I don't get why this is such a big deal. There are plenty of alternate options to use as Rough Riders if you don't like horses and the concept fits with the archaic nature of Imperial military tactics and traditions.
@tneva82
You're right, I had that rule completely different in mind. Considering the purpose of the Exterminator, it used to be the anti light vehicle and medium infantry choice. You know way way back in the day. But tables where larger back then and 48" counted for something. Today I have a hard time understanding what might be it's intended purpose other than "well we have the model as an option so we need to make rules for it".
Anyway, I am certainly guilty of unreasonably amount of whining. So I'll keep quit for now.
Quite a few seem to think it's die that gets minimum.
Not that it helps exterminator much...
And not just size of tables that hurts. These days boards are so heavy terrain 30" lane is hard.
But yeah these stats suck and shows gw ran out if ideas. It's just so lolbad vs even battle cannon. Shot difference too few. Even if you roll 1...
Punisher another one that just needs helps. Anti horde when hordes don't die and half shots. Vey ap-1. Aoc nullies that. Just waaaay too niche and even there not that amazing to take outside list tailoring.
tneva82 wrote: Quite a few seem to think it's die that gets minimum.
Not that it helps exterminator much...
And not just size of tables that hurts. These days boards are so heavy terrain 30" lane is hard.
But yeah these stats suck and shows gw ran out if ideas. It's just so lolbad vs even battle cannon. Shot difference too few. Even if you roll 1...
Punisher another one that just needs helps. Anti horde when hordes don't die and half shots. Vey ap-1. Aoc nullies that. Just waaaay too niche and even there not that amazing to take outside list tailoring.
Actually, the Punisher cannon just got better against T3 hordes. With the boost to strength it's wounding on 2's, instead of 3's. Most of those horde armies don't have AoC. Also the tank can move the full distance before firing.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: And the complaining is without all the relevant context, it's prudent not to call any of the new rules amazing without all the knowledge, such as pt cost, any potential restrictions etc, at the same time it is not the time to call anything awful without the full context.
Discussing it is fine, as long as it is an objective and thought out discussion, lots of what typical happens is not that.
Trashing the lore with BS 4+ and melee attacks instead of BS 3+ for veterans does not have any "context" that would justify it.
Invalidating existing units/models by limiting units to what comes in that specific box does not have any "context" that would justify it.
I don't care if the point costs make this the most blatantly overpowered army GW has ever printed the changes are stupid and the 8th edition codex is a better book.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Irbis wrote: Yeah, because beyond idiotic, utterly comical idea of previous editions that a massive blast riddling everything around with shrapnel (or focusing flamer stream on a single target instead of swinging it in an arc) magically ceased to exist if you had no buddies around worked sooo much better
The blast didn't cease to exist, it hit the one model in the unit. With a blast weapon you're either in the area of effect or you aren't, a single vehicle/soldier doesn't take variable damage depending on whether or not there are other targets nearby. A bomb exploding next to you doesn't magically focus more damage on you just because you're alone, or hurt you less if you have a dozen friends nearby.
Remember how monstrous creatures laughed at blasts and template weapons, even stuff that was supposed to fire antimatter or teleport spherical chunks of reality into warp, because it only ever did one wound? Apparently not, because you'd also remember how stupid, unbalanced (making MCsvastly better than any vehicle for multiple editions even with same stats), and suspension breaking that gak was...
That was an issue with stat lines, not the template mechanics. And the solution was to give MCs a damage table like vehicles and/or give weapons a damage stat that does multiple wounds to MCs, not the current nonsensical blast mechanics. A chunk of antimatter is represented by a S10 AP1 blast weapon that does D3+1 wounds/hull points on a successful wound, not by magically hitting the same target D6 times because there are no other models nearby to soak up hits.
tneva82 wrote: Quite a few seem to think it's die that gets minimum.
Not that it helps exterminator much...
And not just size of tables that hurts. These days boards are so heavy terrain 30" lane is hard.
But yeah these stats suck and shows gw ran out if ideas. It's just so lolbad vs even battle cannon. Shot difference too few. Even if you roll 1...
Punisher another one that just needs helps. Anti horde when hordes don't die and half shots. Vey ap-1. Aoc nullies that. Just waaaay too niche and even there not that amazing to take outside list tailoring.
Actually, the Punisher cannon just got better against T3 hordes. With the boost to strength it's wounding on 2's, instead of 3's. Most of those horde armies don't have AoC. Also the tank can move the full distance before firing.
Ya. How many hordes you run to have need for punisher that say battlecannon cannot deai sufficiently well to accept huge loss of effect before?
Btw old punisher 4+ to hit s5 vs t3=13 wounds, new 3+ to hit s6 11 wounds...you get worse vs t4...so vs t3 you are worse off.
T5 old better, t6 slightly better for new(like 0.3 more).
That rekd better do lots of work...better face t6 2+ no aoc that's the ideal target for new punisher vs old actually.
IIRC there was a bit of WWII propaganda that the foolish and backwards Polish charged German tanks with lances.
There was German Propaganda to that effect. Notably however there are 16 confirmed instances of Polish cavalry charging the Germans during World War II. If I recall correctly 15 were successful, none were prosecuted against armor units.
I am very happy to see Roughriders return. I dislike immensely the horse. It just doesn't seem coherent to me, caparison and armor on the front half, nothing on the back half. Which is fine, my roughriders are already built, and most of them ride Treadbikes.
IIRC there was a bit of WWII propaganda that the foolish and backwards Polish charged German tanks with lances.
There was German Propaganda to that effect. Notably however there are 16 confirmed instances of Polish cavalry charging the Germans during World War II. If I recall correctly 15 were successful, none were prosecuted against armor units.
Fayric wrote: Rough riders: pointless and stupid, and really out of place in a modern guard army.
At least you get rules to support your Catachan raptor riders now.
I don't see how you can have a "modern" guard army when the point of the Imperial guard is to pay homage to armies across human history. Yes, Cadians are supposed to represent the "modern" aspect, but they're just one part of the guard and reflect only a part of the overall concept.
Cavalry (and I mean real horses, not the modern usage of the word which refers to mechanized infantry) were used even in WW2.
Rough riders are fine in that respect, and go well with the anachronistic nature of the Imperium.
Now, as for the models themselves...I think GW released better horses. The Bretonnian mounts looked better, for example.
I hope there's more helmet options too, because the "attilan" style helmet would look out of place in say, a Cadian army or a DKOK army.
As I recall Rough Rider regiments are spread out and support other regiments, like Cadians for example. So lore-wise its not wrong to have a unit of Attilans working with a Cadian infantry regiment.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: And the complaining is without all the relevant context, it's prudent not to call any of the new rules amazing without all the knowledge, such as pt cost, any potential restrictions etc, at the same time it is not the time to call anything awful without the full context.
Discussing it is fine, as long as it is an objective and thought out discussion, lots of what typical happens is not that.
Trashing the lore with BS 4+ and melee attacks instead of BS 3+ for veterans does not have any "context" that would justify it.
Invalidating existing units/models by limiting units to what comes in that specific box does not have any "context" that would justify it.
I don't care if the point costs make this the most blatantly overpowered army GW has ever printed the changes are stupid and the 8th edition codex is a better book.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Irbis wrote: Yeah, because beyond idiotic, utterly comical idea of previous editions that a massive blast riddling everything around with shrapnel (or focusing flamer stream on a single target instead of swinging it in an arc) magically ceased to exist if you had no buddies around worked sooo much better
The blast didn't cease to exist, it hit the one model in the unit. With a blast weapon you're either in the area of effect or you aren't, a single vehicle/soldier doesn't take variable damage depending on whether or not there are other targets nearby. A bomb exploding next to you doesn't magically focus more damage on you just because you're alone, or hurt you less if you have a dozen friends nearby.
Remember how monstrous creatures laughed at blasts and template weapons, even stuff that was supposed to fire antimatter or teleport spherical chunks of reality into warp, because it only ever did one wound? Apparently not, because you'd also remember how stupid, unbalanced (making MCsvastly better than any vehicle for multiple editions even with same stats), and suspension breaking that gak was...
That was an issue with stat lines, not the template mechanics. And the solution was to give MCs a damage table like vehicles and/or give weapons a damage stat that does multiple wounds to MCs, not the current nonsensical blast mechanics. A chunk of antimatter is represented by a S10 AP1 blast weapon that does D3+1 wounds/hull points on a successful wound, not by magically hitting the same target D6 times because there are no other models nearby to soak up hits.
Individual infantry taking more hits from explosions because they’ve got no mates is silly, but large things like vehicles and monsters (and to a lesser extent things like battle suits, cavalry, nid warriors, etc) absolutely should take more hits per model because they are bigger and therefore exposed to more of the blast.
The old rules were nonsensical when applied to big things, the new ones only when applied to very small units of small things.
Arguably a balance might be the current rules but with some sort of cap on hits to the latter, but that’s adding significant complication for very marginal gain.
If one wants to look at the veracity of cavalry charges in actual warfare look at WW1 and 2. The last sucsessful charge completed by the Polish cavalry(it was the last charge because the unit in question would after this action be equipted with t34s,) was in Soviet service in Eastern Prussia in winter 44, against a position that had previously slaughtered an assault by infantry and tanks. The Poles broke through and their attack coincided with another wave of conscripts and T34s so as the German positions collapsed from the inside, being overrun by Polish cavalrymen they were crushed by the soviet iron fist.
Horses can be used in extremely rugged terrain and in 40k can keep pace with sentinels the guards other rugged terrain high mobility unit. Which can pack heavy weapons.
Campaigns like the Tauros campaign highlight the near complete lack of motorisation in some imperial armies with troops often resorting to marching or tank riding to cover vast distances. Suitable mounts are 100x more perferable to this as all of your troops are not tied to the vehicles.
There is massive room for all kinds of cavalry in 40k.
Lord Zarkov wrote: Individual infantry taking more hits from explosions because they’ve got no mates is silly, but large things like vehicles and monsters (and to a lesser extent things like battle suits, cavalry, nid warriors, etc) absolutely should take more hits per model because they are bigger and therefore exposed to more of the blast.
That's not the point though. The issue with the blast rules is that the number of hits per model depends on the number of models in the unit. If a blast weapon rolls four shots on the D6 then it always makes four attacks. Let's say it's BS 4+ and rolls an average two hits. If the shot is fired against a single-model unit the unit takes two hits. If the shot is fired against a two-model unit the unit still takes the same two hits, allocated to one of the two models with the other being untouched by the blast. This is nonsense from a thematic point of view.
Contrast this with blast templates in earlier editions: you can hit multiple models in the unit but you can only ever hit each model once, it's still only a single shot that either hits or doesn't hit. That's how area effect weapons work in reality and that's how they should work in the 40k rules. Large models being more exposed to more of the blast is already represented by the basic stat lines where a high-strength weapon has an improved wound chance against large models that isn't relevant against small infantry models.
Regarding the rough riders i hope we get a ride commander. The death rider for dkok w cavalry orders are just way to useful.
Regarding tanks do we still get 6 to hit auto wound? Because that makes weapons like the punisher cannon better with its high volume low str shots… do we still double shots on turrets at half speed? What’s the tank orders. Etc… these are also just rumors so let’s wait and see.
RustyNumber wrote: You can still just use dudes-on-motorbikes conversions if you want for RRs....
Gross! Why would you want that when you can have glorious, actual cavalry, with magnificent mounts?
Because they just released some really cool looking bike things for Necromunda that'd fit really well into my one Guard force.
It's made up largely of squads of old Necromunda gang figures. And some new ones.
gungo wrote: do we still double shots on turrets at half speed?
Nope, that is gone and replaced by the higher base number of shots (D6 to D6+3, etc). Tank orders were shown earlier from the same source if you go back a few pages.
As for "just rumors", not really. These are leaks from playtesting and/or preview copies of the codex going out to content creators. There's very little chance that they are wrong in any significant ways.
Fayric wrote: Rough riders: pointless and stupid, and really out of place in a modern guard army.
At least you get rules to support your Catachan raptor riders now.
I don't see how you can have a "modern" guard army when the point of the Imperial guard is to pay homage to armies across human history. Yes, Cadians are supposed to represent the "modern" aspect, but they're just one part of the guard and reflect only a part of the overall concept.
Cavalry (and I mean real horses, not the modern usage of the word which refers to mechanized infantry) were used even in WW2.
Rough riders are fine in that respect, and go well with the anachronistic nature of the Imperium.
Now, as for the models themselves...I think GW released better horses. The Bretonnian mounts looked better, for example.
I hope there's more helmet options too, because the "attilan" style helmet would look out of place in say, a Cadian army or a DKOK army.
As I recall Rough Rider regiments are spread out and support other regiments, like Cadians for example. So lore-wise its not wrong to have a unit of Attilans working with a Cadian infantry regiment.
Yeah, the classic Guard fighting formation was typically composed of one primary regiment (infantry) with support from others. Technically all tanks come from tank regiments, for example, and your unit of LRBTs is actually on secondment to your section. Same for railings, aircraft, psykers…. The Rough Riders being much the same is a return to form.
I actually quite like the hints we’ve been getting about ditching the requirement to have a single regiment keyword across the whole army and I want to know more but it seems the rumour mongers are focused on the numbers right now.
Aecus Decimus wrote: Invalidating existing units/models by limiting units to what comes in that specific box does not have any "context" that would justify it.
This is just crybaby whining. You know the context because you put it in your post. It's what comes in a specific box, because the worst thing anybody should have to do is buy multiple boxes to make one viable unit. The fact that you want this is absurd and smacks as some sort of contrarianism rather than an actual, honest criticism.
Vilgeir wrote: This is just crybaby whining. You know the context because you put it in your post. It's what comes in a specific box, because the worst thing anybody should have to do is buy multiple boxes to make one viable unit. The fact that you want this is absurd and smacks as some sort of contrarianism rather than an actual, honest criticism.
"No model no rules" is a fundamentally stupid idea and, like it or not, conversion is part of this hobby. You don't have to buy multiple boxes to do minor weapon swaps, and if you really hate conversion work you don't have to take the perfectly optimized netlist version of every possible unit.
This is just crybaby whining. You know the context because you put it in your post. It's what comes in a specific box, because the worst thing anybody should have to do is buy multiple boxes to make one viable unit. The fact that you want this is absurd and smacks as some sort of contrarianism rather than an actual, honest criticism.
Making your point without being rude about it is more likely to allow this conversation to be productive.
The problem with limiting options to what's in the box isn't that it's a bad idea, but that the process is backwards. Instead of designing the sprue to suit the rules, GW are seemingly designing the rules to fit the sprue with, in many cases, silly results.
People not having to buy multiple boxes to equip a single unit is absolutely a good thing, in theory. Artificially limiting weapon options because the sprue only includes one of each, particularly when the rules have previously allowed multiples, is not. It just creates arbitrary restrictions that make no logical sense and alienate existing players.
Fayric wrote: Rough riders: pointless and stupid, and really out of place in a modern guard army.
At least you get rules to support your Catachan raptor riders now.
I don't see how you can have a "modern" guard army when the point of the Imperial guard is to pay homage to armies across human history. Yes, Cadians are supposed to represent the "modern" aspect, but they're just one part of the guard and reflect only a part of the overall concept.
Cavalry (and I mean real horses, not the modern usage of the word which refers to mechanized infantry) were used even in WW2.
Rough riders are fine in that respect, and go well with the anachronistic nature of the Imperium.
Now, as for the models themselves...I think GW released better horses. The Bretonnian mounts looked better, for example.
I hope there's more helmet options too, because the "attilan" style helmet would look out of place in say, a Cadian army or a DKOK army.
As I recall Rough Rider regiments are spread out and support other regiments, like Cadians for example. So lore-wise its not wrong to have a unit of Attilans working with a Cadian infantry regiment.
