seems for Power Level games its 50/100/150 for up to 1k, 1-2k, 2-3k games.
Made a 985 AdMech list for a 1k game and power lvl wise it came to 49. someone mentioned on average 1 power =20 points.
The average does get thrown out the window by things like 1 Power Inquisitorial Agents who are 8ppm, or Repentia who are 1 power each at 17ppm but DCA are 2 to a power at 17ppm.
Yea I got 109 for my 2K Rubric list, but I didn't max on upgrades.
str00dles1 wrote: Doing just a rough guess, it seems for Power Level games its 50/100/150 for up to 1k, 1-2k, 2-3k games.
Made a 985 AdMech list for a 1k game and power lvl wise it came to 49. someone mentioned on average 1 power =20 points.
The average does get thrown out the window by things like 1 Power Inquisitorial Agents who are 8ppm, or Repentia who are 1 power each at 17ppm but DCA are 2 to a power at 17ppm.
Yea I got 109 for my 2K Rubric list, but I didn't max on upgrades.
Power is -supposed- to be the cost of a model plus half their upgrades (avg of no upgrades and full upgrades). But then we have situations like above where it falls apart.
I'm sure that's how it worked for the big armies, but it feels like the smaller armies (Sisters, Inquisition for example) didn't get a proper look to get that set up.
NivlacSupreme wrote: Um... they invalidated Deathwatch Devestators and all-cyclone termies.
The Inquisition and an order militant are getting shafted then.
To be fair Deathwatch is more about Kill Teams than it is about units that make sense.
That said, the Inquisition and it's buddies do feel off compared to where they were. I'm not going to go off on a rant about it regarding Sisters (already did that in General), but it feels like if you work with the big =I=, it's not your time to shine. At least not at launch. We'll see if some erratas shake out of the inevitable negative reactions to the changes.
1. The Serpent is so cheap With 2 Lasercannons it is much cheaper than a Falcon for example and has +1 Wound and its shield How is this balanced? I also did not find something similar strong in other factions...am I missing something?
2. Ynnari broke the game in the 7th edition. And now they are back with unlimited soulburst again (no command point nescessary...).
How is this possible? How did this make it trough playtesting?
I don't understand why they nerfed Vaul's Wrath batteries so hard. They're over 3 times as expensive for a unit of 3 vibro cannons, and they're T5 instead of T7 now, with a 4+ save instead of 3+.
Hoping for a day 1 errata on the deathwatch. Why are only our storm shields 15 points each you guys specifically made it so none of our characters can get it anyway...... It strikes me as a typo
The more I look at the stuff that we're seeing, the more I feel like GW is going to get absolutely hammered with requests to erratta things once the entire community gets everything in their hands.
That said, I feel like we probably need to step back and try things out before sending rage mail at GW. Things might shake out being more balanced than we thought once we've got them on the table and are playing games. Things on paper don't always play as well as they look. I recall Draigowing and the Death Company Star in 5th and neither of those lived up to their reputation in games. Mostly because having 1/3 of the models of your opponent is never a good plan, even if they have extra wounds or have power weapons.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Leth wrote: Hoping for a day 1 errata on the deathwatch. Why are only our storm shields 15 points each you guys specifically made it so none of our characters can get it anyway...... It strikes me as a typo
None of the character kits have them, so they took the option away. Not the first time they pulled that gak before.
1. The Serpent is so cheap With 2 Lasercannons it is much cheaper than a Falcon for example and has +1 Wound and its shield How is this balanced? I also did not find something similar strong in other factions...am I missing something?
2. Ynnari broke the game in the 7th edition. And now they are back with unlimited soulburst again (no command point nescessary...).
How is this possible? How did this make it trough playtesting?
That said, I feel like we probably need to step back and try things out before sending rage mail at GW. Things might shake out being more balanced than we thought once we've got them on the table and are playing games.
How could the following work out on the tabletop:
Triple a mediocre unit's price.(Vaul's Wrath Batteries)
-2T
-1 armour save penalty
I simply don't see how such a thing can NOT be a mistake. But despite things like this being obvious mistakes, GW almost NEVER owns up to it being a mistake, and so a unit gets relegated to the annals of history by being typo'd out of existence. This reminds me of the change to orbs of despair from being S10 with one use at 25 points to being S1, one use, Instant death at the same 25 points. GW claimed it wasn't a typo.
3 Vaul's Wrath Batteries with vibro-cannons used to cost 90 points. Now they nerfed them(T7 to T5 with 4+ instead of 3+), and they want to charge 291 points for them.
That said, I feel like we probably need to step back and try things out before sending rage mail at GW. Things might shake out being more balanced than we thought once we've got them on the table and are playing games.
How could the following work out on the tabletop:
Triple a mediocre unit's price.(Vaul's Wrath Batteries)
-2T
-1 armour save penalty
I simply don't see how such a thing can NOT be a mistake. But despite things like this being obvious mistakes, GW almost NEVER owns up to it being a mistake, and so a unit gets relegated to the annals of history by being typo'd out of existence. This reminds me of the change to orbs of despair from being S10 with one use at 25 points to being S1, one use, Instant death at the same 25 points. GW claimed it wasn't a typo.
3 Vaul's Wrath Batteries with vibro-cannons used to cost 90 points. Now they nerfed them(T7 to T5 with 4+ instead of 3+), and they want to charge 291 points for them.
Well, what rules can they benefit from? I'm not looking at the Eldar stuff right now, but I'd have to say there is probably more going on than JUST the statline in terms on how things are priced.
everyone in this thread wrote:How is this possible? How did this make it trough playtesting?
Playtesting, y'know, by people, and not, y'know, by someone reading some stats and jumping to a conclusion
Agreed. I'm not jumping the gun here, but I have a strong feeling that the stats are only part of the equation. Army rules they can use, weapon types, changes to how weapons work, stat changes, ect, ect, ect. And then a lot of things got a lot of play testing. I'm sure some more niche armies didn't get as much focus (Custodes, SoS, SoB,=I= ect, ect), but the main armies like Eldar and Marines definitely saw a lot of table time. Which means there was something that pushed those points costs up.
That said, I feel like we probably need to step back and try things out before sending rage mail at GW. Things might shake out being more balanced than we thought once we've got them on the table and are playing games.
How could the following work out on the tabletop:
Triple a mediocre unit's price.(Vaul's Wrath Batteries)
-2T
-1 armour save penalty
I simply don't see how such a thing can NOT be a mistake. But despite things like this being obvious mistakes, GW almost NEVER owns up to it being a mistake, and so a unit gets relegated to the annals of history by being typo'd out of existence. This reminds me of the change to orbs of despair from being S10 with one use at 25 points to being S1, one use, Instant death at the same 25 points. GW claimed it wasn't a typo.
3 Vaul's Wrath Batteries with vibro-cannons used to cost 90 points. Now they nerfed them(T7 to T5 with 4+ instead of 3+), and they want to charge 291 points for them.
And double the wounds. With no chance of ID.
Vibro cannons used to be 1 damage - at S7 (then 8 and 9 they would rarely ID something useful. Now they are D3.
Instead of upping it's strength it now adds to the wound roll, which is way better than upping S.
If it was +1S up to +3S you could get to S10 and wound T10 on a 4+, right?
Well, now you wound T10 on a 3+.
everyone in this thread wrote:How is this possible? How did this make it trough playtesting?
Playtesting, y'know, by people, and not, y'know, by someone reading some stats and jumping to a conclusion
Agreed. I'm not jumping the gun here, but I have a strong feeling that the stats are only part of the equation. Army rules they can use, weapon types, changes to how weapons work, stat changes, ect, ect, ect. And then a lot of things got a lot of play testing. I'm sure some more niche armies didn't get as much focus (Custodes, SoS, SoB,=I= ect, ect), but the main armies like Eldar and Marines definitely saw a lot of table time. Which means there was something that pushed those points costs up.
The typical problems are from the previous edition lens being applied to new rules.
Daedalus81 wrote: The typical problems are from the previous edition lens being applied to new rules.
Which is why I think we'd all be better off starting off playing a few games at the Patrol scale before we look to jump into larger games.
Almost certainly. It's also almost certainly not going to happen.
Yup! Instead of easing into a new edition I'm awaiting watching everyone jumping into the deep end with weights on their ankles. And then blaming the game for being broken because they didn't play it correctly.
I am working on building a Genestealer Cult list, but I can't find the points for Cult Icon anywhere? Is this a free upgrade like all of the sergeants? Do daemons get free banners or instruments, I hadn't really check them out yet?
Daedalus81 wrote: The typical problems are from the previous edition lens being applied to new rules.
Which is why I think we'd all be better off starting off playing a few games at the Patrol scale before we look to jump into larger games.
That is the plan here. Basically:
Wolf Guard Battle Leader + a Grey Hunter Pack and a Blood Claw Pack vs a Generic Marine Captain and two Tactical Squads.
Daedalus81 wrote: The typical problems are from the previous edition lens being applied to new rules.
Which is why I think we'd all be better off starting off playing a few games at the Patrol scale before we look to jump into larger games.
That is the plan here. Basically:
Wolf Guard Battle Leader + a Grey Hunter Pack and a Blood Claw Pack vs a Generic Marine Captain and two Tactical Squads.
I was looking at the Get Started boxes and they're basically perfect for a small Patrol game. 1 HQ, 1 Troop, 1 Other.
Mr Morden wrote: Unique characters seem to have the "you can only have one of this model in your army" but I can't see it in the leaked entry for St Celestine?
I'm going to say she's supposed to be unique despite that.
That said, thanks to RAW you COULD have an army of Celestines.
There do seem to be a few inconsistencies, some of which are surely mistakes.
For instance, a Dark Eldar Archon has 5 attacks, his close combat equivalent, the Succubus, only has 4 attacks. Seems more like a mistake than a reasoned choice.
docdoom77 wrote: There do seem to be a few inconsistencies, some of which are surely mistakes.
For instance, a Dark Eldar Archon has 5 attacks, his close combat equivalent, the Succubus, only has 4 attacks. Seems more like a mistake than a reasoned choice.
One can only hope their claims of community input and changes will actually let us push changes to things like that.
I can't find the points for Cult Icon anywhere, is this a free upgrade?
Can you take a unit Aberrants and not buy there weapons listed in their profile? I guess this would really apply to all units, do you have to pay for the base wargear listed in the profile if you don't want it?
Using the Aberrants as an example, they are 17pts and its 16pts to give them a power pick when they already have rending claws. I'd rather just run them naked with rending claws and essentially get 2 instead of one with a power pick.
I also don't see anything where a Hybrid Metamorph can't combine his weapons like he could in the previous edition to get a claw +2 strength and still use rending. I feel like this makes there claws not as useful.
Mr Morden wrote: Unique characters seem to have the "you can only have one of this model in your army" but I can't see it in the leaked entry for St Celestine?
I'm going to say she's supposed to be unique despite that.