Yeah, the classic Guard fighting formation was typically composed of one primary regiment (infantry) with support from others. Technically all tanks come from tank regiments, for example, and your unit of LRBTs is actually on secondment to your section. Same for railings, aircraft, psykers…. The Rough Riders being much the same is a return to form.
I actually quite like the hints we’ve been getting about ditching the requirement to have a single regiment keyword across the whole army and I want to know more but it seems the rumour mongers are focused on the numbers right now.
While that is absolutely true about the regiments (and the fluff-weirdness of single regiment keywords, because that isn't at all how the Guard works)... at some point the logistics and supply of, say, three different hats becomes really dumb as the force moves from warzone to warzone (or stalls in a single warzone and supply becomes an issue). Sooner or later somebody in the supply chain is going to stop ordering multiple types of helmet, and is going to order one. The troops are going to be split on praying for either the best protection or most comfort, and style be fethed.
So different origin yes, different gear (beyond specialized equipment), not really. Well, at least until the next Munitorium cock-up sends ballistic pompadours instead of any kind of helmet.
Aecus Decimus wrote: Invalidating existing units/models by limiting units to what comes in that specific box does not have any "context" that would justify it.
This is just crybaby whining. You know the context because you put it in your post. It's what comes in a specific box, because the worst thing anybody should have to do is buy multiple boxes to make one viable unit. The fact that you want this is absurd and smacks as some sort of contrarianism rather than an actual, honest criticism.
I think the word you're looking for there is optimal.
IIRC there was a bit of WWII propaganda that the foolish and backwards Polish charged German tanks with lances.
There was German Propaganda to that effect. Notably however there are 16 confirmed instances of Polish cavalry charging the Germans during World War II. If I recall correctly 15 were successful, none were prosecuted against armor units.
Damn.
Don't @#$% with the Poles.
As briefly mentioned above, horse cavalry in modern warfare is not a dumb idea and is frequently re-explored even in the 21st century. As far as I know, the lack of horse cavalry in modern armies is an economic thing - sure they are viable but getting those battle-ready horses is too much of a fuss.
and WW2 in general was a war of horses, German Propaganda telling otherwise but even they used nearly 3 million horses throughout the war and had a cavalry division operating until the end (also because stud farms were not a target by allied air raids), with the SS Cavalry surrendered in Austria with 22k man and 16k horses left
Plus there are folks out there who are more mad about horses being killed than people.
I remember hearing about how during Vietnam Americans targeted elephants since the VC used them to carry supplies through rugged terrain. My friends were more offended by that then by killing the people who were with the elephants.
And of course during the Afghanistan evacuation people were more pissed about the (false) stories of dogs being left behind than the ones about Afghans being left behind.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Plus there are folks out there who are more mad about horses being killed than people.
I remember hearing about how during Vietnam Americans targeted elephants since the VC used them to carry supplies through rugged terrain. My friends were more offended by that then by killing the people who were with the elephants.
And of course during the Afghanistan evacuation people were more pissed about the (false) stories of dogs being left behind than the ones about Afghans being left behind.
Well of course. Soldiers and fighters choose to put themselves in situations where they can blow each others brains out. Animals are being dragged into those positions.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Plus there are folks out there who are more mad about horses being killed than people.
I remember hearing about how during Vietnam Americans targeted elephants since the VC used them to carry supplies through rugged terrain. My friends were more offended by that then by killing the people who were with the elephants.
And of course during the Afghanistan evacuation people were more pissed about the (false) stories of dogs being left behind than the ones about Afghans being left behind.
Well of course. Soldiers and fighters choose to put themselves in situations where they can blow each others brains out. Animals are being dragged into those positions.
The vast majority of men do not "choose" to fight haha, most wars are enforced service. In his Vietnam war example many of the south Vietnamese, north Vietnamese and even Americans had as much choice as the pack animals.
This is just crybaby whining. You know the context because you put it in your post. It's what comes in a specific box, because the worst thing anybody should have to do is buy multiple boxes to make one viable unit. The fact that you want this is absurd and smacks as some sort of contrarianism rather than an actual, honest criticism.
Making your point without being rude about it is more likely to allow this conversation to be productive.
The problem with limiting options to what's in the box isn't that it's a bad idea, but that the process is backwards. Instead of designing the sprue to suit the rules, GW are seemingly designing the rules to fit the sprue with, in many cases, silly results.
People not having to buy multiple boxes to equip a single unit is absolutely a good thing, in theory. Artificially limiting weapon options because the sprue only includes one of each, particularly when the rules have previously allowed multiples, is not. It just creates arbitrary restrictions that make no logical sense and alienate existing players.
I said it earlier in this thread but nobody wins. The only reason this is an issue at all is people complained before about needing multiples, the solution is cut options or make bigger kits which inevitably cost more. None of those options will be welcomed by the community at large.
Lets face it, if the heavy ordnance batteries were a box of 3 with 1 of each weapon in, which the rules reflected. That's a brand new unit with no historical precedence and people would 100% complain about it being dead on arrival. Likewise if they made them in a box of either 1 or 3 with all options in people would complain at the cost of a full unit.
It's a fallacy to conclude anything other than making boxes bigger with every option with rules for any combination at no extra monetary cost will please people.
It's a fallacy to conclude anything other than making boxes bigger with every option with rules for any combination at no extra monetary cost will please people.
I mean, nothing stops them from just having 1 separate small box for each option and just let the players buy those boxes in any combination they wish. This was a thing before with the special weapons blisters and such.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Nothing's stopping them from just not putting these asinine sprue-based restrictions into the rules in the first place.
The original point is that if they don't do that then people will bitch about the options being too costly to make from the items on the in-box sprues. That's legit. But I'm saying that we can have our cookie and eat it too if the box content becomes less (and thus boxes become cheaper) and the players can simply combo together their buys however they want rather than getting forced to pay for stuff they don't want.
I said it earlier in this thread but nobody wins. The only reason this is an issue at all is people complained before about needing multiples, the solution is cut options or make bigger kits which inevitably cost more. None of those options will be welcomed by the community at large.
Those are certainly options. Not the only ones, though. Upgrade sprues of weapons, like they used to do back in 2nd ed or now in Necromunda, would be another easy option. Or just making better use of sprue space, in many cases.
Lets face it, if the heavy ordnance batteries were a box of 3 with 1 of each weapon in, which the rules reflected. That's a brand new unit with no historical precedence and people would 100% complain about it being dead on arrival. Likewise if they made them in a box of either 1 or 3 with all options in people would complain at the cost of a full unit.
It's a fallacy to conclude anything other than making boxes bigger with every option with rules for any combination at no extra monetary cost will please people.
I mean, yes, no choice is going to please everyone. That doesn't mean the current path is automatically the best, or the one that pleases the most people.
Individual infantry taking more hits from explosions because they’ve got no mates is silly, but large things like vehicles and monsters (and to a lesser extent things like battle suits, cavalry, nid warriors, etc) absolutely should take more hits per model because they are bigger and therefore exposed to more of the blast.
That's not how armour works, though.
If an explosion happens outside of an armoured vehicle, then it's unlikely to accomplish a whole lot. Generally, you're looking for a direct hit so that the shell will penetrate the vehicle and damage the interior and/or the occupants.
You can argue that this is the purpose of S vs T and armour saves, sure. But the point is that vehicles shouldn't suffer extra hits because they're 'more exposed to the blast', because exposure to the blast isn't what does the damage.
Lord Zarkov wrote: Individual infantry taking more hits from explosions because they’ve got no mates is silly, but large things like vehicles and monsters (and to a lesser extent things like battle suits, cavalry, nid warriors, etc) absolutely should take more hits per model because they are bigger and therefore exposed to more of the blast.
Eh. Tank WANTS the blast be spread in larger area of it. The smaller part of tank the explosion focuses the better it is for chances to penetrate...
One the fact of multiple of the same special weapons. Most armys needs 2 or more troops.
so you can make a squad with two melta guns,
so if i want to make a 2 troops with meltaguns, i need to buy 4 boxes. so gw hurt itself. Now its not an option anny more so i will buy only two boxes. in the past gw even sold special weapons seperate.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Nothing's stopping them from just not putting these asinine sprue-based restrictions into the rules in the first place.
The original point is that if they don't do that then people will bitch about the options being too costly to make from the items on the in-box sprues. That's legit. But I'm saying that we can have our cookie and eat it too if the box content becomes less (and thus boxes become cheaper) and the players can simply combo together their buys however they want rather than getting forced to pay for stuff they don't want.
The cost of boxes has nothing to do with how many plasma guns are in it. No one at GW is looking at a sprue and thinking "I could add an extra one of each option, but that would [somehow] put the price up by £2. Is it worth it?". Pricing is entirely done on "what is the maximum we could charge for this?" with a side helping of "what do our similar kits sell for?". And to be fair to them, they are very good at it.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: These no multiple rules just depress me. I just did a lot of work getting some old metal armies into shape and now they're illegal.
I just don't want to do this anymore.
I feel your pain. I might luck out though. I have three command squads, one with plasmas, one with Meltas, and one with Grenade launchers. If I rotate things around a bit I can have one of each in the squad, and perhaps swap out the other three for flamers in in the infantry units.
AtoMaki wrote: The original point is that if they don't do that then people will bitch about the options being too costly to make from the items on the in-box sprues. That's legit.
I don't think it is. We got by for a very long time with that being just part of the game. This is a recent change, and a conscious decision to do this crap. It was never a problem before - certainly not a real one.
AtoMaki wrote: The original point is that if they don't do that then people will bitch about the options being too costly to make from the items on the in-box sprues. That's legit.
I don't think it is. We got by for a very long time with that being just part of the game.
And as far as I'm aware people were been bitching about it for all that time.
AtoMaki wrote: The original point is that if they don't do that then people will bitch about the options being too costly to make from the items on the in-box sprues. That's legit.
I don't think it is. We got by for a very long time with that being just part of the game.
And as far as I'm aware people were been bitching about it for all that time.
People didn't really start bitching about it until GW cracked down on sites that sold bits and made it harder to acquire extras.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: These no multiple rules just depress me. I just did a lot of work getting some old metal armies into shape and now they're illegal.
I just don't want to do this anymore.
I feel your pain. I might luck out though. I have three command squads, one with plasmas, one with Meltas, and one with Grenade launchers. If I rotate things around a bit I can have one of each in the squad, and perhaps swap out the other three for flamers in in the infantry units.
Part of my project was getting unit markings on everyone...
And all these armies have been OOP for years. Sitting on my table is the LAST squad of Mordians. Vets of course. With 3 GLs (which I will count as plasma because @#$% it they never made Mordian plasma) and a lascannon. Now I don't want to look at them.
I mean I've not played since 2017 or 18 but a group was just starting up in Cairo. And for me part of the fun was making legal units. I also did a lot of converting when I saw that my Cadian Scions could now take 4 special weapons.
Yeah GW don't owe me $%^& it and this is on me but making me unhappy and unwilling put up with stuff makes me buy less and in the long run is a bad practice.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: These no multiple rules just depress me. I just did a lot of work getting some old metal armies into shape and now they're illegal.
I just don't want to do this anymore.
I feel your pain. I might luck out though. I have three command squads, one with plasmas, one with Meltas, and one with Grenade launchers. If I rotate things around a bit I can have one of each in the squad, and perhaps swap out the other three for flamers in in the infantry units.
Part of my project was getting unit markings on everyone...
And all these armies have been OOP for years. Sitting on my table is the LAST squad of Mordians. Vets of course. With 3 GLs (which I will count as plasma because @#$% it they never made Mordian plasma) and a lascannon. Now I don't want to look at them.
I mean I've not played since 2017 or 18 but a group was just starting up in Cairo. And for me part of the fun was making legal units. I also did a lot of converting when I saw that my Cadian Scions could now take 4 special weapons.
Yeah GW don't owe me $%^& it and this is on me but making me unhappy and unwilling put up with stuff makes me buy less and in the long run is a bad practice.
I am with you- have been building Steel Legion with special weapons squads in each platoon. Going to be badly affected it seems.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: These no multiple rules just depress me. I just did a lot of work getting some old metal armies into shape and now they're illegal.
I just don't want to do this anymore.
I feel your pain. I might luck out though. I have three command squads, one with plasmas, one with Meltas, and one with Grenade launchers. If I rotate things around a bit I can have one of each in the squad, and perhaps swap out the other three for flamers in in the infantry units.
Part of my project was getting unit markings on everyone...
And all these armies have been OOP for years. Sitting on my table is the LAST squad of Mordians. Vets of course. With 3 GLs (which I will count as plasma because @#$% it they never made Mordian plasma) and a lascannon. Now I don't want to look at them.
I mean I've not played since 2017 or 18 but a group was just starting up in Cairo. And for me part of the fun was making legal units. I also did a lot of converting when I saw that my Cadian Scions could now take 4 special weapons.
Yeah GW don't owe me $%^& it and this is on me but making me unhappy and unwilling put up with stuff makes me buy less and in the long run is a bad practice.
I'm with you, Kid. Not sure I really care about getting any of my various Guard armies up to snuff legal with the new book anymore. Not sure any of them will ever leave their cases or displays again.
I turned my 40 lasgun steel legion troops into dkok conscripts. And o use the special/heavy weapons/officers as dkok. I painted them all in the same standard. They are more used as extra plasma gunners or lascannons or rocket launchers which dkok never got and they look well enough to fit into the same now much larger dkok army. Conscripts sounds like they may be done so I’ll figure out if I can use those lasguns steel legion models this edition. It doesn’t really bother me I bought those models when I was a kid 30 years ago.
They do this all the time. I'm surprised people haven't noticed. I haven't played a tabletop game in over twenty years and I can see, just from reading stuff online, that they frequently update what can and can't be taken in an army (or, alternatively, changing what is good, ie what you'll want to take and not take, this being effectively the same thing as what you can/can't take for many people).
JWBS wrote: They do this all the time. I'm surprised people haven't noticed. I haven't played a tabletop game in over twenty years and I can see, just from reading stuff online, that they frequently update what can and can't be taken in an army (or, alternatively, changing what is good, ie what you'll want to take and not take, this being effectively the same thing as what you can/can't take for many people).
Guard have largely, in my opinion by virtue of the fact that they just didn't seem to care about the army, been immune to these big shifts. Units have been dropped and a few options here and there...but mostly they've been untouched since the shift from Doctrines in 3.5/4E to Cruddace's first book in 5th or 6th(genuinely can't remember?).
We had Scions added, Bullgryns added, and a few other additions but mostly everything has stayed in a state of constantly just "it's there". It's meant that there has been a kind of in-built "hahaha, I'm untouchable!" feeling.
AtoMaki wrote: The original point is that if they don't do that then people will bitch about the options being too costly to make from the items on the in-box sprues. That's legit.
I don't think it is. We got by for a very long time with that being just part of the game.
And as far as I'm aware people were been bitching about it for all that time.
They did, they have and most certainly will continue to do so. It was almost a dead certain complaint for every release that the boxes didn't have enough of evey option, it's just a dead certain complaint now that some units have box loadouts. I know H.B.M.C. is right about the fact the material cost and thought process for them adding in an extra sprue is minimal, but let's face it, they'll add cost on for an extra sprue no latter how you dress it up.
They aren't even being consistent with the rules. If they were being consisten't infantry squads would not be allowed to take heavy weapons, as those are not in the box. I mean for ages there weren't even all the special weapons in the Cadian box.
This isn't the first time we've had this happen though. Remember when veterans went from Troops to elites? I had a 50 converted veterans 5 squads. Each of the squad was dedicated to one of the special weapons with an associated heavy weapon. Usually one with either the same strenght or range.
Then the veterans were limited to being only 3 per army as they were now elites and the rule of three. Then they got turned into special weapons squads.