That said, thanks to RAW you COULD have an army of Celestines.
Mr Morden wrote: Unique characters seem to have the "you can only have one of this model in your army" but I can't see it in the leaked entry for St Celestine?
I'm going to say she's supposed to be unique despite that.
That said, thanks to RAW you COULD have an army of Celestines.
I want to do just this!
I just realized i have like 4 celestines floating around the house.
Mr Morden wrote: Unique characters seem to have the "you can only have one of this model in your army" but I can't see it in the leaked entry for St Celestine?
I'm going to say she's supposed to be unique despite that.
That said, thanks to RAW you COULD have an army of Celestines.
I want to do just this!
I just realized i have like 4 celestines floating around the house.
i dont even know how that happened.
Well she is a Saint in special armour so floating would be normal...
That said a lot of us tend to have the old metal one...or multiples of her...floating around.
I can't find the points for Cult Icon anywhere, is this a free upgrade?
Can you take a unit Aberrants and not buy there weapons listed in their profile? I guess this would really apply to all units, do you have to pay for the base wargear listed in the profile if you don't want it?
Using the Aberrants as an example, they are 17pts and its 16pts to give them a power pick when they already have rending claws. I'd rather just run them naked with rending claws and essentially get 2 instead of one with a power pick.
I also don't see anything where a Hybrid Metamorph can't combine his weapons like he could in the previous edition to get a claw +2 strength and still use rending. I feel like this makes there claws not as useful.
If no price is listed, it's free. (For now!)
Aberrants are armed with a power pick and mining claw. You must purchase those unless it lets you trade for something else, which you must purchase instead.
The Metamorph claw that you can trade your Rending claw and Metamorph talon for has the +2S but no longer has rending.
People will fight for 6 planets during 6 weeks. Every planet will have a specific history, a mission and special weekly rules and a gaming thematic, that will change based in how the battle ended for the previous planet.
The campaing is gonna be divided in 3 phases:
Promotion: Between 17 of June and 1 of July.
Army Gathering: Between 1 of July and 27 of July. Some Units will have more value in the campaing and it will be announced ( Amarketing tool)
Campaing: Between 27 of july and 10 of September. The battles and the painted units will give points for Chaos and Imperium.
Participants will gain double the campaing points if their armys contain some of the following units:
Week 1: Space Marines and Start Collecting! Boxes
Week 2: Elites
Week 3: Tanks
Week 4: Psykics
Week 5: Fast Attack/ Flyers
Week 6: Lords of War/Scenografy
Theres gonna be a web page for the campaing to see how it goes, information, etc...
Since the thread is moving faster than I have time to catch up on; have we seen anything on how Assault Vehicles work, alternatively have we seen stats for Land Raiders?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Since the thread is moving faster than I have time to catch up on; have we seen anything on how Assault Vehicles work, alternatively have we seen stats for Land Raiders?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Since the thread is moving faster than I have time to catch up on; have we seen anything on how Assault Vehicles work, alternatively have we seen stats for Land Raiders?
v0iddrgn wrote: So, am looking at this right? A Deff Dread costs 74 plus the 2 dread klaws and the 2 big Shoota for a total base price of 131? Or is it just 74?
131, see how the entry says "Wargear not included" so you need to add the Wargear points to the base model.
As a new player to 40k, getting the starter box and going with Death Guard, is this like AoS where I can field a mix of "Chaos" aligned models? Like can I use my Tzaanzagor and New Death guard, and throw in some Khorne stuff?
Chopxsticks wrote: As a new player to 40k, getting the starter box and going with Death Guard, is this like AoS where I can field a mix of "Chaos" aligned models? Like can I use my Tzaanzagor and New Death guard, and throw in some Khorne stuff?
Yes. As long as they share one Faction Keyword (in this case, Chaos).
v0iddrgn wrote: So, am looking at this right? A Deff Dread costs 74 plus the 2 dread klaws and the 2 big Shoota for a total base price of 131? Or is it just 74?
That would be 131 you have to buy all equipment a model is being armed with even if it's the basic loadout.
v0iddrgn wrote: So, am looking at this right? A Deff Dread costs 74 plus the 2 dread klaws and the 2 big Shoota for a total base price of 131? Or is it just 74?
That would be 131 you have to buy all equipment a model is being armed with even if it's the basic loadout.
v0iddrgn wrote: So, am looking at this right? A Deff Dread costs 74 plus the 2 dread klaws and the 2 big Shoota for a total base price of 131? Or is it just 74?
131, see how the entry says "Wargear not included" so you need to add the Wargear points to the base model.
Yeah, I saw that. Guess I just didn't like the idea of paying 80ish points each for my Deffkoptas. BTW I noticed Flash Gitz are straight-up BS 4+ now
Ya, I'm waiting for the Repressor battlesheet, assuming it will get one.
Same. I'm very nervous that it will lose its fire points though - seeing as Rhinos, Immolators, Chimeras and Tauroxes have all lost theirs. Only vehicles with the 'open-topped' rule seem to have this ability now. If we can't fire out of the Repressor, will we really want a T8 W12 Rhino (assuming it shares the Exorcists' stat line)?
Looking at the Overwatch rules in the rulebook, they occur before the actual Charge movement and follow all the rules for shooting except you have to have a 6 to hit.
Does that mean that if a unit starts a Charge beyond 8", you don't get to overwatch with a Flamer?
flakpanzer wrote: Looking at the Overwatch rules in the rulebook, they occur before the actual Charge movement and follow all the rules for shooting except you have to have a 6 to hit.
Does that mean that if a unit starts a Charge beyond 8", you don't get to overwatch with a Flamer?
That interpretation seems to be what everyone is going with. The text that allowed flamers to always hit regardless of range in 7th doesn't exist in 8th.
Well.....
Having pondered the rules for a long while, there are many things I like, and a handful I don't.
Not to beat the dead horse here, but I do wish there was some bonus for attacking the back half of a vhicle or Monstrous creature. Something like a +1 to hit would work fine.
I'm also bummed out that Custodes totally lost their ability to Deep Strike. They were the only army that had a deepstriking dreadnought that didn't need a drop pod. Now they are a total close combat army without the ability to shoot to any great degree.
cuda1179 wrote: Well.....
Having pondered the rules for a long while, there are many things I like, and a handful I don't.
Not to beat the dead horse here, but I do wish there was some bonus for attacking the back half of a vhicle or Monstrous creature. Something like a +1 to hit would work fine.
I'm also bummed out that Custodes totally lost their ability to Deep Strike. They were the only army that had a deepstriking dreadnought that didn't need a drop pod. Now they are a total close combat army without the ability to shoot to any great degree.
The entire Chaos Daemon faction lost Deep Strike as well. :(
cuda1179 wrote: Well.....
Having pondered the rules for a long while, there are many things I like, and a handful I don't.
Not to beat the dead horse here, but I do wish there was some bonus for attacking the back half of a vhicle or Monstrous creature. Something like a +1 to hit would work fine.
I'm also bummed out that Custodes totally lost their ability to Deep Strike. They were the only army that had a deepstriking dreadnought that didn't need a drop pod. Now they are a total close combat army without the ability to shoot to any great degree.
Looks like Vanguard Vets can take two chainswords, and, having two attacks, are able to split their attacks between each chainsword. As we all know, whenever you use a chainsword to attack, you can make an additional chainsword attack, thus doubling their attacks, yes?
Something I noticed the other day was a misprint on the Onager Dunecrawler. The characteristics on the damage chart go from 7-11+ and then 3-5. What happens at 6?
Messiah wrote: Something I noticed the other day was a misprint on the Onager Dunecrawler. The characteristics on the damage chart go from 7-11+ and then 3-5. What happens at 6?
Messiah wrote: Something I noticed the other day was a misprint on the Onager Dunecrawler. The characteristics on the damage chart go from 7-11+ and then 3-5. What happens at 6?
That art stream was interesting. On the one hand the news that they've recognised the "obviously digital" plastic look doesn't really fit with 40K, and that they're starting to do more work that focuses on "background" stuff, is all very welcome.
On the other, it's interesting to find out that they saw the old way of doing things as a weakness that undermined the IP when I've always found the opposite. Having multiple different artists all coming at the same themes with their own styles meant that while most people would have a preference for one style over another, almost everyone could find a favourite style very easily, and of course that could change over time - some projects I've worked on were fuelled by a particular artist who at other times I hadn't rated very highly but who had created a piece with just the right tone to match what was going on in my head.
They seem to be trying to "distill" all of the common elements out of the work from the various big names who've worked on the IP previously, but while that might result in a "stronger brand" I don't know that it will produce better art - I rate consistency in tone and theme far higher than consistency in style.
All that said, it seems like the rulebook from the boxed set will have some value in terms of new artwork even if I don't end up enjoying 8th as a system, so that's good to know.
Don't know if this has been sorted out yet but the wording for dedicated transports just confuses my brain for some reason haha.
It reads something like may take a dedicated transport for each other choice, does this mean you can take a dedicated transport for every other choice as in half of the force org slots you take or does it mean you can take a dedicated transport for every other choice meaning take one for every choice that is not a dedicated transport.
Mantle wrote: Don't know if this has been sorted out yet but the wording for dedicated transports just confuses my brain for some reason haha.
It reads something like may take a dedicated transport for each other choice, does this mean you can take a dedicated transport for every other choice as in half of the force org slots you take or does it mean you can take a dedicated transport for every other choice meaning take one for every choice that is not a dedicated transport.
Speculation: outflank and deep striking will be more prevalent through stratagems.
And yeah, I read it as you can take a dedicated transport for each other choice, but actually using them as a transport is restricted through keywords.
Mantle wrote: Don't know if this has been sorted out yet but the wording for dedicated transports just confuses my brain for some reason haha.
It reads something like may take a dedicated transport for each other choice, does this mean you can take a dedicated transport for every other choice as in half of the force org slots you take or does it mean you can take a dedicated transport for every other choice meaning take one for every choice that is not a dedicated transport.
My reading of it is that for every unit you take in your army that fills a force org slot that is not also a Transport, you can take 1 dedicated transport. IE, if you have 1 Captain, 3 tactical squads, 1 assault squad, and 1 devastator squad, you can take up to 6 transports with your army, provided you have the points to do so.
Looking at the Overwatch rules in the rulebook, they occur before the actual Charge movement and follow all the rules for shooting except you have to have a 6 to hit.
Does that mean that if a unit starts a Charge beyond 8", you don't get to overwatch with a Flamer?
It also currently means if you charge with a Character while you have a unit closer, they don't get to overwatch unless they have sniper rifles. Good Day Sir, I said GOOD DAY SIR!
Looking at the Overwatch rules in the rulebook, they occur before the actual Charge movement and follow all the rules for shooting except you have to have a 6 to hit.
Does that mean that if a unit starts a Charge beyond 8", you don't get to overwatch with a Flamer?
It also currently means if you charge with a Character while you have a unit closer, they don't get to overwatch unless they have sniper rifles. Good Day Sir, I said GOOD DAY SIR!
I don't have access to them at work but I'm curious:
What's the WS and BS of a Defiler in 8th Ed?
Mantle wrote: That would be 131 you have to buy all equipment a model is being armed with even if it's the basic loadout.
Seems like kind of a bass ackwards way of doing it. Just give things a base cost and work upgrades from there. Why add the extra step in?
Though I 'spose it does explain why we have things like 101 point Devilfish. Chances are they worked out how much a Devilfish was worth, then worked out how much the Burst Cannon would cost across the army, then just subtracted that from the cost of the Devilfish, giving us that really weird points value.
Oh I agree. And I totally wouldn't pull it on someone. Just pointing it out. So that it can get FAQ'd.
Seems like kind of a bass ackwards way of doing it. Just give things a base cost and work upgrades from there. Why add the extra step in?
Though I 'spose it does explain why we have things like 101 point Devilfish. Chances are they worked out how much a Devilfish was worth, then worked out how much the Burst Cannon would cost across the army, then just subtracted that from the cost of the Devilfish, giving us that really weird points value.
So if they decided the Burst Cannon was worth more or less they could just change its points. Not everything carrying it.
It means they can adjust the cost of the gun in the future without having to adjust the cost of every unit that uses it. Less chance of error and makes it clearer what's going on.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: I don't have access to them at work but I'm curious:
H.B.M.C. wrote: I don't have access to them at work but I'm curious:
What's the WS and BS of a Defiler in 8th Ed?
Mantle wrote: That would be 131 you have to buy all equipment a model is being armed with even if it's the basic loadout.
Seems like kind of a bass ackwards way of doing it. Just give things a base cost and work upgrades from there. Why add the extra step in?
Though I 'spose it does explain why we have things like 101 point Devilfish. Chances are they worked out how much a Devilfish was worth, then worked out how much the Burst Cannon would cost across the army, then just subtracted that from the cost of the Devilfish, giving us that really weird points value.
Because that way you don't pay from a weapon you aren't using. For example, a Terminator with Stormbolter and Powerfist. If they are added to the price of the unit and they you change them for TH/SS you are paying more that you should.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I don't have access to them at work but I'm curious:
What's the WS and BS of a Defiler in 8th Ed?
Mantle wrote: That would be 131 you have to buy all equipment a model is being armed with even if it's the basic loadout.
Seems like kind of a bass ackwards way of doing it. Just give things a base cost and work upgrades from there. Why add the extra step in?
Though I 'spose it does explain why we have things like 101 point Devilfish. Chances are they worked out how much a Devilfish was worth, then worked out how much the Burst Cannon would cost across the army, then just subtracted that from the cost of the Devilfish, giving us that really weird points value.
Because that way you don't pay from a weapon you aren't using. For example, a Terminator with Stormbolter and Powerfist. If they are added to the price of the unit and they you change them for TH/SS you are paying more that you should.
Pretty sure you still have to buy the Stormbolter and Powerfist so you can upgrade to the TH/SS, so you are over paying.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I don't have access to them at work but I'm curious:
What's the WS and BS of a Defiler in 8th Ed?
Mantle wrote: That would be 131 you have to buy all equipment a model is being armed with even if it's the basic loadout.
Seems like kind of a bass ackwards way of doing it. Just give things a base cost and work upgrades from there. Why add the extra step in?
Though I 'spose it does explain why we have things like 101 point Devilfish. Chances are they worked out how much a Devilfish was worth, then worked out how much the Burst Cannon would cost across the army, then just subtracted that from the cost of the Devilfish, giving us that really weird points value.
Because that way you don't pay from a weapon you aren't using. For example, a Terminator with Stormbolter and Powerfist. If they are added to the price of the unit and they you change them for TH/SS you are paying more that you should.
Pretty sure you still have to buy the Stormbolter and Powerfist so you can upgrade to the TH/SS, so you are over paying.
You only pay for the wargear you have, so if you take a Thunderhammer and Shield you don't pay for the Powerfist and Storm Bolter.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I don't have access to them at work but I'm curious:
What's the WS and BS of a Defiler in 8th Ed?
Mantle wrote: That would be 131 you have to buy all equipment a model is being armed with even if it's the basic loadout.
Seems like kind of a bass ackwards way of doing it. Just give things a base cost and work upgrades from there. Why add the extra step in?
Though I 'spose it does explain why we have things like 101 point Devilfish. Chances are they worked out how much a Devilfish was worth, then worked out how much the Burst Cannon would cost across the army, then just subtracted that from the cost of the Devilfish, giving us that really weird points value.
Because that way you don't pay from a weapon you aren't using. For example, a Terminator with Stormbolter and Powerfist. If they are added to the price of the unit and they you change them for TH/SS you are paying more that you should.
Pretty sure you still have to buy the Stormbolter and Powerfist so you can upgrade to the TH/SS, so you are over paying.
You only pay for the wargear you have, so if you take a Thunderhammer and Shield you don't pay for the Powerfist and Storm Bolter.
Except the dataslates specifically say they have X Weapon which you have to buy and that you can then replace X weapon with another. At least thats what seems to be implied to me.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I don't have access to them at work but I'm curious:
What's the WS and BS of a Defiler in 8th Ed?
Mantle wrote: That would be 131 you have to buy all equipment a model is being armed with even if it's the basic loadout.
Seems like kind of a bass ackwards way of doing it. Just give things a base cost and work upgrades from there. Why add the extra step in?
Though I 'spose it does explain why we have things like 101 point Devilfish. Chances are they worked out how much a Devilfish was worth, then worked out how much the Burst Cannon would cost across the army, then just subtracted that from the cost of the Devilfish, giving us that really weird points value.
Because that way you don't pay from a weapon you aren't using. For example, a Terminator with Stormbolter and Powerfist. If they are added to the price of the unit and they you change them for TH/SS you are paying more that you should.
Pretty sure you still have to buy the Stormbolter and Powerfist so you can upgrade to the TH/SS, so you are over paying.
You only pay for the wargear you have, so if you take a Thunderhammer and Shield you don't pay for the Powerfist and Storm Bolter.
Except the dataslates specifically say they have X Weapon which you have to buy and that you can then replace X weapon with another. At least thats what seems to be implied to me.
I don't think so, when doing points it's just cost of model then cost of wargear.
I'm a little confused on how the factions work for army building currently but confirmed for chaos through a preview that we have world eaters, emperors children, deathguard confirmed! Noise marines are 16 pts per model with 2 attacks with sonic blasters being 20 total being assault 3!!! About time they let me dust off slaanesh! Also no minus to saves, but ignores cover still and str 4. I wish I had time to read through the index, but I'll be painting until release now that I have an idea how the factions will work. The main rule book was not available to peek through, but I think different factions will require multiple detachments unlike previous chaos codexes. Also, combo meltas now cost a lot more than 5 pts if I read correctly
So Stormraven went WAY up in points unless my calculations are off. Stormraven with twin asscans, twin mmelta, 2 stormstrike missile launchers, and 2 hurricane bolters is 310. Is that right?
theharrower wrote: So Stormraven went WAY up in points unless my calculations are off. Stormraven with twin asscans, twin mmelta, 2 stormstrike missile launchers, and 2 hurricane bolters is 310. Is that right?
He can fire all his weapons to every model in sight in a 360º so it seems appropiate to me for all of that firepower.
theharrower wrote: So Stormraven went WAY up in points unless my calculations are off. Stormraven with twin asscans, twin mmelta, 2 stormstrike missile launchers, and 2 hurricane bolters is 310. Is that right?
He can fire all his weapons to every model in sight in a 360º so it seems appropiate to me for all of that firepower.
Not disputing it's a ton of firepower. Just want to make sure my points are on point.
theharrower wrote: So Stormraven went WAY up in points unless my calculations are off. Stormraven with twin asscans, twin mmelta, 2 stormstrike missile launchers, and 2 hurricane bolters is 310. Is that right?
He can fire all his weapons to every model in sight in a 360º so it seems appropiate to me for all of that firepower.
Not disputing it's a ton of firepower. Just want to make sure my points are on point.
Ya, points for everything went up. I think most tournaments might adjust to the rumored 2000 points match play, which might be similar to what we currently use at 1850.
Vector Strike wrote: Looks like any kind of Outflank is gone. Is it how you see it too, guys? Or did someone retain this ability?
edit: looks like ork warbuggies and AM rough rides have it
How do we sell models that look like they are stuck in the 90s???? Give them a very special rule that virtually no other model has.... I'm still not buying those ugly things.
That said, I feel like we probably need to step back and try things out before sending rage mail at GW. Things might shake out being more balanced than we thought once we've got them on the table and are playing games.
How could the following work out on the tabletop:
Triple a mediocre unit's price.(Vaul's Wrath Batteries)
-2T
-1 armour save penalty
I simply don't see how such a thing can NOT be a mistake. But despite things like this being obvious mistakes, GW almost NEVER owns up to it being a mistake, and so a unit gets relegated to the annals of history by being typo'd out of existence. This reminds me of the change to orbs of despair from being S10 with one use at 25 points to being S1, one use, Instant death at the same 25 points. GW claimed it wasn't a typo.
3 Vaul's Wrath Batteries with vibro-cannons used to cost 90 points. Now they nerfed them(T7 to T5 with 4+ instead of 3+), and they want to charge 291 points for them.
And double the wounds. With no chance of ID.
They don't have double the wounds. They have the same wounds they had before: 4. Each battery had 2, and each crew had 1. All they did was add all the wounds from the unit together. They didn't give them more. They also couldn't be ID's before, since they were T7. None of this is a positive, or comes close to justifying a 90 point to 291 point increase. They were considered mediocre units before, got nerfed, and had their price more than TRIPLED.
Daedalus81 wrote: Vibro cannons used to be 1 damage - at S7 (then 8 and 9 they would rarely ID something useful. Now they are D3.
This isn't worth a 201 point increase. If they gave us the old prices back, we'd just to a whole THREE damage every time, 1 per gun, for 90 points. There is no justification for this massive price spike. It has to be a mistake or someone using faulty logic in coming up with points values. Either one is possible.
Galas wrote: So basically what you are saying is that... Vehicles are viable now? ]
Here's funny thought: You can make viable vehicles that actually work like a vehicles rather than needing to dumb down rules.
What a novel concept! Rather than dumping down rules simply balance them appropriately.
Explain me how you make vehicles viable in a system where every other unit ignore all the special systems that vehicles have, where you can have 4-8 vehicles per side, fighting against Aircraft and Titans both mechanical and biological, without making a normal game lasting 3 hours or more.
You know why Epic was so streamlined, no? 40k is now Epic in 28mm scale.
If only things become balanced because one said that they should be balanced... what a magical world to live in.
In fairness though, epic died not long after it was streamlined into epic 40k.