My recently finished feudal guard army was built around 3 platoons. Each platoon had a command squad (with the vox, medic, standard) and a heavy weapons squad and a special weapons squad. Each platoon also had a veteran squad, a conscript squad and three infantry squads. Bummer.
I'm also going to have to say goodbye to my converted Wyrdvane psykers as it seems that squad is going away.
At least one good thing though it seems the new command squad has the character keyword (although I hope they have something that stops a squad from giving up many victory points for assisinate) and the master of ordinance etc are now upgrades to the squad so that should relieve the pressure on the elites slots.
I'm glad we got the rough riders back, as I also had built 30 of them in the past (two of the squads using Kislev models). I'm just worried that rough riders don't have special weapons, as I've got 6 special weapon flamer rough riders.
I even remember when they went from Elites to Troops . Good ole' times. Burning Dire Avengers out of a bunker with my Hellhound. Scoring 'Vehicle Annihilated' on a Land Raider filled with a kitted-out SM Veteran Squad (they all had Terminator Honour... ouch). Some 80 guardsmen being locked in a melee of block-shaped formations as both me and the other IG player duked it out with Close Quarters Drill. Good stuff ( ).
Kid_Kyoto wrote: These no multiple rules just depress me. I just did a lot of work getting some old metal armies into shape and now they're illegal.
I just don't want to do this anymore.
That's the really sad thing about this. The people GW is hurting are the ones who are most invested in the army, the e-sport tournament players don't care one bit and will just buy whatever models give the best win rate and then move on to the next army once guard are no longer the newest overpowered thing. It's the people who have been in the hobby for decades, have put countless hours into lovingly converting and painting whole armies, who are getting pushed out and told they don't matter. And how long can 40k last with only the e-sport crowd to keep it alive?
Individual infantry taking more hits from explosions because they’ve got no mates is silly, but large things like vehicles and monsters (and to a lesser extent things like battle suits, cavalry, nid warriors, etc) absolutely should take more hits per model because they are bigger and therefore exposed to more of the blast.
That's not how armour works, though.
If an explosion happens outside of an armoured vehicle, then it's unlikely to accomplish a whole lot. Generally, you're looking for a direct hit so that the shell will penetrate the vehicle and damage the interior and/or the occupants.
You can argue that this is the purpose of S vs T and armour saves, sure. But the point is that vehicles shouldn't suffer extra hits because they're 'more exposed to the blast', because exposure to the blast isn't what does the damage.
That really is what S vs T is for rather than hits, and not every vehicle is a tank.
There’s an argument to be made that a direct hit should have more impact than frag (like WFB’s double S under the hole), but objectively a larger object will have a larger area hit by a blast. Edit: though depending on the weapon the former is not necessarily true. AP rounds are designed very differently to area effect rounds. The former don’t always go bang (see discarding sabot rounds) and the latter are often deliberately designed to go off away from the surface (e.g. especially in anti air weapons or to cause spalling in a tank).
A frag missile going off outside a tank should really not do a lot, but that’s why it’s S4 vs a tank’s T a lot (or a literally invulnerable AV pre 8th). But how much of the vehicle is caught in the blast will still determine how much debris hits it (represented by the random roll), whether you’re talking about a tank where it just means more paint is scratched or something like a Vyper or Ork Trukk where it would make a massive difference whether it’s just clipped or is hit across its full silhouette.
Similarly for a monster, how much of it is in the blast will affect how much of its body is damaged (even if the injury is superficial, which high T represents).
And that’s before you get to a battle cannon that can level buildings which will make a mess of lighter vehicles and on a tank, even without a direct hit can trash things like tracks and wheels and pose a significant spalling risk to the crew (and how much of it is covered will affect how much is at risk).
Let alone something like a D-cannon which dumps a spherical volume into the warp and therefore the damage capacity will really matter on how much of something gets hit.
Aecus Decimus wrote: That's the really sad thing about this. The people GW is hurting are the ones who are most invested in the army, the e-sport tournament players don't care one bit and will just buy whatever models give the best win rate and then move on to the next army once guard are no longer the newest overpowered thing. It's the people who have been in the hobby for decades, have put countless hours into lovingly converting and painting whole armies, who are getting pushed out and told they don't matter. And how long can 40k last with only the e-sport crowd to keep it alive?
Blaming comp players isn't fair, nor is it accurate to suggest that GW is entirely catering to the comp scene in products. The rules absolutely reflect a change to a more rigid ruleset compared to the flexibility of the past but the rules are not what makes GW its money, the models are. Comp players aren't even the biggest player group, those who just game in a club or with friends far outnumber those who attend tournaments with these environments also being the starting point for many comp players in the first place and will often be their local gaming scene. Even then, people who just buy the models to build and paint outnumber everyone else on top.
The rules team for 40k isn't good but it's not the fault of comp players, it's just bad decisions by the higher-ups in the company.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: These no multiple rules just depress me. I just did a lot of work getting some old metal armies into shape and now they're illegal.
I just don't want to do this anymore.
I feel you, man - the Great Legendsing at the start of 9th and the haphazard, flailing point/rule changes for IG the first half of 9e put me in the same spot. Not sure if this is doable for you, but I ended up deciding to just make a force I wanted to make, rules be damned - it's been rather freeing not having to worry about whether I'm going to have points for pintle stubbers next week or not, but I have a fair bit of leeway there due to not having a group to play with. Hopefully you can find a middle ground with your new group (oldhammer, houserules, etc), or at least find some peace finishing the army before putting it on the shelf.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: These no multiple rules just depress me. I just did a lot of work getting some old metal armies into shape and now they're illegal.
I just don't want to do this anymore.
I feel your pain. I might luck out though. I have three command squads, one with plasmas, one with Meltas, and one with Grenade launchers. If I rotate things around a bit I can have one of each in the squad, and perhaps swap out the other three for flamers in in the infantry units.
Part of my project was getting unit markings on everyone...
And all these armies have been OOP for years. Sitting on my table is the LAST squad of Mordians. Vets of course. With 3 GLs (which I will count as plasma because @#$% it they never made Mordian plasma) and a lascannon. Now I don't want to look at them.
I mean I've not played since 2017 or 18 but a group was just starting up in Cairo. And for me part of the fun was making legal units. I also did a lot of converting when I saw that my Cadian Scions could now take 4 special weapons.
Yeah GW don't owe me $%^& it and this is on me but making me unhappy and unwilling put up with stuff makes me buy less and in the long run is a bad practice.
I don't suppose the group would be up for doing One Page Rules or Oldhammer? If you can find an accommodating group you can still use the models as you want to rather than whatever the new thing is. I know that is my preference, but it is admittedly harder to find anybody to play with who doesn't want the current edition.
Wow there goes the beating heart of the guard. Ripped out Temple of Doom style.
I can't help but think there is a vocal minority of stupid people and their efforts have seen anyhting remotely complex or interesting increasingly stripped from the game. Because 'its hard to understand'.
I know I'm on thoughtcrime island with this one, but I really don't mind these changes. If it makes it easier to get into an army, and thus the hobby as a whole, that's what's best for the game and the community.
It sucks, and I feel bad for people that have stuff they either can no longer use or requires work to use. I certainly feel the burn with literally dozens of heavy weapon squads and a crap ton of special weapons split amongst veterans, 3rd edition stormtroopers, and metal kasrkin. But I'm excited that the army is becoming more modern and hopefully easier for new players.
Polonius wrote: I know I'm on thoughtcrime island with this one, but I really don't mind these changes. If it makes it easier to get into an army, and thus the hobby as a whole, that's what's best for the game and the community.
It sucks, and I feel bad for people that have stuff they either can no longer use or requires work to use. I certainly feel the burn with literally dozens of heavy weapon squads and a crap ton of special weapons split amongst veterans, 3rd edition stormtroopers, and metal kasrkin. But I'm excited that the army is becoming more modern and hopefully easier for new players.
More people for the sake of more people doesn't make for a better hobby. We live in an age of 3rd party bitz and Ebay. Getting what you need or want is NOT some gargantuan task.
EviscerationPlague wrote: More people for the sake of more people doesn't make for a better hobby. We live in an age of 3rd party bitz and Ebay. Getting what you need or want is NOT some gargantuan task.
I suppose you can either acknowledge that limiting options is somehow good for GW sales (which is, of course, indirectly good for the hobby) or you can assume that GW is doing this purely out of malice and/or incompetence. It's up to you.
Polonius wrote: I know I'm on thoughtcrime island with this one, but I really don't mind these changes. If it makes it easier to get into an army, and thus the hobby as a whole, that's what's best for the game and the community.
I never had any trouble getting into an army when I could take 2 of the same gun vs only 1.
And can we please not kid ourselves into thinking that this was done to make things 'easier' or for the 'good of the game/community'.
Polonius wrote: I know I'm on thoughtcrime island with this one, but I really don't mind these changes. If it makes it easier to get into an army, and thus the hobby as a whole, that's what's best for the game and the community.
It sucks, and I feel bad for people that have stuff they either can no longer use or requires work to use. I certainly feel the burn with literally dozens of heavy weapon squads and a crap ton of special weapons split amongst veterans, 3rd edition stormtroopers, and metal kasrkin. But I'm excited that the army is becoming more modern and hopefully easier for new players.
Agreed.
There's also an element of hysteria here thanks to the nature of these rumours. We've already seen the older rumour of "infantry squads can't have heavy weapons" generate several pages of 'sky is falling!!!' posts before it finally turned out to be inaccurate.
This latest batch of rumours says that you cannot select the same special weapon more than once, but also say that Catachans might be able to take 3 flamers. We've also seen that the Kasrkin kit comes with two each for most special weapon options. If it's a thoughtcrime to want to see an actual unit datasheet before declaring the army DOA then count me in too.
Polonius wrote: I know I'm on thoughtcrime island with this one, but I really don't mind these changes. If it makes it easier to get into an army, and thus the hobby as a whole, that's what's best for the game and the community.
I never had any trouble getting into an army when I could take 2 of the same gun vs only 1.
And can we please not kid ourselves into thinking that this was done to make things 'easier' or for the 'good of the game/community'.
Sure, me neither. And if GW catered to hobbyists like us, the hobby would be smaller. I'm hard pressed to see how this can be some manipulative master plan, right? If anything, putting one plasma gun in every box, but making three per squad by far the best option leads to more sales. So, again, we're back to either there is some value to this, or GW is incompetent.
Polonius wrote: Sure, me neither. And if GW catered to hobbyists like us, the hobby would be smaller. I'm hard pressed to see how this can be some manipulative master plan, right? If anything, putting one plasma gun in every box, but making three per squad by far the best option leads to more sales. So, again, we're back to either there is some value to this, or GW is incompetent.
The 'value' in it is that it makes bits sellers redundant, because GW realised that people were just buying bits from elsewhere instead of buying a whole additional kit to get those weapons. It's not specifically about increasing their own sales but of limiting the market for 3rd party bits suppliers.
And, again, that would be fine if they did it by including sensible options in the kit to begin with...
insaniak wrote: The 'value' in it is that it makes bits sellers redundant, because GW realised that people were just buying bits from elsewhere instead of buying a whole additional kit to get those weapons. It's not specifically about increasing their own sales but of limiting the market for 3rd party bits suppliers.
And, again, that would be fine if they did it by including sensible options in the kit to begin with...
That's certainly possible. GW does overreact to stuff like that.
I guess I'm just used to stuff changing all the time, so I feel more sanguine about this stuff. Again, I think it blows, I just, perhaps naively, there might be an upside.
Polonius wrote: If it makes it easier to get into an army, and thus the hobby as a whole, that's what's best for the game and the community.
I don't really see how this makes anything easier. There were already few, if any, units where you couldn't build a legal configuration with a single box. This was only ever a problem for the e-sport players who couldn't cope with the existence of an option that might have 0.01% more chance of winning, for normal players if you didn't want to build multi-kit conversions you just built whatever the box could build and it was fine.
Polonius wrote: So, again, we're back to either there is some value to this, or GW is incompetent.
Let's call it "Malicious Incompetence" then.
They identified something - "People are buying bits from 3rd parties rather than us!" - but their inherent and well-documented incompetence saw them choose the malicious path of limiting options to the sprue rather than enhancing the sprue so that no one would need to buy bits from 3rd parties in the first place.
Polonius wrote: I know I'm on thoughtcrime island with this one, but I really don't mind these changes. If it makes it easier to get into an army, and thus the hobby as a whole, that's what's best for the game and the community.
I never had any trouble getting into an army when I could take 2 of the same gun vs only 1.
First, assuming rumors are even true in the first place instead of yet another misunderstanding or FUD strawman someone dropped to bash GW - that's not 2 guns, though. It will be like 20-50 spammed across the army because people who want to min-max squads will do it with all of them, not just one, and will cheese spread whatever is the most OP. See all the crying and gnashing you can't cherry-clone copy-paste Chaos Termies with all axes/combi-plasmas when new ones were released.
Second, normal players or people who collect to paint, though? Will be fine taking all comer squad with melta/plasma as your AT unit, and whatever other two specials as anti-infantry. Said unit will also look like fluff ones and won't become gamebreakingly OP like multiple spams turned out to be in the past which is probably another bonus to GW.
Then there is the fact that after GW took a look at knockoff bits scene, with most of them looking utter gak and costing small fortune (seriously, most of these dudes make even FW look positively cheap with like for like comparisons) and realized there is little point to let their customers spend tons of money making their models look worse (and also with most of these, copy-fest with each special weapon gun/arm pose being completely identical, but funnily enough that doesn't bother mOnOpOsE crowd any, go figure). Why bother helping people who parasite on your core business with little to no upsides for GW?
All in all, I can see why GW is done with old, problematic (from their point of view) rules writing style - all it did in past four editions was causing endless headaches and gave little to no added value. I also don't buy the usual excuse 'no bits no rule' because the contents of the box have little impact on rules (why not make IG squads be able to take four specials, each different, if the box dictated the rules? or space marines, why the tactical squad can only take one special when there are six of them in the box? funnily enough, the 'no bits no rule' proponents have zero explanation for either).
Then you have primaris and deathwatch who do have bits in boxes, just that inept clowns writing their rules failed to include the options - gee, where is the magic box dictated thinking in their case? Why DW vanguard veterans can't take relic blade despite it being in the frakking assembly instructions for them? Why only Intercessor sarge has the keys to chapter armoury out of the entire company despite bits for the loadout being available in every other Mk X box? And why they can/can't take [insert 50 examples I can easily do but it's off topic] despite them being/not being in boxes? Gee, that executive that compares rules with boxes is seriously slacking on that whole range, eh?
Second, normal players or people who collect to paint, though? Will be fine taking all comer squad with melta/plasma as your AT unit, and whatever other two specials as anti-infantry.
As a casual gamer who collects and paints way more than plays, you're way off the mark in my experience. Mixed weapons look terrible on a display from a purely aesthetic point of view, regardless of how well they do in game.I HATE seeing the GW squads like the Devestators with one of each weapon, they look like gak.
Polonius wrote: Sure, me neither. And if GW catered to hobbyists like us, the hobby would be smaller. I'm hard pressed to see how this can be some manipulative master plan, right? If anything, putting one plasma gun in every box, but making three per squad by far the best option leads to more sales. So, again, we're back to either there is some value to this, or GW is incompetent.
The 'value' in it is that it makes bits sellers redundant, because GW realised that people were just buying bits from elsewhere instead of buying a whole additional kit to get those weapons. It's not specifically about increasing their own sales but of limiting the market for 3rd party bits suppliers.
And, again, that would be fine if they did it by including sensible options in the kit to begin with...
I would assume GW would have a bit more business savvy than to try to ruin a synergistic product. It would be like beer producers trying to put pretzels out of business. The existence of bits sellers enhances the appeal of GW product, except in the cases GW actually makes the bits (Necromunda, mostly).