No actually Epic died after it was shifted off to Specialist games and pushed away from the lime light because Kirby thought that if it wasn't 40k or Fantasy it would cannibalize sales from those two games. I played Space Marine and Adeptus Titanicus and loved them both, I played 2nd edition Epic and it was FANTASTIC!, I played 3rd and 4th and liked them. What I didn't like was not being able to play epic in the store and not being able to buy models in the store and having to mail order them.....that's what killed epic. I can't wait for the 'new epic' to come out same with Adeptus Titanicus....good times are coming people
8th has got me interested again in 40k, I play HH but this has that kinda 2nd edition vibe to it. I like it. It looks interesting. I will give it a honest shot and if I like it and I can port my IF's from HH to 40k relatively painlessly I just might.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Where does one measure range and LOS from a vehicle?
I hear arials are going to be big this edition... sigh.
But but but they raised obscurement from 25 to 50%. which now totally matters with the 0.001 percent your vehicle will need to fire literally all its weapons at any targets it wants. Yay?
But hey now we get to replay this again!
Spoiler:
God I miss that comic, I was just thinking about that with the new "Emperors Spears" chapter....is that a homage to the Emperors Pointy Sticks? ....
Saying that weapon that did one wound before is better because it does D3 now doesn't really make sense - things had far fewer wounds before. Really, weapons that do only 1 wound lost ground (though in most cases they gained the ability to wound on a 5+ what they needed a 6+ for previously).
FWIW, I cleaned up the paint by numbers primaris PDF that GW came out with and BOLS posted and made it so folks can easily color it with MSPaint using the "fill with color" button (the one that looks like a spilling paint can).
Galas wrote: Because that way you don't pay from a weapon you aren't using. For example, a Terminator with Stormbolter and Powerfist. If they are added to the price of the unit and they you change them for TH/SS you are paying more that you should.
VictorVonTzeentch wrote: Pretty sure you still have to buy the Stormbolter and Powerfist so you can upgrade to the TH/SS, so you are over paying.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: You only pay for the wargear you have, so if you take a Thunderhammer and Shield you don't pay for the Powerfist and Storm Bolter.
VictorVonTzeentch wrote: Except the dataslates specifically say they have X Weapon which you have to buy and that you can then replace X weapon with another. At least thats what seems to be implied to me.
Flood wrote: Technically, you buy the base wargear, then subtract what's being replaced, then add the new wargear.
Hmm... you can't all be right, and that last quote there's gonna require a page reference, as that sounds like a needlessly complicate method of working out points that would have to be stated in the rules to be true.
So which is it? You first pay the points for the weapon, then pay for the replacement weapon, or you just pay for the replacement weapon without paying for the base weapon cost?
If it's the latter then all the weird points levels make sense. If it's the former then Huston we have a problem.
Just noticed I'll be using Foetid Bloat-Drones, Blight Drones, and Plague Drones in my army...
I already have a hard time not confusing myself so this should be fun.
Galas wrote: Because that way you don't pay from a weapon you aren't using. For example, a Terminator with Stormbolter and Powerfist. If they are added to the price of the unit and they you change them for TH/SS you are paying more that you should.
VictorVonTzeentch wrote: Pretty sure you still have to buy the Stormbolter and Powerfist so you can upgrade to the TH/SS, so you are over paying.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: You only pay for the wargear you have, so if you take a Thunderhammer and Shield you don't pay for the Powerfist and Storm Bolter.
VictorVonTzeentch wrote: Except the dataslates specifically say they have X Weapon which you have to buy and that you can then replace X weapon with another. At least thats what seems to be implied to me.
Flood wrote: Technically, you buy the base wargear, then subtract what's being replaced, then add the new wargear.
Hmm... you can't all be right, and that last quote there's gonna require a page reference, as that sounds like a needlessly complicate method of working out points that would have to be stated in the rules to be true.
So which is it? You first pay the points for the weapon, then pay for the replacement weapon, or you just pay for the replacement weapon without paying for the base weapon cost?
If it's the latter then all the weird points levels make sense. If it's the former then Huston we have a problem.
You just pay the base point cost and whatever weapons you happen to take.
It's the latter. You pay the points for the model and whatever wargear it is equipped with. If I have Dreadnought with two twin autocannons, I'm only paying for the Dreadnought and two twin autocannons, not the assault cannon + storm bolter + dreadnought combat weapon it is normally equipped with.
The only reason some people you quoted/elsewhere believe you pay for base wargear then upgrades is because the new style of purchasing wargear is nothing like what it used to be, it's why prices for models (except most named characters) specifically say "does not include wargear". You equip your model with whatever wargear you want to give it, then pay the points for the model and its wargear. There's no need to "add base wargear, subtract it, then add new wargear" that's just over-complication, and you definitely don't purchase both base wargear and replacement wargear i.e. you don't pay for both a power fist and a chainfist on a Terminator.
Maybe I missed it somewhere in all the updates and leaks, but are relics, artifacts, and signature systems, etc. just gone now? If so, that is a hugely unnecessary step to "clean up the game". Those things made the game more interesting, even if some of them were broken (good or bad).
ZergSmasher wrote: Maybe I missed it somewhere in all the updates and leaks, but are relics, artifacts, and signature systems, etc. just gone now? If so, that is a hugely unnecessary step to "clean up the game". Those things made the game more interesting, even if some of them were broken (good or bad).
They will all come back in the codex with army stratagems and all of that. Maybe they publish some book with "generic" relics, artifacts etc... to every "faction". Imperium, Chaos, Eldar, Orks. etc...
But do you? As others have stated, the datasheets say you replace weapons with weapons. To replace something you have to have it first, which implies you have to buy it first.
I'm not arguing either method (or even alternate methods). I want to know what the rules say and if this is vague and needs clarification, or if we're missing something.
Swara wrote: Just noticed I'll be using Foetid Bloat-Drones, Blight Drones, and Plague Drones in my army...
I already have a hard time not confusing myself so this should be fun.
Just wait 'til GW release Foetid Blight-Bloat Plague Drones.
But do you? As others have stated, the datasheets say you replace weapons with weapons. To replace something you have to have it first, which implies you have to buy it first.
I'm not arguing either method (or even alternate methods). I want to know what the rules say and if this is vague and needs clarification, or if we're missing something.
Swara wrote: Just noticed I'll be using Foetid Bloat-Drones, Blight Drones, and Plague Drones in my army...
I already have a hard time not confusing myself so this should be fun.
Just wait 'til GW release Foetid Blight-Bloat Plague Drones.
I read it as you pay for the equipment you end up with, but i understand why there is confusion the other way. it would be good if GW would point up an example unit to clear it up.
warboss wrote: FWIW, I cleaned up the paint by numbers primaris PDF that GW came out with and BOLS posted and made it so folks can easily color it with MSPaint using the "fill with color" button (the one that looks like a spilling paint can).
But do you? As others have stated, the datasheets say you replace weapons with weapons. To replace something you have to have it first, which implies you have to buy it first.
I'm not arguing either method (or even alternate methods). I want to know what the rules say and if this is vague and needs clarification, or if we're missing something.
warboss wrote: FWIW, I cleaned up the paint by numbers primaris PDF that GW came out with and BOLS posted and made it so folks can easily color it with MSPaint using the "fill with color" button (the one that looks like a spilling paint can).
Thank you, sir.
Rippy wrote:Good job Warboss, thanks for that!
Glad it helps. With how "gothic"/motheaten the original was, if you tried filling a part then it'd bleed over to the next one through a hole as well as have some compression artifacts along the edges of the black lines. The version I posted may not be as pretty but you just click once on each armor section and it should fill completely with the chosen color. Thanks for keeping the thread updated as well.
GW took out the cost of the original gear when assigning points to units. That dreadnought that used to cost 100 and costs 70 now wouldn't add the cost of its original weapons, then also the switched upgrades. That would be like the 100pt OG dread swapping weapons, but then paying full price for its upgrade instead of what was often a free swap.
That said, I feel like we probably need to step back and try things out before sending rage mail at GW. Things might shake out being more balanced than we thought once we've got them on the table and are playing games.
How could the following work out on the tabletop:
Triple a mediocre unit's price.(Vaul's Wrath Batteries)
-2T
-1 armour save penalty
I simply don't see how such a thing can NOT be a mistake. But despite things like this being obvious mistakes, GW almost NEVER owns up to it being a mistake, and so a unit gets relegated to the annals of history by being typo'd out of existence. This reminds me of the change to orbs of despair from being S10 with one use at 25 points to being S1, one use, Instant death at the same 25 points. GW claimed it wasn't a typo.
3 Vaul's Wrath Batteries with vibro-cannons used to cost 90 points. Now they nerfed them(T7 to T5 with 4+ instead of 3+), and they want to charge 291 points for them.
And double the wounds. With no chance of ID.
They don't have double the wounds. They have the same wounds they had before: 4. Each battery had 2, and each crew had 1. All they did was add all the wounds from the unit together. They didn't give them more. They also couldn't be ID's before, since they were T7. None of this is a positive, or comes close to justifying a 90 point to 291 point increase. They were considered mediocre units before, got nerfed, and had their price more than TRIPLED.
Daedalus81 wrote: Vibro cannons used to be 1 damage - at S7 (then 8 and 9 they would rarely ID something useful. Now they are D3.
This isn't worth a 201 point increase. If they gave us the old prices back, we'd just to a whole THREE damage every time, 1 per gun, for 90 points. There is no justification for this massive price spike. It has to be a mistake or someone using faulty logic in coming up with points values. Either one is possible.
You went from 2 T7 3+ wounds and 2 T3 5+ wounds to 4 T5 4+.
That is...exactly average.
The previous gun required a hit. *This one does not.*
The previous gun gave a S bonus. This gives a to wound bonus, *which is better*.
The previous gun could not move and shoot. *This one can*.
But do you? As others have stated, the datasheets say you replace weapons with weapons. To replace something you have to have it first, which implies you have to buy it first.
I'm not arguing either method (or even alternate methods). I want to know what the rules say and if this is vague and needs clarification, or if we're missing something.
But do you? As others have stated, the datasheets say you replace weapons with weapons. To replace something you have to have it first, which implies you have to buy it first.
I'm not arguing either method (or even alternate methods). I want to know what the rules say and if this is vague and needs clarification, or if we're missing something.
I don't think its particularly vague, its just a totally new way for 40K to work, so it just feels a bit strange.
The unit's datasheet has 'base' weapons and gear presented, and options for stuff to be taken and/or replaced with other options. But remember, this is all in place to be done for free (with just general 'power levels') for narrative games. So you construct your unit using those rules in the datasheet, and then when you're all done with that you flip to the points cost page and total up what that unit costs with its final gear selections. You only play points for the weapons/options you end up taking for the unit.
I think regardless of base point costs largely coming down, the fact you have to then add in the cost of wargear for every model makes that cost climb higher. I think the 1800-2000 point armies of 7th are gonna end up between 2500-3000pts.
Vector Strike wrote: Looks like any kind of Outflank is gone. Is it how you see it too, guys? Or did someone retain this ability?
edit: looks like ork warbuggies and AM rough rides have it
How do we sell models that look like they are stuck in the 90s???? Give them a very special rule that virtually no other model has.... I'm still not buying those ugly things.
Remember the rumor engine from last week was a very orkish wheel...may be a new buggy model. Also, the new deffkopta rules gives every one a free bigbomm--of which there is no model at all. Why would GW make rules for an otherwise forgettable weapon if they didn't intend on making a model for it?
Too early too speculate...but I will anyway. An ork release will come within a couple of months.
Aforementioned deffkopta also outflanks, but can be within 14" of any table eadge...virtually anywhere on the board. It will have some nasty rokkits (if they hit). If you're playing orks, cover your characters' behinds.
yakface wrote: The unit's datasheet has 'base' weapons and gear presented, and options for stuff to be taken and/or replaced with other options. But remember, this is all in place to be done for free (with just general 'power levels') for narrative games. So you construct your unit using those rules in the datasheet, and then when you're all done with that you flip to the points cost page and total up what that unit costs with its final gear selections. You only play points for the weapons/options you end up taking for the unit.
I'm perfectly willing to accept that this is their intent, as it makes the most sense (I mean, it's obvious!) but is that what the rules say?
We all know that GW has never been all that hot at writing what they mean, or meaning what they write, and right now I interpret "Replace" as meaning you replacing something you already have, and in order to have that thing, you have to pay for it. Can't replace a Storm Bolter with a Thunder Hammer if you don't have the Storm Bolter to begin with, and the only way to get that is to pay for it.
Again, this is obviously not the way it's meant to work, but it may be written that way, and just like with Armoured Container Warlords and vehicles shooting through themselves, it's best to get all these weird RAW quirks out into the open ASAP so they can be dealt with.
yakface wrote: The unit's datasheet has 'base' weapons and gear presented, and options for stuff to be taken and/or replaced with other options. But remember, this is all in place to be done for free (with just general 'power levels') for narrative games. So you construct your unit using those rules in the datasheet, and then when you're all done with that you flip to the points cost page and total up what that unit costs with its final gear selections. You only play points for the weapons/options you end up taking for the unit.
I'm perfectly willing to accept that this is their intent, as it makes the most sense (I mean, it's obvious!) but is that what the rules say?
We all know that GW has never been all that hot at writing what they mean, or meaning what they write, and right now I interpret "Replace" as meaning you replacing something you already have, and in order to have that thing, you have to pay for it. Can't replace a Storm Bolter with a Thunder Hammer if you don't have the Storm Bolter to begin with, and the only way to get that is to pay for it.
Again, this is obviously not the way it's meant to work, but it may be written that way, and just like with Armoured Container Warlords and vehicles shooting through themselves, it's best to get all these weird RAW quirks out into the open ASAP so they can be dealt with.
Even if you do have to "buy" the default wargear first, when you replace it, you also replace its costs with those of the new gear because the data sheet doesn't tell you the cost of the upgrade.
But do you? As others have stated, the datasheets say you replace weapons with weapons. To replace something you have to have it first, which implies you have to buy it first.
I'm not arguing either method (or even alternate methods). I want to know what the rules say and if this is vague and needs clarification, or if we're missing something.
In the point values list, it says quite explicitly if you need to pay for wargear. Either "Points per Model (Does not include Wargear)" in most armies, or "Points per Model (Including Wargear)" like in the Daemon list.
I find it's fishy that Dark Angels can reroll failed hit rolls against <Fallen> units. Hint to a "new" army there?
Also, am I wrong or is the primaris inceptor squad (those guys with their ugly jump packs) 75 points *per model* ? I could get 5 scout snipers for the price of one of them. Seem pretty overcosted to me...
Mickmann wrote: I find it's fishy that Dark Angels can reroll failed hit rolls against <Fallen> units. Hint to a "new" army there?
Also, am I wrong or is the primaris inceptor squad (those guys with their ugly jump packs) 75 points *per model* ? I could get 5 scout snipers for the price of one of them. Seem pretty overcosted to me...
Fallen are in the Chaos index, along with Cypher (Who is a <FALLEN>, <IMPERIUM> and <CHAOS> model)
Vector Strike wrote: Looks like any kind of Outflank is gone. Is it how you see it too, guys? Or did someone retain this ability?
edit: looks like ork warbuggies and AM rough rides have it
How do we sell models that look like they are stuck in the 90s???? Give them a very special rule that virtually no other model has.... I'm still not buying those ugly things.
Remember the rumor engine from last week was a very orkish wheel...may be a new buggy model. Also, the new deffkopta rules gives every one a free bigbomm--of which there is no model at all. Why would GW make rules for an otherwise forgettable weapon if they didn't intend on making a model for it?
Too early too speculate...but I will anyway. An ork release will come within a couple of months.
Aforementioned deffkopta also outflanks, but can be within 14" of any table eadge...virtually anywhere on the board. It will have some nasty rokkits (if they hit). If you're playing orks, cover your characters' behinds.
I missed that one can you give me a link, it's been a long time coming speed freeks are a very popular army how ever nobody buys anything but bikes and coptas because the rest of the mobile units are 20 years old.
Also, am I wrong or is the primaris incessor squad (those guys with their ugly jump packs) 75 points *per model* ? I could get 5 scout snipers for the price of one of them. Seem pretty overcosted to me...
True, and the scouts will be better at shooting leaders, simply because they can and the Intercessors cannot. However the Intercessors put out 6 Heavy Bolter shots each and are far far more mobile. They have less wounds than 5 scouts but a better save and higher toughness. I think 75 is about right for them. Expensive, but if played well very deadly.
Mickmann wrote: I find it's fishy that Dark Angels can reroll failed hit rolls against <Fallen> units. Hint to a "new" army there?
Also, am I wrong or is the primaris inceptor squad (those guys with their ugly jump packs) 75 points *per model* ? I could get 5 scout snipers for the price of one of them. Seem pretty overcosted to me...
Fallen are in the Chaos index, along with Cypher (Who is a <FALLEN>, <IMPERIUM> and <CHAOS> model)
Sorry, I must have overread that. I didnt spend much time on the traitor index though to be honest.
Also, am I wrong or is the primaris incessor squad (those guys with their ugly jump packs) 75 points *per model* ? I could get 5 scout snipers for the price of one of them. Seem pretty overcosted to me...
True, and the scouts will be better at shooting leaders, simply because they can and the Intercessors cannot. However the Intercessors put out 6 Heavy Bolter shots each and are far far more mobile. They have less wounds than 5 scouts but a better save and higher toughness. I think 75 is about right for them. Expensive, but if played well very deadly.
Guess I will have to try 'em out, but I still think I will stick to my beloved scouts in the end. Power-Armored models should be sitting in the saddle of their bikes or speeders
Mickmann wrote: I find it's fishy that Dark Angels can reroll failed hit rolls against <Fallen> units. Hint to a "new" army there?
Also, am I wrong or is the primaris inceptor squad (those guys with their ugly jump packs) 75 points *per model* ? I could get 5 scout snipers for the price of one of them. Seem pretty overcosted to me...
Fallen are in the Chaos index, along with Cypher (Who is a <FALLEN>, <IMPERIUM> and <CHAOS> model)
Something's been bugging me.
Is Fallen a "standee" for <Legion>, or is it another keyword altogether. Because if it isn't, the it seems like Fallen and Cypher can't ride in anything.
There's 20 odd Fallen sitting on my shelf who haven't seen play in, well, a decade, and they're really hoping it's the former. Please alleviate their fears.
Looking at the Overwatch rules in the rulebook, they occur before the actual Charge movement and follow all the rules for shooting except you have to have a 6 to hit.
Does that mean that if a unit starts a Charge beyond 8", you don't get to overwatch with a Flamer?
It also currently means if you charge with a Character while you have a unit closer, they don't get to overwatch unless they have sniper rifles. Good Day Sir, I said GOOD DAY SIR!
That just seems goofy to me.
That's not right. The character rule only applies in the shooting phase.
"WITH ME, MEN! CHAAAAAAAA-WHARGARRBL"
That said, I feel like we probably need to step back and try things out before sending rage mail at GW. Things might shake out being more balanced than we thought once we've got them on the table and are playing games.
How could the following work out on the tabletop:
Triple a mediocre unit's price.(Vaul's Wrath Batteries)
-2T
-1 armour save penalty
I simply don't see how such a thing can NOT be a mistake. But despite things like this being obvious mistakes, GW almost NEVER owns up to it being a mistake, and so a unit gets relegated to the annals of history by being typo'd out of existence. This reminds me of the change to orbs of despair from being S10 with one use at 25 points to being S1, one use, Instant death at the same 25 points. GW claimed it wasn't a typo.
3 Vaul's Wrath Batteries with vibro-cannons used to cost 90 points. Now they nerfed them(T7 to T5 with 4+ instead of 3+), and they want to charge 291 points for them.
And double the wounds. With no chance of ID.
They don't have double the wounds. They have the same wounds they had before: 4. Each battery had 2, and each crew had 1. All they did was add all the wounds from the unit together. They didn't give them more. They also couldn't be ID's before, since they were T7. None of this is a positive, or comes close to justifying a 90 point to 291 point increase. They were considered mediocre units before, got nerfed, and had their price more than TRIPLED.
Daedalus81 wrote: Vibro cannons used to be 1 damage - at S7 (then 8 and 9 they would rarely ID something useful. Now they are D3.
This isn't worth a 201 point increase. If they gave us the old prices back, we'd just to a whole THREE damage every time, 1 per gun, for 90 points. There is no justification for this massive price spike. It has to be a mistake or someone using faulty logic in coming up with points values. Either one is possible.
You went from 2 T7 3+ wounds and 2 T3 5+ wounds to 4 T5 4+.
That is...exactly average.
The previous gun required a hit. *This one does not.*
The previous gun gave a S bonus. This gives a to wound bonus, *which is better*.
The previous gun could not move and shoot. *This one can*.
No, previously, the 40k rules stated that gun crew were T7 versus shooting attacks so long as at least 1 gun remained in the unit. So they were pretty much all T7 against shooting.
And with the other nerfs, the other changes don't really justify making the points cost go from 90 to 291. Honestly, they don't even justify a points increase at all. I'd rather have the vibro cannons do 1 damage each, require a hit, and get 3 of them for 90 points, even if they can't shoot and move than what they're proposing here.
It looks like they were looking at the points cost for 3 of them(a full unit), and accidentally made the cost per model with a shadow weaver or vibro cannon the cost of an entire unit.
Not seen mention of this in the opening post, but I have it on good authority that there will be a collectors edition of the rules available (as with previous releases) which should be coming in at £250.
No details as to contents yet, and I'd expect some sort of post on this either today or tomorrow from the community site.
elaverick wrote: Not seen mention of this in the opening post, but I have it on good authority that there will be a collectors edition of the rules available (as with previous releases) which should be coming in at £250.