Rihgu wrote: I would assume GW would have a bit more business savvy than to try to ruin a synergistic product.
You'd think, wouldn't you, but given that they ended up going to court over this and that no model/no rule is a direct response to all of this stuff, the current trend of limiting unit options based on sprues is just the next facet of this bizarre and unnecessary behaviour.
To put it another way: GW has never wanted to be a part of the miniature wargaming hobby. They want to be the hobby. They want to be the only place you go to, and for as many people as possible, the only thing they know about. They view everyone else as competition, even resellers (retail or 3rd party).
Polonius wrote: Sure, me neither. And if GW catered to hobbyists like us, the hobby would be smaller. I'm hard pressed to see how this can be some manipulative master plan, right? If anything, putting one plasma gun in every box, but making three per squad by far the best option leads to more sales. So, again, we're back to either there is some value to this, or GW is incompetent.
The 'value' in it is that it makes bits sellers redundant, because GW realised that people were just buying bits from elsewhere instead of buying a whole additional kit to get those weapons. It's not specifically about increasing their own sales but of limiting the market for 3rd party bits suppliers.
And, again, that would be fine if they did it by including sensible options in the kit to begin with...
I would assume GW would have a bit more business savvy than to try to ruin a synergistic product. It would be like beer producers trying to put pretzels out of business. The existence of bits sellers enhances the appeal of GW product, except in the cases GW actually makes the bits (Necromunda, mostly).
Pettiness is something to always have in mind when talking about the old GW's upper echelons, and I don't think it's gone with the new boss.
Platuan4th wrote: As a casual gamer who collects and paints way more than plays, you're way off the mark in my experience. Mixed weapons look terrible on a display from a purely aesthetic point of view, regardless of how well they do in game.I HATE seeing the GW squads like the Devestators with one of each weapon, they look like gak.
Agreed! I hate how haphazard it looks, especially when ideally a squad should have a role. I'm not a "all specials in my army are plasma because plasma is best!" player. I like my tank killers to all have weapons appropriate for the task. Same with my anti-personnel. But NGL, the aesthetics of the finished painted unit is also very important to me.
Rihgu wrote: I would assume GW would have a bit more business savvy than to try to ruin a synergistic product.
You'd think, wouldn't you, but given that they ended up going to court over this and that no model/no rule is a direct response to all of this stuff, the current trend of limiting unit options based on sprues is just the next facet of this bizarre and unnecessary behaviour.
To put it another way: GW has never wanted to be a part of the miniature wargaming hobby. They want to be the hobby. They want to be the only place you go to, and for as many people as possible, the only thing they know about. They view everyone else as competition, even resellers (retail or 3rd party).
I thought that the problem with Chapterhouse was that they were producing full models to represent units in 40k (and in addition also sold bits to enhance GW models). Things like Eldar characters, Tyranid Spore Mines and like, didn't they have a Parasite of Mortrex? And Incubi and stuff?
Rihgu wrote: I would assume GW would have a bit more business savvy than to try to ruin a synergistic product.
You'd think, wouldn't you, but given that they ended up going to court over this and that no model/no rule is a direct response to all of this stuff, the current trend of limiting unit options based on sprues is just the next facet of this bizarre and unnecessary behaviour.
To put it another way: GW has never wanted to be a part of the miniature wargaming hobby. They want to be the hobby. They want to be the only place you go to, and for as many people as possible, the only thing they know about. They view everyone else as competition, even resellers (retail or 3rd party).
I thought that the problem with Chapterhouse was that they were producing full models to represent units in 40k (and in addition also sold bits to enhance GW models). Things like Eldar characters, Tyranid Spore Mines and like, didn't they have a Parasite of Mortrex? And Incubi and stuff?
Nope, hence the "GW tried to get a copyright on shoulder pads after submitting claims" nonsense.
Choose missile AFTER deployment. 3 options for missile.
God Spear Missile: every unit within 3 inches of target location takes Zero wounds on a roll of 1, 8 mortal wounds on a roll of 2-3. 12 mortal wounds on a roll of 4-5, and 16 mortal wounds on a roll of 6.
Plasma Barrage: roll D6 for all units withing D6+3 inches. 1=no hits. 2-3= D3+1 mortal wounds. 4-5= 2D3 mortals. 6=D3+3 mortals
Vortex: roll for every unit within D3+3 inches 2-3 D3 mortals, 4-5 D3+1 mortals, 6= 2D3 mortals. After damage done, on 4+ effect stays on the battlefield another turn.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Looks like he made an initial mistake with Ogryn. They are still same wounds. Bodyguard ogryn are 6 wounds.
So it gets to choose its missile after deployment, but the adaptive Tyranids don't get to choose their adaptation before the game anymore. Sure. That makes sense.
I'm sad that it's just three slightly different ways of delivering Mortal Wounds. I mean, what is this, Age of Sigmar?
Rihgu wrote: I thought that the problem with Chapterhouse was that they were producing full models to represent units in 40k (and in addition also sold bits to enhance GW models). Things like Eldar characters, Tyranid Spore Mines and like, didn't they have a Parasite of Mortrex? And Incubi and stuff?
Chapterhouse weren't doing anything that a multitude of other 3rd party sites weren't already doing. Their problem however was that they had the balls (or lack of intelligence) to just use GW's names outright. That's what got GW's attention.
After measuring out the pie plates and doing average wound maths the Deathstrike seems okay now. It may no longer be the low hanging fruit of 40k joke units. It does look good, barring the potentially lame duck firing mechanic they're giving it. My only complaint is the lack of variety between the warhead types and their battlefield effects. This missile amounts to having a focused, regular and wide dispersal settings as opposed to different warheads.
You do get a turn head-notice with the Deathstrike. And it's a 150-points-shoot-once-a-game thing
8. Deathstrike Missile (150pts)
M10 WS6 BS4 S6 T7 W11 A3 LD7 Sv3+
Rules
Align target: During the muster army step, after seeing your opp's army, choose 1 of 3 missiles for the Deathstrike.
Special Action - Align Target. This can be done in the command phase if the Deathstrike has not launched any missiles. Completed at end of turn. Once completed do one of two things in your next shooting phase.
Number One: Place a deathstrike missile marker anywhere on the battlefield.
Number Two: Or if the marker is already placed, move the marker anywhere else on the battlefield.
Action? Fire Missile: The Deathstrike can launch a warhead if there is a deathstrike missile marker on the battlefield.
God Spear Warhead
Roll 1d6 for each unit within 3 of the target market. On a 1 nothing happens, that unit is not affected. On a 2-3, the unit suffers 8 mortal wounds. On a 4-5, the unit suffers 12 mortal wounds. On a 6, that unit suffers 16 mortal wounds. Once this is resolved, remove the marker.
Plasma Barrage Warhead
Roll 1d6 for each unit within d3+6 inches of the marker. On a 1, nothing happens to the unit. On a 2-3, unit suffers d3+1 mortal. On a 4-5, 2d3 mortals. On a 6, d3+3 mortals. Minus 1 to the roll for enemy infantry characters.
Vortex Warhead
Roll 1d6 for each unit within d3+3 of the marker. on a 1, nothing happens. 2-3 d3 mortal wounds. on a 4-5 d3+1 mortals. On a 6, 2d3 mortals. Once resolved, do not remove the deathstrike missile target marker. Instead roll 1d6. On a 1-3, remove the target marker. On a 4+ do not remove the marker, but it can no longer be moved via the align target action. The marker persists (unclear when it goes).
There have been more leaks, but I'm waiting for the Auspex resume. I think MG has basically leaked all the datasheets and points from the earlier versions of the codex.
To clarify some points I heard before going to sleep:
-Lord Solars name is Leonatus
-Bullgryns still the same, +1S, but more expensive
-Catachan can only pick 2 flamethrowers
-Karskin have 2 attacks, can add up to 4 spetial weapons, plus a meltamine, plus a sniper rifle
-In general: infa try a little disapointing
-Deathstrike has 3 missile options. One of them must use a tavle in which depending of the result can cause 0-8-12-16 MW
-MG has two rr profiles, one has them with 2 attacks, the other is the same as the death riders, cost the same
-Artillery very much better
-Superheavys:cañon 3d6str 9 ap -3 daño 3 blast turret
tremmor 36" 2d6+3 tiros 10 ap -3 daño 3 blast
quake 96" 1d6+6 str 14 ap -4 daño 4
magma 48" d6+3 str 10 ap -4 d6+2 daño a cortas d6+4
hellhammer 36" heavy 3d6+6 str 7 ap 2 damage 2 blast ignores light cover
coaxial autocanon es turret tambien
vulkan mega bolter: 48" heavy 20 str 6 ap 2 damage 2
shadowsword 120" heavy d3+3 str 18 -5 daño 12 blast NO ignora invus
I really hope the catachan can only take 2 flamers is BS. I was really expectig the old catachan devils squad (WS3+, S4, heavy flamer, demo charge, shotguns + specials).
Garrac wrote: shadowsword 120" heavy d3+3 str 18 -5 daño 12 blast NO ignora invus
Lolwut. A slightly bigger HWT lascannon ignores invulnerable saves, a massive titan killer does not. Go home GW, you're drunk.
And what's with taking "turret" literally? The gunners on a basic LRBT get effectively BS 3+ while the gunners on a Shadowsword, a rare and precious superheavy tank that gets the absolute best of the best crew, is only BS 4+? WTF is this nonsense.
Garrac wrote: shadowsword 120" heavy d3+3 str 18 -5 daño 12 blast NO ignora invus
Lolwut. A slightly bigger HWT lascannon ignores invulnerable saves, a massive titan killer does not. Go home GW, you're drunk.
And what's with taking "turret" literally? The gunners on a basic LRBT get effectively BS 3+ while the gunners on a Shadowsword, a rare and precious superheavy tank that gets the absolute best of the best crew, is only BS 4+? WTF is this nonsense.
Easier to track and target something when you can move the gun without having to rotate the entire tank I guess?
What I find striking about the rumours so far is that there are leaks about a Platoon Command Squad, but I don't see anything for a Company one. And also no non-regiment locked senior officers.
Shadowsword should get some sort of bonus, it had Targeters since it was first introduced.
Deathstrike seems OP, expecting a lot of whinging about that but I'm not too fussed. Looks like a lot of setup required to get it to go off, the opponent has a turn or two to mitigate it and they could even destroy it in the meantime.
Honestly I couldn't give a damn about the whole special weapon debate, bit fed up with the whole "the sky is falling and the book is dead based on a few rumours" mentality I've seen on here and other sites. Wait until the book is out, give it a go.
Garrac wrote: shadowsword 120" heavy d3+3 str 18 -5 daño 12 blast NO ignora invus
Lolwut. A slightly bigger HWT lascannon ignores invulnerable saves, a massive titan killer does not. Go home GW, you're drunk.
It's not consistent from a fluff POV, but that's not the point. It's clearly a bandaid to make single-shot weapons viable when invuln saves are so endemic. A gun with 4-6 shots at 12 damage doesn't have the same issue.
For now it's probably the least-worst solution until GW can overhaul armour saves in general across the game, and invulns can become something more rare or exceptional.
So the Shadowsword has gone from a cannon that required the tracks to be disconnected to have enough power to fire it to a gun superior to what a Reaver titan carries, and nearly equal to a full Belicosa
Pyroalchi wrote: Sorry if this was already adresses, but has there be any mention if the Taurox will still be around? Or should I get one now if I want one?
Taurox arent going anywhere, at least because they are attached to Scions.
Miguelsan wrote: It's a psychological weapon. Play it on an objective at the correct moment, and watch your opponent squirm.
M.
Or watch them shuffle to the edges of the objective because objectives are 40mm+3" radii and the blast is only 3". Or it does hit but only does a couple of MW with the bigger radius blasts.
I really do hope senior officers aren't going to only be cadian and/or special characters.
I don't mind my HQ being called a platoon command squad in some regard, but I do want a none cadian/special character option to have a character issue 2 orders.... Or have a lore friendly DKoK Marshall on the field rather than just a Lieutenant.
EviscerationPlague wrote: More people for the sake of more people doesn't make for a better hobby. We live in an age of 3rd party bitz and Ebay. Getting what you need or want is NOT some gargantuan task.
I suppose you can either acknowledge that limiting options is somehow good for GW sales (which is, of course, indirectly good for the hobby) or you can assume that GW is doing this purely out of malice and/or incompetence. It's up to you.
The hobby is wargaming, not buying GW models. Kirby appreciates your talking point though.
Second, normal players or people who collect to paint, though? Will be fine taking all comer squad with melta/plasma as your AT unit, and whatever other two specials as anti-infantry.
As a casual gamer who collects and paints way more than plays, you're way off the mark in my experience. Mixed weapons look terrible on a display from a purely aesthetic point of view, regardless of how well they do in game.I HATE seeing the GW squads like the Devestators with one of each weapon, they look like gak.
Yeah but according to Ibris if you aren't building a hodgepodge and even try a little bit of optimization you're a power gamer.
My real worry right now is the rules and lore. Right now I am terrified, and part of that is not knowing what is the actual rules and lore in this codex.
xttz wrote: It's not consistent from a fluff POV, but that's not the point. It's clearly a bandaid to make single-shot weapons viable when invuln saves are so endemic. A gun with 4-6 shots at 12 damage doesn't have the same issue.
For now it's probably the least-worst solution until GW can overhaul armour saves in general across the game, and invulns can become something more rare or exceptional.
Fluff absolutely is the point. If a tiny lascannon ignores invulnerable saves then a titan killer's main gun absolutely should. Balance the stats appropriately but lore matters.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Valkyrie wrote: Honestly I couldn't give a damn about the whole special weapon debate, bit fed up with the whole "the sky is falling and the book is dead based on a few rumours" mentality I've seen on here and other sites. Wait until the book is out, give it a go.
What exactly do you think is going to change here? GW has demonstrated the precedent of removing options with other armies, is there any real reason to doubt the accuracy of the leaks other than desperate wishful thinking? Whether or not the army is good at winning games it's still an incredibly stupid and anti-customer decision by GW and there's no missing information that could possibly justify it.
Valkyrie wrote: Honestly I couldn't give a damn about the whole special weapon debate, bit fed up with the whole "the sky is falling and the book is dead based on a few rumours" mentality I've seen on here and other sites. Wait until the book is out, give it a go.
What exactly do you think is going to change here? GW has demonstrated the precedent of removing options with other armies, is there any real reason to doubt the accuracy of the leaks other than desperate wishful thinking? Whether or not the army is good at winning games it's still an incredibly stupid and anti-customer decision by GW and there's no missing information that could possibly justify it.
You're right in that it's a stupid decision by GW, but I'm not going to whinge and moan and complain about it. I'm going to run my usual squad of Hostile Environment Guard, with a Flamer and maybe an Autocannon or Lascannon, and just enjoy the game.
Second, normal players or people who collect to paint, though? Will be fine taking all comer squad with melta/plasma as your AT unit, and whatever other two specials as anti-infantry.
As a casual gamer who collects and paints way more than plays, you're way off the mark in my experience. Mixed weapons look terrible on a display from a purely aesthetic point of view, regardless of how well they do in game.I HATE seeing the GW squads like the Devestators with one of each weapon, they look like gak.
I suspect GW is aware of that, and intends for you to buy multiple box sets so you can have more options. Which is a pretty gakky for the consumer, but some will do that and that's good enough for GW.
Honestly I couldn't give a damn about the whole special weapon debate, bit fed up with the whole "the sky is falling and the book is dead based on a few rumours" mentality I've seen on here and other sites. Wait until the book is out, give it a go.