No details as to contents yet, and I'd expect some sort of post on this either today or tomorrow from the community site.
250£?????? Is there a Thunderhawk included or does it come with gold coins as objective markers?
elaverick wrote: Not seen mention of this in the opening post, but I have it on good authority that there will be a collectors edition of the rules available (as with previous releases) which should be coming in at £250.
No details as to contents yet, and I'd expect some sort of post on this either today or tomorrow from the community site.
elaverick wrote: Not seen mention of this in the opening post, but I have it on good authority that there will be a collectors edition of the rules available (as with previous releases) which should be coming in at £250.
No details as to contents yet, and I'd expect some sort of post on this either today or tomorrow from the community site.
250£?????? Is there a Thunderhawk included or does it come with gold coins as objective markers?
The info I have is that it's core rules only and you'll still need to buy the index books too.
Mickmann wrote: I find it's fishy that Dark Angels can reroll failed hit rolls against <Fallen> units. Hint to a "new" army there?
Also, am I wrong or is the primaris inceptor squad (those guys with their ugly jump packs) 75 points *per model* ? I could get 5 scout snipers for the price of one of them. Seem pretty overcosted to me...
Fallen are in the Chaos index, along with Cypher (Who is a <FALLEN>, <IMPERIUM> and <CHAOS> model)
Something's been bugging me.
Is Fallen a "standee" for <Legion>, or is it another keyword altogether. Because if it isn't, the it seems like Fallen and Cypher can't ride in anything.
There's 20 odd Fallen sitting on my shelf who haven't seen play in, well, a decade, and they're really hoping it's the former. Please alleviate their fears.
They couldn't really ride in anything before either.
But do you? As others have stated, the datasheets say you replace weapons with weapons. To replace something you have to have it first, which implies you have to buy it first.
I'm not arguing either method (or even alternate methods). I want to know what the rules say and if this is vague and needs clarification, or if we're missing something.
In the point values list, it says quite explicitly if you need to pay for wargear. Either "Points per Model (Does not include Wargear)" in most armies, or "Points per Model (Including Wargear)" like in the Daemon list.
Yes!
The datasheets and things written on them relate to army selection using power levels, right? Hence the "change this for that".
The point values lists state you pick a model and wargear, and simply add up the points for "the wargear it is equipped with". This is used when buying the army using points.
If the (extremely highly supremely) illogical step of first paying for wargear only to swap it out and paying for yet more wargear was intended, it would have been explicitly written. Perhaps an example to illustrate the above would have been nice, but in my mind you really have to bend over backwards to interpret it any other way...
I don't want to sound too demanding here, but.....
I noticed some of the rules are missing from all of the leaked images being spread around. There are no shots of the Custodes Army List page. The one that lists army special rules and Faction Key Words.
If anyone has a picture of that I'd be very grateful.
Yep, the dataslates are like a munitions bunker, you go in and get given standard equipment and some of the models may get to swap that out for other equipment, after that if you're playing Narrative you run straight off to war.
If you're playing Matched, you instead have to run all your equipment by the quartermaster first who tallies up everything your guys are carrying. It's an extra step just for Matched Play. There's certainly no running back an forth between the munitions bunker and the quartermaster - they are two distinct steps.
Yes - so basically we need to separate the acts of choosing our equipment and paying for it. You choose everything you want - obeying all restrictions. Then you work out what you end up with and pay for that.
I was confused with the Tau Devilfish at first - not realising that if I choose to have a pair of Gun Drones I need to add them to it's cost. It's not been that way before.
cuda1179 wrote: I don't want to sound too demanding here, but.....
I noticed some of the rules are missing from all of the leaked images being spread around. There are no shots of the Custodes Army List page. The one that lists army special rules and Faction Key Words..
Entirely possible there isn't one. It looks like, although hard to tell with some of the page numbers being chopped off, that Custodes is on p162, while assassins are on p161, so not a missing page.
cuda1179 wrote: I don't want to sound too demanding here, but.....
I noticed some of the rules are missing from all of the leaked images being spread around. There are no shots of the Custodes Army List page. The one that lists army special rules and Faction Key Words..
Entirely possible there isn't one. It looks like, although hard to tell with some of the page numbers being chopped off, that Custodes is on p162, while assassins are on p161, so not a missing page.
Looks like what I am looking for would be on page 125.
Rippy wrote: We need some o' dem FW index leaks now.
I need those chaos Spartan, sicaran and fire raptor rules.
They also said there would be Badab updates. Seems weird as we don't even have the regular Chapter Tactics back yet.
Quite possibly it's new datasheets for the Tyrant's Legion army list. Corpse-taker squads, Retaliators, auxilia, etc. Even if that's just a list saying "add the <TYRANT'S LEGION> keyword to the following datasheets ..."
Rippy wrote: £250 for a rulebook that could get heavily changed in a year thanks to living rule book
Exactly what was going through my mind... not sure it's a very good offer... except for the compulsive completionists.
Agreed, I was all ready to buy the complete set then I looked at the leaked booked and it no longer feels good value especially as I am expecting the main factions to get codexes (or whatever they end up being called now) very quickly. I shall buy the FW indexes though, as FW will be slower to update the IA book and the IA books are more expensive so I will be less likely to replace those, especially as the fluff in them won't be changing.
aka_mythos wrote:I think regardless of base point costs largely coming down, the fact you have to then add in the cost of wargear for every model makes that cost climb higher. I think the 1800-2000 point armies of 7th are gonna end up between 2500-3000pts.
Yup my though exactly.
Also maybe i missed it, but i din't see anything related to vehicles weapons fire arcs.
Do they simply shoot at 360* like any models?, isn't that odd giving that for instance lots of vehicles have weapons that couldn't see a perticular target because of their size or simply because th sponson is on the other side without any LoS?
Or do we simplu follow True LoS, and if the weapon can't see it, then i doesn't shoot it?
Rippy wrote: £250 for a rulebook that could get heavily changed in a year thanks to living rule book
Exactly what was going through my mind... not sure it's a very good offer... except for the compulsive completionists.
I don't really think that the contents of the main rulebook will change at all. In the yearly update I expect to see changed point costs and new Battlezones/scenarios, but no changes to the core rules.
aka_mythos wrote:I think regardless of base point costs largely coming down, the fact you have to then add in the cost of wargear for every model makes that cost climb higher. I think the 1800-2000 point armies of 7th are gonna end up between 2500-3000pts.
Yup my though exactly.
Also maybe i missed it, but i din't see anything related to vehicles weapons fire arcs.
Do they simply shoot at 360* like any models?, isn't that odd giving that for instance lots of vehicles have weapons that couldn't see a perticular target because of their size or simply because th sponson is on the other side without any LoS?
Or do we simplu follow True LoS, and if the weapon can't see it, then i doesn't shoot it?
This was a gigantic can of worms with a massive discussion yesterday.
Vehicles now behave like any other model: They can shoot all their weapons in a 360º . They are no longer a separate "thing" compared to the rest of your army.
mmh, maybe i should reformulate my question, is there like before a restriction to a vehicle orientation when it shoots.
If your Land Raider move forward during the movement phase, and then want to shoot all of its weapons to a target that is on his left, what happens?, can you freely pivot the Tank and shoot everything?
Or once the vehicle as moved you can't pivot it anymore? like it works right now?
Now be it one or the other the Land raider can still shoot with all its weapons anyway, since he can simply shoot with the weapons that doesn't have LoS on another target.
Slayer le boucher wrote: mmh, maybe i should reformulate my question, is there like before a restriction to a vehicle orientation when it shoots.
If your Land Raider move forward during the movement phase, and then want to shoot all of its weapons to a target that is on his left, what happens?, can you freely pivot the Tank and shoot everything?
Or once the vehicle as moved you can't pivot it anymore? like it works right now?
You don't even have to pivot it, all vehicles can fire all their weapons 360 degrees. No LOS from the weapon needed.
Slayer le boucher wrote: mmh, maybe i should reformulate my question, is there like before a restriction to a vehicle orientation when it shoots.
If your Land Raider move forward during the movement phase, and then want to shoot all of its weapons to a target that is on his left, what happens?, can you freely pivot the Tank and shoot everything?
Or once the vehicle as moved you can't pivot it anymore? like it works right now?
It's exactly like a normal unit now - so long as you can draw LoS from the vehicle's hull it doesn't matter where the gun is actually pointed at.
For example you can have a Vindicator pointed somewhere and shoot the Demolisher Cannon against a unit behind it without having to pivot.
Think of how dreadnoughts worked before - it's exactly the same but for all vehicles.
Rippy wrote: £250 for a rulebook that could get heavily changed in a year thanks to living rule book
Exactly what was going through my mind... not sure it's a very good offer... except for the compulsive completionists.
I don't really think that the contents of the main rulebook will change at all. In the yearly update I expect to see changed point costs and new Battlezones/scenarios, but no changes to the core rules.
Even so, they'll be a new collector's ultimate edition sometime soon after that. GW have gotten better at a lot of things, but putting out expensive collector's editions that have actual value other than in name isn't one of their strengths.
I mean.. if shooting backwards annoys you.. just turn your tank around 180°. If you don't move it any inches no opponent would argue you actually moved it.
RoninXiC wrote: I mean.. if shooting backwards annoys you.. just turn your tank around 180°. If you don't move it any inches no opponent would argue you actually moved it.
Looks better for you and is legal.
"Problem" solved.
I am unsure if this was directed at me. If it was I don't think you got the gist of my post.
I was explaining the rules and gave a concrete example on how they work. End of.
RoninXiC wrote: I mean.. if shooting backwards annoys you.. just turn your tank around 180°. If you don't move it any inches no opponent would argue you actually moved it.
Looks better for you and is legal.
"Problem" solved.
Actually unless you turn 180 degrees that CAN have clear in-game benefit allowing you to actually move just a wee bit more than you should have been able to.
So better you don't do it. Especially as it even doesn't really solve most of suspension of disbelief issues.
Though to be fair it has potential of hurting you as well but odds are it would be more helpful than hinder.
RoninXiC wrote: I mean.. if shooting backwards annoys you.. just turn your tank around 180°. If you don't move it any inches no opponent would argue you actually moved it.
Looks better for you and is legal.
"Problem" solved.
Actually unless you turn 180 degrees that CAN have clear in-game benefit allowing you to actually move just a wee bit more than you should have been able to.
So better you don't do it. Especially as it even doesn't really solve most of suspension of disbelief issues.
Though to be fair it has potential of hurting you as well but odds are it would be more helpful than hinder.
Obviously what happened was that the vehicle did a sick powerslide and shot on the move, then abstracted for game purposes..
Azegoroth wrote: Obviously what happened was that the vehicle did a sick powerslide and shot on the move, then abstracted for game purposes..