Yes because that attitude worked SUPER well with the CSM codex LOL
Valkyrie wrote: Honestly I couldn't give a damn about the whole special weapon debate, bit fed up with the whole "the sky is falling and the book is dead based on a few rumours" mentality I've seen on here and other sites. Wait until the book is out, give it a go.
What exactly do you think is going to change here? GW has demonstrated the precedent of removing options with other armies, is there any real reason to doubt the accuracy of the leaks other than desperate wishful thinking? Whether or not the army is good at winning games it's still an incredibly stupid and anti-customer decision by GW and there's no missing information that could possibly justify it.
You're right in that it's a stupid decision by GW, but I'm not going to whinge and moan and complain about it. I'm going to run my usual squad of Hostile Environment Guard, with a Flamer and maybe an Autocannon or Lascannon, and just enjoy the game.
AKA you'll just not think about it and consoom. For the amount of hate Kirby gets from you lot, y'all sure were the perfect customer to him.
Honestly I couldn't give a damn about the whole special weapon debate, bit fed up with the whole "the sky is falling and the book is dead based on a few rumours" mentality I've seen on here and other sites. Wait until the book is out, give it a go.
Yes because that attitude worked SUPER well with the CSM codex LOL
Valkyrie wrote: Honestly I couldn't give a damn about the whole special weapon debate, bit fed up with the whole "the sky is falling and the book is dead based on a few rumours" mentality I've seen on here and other sites. Wait until the book is out, give it a go.
What exactly do you think is going to change here? GW has demonstrated the precedent of removing options with other armies, is there any real reason to doubt the accuracy of the leaks other than desperate wishful thinking? Whether or not the army is good at winning games it's still an incredibly stupid and anti-customer decision by GW and there's no missing information that could possibly justify it.
You're right in that it's a stupid decision by GW, but I'm not going to whinge and moan and complain about it. I'm going to run my usual squad of Hostile Environment Guard, with a Flamer and maybe an Autocannon or Lascannon, and just enjoy the game.
AKA you'll just not think about it and consoom. For the amount of hate Kirby gets from you lot, y'all sure were the perfect customer to him.
Nice, going straight to the "GW simp" crap. Haven't actually bought from GW for around 3 years now, either second hand or other means.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: I don't mind my HQ being called a platoon command squad in some regard, but I do want a none cadian/special character option to have a character issue 2 orders.... Or have a lore friendly DKoK Marshall on the field rather than just a Lieutenant.
Just convert up a DKoK version of the new characters to count as them. Given there's no alternative that they could be confused for, it shouldn't be a problem.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: I don't mind my HQ being called a platoon command squad in some regard, but I do want a none cadian/special character option to have a character issue 2 orders.... Or have a lore friendly DKoK Marshall on the field rather than just a Lieutenant.
Just convert up a DKoK version of the new characters to count as them. Given there's no alternative that they could be confused for, it shouldn't be a problem.
I know I can do that, and fully intend to do that, it's more to do with keyword interactions, especially for stratagems and/or relics.
Just allow a standard regimental command squad with a generic senior officer.
The latest leaks from Mordian Glory have no command squads in elites and the following as HQ choices -
Cadian command squad
Cadian castellan
Gaunts Ghosts
Iron hand Straken
Lord Solar
Scion Command Squad
Platoon Command Squad
Primaris Psyker
Tank Commander
Creed
Unless there have been some amendments to that since, that is the leak.
Now granted, there is some debate on whether senior officers grant 2 orders, or 1 with the re-roll 1 order, but the platoon command squad does not have a senior officer, meaning they are all special characters or Cadian.
Early days still anyway, so not fully dejected about it, but it would be a bit meh if it did happen.
Since the book has probably been sent to the printers, I'm going to look at the good things, or at least interesting things.
I like the fact that Kasrkin are back. I think also that in the new Guard codex the orders are going to be very important. Some of the orders seem much improved.
So what do we know about the Kasrkin. We know they are elites, have carapace armour, have BS 3 and can take 4 special weapons, and a damage 3 sniper weapon. They also have access to 3 of the doctrines. Two from the army, and then a 3rd which would need to be individual.
One of the first armies that I'm going to build is going to be around a core of 30 Kasrkin.
A useful doctrine for them will be Heirloom weapons for 28 inch range and 14 inch rapid fire range.
The squads will be equipped with 2x plasma 2x volleyguns & 1 sniper rifle.
The default order that I will give them will be the take aim order, this will give them +1to hit and +1ap. This makes them hit on a +2 with +3 ap on their standard guns, plasma guns will have ap4.
The sniper rifle will have Ap3 as well. Since there will be 3 sniper rifles, each hitting on +2 with ap3 and 3 damage they can become fairly annoying to characters in other armies. Especially T3 armies.
In addition I would take a Castellan with them so they have two orders which isn't as important as orders can "splash", and this Castellan would also give them re-rolls on any shots they miss. +2 with a reroll of 1's is very close to autohits.
This could be a very solid core to the army at 355 points. It can also be made very thematic, as one can use the 3rd doctrine to make the units visually distinct. i.e. Trophy Hunters and Guerilla Fighters.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: The latest leaks from Mordian Glory have no command squads in elites and the following as HQ choices -
Unless there have been some amendments to that since, that is the leak.
Now granted, there is some debate on whether senior officers grant 2 orders, or 1 with the re-roll 1 order, but the platoon command squad does not have a senior officer, meaning they are all special characters or Cadian.
Early days still anyway, so not fully dejected about it, but it would be a bit meh if it did happen.
I'm not sitting through that whole livestream of nonsense. This is the bit that I followed:
Spoiler:
If that's not the case? Meh. Not like they've removed the Marshal from the IA Compendium.
Honestly I couldn't give a damn about the whole special weapon debate, bit fed up with the whole "the sky is falling and the book is dead based on a few rumours" mentality I've seen on here and other sites. Wait until the book is out, give it a go.
Yes because that attitude worked SUPER well with the CSM codex LOL
You're right that attitude didn't work well for the CSM codex the people who got over it still have to put up with the incessant reminders and rambling of how angry they're supposed to be etc. despite by all accounts the fact its a good book in terms of balance.
@Valkyrie power to you, if it isn't something that causes you upset, then just give it a go and enjoy what you enjoy. Obviously some people are upset that their collections don't work how they want, or their dedicated fluff units need to be broken up which is just as valid, I just wish it was channelled better.
Honestly I couldn't give a damn about the whole special weapon debate, bit fed up with the whole "the sky is falling and the book is dead based on a few rumours" mentality I've seen on here and other sites. Wait until the book is out, give it a go.
Yes because that attitude worked SUPER well with the CSM codex LOL
You're right that attitude didn't work well for the CSM codex the people who got over it still have to put up with the incessant reminders and rambling of how angry they're supposed to be etc. despite by all accounts the fact its a good book in terms of balance.
@Valkyrie power to you, if it isn't something that causes you upset, then just give it a go and enjoy what you enjoy. Obviously some people are upset that their collections don't work how they want, or their dedicated fluff units need to be broken up which is just as valid, I just wish it was channelled better.
Cheers man, it does irk me that they're going this way but like you said, I enjoy what I enjoy
endlesswaltz123 wrote: The latest leaks from Mordian Glory have no command squads in elites and the following as HQ choices -
Unless there have been some amendments to that since, that is the leak.
Now granted, there is some debate on whether senior officers grant 2 orders, or 1 with the re-roll 1 order, but the platoon command squad does not have a senior officer, meaning they are all special characters or Cadian.
Early days still anyway, so not fully dejected about it, but it would be a bit meh if it did happen.
I'm not sitting through that whole livestream of nonsense. This is the bit that I followed:
Spoiler:
If that's not the case? Meh. Not like they've removed the Marshal from the IA Compendium.
I didn't sit through it, he posted a google sheet on the video:
Valkyrie wrote: Is the Command Squad still a separate option or have they combined them and the officer into a single unit?
Combined, per GW themselves.
JNAProductions wrote:Balance isn’t the same as fun.
Balance is important-but being able to customize your guys is too.
Gonna be real here:
Customizing is great and all...but that's not what we really see. It's basically just a list of things that come down to "Are you actually gonna play the game, or just make army lists online?".
Honestly I couldn't give a damn about the whole special weapon debate, bit fed up with the whole "the sky is falling and the book is dead based on a few rumours" mentality I've seen on here and other sites. Wait until the book is out, give it a go.
Yes because that attitude worked SUPER well with the CSM codex LOL
You're right that attitude didn't work well for the CSM codex the people who got over it still have to put up with the incessant reminders and rambling of how angry they're supposed to be etc. despite by all accounts the fact its a good book in terms of balance.
"By all accounts"
I'd love to see your source on that.
Honestly I couldn't give a damn about the whole special weapon debate, bit fed up with the whole "the sky is falling and the book is dead based on a few rumours" mentality I've seen on here and other sites. Wait until the book is out, give it a go.
Yes because that attitude worked SUPER well with the CSM codex LOL
You're right that attitude didn't work well for the CSM codex the people who got over it still have to put up with the incessant reminders and rambling of how angry they're supposed to be etc. despite by all accounts the fact its a good book in terms of balance.
"By all accounts"
I'd love to see your source on that.
I've been mulling over the codex leaks today, and I think I can finally put my finger on what feels off-putting about the book.
It increasingly feels like an army of special characters/units, and less like a sandbox I can create my own lore and units within.
Want a veteran squad? I'm afraid you have to use Cadian Shock Troops, Cadian Kasrkin, Catachan Devils, or Death Korps of Krieg. Oh, you want to kitbash a squad of Harakoni Warhawk Grenadiers or a veteran unit from the light companies of Horizele 4? Too bad, they are Cadians or Catachans now.
It looks like only Cadians, the Catachan II, and Tanith First and Only get the top Guard field commanders now (2 orders/turn, I'm guessing Straken and Gaunt/Colm will get this). Sure, it seems you can counts-as and mix and match freely, but things like strategems are likely to be tied to keywords.
I preferred it when everything but the named characters were generic. It would have been very easy to have, for example, a grenadiers unit entry rather than specifically a Kasrkin entry.
Honestly I couldn't give a damn about the whole special weapon debate, bit fed up with the whole "the sky is falling and the book is dead based on a few rumours" mentality I've seen on here and other sites. Wait until the book is out, give it a go.
Yes because that attitude worked SUPER well with the CSM codex LOL
You're right that attitude didn't work well for the CSM codex the people who got over it still have to put up with the incessant reminders and rambling of how angry they're supposed to be etc. despite by all accounts the fact its a good book in terms of balance.
"By all accounts"
I'd love to see your source on that.
Honestly I couldn't give a damn about the whole special weapon debate, bit fed up with the whole "the sky is falling and the book is dead based on a few rumours" mentality I've seen on here and other sites. Wait until the book is out, give it a go.
Yes because that attitude worked SUPER well with the CSM codex LOL
You're right that attitude didn't work well for the CSM codex the people who got over it still have to put up with the incessant reminders and rambling of how angry they're supposed to be etc. despite by all accounts the fact its a good book in terms of balance.
"By all accounts"
I'd love to see your source on that.
His source was literally the WarCom article that got disproved on its point about the lower Marine winrate LOL
Honestly I couldn't give a damn about the whole special weapon debate, bit fed up with the whole "the sky is falling and the book is dead based on a few rumours" mentality I've seen on here and other sites. Wait until the book is out, give it a go.
Yes because that attitude worked SUPER well with the CSM codex LOL
You're right that attitude didn't work well for the CSM codex the people who got over it still have to put up with the incessant reminders and rambling of how angry they're supposed to be etc. despite by all accounts the fact its a good book in terms of balance.
"By all accounts"
I'd love to see your source on that.
To be fair, Custodes have a win rate of 53% and podium fairly often too, but we as a group are pretty sour with our codex. A "good codex" isn't just winning. When a good chunk of the units are trash and "winning" involves one or two good units in a sea of poop, it's not really fun.
Honestly I couldn't give a damn about the whole special weapon debate, bit fed up with the whole "the sky is falling and the book is dead based on a few rumours" mentality I've seen on here and other sites. Wait until the book is out, give it a go.
Yes because that attitude worked SUPER well with the CSM codex LOL
You're right that attitude didn't work well for the CSM codex the people who got over it still have to put up with the incessant reminders and rambling of how angry they're supposed to be etc. despite by all accounts the fact its a good book in terms of balance.
"By all accounts"
I'd love to see your source on that.
His source was literally the WarCom article that got disproved on its point about the lower Marine winrate LOL
To clarify you're discrediting the objective numeric data because of their subjective opinions? Never mind you haven't touched on their podium placings.
To be fair, Custodes have a win rate of 53% and podium fairly often too, but we as a group are pretty sour with our codex. A "good codex" isn't just winning. When a good chunk of the units are trash and "winning" involves one or two good units in a sea of poop, it's not really fun.
Oh for sure, but much like the sprue/options debate, it's either "not able to win enough", "not got good internal balance" or "doesn't have fun flavour fluff options". Every book will fail on one of those, hence the various flavours of complaint.
Oh for sure, but much like the sprue/options debate, it's either "not able to win enough", "not got good internal balance" or "doesn't have fun flavour fluff options". Every book will fail on one of those, hence the various flavours of complaint.
Listen, all EviscerationPlague wants is for every codex to be:
Perfectly internally balanced with every unit, wargear option, and rule equally viable to use despite a functionally infinite combination of army list combinations.
Perfectly externally balanced against the other 20+ game factions that are similarly written
Able to support an extensive back catalogue of metal models through to at least 1998, with all wargear and sub-faction options preserved in current rules in case someone finds an eBay bargain
Reflective of 35 years of published fluff material, even that weird article that appeared in White Dwarf one time which even the original author has forgotten about
Every datasheet can take up to four plasmaguns, which are also included on the sprue of each new kit
With Platoon command in elite I'd be a little surprised if there wasn't an upgrade strat to get them to two orders a turn.
With other regiments getting two orders via other means, you've keyworded just regular regimental commands and colonels as getting that buff, rather than buffing Cadians more.
Dudeface wrote: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2022/10/20/warhammer-40000-metawatch-unpacking-the-latest-balance-dataslate/ - 50% WR and podium pretty regularly https://40kstats.goonhammer.com/#ft4. Got anything to disprove it?
So it has a consistent win rate. Big deal. The 4th Ed 'Chaos' Codex was plenty powerful - it was the era of Fzorgle, after all - but that didn't make it a good book. This Guard book, just like the recent Chaos 'Dex, is full of maddening choices that invalidate so many existing units or render things nonviable in wildly inconsistent ways.
Customisation means a lot to a lot of us. Dismissing such concerns because some blasted 'meta-watch' article shows a promising percentage doesn't change that.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Not to mention CSM just won the LGT a little while back. With LVO in Corona-blues back in February, the year’s biggest tournament.
This book isn't horrible, and will likely be fun. I'd say it's a solid improvement over the last one. To be fair though, there are some valid complaints. I'm not a fan of GW's " you only have boxed options" stance.
xttz wrote: Ah yes, relentlessly calling everything "gakky" and being a mindless GW consumer are the only two possible states of being. The duality of man.
They are at this point with everything GW's Knights will mindlessly gobble and defend.
Or maybe some people are willing to overlook flaws and look at the brighter side of things, too.
I started playing Night Lords when the CSM codex came out, and while I'm not happy with the lack of support for Jump Pack characters (and a few other things), I'm still having a blast playing them in our Crusade campaign. The codex could be better, but it could also be worse. Saying it's a decent/good codex isn't "mindlessly gobble and defend" - I just don't expect "perfect", and that obviously was xttz's point as well. Right now you're just calling anyone "mindless" that doesn't angrily demand a perfect codex.