Let's not argue about that anymore okay?-) My point was that since turning vehicle on shooting phase _can_ have effect(both benefit and disadvantage but since you are the one controlling it more likely benefit...) don't turn vehicle on the shooting phase to point the enemy. If you want to do that turn it around in movement phase following movement rules which can mean slight reduction in movement you can do.
Turning isn't required for game rules and can lead to argument about you using to to gain in-game benefit so better to avoid it.
Azegoroth wrote: Obviously what happened was that the vehicle did a sick powerslide and shot on the move, then abstracted for game purposes..
Let's not argue about that anymore okay?-) My point was that since turning vehicle on shooting phase _can_ have effect(both benefit and disadvantage but since you are the one controlling it more likely benefit...) don't turn vehicle on the shooting phase to point the enemy. If you want to do that turn it around in movement phase following movement rules which can mean slight reduction in movement you can do.
Turning isn't required for game rules and can lead to argument about you using to to gain in-game benefit so better to avoid it.
I'm guessing they did it like this because some vehicles have movable turrets/weapon mounts and some don't. Easier to just let them shoot all the weapons. I'll probably discuss with my local group that it needs to be a part of the hull/body, not random antennae/tails/spikes/servo-skulls, etc.
Azegoroth wrote: Obviously what happened was that the vehicle did a sick powerslide and shot on the move, then abstracted for game purposes..
Let's not argue about that anymore okay?-) My point was that since turning vehicle on shooting phase _can_ have effect(both benefit and disadvantage but since you are the one controlling it more likely benefit...) don't turn vehicle on the shooting phase to point the enemy. If you want to do that turn it around in movement phase following movement rules which can mean slight reduction in movement you can do.
Turning isn't required for game rules and can lead to argument about you using to to gain in-game benefit so better to avoid it.
I'm guessing they did it like this because some vehicles have movable turrets/weapon mounts and some don't. Easier to just let them shoot all the weapons. I'll probably discuss with my local group that it needs to be a part of the hull/body, not random antennae/tails/spikes/servo-skulls, etc.
Rippy wrote: Awww yisss maybe more info coming soon, hopefully new models
Spoiler:
Awe, what is it? I can't access imgur at work.
EDIT: Also, it took me an entire month to make it to the end of this thread; this thing is a beast. Fair feths to Rippy for keeping the first post up to date.
Frankly, it needs less missile pods. That's saying something, coming from a Tau player. The turret, cupola and the co-axial systems are really cool, but there are too many random missile pods that look forced on.
That... that is beautiful. That's pretty much the Imperium of Man in tank form: If you have no idea how to properly do it, BRUTE FORCE IT. Elegant and sleek floating tanks? Pfft, just ram as much power as you can!
Sidstyler wrote: Yeah, I don't get all the rocket pods all over it.
Considering the rockets on the sides and rear, I'm leaning to the idea that they're a defense gimmick rather than rules (think like an anti rpg system or the tau flechette launcher)
Also interesting to note is the missiles on the back are the same as the repressor dreadnought's carapace launcher (still thinking it might be a new smoke launcher or somesuch)
Definitely torn on this one. There are some really nice elements, but I not sure that I like the overall profile. I think if you removed the hull mounted gun and the missile pods from the turret, it would look a lot better.
Sidstyler wrote: Yeah, I don't get all the rocket pods all over it.
Considering the rockets on the sides and rear, I'm leaning to the idea that they're a defense gimmick rather than rules (think like an anti rpg system or the tau flechette launcher)
Also interesting to note is the missiles on the back are the same as the repressor dreadnought's carapace launcher (still thinking it might be a new smoke launcher or somesuch)
I started thinking about that after I posted. I also forgot about the one on the back, that round pod does look the same as the dreadnought one.
They don't seem to have smoke launchers anywhere so it very well could be.
As for the profile, I do kinda like it overall, but I don't like the turret. And the turret is also covered in way too much "stuff" on top of that.
Sidstyler wrote: Yeah, I don't get all the rocket pods all over it.
Considering the rockets on the sides and rear, I'm leaning to the idea that they're a defense gimmick rather than rules (think like an anti rpg system or the tau flechette launcher)
Also interesting to note is the missiles on the back are the same as the repressor dreadnought's carapace launcher (still thinking it might be a new smoke launcher or somesuch)
I started thinking about that after I posted. I also forgot about the one on the back, that round pod does look the same as the dreadnought one.
They don't seem to have smoke launchers anywhere so it very well could be.
Maybe Deathwind launchers for when it Deep Strikes?
Sidstyler wrote: Yeah, I don't get all the rocket pods all over it.
Considering the rockets on the sides and rear, I'm leaning to the idea that they're a defense gimmick rather than rules (think like an anti rpg system or the tau flechette launcher)
Also interesting to note is the missiles on the back are the same as the repressor dreadnought's carapace launcher (still thinking it might be a new smoke launcher or somesuch)
I started thinking about that after I posted. I also forgot about the one on the back, that round pod does look the same as the dreadnought one.
They don't seem to have smoke launchers anywhere so it very well could be.
As for the profile, I do kinda like it overall, but I don't like the turret. And the turret is also covered in way too much "stuff" on top of that.
Yeah I agree there's too much going on with the stuff on the turret for 40k (reality vehicles have much more junk on em but aesthetic is aesthetic).
Anyone else think this sucker is going to be a Bradley? Side and rear hatch makes me think it'll have a 6 man primaris capacity.
This thing is an atrocity.
It looks like a 6 year old cobbled it together from everything the kid thought it to be cool.
Add guns!
Add a turret for more guns!
Better guns in the front!
Assault Cannon as a PINDLE WEAPON!
Make it fly!
Give it Jet Engines!
Repulsor indeed. My desire to get anything but the starter box and a Redemptor dread got repulsed out of buying range.
The rest of it? Kitbash city. It looks like the result of an enthusiastic kid enjoying themselves by gluing every gun in the kit to the model, not realising there's meant to be choices.
Though I reckon if you had the flaps down on the rockets, and left off the Techmarine, Pintel Weapon and search light, it might look more pleasing.
carabine wrote: Yeah I agree there's too much going on with the stuff on the turret for 40k (reality vehicles have much more junk on em but aesthetic is aesthetic).
Anyone else think this sucker is going to be a Bradley? Side and rear hatch makes me think it'll have a 6 man primaris capacity.
I'm not opposed to that kinda thing, really; I think more "realistic" levels of junk on vehicles would be cool in some cases, but for some reason with this tank it doesn't do it for me. Probably just because it's Space Marines, it looks "off" compared to their other vehicles whereas without the turret it would probably fit right in (save for Cawl's heretical "tinkering" bringing back anti-gravitic engines, anyway).
But yeah, I wonder if a squad of Primaris Marines could actually fit inside this one.
changemod wrote: ...Why are people calling it a grav raider when it's clearly rhino sized?
Is it? If that's a Primaris marine hanging out the top then it looks bigger than a Rhino.
It's actually the marine I'm basing it off, there's room for two marines to potentially lean out the top of a Rhino, and the turret looks smaller than a predator's turret.
How many missile pods does that thing need? Assuming it's symmetrical to some extent it has...FOUR. What's it do? Show up and fire missiles everywhere just to have a backdrop of explosions?
DarkStarSabre wrote: How many missile pods does that thing need? Assuming it's symmetrical to some extent it has...FOUR. What's it do? Show up and fire missiles everywhere just to have a backdrop of explosions?
I would suspect the missile pods above the doors may just be frag assault launchers like the LR Crusader has, and one of the pods on the turret to be a smoke launcher.
Be nice if Cawl would give his own boys some hot new tech.. a flier or a transport maybe
I don't mind the tank but I always think of the imperium as tank-track style, bar the ladspeeder. Not entirely convinced it fits their aesthetic. Not bad overall though.
I don't mind the tank but I always think of the imperium as tank-track style, bar the ladspeeder. Not entirely convinced it fits their aesthetic. Not bad overall though.
So this is a preview of a product that will be made to fix the problems in a product that hasn't been released yet?
"We’ve said right from the start that the new edition of Warhammer 40,000 is one that we’d work to make even better over time. This is one of the ways that will happen. Each year, you’ll have a new Chapter Approved, expanding your gaming options and making what we think is already the best Warhammer 40,000 ever, even better.
Expect the first Chapter Approved book in time for Christmas."
I have some questions to the leaked stuff. Haven't found answers so far yet.
Chaos:
1. I can't find the melt bomb anywhere in the Chaos index. Are they gone?
2. I can't find vehicle equitment like dirge casters and dozer blades. Are these things gone?
Orks:
1. The looted wagon is missing in the ork index part. Is it confirmed, that its gone?
General:
The indecis mention Legions and Marks for Chaos and Clan for Orks but those things are not described in the indices. Am i missing something, or will these come with codices?
DarkStarSabre wrote: How many missile pods does that thing need? Assuming it's symmetrical to some extent it has...FOUR. What's it do? Show up and fire missiles everywhere just to have a backdrop of explosions?
I found 6!
There's at least 7 from what I can see.
Also my god can GW make Cawl any more of an annoyingly good at everything character?
When they fist came up with him the premise of a 10k old Archmagos was kind of cool, but now he seems to just be able to do anything and everything the plot needs him to do.
DarkStarSabre wrote: How many missile pods does that thing need? Assuming it's symmetrical to some extent it has...FOUR. What's it do? Show up and fire missiles everywhere just to have a backdrop of explosions?
DarkStarSabre wrote: How many missile pods does that thing need? Assuming it's symmetrical to some extent it has...FOUR. What's it do? Show up and fire missiles everywhere just to have a backdrop of explosions?
I found 6!
There is 7.
3 on the hull (above side doors and the rear of tank) and 4 in the turret 2x on the sides (big black square with white missiles) and 2x in the front side painted differently)
P.S: i think the black squares with white missiles are some kind of melee/defensive measure for close quarters.
So this is a preview of a product that will be made to fix the problems in a product that hasn't been released yet?
"We’ve said right from the start that the new edition of Warhammer 40,000 is one that we’d work to make even better over time. This is one of the ways that will happen. Each year, you’ll have a new Chapter Approved, expanding your gaming options and making what we think is already the best Warhammer 40,000 ever, even better.
Expect the first Chapter Approved book in time for Christmas."
So this is a preview of a product that will be made to fix the problems in a product that hasn't been released yet?
"We’ve said right from the start that the new edition of Warhammer 40,000 is one that we’d work to make even better over time. This is one of the ways that will happen. Each year, you’ll have a new Chapter Approved, expanding your gaming options and making what we think is already the best Warhammer 40,000 ever, even better.
Expect the first Chapter Approved book in time for Christmas."
If chapter approved works like it used to and gives you tools for customising your army a bit more such as giving build a bear units and wild conversion opportunities you can actually field, It'll be the first thing about this edition I have unreserved excitement for.
They really are trying hard to destroy internal consistency in their setting with vehicles like this.. Where were all these technological advancements hiding? I guess it's nice that a SINGLE previously unknown character magically creates them all in the last year.