I'm sorry, I realize that you're "new" to the 8th Legion, but playing Night Lords with the 9th edition CSM codex when our HH 2.0 list is right there for the taking is like buying a brand new Ferrari and driving it in bumper to bumper stop-and-go traffic when the Autobahn is right there for the taking. You're choosing what are the Legion's worst rules ever (yes, even worse than the 4th edition trash pile) instead of the best rules they've ever had (yes, even better than 3.5. And that's quite the statement coming from an old Chaos Dog like me). I mean, there's settling for what's "current", and then there's filling up on rice cakes when a fresh gourmet meal is right there in front of you.
H.B.M.C. wrote:
Dudeface wrote: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2022/10/20/warhammer-40000-metawatch-unpacking-the-latest-balance-dataslate/ - 50% WR and podium pretty regularly https://40kstats.goonhammer.com/#ft4. Got anything to disprove it?
So it has a consistent win rate. Big deal. The 4th Ed 'Chaos' Codex was plenty powerful - it was the era of Fzorgle, after all - but that didn't make it a good book. This Guard book, just like the recent Chaos 'Dex, is full of maddening choices that invalidate so many existing units or render things nonviable in wildly inconsistent ways.
Customisation means a lot to a lot of us. Dismissing such concerns because some blasted 'meta-watch' article shows a promising percentage doesn't change that.
Nooooo H.B.M.C.. It doesn't matter if you don't find the codex fun or interesting. All that matters is that someone (not you, but someone, somewhere) won random 40k tournament #46521 with it. Like, how could you not have fun with it? No matter how dull, flavorless, or unsatisfying it may seem to you, when [INSERT NAME HERE] won [INSERT RANDOM 40K TOURNAMENT] with it? I mean isn't that what gives you that warm fuzzy feeling of fun? Knowing that someone else won a game with the same codex that you're not happy with?
In regards to the Superheavy Weapons: They mostly seem to have a niche role, except the HellHammer is weak AF compared to previous profile. The Mega Bolter stayed basically the same which leaves it weak in the current meta. Otherwise okay over all, FYI the Shadowsword is at best going to get a wound through. So as effective as a Vanquisher Leman Russ... leaving that here.
xttz wrote: Ah yes, relentlessly calling everything "gakky" and being a mindless GW consumer are the only two possible states of being. The duality of man.
They are at this point with everything GW's Knights will mindlessly gobble and defend.
Or maybe some people are willing to overlook flaws and look at the brighter side of things, too.
I started playing Night Lords when the CSM codex came out, and while I'm not happy with the lack of support for Jump Pack characters (and a few other things), I'm still having a blast playing them in our Crusade campaign. The codex could be better, but it could also be worse. Saying it's a decent/good codex isn't "mindlessly gobble and defend" - I just don't expect "perfect", and that obviously was xttz's point as well. Right now you're just calling anyone "mindless" that doesn't angrily demand a perfect codex.
I'm sorry, I realize that you're "new" to the 8th Legion, but playing Night Lords with the 9th edition CSM codex when our HH 2.0 list is right there for the taking is like buying a brand new Ferrari and driving it in bumper to bumper stop-and-go traffic when the Autobahn is right there for the taking. You're choosing what are the Legion's worst rules ever (yes, even worse than the 4th edition trash pile) instead of the best rules they've ever had (yes, even better than 3.5. And that's quite the statement coming from an old Chaos Dog like me). I mean, there's settling for what's "current", and then there's filling up on rice cakes when a fresh gourmet meal is right there in front of you.
Umm. Telling the player of a 40K Army they should play HH is more like telling someone going out for burgers they should have some fine seafood. They are both food, but not even close to the same cuisine.
He's not telling him to play HH. It's making a comparison between the 40k and 30k Night Lord's rules, incredulous that the former can even exist when the same company made the latter.
Here is a guide to proper communication in a dispute:
1. If I feel emotional, I write it all down and then hit cancel.
2. If my message carries the word "you" in it and is making a declaration, I hit cancel.
3. If my message has no direct connection to the topic, I hit cancel.
4. If I want to discuss something, I state a fact that has no connection to who I am talking to and my opinion always carries a softening component (I think, IMHO, etc)
About the topic:
I'm a bit confused about the weapon loadout of the Churchill. It doesn't look anywhere near as "oh wow, that is certainly a cool new addition that I would need. The oppressor weapon looks okaish, like a better demolishers, but a farcry from the baneblade main gun. And the twin battlecannon has hardly more damage output than the regular one? 2d6 is almost the same as d6+3, did I miss a +6? And it doesn't look that cheap either to me.
Dudeface wrote: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2022/10/20/warhammer-40000-metawatch-unpacking-the-latest-balance-dataslate/ - 50% WR and podium pretty regularly https://40kstats.goonhammer.com/#ft4. Got anything to disprove it?
So it has a consistent win rate. Big deal. The 4th Ed 'Chaos' Codex was plenty powerful - it was the era of Fzorgle, after all - but that didn't make it a good book. This Guard book, just like the recent Chaos 'Dex, is full of maddening choices that invalidate so many existing units or render things nonviable in wildly inconsistent ways.
Customisation means a lot to a lot of us. Dismissing such concerns because some blasted 'meta-watch' article shows a promising percentage doesn't change that.
Nooooo H.B.M.C.. It doesn't matter if you don't find the codex fun or interesting. All that matters is that someone (not you, but someone, somewhere) won random 40k tournament #46521 with it. Like, how could you not have fun with it? No matter how dull, flavorless, or unsatisfying it may seem to you, when [INSERT NAME HERE] won [INSERT RANDOM 40K TOURNAMENT] with it? I mean isn't that what gives you that warm fuzzy feeling of fun? Knowing that someone else won a game with the same codex that you're not happy with?
I was asked to provide data it was balanced, not fun. It can be the most fun fluffy book in the world but if it's easy wins or woefully underpowered, all the fun flavour choices will be ignored for cries of "not balanced or competitive".
The point is no release on here is entirely happy but it's not always a case it's a total write off either. If someone is happy with it, let them be.
Of course alternatively we're all either brainless white knight "consoomers" which no ability for independent thought, or edge lord black knights bringing down the evil corporation.
Haighus wrote: I've been mulling over the codex leaks today, and I think I can finally put my finger on what feels off-putting about the book.
It increasingly feels like an army of special characters/units, and less like a sandbox I can create my own lore and units within.
This seems to be a growingly popular sentiment as far as I can tell. "Imperial Guard going Aspect Warriors" is something I can see popping up and I can't help but agree with it. But hey, it is sure a new and unique concept for the army, so I don't bother and look forward to seeing it in action.
This codex is the first one in a long time where you can actually make your own thing though? Pick doctrines, template units, a lot of interesting rules and useful characters. Honestly Im surprised at how decent it is overall. My only complaint so far is the way special weapons might work and maybe some suspected issues depending on full release. First time since 5th (which wasnt even that good anyway) we've had something that could be fun. The 9th codex sucked anyway, most regiments werent even real options and most of the rules universal. The new one at least you can build your tallarn or whatever how you want.
Haighus wrote: I've been mulling over the codex leaks today, and I think I can finally put my finger on what feels off-putting about the book.
It increasingly feels like an army of special characters/units, and less like a sandbox I can create my own lore and units within.
Want a veteran squad? I'm afraid you have to use Cadian Shock Troops, Cadian Kasrkin, Catachan Devils, or Death Korps of Krieg. Oh, you want to kitbash a squad of Harakoni Warhawk Grenadiers or a veteran unit from the light companies of Horizele 4? Too bad, they are Cadians or Catachans now.
It looks like only Cadians, the Catachan II, and Tanith First and Only get the top Guard field commanders now (2 orders/turn, I'm guessing Straken and Gaunt/Colm will get this). Sure, it seems you can counts-as and mix and match freely, but things like strategems are likely to be tied to keywords.
I preferred it when everything but the named characters were generic. It would have been very easy to have, for example, a grenadiers unit entry rather than specifically a Kasrkin entry.
I'd second this.
I was pleased when it seemed we were moving away from named regiments and instead just letting people choose a couple of traits to best represent their own regiment. However, having taken that one step forward, GW then took a step backwards and off a cliff by tying most of the individual units to specific regiments.
"You can pick any regiment you want . . . so long as it's Cadia."
There's something odd about it, the first comparison that came to me was the 2nd edition Ork Codex from before most of you were even born, where all the specialist units were tied to a given klan, so all Kommandos were Blood Axes, all Boarboyz Snakebites, all Lootas Deathskulls.
Haighus wrote: I've been mulling over the codex leaks today, and I think I can finally put my finger on what feels off-putting about the book.
It increasingly feels like an army of special characters/units, and less like a sandbox I can create my own lore and units within.
Want a veteran squad? I'm afraid you have to use Cadian Shock Troops, Cadian Kasrkin, Catachan Devils, or Death Korps of Krieg. Oh, you want to kitbash a squad of Harakoni Warhawk Grenadiers or a veteran unit from the light companies of Horizele 4? Too bad, they are Cadians or Catachans now.
It looks like only Cadians, the Catachan II, and Tanith First and Only get the top Guard field commanders now (2 orders/turn, I'm guessing Straken and Gaunt/Colm will get this). Sure, it seems you can counts-as and mix and match freely, but things like strategems are likely to be tied to keywords.
I preferred it when everything but the named characters were generic. It would have been very easy to have, for example, a grenadiers unit entry rather than specifically a Kasrkin entry.
I'd second this.
I was pleased when it seemed we were moving away from named regiments and instead just letting people choose a couple of traits to best represent their own regiment. However, having taken that one step forward, GW then took a step backwards and off a cliff by tying most of the individual units to specific regiments.
"You can pick any regiment you want . . . so long as it's Cadia."
I was under the impression you can have a Cadian shock troop squad in your custom regiment army, these choices aren't locked out by your doctrines?
I was under the impression you can have a Cadian shock troop squad in your custom regiment army, these choices aren't locked out by your doctrines?
They aren't, but those Cadian Shock Troops remain Cadian with all their normal Cadian traits and keywords, they don't become part of your custom regiment. So they (technically) can't represent specialists, just attached actual Cadians.
I was under the impression you can have a Cadian shock troop squad in your custom regiment army, these choices aren't locked out by your doctrines?
They aren't, but those Cadian Shock Troops remain Cadian with all their normal Cadian traits and keywords, they don't become part of your custom regiment. So they (technically) can't represent specialists, just attached actual Cadians.
To me, thats just a unit template. No different to the veteran upgrades of the past in 5th. I guess im just not hooked on the name that much, why would anyone be that hooked on the name? How many eldar are running ulthwe right now in rules name only? Or running some named marines with their own colours and stuff. I prefer this new codexs way of doing it to the lame 9th ed way of doing it by miles.
I’m actually glad that there seems to now be variety of different “infantry squads” you can mix in one army. It gives varied modelling opportunities and of course you don’t need to model Cadians as Cadians etc.
I was under the impression you can have a Cadian shock troop squad in your custom regiment army, these choices aren't locked out by your doctrines?
They aren't, but those Cadian Shock Troops remain Cadian with all their normal Cadian traits and keywords, they don't become part of your custom regiment. So they (technically) can't represent specialists, just attached actual Cadians.
To me, thats just a unit template. No different to the veteran upgrades of the past in 5th. I guess im just not hooked on the name that much, why would anyone be that hooked on the name? How many eldar are running ulthwe right now in rules name only? Or running some named marines with their own colours and stuff. I prefer this new codexs way of doing it to the lame 9th ed way of doing it by miles.
Key will be keywords. Can your non-cadian officer help those cadian squads? Or not.
If keywords are locked in and buffs work by those it's not really unit template. You either are cadian or you miss out buff.
If it's keyword locked it's no different to running whatever marines you have as blood angels/ultramarines/whatever like people do now. So no different to now.
I was under the impression you can have a Cadian shock troop squad in your custom regiment army, these choices aren't locked out by your doctrines?
They aren't, but those Cadian Shock Troops remain Cadian with all their normal Cadian traits and keywords, they don't become part of your custom regiment. So they (technically) can't represent specialists, just attached actual Cadians.
To me, thats just a unit template. No different to the veteran upgrades of the past in 5th. I guess im just not hooked on the name that much, why would anyone be that hooked on the name? How many eldar are running ulthwe right now in rules name only? Or running some named marines with their own colours and stuff. I prefer this new codexs way of doing it to the lame 9th ed way of doing it by miles.
Key will be keywords. Can your non-cadian officer help those cadian squads? Or not.
If keywords are locked in and buffs work by those it's not really unit template. You either are cadian or you miss out buff.
If it's keyword locked it's no different to running whatever marines you have as blood angels/ultramarines/whatever like people do now. So no different to now.
This, with a bit of luck you can hopefully it's just a name and your Bungholian Veterans with their extra special weapon will just use the Cadian vets sheet.
I was under the impression you can have a Cadian shock troop squad in your custom regiment army, these choices aren't locked out by your doctrines?
They aren't, but those Cadian Shock Troops remain Cadian with all their normal Cadian traits and keywords, they don't become part of your custom regiment. So they (technically) can't represent specialists, just attached actual Cadians.
To me, thats just a unit template. No different to the veteran upgrades of the past in 5th. I guess im just not hooked on the name that much, why would anyone be that hooked on the name? How many eldar are running ulthwe right now in rules name only? Or running some named marines with their own colours and stuff. I prefer this new codexs way of doing it to the lame 9th ed way of doing it by miles.
Key will be keywords. Can your non-cadian officer help those cadian squads? Or not.
If keywords are locked in and buffs work by those it's not really unit template. You either are cadian or you miss out buff.
If it's keyword locked it's no different to running whatever marines you have as blood angels/ultramarines/whatever like people do now. So no different to now.
How would that even work though? You have one single Catachan squad right now and 3 catachan characters. Unless you get to pick key words on the generic stuff? But then how does that mix with the regimental doctrine system.
I understand we havent seen it all yet but I dont see how it works with what we do see. But yes if thatt turns out to be the case then that sucks big time.
I don't think they will be doing the keyword locking like that. That would be the silliest thing possible. I think the reasons for the datasheet names is so that the datasheets name match that of the box sets.
It is still very silly to essentially make 4 versions of the same squad, but maybe the wanted to make the book bigger.
Being locked to specific regimental doctrines means they won't be able to fit or synergise with other units. For example, if you want deathworld hand-to-hand fighters with a non-Catachan-esque culture, well too bad. All of them are Catachan Devils with Catachan doctrines rather than Deathworld warriors with selectable keywords. Sometimes it is cool to mix and match, but here it is forced.
It would have been so easy to have archetypes without being regiment-locked: grenadiers, shock troopers, deathworld warriors, siege pioneers, senior officers instead of Kasrkin, Cadian shock troops, Catachan Devils, DKoK, Cadian castellans respectively. I hope the Rough Riders are not specifically Attillan rough riders too.
Having it more generic like in the old old old codex would be better but given how low the bar has been for guard for so long im happy with this. I expected way worse.
Is it confirmed that the regiment traits have 0 effect on say Cadian Shocktroops etc?
Haighus wrote: Being locked to specific regimental doctrines means they won't be able to fit or synergise with other units. For example, if you want deathworld hand-to-hand fighters with a non-Catachan-esque culture, well too bad. All of them are Catachan Devils with Catachan doctrines rather than Deathworld warriors with selectable keywords. Sometimes it is cool to mix and match, but here it is forced.
It would have been so easy to have archetypes without being regiment-locked: grenadiers, shock troopers, deathworld warriors, siege pioneers, senior officers instead of Kasrkin, Cadian shock troops, Catachan Devils, DKoK, Cadian castellans respectively. I hope the Rough Riders are not specifically Attillan rough riders too.
Are there even specific regimental doctrines? My impression is that some of the doctrine traits grant a specific keyword such as BORN SOLDIERS or CULT OF SACRIFICE specifically instead of being locked to CADIA or KRIEG.
Maybe they'll have both keywords, but it very much looks like the codex is written to facilitate a 2nd-edition style structure with mixed regiments so I doubt having CADIA on a unit will disqualify it from working with the rest of a list.
Whilst this is all fascinating, I haven't yet seen a way round the '10 people who die easily' problem with the current games love of primary and secondary objectives. Unless the idea is you rush 3 squads forward, form an intricate pattern in the target area and see if 1 survives.
Of course I could be wrong, and we get the secondary objective 'die for the emperor' and get points for losing units....
If regiment specific stratagems are locked to the regimental traits then it will work. If the regiment specific stratagems are locked to regimental keywords, then it will not.
E.g. - Cult of sacrifice trait gets *example* unique stratagem - this is fine.
If the stratagems are locked to regimental keywords - e.g. Cadian - this is not fine as it means certain units will have different stratagem choices than others, even though they should be functioning as one 'custom' regiment.
Same with relics and keywords, it predominantly just break immersion which is a little annoying for purests.
For my DKoK Assault Korps, I want to be able to use the same stratagems for the same units, not be locked out of a stratagem for 1 unit as it is a count As Cadian Castellan.
H.B.M.C. wrote:He's not telling him to play HH. It's making a comparison between the 40k and 30k Night Lord's rules, incredulous that the former can even exist when the same company made the latter.
Really
Gadzilla666 wrote:I'm sorry, I realize that you're "new" to the 8th Legion, but playing Night Lords with the 9th edition CSM codex when our HH 2.0 list is right there for the taking[/i] is like buying a brand new Ferrari and driving it in bumper to bumper stop-and-go traffic when the Autobahn is [i]right there for the taking. You're choosing what are the Legion's worst rules ever (yes, even worse than the 4th edition trash pile) instead of the best rules they've ever had (yes, even better than 3.5. And that's quite the statement coming from an old Chaos Dog like me). I mean, there's settling for what's "current", and then there's filling up on rice cakes when a fresh gourmet meal is right there in front of you.
Looks to me like he is saying use the HH 2.0 Night Lord rules instead of the 9th Edition CSM Rules. I can't imagine how you are supposed to do that without playing HH 2.0
Inquisitor Kallus wrote: I genuinely hope they bring back that limited ed Catachan guy with the fist, he was epic
Not in the MG leaks. In fact, according to him, catachan can only pick the spetial weapons featured on the plastic kit. Yeah, exactly, only two flamethrowers
Inquisitor Kallus wrote: I genuinely hope they bring back that limited ed Catachan guy with the fist, he was epic
Not in the MG leaks. In fact, according to him, catachan can only pick the spetial weapons featured on the plastic kit. Yeah, exactly, only two flamethrowers
I'm sensing this all building towards the 9th edition IG codex being a stopgap measure mostly focussing on Cadians, with an earlish 10th edition codex expanding towards other regiments models and rulewise?
I wouldn’t call it a stopgap codex. It’s the standard, everything we produce for this faction codex. Can’t have rules for models we won’t produce for 6+ months in the future.
Inquisitor Kallus wrote: I genuinely hope they bring back that limited ed Catachan guy with the fist, he was epic
Not in the MG leaks. In fact, according to him, catachan can only pick the spetial weapons featured on the plastic kit. Yeah, exactly, only two flamethrowers
I'm sensing this all building towards the 9th edition IG codex being a stopgap measure mostly focussing on Cadians, with an earlish 10th edition codex expanding towards other regiments models and rulewise?
Probably. What I also get from the leaks is that in this codex GW is really trying to give the guard some melee rules, similarly to AdMech
This all sounds a bit confusing and limiting.
I think at this point, as long as the DKOK specific forge world units remain legal, (and some of the fw tanks) i'll be happy. Hope springs eternal for 10th.
On that, remember we’ve had misunderstood stuff already. Not a false rumour or a fib, just misunderstood. Will there be others? Not a clue, but we won’t know until the book is in hand.
The Shadowsword has been relegated to anything without a -1 to be hit and and invul, against those targets you'll be lucky to get 12dmg. Vanquisher is better against a traditional Shadowsword target. Also the Stormlord is on the verge of a joke unit. The main gun hasn't kept pace with the power creep of 9th and only 1 unit transported inside can shoot out the top. Really no reason to take it over the others, unless you're dead set on trasporting a bunch of ogryn.
It's ironic, since when it came out, the Stormlord curbstomped Forgeworld units with a similar role, mainly the Gorgon, due to the whole shooting from the top rule and actually having substantial firepower of its own rather than the Gorgon's more anemic offering.
I was under the impression you can have a Cadian shock troop squad in your custom regiment army, these choices aren't locked out by your doctrines?
They aren't, but those Cadian Shock Troops remain Cadian with all their normal Cadian traits and keywords, they don't become part of your custom regiment. So they (technically) can't represent specialists, just attached actual Cadians.
To me, thats just a unit template. No different to the veteran upgrades of the past in 5th. I guess im just not hooked on the name that much, why would anyone be that hooked on the name? How many eldar are running ulthwe right now in rules name only? Or running some named marines with their own colours and stuff. I prefer this new codexs way of doing it to the lame 9th ed way of doing it by miles.
Yeah, the template is attached veterans to a regiment that don't mesh particularly well with the chain of command, but are better at their job that regular recruits and given some leeway here. They might be Cadians, they might be Veterans from you regiment, but they're attached here on the orders of Major McGuffin who has connections that outrank your Colonel. Stay out of their way and let them do their job by following your orders.
You even have a veteran officer that can command them with the Castellan (who can command everyone), assuming there's even a regimental keyword for orders which I doubt.
Agamemnon2 wrote: It's ironic, since when it came out, the Stormlord curbstomped Forgeworld units with a similar role, mainly the Gorgon, due to the whole shooting from the top rule and actually having substantial firepower of its own rather than the Gorgon's more anemic offering.
Well the Gorgon was already being outperformed by 4-5 Chimeras, when it came out in 4th. While it is a cool model and certainly fits the vibe of the Vraks campaign. I think only people that really enjoyed it aestically or that dissected the lines of 5 x 10 Korpsmen that it came with ever bought it. IIRC it was the cheapest way to get DKoK troopers back then, even if you'd have to live with them all standing at ease. So I think that might not be the best comparison.
Exposed wheels is someone fixing the longstanding suspension criticism Guard tanks get add the time. Well, fixing some more. Baneblades don't have skirts that reach all the way to the ground. Shame they didn't have the foresight to do it on the Taurox as well.
Cadians got a remake, and Cadians are Space Muricans. So they need a Space Murican tank. And here it is.
It probably also answers the question why the Sentinel got redone to look like it does, now that Guard has a tank that draws a lot from the ugly junk piles the US used in the Forties and Fifties.
I never thought I'd dislike a Guard tank but this does not vibe with me at all.
I see how the turret is supposed to call back to the Baneblade, but the track profile doesn't match the design language of the other Guard vehicles- it's much closer to the WW1-era British tanks that partially inspired the Russ.
And it's got the tumorous weapon sprouting of Primaris vehicles, plus it appears to carry some unique new secondary weapons, so get ready for more weapon profile bloat.
Well, I wonder how the scale compares to a Macharius.
If the hull and the turret were less curved and more angular I would like it a lot more. The last picture in the article has a Chimera in the background and there's such a difference in the design aesthetics.
Just making an assumption but if this is a properly "new" thing and not just "They always had it", then that would inform a lot of the design choices.
Before with the Guard its been two chassis with various additional weapons systems tacked on or the role of the vehicle changed. Artillery was based on the Chimera and Tanks/TDs were based on the Russ. The FW tanks were ancient designs retrofitted with Imperial weapons systems rather than new designs so they all shared the same aesthetic. If the Dorn is an entirely new design, then it makes sense that it would look different but then it also loses yet more of the lack of innovation the Imperium is famous for.
Hmm... I have to say I kind of like it. Just with the Rough Riders I agree with every criticism said in the last posts regarding look, era and everything. But still... kind of cool model and I will get one. It certainly diverts from the usual style of IG vehicles compared to the Chimera etc. it reminds me a lot of the Shermans with welded hull vs. Shermans with cast hull:
Spoiler:
At least that could be my headcanon explanation for the different look.
Small details I also like: the exhaust seem to look a lot more similar to those of the sentinel (which makes kind of sense, STC and so)
the tracks look wider in relation to the tank
the turret does not look comically small and no one has to sit behind the breach
The episcope (?) on top and the headlights beside the hull gun that looks the baneblades
all the vehicle equipment that is hopefully included.
What I don't like:
the two stubbers (?) in front. But as collector I can just leave them out if I do not get used to them
The guy standing in the open in the back of the turret would have made more sense (in my opinion), if his weapon would point to the sky indicating a kind of "backup-AA stubber" for real emergencies. At least that's were I could see adding a weapon without armor protection make sense. When adding an AA gun under armor is too much hassel you might as well stick it to the back of the turret to give the Infantry riding with you an opportunity to stick it to the evil flyers. But what do I know, I'm not a tank engineer
The gunshield looks strangely large on some angles.
I absolutely love it. It fixes most of the issues I have with existing guard vehicles: tracks which actually look like they would work, a turret with (almost) enough space for both the gun breeches and crew, and it has enough details in common with the baneblade and its derivatives (previously the only good looking tracked vehicles the IG had) that they should look great together.
Other stuff I like: distinct tank-crew uniform (hopefully with a good selection of heads for different regiments, but that isn't essential. Sherman-style stubber.
Things I don't like: no obvious way for the hull crew to get into the tank, a few too many guns, that rear-left stowage pile with the sandbags and the colossal wrench just lying on top of them.
Absolutely love it! Kind of make me chuckle that the waves of hater jump in saying they hate it. Let's face it. The leman russ isn't going to win any awards for "good looking tank of the year".
So if they are doing a massive over hall of the range. Now is the time to change direction.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I much prefer it without the sponsons, as they look somewhat tacked on.
And whilst MOAR DAKKA isn’t a bad maxim? Here I don’t think it is.
Lol...the guy with the missile launcher who hunkered down DIRECTLY IN FRONT of the second Rogal Dorn track right so that its driver can hardly see him will likey be rather flat soon
Yeah, the one in the back of that photo with no sponsons and headlights instead of stubbers looks significantly better. Looks like there might even be a door where the sponson goes, which explains how you get inside the hull (albeit, not the most convenient layout).
Pyroalchi wrote: What I don't like:
the two stubbers (?) in front. But as collector I can just leave them out if I do not get used to them
I don't care for that bit either, but the Dorn without sponsons has lights instead of guns, and the article makes it sound like the guns are optional. Seems like you can just leave them off even if you want a WYSIWYG, game legal model.
I agree they look better without the sponsons. I'm on the fence about getting one though as I already have 4 Baneblades and a Valdor in my motor pool.
I do like the Stubber gunner guy though, thought I'd seen something similar in Band of Brothers.
Did a quick Google search and there does seem to be examples .30 MGs mounted to the Shermans like this. Overall I'd move the front mounted Stubbers/Meltas, flip the exhausts but apart from that I'd probably just build it OOB.
Worth the wait. The tank has a lot of details I like, and very few that I don't. The maximum loadout is a bit too gun-heavy for my aesthetic tastes, but if the three MGs and even the sponsons are optional as it appears, my meager criticisms are soothed. The basic hull and track shape looks really good, and I'm already pondering what a turretless tank-hunter version would look like with a larger cannon in the hull in place of the gatling.
The tank can be further augmented with a pair of heavy stubbers or meltaguns, and in classic Astra Militarum fashion, you can also strap a pair of heavy bolter or multi-melta sponsons on the side. There’s even a pintle-mounted heavy stubber for any gunner brave enough to clamber up top.
Probably very easy to magnetize the sponsons and nose guns. I quite like the design. Before, everything was on the same chassis, but this one looks like various STC elements pulled apart and reused to make a new design.
Terrible looking tank. Reminds me of stuff I’d doodle in class as a child.
Stick a gun here, here, oh and a few machine guns in front for no real reason.
I would be tempted to find a model kit and just IG it out, then buy this crap.
I’m sure it will sell well, however.
IMHO it looks better than I expected. Still a pass for me though.
It still reminds me mostely of the Churchil, which is an excellent choice over all. Completly outdated tank concept by the british that against all odds actually worked in WW2.
What I like:
The profile is similar enough to the LRBT and the turret is close to the Baneblade, to look Imperial enough.
I actually like that the tracks are open, the pure open version is design cue to the Churchill as well, that had these many smaller wheels. Notice that the Tank comes with track guards that cover them up if you want. Still finally have a tank that might actually to drive with somewhat of a suspension.
The Oppressor gun looks good. Even if I would have preferred a more round shaped tip.
The profile from the top is nice, reminds me a bit of Star Craft Siege Tanks there.
The printle machine gunner has instant meme potential for the worst job in the regiment.
The fuel drums don't look as bad as on the Baneblade (that is the GW one, the FW one was awesome)
What I don't like:
The Name. I can already here the calls for a Corax battle jet coming in. They should have gone with a human hero at least, like Ollanius Pious.
The turret looks out of place, or as if the tank was a Baneblade that shrank in the wash.
The hull weapons, the tank suffers too much from Primaris - let us strap even more guns to the hull - syndrom.
It has even less access doors than a LRBT, that one at least permitted access via the side doors. This thing is a death trap.
They went for exausts in the back AND Chimera style on the side? Chimeras only have them there because the engine is supposed to be between the wheels (as dumb as that sounds)
The battle cannons look way too slim. Yes it's unrealistic to have a gun fire calibre 500mm shells, but that is how the LRBT looks. They look more like oversized Autocannons.
Too many stupid details, like the periscopes all over the hull.
The printle mounted Heavy Stubber, this time for real. What the gak were they thinking there? Especially since the gunners(?) hatch even has a printle mount.
But most and the deciding factor: I have a Macharius Vulcan and it looks 1000 times better than this.
The more I look at it, the more I like it. I'm glad to see that the hull stubbers/meltas are optional, as are the sponsons. The track guards are a must for me, aesthetically, and in the right configuration, it's a pretty cool tank. It's a bit of a departure from the existing Guard tanks, sure, but not implausibly so, given the range of the Imperium's tech.
bullyboy wrote: Terrible looking tank. Reminds me of stuff I’d doodle in class as a child.
Stick a gun here, here, oh and a few machine guns in front for no real reason.
I would be tempted to find a model kit and just IG it out, then buy this crap.
I’m sure it will sell well, however.
It doesn't tickle my fancy. It looks like a 30% bigger Leman Russ sculpt that they rammed guns onto it everywhere, as a previous comment pointed out, primaris style. The dude standing on the back... does your pintle stubber stop working after the vehicle has taken 50% wounds? If not, maybe make the tank out of that guy (might be my inner haemonculus talking).
It seemed like this was a potential replacement for the Macharius. Understanding we don't know if this has a transport cap, how does the weaponry compare?
Like the new Sentinel kit, especially the armoured version, they both look like they should fit into the Fallout universe.
If you swapped the miniblade turret out for a regular leman russ or chimera style turret it would highly resemble a Churchill in the right hull config.
I don't know, a large calibre gatling or mortar as side-arm, in addition to sponsons and front mounted meltars
and because they are all fixed in the front you need another sidearm exposed on the top so that the tank can defend itself against infantry
and no, this looks nothing like a T34 or variant of it, more like on of the French pre-war prototypes with a post-war american turret and as many guns as designers thought look cool
looking at it and I am missing rare facing sponsons and turret guns like on other 1930ies prototypes
a better base than the old LRK for sure, but for me it does not feel like an upgrade but more of a sidegrade
Valkyrie wrote: Did a quick Google search and there does seem to be examples .30 MGs mounted to the Shermans like this. Overall I'd move the front mounted Stubbers/Meltas, flip the exhausts but apart from that I'd probably just build it OOB.
it was .50 as AA gun on every single tank, but the main reason was that those guns overproduced, by a lot and not because they were of any particular use (and more like a noob trap as the safest place during combat was inside the tank)
They went for exausts in the back AND Chimera style on the side? Chimeras only have them there because the engine is supposed to be between the wheels (as dumb as that sounds)
I think (!) those are meant to be Matilda style openings to get sand out of the track. At least that was explained to me when I asked about this structure on Chimeras.