Primaris should use everything space marines use since Guilliman is leading them.. you know the guy who wrote the codex astartes.
RoboDragon wrote: Be nice if Cawl would give his own boys some hot new tech.. a flier or a transport maybe
I don't mind the tank but I always think of the imperium as tank-track style, bar the ladspeeder. Not entirely convinced it fits their aesthetic. Not bad overall though.
Actually, it kind of makes. Pre-heresy the Imperium actually had access to quite a few varients of grav tanks, the plans of which were lost in the civil war and due to time. If the Primaris Marines use tech from before the heresy, which appears to be the case, then it would make sense they would have some form of grav tank.
Now the question is, does that mean every one else in the imperium gets a grav tank now? Or is Cawl just going to go "nuh uh, my tank. Get your own plans"
Now the question is, does that mean every one else in the imperium gets a grav tank now? Or is Cawl just going to go "nuh uh, my tank. Get your own plans"
as Primaris cannot be transported by anything lese I guess this one will exclusive transport primaris
The most important piece of this tank isn't receiving any press. Check out the flying stand it's on! That sucker is thick! Like 1" diameter thick. Finally, a stand for a skimmer that won't snap!
DarkStarSabre wrote: How many missile pods does that thing need? Assuming it's symmetrical to some extent it has...FOUR. What's it do? Show up and fire missiles everywhere just to have a backdrop of explosions?
I found 6!
There's at least 7 from what I can see.
Also my god can GW make Cawl any more of an annoyingly good at everything character?
When they fist came up with him the premise of a 10k old Archmagos was kind of cool, but now he seems to just be able to do anything and everything the plot needs him to do.
I was thinking this as well, although to be honest it just goes to show how bad the fluff now is, ( to me anyway ).
We now have Eldar, Mechanicus, Inquisition and Space Marines with a super special character added, with Death Guard up next, literally no thought needed !!
If I were the collector of a race that has not yet been updated for 8th, I would not worry, we can assume that every faction will get a suped up super special character and maybe some units to go with him / her, at some point in the future, its the only thing GW seem to be able to come up with nowadays !
At least the majority of the sculpts are decent, they give me a reason to stay interested and to be honest it seems like two new GW fans appear every time one of us falls by the wayside, good on them !
This seems to happen quite a lot two over the past year or so, especially in light of the new storyline developments.
The Primaris were designed 10,000 years ago along with their equipment and armor and kept in stasis, right? That would technically make them pre heresy.
Now the question is, does that mean every one else in the imperium gets a grav tank now? Or is Cawl just going to go "nuh uh, my tank. Get your own plans"
as Primaris cannot be transported by anything lese I guess this one will exclusive transport primaris
I mean future grav tank releases. Like an Imperial Guard grav tank, an admech grav tank, inquisitorial grav tank, etc etc.
Kirasu wrote: They really are trying hard to destroy internal consistency in their setting with vehicles like this.. Where were all these technological advancements hiding? I guess it's nice that a SINGLE previously unknown character magically creates them all in the last year.
Primaris should use everything space marines use since Guilliman is leading them.. you know the guy who wrote the codex astartes.
That's the same thing as with Corvex. How in blazes did they lose the last imperial jetbike and still have it afterwards?
Kirasu wrote: They really are trying hard to destroy internal consistency in their setting with vehicles like this.. Where were all these technological advancements hiding? I guess it's nice that a SINGLE previously unknown character magically creates them all in the last year.
Primaris should use everything space marines use since Guilliman is leading them.. you know the guy who wrote the codex astartes.
I actually think it's perfectly in line with their consistency.
We know they had this tech before, but as time went on they lost the ability to produce it.
The Mechanicum becomes more dogmatic, any unsanctioned tinkering is akin to heresy, possibly if it even means bringing back old styles.
Cawl is confirmed 10,000 years old, so he's familiar with everything from the older eras. Problem is he's got to lay low to avoid claims of heresy, plus he's buried in his own work.
Bobby G comes back, suddenly he's got a change of management that's totally in support of new tech or bringing back old superior tech.
docdoom77 wrote: The most important piece of this tank isn't receiving any press. Check out the flying stand it's on! That sucker is thick! Like 1" diameter thick. Finally, a stand for a skimmer that won't snap!
Love the idea behind the Repulsor, but it's a really sloppy execution. For starters the grav plates are an incredibly awkward shape. They look unfinished and strike a very angular, almost pixel-like profile against the smooth hull of the vehicle. It's also very strange that the vehicle has the same design as its threaded predecessors, even though it has no use for thread covers. I love the look of the pintel mounted weapon, and I love that the back looks like a re-imagined Imperial Devilfish.
I think this is a huge missed opportunity in terms of the design aesthetic.
Kirasu wrote: They really are trying hard to destroy internal consistency in their setting with vehicles like this.. Where were all these technological advancements hiding? I guess it's nice that a SINGLE previously unknown character magically creates them all in the last year.
Primaris should use everything space marines use since Guilliman is leading them.. you know the guy who wrote the codex astartes.
That's the same thing as with Corvex. How in blazes did they lose the last imperial jetbike and still have it afterwards?
This is hinted at pretty heavily that the Dark Angels have hidden reservoirs of old tech in the Rock, it's perfectly feasible that they have old STCs for Corvex and other technological "marvels" nobody else has.
Even during the Great Crusade they were known to have strange, mysterious tech nobody else had.
Love the idea behind the Repulsor, but it's a really sloppy execution. For starters the grav plates are an incredibly awkward shape. They look unfinished and strike a very angular, almost pixel-like profile against the smooth hull of the vehicle. It's also very strange that the vehicle has the same design as its threaded predecessors, even though it has no use for thread covers. I love the look of the pintel mounted weapon, and I love that the back looks like a re-imagined Imperial Devilfish.
I think this is a huge missed opportunity in terms of the design aesthetic.
It kind of makes sense, if you think of it as a predator landraider chassis that's been sloppily upgraded with grav tech and more guns. To me the implication is that while they had the primaris infantry ready, they didn't have the vehicles for them, so they had to convert existing vehicle models with the new tech they dug up.
Well, It seems my suspicions were right and it is a grav tank.
It looks really good, I'm relieved after the ugly dreadnought. I like all the stovage, but as noted, the amount of missiles is a tad excessive. Then again, with those new and controversial vehicle shooting rules it doesn't matter where on the vehicle you place the weapons, so one can toy with the placement to achieve more balanced look. I think that in particular the two different types of missiles on the turret is too much, so it might be good idea to place the another pair someplace else.
scatter wrote: I have some questions to the leaked stuff. Haven't found answers so far yet.
Chaos:
1. I can't find the melt bomb anywhere in the Chaos index. Are they gone?
2. I can't find vehicle equitment like dirge casters and dozer blades. Are these things gone?
Orks:
1. The looted wagon is missing in the ork index part. Is it confirmed, that its gone?
General:
The indecis mention Legions and Marks for Chaos and Clan for Orks but those things are not described in the indices. Am i missing something, or will these come with codices?
THX!
You're not really missing anything. Lots of factions lost named units from supplements or White Dwarf exclusive stuff. You basically get your basic stuff with no fancy rules. The expectation is that we'll buy indexes now AND codexes later to get the full rules for our armies. The real question in my mind is how long will that take? 8th Edition drops 6/17. How many months/years until I have codexes in hand for my various armies? Who knows. Age of Sigmar has been out for ~2 years now and most of the factions don't have a full battletome. Given GW's history, I wouldn't be surprised if I don't get a codex for my army for a couple of years.
Interesting. So Cawl is taking STCs and tinkering around with them and altering them into new tech. Yet another little tidbit of information confirming my personal theory that GW is setting up the Imperium for a second Heresy, the Guilliman Heresy.
That's the same thing as with Corvex. How in blazes did they lose the last imperial jetbike and still have it afterwards?
They hint in the fluff that it being the "Last Jetbike" is probably just propaganda and yet another Dark Angel lie/secret, and they have hangers full of Corvexes.
I like that they're finally changing the idea that the Imperium relies entirely on old and dwindling technology. Not only does it strain credibility (pragamatism wins out over dogma over time), it also creates a dead end for new imperium models. there are only so many variants to current kits, and nobody seemed like to shoehorning in brand new units (like Centurions) by pretending they've been used the whole time.
For the first time, really ever, 40k is a more dynamic universe. That's a good thing for us as collectors and hobbyists.
And for those that say that GW should stop making Astartes kits, and make stuff for other factions: I can only assume that GW knows what sells, and caters to that. Like it or not, the collective affection for power army basically makes 40k a viable game. You know GW makes a ton more on every SM frame than anything they make for DE or AM. So, the extent that people buying space marines brings me new toys, I say, huzzah!
No internal consistency - dont landspeeders float? custodies still have some hover tanks, hasnt all this taken cawl (and when they say crawl they just mean all the peeps working with him on mars for the last few 1000 years?) a fair while, its a fair fluff way of moving it forward - otherwise the game would stagnate and slowly die (which has been happening for a long time). What options are there, they find it/rediscover it or they make it/research it, thats kinda all the options there are for finding/making new stuff.
That's the same thing as with Corvex. How in blazes did they lose the last imperial jetbike and still have it afterwards?
They hint in the fluff that it being the "Last Jetbike" is probably just propaganda and yet another Dark Angel lie/secret, and they have hangers full of Corvexes.
It's also posited that the Dark Angels and perhaps their Successors still have the STC for Jetbikes.
More observations: It is about land raider sized. The big turret missile boxes come with lids, so if you just clue those shut, it will already lessen the impression of 'missiles everywhere.' As blurry as the earlier leaked picture was, I believe it has different weapons than this, so at least two variants exist.
Speaking of variants, this one seems to have a gakload of guns, so is probably a lot of points. I hope there exist a cheaper variant with minimal weapons dedicated on transport duties.
As for the design, I think the turret is the weakest part. I think this would look better with more minimalistic razorback style turret.
I REALLY hate the new direction the Imperium Lore is going, so the only way O can still play 40k with friends, is to play my Sisters of Battle, have them them waging a war against Gulliman and his band of heretics.
At least that way, everytime a dumb hover tank rolls out I can nod and be like "The heresy is further confirmed" and then the Sisters can scorch some Primarius Marines as the mutant they are.
Gulliman died on Ultramar.
A Xenos puppet commands the Imperium.
Death to the False Prophet. Rise up, true servants of the Emperor!
Fair enough, its just kind of amusing they are advertising the CA book this soon. Then again, I guess it does make sense as they already have a tank to put into it. Though why it's not in the index is beyond me.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Fair enough, its just kind of amusing they are advertising the CA book this soon.
Then again, I guess it does make sense as they already have a tank to put into it. Though why it's not in the index is beyond me.
What would be the selling point of this book if you had all new toys already in the indexes?
So the new tank is a hover tank (I knew those things looked like land speeder grav plates) and 40k's generals handbook will be chapter approved? I'm head over heels.