Not gonna argue with you about the Macharius Vulcan looking more badass, as it definitly does
Look like a Matilda II and I am already loving it.
Not particularly toy-like with track armour I think, and generally speaking in tone with old Guard tanks more or less, but different enough for me to want one badly.
As for the name, I think it might be a new STC discovery by the Fists, hence their primarch's name. If I recall right, that's how we got Leman Russ tank, at least that's how it was explained in the new HH book.
Or maybe it's something new from Cawl. Either way I can live with it.
GiToRaZor wrote: IMHO it looks better than I expected. Still a pass for me though.
It still reminds me mostely of the Churchil, which is an excellent choice over all. Completly outdated tank concept by the british that against all odds actually worked in WW2.
What I like:
The profile is similar enough to the LRBT and the turret is close to the Baneblade, to look Imperial enough.
I actually like that the tracks are open, the pure open version is design cue to the Churchill as well, that had these many smaller wheels. Notice that the Tank comes with track guards that cover them up if you want. Still finally have a tank that might actually to drive with somewhat of a suspension.
The Oppressor gun looks good. Even if I would have preferred a more round shaped tip.
The profile from the top is nice, reminds me a bit of Star Craft Siege Tanks there.
The printle machine gunner has instant meme potential for the worst job in the regiment.
The fuel drums don't look as bad as on the Baneblade (that is the GW one, the FW one was awesome)
What I don't like:
The Name. I can already here the calls for a Corax battle jet coming in. They should have gone with a human hero at least, like Ollanius Pious.
The turret looks out of place, or as if the tank was a Baneblade that shrank in the wash.
The hull weapons, the tank suffers too much from Primaris - let us strap even more guns to the hull - syndrom.
It has even less access doors than a LRBT, that one at least permitted access via the side doors. This thing is a death trap.
They went for exausts in the back AND Chimera style on the side? Chimeras only have them there because the engine is supposed to be between the wheels (as dumb as that sounds)
The battle cannons look way too slim. Yes it's unrealistic to have a gun fire calibre 500mm shells, but that is how the LRBT looks. They look more like oversized Autocannons.
Too many stupid details, like the periscopes all over the hull.
The printle mounted Heavy Stubber, this time for real. What the gak were they thinking there? Especially since the gunners(?) hatch even has a printle mount.
But most and the deciding factor: I have a Macharius Vulcan and it looks 1000 times better than this.
The gun thing might not be as big an issue as you think. In the above picture, the second tank has lights where the first tank has melta/stubber ports. Suggesting that the number of guns you put on it is up to you, outside of the turret and the sponsons.
I quite like the design, though I will be leaving off the sponsons, hull-mounted guns and if possible, the extra exhausts on the back, but other than that, it ticks off a lot of boxes for me, so getting one for sure.
The gun shield on the 'oppressor cannon' is so big that it will start covering the periscope in front of the commander's position when the gun is elevated.
The heavy stubber on the back is mounted so low that it is almost impossible for it to engage targets in front of the vehicle unless they are very very far away. In addition, a substantial part of its field of fire is blocked by the gun shield on the 'oppressor cannon' and the periscope in front of the commander. It is so low that it barely clears the commander and gunner's hatches when they are closed.
The two stubbers/meltas on the hull front look absolutely rediculous and are completely impractical.
I can see that they were trying to include design elements from real vehicles from the '30s and '40s, but they went with ones that were dropped for being impractical (the hull stubbers/meltas) or have implemented them in a way that makes them practically useless (the heavy stubber on the back of the turret).
Still, unlike the Russ it does at least have some ground clearance
Undead_Love-Machine wrote: I wanted to like it so much, but I'm struggling. It looks a bit...chibi? Maybe I'd like it more with a different colour scheme? I hope it's a grower!
Why can't they get they people who design the Forge World AM tanks to do the designs instead?
The rules will no doubt be decent or good, it's probably a good time to use my Malcador or Macharius as proxies.
If it helps, it may only look chibi because it's so tall. And it's so tall because it partially emulates a Sherman. Once you get used to it and appreciate that like the M4 they need room for a couch and a chandelier in there, it may lose that aspect.
Ya now that I have seen it I'm really baffled that they didn't just make a plastic macharius. Like part of me is sure I'll get used to it but the comments about it being toy like really hit home as well as that battle cannons looking like autocanons. Also real obvious that is a 40k Sherman tank.
I like the look overall, but are those cannons supposed to be Battle cannons? They seem a bit small compared to the LRBT one, so that'll be a bit odd looking having both in an army together.
Definitely prefer without the sponsons and extra front guns though, they don't do it for me. Overall, its decent in my opinion, doesn't quite match the aesthetic of the rest of the line, but maybe that will mean a redesign of all the rest of the AM tanks as well...
Undead_Love-Machine wrote: I wanted to like it so much, but I'm struggling. It looks a bit...chibi? Maybe I'd like it more with a different colour scheme? I hope it's a grower!
Why can't they get they people who design the Forge World AM tanks to do the designs instead?
The rules will no doubt be decent or good, it's probably a good time to use my Malcador or Macharius as proxies.
If it helps, it may only look chibi because it's so tall. And it's so tall because it partially emulates a Sherman. Once you get used to it and appreciate that like the M4 they need room for a couch and a chandelier in there, it may lose that aspect.
Yeah, there's definitely some big similarities, seeing it in that light will certainly help with the realism aspect.
There's something to be said for having enough space inside for a glamorous chandelier, the crew need some luxuries after all.
Since the Leman Russ is the fantasy interwar tank, and the Rogal Dorn is the fantasy latewar/early cold war tank... sounds like the correct technological progression.
I find it kind of weird that people feel the need to distance themselves from the concept of this being a "toy" when we're playing a toy soldier game.
Embrace your inner child.
The Leman Russ is as significantly toy-like; it's like the action figure for the fantasy Mark VII tank from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. People are just used to it despite how comically oversized everything is
Nice to have a gun that can 'kill anything up to a chaos knight' eh? I'll be scratchbuilding mine anyway so not bothered about the model. How many points do we think? 300?
I find it kind of weird that people feel the need to distance themselves from the concept of this being a "toy" when we're playing a toy soldier game.
Embrace your inner child.
The Leman Russ is as significantly toy-like; it's like the action figure for the fantasy Mark VII tank from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. People are just used to it despite how comically oversized everything is
A Leman Russ with rogal dorn track links and some spacers to adjust the distance between hull and sides might also look pretty cool. The Russ has such narrow tracks.
There are a lot of redundant design elements that they're just slapped in because someone saw them on a historical tank but didn't think about the rest of the vehicle.
The pintle of the back of the turret? What's it for? The tank has a hull gun and two sponsons, that guy on the back is going to be paste within seconds.
I know the old tanks have comically oversized weapons but I wish they'd refined things down a bit like they have with new infantry models. This just looks like a silly toy, and I'm not against stylisation, but put some more logical thought in to it.
The pintle of the back of the turret? What's it for?
That setup was a thing back in WW2 on Shermans.
Oh I know it was, I was asking what it's for on this tank because it doesn't work out and seems like a poor option compared to the 5 other defensive options it has.
The image that was created of side by side still seems slightly Off as if the regal dorn is a bit to big… however I’m going to need to not use the sponsons as it looks way to big for most boards to freely move with any decent amount of terrain… the baneblade is really hard to navigate already… I don’t want to dorn to be nearly as bad.
The pintle of the back of the turret? What's it for?
That setup was a thing back in WW2 on Shermans.
Oh I know it was, I was asking what it's for on this tank because it doesn't work out and seems like a poor option compared to the 5 other defensive options it has.
It is basically the Primaris vehicle design logic of More Guns = Better but as a historical reference.
Commitz wrote: The pintle of the back of the turret? What's it for? The tank has a hull gun and two sponsons, that guy on the back is going to be paste within seconds.
Historically, taking pot shots at aircraft, and if at all possible, with the gunner ducked as far down into the turret as possible, according to what little I was able to research with a quick peek. The GW version is less practical, and given how lackluster heavy stubbers have been traditionally, rather baffling inclusion.
The other two stubbers (or meltas) in the front look likewise rather ungraceful. The might look better replacing the upper set of headlights, that way they'd be closer to the level of the hull vision port at least.
AtoMaki wrote:That setup was a thing back in WW2 on Shermans.
Ignispacium wrote:IIRC in WW2 they were anti-aircraft MGs.
the .50 was put in the back of Shermans because they had produced too many and did not know what else they should do with them
this was done instead of throwing them away not because they were of any real use
Until some yahoos figured out that you can point it at infantry as well, no doubt.
It's actually my favorite detail of the new tank and a very Imperial thing to do. Who cares about the life expectancy of the gunner if you have more guns and dudes than brains? Situational and possibly last standish effort is witnessed to work often enough that it becomes doctrine and now every tenth guy in the tank company takes the expressway to the afterlife. What's not to like?
They re-designed the Leman Russ, but rather than piss people off / allow people to still use their old models and not buy the new one, they created a new tank?
They re-designed the Leman Russ, but rather than piss people off / allow people to still use their old models and not buy the new one, they created a new tank?
That seems to be it, yeah.
Problem is, it's not really any better than any of the 3rd party redesigns. And there's oodles of those.
Can't. There's no possible reality you could fire that thing downwards across the length or width of the turret, except possibly down the back, but that would require the gunner to climb up and lay down on top of the turret.
The rules and points should be interesting. I can't see GW managing to make both this and the Russ useful and worth taking. (I hope for the latter, rather than the latest 'more gun' model).
They re-designed the Leman Russ, but rather than piss people off / allow people to still use their old models and not buy the new one, they created a new tank?
That seems to be it, yeah.
Problem is, it's not really any better than any of the 3rd party redesigns. And there's oodles of those.
They re-designed the Leman Russ, but rather than piss people off / allow people to still use their old models and not buy the new one, they created a new tank?
So it is a Primaris Leman Russ!
I'm a bit on the fence about it. It is not terrible and has a lot of cool details, but I'm not a huge fan of the proportions. I think it would look better with the turret further back.
Ehhhhh, I'd really been looking forward to seeing more of this vehicle but alas, 'tis not for me.
A roided out Leman Russ is exactly what I was hoping they'd avoid even if it makes perfect sense from an in universe, lore perspective. (M3 Lee to M4 Sherman etc etc)
Soviet T35 or French C2 inspired land ships with mutiple turrets scream Warhammer to me.
More than anything else this entire release, as highly anticipated as it was hasn't come anywhere close to be as interesting as I'd hoped... and that's ok.
There are just far too many high quality and amazing designs for not Warhammer Imperial Guard out there in .stl format to ignore at this point and I suppose that this is what's finally going to get me to act on my interest!
Voss wrote: The rules and points should be interesting. I can't see GW managing to make both this and the Russ useful and worth taking. (I hope for the latter, rather than the latest 'more gun' model).
If the leaks are any measure then the Rogal Dorn is really just a Super Leman Russ that has more everything but also costs more by the same margin.
What I find interesting is that it seems (to my personal gut feeling) that while few users here say they like all of the new models, there seems to be at least something for most of them. I'm not convinced of the Sentinels and don't dig the Infantry, but the Rough Riders and the Rogal Dorn seem nice. Maybe some of you feel the same that there are some models they like and others they don't and it all averages out to an overall successful release.
I'm curious to see how the final reveal, the rumored Lord Solar on mecha-horse, is going to cap off this rather massive release wave. Will it be too goofy for me to enjoy? Is it going to be one of those mini-diorama character+retinue models GW has done on quite a few occasions over the past few yeas? Lady Creed got a somewhat mixed response, after all.
Pyroalchi wrote: What I find interesting is that it seems (to my personal gut feeling) that while few users here say they like all of the new models, there seems to be at least something for most of them. I'm not convinced of the Sentinels and don't dig the Infantry, but the Rough Riders and the Rogal Dorn seem nice. Maybe some of you feel the same that there are some models they like and others they don't and it all averages out to an overall successful release.
Must admit, the whole lineup has fallen quite flat for me.
But that's good, I have more than enough IG as it is.
Historically, taking pot shots at aircraft, and if at all possible, with the gunner ducked as far down into the turret as possible, according to what little I was able to research with a quick peek.
US planners were concerned about being attacked by swarms of Stukas et al, based on the early war victories the Germans had in Europe. So they figured that putting an AA gun on every single tank would be a way to provide an extra level of protection for units, and cut down on the amount of specialized AA guns they'd need.
The pintle on the back of the turret was so a crewman or infantryman could stand on the back deck of the tank and have a better range of motion to aim the gun at extreme angles. By 1944 the alternative solution to air defense, (i.e., destroying the entire Luftwaffe on the ground and in the air) was working out so well that the AA mounts ended up being superfluous and were often removed.
Agamemnon2 wrote: I'm curious to see how the final reveal, the rumored Lord Solar on mecha-horse, is going to cap off this rather massive release wave. Will it be too goofy for me to enjoy? Is it going to be one of those mini-diorama character+retinue models GW has done on quite a few occasions over the past few yeas? Lady Creed got a somewhat mixed response, after all.
The important thing is to accept that it's going to suck no matter how it ends up looking, because it's not going to look like Saber Rider.
lurch wrote: Ya now that I have seen it I'm really baffled that they didn't just make a plastic macharius. Like part of me is sure I'll get used to it but the comments about it being toy like really hit home as well as that battle cannons looking like autocanons. Also real obvious that is a 40k Sherman tank.
Forge world in general is just much better, better tanks, look at gal vorbak compared to even more modern possesed. The possesed look like a kids holloween toy the gal vorbak look serious and belonging in a war setting with demons.
Im really liking the Rogal Dorn!
To bad it looks like it will suffer from beeing hard to manouver and to low set to just keep standing somewhere. Most likely it will be trapped somewhere with the burning wreck of a lesser tank in front of it. Just like the Baneblade variants.
I will certainly get one or two
I have another regiment of IG I was working on before I took the break and started the Sisters of battle. I'm at the end of the second squad of them and their vehicles, so this will be a great pallet cleanser.
As to the Guard, They are all great until you get down to painting the 100th squad of the same uniform of the same regiment, before you have to tell yourself to slip away and keep your feet and knees together while you prepare to land.
I'll add a couple of these new tanks and some of those new artillery to the team.
Overall, I'm set on straight-leg Cadian guard, and learned to love the lash on that paint job. Not sure what to think about "Lady Creed", but I can always use her for something like a Inquisitor, or a Rogue Trader.
To you new guard players, Try different base colors on those uniforms and 1/32 ww2 equipment to your figures. That or 1/48 work great to add in a littler variety to these draining little !@#$'s. These guys are horrible to deal with after Guardsman #500.
The more I look at it the more I think that if you remove the two front mounted stubbers, and the weirdly placed top stubber, along with the sponsons, the better the tank looks. The twin battle cannon or the single cannon with Autocannon look good. No major issues with that. And the Body of the tank looks good. It's just all the copy pasted on extra guns that look silly. And sponsons on a WW2 style tank...yuck!
that's the ideal target for new punisher vs old actually.
. Good ole' times. Burning Dire Avengers out of a bunker with my Hellhound. Scoring 'Vehicle Annihilated' on a Land Raider filled with a kitted-out 
).
